How much of tomorrow's debate will you watch?

[Niel]

I wasn't referring to interruptions. I was referring to the lack of neutrality and the fact that they seemed to allow her to go over her allotted times more frequently.
It's nothing new and something many of us are used to recognizing.
I agree that Trump might need to be kept "in line" more frequently, but that's not what I was referring to. The overall tone seemed to favor Hillary, but again, that's typical.

I feel like trump said he wasn't getting time, but they times but and trump got one extra minute of speaking time, it was almost perfectly equal.

 

[sstephensid]

I wasn't referring to interruptions. I was referring to the lack of neutrality and the fact that they seemed to allow her to go over her allotted times more frequently.
It's nothing new and something many of us are used to recognizing.
I agree that Trump might need to be kept "in line" more frequently, but that's not what I was referring to. The overall tone seemed to favor Hillary, but again, that's typical.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57fb91cae4b0e655eab5de3c

If that is true, how do you explain him talking a full minute longer?

 

[redwood66]

So I am reading all of this mess on MSM about him looming over her. Really? I did not get that feeling during the debate and in all these pics they are showing she is on his side of the stage. How could he not be in pics with her on his side of the stage? So what he did not sit down? Just stupid stuff to write about rather than important issues.

This whole thing is just BS. Disgusting. Both of them. And the media. Yuck Yuck Yuck.......

 

[Slickk]

So this is trending real big with the millenials, my kids' age, they're quite enjoying this even though they hardly know the movie.

https://mobile.twitter.com/darrenrovell/status/785643286996353024

 

[AGBF]

So I am reading all of this mess on MSM about him looming over her. Really? I did not get that feeling during the debate and in all these pics they are showing she is on his side of the stage. How could he not be in pics with her on his side of the stage? So what he did not sit down? Just stupid stuff to write about rather than important issues.

This whole thing is just BS. Disgusting. Both of them. And the media. Yuck Yuck Yuck.......

My experience during the debate and also in watching some of the tapes after the debate was very different from yours, redwood. I definitely felt that Trump was looming over her. I felt it while first watching, before anyone else had said a word, so it was not something that someone else instilled in me. And it was certainly not a matter of sharing space. Often he would come up behind her, in fact. Take a look at this little article from "The New York Times". Its aim is not to skewer Trump for looming, but to analyze both candidates' gestures (something i usually find tedious). I shows when Secretary Clinton looks down, etc.

link...http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/us/politics/body-language-debate.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

AGBF

 

[AGBF]

From a tax accountant:

WHAT THE HECK IS HE TALKING ABOUT??!

"Her friends are taking big deductions on contributions to her." And he mentions Warren Buffet.

OMG. That is just the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Political contributions are NOT deductible. And Warren Buffet would have the biggest firms preparing his returns, and they would never take a deduction on political contributions.

And why is he talking about carried interest? OMG. That applies to such a tiny little group. OMG.

He never answers a question. Keeps talking about knowing her friends. OMG. He is just not showing any intelligence.

And again doesn't answer the question. What is he going to do about the humanitarian crisis in Syria?

I appreciated your expertise here, LLJsmom, because I had been unable to follow the talk about deductions on political contributions (had no idea whether they were deductible) and didn't even know what carried interest was (still don't).

I wanted to add to the thread, since you had brought in Trump's allusion to Warren Buffett, that he released his tax returns in response to Trump's allegations. It is not true that he took massive deductions as Trump alleged. I am providing a link to an article in "The New York Times" that shows what taxes he paid and how mush he gave to charity.

In 2015 he paid $1,845,557 in federal taxes. The charitable contributions that Mr. Buffett did deduct from his income make up just a tiny portion of the more than $2.85 billion he donated to charity last year, he said.

Link...http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/business/buffett-calls-trumps-bluff-and-releases-his-tax-return.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Deb/AGBF

 

[Ellen]

So I am reading all of this mess on MSM about him looming over her. Really? I did not get that feeling during the debate and in all these pics they are showing she is on his side of the stage. How could he not be in pics with her on his side of the stage? So what he did not sit down? Just stupid stuff to write about rather than important issues.

This whole thing is just BS. Disgusting. Both of them. And the media. Yuck Yuck Yuck.......

Exactly.

I just sat and fast forwarded through the debate, stopping at various places to see where each was, just to see if I saw the same thing. Five times (and I'm sure I missed some) I saw her on his side of the stage. Naturally he's going to be there, it's his side of the stage. (btw, I didn't notice him doing the same thing for what it's worth) As for "gripping the chair" in Deb's article, he's old, probably got light headed. And I would hardly call that a grip.... Sitting might be construed as weak for a man.

