US Presidential Debates

That was exhausting↱.

Trying to analyze that? It's easy enough to say, "Tomorrow", but it will be all the harder to drag myself back to the disaster that is Donald Trump's debate performance.

Oh, good. Hugh Hewitt on msnbc.

Edit: Hewitt just went there. Violence in Chicago and a line about the Democrats nominated the Republican nominee. (19 Oct 2016, 20.09 PDT)

His nomination to run, surely would be contingent upon him accepting the election result...?

yes?
surely?
wtf!!

spidergoat said:

A trade war with Japan led to the first use of nuclear weapons on Earth.

Click to expand...

Japan doesnt have nuclear weapons...and even if they did dropping a bomb on Los Angeles wont convince more Americans to buy a Toyota.

Especially if they happen to live in Los Angeles.

Quantum Quack said:

It seems pretty clear to me... but then again who am I?

Click to expand...

Misinformed.

Frankly, after his performance in that debate, he would have done better if he had walked on the stage, dropped is pants and taken a dump in front of his podium.

What the hell did I just watch?

What was he thinking!?

He didn't get enough hints from Wallace that he was, ooooohh, I don't know, sounding like a lunatic? When Wallace tried to guide him to the right answer, even giving him the correct answer at times, that wasn't enough of a hint? Like the question of accepting the results of the election. Wallace literally told him that this is how it works and is meant to work in the US.. And he still didn't get the hint?

Then of course comes the "ripping 9 months old foetus from the womb a day before it is due"... WTF?

And the "nasty woman" comment. Is he deliberately trying to set his campaign on fire? And this came after saying he had "great respect for women"..

"Bad hombres" invading America.. Err what? Could he sound more racist?

The part where he basically said black people and Latinos in cities are without education.. err what!?

Quantum Quack said:

Trumps trade war would most likely escalate into armed confrontation especially if he continues to attack the Chinese economy as he has been doing.

Click to expand...

He has attacked the Chinese government for practicing a policy of 'neomercantilism'...using the value of their currency as the primary weapon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neomercantilism

Bells said:

And the "nasty woman" comment. Is he deliberately trying to set his campaign on fire? And this came after saying he had "great respect for women"..

Click to expand...

This business of screaming 'misogyny' every time a women is criticized is exactly what gives feminism a bad name.

Trump put the final nails in his coffin this evening. I expect his polling numbers will fall even further. He just gave millions of Americans an excellent reason to not vote for him.

CNN polling indicates Clinton won. Only 36% thought Trump won.

Bells said:

What the hell did I just watch?

What was he thinking!?

He didn't get enough hints from Wallace that he was, ooooohh, I don't know, sounding like a lunatic? When Wallace tried to guide him to the right answer, even giving him the correct answer at times, that wasn't enough of a hint? Like the question of accepting the results of the election. Wallace literally told him that this is how it works and is meant to work in the US.. And he still didn't get the hint?

Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton just devastated Donald Trump.

I did try to blog the debate↱; it's mostly a record of impressions and reactions, and isn't really worth much to anyone else. Still:


From that point on, Hillary Clinton simply thrashed Donald Trump. I know why he tried that line about a nasty woman; not only was he that pissed off, she was in rhythm and enjoying it, and, you know, why not call down the old misogyny?

Except ... I don't know, that might, someday, be bellwether.

It's not that she didn't care. Subtlety? Watch her contain herself. This was like the SNL sketches. The hardliners, sure, but nobody else will fault her for enjoying the hell out of herself as long as she doesn't actually bust out the drinks onstage. Holy shit, Donald Trump was amazing, tonight. I actually lost track of the discussion.


You watched it; you don't need the blow by blow. Clearly the headline is going to be Trump's lines about electoral legitimacy, but his performance was so bad that Clinton aced the Fitness to be President section. Donald Trump's egotism was so inflamed that Hillary Clinton was able to not only able to answer Wallace's FOX News inquisition attempt by standing up for the Foundation, Donald Trump was collapsing into conspiracism, and then ....

Hillary Clinton received Trump's rambling scandalmongering elegantly, turned the point back onto Donald Trump, and the line about the portrait―"I mean, who does that?"― was the kind of cut that only enrages. The subsequent exchange 'twixt Trump and Wallace about Trump Foundation money was extraordinary in itself, but it also set Hillary Clinton up to hit him again about his tax returns.

And she did it again when he refused to acknowledge electoral legitimacy: "You know, every time Donald thinks things are not going in his direction, he claims whatever it is is rigged against him", and even invoked his tweets about how the Emmys were rigged. To his credit, Trump received that particular cut with grace. Couldn't stop it, but at least he bled with a pretense of dignity for all of a second and a half.

And that is also the point where she demonstrated that not only was she perfectly capable of handling herself and Donald Trump at the same time, she casually brushed Chris Wallace aside in order to make her point.

Yeah, I can't tell you quite what you saw, but ... well, if I watch "Trump", it's a disaster. If I watch "Clinton", holy shit, this was utter devastation. Hillary Clinton completely wrecked Donald Trump.

