The candidates mostly ignored the person and even the question and plugged in something they wanted to talk about. They never did any of the sort of emotive, bonding-with-the-questioner performance that we are urged to think of when we hear the words "town hall debate." They ran out the clock, and then one of the moderators — in the guise of a "follow-up" question — would replace the "town"person's question with something more specific.
Here's the transcript of last night's debate. I'm going to read the questions and test myself. Am I right about what I just said? (Or do you need me to talk about the fly that landed on Hillary Clinton's face or the way Trump and Hillary didn't shake hands at the beginning and did shake hands in the end? Meade wanted me to rewind and get a video of the fly's antics. I could be first with the news of the fly! Have you ever heard of insect politics? Neither have I. Insects... don't have politics. They're very... brutal. No compassion, no compromise. We can't trust the insect. We rewound and laughed a lot, but I left it to the internet to take the pictures.)
Question 1 came from a teacher. She wanted to know if the candidates "feel" they are "modeling appropriate and positive behavior for today’s youth." Hillary, going first and setting the tone, boosted the ego of the townswoman by pronouncing her question "very good" and "important." She then proceeded to ignore the question and go into her standard line "our country really is great because we’re good." That's been her pat answer to Trump's banal "Make America Great Again." So when Trump got his turn, he knew where to go: His "whole concept" has been "to make America great again." A typical cascade of short sentences flowed out of that mental prompt, and nothing got back to the townswoman's question.
At the "follow-up" phase, Anderson Cooper brought in the grab-them-by-the-pussy tape we've all been talking about, and here we know Trump had to have a prepared answer. The answer was: 1. It "was locker room talk," 2. He's "not proud of it," 3. He apologizes to his family and to the American people, and 4. ISIS is way worse — they chop off heads! — and he's going "knock the hell out of ISIS." Cooper pins him down and gets him to deny that he's ever done "those things" that he talked about (which Cooper, like me and many others, characterizes as "sexual assault).
This was a perfect opportunity for Hillary Clinton to get back to the townswoman's question, but the townswoman was forgotten as Hillary spoke of women in general. Women women women women women women women. She says "women" 7 times... and ends with: "We will celebrate our diversity." Trump insists on speaking again — after Martha Raddatz tries to move on to a question "from online" — but he doesn't get back to the townswoman either. He begins "It’s just words, folks. It’s just words." He didn't mean his grab-them-by-the-pussy business was just words. He meant Hillary's statement was just words. But once she gets your vote, "she does nothing."
Raddatz's question "from online" is "Trump says the campaign has changed him. When did that happen?" And Raddatz loads grab-them-by-the-pussy specificity onto Jeff-from-Ohio's dull question. Trump responds with #1 and #2 of the 4-point answer he'd just given to Cooper. He skips #3 (the apology) and hops straight to #4. But this time it's not ISIS is worse. It's Bill Clinton is worse — "far worse." I wonder if Raddatz regretted repeating the question he'd already answered. Trump says he only spoke words, but Bill Clinton did actions: "There’s never been anybody in the history politics in this nation that’s been so abusive to women." And: "Hillary Clinton attacked those same women and attacked them viciously." And he's got 4 of those women here tonight. (He said 4, but only 3 were accusers of Bill Clinton. The 4th one is connected only to Hillary, who has laughed in the context of describing her defense of the man who raped that woman when she was 12 years old.)
Hillary reeled out a list of Trump sins. It was a way to say — in answer to Jeff from Ohio — that Trump has not changed. When she ends by saying Trump owes President Obama an apology for the "racist lie" of saying he wasn't born in America, Trump responds that she owes the apology because her campaign started it. He goes on to reel out his list of her sins. It gets very intense, and Trump threatens to get "a special prosecutor" after her. Clinton tries laughing off how hard it is to fact-check on the fly. (Ugh! I need another expression. I can't say "on the fly" in this post. The fly was on her, so she can't be "on the fly.") She refers us to her website. She actually says the URL. Who says URLs anymore? She does! Then she ends with a line that gives Trump the joke of the night:
CLINTON: Last time at the first debate, we had millions of people fact checking, so I expect we’ll have millions more fact checking, because, you know, it is — it’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country.It's gone on so long without a second question from the poor townsfolk stuck in the chairs under the scrutiny of 100 million TV viewers. But it's not time for them yet. It's time for Raddatz to do a "follow-up." She asks Clinton about the email: Wasn't she "extremely careless"? Of course, that gets the canned answer we've heard time and again from Clinton. It was "a mistake" and she's sorry. Raddatz didn't mention the destruction of 33,000 emails, but Trump does: "You think it was fine to delete 33,000 e-mails? I don’t think so.... and this is after getting a subpoena from the United States Congress." Cooper and Raddatz try to cut Trump off but he barrels on: "If you did that in the private sector, you’d be put in jail, let alone after getting a subpoena from the United States Congress."