However, I don't think they are writing this just to be writing it, it's propaganda. They want it to look like he's "looming" over her her. It's suggestive wording, and it's working.


And just in case anyone reading this thinks I'm pro Trump, I despise him as much as her.

 

[Arcadian]

I didn't think he was looming over her either, its the camera angle. But of course you know images the media will use. He's loathsome enough without them piling on.

 

[Loves Vintage]

So I am reading all of this mess on MSM about him looming over her. Really? I did not get that feeling during the debate and in all these pics they are showing she is on his side of the stage. How could he not be in pics with her on his side of the stage? So what he did not sit down? Just stupid stuff to write about rather than important issues.

This whole thing is just BS. Disgusting. Both of them. And the media. Yuck Yuck Yuck.......

Exactly.

I just sat and fast forwarded through the debate, stopping at various places to see where each was, just to see if I saw the same thing. Five times (and I'm sure I missed some) I saw her on his side of the stage. Naturally he's going to be there, it's his side of the stage. (btw, I didn't notice him doing the same thing for what it's worth) As for "gripping the chair" in Deb's article, he's old, probably got light headed. And I would hardly call that a grip.... Sitting might be construed as weak for a man.

However, I don't think they are writing this just to be writing it, it's propaganda. They want it to look like he's "looming" over her her. It's suggestive wording, and it's working.


And just in case anyone reading this thinks I'm pro Trump, I despise him as much as her.

This is very interesting.

I watched the debate with my husband. Several times DURING the debate, I exclaimed to my husband - "why is he doing that?" "that's not normal debate behavior!!" "how could he be doing that!" when DT was walking behind Clinton while she was answering questions, circling around behind her. I felt quite upset by his behavior. True, Clinton went to his side of the stage to talk to people who had just asked her a question. I suspect that is quite standard and NORMAL behavior during this style (town hall style) of debate.

His behavior was absolutely intended to rattle his opponent. That was the premise of his entire presentation that night. Bring out HRC's husband's old accusers, move around behind her, threaten to put her jail. And, she stood tall in the face of it all. And, did not stoop to his level. Look at the video again. My thought was, man if I were up on that stage, I would HAVE to turn around to see where he was. That's what I do in real life. I know who is behind me and when. She did not turn around once, and that takes complete personal control.

Someone above said that DT is better at the one line zingers. Uhm, that's DT speaking to his base. No substance. Just accusations, threats and vague promises to do something. No one is sure what, but he's a gonna do it. HRC made clear at the beginning of the debate that she was not going to stoop to his level, and she didn't. Seriously though, it would be so easy to hit him back with the same type of one liners. He is a caricature of himself at this point.

Disclaimer: I haven't read the NYT article that Deb posted or any other articles about the debate. So, no MSM/LSM/DBM influences here. I do, obviously, support HRC as the better candidate. And, I am a woman, so I guess it's possible that my thoughts about having a man menacing behind a woman on a debate stage could be biased by that fact.

 

[Ellen]

So I am reading all of this mess on MSM about him looming over her. Really? I did not get that feeling during the debate and in all these pics they are showing she is on his side of the stage. How could he not be in pics with her on his side of the stage? So what he did not sit down? Just stupid stuff to write about rather than important issues.

This whole thing is just BS. Disgusting. Both of them. And the media. Yuck Yuck Yuck.......

Exactly.

I just sat and fast forwarded through the debate, stopping at various places to see where each was, just to see if I saw the same thing. Five times (and I'm sure I missed some) I saw her on his side of the stage. Naturally he's going to be there, it's his side of the stage. (btw, I didn't notice him doing the same thing for what it's worth) As for "gripping the chair" in Deb's article, he's old, probably got light headed. And I would hardly call that a grip.... Sitting might be construed as weak for a man.

However, I don't think they are writing this just to be writing it, it's propaganda. They want it to look like he's "looming" over her her. It's suggestive wording, and it's working.


And just in case anyone reading this thinks I'm pro Trump, I despise him as much as her.

This is very interesting.

I watched the debate with my husband. Several times DURING the debate, I exclaimed to my husband - "why is he doing that?" "that's not normal debate behavior!!" "how could he be doing that!" when DT was walking behind Clinton while she was answering questions, circling around behind her. I felt quite upset by his behavior. True, Clinton went to his side of the stage to talk to people who had just asked her a question. I suspect that is quite standard and NORMAL behavior during this style (town hall style) of debate.

