Apporter des méthodes de "la voix" aux débats présidentiels

Après avoir regardé le premier débat présidentiel hier soir, je souhaitais que nous puissions trouver un moyen d'entendre ce que Lester Holt demandaient et ce qu'Hillary Clinton et Donald Trump ont répondu sans préjugés et préjugés que d'autres et moi avons déjà développés envers chacun d'entre eux.

J'ai alors pensé à l'émission de télévision très populaire, "The Voice", où les juges ne voient pas les candidats et les jugent uniquement sur leur voix avant de se retourner pour les regarder.

En utilisant ce spectacle comme format, que se passerait-il s'il existait un moyen de "nettoyer" le débat du plus grand nombre possible de termes chargés d'émotion (remplacer "il" et "elle" par le pronom, "ils" et remplacer leurs noms par " mon adversaire "pour des échanges entre les candidats" et se référant en outre à Hillary Clinton en tant que Candidate A, Donald Trump en tant que Candidat B et se référant même à Lester Holt en tant que "Modérateur".

Enfin, que se passerait-il s'il était possible d'avoir des étrangers (peut-être même à l'extérieur de notre pays) capables d'évaluer les candidats en fonction de leur contenu par rapport à leur personnalité?

• Vraies raisons de sexe avant le mariage
• La peur de prendre du poids
• Hommes millénaires, femmes et sexe décontracté
• Renouveler les communautés déchirées par la guerre par l'éducation au pardon
• To Groom ou ne pas toiletter?

Ce qui suit est une version "nettoyée" et distillée du débat. Essayez d'imaginer le lire et d'être aveugle à ce à quoi ressemblait chaque candidat et sourd à ce à quoi ils ressemblaient et peser en utilisant la section Commentaires sur qui vous avez gagné le débat et pourquoi.

MODERATEUR: Bonsoir de l'Université Hofstra à Hempstead, New York. Je suis le modérateur de ce premier débat. Je veux vous souhaiter la bienvenue au premier débat présidentiel.

Les participants ce soir sont le Candidat A et le Candidat B. Ce débat est parrainé par la Commission sur les Débats Présidentiels, une organisation non partisane et à but non lucratif. La commission a rédigé le format de ce soir, et les règles ont été acceptées par les campagnes.

• Pourquoi le droit religieux déteste votre contrôle des naissances?
• Quand vous ne pouvez pas pardonner
• Points d'inflections
• Les zoos ne tueront pas des animaux sains: un impératif moral
• Des fissures dans le firmament

Le débat de 90 minutes est divisé en six segments, chacun de 15 minutes. Nous explorerons trois domaines ce soir: Atteindre la prospérité; La direction de l'Amérique; et sécuriser l'Amérique. Au début de chaque segment, je poserai la même question préliminaire aux deux candidats et ils auront chacun jusqu'à deux minutes pour répondre. De ce point jusqu'à la fin du segment, nous aurons une discussion ouverte.

Les questions sont à moi et n'ont pas été partagées avec la commission ou les campagnes. Le public ici dans la salle a accepté de garder le silence afin que nous puissions nous concentrer sur ce que les candidats disent.

Je vous invite cependant à applaudir, en ce moment, en accueillant les candidats: Candidat A et Candidat B.

Candidat A: Comment êtes-vous candidat B?

MODÉRATEUR: Bonne chance à vous.

Eh bien, je ne m'attends pas à ce que nous couvrions toutes les questions de cette campagne ce soir, mais je rappelle à tous, il y a deux autres débats présidentiels programmés. Nous allons nous concentrer sur plusieurs des problèmes que les électeurs nous disent être les plus importants, et nous allons demander des précisions. Je suis honoré d'avoir ce rôle, mais ce soir appartient aux candidats et, tout aussi important, au peuple américain.

Candidats, nous avons hâte de vous entendre articuler vos politiques et vos positions, ainsi que vos visions et vos valeurs. Alors, commençons.

Nous appelons ce segment d'ouverture «Atteindre la prospérité». Et le cœur de tout cela, ce sont les emplois. Il y a deux réalités économiques en Amérique aujourd'hui. Il y a eu six années consécutives de croissance de l'emploi, et les nouveaux chiffres du recensement montrent que les revenus ont augmenté à un rythme record après des années de stagnation. Cependant, l'inégalité des revenus reste importante, et près de la moitié des Américains vivent salaire à chèque de paie.

En commençant par vous, candidat A, pourquoi êtes-vous un meilleur choix que votre adversaire pour créer le genre d'emplois qui mettra plus d'argent dans les poches des œuvres américaines?

Candidat A: Merci, Modérateur, et merci à Hofstra de nous avoir hébergé.

La question centrale dans cette élection est vraiment quel genre de pays nous voulons être et quel genre d'avenir nous construirons ensemble. Aujourd'hui, c'est le deuxième anniversaire de ma petite-fille, alors j'y pense beaucoup. Premièrement, nous devons bâtir une économie qui fonctionne pour tout le monde, pas seulement pour ceux qui sont au sommet. Cela signifie que nous avons besoin de nouveaux emplois, de bons emplois et d'une augmentation des revenus.

Je veux que nous investissions en vous. Je veux que nous investissions dans votre avenir. Cela signifie des emplois dans les infrastructures, la fabrication de pointe, l'innovation et la technologie, l'énergie propre et renouvelable et les petites entreprises, car la plupart des nouveaux emplois proviendront des petites entreprises. Nous devons également rendre l'économie plus juste. Cela commence par l'augmentation du salaire minimum national et, enfin, la garantie d'un salaire égal pour le travail des femmes.

CANDIDAT A: Je veux aussi voir plus d'entreprises faire des bénéfices. Si vous contribuez à créer les bénéfices, vous devriez être en mesure de les partager, pas seulement les cadres supérieurs.

Et je veux que nous fassions plus pour soutenir les personnes qui luttent pour équilibrer la famille et le travail. J'ai entendu beaucoup d'entre vous parler des choix difficiles auxquels vous faites face et du stress que vous subissez. Alors, nous avons payé le congé familial, gagné des jours de maladie. Assurons-nous d'avoir des garderies abordables et des collèges sans dette.

Comment allons-nous le faire? Nous allons le faire en demandant aux riches de payer leur juste part et de combler les vides juridiques.

Enfin, ce soir, nous sommes sur la scène ensemble, mon adversaire, Candidate B, c'est bon d'être avec vous. Nous allons avoir un débat sur les problèmes importants auxquels notre pays est confronté. Vous devez nous juger, qui peut assumer les responsabilités immenses et impressionnantes de la présidence, qui peut mettre en œuvre les plans qui amélioreront votre vie. J'espère que je pourrai gagner votre vote le 8 novembre.

MODERATEUR: Candidat A, merci.

Candidate B, la même question à vous. Il s'agit de mettre de l'argent – plus d'argent dans les poches des travailleurs américains. Vous avez jusqu'à deux minutes.

CANDIDAT B: Merci, Modérateur. Nos emplois fuient le pays. Ils vont au Mexique. Ils vont dans beaucoup d'autres pays. Vous regardez ce que la Chine fait pour notre pays en termes de fabrication de notre produit. Ils dévaluent leur monnaie, et il n'y a personne dans notre gouvernement pour les combattre. Et nous avons un très bon combat. Et nous avons un combat gagnant. Parce qu'ils utilisent notre pays comme une tirelire pour reconstruire la Chine, et beaucoup d'autres pays font la même chose.

Nous perdons donc nos bons emplois, tant d'entre eux. Quand vous regardez ce qui se passe au Mexique, un de mes amis qui construit des plantes a dit que c'était la huitième merveille du monde. Ils construisent certaines des plus grandes usines du monde, certaines parmi les plus sophistiquées et les meilleures. Avec les États-Unis, comme il l'a dit, pas tellement.

Alors Ford part. Vous voyez cela, leur division de petite voiture partant. Des milliers d'emplois quittant le Michigan, quittant l'Ohio. Ils partent tous. Et nous ne pouvons pas permettre que cela se produise plus. En ce qui concerne les garderies et tant d'autres choses, je pense que mon adversaire et moi sommes d'accord là-dessus. Nous sommes probablement en désaccord sur les chiffres et les montants et sur ce que nous allons faire, mais nous en reparlerons peut-être plus tard.

Mais nous devons cesser de nous voler nos emplois. Nous devons empêcher nos entreprises de quitter les États-Unis et, avec elles, licencier tous leurs employés. Tout ce que vous avez à faire est de jeter un oeil à la climatisation Carrier à Indianapolis. Ils sont partis – ont renvoyé 1400 personnes. Ils vont au Mexique. Donc, des centaines et des centaines d'entreprises le font.

CANDIDAT B: Nous ne pouvons pas laisser cela se produire. Selon mon plan, je réduirai énormément les taxes, de 35 à 15 p. 100 pour les entreprises, les petites et les grandes entreprises. Ça va être un créateur d'emplois comme nous ne l'avons pas vu depuis Ronald Reagan. Ça va être une belle chose à regarder.

Les entreprises vont venir. Ils vont construire. Ils vont se développer. De nouvelles entreprises vont commencer. Et je suis très, très impatient de le faire. Nous devons renégocier nos accords commerciaux et nous devons empêcher ces pays de voler nos entreprises et nos emplois.

MODERATEUR: Candidat A, voulez-vous répondre?

CANDIDAT R: Eh bien, je pense que le commerce est une question importante. Bien sûr, nous sommes 5% de la population mondiale; nous devons commercer avec l'autre 95 pour cent. Et nous devons avoir des accords commerciaux intelligents et équitables.

Cependant, nous avons aussi besoin d'un système fiscal qui récompense le travail et pas seulement les transactions financières. Et le genre de plan que mon adversaire a mis de l'avant serait de nouveau une économie à retombée. En fait, ce serait la version la plus extrême, la plus grande réduction d'impôt pour le pourcentage le plus élevé de la population de ce pays que nous n'avons jamais eu.

Je l'appelle le ruissellement du candidat B-up, parce que c'est exactement ce que ce serait. Ce n'est pas comme cela que nous faisons grandir l'économie.

Nous avons un point de vue différent sur ce qui est le mieux pour la croissance de l'économie, la façon dont nous faisons des investissements qui produiront effectivement des emplois et des revenus en hausse.

Je pense que nous en venons à des perspectives quelque peu différentes. Je comprends que. Vous savez, mon adversaire a été très chanceux dans sa vie, et c'est tout à son avantage. Ils ont commencé leur entreprise avec 14 millions de dollars, empruntés à leur père, et ils croient vraiment que plus vous aiderez les gens aisés, mieux nous serons et que tout ira de l'avant.

Je n'achète pas ça. J'ai une expérience différente. Mon père était un petit homme d'affaires. Il a travaillé très dur. Il a imprimé des tissus de draperie sur de longues tables, où il a sorti ces tissus et il est descendu avec une sérigraphie et a jeté la peinture dedans et a pris la raclette et a continué.

Et donc, je crois que plus nous pouvons faire pour la classe moyenne, plus nous pouvons investir dans vous, dans votre éducation, dans vos compétences, dans votre avenir, mieux nous serons au large et mieux nous grandirons. C'est le genre d'économie que je veux que nous revoyions.