TRUMP: Because you’d be in jail.
Cooper gives Clinton a chance to respond, and Trump doesn't refrain from interrupting:
CLINTON: Look, it’s just not true. And so please, go to...That's major interrupting — short and sharply satirical. It takes no real time, but it throws the other person off and it's what we remember.
TRUMP: Oh, you didn’t delete them?
COOPER: Allow her to respond, please.
CLINTON: It was personal e-mails, not official.
TRUMP: Oh, 33,000? Yeah.
CLINTON: Not — well, we turned over 35,000, so...
TRUMP: Oh, yeah. What about the other 15,000?
COOPER: Please allow her to respond. She didn’t talk while you talked.
CLINTON: Yes, that’s true, I didn’t.
TRUMP: Because you have nothing to say.
CLINTON: I didn’t in the first debate, and I’m going to try not to in this debate, because I’d like to get to the questions that the people have brought here tonight to talk to us about.
TRUMP: Get off this question.
Finally, we get to another townsperson. Trump mistakenly thinks he should go first, apparently because the first question from a townsperson went to Clinton, and this is only the second townsperson. But Trump had the question "from online," so Clinton is, we're told, entitled once again to be the first to respond to a flesh-and-blood person. At this point, the question is known — what will you about the crazy system that is Obamacare? (I'm paraphrasing, importing a Bill Clintonism.) Clinton humorously accedes to what now looks rude: "If he wants to start, he can start." Trump backs off: "No, I’m a gentlemen, Hillary. Go ahead."
Hillary gives a long wonkish answer devoid of any personal reaching out to the townsman who asked the question. Trump is a tad more personal in that he declares it "such a great question." Cooper's follow-up reminds Hillary that Bill Clinton called Obamacare "the craziest thing in the world." Does she agree with her husband or not? She says: "No, I mean, he clarified what he meant. And it’s very clear." Oh? Is it? I don't remember how Bill clarified. I think I mentally checked out until the next question.
It's a townswoman who self-identifies as a Muslim. This is the question that stood out to me as the classic town-hall type question, the people-like-me question. She says what she is. She points at a problem: Islamophobia. And she asks: What will you do to help people like me? The candidate can simply address the problem or he or she can sidle up to the townsperson and create a Bill-Clinton-feel-your-pain moment. Trump went first and he didn't do it. Hillary therefore had a chance, but she didn't do it either. She could have talked to the woman and said her name. She has a name: It's Gorbah Hamed. But Hillary name-dropped George Washington and — wha? — Muhammad Ali:
"And we’ve had many successful Muslims. We just lost a particular well-known one with Muhammad Ali."Forget it, townslady. You're not a celebrity. After days of hearing Trump's old brag about how because he's a star, he can do anything, you'd think Hillary would see the reason to demonstrate valuing the little people, the townsfolk. Everyone matters. Instead, Hillary gives us this out-of-the-blue invocation of Muhammad Ali. He was Muslim. There are some famous Muslims, Muslims we care about. Huh?!