His behavior was absolutely intended to rattle his opponent. That was the premise of his entire presentation that night. Bring out HRC's husband's old accusers, move around behind her, threaten to put her jail. And, she stood tall in the face of it all. And, did not stoop to his level. Look at the video again. My thought was, man if I were up on that stage, I would HAVE to turn around to see where he was. That's what I do in real life. I know who is behind me and when. She did not turn around once, and that takes complete personal control.

Someone above said that DT is better at the one line zingers. Uhm, that's DT speaking to his base. No substance. Just accusations, threats and vague promises to do something. No one is sure what, but he's a gonna do it. HRC made clear at the beginning of the debate that she was not going to stoop to his level, and she didn't. Seriously though, it would be so easy to hit him back with the same type of one liners. He is a caricature of himself at this point.

Disclaimer: I haven't read the NYT article that Deb posted or any other articles about the debate. So, no MSM/LSM/DBM influences here. I do, obviously, support HRC as the better candidate. And, I am a woman, so I guess it's possible that my thoughts about having a man menacing behind a woman on a debate stage could be biased by that fact.

I suspect it might be too, and if you read my post again, I never insinuated it wasn't. I merely said she was on his side of the stage, hence, the Donald was behind her.

 

[redwood66]

It is normal behavior for a debate of this type but he paced around the entire debate, not just when she was there. The media is promoting propaganda by making something where there is nothing. My issue is entirely about the looming, not what was said. Of course he went after her, after all his campaign was in a shambles. He did not say anything more outrageous than he has been saying for over a year. He just said it to her face this time. And I was paying more attention to what they were saying than reading something into his pacing.

 

[redwood66]

And, I am a woman, so I guess it's possible that my thoughts about having a man menacing behind a woman on a debate stage could be biased by that fact.

IMO - This is the problem. If she were a man then this would not be an issue. If the media and the populace supporting HRC are using this as an issue then they are playing a double standard. I thought everyone wanted equality. If it has to be equal it has to be equal along the whole line of things.

No offense meant toward you personally lovesvintage.

 

[Loves Vintage]

And, I am a woman, so I guess it's possible that my thoughts about having a man menacing behind a woman on a debate stage could be biased by that fact.

IMO - This is the problem. If she were a man then this would not be an issue. If the media and the populace supporting HRC are using this as an issue then they are playing a double standard. I thought everyone wanted equality. If it has to be equal it has to be equal along the whole line of things.

No offense meant toward you personally lovesvintage.

I guess I'd have to watch some other debates. I wonder how his behavior would have looked had he been debating a man, or indeed, whether he would have behaved the same way.

Given the tape that had just been made public (that I did not listen to, but the partial transcript of which I had read), it was to me, very menacing behavior. I just know that it would have bothered me a lot to have been on that stage with him moving behind me like that.

But totally willing to put my thoughts/feelings out there for whatever they are worth. And, fully appreciate the no personal offense intended comment, redwood.

 

[redwood66]

Now the 2000 Bush Gore debate where Gore jumped out of his chair to confront Bush about a remark he didn't like, that was funny. Bush looked around with a smile and a friendly nod to acknowledge he was there. The audience laughed and that made the news.

But this media apocalypse about looming is ridiculous and takes away from the real issues I am concerned with.

ETA - If everyone thinks she needs to be upset about an intimidating man on a debate stage, then she better buck up if she wins. Trump will be the least of her worries.

 

[Loves Vintage]

Now the 2000 Bush Gore debate where Gore jumped out of his chair to confront Bush about a remark he didn't like, that was funny. Bush looked around with a smile and a friendly nod to acknowledge he was there. The audience laughed and that made the news.

But this media apocalypse about looming is ridiculous and takes away from the real issues I am concerned with.

ETA - If everyone thinks she needs to be upset about an intimidating man on a debate stage, then she better buck up if she wins. Trump will be the least of her worries.

I don't think she is or should be upset by it. I think it does reveal just one more personal deficiency of DT's. If the media is continuing to talk about this, then yeah, I'd agree that the news cycle on this one may be too much. But, the world has changed a lot from even 2000, right? The news is constant. I disagree with that and avoid it as much as possible.

 

[redwood66]

Now the 2000 Bush Gore debate where Gore jumped out of his chair to confront Bush about a remark he didn't like, that was funny. Bush looked around with a smile and a friendly nod to acknowledge he was there. The audience laughed and that made the news.

