Which things in Debate #1 hurt Trump the most?

[HisGrace]

His worst moments were definitely his rambling about the birther stuff and saying that his not paying income tax was "smart".

His hostile tone (yelling, interrupting, clearly rattled by any criticism) isn't going to go well with the middle class white suburbanites (AKA, previously the backbone of the GOP base and the people he needs to win over if he wants to win) and generally made him seem unpresidential, which is the big issue that stops undecideds/third party voters from joining his camp (like honesty is for Clinton). Clinton won because she made the debate more about qualifications and Trump's emotional state than about who superficially seems more genuine.

[Simfan34]

The point about LaGuardia was perfectly valid. The "third world airport" line was actually coined by Joe Biden.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Any one of those was probably enough for Trump to lose the debate.  However if I was Kellyanne Conway (which thankfully I am not ), the thing that would concern me most would be how easily "baited" Trump was.

This was my take too. Hillary managed to make her baiting remarks subtle enough that most viewers would think it was obvious what she was doing, but if you're immersed in this stuff, it was completely obvious when she was needling him in the hopes of provoking a reaction, and it worked almost every time.

[JA]

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.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Trump's main appeal beyond the deplorables is that he has marketed himself as an outsider who will rescue the nation from the elites and establishment who have sold out Americans.  Anything that undermines this is extremely damaging:

• Describing taking advantage of loopholes to avoid taxes as smart: BAD
• Defending his refusal to pay contractors because the work wasn't up to his standards: HORRIBLE
• Bragging about cashing in on the housing crash as good business: TOXIC

[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.

[Alcon]

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).

[Slander and/or Libel]

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.

[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.

[Slander and/or Libel]

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.

That's it? That's the best you could do? He literally said he longed for the days of MacArthur, who would have just gone ahead and marched in. He also said maybe we should wait for the UN. He's all over the place, but he's certainly not in full-throated or even half-throated opposition.

[Alcon]

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.

1. That really doesn't address the points I made.

2. This appears to be a video of Trump where the main argument Trump is presenting is that Bush should make a decision.  I don't see Trump expressing personal ambivalence, let alone opposition.  The only "ambivalence" seems to be him stating "maybe Bush shouldn't do it yet" when discussing his deference to Bush's decision-making process.  This doesn't contradict his "yes I guess" response to an Iraq War question.  It's consistent with him supporting the War (somewhat apathetically perhaps), but saying that he respects Bush's decision-making process.  I don't see what in Holt's question is unreasonable considering these facts taken together.

[Enduro]

I think that if anything from the debate would hurt him, it'd be "you've been fighting ISIS your entire adult life."

[136or142]

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.

This is actually typical Trump: take all sides on virtually all issues.  

That said, as other's here have pointed out, he doesn't actually take a declarative position.

"Perhaps" is another of the weasel words that we've seen him frequently use.

I think these sorts of things: taking multiple positions, using non-declarative words like 'perhaps', not willing to be pinned down, are the exact opposite things a 'straight talker who tells it like it is' would use even though his idiot supporters actually seem to believe that's what he is.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

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".

[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.

[136or142]

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.

[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.

[136or142]

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.

Yes, but I also see the difference between actually holding the office and only having the ability to make claims about how to do things differently.

Everything I see from Trump shows to me that however many mistakes Hillary Clinton made as Secretary of State, Trump would be much, much worse.

Also, as has been written above, he's now, as one person put it "the second most likely person to become President of the United States", so, his previous comments are no longer just the comments of a private citizen.

if he wants to claim that they were and that they should no longer be looked at seriously then he needs to be consistent:
1.Don't lie that in his comments as a private citizen that he opposed the Iraq War before it started when he didn't.  In fact,  if the comments should no longer be looked at seriously, then don't mention it at all.  He clearly wants to take credit for his 'good' past statements (even though he has to make them 'good' by lying about them) while disclaiming any responsibility for his 'bad' statements.

Only a fool would let anybody get away with that.

2.If he wants to be taken seriously then actually learn about the issues.  He is just as uninformed on the issues now as he was when he made those comments 15 years ago.  Given that he's still uninformed, it actually makes a good deal of sense to look at his past ignorant comments of evidence of what he would do as President.

I also left out his position on the Middle East, where he, in the same interview or speeches claims to be a 'non interventionist' at the same time as he seems to endorse the prescription of the neo-conservatives in how to defeat ISIL.

I've never heard of Donald Rumsfailed endorsing a non-interventionist before.