MODÉRATEUR: Laissez-moi faire un suivi avec le candidat B, si vous le pouvez. Vous avez parlé de créer 25 millions d'emplois et vous avez promis de ramener des millions d'emplois pour les Américains. Comment allez-vous ramener les industries qui ont quitté ce pays pour travailler moins cher à l'étranger? Comment, plus précisément, allez-vous dire aux fabricants américains que vous devez revenir?

CANDIDAT B: Eh bien, d'abord, avant que nous commencions, mon père m'a prêté un très petit prêt en 1975. Je l'ai construit en une entreprise qui vaut plusieurs milliards de dollars, avec certains des plus grands atouts de la société. le monde, et je dis cela seulement parce que c'est le genre de pensée dont notre pays a besoin.

Notre pays est en difficulté profonde. Nous ne savons pas ce que nous faisons quand il s'agit de dévaluations et de tous ces pays partout dans le monde, en particulier la Chine. Ils sont les meilleurs, les meilleurs de tous les temps. Ce qu'ils nous font est une chose très, très triste.

Nous devons donc faire cela. Nous devons renégocier nos accords commerciaux. Et, modérateur, ils prennent nos emplois, ils donnent des incitatifs, ils font des choses que, franchement, nous ne faisons pas.

Laissez-moi vous donner l'exemple du Mexique. Ils ont une TVA. Nous sommes sur un système différent. Lorsque nous vendons au Mexique, il y a une taxe. Quand ils vendent dans – automatique, 16 pour cent, environ. Quand ils vendent en nous, il n'y a pas de taxe. C'est un accord défectueux. Il a été défectueux pendant longtemps, de nombreuses années, mais les politiciens n'ont rien fait à ce sujet.

Maintenant, en toute justice envers mon adversaire – oui, est-ce que c'est OK? Bien. Je veux que tu sois très heureux. C'est très important pour moi.

Mais en toute justice envers mon adversaire, quand ils ont commencé à en parler, c'était vraiment très récemment. Ils le font depuis 30 ans. Et pourquoi n'ont-ils pas amélioré les accords? L'accord de l'ALENA est défectueux. Juste à cause de la taxe et de nombreuses autres raisons, mais juste à cause du fait …

MODERATEUR: Laissez-moi vous interrompre un instant, mais …

CANDIDAT B: Mon adversaire et d'autres, les politiciens, auraient dû le faire pendant des années, pas maintenant, à cause du fait que nous avons créé un mouvement. Ils auraient dû faire ça pendant des années. Ce qui est arrivé à nos emplois et à notre pays et à notre économie en général est – voyez-vous, nous devons 20 billions de dollars. Nous ne pouvons plus le faire, Modérateur.

MODÉRATEUR: Retour à la question, cependant. Comment ramenez-vous – en particulier ramener des emplois, les fabricants américains? Comment les faites-vous ramener les emplois?

CANDIDAT B: Eh bien, la première chose que vous faites est de ne pas laisser les emplois partir. Les entreprises partent. Je pourrais nommer, je veux dire, il y en a des milliers. Ils partent, et ils partent en plus grand nombre que jamais.

Et ce que vous faites, vous dites, bon, vous voulez aller au Mexique ou dans un autre pays, bonne chance. Nous vous souhaitons beaucoup de chance. Mais si vous pensez que vous allez faire vos climatiseurs ou vos voitures ou vos biscuits ou tout ce que vous faites et les amener dans notre pays sans taxe, vous avez tort.

Et une fois que vous dites que vous allez devoir les taxer, et que nos politiciens ne le font jamais, parce qu'ils ont des intérêts particuliers et que les intérêts spéciaux veulent que ces entreprises partent, parce que dans de nombreux cas, elles possèdent les entreprises. Donc ce que je dis, c'est qu'on peut les empêcher de partir. Nous devons les empêcher de partir. Et c'est un gros facteur.

MODÉRATEUR: Laissez-moi laisser votre adversaire entrer ici.

CANDIDAT A: Arrêtons-nous un instant et rappelons-nous où nous étions il y a huit ans. Nous avons eu la pire crise financière, la Grande Récession, la pire depuis les années 1930. C'était en grande partie à cause des politiques fiscales qui ont réduit les impôts des riches, qui n'ont pas investi dans la classe moyenne, qui ont détourné les yeux de Wall Street et qui ont créé une tempête parfaite.

En fait, mon adversaire était l'une des personnes qui ont pris racine dans la crise du logement. Ils ont dit, en 2006, «Mince, j'espère que ça s'effondre, parce que je peux aller acheter de l'argent et gagner de l'argent.» Eh bien, ça s'est effondré.

CANDIDAT B: C'est ce qu'on appelle les affaires, soit dit en passant.

CANDIDAT A: Neuf millions de personnes – neuf millions de personnes ont perdu leur emploi. Cinq millions de personnes ont perdu leurs maisons. Et 13 billions de dollars en richesse familiale ont été anéantis.

Maintenant, nous sommes revenus de cet abîme. Et ça n'a pas été facile. Nous sommes donc sur le point d'avoir une économie potentiellement bien meilleure, mais la dernière chose que nous devons faire est de revenir aux politiques qui nous ont échouées en premier lieu.

Les experts indépendants ont regardé ce que j'ai proposé et regardé ce que mon adversaire a proposé, et fondamentalement ils l'ont dit, que si le plan fiscal de mon adversaire, qui ferait exploser la dette de plus de 5 billions de dollars et désavantagerait dans certains cas les familles de classe par rapport aux riches, devaient entrer en vigueur, nous perdrions 3,5 millions d'emplois et peut-être une autre récession.

Ils ont regardé mes plans et ils ont dit, d'accord, si nous pouvons le faire, et j'ai l'intention de le faire, nous aurons 10 millions de nouveaux emplois de plus, parce que nous ferons des investissements là où nous pouvons faire croître l'économie . Prenez de l'énergie propre. Un pays sera la superpuissance de l'énergie propre du XXIe siècle. Mon adversaire pense que le changement climatique est un canular perpétré par les Chinois. Je pense que c'est réel.

CANDIDAT B: Je ne l'ai pas fait. Je n'ai pas. Je ne dis pas ça.

CANDIDAT A: Je pense que la science est réelle.

CANDIDAT B: Je ne dis pas ça.

CANDIDAT A: Et je pense qu'il est important que nous prenions les choses en main et y partions, tant au pays qu'à l'étranger. Et voici ce que nous pouvons faire. Nous pouvons déployer un demi-milliard de panneaux solaires de plus. Nous pouvons avoir suffisamment d'énergie propre pour alimenter chaque maison. Nous pouvons construire un nouveau réseau électrique moderne. C'est beaucoup d'emplois; c'est beaucoup de nouvelle activité économique.

J'ai donc essayé d'être très précis sur ce que nous pouvons et devons faire, et je suis déterminé à faire en sorte que l'économie bouge à nouveau, en nous appuyant sur les progrès que nous avons réalisés au cours des huit dernières années, mais jamais revenir à ce qui nous a causé des problèmes en premier lieu.

MODERATEUR: Candidat B?

CANDIDAT B: Mon adversaire parle de panneaux solaires. Nous avons investi dans une société d'énergie solaire, notre pays. C'était un désastre. Ils ont perdu beaucoup d'argent sur celui-là.

Maintenant, regardez, je suis un grand croyant dans toutes les formes d'énergie, mais nous mettons beaucoup de gens au chômage. Nos politiques énergétiques sont un désastre. Notre pays perd énormément d'énergie pour rembourser sa dette. Vous ne pouvez pas faire ce que vous voulez faire avec 20 billions de dollars de dettes.

L'administration actuelle, depuis son arrivée, représente plus de 230 ans d'endettement, et le président l'a dépassé. Il l'a doublé en près de huit ans, sept ans et demi, pour être presque exact.

Donc je vais vous dire ça. Nous devons faire beaucoup mieux pour garder nos emplois. Et nous devons faire un bien meilleur travail en incitant les entreprises à créer de nouvelles entreprises ou à prendre de l'expansion, car elles ne le font pas.

Et tout ce que vous avez à faire est de regarder le Michigan et de regarder l'Ohio et de regarder tous ces endroits où tant de leurs emplois et de leurs entreprises partent, ils sont partis.

Et, mon adversaire, je voudrais juste vous demander ceci. Vous faites cela depuis 30 ans. Pourquoi pensez-vous seulement à ces solutions maintenant? Depuis 30 ans, vous le faites, et maintenant vous commencez à penser à des solutions.

CANDIDAT A: Eh bien, en fait …

CANDIDAT B: Je vais apporter – excusez-moi. Je vais ramener des emplois. Vous ne pouvez pas ramener des emplois.

CANDIDAT A: En fait, j'ai beaucoup réfléchi à cela.

CANDIDAT B: Oui, pendant 30 ans.

CANDIDAT A: Et j'ai – enfin, pas si longtemps. Je pense que mon conjoint a fait du bon travail dans les années 1990. Je pense beaucoup à ce qui a fonctionné et comment nous pouvons le faire fonctionner à nouveau …

CANDIDAT B: Eh bien, il a approuvé l'ALENA …

CANDIDAT A: … millions de nouveaux emplois, un budget équilibré …

CANDIDAT B: Il a approuvé l'ALENA, qui est le pire accord commercial jamais approuvé dans ce pays.

CANDIDAT A: Les revenus ont augmenté pour tout le monde. Les emplois manufacturiers ont également augmenté dans les années 1990, si nous examinons les faits.

Lorsque j'étais au Sénat, j'ai eu un certain nombre d'ententes commerciales qui m'ont précédé et je les ai tous soumis au même test. Vont-ils créer des emplois en Amérique? Est-ce qu'ils augmenteront les revenus en Amérique? Et sont-ils bons pour notre sécurité nationale? Certains d'entre eux j'ai voté pour. La plus grande, une multinationale connue sous le nom de CAFTA, j'ai voté contre. Et parce que je tiens les mêmes normes que je regarde tous ces accords commerciaux.

Mais ne supposons pas que le commerce est le seul défi que nous avons dans l'économie. Je pense que c'est une partie, et j'ai dit ce que je vais faire. Je vais avoir un procureur spécial. Nous allons appliquer les accords commerciaux que nous avons et nous allons demander des comptes aux gens.

Lorsque j'étais dans ma position la plus récente, nous avons augmenté les exportations américaines de 30% à l'échelle mondiale. Nous les avons augmentés à 50% en Chine. Je sais donc comment vraiment travailler pour obtenir de nouveaux emplois et obtenir des exportations qui ont aidé à créer plus de nouveaux emplois.

MODERATEUR: Très rapidement …

CANDIDAT B: Mais vous ne l'avez pas fait dans 30 ans ou 26 ans ou tout nombre que vous voulez …

CANDIDAT A: Eh bien, j'ai été sénateur, candidat B …

CANDIDAT B: Vous ne l'avez pas fait. Vous ne l'avez pas fait.

CANDIDAT A: Et j'ai été secrétaire d'État …

CANDIDAT B: Excusez-moi.

CANDIDAT A: Et j'ai beaucoup fait …

CANDIDAT B: Votre conjoint a signé l'ALENA, qui a été l'une des pires choses qui sont arrivées à l'industrie manufacturière.

CANDIDAT A: Eh bien, c'est votre opinion. C'est ton avis.

