Which things in Debate #1 hurt Trump the most?

[mencken]

He should have been on the attack more. He did well when he tied his taxes to Clinton's emails, but seemed to back down in every argument after that.

[mencken]

He should have been on the attack more. He did well when he tied his taxes to Clinton's emails, but seemed to back down in every argument after that.

So, according to you, his only fault was not attacking Clinton more. Not anything listed by the OP. Well, I guess that tells everyone here enough about yourself.

All of those gaffes arose because he allowed Clinton to frame the debate, when he ought to have brushed off her attacks and focused on issues of substance, on which she is consistently incompetent. It is asinine that the moderator focused on whether or not a private citizen was sincere in his prescient opposition to the invasion of Iraq, rather than asking the individual who authorized the attack and continued to shill for it for a subsequent ten years. Given even a modicum of preparation Trump ought to have been able to flip all of these attacks against his opponent, but fell into the trap of being on the defensive.

[mencken]

He should have been on the attack more. He did well when he tied his taxes to Clinton's emails, but seemed to back down in every argument after that.

So, according to you, his only fault was not attacking Clinton more. Not anything listed by the OP. Well, I guess that tells everyone here enough about yourself.

All of those gaffes arose because he allowed Clinton to frame the debate, when he ought to have brushed off her attacks and focused on issues of substance, on which she is consistently incompetent. It is asinine that the moderator focused on whether or not a private citizen was sincere in his prescient opposition to the invasion of Iraq, rather than asking the individual who authorized the attack and continued to shill for it for a subsequent ten years. Given even a modicum of preparation Trump ought to have been able to flip all of these attacks against his opponent, but fell into the trap of being on the defensive.

That's such a weird way of framing that.  You're phrasing that like this "private citizen" isn't one of two major-party Presidential candidates, and that it's some sort of irrelevant personal opinion, as opposed to an issue that candidate has used to draw a contrast on judgment.  Trump, not Clinton, is using that as an argument.  Asking Trump this question is having him clarify the logic of his argument (something he hasn't really done to my knowledge); asking Clinton your proposed question would basically be "tell us again how you were wrong" (something she has done, even if you think it was done inadequately).

And besides that, accepting mencken's framing implicitly accepts that Trump did oppose the war in Iraq "presciently", and the best evidence he can mount for that is that Sean Hannity will totally tell you that they had phone calls a couple of times about it.

Or, you know, the moderator could have done his homework.

[mencken]

He should have been on the attack more. He did well when he tied his taxes to Clinton's emails, but seemed to back down in every argument after that.

So, according to you, his only fault was not attacking Clinton more. Not anything listed by the OP. Well, I guess that tells everyone here enough about yourself.

All of those gaffes arose because he allowed Clinton to frame the debate, when he ought to have brushed off her attacks and focused on issues of substance, on which she is consistently incompetent. It is asinine that the moderator focused on whether or not a private citizen was sincere in his prescient opposition to the invasion of Iraq, rather than asking the individual who authorized the attack and continued to shill for it for a subsequent ten years. Given even a modicum of preparation Trump ought to have been able to flip all of these attacks against his opponent, but fell into the trap of being on the defensive.

1. Trump supported, publicly, the invasion. This is incontrovertible.
2. Please explain how Clinton is "incompetent" on "substance". Last time I checked she had a website with plenty of "substance" on it. Please explain how that is "incompetent".

Her most noted accomplishment as Secretary of State was shilling for the attack on Libya, and subsequently gloating about their deposed dictator's impalement; it is fair to say she is more responsible than anyone for that nation's chaos. Her Russian reset has left relations with their country colder than they were during the Bush years. The Iraq invasion which she voted for and continued to say was the right decision for ten years afterward left the nation in a position to be overtaken by Islamist radicals.

But, I guess her website has big words on it, so her actual policy record does not really matter when discussing substance.

[mencken]

He should have been on the attack more. He did well when he tied his taxes to Clinton's emails, but seemed to back down in every argument after that.

So, according to you, his only fault was not attacking Clinton more. Not anything listed by the OP. Well, I guess that tells everyone here enough about yourself.

All of those gaffes arose because he allowed Clinton to frame the debate, when he ought to have brushed off her attacks and focused on issues of substance, on which she is consistently incompetent. It is asinine that the moderator focused on whether or not a private citizen was sincere in his prescient opposition to the invasion of Iraq, rather than asking the individual who authorized the attack and continued to shill for it for a subsequent ten years. Given even a modicum of preparation Trump ought to have been able to flip all of these attacks against his opponent, but fell into the trap of being on the defensive.

1. Trump supported, publicly, the invasion. This is incontrovertible.
2. Please explain how Clinton is "incompetent" on "substance". Last time I checked she had a website with plenty of "substance" on it. Please explain how that is "incompetent".

Her most noted accomplishment as Secretary of State was shilling for the attack on Libya, and subsequently gloating about their deposed dictator's impalement; it is fair to say she is more responsible than anyone for that nation's chaos. Her Russian reset has left relations with their country colder than they were during the Bush years. The Iraq invasion which she voted for and continued to say was the right decision for ten years afterward left the nation in a position to be overtaken by Islamist radicals.

But, I guess her website has big words on it, so her actual policy record does not really matter when discussing substance.

Donald Trump also supported the invasion of Libya.  Anybody who would vote for Donald Trump believing he is the 'peace candidate' truly is a useless idiot.

1.Trump himself has such a thin skin, he's liable to start a nuclear war just to retaliate to some foreign leader who annoyed him or 'didn't treat me fairly'.

2.It's easy for Trump and Putin to be lovers as one is an authoritarian dictator while the other is a want to be authoritarian dictator.  But, if Trump actually got elected President and the two conflicted, I think it would go like the lines in the Elvis Costello song "Two Little Hitlers will fight it out until/one Little Hitler does the other one's will."

3.On the other hand, Trump may just be a new Chamberlain and achieve peace by conceding all of Putin's territorial demands in Europe (if Trump hadn't actually started a nuclear war in some part of the world by then.)

I don't find either of those alternatives appealing.

Surely you see a difference between supporting a bad policy and actually engineering it.