But this media apocalypse about looming is ridiculous and takes away from the real issues I am concerned with.

ETA - If everyone thinks she needs to be upset about an intimidating man on a debate stage, then she better buck up if she wins. Trump will be the least of her worries.

I don't think she is or should be upset by it. I think it does reveal just one more personal deficiency of DT's. If the media is continuing to talk about this, then yeah, I'd agree that the news cycle on this one may be too much. But, the world has changed a lot from even 2000, right? The news is constant. I disagree with that and avoid it as much as possible.

I also try to stay away from the media as much as I can. Their attempt to guide the narrative in a direction is unfortunate and they get many whipped up by non-issues. The tape of DT that is definitely an issue and should be covered. But 24 hour "news" is so draining.

 

[cmd2014]

I watched the whole debate. I actually thought that HRC might have been placing herself strategically so that you could see him while she was answering questions (much like the split screen in the first debate), because Trump does not do well in terms of moderating his facial expressions/body language during these times and it does not do him any favors (it backs up her assertion that he is characterologically unfit to be president).

OTOH, I also thought that there were times when he was taking an extremely aggressive physical stance towards her. As a professional woman, this is something that I have often been exposed to when dealing with angry men (particularly older, sexist men, who resent having to deal with a woman in a position of power). My male colleagues have watched this happen, and have often later commented to me that this does not happen to them (maybe it's just easier to loom over someone who is 5'3"), and it does seem to have an intent of bullying me into doing what they want. It never works (mainly because I am stubborn and refuse to be intimidated by a blowhard), but it can be very uncomfortable. It also at times moves from what would be interpreted as a bullying stance into one that has markers indicative of threatened physical aggression - this is never ok, but it happens way more than we might like to acknowledge.

 

[redwood66]

cmd I totally understand what you are saying and it is unfortunate that some men feel they can do this. It is up to the women not to fold. As a woman who spent a career surrounded by men who were actual convicted predators I have less sympathy for the media and people who are in a tither about supposed "looming" in a debate.

But I may be a harda$$ and expect lots of people to cowboy up and pull their panties out of their crack about a lot of things. Sorry for the unpleasant wording.

ETA - I may regret this passage should I ever decide to run for president. LOL.

 

[iLander]

I was watching Trevor Noah (comedy central) and a phrase came up that I like:

Get over it and get on with it. It's time to look to the future.

I think the idiotic email issue (same personal-type server that Colin Powell had, the classified material was 2 phone numbers, and it's been investigated to death by Republicans already) is keeping us from thinking of the future. It's a smoke screen from someone who has no doable plans.

Consider your future with Donny; a racist, sexist, anti-handicapped, world of hate. Reflexive anger, seeing American as dark, desperate, sad. A world where men think it's okay to do what they want to women, because they're "stars". A world where global warming is disavowed and science is mocked. I could go on, but I'm getting depressed.

Consider your future with Hillary; less college debt, everyone treated as equals, a place where women can be safe because it's NOT okay to treat them like objects. Interacting with world leaders to solve our mutual problems, bringing our technology and science to the forefront to solve the sustainable energy issues.

Donny is simply anti-equality. He does not believe women, blacks, latinos, hispanics, the handicapped or any other group is his equal, so they don't deserve respect or consideration. They don't feel or think like he does. The same "sub-human" categorization was used to justify cruelty to slaves.

In Donny's mind, he is superior. Simple as that. So vote for the anti-equality candidate if you want. But first, think about what that says about you.

 

[iLander]

I watched the whole debate. I actually thought that HRC might have been placing herself strategically so that you could see him while she was answering questions (much like the split screen in the first debate), because Trump does not do well in terms of moderating his facial expressions/body language during these times and it does not do him any favors (it backs up her assertion that he is characterologically unfit to be president).

OTOH, I also thought that there were times when he was taking an extremely aggressive physical stance towards her. As a professional woman, this is something that I have often been exposed to when dealing with angry men (particularly older, sexist men, who resent having to deal with a woman in a position of power). My male colleagues have watched this happen, and have often later commented to me that this does not happen to them (maybe it's just easier to loom over someone who is 5'3"), and it does seem to have an intent of bullying me into doing what they want. It never works (mainly because I am stubborn and refuse to be intimidated by a blowhard), but it can be very uncomfortable. It also at times moves from what would be interpreted as a bullying stance into one that has markers indicative of threatened physical aggression - this is never ok, but it happens way more than we might like to acknowledge.