CANDIDAT B: Vous allez en Nouvelle-Angleterre, vous allez à l'Ohio, en Pennsylvanie, vous allez où vous voulez, mon adversaire, et vous verrez la dévastation où la fabrication est en baisse de 30, 40, parfois 50 pour cent. L'ALENA est le pire accord commercial jamais signé, mais certainement signé dans ce pays.

Et maintenant, vous voulez approuver Trans-Pacific Partnership. Vous étiez totalement en faveur de cela. Ensuite, vous avez entendu ce que je disais, à quel point c'est mauvais, et vous avez dit que je ne pouvais pas gagner ce débat. Mais vous savez que si vous gagniez, vous l'approuveriez, et ce sera presque aussi mauvais que l'ALENA. Rien ne dépassera jamais l'ALENA.

CANDIDAT A: Eh bien, ce n'est tout simplement pas exact. J'étais contre quand il a été finalement négocié et les termes ont été mis en place. J'ai écrit à ce sujet dans …

CANDIDAT B: Vous l'avez appelé l'étalon-or.

CANDIDAT B: Vous avez appelé cela la norme d'or des accords commerciaux. Vous avez dit que c'était la meilleure affaire que vous ayez jamais vue.

CANDIDAT A: Non.

CANDIDAT B: Et puis vous avez entendu ce que j'ai dit à ce sujet, et tout à coup vous étiez contre.

CANDIDAT A: Eh bien, candidat B, je sais que vous vivez dans votre propre réalité, mais ce n'est pas les faits. Les faits sont – j'ai dit que j'espérais que ce serait une bonne affaire, mais quand il a été négocié …

CANDIDAT B: Pas.

CANDIDAT A: … dont je n'étais pas responsable, j'en ai conclu que non. J'ai écrit à ce sujet dans mon livre …

CANDIDAT B: Donc c'est la faute du Président actuel?

CANDIDAT A: … avant même d'avoir annoncé.

CANDIDAT B: Est-ce la faute du Président actuel?

CANDIDAT A: Regardez, il y a des différences …

CANDIDAT B: Candidat B! Est-ce la faute du président actuel?

CANDIDAT A: Il y a …

CANDIDAT B: Parce qu'il le pousse.

CANDIDAT A: Il y a différents points de vue sur ce qui est bon pour notre pays, notre économie et notre leadership dans le monde. Et je pense qu'il est important de regarder ce que nous devons faire pour relancer l'économie. C'est pourquoi j'ai dit de nouveaux emplois avec des revenus en hausse, des investissements, et non pas davantage de réductions d'impôt qui ajouteraient 5 billions de dollars à la dette.

CANDIDAT B: Mais vous n'avez aucun plan.

CANDIDAT A: Mais dans – oh, mais je le fais.

CANDIDAT B: Candidat A, vous n'avez aucun plan.

CANDIDAT A: En fait, j'ai écrit un livre à ce sujet. C'est ce qu'on appelle «Stronger Together». Vous pouvez le ramasser demain dans une librairie …

CANDIDAT B: C'est à peu près tout ce que vous avez …

MODERATEUR: Folks, nous allons …

CANDIDAT A: … ou dans un aéroport près de chez vous.

MODERATEUR: Nous allons passer à …

CANDIDAT A: Mais c'est parce que je vois cela – nous devons avoir une forte croissance, une croissance équitable, une croissance soutenue. Nous devons aussi voir comment nous aidons les familles à équilibrer les responsabilités à la maison et les responsabilités au travail.

Nous avons donc un ensemble de plans très robustes. Et les gens ont examiné nos deux plans, ont conclu que le mien créerait 10 millions d'emplois et que le vôtre nous ferait perdre 3,5 millions d'emplois, et exploserait la dette qui aurait une récession.

CANDIDAT B: Vous allez approuver l'une des plus importantes réductions d'impôt de l'histoire. Vous allez approuver l'une des plus importantes hausses d'impôt de l'histoire. Vous allez chasser les affaires. Vos règlements sont une catastrophe, et vous allez augmenter les règlements partout.

Et en passant, ma réduction d'impôt est la plus importante depuis Ronald Reagan. J'en suis très fier. Cela créera énormément de nouveaux emplois. Mais les règlements, vous allez réglementer ces entreprises hors de l'existence.

Quand je fais le tour – Modérateur, je vous le dis, j'ai été partout. Et quand je fais le tour, malgré la réduction d'impôt, la chose – les choses que les gens d'affaires aiment le plus, c'est le fait que je réduis la réglementation. Vous avez des règlements en plus des règlements, et les nouvelles compagnies ne peuvent pas former et les vieilles compagnies font faillite. Et vous voulez augmenter la réglementation et la rendre encore pire.

Je vais couper les règlements. Je vais réduire les impôts de la ligue, et vous allez augmenter les impôts de la ligue, la fin de l'histoire.

MODÉRATEUR: Permettez-moi de vous faire une pause là parce que nous allons passer à – nous allons passer au segment suivant. Nous allons parler de taxes …

CANDIDAT A: Cela ne peut pas – cela ne peut pas être laissé pour se tenir.

MODÉRATEUR: S'il vous plaît, prenez 30 secondes et nous continuerons.

CANDIDAT A: J'ai supposé qu'il y aurait beaucoup de ces accusations et réclamations, et ainsi …

CANDIDAT B: Faits.

CANDIDAT A: Nous avons donc pris la page d'accueil de mon site Web, Candidat A.com, et nous l'avons transformé en vérificateur de faits. Donc, si vous voulez voir en temps réel ce que sont les faits, allez-y et jetez un oeil. Parce que ce que j'ai proposé …

CANDIDAT B: Et regardez le mien aussi, et vous verrez.

CANDIDAT A: … n'ajouterait pas un sou à la dette, et vos plans ajouteraient 5 billions de dollars à la dette. Ce que j'ai proposé réduirait les règlements et les simplifierait pour les petites entreprises. Ce que j'ai proposé serait payé en augmentant les impôts sur les riches, parce qu'ils ont fait tous les gains dans l'économie. Et je pense qu'il est temps que les riches et les sociétés paient leur juste part pour soutenir ce pays.

MODERATEUR: Eh bien, vous venez d'ouvrir le segment suivant.

CANDIDAT B: Eh bien, pourrais-je finir – je pense que je …

MODERATEUR: Je vais vous donner une chance ici …

CANDIDAT B: Je pense que je devrais – vous allez sur le site Web du candidat A, et vous jetez un coup d'oeil à leur site Web.

MODERATEUR: … avec un nouveau segment de 15 minutes …

CANDIDAT B: Candidat A va augmenter les impôts de 1,3 billion de dollars.

MODERATEUR: Candidat B, je vais …

CANDIDAT B: Et regardez le site Web du candidat A. Vous savez quoi? Ce n'est pas une différence. Le candidat A nous dit comment combattre ISIS. Il suffit d'aller sur leur site web. Le candidat A vous explique comment combattre ISIS sur son site Web. Je ne pense pas que le général Douglas MacArthur aimerait ça trop.

MODERATEUR: Le segment suivant, nous continuons …

CANDIDAT A: Eh bien, au moins, j'ai un plan pour lutter contre ISIS.

MODERATEUR: … atteindre la prospérité …

CANDIDAT B: Non, non, vous dites à l'ennemi tout ce que vous voulez faire.

CANDIDAT A: Non, nous ne le sommes pas. Non, nous ne sommes pas.

CANDIDAT B: Vous voyez, vous dites à l'ennemi tout ce que vous voulez faire. Pas étonnant que vous vous soyez battus – pas étonnant que vous ayez combattu ISIS toute votre vie d'adulte.

CANDIDAT A: C'est un – c'est – aller à – s'il vous plaît, les vérificateurs de faits, se rendre au travail.

MODERATEUR: OK, vous déballez beaucoup ici. Et nous sommes toujours sur la question de la prospérité. Et je veux parler des taxes. La différence fondamentale entre vous deux concerne les riches.

Candidat A, vous appelez à une augmentation d'impôt sur les Américains les plus riches. J'aimerais que vous défendiez cela davantage. Et, candidat B, vous demandez des réductions d'impôt pour les riches. Je voudrais que vous défendiez cela. Et la prochaine réponse de deux minutes va à vous, le candidat B.

CANDIDAT B: Eh bien, je réclame vraiment des emplois importants, parce que les riches vont créer d'énormes emplois. Ils vont développer leurs entreprises. Ils vont faire un travail formidable.

Je me débarrasse de la disposition sur les intérêts reportés. Et si vous regardez vraiment, ce n'est pas une taxe – ce n'est vraiment pas une bonne chose pour les riches. C'est une bonne chose pour la classe moyenne. C'est une bonne chose pour les entreprises de se développer.

Et quand ces gens vont mettre des milliards et des milliards de dollars dans les entreprises, et quand ils vont rapporter 2,5 billions de dollars d'outre-mer, où ils ne peuvent pas rapporter l'argent, parce que les politiciens comme mon adversaire ne les autorisent pas pour ramener l'argent, parce que les taxes sont si lourdes, et la paperasserie bureaucratique, alors, qu'est-ce qui est si mauvais.

Ce qu'ils font, c'est qu'ils quittent notre pays et, croyez-le ou non, ils partent parce que les impôts sont trop élevés et parce que certains d'entre eux ont beaucoup d'argent à l'extérieur de notre pays. Et au lieu de le ramener et de mettre l'argent au travail, parce qu'ils ne peuvent pas conclure d'accord – et tout le monde est d'accord pour le ramener.

Au lieu de cela, ils quittent notre pays pour obtenir leur argent, parce qu'ils ne peuvent pas ramener leur argent dans notre pays, à cause de la paperasserie bureaucratique, parce qu'ils ne peuvent pas se réunir. Parce que nous avons – nous avons un président qui ne peut pas les asseoir autour d'une table et les amener à approuver quelque chose.

Et voici la chose. Républicains et démocrates conviennent que cela devrait être fait, 2,5 billions de dollars. Je pense que c'est le double. C'est probablement 5 billions de dollars que nous ne pouvons pas apporter dans notre pays, Modérateur. Et avec un peu de leadership, vous l'obtiendrez très rapidement, et il pourrait être utilisé dans les centres-villes et bien d'autres choses, et ce serait magnifique.

Mais nous n'avons aucun leadership. Et honnêtement, cela commence avec mon adversaire.

MODERATEUR: Très bien. Vous avez deux minutes de la même question pour défendre les augmentations d'impôt sur les Américains les plus riches, Candidat A.

CANDIDAT A: J'ai l'impression que d'ici la fin de la soirée, je serai blâmé pour tout ce qui s'est passé.

CANDIDAT B: Pourquoi pas?

CANDIDAT A: Pourquoi pas? Ouais pourquoi pas?

Vous savez, rejoignez le débat en disant des choses plus folles. Maintenant, laissez-moi dire ceci, c'est absolument le cas …

CANDIDAT B: Il n'y a rien de fou à ne pas laisser nos entreprises ramener leur argent dans leur pays.

MODERATEUR: C'est – c'est les deux minutes du candidat A, s'il vous plaît.

CANDIDAT B: Oui.

CANDIDAT A: Ouais, bien, reprenons l'horloge, Modérateur. Nous avons examiné vos propositions fiscales. Je ne vois pas de changements dans les taux d'imposition des sociétés ni dans le genre de propositions dont vous parlez qui entraîneraient le rapatriement, ramenant de l'argent qui est coincé à l'étranger. Il se trouve que je suis en faveur de cela.

