Serge7 wrote:5555 wrote: ... потому что "умища" немеряно...
Пятёрочка. Почитайте вот эту статью, пожалуста. Специально для Вас, и только для Вас.
Более обьективной статьи о прошедших президентских дебатах, Дональде Трампе и Хиллари Клинтон, я ещё не видел в Американской Дем. прессе:
Monday: Voters Watched The Wrong Debate
/
Editor’s note: The opinions in this article are the author’s, as published by our content partner, and do not necessarily represent the views of MSN or Microsoft./
It appears we made a grave mistake and watched the wrong debate on Monday night between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Apparently, there was a debate that the media watched resulting in a different outcome from the one we watched.
When Clinton entered the stage, she appeared extremely nervous, moderately shaky and overly scripted. On basic policy questions, there were multiple occasions that she read her entire answer. If you can’t speak to voters on a major issue without reading from notes, I don’t believe you.
By contrast, Trump rarely look at his notes and seemed to rather prepared to address policy and issues (which took a ‘back seat’ to personal attacks).
Most of the elite media pundits have given the checkmark of victory to Hillary Clinton. As expected, many on the right have bashed Lester Holt for being biased. I don’t agree with either assessments.
Clinton lost the debate and Trump could have done better.
For instance, on a Clinton charge of racism, he could have explained that advisors suggested he ban Jewish and African-American members from his Florida golf club. He should have told the story where he rejected that advice because he felt it was wrong. He should have cited the fact that many clubs eliminated discrimination because of his decision. This was a missed opportunity.
At one point, Clinton accused Trump of racial discrimination by not allowing minorities to rent some apartments at two of his residential properties. He failed to explain that he was 27 at the time and those events occurred prior to him assuming control of the company from his father. He should have stated that no time “during his control” of the Trump organization has that charged been made.
I was further surprised that Donald Trump did not make a bigger issue out of Clinton’s 33,000 deleted emails which is obstruction of justice. Remember, she was issued a letter of preservation and a subpoena by Congress three weeks prior to illegally deleting those emails. Those emails likely implicate her in illicit ‘pay-for-play’ behavior while she was Secretary of State.
On the latter, I suspect the campaign is saving that ‘Trump-card” for the last debate. Perhaps all of these missed opportunities are an example of his business acumen ‘trumping’ the academics of winning a single debate. In business, you don’t fight to death to win one battle, you strategize to win the war. It’s sort of like having three intruders in your home. You don’t want to waste all the bullets in your gun on the first intruder because the next two will kill you.
Aside from those missed opportunities, Trump was strong, in control, unwavering and the most presidential of any of his thirteen debates. His main goal should be to give roughly ten percent of ‘undecideds’ permission to vote for him. If he succeeds, he wins.
Media punditry sees this debate much differently because they view the world through an academic lens. This avoids the reality that he must plan for all three debates, not just one.
In essence, the media lens does not accommodate for multiple-debate strategy, human behavior or emotion including fear and hope.
To a typical ‘media hack,’ they heard harsh (truthful) language directed at Clinton, our country’s economy, our place in the world and our ability to move forward if we don’t change course. That’s a very painful reality that many believe is wholly true. It’s very difficult to convince someone that their beliefs and actions have actually caused the problem. The bearer of such truths (Trump) can never win a debate (in an ‘academics’ mind) no matter how convincing he is.
Academically, Hillary Clinton stayed calm, articulated professionally with effective talking points and backed up her assertions with what sounded to be facts (noticed I say ‘sounded’). Academically, she won. The problem? Academic analysis is contrived in a controlled setting and does not accommodate for voters’ emotions or personal interests.
Americans are fearful for their children’s future, their jobs, security and retirement. Clinton seems to paint a picture that we are doing well, that our problems are just Republican distortions and that we must ignore our realities and point the finger of blame (instead of finding solutions).
I believe most undecided voters saw the debate I saw. These voters have grown tired of watching emotional basket-cases, in the media, analyze reality through their distorted, academic worldview. The World does not function in a controlled vacuum.
If most of our media talents would escape its New York- and Washington D.C.-based cozy cliques and cocoons while attempting to interact with real voters, they could finally understand why Trump is winning.
It would also be more clear to them why he won the debate. He’s real.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/m ... =DELLDHP15 
Подкармливают чёрных, цветных, и арабов, на наши с вами деньги, чтоб отбить хоть какие то голоса на през. выборах, для этой престарелой большевички. Но, ДаСилва, я вам серьёзно говорю. Язык Трампухи по отношении к здешним женщинам, легко может стоить ему - проигранными выборами в этом ноябре. 