Exactly. And don't think for one second he would have told a man that he was going to put him in jail. He would never say that to a man. Never.

Because with another man, there is an implicit threat of being punched during a confrontation. It's biological and subconscious. With a woman there is no such subtext. So he took advantage of that. Because he's an ass.

 

[redwood66]

don't think for one second he would have told a man that he was going to put him in jail. He would never say that to a man. Never.

Actually I think he would have said the same thing. This is who he is no matter your race or gender. He is a macho buffoon.

 

[CJ2008]

I remember feeling during the debate at times that he was standing really really close to her.

But I don't think it registered too much because she didn't flinch.

Still doesn't make it OK and I think does speak to his views of women.

But I think it says more about her.

Good for her.

(having said all of the above, I don't know if the media is making more of it than it is, etc. - I'd have to watch the whole debate again to see...but I won't...what matters most here for me is that she didn't flinch.)

 

[AGBF]

I have found it interesting that some women here have been hyper-aware of Trump looming over Hillary Clinton while others have been so sure that he did not that they chalk the charges of "looming" up to a media conspiracy. (By the way, as one of the people who felt the looming, I have never felt that Trump engaged in the behavior consciously. I felt that he was anxious and wanted to gain control, and did what came naturally to him.)

I wonder if it is our cultural and social backgrounds that make us perceive the situation so differently. I am assuming that we are all approaching this matter with good will.

Deb/AGBF

 

[redwood66]

Deb my frustration is with the media mostly. I cannot muddle my brain with the minutiae of things that are irrelevant to the issues that are most important to me. To me this issue is a distraction from her on purpose - hence the propaganda claim. Trump has enough relevant problems that could keep them busy.

As far as our backgrounds being different, that could very well be the case. That does not invalidate any opinion though.

 

[CJ2008]

I felt that he was anxious and wanted to gain control, and did what came naturally to him.

This is also a possibility...

But still, somehow, I find it hard to think that there was no connection at all or that he didn't do it MORE or felt more free to do it because it was a woman.

Although I can't say for sure I don't think he'd do it to a man.

He's pretty assertive and sometimes aggressive, I doubt he reserves that for women only.

 

[ruby59]

Hillary Clinton as President is going to meet heads of state from countries that have a less then progressive view of women.

So if she is going to be uncomfortable with Trump standing behind her how is she going to not only hold her own with them but show a presence of strength as the leader of the US?

 

[redwood66]

deleted....

 

[AGBF]

Hillary Clinton as President is going to meet heads of state from countries that have a less then progressive view of women.

So if she is going to be uncomfortable with Trump standing behind her how is she going to not only hold her own with them but show a presence of strength as the leader of the US?

Secretary Clinton has already met with all the Heads of State in the world that she will ever have to meet as President because that is what the Secretary of State does. So you need not worry that about her having to do that in the future. She has already been tested. (Not to mention that she was First Lady for eight years and, therefore, hosted many state diners at The White House where she greeted Heads of State.) I am not at all worried about whether The Secretary can handle Trump or any other man. It is simply his bad behavior which I am mentioning. And I am mentioning it mainly because I think it reflects an instinctive impulse to stalk someone whom he wants to intimidate. I think it is just part of his being a bully and is probably unconscious.

 

[ruby59]

Hillary Clinton as President is going to meet heads of state from countries that have a less then progressive view of women.

So if she is going to be uncomfortable with Trump standing behind her how is she going to not only hold her own with them but show a presence of strength as the leader of the US?

Secretary Clinton has already met with all the Heads of State in the world that she will ever have to meet as President because that is what the Secretary of State does. So you need not worry that about her having to do that in the future. She has already been tested. (Not to mention that she was First Lady for eight years and, therefore, hosted many state diners at The White House where she greeted Heads of State.) I am not at all worried about whether The Secretary can handle Trump or any other man. It is simply his bad behavior which I am mentioning. And I am mentioning it mainly because I think it reflects an instinctive impulse to stalk someone whom he wants to intimidate. I think it is just part of his being a bully and is probably unconscious.

Then imo all that talk is not helping her at all because it gave me pause as to whether or not she could handle herself.

 

[sstephensid]

Hillary Clinton as President is going to meet heads of state from countries that have a less then progressive view of women.

So if she is going to be uncomfortable with Trump standing behind her how is she going to not only hold her own with them but show a presence of strength as the leader of the US?

Who said she was uncomfortable? Even if she was, as women we have to be okay with people trying to make us uncomfortable? It makes us weak?