CANDIDAT B: Alors vous ne l'avez pas lu.

CANDIDAT A: Il m'arrive de – j'appuie cela d'une manière qui fonctionnera réellement à notre avantage. Mais quand je regarde ce que vous avez proposé, vous avez ce qu'on appelle maintenant l'échappatoire du Candidat B, parce que cela vous serait très utile, ainsi qu'à vos affaires. Vous avez proposé une approche qui a un …

CANDIDAT B: Qui lui a donné ce nom? Le premier que j'ai – qui lui a donné ce nom?

MODERATEUR: Candidat B, il s'agit des deux minutes du candidat A.

CANDIDAT A: … 4 milliards de dollars d'avantages fiscaux pour la famille du candidat A. Et quand vous regardez ce que vous proposez …

CANDIDAT B: Combien? Combien pour ma famille?

CANDIDAT A: … c'est …

CANDIDAT B: Modérateur, combien?

CANDIDAT A: … comme je l'ai dit, le candidat B-up retombe. Trickle-down n'a pas fonctionné. Cela nous a mis dans le pétrin dans lequel nous étions en 2008 et en 2009. Réduire les impôts des riches n'a pas fonctionné.

Et beaucoup de gens très intelligents et riches le savent. Et ils disent, hé, nous devons faire plus pour apporter les contributions que nous devrions faire pour reconstruire la classe moyenne.

CANDIDAT A: Je ne pense pas que les travaux descendent en Amérique. Je pense que bâtir la classe moyenne, investir dans la classe moyenne, rendre les collèges libres de dettes afin que plus de jeunes puissent recevoir leur éducation, aider les gens à refinancer leur dette à l'université à un taux inférieur. Ce sont les genres de choses qui stimuleront vraiment l'économie. Une croissance large et inclusive est ce dont nous avons besoin en Amérique, pas plus d'avantages pour les personnes au sommet.

MODERATEUR: Candidat B, nous sommes …

CANDIDAT B: Homme politique typique. Tous parlent, pas d'action. Ça sonne bien, ça ne marche pas. Ne va jamais arriver. Notre pays souffre parce que des gens comme mon adversaire ont pris de si mauvaises décisions en ce qui concerne nos emplois et ce qui se passe.

Maintenant, regardez, nous avons la pire reprise d'une économie depuis la Grande Dépression. Et croyez-moi: nous sommes dans une bulle en ce moment. Et la seule chose qui a l'air bien, c'est le marché boursier, mais si vous augmentez les taux d'intérêt, cela va s'effondrer.

Nous sommes dans une grande, grosse, laide bulle. Et nous ferions mieux d'être terriblement prudent. Et nous avons une Fed qui fait des choses politiques. Cette Janet Yellen de la Fed. La Fed fait de la politique – en maintenant les taux d'intérêt à ce niveau. And believe me: The day the President goes off, and he leaves, and goes out to the golf course for the rest of his life to play golf, when they raise interest rates, you're going to see some very bad things happen, because the Fed is not doing their job. The Fed is being more political than my opponent.

MODERATOR: Candidate B, we're talking about the burden that Americans have to pay, yet you have not released your tax returns. And the reason nominees have released their returns for decades is so that voters will know if their potential president owes money to — who he owes it to and any business conflicts. Don't Americans have a right to know if there are any conflicts of interest?

CANDIDATE B: I don't mind releasing — I'm under a routine audit. And it'll be released. And — as soon as the audit's finished, it will be released.

But you will learn more about my finances by going down to the federal elections, where I filed a 104-page essentially financial statement of sorts, the forms that they have. It shows income — in fact, the income — I just looked today — the income is filed at $694 million for this past year, $694 million. If you would have told me I was going to make that 15 or 20 years ago, I would have been very surprised.

But that's the kind of thinking that our country needs. When we have a country that's doing so badly, that's being ripped off by every single country in the world, it's the kind of thinking that our country needs, because everybody — Moderator, we have a trade deficit with all of the countries that we do business with, of almost $800 billion a year. You know what that is? That means, who's negotiating these trade deals?

We have people that are political hacks negotiating our trade deals.

MODERATOR: The IRS says an audit…

CANDIDATE B: Excuse me.

MODERATOR: … of your taxes — you're perfectly free to release your taxes during an audit. And so the question, does the public's right to know outweigh your personal…

CANDIDATE B: Well, I told you, I will release them as soon as the audit. Look, I've been under audit almost for 15 years. I know a lot of wealthy people that have never been audited. I said, do you get audited? I get audited almost every year.

And in a way, I should be complaining. I'm not even complaining. I don't mind it. It's almost become a way of life. I get audited by the IRS. But other people don't.

I will say this. We have a situation in this country that has to be taken care of. I will release my tax returns — against my lawyer's wishes — when she releases her 33,000 e-mails that have been deleted. As soon as she releases them, I will release.

I will release my tax returns. And that's against — my lawyers, they say, “Don't do it.” I will tell you this. No — in fact, watching shows, they're reading the papers. Almost every lawyer says, you don't release your returns until the audit's complete. When the audit's complete, I'll do it. But I would go against them if she releases her e-mails.

MODERATOR: So it's negotiable?

CANDIDATE B: It's not negotiable, no. Let her release the e-mails. Why did she delete 33,000…

MODERATOR: Well, I'll let her answer that. But let me just admonish the audience one more time. There was an agreement. We did ask you to be silent, so it would be helpful for us. Candidate A?

CANDIDATE A: Well, I think you've seen another example of bait-and- switch here. For 40 years, everyone running for president has released their tax returns. You can go and see nearly, I think, 39, 40 years of our tax returns, but everyone has done it. We know the IRS has made clear there is no prohibition on releasing it when you're under audit.

So you've got to ask yourself, why won't he release his tax returns? And I think there may be a couple of reasons. First, maybe Candidate B's not as rich as they says they are. Second, maybe they're not as charitable as they claim to be.

CANDIDATE A: Third, we don't know all of Candidate B's business dealings, but we have been told through investigative reporting that they owe about $650 million to Wall Street and foreign banks. Or maybe they don't want the American people, all of you watching tonight, to know that they've paid nothing in federal taxes, because the only years that anybody's ever seen were a couple of years when they had to turn them over to state authorities when they were trying to get a casino license, and they showed Candidate B didn't pay any federal income tax.

CANDIDATE B: That makes me smart.

CANDIDATE A: So if he's paid zero, that means zero for troops, zero for vets, zero for schools or health. And I think probably they're not all that enthusiastic about having the rest of our country see what the real reasons are, because it must be something really important, even terrible, that they're trying to hide.

And the financial disclosure statements, they don't give you the tax rate. They don't give you all the details that tax returns would. And it just seems to me that this is something that the American people deserve to see. And I have no reason to believe that they're ever going to release their tax returns, because there's something he's hiding.

And we'll guess. We'll keep guessing at what it might be that they're hiding. But I think the question is, were Candidate B ever to get near the White House, what would be those conflicts? Who does Candidate B owe money to? Well, they owe you the answers to that, and they should provide them.

MODERATOR: Candidate B also — they also raised the issue of your e-mails. Do you want to respond to that?

CANDIDATE A: I do. You know, I made a mistake using a private e- mail.

CANDIDATE B: That's for sure.

CANDIDATE A: And if I had to do it over again, I would, obviously, do it differently. But I'm not going to make any excuses. It was a mistake, and I take responsibility for that.

MODERATOR: Candidate B?

CANDIDATE B: That was more than a mistake. That was done purposely. OK? That was not a mistake. That was done purposely. When you have your staff taking the Fifth Amendment, taking the Fifth so they're not prosecuted, when you have the man that set up the illegal server taking the Fifth, I think it's disgraceful. And believe me, this country thinks it's — really thinks it's disgraceful, also.

As far as my tax returns, you don't learn that much from tax returns. That I can tell you. You learn a lot from financial disclosure. And you should go down and take a look at that.

The other thing, I'm extremely underleveraged. The report that said $650 — which, by the way, a lot of friends of mine that know my business say, boy, that's really not a lot of money. It's not a lot of money relative to what I had.

The buildings that were in question, they said in the same report, which was — actually, it wasn't even a bad story, to be honest with you, but the buildings are worth $3.9 billion. And the $650 isn't even on that. But it's not $650. It's much less than that.

But I could give you a list of banks, I would — if that would help you, I would give you a list of banks. These are very fine institutions, very fine banks. I could do that very quickly.

I am very underleveraged. I have a great company. I have a tremendous income. And the reason I say that is not in a braggadocio way. It's because it's about time that this country had somebody running it that has an idea about money.

When we have $20 trillion in debt, and our country's a mess, you know, it's one thing to have $20 trillion in debt and our roads are good and our bridges are good and everything's in great shape, our airports. Our airports are like from a third world country.

You land at LaGuardia, you land at Kennedy, you land at LAX, you land at Newark, and you come in from Dubai and Qatar and you see these incredible — you come in from China, you see these incredible airports, and you land — we've become a third world country.

So the worst of all things has happened. We owe $20 trillion, and we're a mess. We haven't even started. And we've spent $6 trillion in the Middle East, according to a report that I just saw. Whether it's 6 or 5, but it looks like it's 6, $6 trillion in the Middle East, we could have rebuilt our country twice.

And it's really a shame. And it's politicians like my opponent that have caused this problem. Our country has tremendous problems. We're a debtor nation. We're a serious debtor nation. And we have a country that needs new roads, new tunnels, new bridges, new airports, new schools, new hospitals. And we don't have the money, because it's been squandered on so many of my Candidate A's ideas.

MODERATOR: We'll let you respond and we'll move on to the next segment.

CANDIDATE A: And maybe because you haven't paid any federal income tax for a lot of years.

And the other thing I think is important…

CANDIDATE B: It would be squandered, too, believe me.

CANDIDATE A: … is if your — if your main claim to be president of the United States is your business, then I think we should talk about that. You know, your campaign manager said that you built a lot of businesses on the backs of little guys.

And, indeed, I have met a lot of the people who were stiffed by you and your businesses, Candidate A. I've met dishwashers, painters, architects, glass installers, marble installers, drapery installers, like my dad was, who you refused to pay when they finished the work that you asked them to do.

We have an architect in the audience who designed one of your clubhouses at one of your golf courses. It's a beautiful facility. It immediately was put to use. And you wouldn't pay what the man needed to be paid, what he was charging you to do…

CANDIDATE B: Maybe he didn't do a good job and I was unsatisfied with his work…

CANDIDATE A: Well, to…

CANDIDATE B: Which our country should do, too.

CANDIDATE A: Do the thousands of people that you have stiffed over the course of your business not deserve some kind of apology from someone who has taken their labor, taken the goods that they produced, and then refused to pay them?

I can only say that I'm certainly relieved that my late father never did business with you. He provided a good middle-class life for us, but the people he worked for, he expected the bargain to be kept on both sides.

And when we talk about your business, you've taken business bankruptcy six times. There are a lot of great businesspeople that have never taken bankruptcy once. You call yourself the Master of Debt. You talk about leverage. You even at one time suggested that you would try to negotiate down the national debt of the United States.

CANDIDATE B: Wrong. Faux.