Can we get another townsperson? No. A huge chunk of time is consumed with follow-ups — about the "Muslim ban"/"extreme vetting," about increasing the intake of refugees — and candidate-injected issues — Trump's purported opposition to the war in Iraq, about drugs pouring through the "southern border" — and another question "from online" — about Hillary's paid speeches. That last thing gives Hillary a chance to name-drop another great President, President Abraham Lincoln:
As I recall, that [statement about having a public and private position on certain issues] was something I said about Abraham Lincoln after having seen the wonderful Steven Spielberg movie called “Lincoln.” It was a master class watching President Lincoln get the Congress to approve the 13th Amendment. It was principled, and it was strategic.The name-dropping of a great old President is, once again, accompanied by the name of a modern-day celebrity. Washington got Ali. Lincoln gets Spielberg. Trump hits back: "Now she’s blaming the lie on the late, great Abraham Lincoln." I love the show-biz phrase "late, great." It seems jocose used to describe someone who died a century and a half ago. And there is laughter in the hall. Trump plays it up:
OK, Honest Abe, Honest Abe never lied. That’s the good thing. That’s the big difference between Abraham Lincoln and you. That’s a big, big difference. We’re talking about some difference.We are now so far into the debate — maybe half way — and finally we hear from a fourth townsperson, the
It's Clinton's turn, and she's supposed to name a specific tax provision she'd change. She mocks Trump: "he lives in an alternative reality." She accuses him of planning to help himself and his friends: "Donald always takes care of Donald and people like Donald." But does Clinton not take care of herself and her friends? Does she ever cite a specific provision she'll change? She says she won't raise taxes on people who make less than $250,000 a year. She says she once voted to change a loophole. But what specific provision will she change?
I want to have a tax on people who are making a million dollars. It’s called the Buffett rule. Yes, Warren Buffett is the one who’s gone out and said somebody like him should not be paying a lower tax rate than his secretary. I want to have a surcharge on incomes above $5 million. We have to make up for lost times....Lost times?
Cooper follows up, extracting from Trump the admission that he did carry forward the $916 million loss in 1995 to later years, as the tax law provides for.
Of course I do. Of course I do. And so do all of her donors, or most of her donors. I know many of her donors. Her donors took massive tax write-offs.There's no discussion of changing that particular tax provision (because it makes so much sense, but acting like it doesn't works on some people). Anyway, Cooper tries to get Trump to say how many years of income went tax free because of that huge 1995 loss, and Trump declines. He veers suddenly into Hillary's responsibility for the rise of ISIS and ends with a sarcastic: "Congratulations. Great job." Hillary shrugs it off: "Well, here we go again." She goes into a cascade of issues.
Can we get another townsperson? We've only had 4. No. It's another online person. Isn't the crisis in Syria "a lot like the Holocaust when the U.S. waited too long before we helped?" Hillary doesn't engage on the history and emotion. She plugs in her Syria policy discussion. Trump's response gets Clinton to break her non-interruption policy:
TRUMP: First of all, she was there as secretary of state with the so-called line in the sand, which...Notice: Trump bypassed the idea of showing empathy over something that was compared to the Holocaust. He went straight to blaming Hillary. Here's PolitiFact fact-checking: "Clinton says she was gone for the 'red line' in Syria incident... We rate her claim Mostly False."
CLINTON: No, I wasn’t. I was gone. I hate to interrupt you, but at some point...
TRUMP: OK. But you were in contact — excuse me. You were...
CLINTON: At some point, we need to do some fact-checking here.
The Syria discussion goes on a long time, but finally it ends, and — lo and behold — a townsperson gets called on. The man — speaking of name-dropping ex-Presidents — is named James Carter. He asks an utterly sentimental, softball question: "Do you believe you can be a devoted president to all the people in the United States?"
It's Trump's turn, and he doesn't warm up to Carter. He goes on the attack against Clinton. She called millions of people "deplorable" and "irredeemable." And:
Let me tell you, if she’s president of the United States, nothing’s going to happen. It’s just going to be talk. And all of her friends, the taxes we were talking about, and I would just get it by osmosis. She’s not doing any me favors. But by doing all the others’ favors, she’s doing me favors.Osmosis, eh? I had to think about that. He's saying that personally, financially, he'd be better off with her as President, because the people she's going to favor — her friends — are like him, so he'd benefit along with them.
Hillary defends her 30 years of public service. It wasn't "nothing" (as Trump has said repeatedly). She can't get any love and compassion to ooze out... to osmose.... It's a steely cold battle of wills.