Carcano said:

This business of screaming 'misogyny' every time a women is criticized is exactly what gives feminism a bad name.

Click to expand...

People are screaming idiocy and stupidity at his comment.

He has a problem with women voters. Calling her a nasty woman in the middle of the debate, while she was giving a coherent answer..

No, really, this is what he comes out with?

He sounded like a twat. He completely erased his previous claim of having respect for women. "Nobody has more respect for women than I do".. Then minutes later, he calls the woman he is debating against "a nasty woman", when she was discussing her plans on healthcare. It was astonishingly bad. It stood out. He sounded deranged, unhinged and angry. Nothing will save him from that moment. When confronted with a woman, he resorts to name calling on a national debate stage.

The irony is that for all your complaints about misogyny, or people "screaming misogyny", he is making the case for them.

And that wasn't even his lowest moment in the debate. His calling his opponent a "nasty woman" has now been blasted out of the water by his repeatedly declaring that he will not accept the results of the election because he needs to wait and see..

He came off as completely unhinged, he relied on conspiracy theories he started.

In other words, he completely lost his shit on that stage. He was incoherent for the most part, barely able to answer any of the questions and then resorted to name calling and saying he wasn't going to accept the results of the election.

If that wasn't bad enough, his son then declared that becoming President would actually be a step down for his father, immediately after the debate in the spin room.. That is father is "learning as he goes".. Yes, because that's what people want to hear when imagining that the person with his finger on the nuclear trigger is merely "learning as he goes"..

There is a reason why Trump scuttled out of that debate hall as fast as he did and went straight for his car. It's because she wiped the floor with him and he just tanked his campaign with undecided and moderate Republicans, and he knows it.

Tiassa said:

Donald Trump's egotism was so inflamed that Hillary Clinton was able to not only able to answer Wallace's FOX News inquisition attempt by standing up for the Foundation, Donald Trump was collapsing into conspiracism, and then ....

Hillary Clinton received Trump's rambling scandalmongering elegantly, turned the point back onto Donald Trump, and the line about the portrait―"I mean, who does that?"― was like a the kind of cut that only enrages. The subsequent exchange 'twixt Trump and Wallace about Trump Foundation money was extraordinary in itself, but it also set Hillary Clinton up to hit him again about his tax returns.

And she did it again when he refused to acknowledge electoral legitimacy: "You know, every time Donald thinks things are not going in his direction, he claims whatever it is is rigged against him", and even invoked his tweets about how the Emmys were rigged. To his credit, Trump received that particular cut with grace. Couldn't stop it, but at least he bled with a pretense of dignity for all of a second and a half.

Click to expand...

I liked the part where he interrupted her after her comment about how he claimed the system was rigged when he didn't win an Emmy, and he said again that he should have won it.. I exploded with laughter at that one.

It was as if he was channeling Baldwin's impersonation of him on that stage tonight.

I think Hillary was very restrained in her so called nastiness. Her ability to strategize and prioritize is impressive. Trump has no idea how nasty this woman can be especially if she has " right" on her side. IMO

As with most people suffering his sort of mental health issue, his condition is most likely to get much worse if treatment is not sort.

I thought, initially, he kept his compose more than I thought he would be able to and he made some points that would play well to his base. However, he just can't be someone other than Trump so it doesn't take long for him to lose his cool.

Clinton was also improved in that she was a little more "natural" and didn't have that smile that goes on for too long in inappropriate places as much as she usually does.

With Trump, it was hard not to think about SNL with the one word responses with a little too long a pause spoken directly into the mic and the verbal retorts that are easy to mock...I am the greatest supporter of women...the greatest.

Or Putin doesn't like her or that nasty woman, etc.

Clinton should work on being a good President now and not try to overthink things and be so closed up and controlling. That's what will get her into trouble. She is going to regret her "no fly" policy in Syria as well. We will still be in Syria when she leaves office I'm sure.

The best thing she could do would be to try to clean up Congress and make government work for the people. Congress is a gravy train for its members. You can't expect them to change much without a lot of external pressure. Best to work with incoming members of Congress to try to change things.

An interesting note reported in the ABC.net
(ABC in Australia is an "arms length" government funded National, non-commercial TV/Radio broadcaster)
"She said Mr Trump had refused to condemn Mr Putin and Russia for recent cyber attacks.
"He'd rather believe Vladimir Putin than the military and civilian intelligence officials that are sworn to protect us," she said."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-20/us-election-trump-and-clinton-clash-in-final-debate/7948792

Serious question:
If Trump can not trust the advice of his own national security team and defer to Putin's truth, how on earth is he to function as President of the USA?

Parody:
Trump on phone to Putin:
"Eh, sorry to bother you Vlad, I can call you Vlad can I? My security team want to know what those multiple blips on our radar are."
"Don't vorry, Snow Geese would be my guess. Yes snow geese. Now if you excuse me..."