CANDIDATE A: Well, sometimes there's not a direct transfer of skills from business to government, but sometimes what happened in business would be really bad for government.

MODERATOR: Let's let Candidate B…

CANDIDATE A: And we need to be very clear about that.

CANDIDATE B: So, yeah, I think — I do think it's time. Look, it's all words, it's all sound bites. I built an unbelievable company. Some of the greatest assets anywhere in the world, real estate assets anywhere in the world, beyond the United States, in Europe, lots of different places. It's an unbelievable company.

But on occasion, four times, we used certain laws that are there. And when my opponent talks about people that didn't get paid, first of all, they did get paid a lot, but taken advantage of the laws of the nation.

Now, if you want to change the laws, you've been there a long time, change the laws. But I take advantage of the laws of the nation because I'm running a company. My obligation right now is to do well for myself, my family, my employees, for my companies. And that's what I do.

But what she doesn't say is that tens of thousands of people that are unbelievably happy and that love me. I'll give you an example. We're just opening up on Pennsylvania Avenue right next to the White House, so if I don't get there one way, I'm going to get to Pennsylvania Avenue another.

But we're opening the Old Post Office. Under budget, ahead of schedule, saved tremendous money. I'm a year ahead of schedule. And that's what this country should be doing.

We build roads and they cost two and three and four times what they're supposed to cost. We buy products for our military and they come in at costs that are so far above what they were supposed to be, because we don't have people that know what they're doing.

When we look at the budget, the budget is bad to a large extent because we have people that have no idea as to what to do and how to buy. The Candidate B International is way under budget and way ahead of schedule. And we should be able to do that for our country.

MODERATOR: Well, we're well behind schedule, so I want to move to our next segment. We move into our next segment talking about America's direction. And let's start by talking about race.

The share of Americans who say race relations are bad in this country is the highest it's been in decades, much of it amplified by shootings of African-Americans by police, as we've seen recently in Charlotte and Tulsa. Race has been a big issue in this campaign, and one of you is going to have to bridge a very wide and bitter gap.

So how do you heal the divide? Candidate A, you get two minutes on this.

CANDIDATE A: Well, you're right. Race remains a significant challenge in our country. Unfortunately, race still determines too much, often determines where people live, determines what kind of education in their public schools they can get, and, yes, it determines how they're treated in the criminal justice system. We've just seen those two tragic examples in both Tulsa and Charlotte.

And we've got to do several things at the same time. We have to restore trust between communities and the police. We have to work to make sure that our police are using the best training, the best techniques, that they're well prepared to use force only when necessary. Everyone should be respected by the law, and everyone should respect the law.

CANDIDATE A: Right now, that's not the case in a lot of our neighborhoods. So I have, ever since the first day of my campaign, called for criminal justice reform. I've laid out a platform that I think would begin to remedy some of the problems we have in the criminal justice system.

But we also have to recognize, in addition to the challenges that we face with policing, there are so many good, brave police officers who equally want reform. So we have to bring communities together in order to begin working on that as a mutual goal. And we've got to get guns out of the hands of people who should not have them.

The gun epidemic is the leading cause of death of young African- American men, more than the next nine causes put together. So we have to do two things, as I said. We have to restore trust. We have to work with the police. We have to make sure they respect the communities and the communities respect them. And we have to tackle the plague of gun violence, which is a big contributor to a lot of the problems that we're seeing today.

MODERATOR: All right, Candidate B, you have two minutes. How do you heal the divide?

CANDIDATE B: Well, first of all, my opponent doesn't want to use a couple of words, and that's law and order. And we need law and order. If we don't have it, we're not going to have a country.

And when I look at what's going on in Charlotte, a city I love, a city where I have investments, when I look at what's going on throughout various parts of our country, whether it's — I mean, I can just keep naming them all day long — we need law and order in our country.

I just got today the, as you know, the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police, we just — just came in. We have endorsements from, I think, almost every police group, very — I mean, a large percentage of them in the United States.

We have a situation where we have our inner cities, African- Americans, Hispanics are living in he'll because it's so dangerous. You walk down the street, you get shot.

In Chicago, they've had thousands of shootings, thousands since January 1st. Thousands of shootings. And I'm saying, where is this? Is this a war-torn country? What are we doing? And we have to stop the violence. We have to bring back law and order. In a place like Chicago, where thousands of people have been killed, thousands over the last number of years, in fact, almost 4,000 have been killed since our President became president, over — almost 4,000 people in Chicago have been killed. We have to bring back law and order.

Now, whether or not in a place like Chicago you do stop and frisk, which worked very well, Mayor Giuliani is here, worked very well in New York. It brought the crime rate way down. But you take the gun away from criminals that shouldn't be having it.

We have gangs roaming the street. And in many cases, they're illegally here, illegal immigrants. And they have guns. And they shoot people. And we have to be very strong. And we have to be very vigilant.

We have to be — we have to know what we're doing. Right now, our police, in many cases, are afraid to do anything. We have to protect our inner cities, because African-American communities are being decimated by crime, decimated.

MODERATOR: Your two — your two minutes expired, but I do want to follow up. Stop-and-frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York, because it largely singled out black and Hispanic young men.

CANDIDATE B: No, you're wrong. It went before a judge, who was a very against-police judge. It was taken away from her. And our mayor, our new mayor, refused to go forward with the case. They would have won an appeal. If you look at it, throughout the country, there are many places where it's allowed.

MODERATOR: The argument is that it's a form of racial profiling.

CANDIDATE B: No, the argument is that we have to take the guns away from these people that have them and they are bad people that shouldn't have them.

These are felons. These are people that are bad people that shouldn't be — when you have 3,000 shootings in Chicago from January 1st, when you have 4,000 people killed in Chicago by guns, from the beginning of the presidency of our President, his hometown, you have to have stop-and-frisk.

You need more police. You need a better community, you know, relation. You don't have good community relations in Chicago. It's terrible. I have property there. It's terrible what's going on in Chicago.

But when you look — and Chicago's not the only — you go to Ferguson, you go to so many different places. You need better relationships. I agree with my opponent on this.

CANDIDATE B: You need better relationships between the communities and the police, because in some cases, it's not good.

But you look at Dallas, where the relationships were really studied, the relationships were really a beautiful thing, and then five police officers were killed one night very violently. So there's some bad things going on. Some really bad things.

MODERATOR: Candidate A…

CANDIDATE B: But we need — Moderator, we need law and order. And we need law and order in the inner cities, because the people that are most affected by what's happening are African-American and Hispanic people. And it's very unfair to them what our politicians are allowing to happen.

MODERATOR: Candidate A?

CANDIDATE A: Well, I've heard — I've heard My opponent say this at their rallies, and it's really unfortunate that they paint such a dire negative picture of black communities in our country.

CANDIDATE B: Ugh.

CANDIDATE A: You know, the vibrancy of the black church, the black businesses that employ so many people, the opportunities that so many families are working to provide for their kids. There's a lot that we should be proud of and we should be supporting and lifting up.

But we do always have to make sure we keep people safe. There are the right ways of doing it, and then there are ways that are ineffective. Stop-and-frisk was found to be unconstitutional and, in part, because it was ineffective. It did not do what it needed to do.

Now, I believe in community policing. And, in fact, violent crime is one-half of what it was in 1991. Property crime is down 40 percent. We just don't want to see it creep back up. We've had 25 years of very good cooperation.

But there were some problems, some unintended consequences. Too many young African-American and Latino men ended up in jail for nonviolent offenses. And it's just a fact that if you're a young African-American man and you do the same thing as a young white man, you are more likely to be arrested, charged, convicted, and incarcerated. So we've got to address the systemic racism in our criminal justice system. We cannot just say law and order. We have to say — we have to come forward with a plan that is going to divert people from the criminal justice system, deal with mandatory minimum sentences, which have put too many people away for too long for doing too little.

We need to have more second chance programs. I'm glad that we're ending private prisons in the federal system; I want to see them ended in the state system. You shouldn't have a profit motivation to fill prison cells with young Americans. So there are some positive ways we can work on this.

And I believe strongly that common sense gun safety measures would assist us. Right now — and this is something my opponent has supported, along with the gun lobby — right now, we've got too many military- style weapons on the streets. In a lot of places, our police are outgunned. We need comprehensive background checks, and we need to keep guns out of the hands of those who will do harm.

And we finally need to pass a prohibition on anyone who's on the terrorist watch list from being able to buy a gun in our country. If you're too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a gun. So there are things we can do, and we ought to do it in a bipartisan way.

MODERATOR: Candidate A, last week, you said we've got to do everything possible to improve policing, to go right at implicit bias. Do you believe that police are implicitly biased against black people?

CANDIDATE A: Moderator, I think implicit bias is a problem for everyone, not just police. I think, unfortunately, too many of us in our great country jump to conclusions about each other. And therefore, I think we need all of us to be asking hard questions about, you know, why am I feeling this way?

But when it comes to policing, since it can have literally fatal consequences, I have said, in my first budget, we would put money into that budget to help us deal with implicit bias by retraining a lot of our police officers.

I've met with a group of very distinguished, experienced police chiefs a few weeks ago. They admit it's an issue. They've got a lot of concerns. Mental health is one of the biggest concerns, because now police are having to handle a lot of really difficult mental health problems on the street.

CANDIDATE A: They want support, they want more training, they want more assistance. And I think the federal government could be in a position where we would offer and provide that.

MODERATOR: Candidate B…

CANDIDATE B: I'd like to respond to that.

MODERATOR: Please.

CANDIDATE B: First of all, I agree, and a lot of people even within my own party want to give certain rights to people on watch lists and no- fly lists. Je suis d'accord avec toi. When a person is on a watch list or a no-fly list, and I have the endorsement of the NRA, which I'm very proud of. These are very, very good people, and they're protecting the Second Amendment.

But I think we have to look very strongly at no-fly lists and watch lists. And when people are on them, even if they shouldn't be on them, we'll help them, we'll help them legally, we'll help them get off. But I tend to agree with that quite strongly.

I do want to bring up the fact that my opponent was the one that brought up the words super-predator about young black youth. And that's a term that I think was a — it's — it's been horribly met, as you know. I think you've apologized for it. But I think it was a terrible thing to say.

And when it comes to stop-and-frisk, you know, you're talking about takes guns away. Well, I'm talking about taking guns away from gangs and people that use them. And I don't think — I really don't think you disagree with me on this, if you want to know the truth.

I think maybe there's a political reason why you can't say it, but I really don't believe — in New York City, stop-and-frisk, we had 2,200 murders, and stop-and-frisk brought it down to 500 murders. Five hundred murders is a lot of murders. It's hard to believe, 500 is like supposed to be good?

But we went from 2,200 to 500. And it was continued on by Mayor Bloomberg. And it was terminated by current mayor. But stop-and- frisk had a tremendous impact on the safety of New York City. Tremendous beyond belief. So when you say it has no impact, it really did. It had a very, very big impact.

CANDIDATE A: Well, it's also fair to say, if we're going to talk about mayors, that under the current mayor, crime has continued to drop, including murders. So there is…

CANDIDATE B: No, you're wrong. You're wrong.

CANDIDATE A: No, I'm not.

CANDIDATE B: Murders are up. D'accord. You check it.

CANDIDATE A: New York — New York has done an excellent job. And I give credit — I give credit across the board going back two mayors, two police chiefs, because it has worked. And other communities need to come together to do what will work, as well.