Cooper follows up by confronting her with her words "deplorables, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic." She says that she said she was sorry. How many times does she have to tell you she's sorry? Trump gets an opportunity to drive it home:
And when she said deplorables, she meant it. And when she said irredeemable, they’re irredeemable, you didn’t mention that...but when she said they’re irredeemable, to me that might have been even worse.... She’s got tremendous — she’s got tremendous hatred.So Cooper badgered Trump about tweeting from 3 a.m. to 5 a.m. Isn't that undisciplined? (This is supposed to be following up the townsman's question about being a "devoted president" to everyone.)
Trump seizes upon the 3 a.m. prompt to talk about the 3 a.m. call from Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi — " 600 requests for help." Cooper tries to track him onto the "discipline of a good leader," and Trump eventually gets around to Twitter: "It is a very effective form of communication. I’m not un-proud of it, to be honest with you."
Can we hear from a townsperson at long last? Yes! Finally a 6th component of the backdrop gets to come alive and ask a question. It's the old who-will-you-put-on-the-Supreme-Court question. Neither candidate seems even to look for a way to get personal with the townsman. There's the usual blah-blah-blah. Trump likes Scalia. Hillary wants you to know she "respect[s]" the Second Amendment."
And then — miracle! — there are no follow-ups as the moderators wedge in one more question from a townsperson... Ken Bone. It's the energy-policy question: How will you get us everything we need without hurting anything we care about? (I'm paraphrasing.) Trump throws Bone a bone: it's "a great question." But there's no asking Bone how he may have personally suffered or any of that old-timey "town hall" flummery. Clinton picks up on the policy issues with no attention at all to Bone the Man.
It seems that the time should be up, but the moderators, again forgoing follow-up, call on one more townsperson. I'll bet this guy was stunned. Just when he was thinking he was about to be set free, his button was pushed, and he had to pop up and perform for the millions. You can tell the moderators had this guy saved for the denouement: The townsman invites each candidate to say "one positive thing" about the other.
Raddatz asks Trump to go first, but Clinton barges in:
Well, I certainly will, because I think that’s a very fair and important question.She'll go first because the question is "very fair and important." Not because the townsman is anyone to embrace and reach out to and warm up to and grab by the... heart. But because he asked a decent question. The answer is:
Look, I respect his children. His children are incredibly able and devoted, and I think that says a lot about Donald....Donald goes second, and imagine if he'd gone first and he'd given the offspring answer. It would have seemed sexist. The first thing you think of that's good about a woman is her children? But the woman said it about the man, and this man isn't going to copy and return the same compliment. He said what I — when I heard the question — predicted they'd both say: My opponent is a fighter.
She doesn’t quit. She doesn’t give up. I respect that.... She’s a fighter. I disagree with much of what she’s fighting for.... But she does fight hard... And I consider that to be a very good trait.And that's the end. I'd like to thank you for being here with me this morning as I tested my impression of what happened last night — that a town hall isn't what it's supposed to be. What it's supposed to be is — I'll use the word again — flummery. I'd dispense with the backdrop of inert, uncomfortable human beings and their stilted questions. There is no town. We're not in Iowa and New Hampshire anymore. Spare us the inane scenery. We don't need to pretend to return to a bygone era — to "lost times." And I don't like my bygone era spiked with questions from the internet — those social media layabouts who get to intrude their questions in front of the townsfolk who endured the ordeal of sitting on little chairs behaving themselves for 90 minutes. Raddatz and Cooper wanted to ask tough questions and manage a proper grilling. Set them free to do just that with a normal moderated debate. Don't make me feel they're being insufficiently benevolent to the "townspeople" — all in the hope that the candidates might seize an opportunity to show some stunning compassion to an ordinary American. It didn't happen last night, and the candidates don't seem to think they even need to try to do that anymore.
Can we stop trying to return to the "lost times" of 1992?
That happened that one time, and, looking back, it doesn't seem that significant. We've grown up since then. That looks as old-timey as the Norman Rockwell image of a town hall the bogus town hall debates are meant to evoke:
By the way, is that guy a basket-of-deplorables type? Look closely. I suspect they all are.
Posts
296 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 296 of 296Althouse is right. All of Norman Rockwells people are deplorable, as also Rockwell. Most unfashionable. Except for a few, if wealthy or fashionable enough.
Even the silly lefty great-grandchildren are unfashionable, no matter how hard they try.