Quantum Quack said:

An interesting note reported in the ABC.net
(ABC in Australia is an "arms length" government funded non-commercial TV broadcaster)
"She said Mr Trump had refused to condemn Mr Putin and Russia for recent cyber attacks.
"He'd rather believe Vladimir Putin than the military and civilian intelligence officials that are sworn to protect us," she said."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-20/us-election-trump-and-clinton-clash-in-final-debate/7948792

Serious question:
If Trump can not trust the advice of his own national security team and defer to Putin's truth, how on earth is he to function as President of the USA?

Click to expand...

Because he's Trump.

No one gets to tell Trump anything.

"Bigly" Trump won't believe anything anyone says to him about anything unless the voices in his head give their "bigly" yes or no.

In other words, Trump cannot agree with his own national security team if doing so affects his business interests and donors.

What we saw tonight was a man intent on pursuing his own business interests and by the very looks of it, starting his own media venture (and this was aside from his setting his own campaign on fire and then dancing naked around the flames). There is a reason why he is now attacking the media as he is, making comments about all media organisations, even conservative ones and that was made clear just before the debate started, when Trump did his own media spiel live on Facebook.

Trump will not trust his own national security team if said national security team does not suit or parrot his narrative that he has been feeding to the public. In short, no one can be trusted. Not the media, certainly not national security experts or military experts who are all funded by the Government.

This is a man who declared in the debate that the Iraqi Government started their offense on Mosul to help the Clinton campaign. Rational thought of believing his own national security team about Putin's incursion in the US election this year does not apply here. None of what those national security experts have said suits what Trump has been peddling to his core voters. If he accepts what they have been saying, what his own party has accepted as being fact, he is going against his own narrative to his core voters.

Bells said:

Because he's Trump.

No one gets to tell Trump anything.

"Bigly" Trump won't believe anything anyone says to him about anything unless the voices in his head give their "bigly" yes or no.

In other words, Trump cannot agree with his own national security team if doing so affects his business interests and donors.

What we saw tonight was a man intent on pursuing his own business interests and by the very looks of it, starting his own media venture (and this was aside from his setting his own campaign on fire and then dancing naked around the flames). There is a reason why he is now attacking the media as he is, making comments about all media organisations, even conservative ones and that was made clear just before the debate started, when Trump did his own media spiel live on Facebook.

Trump will not trust his own national security team if said national security team does not suit or parrot his narrative that he has been feeding to the public. In short, no one can be trusted. Not the media, certainly not national security experts or military experts who are all funded by the Government.

This is a man who declared in the debate that the Iraqi Government started their offense on Mosul to help the Clinton campaign. Rational thought of believing his own national security team about Putin's incursion in the US election this year does not apply here. None of what those national security experts have said suits what Trump has been peddling to his core voters. If he accepts what they have been saying, what his own party has accepted as being fact, he is going against his own narrative to his core voters.

Click to expand...

Gosh there are healthier patients doing time in our local psych wards.... WTF!?

He's just an entitled self-promoter who isn't used to listening to anyone or being confronted by anyone. He's not that different from many other billionaires and military generals for that matter.

He just has no business being President.

Bells said:

He has a problem with women voters. Calling her a nasty woman in the middle of the debate, while she was giving a coherent answer..

Click to expand...

I so want to do the heads/tails mansplanation, here, that I'm going to do it.


Hey, I got one for you: Why don't I do a regular mansplanation column? You know, like once a month, and instead of "Aunt Flo", I can go with, "Uncle Dick"?

In truth, I expect before she came out to meet the press on the plane she gathered for a toast with her core staff, and that toast probably reminded them something or other about just how fucking nasty she can be. Hillary Clinton has every right to just wallow in that one tonight. For the rest of her life she has the moment in which the world watched Hillary Clinton own Donald Trump. And nobody wants a sniveling president, but that's pretty much what Donald Trump offered for the Show.

The thing I don't get, because, y'know, no, it's not a conservative conspiracy, but it pretty much looks exactly like what we might expect if Republicans, knowing they were about to lose, decided to send a gaslight as their second just to make sure the first female president must run this gauntlet. In 2013, Republicans were essentially terrified of her; there's a line from, I think her Benghazi testimony, about ripping out Republicans' arms and beating them with the bloody stumps. They kind of knew they were going to lose. And just like they made certain President Obama and people of color knew how they felt about his election, so will they inform Hillary Clinton and every woman in the world how they feel about hers.

It seems almost basic Repbulican calculus: You're about to lose to her; sounds like a job for Donny Gaslight. I mean, before Trump, this was either Clinton-Bush or there was much talk about Governor Forced Penetration because he was a soccon in a soccon year who also had business chops for union busting. And let's face it, Jeb wasn't ready. He just ... the world nearly changed too much for Hillary Clinton's presidency; I think Jeb got left behind.

I wonder how badly Scott Walker would be gaffing up right now? Remember the bit on evolution? Even that would have been a spectacle, but, you know, Republicans sent Donald Trump, instead.

Sounds like Trump lost another debate on points. Two weeks to go, not much time to return to the rise part - Clinton is almost safe.

Almost. The part about interrupting his enemy while she was making mistakes - increasing Social Security payroll rates is a bad idea from every single perspective available, for example - was especially telling. A character flaw not isolated by the onlookers - so I'll chip it in. That may have been this week's toe.