Look, one murder is too many. But it is important that we learn about what has been effective. And not go to things that sound good that really did not have the kind of impact that we would want. Who disagrees with keeping neighborhoods safe?

But let's also add, no one should disagree about respecting the rights of young men who live in those neighborhoods. And so we need to do a better job of working, again, with the communities, faith communities, business communities, as well as the police to try to deal with this problem.

MODERATOR: This conversation is about race. And so, Candidate B, I have to ask you for five…

CANDIDATE B: I'd like to just respond, if I might.

MODERATOR: Please — 20 seconds.

CANDIDATE B: I'd just like to respond.

MODERATOR: Please respond, then I've got a quick follow-up for you.

CANDIDATE B: I will. Look, the African-American community has been let down by our politicians. They talk good around election time, like right now, and after the election, they said, “See ya later, I'll see you in four years.”

The African-American community — because — look, the community within the inner cities has been so badly treated. They've been abused and used in order to get votes by Democrat politicians, because that's what it is. They've controlled these communities for up to 100 years.

MODERATOR: Candidate B, let me…

CANDIDATE A: Well, I — I do think…

CANDIDATE B: And I will tell you, you look at the inner cities — and I just left Detroit, and I just left Philadelphia, and I just — you know, you've seen me, I've been all over the place. You decided to stay home, and that's OK. But I will tell you, I've been all over. And I've met some of the greatest people I'll ever met within these communities. And they are very, very upset with what their politicians have told them and what their politicians have done.

MODERATOR: Candidate B, I…

CANDIDATE A: I think — I think — I think My opponent just criticized me for preparing for this debate. And, yes, I did. And you know what else I prepared for? I prepared to be president. And I think that's a good thing.

MODERATOR: Candidate B, for five years, you perpetuated a false claim that the nation's first black president was not a natural-born citizen. You questioned his legitimacy. In the last couple of weeks, you acknowledged what most Americans have accepted for years: The president was born in the United States. Can you tell us what took you so long?

CANDIDATE B: I'll tell you very — well, just very simple to say. Sidney Blumenthal works for the campaign and close — very close friend of my opponent. And her campaign manager, Patti Doyle, went to — during the campaign, her campaign against the President, fought very hard. And you can go look it up, and you can check it out.

CANDIDATE B: And if you look at CNN this past week, Patti Solis Doyle was on Wolf Blitzer saying that this happened. Blumenthal sent McClatchy, highly respected reporter at McClatchy, to Kenya to find out about it. They were pressing it very hard. She failed to get the birth certificate.

When I got involved, I didn't fail. I got him to give the birth certificate. So I'm satisfied with it. And I'll tell you why I'm satisfied with it.

MODERATOR: That was…

CANDIDATE B: Because I want to get on to defeating ISIS, because I want to get on to creating jobs, because I want to get on to having a strong border, because I want to get on to things that are very important to me and that are very important to the country.

MODERATOR: I will let you respond. It's important. But I just want to get the answer here. The birth certificate was produced in 2011. You've continued to tell the story and question the president's legitimacy in 2012, '13, '14, '15…

CANDIDATE B: Yeah.

MODERATOR: …. as recently as January. So the question is, what changed your mind?

CANDIDATE B: Well, nobody was pressing it, nobody was caring much about it. I figured you'd ask the question tonight, of course. But nobody was caring much about it. But I was the one that got him to produce the birth certificate. And I think I did a good job.

My opponent also fought it. I mean, you know — now, everybody in mainstream is going to say, oh, that's not true. Look, it's true. Sidney Blumenthal sent a reporter — you just have to take a look at CNN, the last week, the interview with your former campaign manager. And she was involved. But just like my opponent can't bring back jobs, my opponent can't produce.

MODERATOR: I'm sorry. I'm just going to follow up — and I will let you respond to that, because there's a lot there. But we're talking about racial healing in this segment. What do you say to Americans, people of color, who…

CANDIDATE B: Well, it was very — I say nothing. I say nothing, because I was able to get him to produce it. He should have produced it a long time before. I say nothing.

But let me just tell you. When you talk about healing, I think that I've developed very, very good relationships over the last little while with the African-American community. I think you can see that.

And I feel that they really wanted me to come to that conclusion. And I think I did a great job and a great service not only for the country, but even for the president, in getting him to produce his birth certificate.

MODERATOR: Candidate A?

CANDIDATE A: Well, just listen to what you heard.

And clearly, as Candidate B just admitted, they knew they were going to stand on this debate stage, and our Moderator was going to be asking us questions, so they tried to put the whole racist birther lie to bed.

But it can't be dismissed that easily. They have really started their political activity based on this racist lie that our first black president was not an American citizen. There was absolutely no evidence for it, but Candidate B persisted, they persisted year after year, because some of their supporters, people that they were was trying to bring into their fold, apparently believed it or wanted to believe it.

But, remember, My opponent started their career back in 1973 being sued by the Justice Department for racial discrimination because they would not rent apartments in one of their developments to African-Americans, and they made sure that the people who worked for them understood that was the policy. Candidate B actually was sued twice by the Justice Department.

So they have a long record of engaging in racist behavior. And the birther lie was a very hurtful one. You know, the President is a man of great dignity. And I could tell how much it bothered him and annoyed him that this was being touted and used against him.

But I like to remember what the President's wife said in her amazing speech at our Democratic National Convention: When they go low, we go high. And the President went high, despite My opponent's best efforts to bring the President down.

MODERATOR: Candidate B, you can respond and we're going to move on to the next segment.

CANDIDATE B: I would love to respond. First of all, I got to watch in preparing for this some of your debates against the President. You treated him with terrible disrespect. And I watched the way you talk now about how lovely everything is and how wonderful you are. It doesn't work that way. You were after him, you were trying to — you even sent out or your campaign sent out pictures of him in a certain garb, very famous pictures. I don't think you can deny that.

But just last week, your campaign manager said it was true. So when you tried to act holier than thou, it really doesn't work. It really doesn't.

Now, as far as the lawsuit, yes, when I was very young, I went into my father's company, had a real estate company in Brooklyn and Queens, and we, along with many, many other companies throughout the country — it was a federal lawsuit — were sued. We settled the suit with zero — with no admission of guilt. It was very easy to do.

CANDIDATE B: I notice you bring that up a lot. And, you know, I also notice the very nasty commercials that you do on me in so many different ways, which I don't do on you. Maybe I'm trying to save the money.

But, frankly, I look — I look at that, and I say, isn't that amazing? Because I settled that lawsuit with no admission of guilt, but that was a lawsuit brought against many real estate firms, and it's just one of those things.

I'll go one step further. In Palm Beach, Florida, tough community, a brilliant community, a wealthy community, probably the wealthiest community there is in the world, I opened a club, and really got great credit for it. No discrimination against African- Americans, against Muslims, against anybody. And it's a tremendously successful club. And I'm so glad I did it. And I have been given great credit for what I did. And I'm very, very proud of it. And that's the way I feel. That is the true way I feel.

MODERATOR: Our next segment is called “Securing America.” We want to start with a 21st century war happening every day in this country. Our institutions are under cyber attack, and our secrets are being stolen. So my question is, who's behind it? And how do we fight it?

Candidate A, this answer goes to you.

CANDIDATE A: Well, I think cyber security, cyber warfare will be one of the biggest challenges facing the next president, because clearly we're facing at this point two different kinds of adversaries. There are the independent hacking groups that do it mostly for commercial reasons to try to steal information that they can use to make money.

But increasingly, we are seeing cyber attacks coming from states, organs of states. The most recent and troubling of these has been Russia. There's no doubt now that Russia has used cyber attacks against all kinds of organizations in our country, and I am deeply concerned about this. I know my opponent is very praiseworthy of Vladimir Putin, but Putin is playing a really…

CANDIDATE A: … tough, long game here. And one of the things he's done is to let loose cyber attackers to hack into government files, to hack into personal files, hack into the Democratic National Committee. And we recently have learned that, you know, that this is one of their preferred methods of trying to wreak havoc and collect information. We need to make it very clear — whether it's Russia, China, Iran or anybody else — the United States has much greater capacity. And we are not going to sit idly by and permit state actors to go after our information, our private-sector information or our public-sector information.

And we're going to have to make it clear that we don't want to use the kinds of tools that we have. We don't want to engage in a different kind of warfare. But we will defend the citizens of this country.

And the Russians need to understand that. I think they've been treating it as almost a probing, how far would we go, how much would we do. And that's why I was so — I was so shocked when my opponent publicly invited Putin to hack into Americans. That is just unacceptable. It's one of the reasons why 50 national security officials who served in Republican information — in administrations…

MODERATOR: Your two minutes have expired.

CANDIDATE A: … have said that my opponent is unfit to be the commander- in-chief. It's comments like that that really worry people who understand the threats that we face.

MODERATOR: Candidate B, you have two minutes and the same question. Who's behind it? And how do we fight it?

CANDIDATE B: I do want to say that I was just endorsed — and more are coming next week — it will be over 200 admirals, many of them here — admirals and generals endorsed me to lead this country. That just happened, and many more are coming. And I'm very proud of it.

In addition, I was just endorsed by ICE. They've never endorsed anybody before on immigration. I was just endorsed by ICE. I was just recently endorsed — 16,500 Border Patrol agents.

So when my opponent talks about this, I mean, I'll take the admirals and I'll take the generals any day over the political hacks that I see that have led our country so brilliantly over the last 10 years with their knowledge. OK? Because look at the mess that we're in. Look at the mess that we're in.

As far as the cyber, I agree to parts of what my opponent said. We should be better than anybody else, and perhaps we're not. I don't think anybody knows it was Russia that broke into the DNC. My opponent's saying Russia, Russia, Russia, but I don't — maybe it was. I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, OK?

CANDIDATE B: You don't know who broke in to DNC.

But what did we learn with DNC? We learned that the other candidate from your party was taken advantage of by your people, by one in particular. Look what happened to her. But your fellow candidate was taken advantage of. That's what we learned.

Now, whether that was Russia, whether that was China, whether it was another country, we don't know, because the truth is, under our President we've lost control of things that we used to have control over.

We came in with the Internet, we came up with the Internet, and I think my opponent and myself would agree very much, when you look at what ISIS is doing with the Internet, they're beating us at our own game. ISIS.

So we have to get very, very tough on cyber and cyber warfare. It is — it is a huge problem. I have a son. He's 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers, it's unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe it's hardly doable.

But I will say, we are not doing the job we should be doing. But that's true throughout our whole governmental society. We have so many things that we have to do better, Moderator, and certainly cyber is one of them.

MODERATOR: Candidate A?

CANDIDATE A: Well, I think there are a number of issues that we should be addressing. I have put forth a plan to defeat ISIS. It does involve going after them online. I think we need to do much more with our tech companies to prevent ISIS and their operatives from being able to use the Internet to radicalize, even direct people in our country and Europe and elsewhere.

But we also have to intensify our air strikes against ISIS and eventually support our Arab and Kurdish partners to be able to actually take out ISIS in Raqqa, end their claim of being a Caliphate.

Nous faisons des progrès. Our military is assisting in Iraq. And we're hoping that within the year we'll be able to push ISIS out of Iraq and then, you know, really squeeze them in Syria.

But we have to be cognizant of the fact that they've had foreign fighters coming to volunteer for them, foreign money, foreign weapons, so we have to make this the top priority.

And I would also do everything possible to take out their leadership. I was involved in a number of efforts to take out Al Qaida leadership when I was in my former position, including, of course, taking out bin Laden. And I think we need to go after Baghdadi, as well, make that one of our organizing principles. Because we've got to defeat ISIS, and we've got to do everything we can to disrupt their propaganda efforts online.

MODERATOR: You mention ISIS, and we think of ISIS certainly as over there, but there are American citizens who have been inspired to commit acts of terror on American soil, the latest incident, of course, the bombings we just saw in New York and New Jersey, the knife attack at a mall in Minnesota, in the last year, deadly attacks in San Bernardino and Orlando. I'll ask this to both of you. Tell us specifically how you would prevent homegrown attacks by American citizens, Candidate B?

CANDIDATE B: Well, first I have to say one thing, very important. My opponent is talking about taking out ISIS. “We will take out ISIS.” Well, our President and my opponent created a vacuum the way they got out of Iraq, because they got out — what, they shouldn't have been in, but once they got in, the way they got out was a disaster. And ISIS was formed.

So my opponent talks about taking them out. They've been doing it a long time. They've been trying to take them out for a long time. But they wouldn't have even been formed if they left some troops behind, like 10,000 or maybe something more than that. And then you wouldn't have had them.

Or, as I've been saying for a long time, and I think you'll agree, because I said it to you once, had we taken the oil — and we should have taken the oil — ISIS would not have been able to form either, because the oil was their primary source of income. And now they have the oil all over the place, including the oil — a lot of the oil in Libya, which was another one of my opponent's disasters.

MODERATOR: Candidate A?

CANDIDATE A: Well, I hope the fact-checkers are turning up the volume and really working hard. My opponent supported the invasion of Iraq.

CANDIDATE B: Wrong.

CANDIDATE A: That is absolutely proved over and over again.

CANDIDATE B: Wrong. Faux.

CANDIDATE A: My opponent actually advocated for the actions we took in Libya and urged that Gadhafi be taken out, after actually doing some business with him one time.

CANDIDATE A: But the larger point — and my opponent says this constantly — is George W. Bush made the agreement about when American troops would leave Iraq, not our current President.

And the only way that American troops could have stayed in Iraq is to get an agreement from the then-Iraqi government that would have protected our troops, and the Iraqi government would not give that.

But let's talk about the question you asked, Moderator. The question you asked is, what do we do here in the United States? That's the most important part of this. How do we prevent attacks? How do we protect our people?

And I think we've got to have an intelligence surge, where we are looking for every scrap of information. I was so proud of law enforcement in New York, in Minnesota, in New Jersey. You know, they responded so quickly, so professionally to the attacks that occurred by Rahami. And they brought him down. And we may find out more information because he is still alive, which may prove to be an intelligence benefit.

So we've got to do everything we can to vacuum up intelligence from Europe, from the Middle East. That means we've got to work more closely with our allies, and that's something that My opponent has been very dismissive of.

We're working with NATO, the longest military alliance in the history of the world, to really turn our attention to terrorism. We're working with our friends in the Middle East, many of which, as you know, are Muslim majority nations. My opponent has consistently insulted Muslims abroad, Muslims at home, when we need to be cooperating with Muslim nations and with the American Muslim community.

They're on the front lines. They can provide information to us that we might not get anywhere else. They need to have close working cooperation with law enforcement in these communities, not be alienated and pushed away as some of my opponent's rhetoric, unfortunately, has led to.

MODERATOR: Candidate B…

CANDIDATE B: Well, I have to respond.

MODERATOR: Please respond.

CANDIDATE B: My opponent said very strongly about working with — we've been working with them for many years, and we have the greatest mess anyone's ever seen. You look at the Middle East, it's a total mess. Under your direction, to a large extent.

But you look at the Middle East, you started the Iran deal, that's another beauty where you have a country that was ready to fall, I mean, they were doing so badly. They were choking on the sanctions. And now they're going to be actually probably a major power at some point pretty soon, the way they're going.

But when you look at NATO, I was asked on a major show, what do you think of NATO? And you have to understand, I'm a businessperson. I did really well. But I have common sense. And I said, well, I'll tell you. I haven't given lots of thought to NATO. But two things.

Number one, the 28 countries of NATO, many of them aren't paying their fair share. Number two — and that bothers me, because we should be asking — we're defending them, and they should at least be paying us what they're supposed to be paying by treaty and contract.

And, number two, I said, and very strongly, NATO could be obsolete, because — and I was very strong on this, and it was actually covered very accurately in the New York Times, which is unusual for the New York Times, to be honest — but I said, they do not focus on terror. And I was very strong. And I said it numerous times.

And about four months ago, I read on the front page of the Wall Street Journal that NATO is opening up a major terror division. And I think that's great. And I think we should get — because we pay approximately 73 percent of the cost of NATO. It's a lot of money to protect other people. But I'm all for NATO. But I said they have to focus on terror, also.

And they're going to do that. And that was — believe me — I'm sure I'm not going to get credit for it — but that was largely because of what I was saying and my criticism of NATO.

I think we have to get NATO to go into the Middle East with us, in addition to surrounding nations, and we have to knock the hell out of ISIS, and we have to do it fast, when ISIS formed in this vacuum created by the President and my opponent. And believe me, you were the ones that took out the troops. Not only that, you named the day. They couldn't believe it. They sat back probably and said, I can't believe it. They said…

CANDIDATE A: Moderator, we've covered…

CANDIDATE B: No, wait a minute.

CANDIDATE A: We've covered this ground.

CANDIDATE B: When they formed, when they formed, this is something that never should have happened. It should have never happened. Now, you're talking about taking out ISIS. But you were there, and you were there in your last job when it was a little infant. Now it's in over 30 countries. And you're going to stop them? Je ne pense pas.

MODERATOR: Candidate B, a lot of these are judgment questions. You had supported the war in Iraq before the invasion. What makes your…

CANDIDATE B: I did not support the war in Iraq.

MODERATOR: In 2002…

CANDIDATE B: That is a mainstream media nonsense put out by my opponent, because they — frankly, I think the best person in their campaign is mainstream media.

MODERATOR: My question is, since you supported it…

CANDIDATE B: Just — would you like to hear…

MODERATOR: … why is your — why is your judgment…

CANDIDATE B: Wait a minute. I was against the war in Iraq. Just so you put it out.

MODERATOR: The record shows otherwise, but why — why was…

CANDIDATE B: The record does not show that.

MODERATOR: Why was — is your judgment any…

CANDIDATE B: The record shows that I'm right. When I did an interview with Howard Stern, very lightly, first time anyone's asked me that, I said, very lightly, “I don't know, maybe, who knows?” Essentially. I then did an interview with Neil Cavuto. We talked about the economy is more important. I then spoke to Sean Hannity, which everybody refuses to call Sean Hannity. I had numerous conversations with Sean Hannity at Fox. And Sean Hannity said — and he called me the other day — and I spoke to him about it — he said you were totally against the war, because he was for the war.

MODERATOR: Why is your judgment better than…

CANDIDATE B: And when he — excuse me. And that was before the war started. Sean Hannity said very strongly to me and other people — he's willing to say it, but nobody wants to call him. I was against the war. He said, you used to have fights with me, because Sean was in favor of the war.

And I understand that side, also, not very much, because we should have never been there. But nobody called Sean Hannity. And then they did an article in a major magazine, shortly after the war started. I think in '04. But they did an article which had me totally against the war in Iraq.

And one of your compatriots said, you know, whether it was before or right after, Candidate B was definitely — because if you read this article, there's no doubt. But if somebody — and I'll ask the press — if somebody would call up Sean Hannity, this was before the war started. He and I used to have arguments about the war. I said, it's a terrible and a stupid thing. It's going to destabilize the Middle East. And that's exactly what it's done. It's been a disaster.

MODERATOR: My reference was to what you had said in 2002, and my question was…

CANDIDATE B: No, no. You didn't hear what I said.

MODERATOR: Why is your judgment — why is your judgment any different than Candidate A's judgment?

CANDIDATE B: Well, I have much better judgment than my opponent has. There's no question about that. I also have a much better temperament than Candidate A has, you know?

I have a much better – my opponent spent — let me tell you – Candidate A spent hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising — you know, they get Madison Avenue into a room, they put names — oh, temperament, let's go after — I think my strongest asset, maybe by far, is my temperament. I have a winning temperament. I know how to win. My opponent does not have a…

MODERATOR: Candidate A?

CANDIDATE B: Wait. The AFL-CIO the other day, behind the blue screen, I don't know who you were talking to, my opponent, but you were totally out of control. I said, there's a person with a temperament that's got a problem.

MODERATOR: Candidate A?

CANDIDATE A: Whew, OK.

Let's talk about two important issues that were briefly mentioned by Candidate B, first, NATO. You know, NATO as a military alliance has something called Article 5, and basically it says this: An attack on one is an attack on all. And you know the only time it's ever been invoked? After 9/11, when the 28 nations of NATO said that they would go to Afghanistan with us to fight terrorism, something that they still are doing by our side.

With respect to Iran, when I started my last position, Iran was weeks away from having enough nuclear material to form a bomb. They had mastered the nuclear fuel cycle under the Bush administration. They had built covert facilities. They had stocked them with centrifuges that were whirling away.

And we had sanctioned them. I voted for every sanction against Iran when I was in my prior position, but it wasn't enough. So I spent a year-and-a-half putting together a coalition that included Russia and China to impose the toughest sanctions on Iran.

And we did drive them to the negotiating table. And my successor, and the President got a deal that put a lid on Iran's nuclear program without firing a single shot. That's diplomacy. That's coalition-building. That's working with other nations.

The other day, I saw My opponent saying that there were some Iranian sailors on a ship in the waters off of Iran, and they were taunting American sailors who were on a nearby ship. My opponent said, you know, if they taunted our sailors, I'd blow them out of the water and start another war. That's not good judgment.

CANDIDATE B: That would not start a war.

CANDIDATE A: That is not the right temperament to be commander-in- chief, to be taunted. And the worst part…

CANDIDATE B: No, they were taunting us.

CANDIDATE A: … of what we heard my opponent say has been about nuclear weapons. My opponent has said repeatedly that they didn't care if other nations got nuclear weapons, Japan, South Korea, even Saudi Arabia. It has been the policy of the United States, Democrats and Republicans, to do everything we could to reduce the proliferation of nuclear weapons. They even said, well, you know, if there were nuclear war in East Asia, well, you know, that's fine…

CANDIDATE B: Wrong.

CANDIDATE A: … have a good time, folks.

CANDIDATE B: It's lies.

CANDIDATE A: And, in fact, my opponent's cavalier attitude about nuclear weapons is so deeply troubling. That is the number-one threat we face in the world. And it becomes particularly threatening if terrorists ever get their hands on any nuclear material. So a person who can be provoked by a tweet should not have their fingers anywhere near the nuclear codes, as far as I think anyone with any sense about this should be concerned.

CANDIDATE B: That line's getting a little bit old, I must say. I would like to…

CANDIDATE A: It's a good one, though. It well describes the problem.

CANDIDATE B: It's not an accurate one at all. It's not an accurate one. So I just want to give a lot of things — and just to respond. I agree with my opponent on one thing. The single greatest problem the world has is nuclear armament, nuclear weapons, not global warming, like you think and your — your president thinks.

Nuclear is the single greatest threat. Just to go down the list, we defend Japan, we defend Germany, we defend South Korea, we defend Saudi Arabia, we defend countries. They do not pay us. But they should be paying us, because we are providing tremendous service and we're losing a fortune. That's why we're losing — we're losing — we lose on everything. I say, who makes these — we lose on everything. All I said, that it's very possible that if they don't pay a fair share, because this isn't 40 years ago where we could do what we're doing. We can't defend Japan, a behemoth, selling us cars by the million…

MODERATOR: We need to move on.

CANDIDATE B: Well, wait, but it's very important. All I said was, they may have to defend themselves or they have to help us out. We're a country that owes $20 trillion. They have to help us out.

MODERATOR: Our last…

CANDIDATE B: As far as the nuclear is concerned, I agree. It is the single greatest threat that this country has.

MODERATOR: Which leads to my next question, as we enter our last segment here (inaudible) the subject of securing America. On nuclear weapons, the President reportedly considered changing the nation's longstanding policy on first use. Do you support the current policy? Candidate B, you have two minutes on that.

CANDIDATE B: Well, I have to say that, you know, for what Candidate A was saying about nuclear with Russia, my opponent's very cavalier in the way they talk about various countries. But Russia has been expanding their — they have a much newer capability than we do. We have not been updating from the new standpoint.

I looked the other night. I was seeing B-52s, they're old enough that your father, your grandfather could be flying them. We are not — we are not keeping up with other countries. I would like everybody to end it, just get rid of it. But I would certainly not do first strike.

I think that once the nuclear alternative happens, it's over. At the same time, we have to be prepared. I can't take anything off the table. Because you look at some of these countries, you look at North Korea, we're doing nothing there. China should solve that problem for us. China should go into North Korea. China is totally powerful as it relates to North Korea.

And by the way, another one powerful is the worst deal I think I've ever seen negotiated that you started is the Iran deal. Iran is one of their biggest trading partners. Iran has power over North Korea.

And when they made that horrible deal with Iran, they should have included the fact that they do something with respect to North Korea. And they should have done something with respect to Yemen and all these other places.

And when asked to the Secretary of State, why didn't you do that? Why didn't you add other things into the deal? One of the great giveaways of all time, of all time, including $400 million in cash. Nobody's ever seen that before. That turned out to be wrong. It was actually $1.7 billion in cash, obviously, I guess for the hostages. It certainly looks that way.

So you say to yourself, why didn't they make the right deal? This is one of the worst deals ever made by any country in history. The deal with Iran will lead to nuclear problems. All they have to do is sit back 10 years, and they don't have to do much.

MODERATOR: Your two minutes is expired.

CANDIDATE B: And they're going to end up getting nuclear. I met with the Israeli Prime Minister the other day. Believe me, he's not a happy camper.

MODERATOR: All right. Candidate A, Candidate B, you have two minutes.

CANDIDATE A: Well, let me — let me start by saying, words matter. Words matter when you run for president. And they really matter when you are president. And I want to reassure our allies in Japan and South Korea and elsewhere that we have mutual defense treaties and we will honor them.

It is essential that America's word be good. And so I know that this campaign has caused some questioning and worries on the part of many leaders across the globe. I've talked with a number of them. But I want to — on behalf of myself, and I think on behalf of a majority of the American people, say that, you know, our word is good.

It's also important that we look at the entire global situation. There's no doubt that we have other problems with Iran. But personally, I'd rather deal with the other problems having put that lid on their nuclear program than still to be facing that.

And my opponent never tells you what they would do. Would they have started a war? Would they have bombed Iran? If they're going to criticize a deal that has been very successful in giving us access to Iranian facilities that we never had before, then they should tell us what his alternative would be. But it's like their plan to defeat ISIS. They says it's a secret plan, but the only secret is that they have no plan.

So we need to be more precise in how we talk about these issues. People around the word follow our presidential campaigns so closely, trying to get hints about what we will do. Can they rely on us? Are we going to lead the world with strength and in accordance with our values? That's what I intend to do. I intend to be a leader of our country that people can count on, both here at home and around the world, to make decisions that will further peace and prosperity, but also stand up to bullies, whether they're abroad or at home.

We cannot let those who would try to destabilize the world to interfere with American interests and security…

MODERATOR: Your two minutes is…

CANDIDATE A: … to be given any opportunities at all.

MODERATOR: … is expired.

CANDIDATE B: Moderator, one thing I'd like to say.

MODERATOR: Very quickly. Twenty seconds.

CANDIDATE B: I will go very quickly. But I will tell you that my opponent will tell you to go to their website and read all about how to defeat ISIS, which they could have defeated by never having it, you know, get going in the first place. Right now, it's getting tougher and tougher to defeat them, because they're in more and more places, more and more states, more and more nations.

MODERATOR: Candidate B…

CANDIDATE B: And it's a big problem. And as far as Japan is concerned, I want to help all of our allies, but we are losing billions and billions of dollars. We cannot be the policemen of the world. We cannot protect countries all over the world…

MODERATOR: We have just…

CANDIDATE B: … where they're not paying us what we need.

MODERATOR: We have just a few final questions…

CANDIDATE B: And my opponent doesn't say that, because they've got no business ability. We need heart. We need a lot of things. But you have to have some basic ability. And sadly, Candidate A doesn't have that. All of the things that they're talking about could have been taken care of during the last 10 years, let's say, while they had great power. But they weren't taken care of. And if Candidate A ever wins this race, they won't be taken care of.

MODERATOR: Candidate B, this year Candidate A became the first non male nominated for president by a major party. Earlier this month, you said Candidate A doesn't have, quote, “a presidential look.” Candidate A's standing here right now. What did you mean by that?

CANDIDATE B: My opponent doesn't have the look. Candidate A doesn't have the stamina. I said they they don't have the stamina. And I don't believe they do have the stamina. To be president of this country, you need tremendous stamina.

MODERATOR: The quote was, “I just don't think Candidate A has the presidential look.”

CANDIDATE B: You have — wait a minute. Wait a minute, Moderator. You asked me a question. Did you ask me a question?

You have to be able to negotiate our trade deals. You have to be able to negotiate, that's right, with Japan, with Saudi Arabia. I mean, can you imagine, we're defending Saudi Arabia? And with all of the money they have, we're defending them, and they're not paying? All you have to do is speak to them. Attendez. You have so many different things you have to be able to do, and I don't believe that my opponent has the stamina.

MODERATOR: Let's let Candidate A respond.

CANDIDATE A: Well, as soon as my opponent travels to 112 countries and negotiates a peace deal, a cease-fire, a release of dissidents, an opening of new opportunities in nations around the world, or even spends 11 hours testifying in front of a congressional committee, Candidate A can talk to me about stamina.

CANDIDATE B: The world — let me tell you. Let me tell you. Candidate A has experience, but it's bad experience. We have made so many bad deals during the last — so my opponent's got experience, that I agree.

But it's bad, bad experience. Whether it's the Iran deal that you're so in love with, where we gave them $150 billion back, whether it's the Iran deal, whether it's anything you can — name — you almost can't name a good deal. Je suis d'accord. My opponent's got experience, but it's bad experience. And this country can't afford to have another four years of that kind of experience.

MODERATOR: We are at — we are at the final question.

CANDIDATE A: Well, one thing. One thing, Moderator.

MODERATOR: Very quickly, because we're at the final question now.

CANDIDATE A: You know, Candidate B tried to switch from looks to stamina. But this is a person who has called women pigs, slobs and dogs, and someone who has said pregnancy is an inconvenience to employers, who has said…

CANDIDATE B: I never said that.

CANDIDATE A: …. women don't deserve equal pay unless they do as good a job as men.

CANDIDATE B: I didn't say that.

CANDIDATE A: And one of the worst things my opponent said was about a woman in a beauty contest. He loves beauty contests, supporting them and hanging around them. And Candidate B called this woman “Miss Piggy.” Then my opponent called her “Miss Housekeeping,” because she was Latina. Candiate B, she has a name.

CANDIDATE B: Where did you find this? Où as tu trouvé ça?

CANDIDATE A: Her name is Alicia Machado.

CANDIDATE B: Where did you find this?

CANDIDATE A: And she has become a US citizen, and you can bet…

CANDIDATE B: Oh, really?

CANDIDATE A: … she's going to vote this November.

CANDIDATE B: OK, good. Let me just tell you…

MODERATOR: Candidate B, could we just take 10 seconds and then we ask the final question…

CANDIDATE B: You know, my opponent is hitting me with tremendous commercials. Some of it's said in entertainment. Some of it's said — somebody who's been very vicious to me, Rosie O'Donnell, I said very tough things to her, and I think everybody would agree that she deserves it and nobody feels sorry for her.

But you want to know the truth? I was going to say something…

MODERATOR: Please very quickly.

CANDIDATE B: … extremely rough to my opponent, to my opponent's family, and I said to myself, “I can't do it. I just can't do it. It's inappropriate. It's not nice.” But my opponent spent hundreds of millions of dollars on negative ads on me, many of which are absolutely untrue. They're untrue. And they're misrepresentations.

And I will tell you this, Moderator: It's not nice. And I don't deserve that.

But it's certainly not a nice thing that Candidate A's done. It's hundreds of millions of ads. And the only gratifying thing is, I saw the polls come in today, and with all of that money…

MODERATOR: We have to move on to the final question.

CANDIDATE B: … $200 million is spent, and I'm either winning or tied, and I've spent practically nothing.

MODERATOR: One of you will not win this election. So my final question to you tonight, are you willing to accept the outcome as the will of the voters? My opponent?

CANDIDATE A: Well, I support our democracy. And sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. But I certainly will support the outcome of this election.

And I know my opponent's trying very hard to plant doubts about it, but I hope the people out there understand: This election's really up to you. It's not about us so much as it is about you and your families and the kind of country and future you want. So I sure hope you will get out and vote as though your future depended on it, because I think it does.

MODERATOR: Candidate B, very quickly, same question. Will you accept the outcome as the will of the voters?

CANDIDATE B: I want to make America great again. We are a nation that is seriously troubled. We're losing our jobs. People are pouring into our country.

The other day, we were deporting 800 people. And perhaps they passed the wrong button, they pressed the wrong button, or perhaps worse than that, it was corruption, but these people that we were going to deport for good reason ended up becoming citizens. Ended up becoming citizens. And it was 800. And now it turns out it might be 1,800, and they don't even know.

MODERATOR: Will you accept the outcome of the election?

CANDIDATE B: Look, here's the story. I want to make America great again. I'm going to be able to do it. I don't believe my opponent will. The answer is, if Candidate A wins, I will absolutely support my opponent.

MODERATOR: All right. Well, that is going to do it for us. That concludes our debate for this evening, a spirit one. We covered a lot of ground, not everything as I suspected we would.

The next presidential debates are scheduled for October 9th at Washington University in St. Louis and October 19th at the University of Nevada Las Vegas. The conversation will continue.

A reminder. The vice presidential debate is scheduled for October 4th at Longwood University in Farmville, Virginia. My thanks to Candidate A and to Candidate B and to Hofstra University for hosting us tonight. Good night, everyone.