What a tragedy for Americans to have to choose between these two or to flush our votes on the others.
Having said that, it is clear that the mediaswine are obsessed with focusing on what Trump has said and avoiding what HillBilly has done.
"Show you're into the American rules, no execution for apostasy, no death fatwas on authors, tolerance of Mohammed cartoons, and you're fine."
No, you're not fine. No thanks. Thank you very much!
The Rockwell-deplorable-PC culture emotional argument is plenty of justification, in a country less wealthy, for a civil war.
It took much less to start the Tamil-Sinhalese war in Ceylon/Sri-Lanka.
Or in Spain.
I do hold the Left (Hillary's troops) more responsible for the poor debates, than the Right.
The Left doesn't like to debate. Once they "win" an institutionalize a political/policy issue (legalized abortion, gay marriage), they declare the issue settled and move on.
Also, the Left specializes in personal attacks. In 2012, they bludgeoned Romney, a milk-drinking boy scout to pieces. Trump's locker room banter was indeed crude, but hurt nobody. Private nonsense talk is not a bad thing. We all need to vent to act silly every once in a while. We all are adult enough to distinguish between public and private talk (and between public and private acts).
Hillary, as purely a matter of style, comes off as moderate, mature, sensible and reasonable. Smart politics, I'd say. Often, Trump comes off as the opposite.
But I try to discount the "style," the "tone," the "temperament" of the candidates and really try to focus on what each would do for the country. Hillary will raise taxes, increase the size of government, accelerate the PC nonsense in the universities, focus on "islamaphobia" rather than radical Islamic terrorist, and give political aid and comfort to leftist rabble-rousers, whose worst elements gun down innocent cops.
Trump, generally, is on the better side of theses issues.
No thanks, Hillary. Sticking with Trump -- flaws and all, even the occasional potty mouth.
Bernie attracted charming little songbirds.
Hillary draws flies.
By agreeing to the rule of law, it is possible for the American society to live in harmony. Whether black or white does not matter.
Let's develop love towards one another.
We are operating under a huge democratic space, and yes, our politicians can hardly be trusted. I didnt get the chance to watch the whole debate. However, prosecuting an opponent in the event of winning an election as Trump puts it, is a very ambitious move.
I didn't watch. Nothing seems to have come from the Mark Cuban thingy.
I can see where we are heading to. Do you think there is a better one between Hillary and Trump?
I agree with no execution for apostasy
As someone said, "mediaswine are obsessed with focusing on what Trump has said and avoiding what HillBilly has done."
Wow, lots of butt hurt liberals on FB right now whining about last nights debate. They really expected Trump to throw in the towel instead he dumped a port-a-potty on their hopes and dreams. They really thought he would quit like in one of their HBO dramas, but alas real life is not that way. If anything I read their frustration that Hillary isn't putting Donald away.
What always strikes me about that Norman Rockwell picture is that the lowly mechanic surounded by the town movers and shakers looks like the billionaire businessman surrounded by the lowly salesmen and hick professionals of some small town where he's got his eco-lodge.
Fabi said...
A massive Trump defeat, Chuckles? Poor baby! Sorry that your masturbatory #NeverTrump dreams all went up in smoke last night! Lulz
Wait; are you now predicting a Trump victory? Because I think I am now willing to take some of that action. I expect that there is more out there just like the Access Hollywood tape.
Is Althouse now one of the very best places, to observe the phenomenon in which whatever Trump does or says, his supporters increase the intensity of their support, while an electoral majority coalesces around "Anybody But Trump"?
At this point I mostly felt sorry for Trump. He looked less rude and more sad, like he was agitated just being up there, and the questions were almost all directed against him. For the first time in the campaign, he looked like a beaten man.
He also made a lot of references that political junkies like us would get (e.g., Sid Blumenthal) but that were not set up well enough to appeal beyond his most engaged base.
Hillary had a lot of non-answers, but it seemed she got away with them due to the format and Trump's scattershot attacks. He really needs to prepare for these, and he just doesn't.
Finally, I'm surprised the tape thing turned out to be the last straw for so many Republican leaders. Do they represent a lot of Republicans, or just their own skins? It just seems odd that a crude recording of him talking about sexual assault would be so much worse for them than much of what he already said and proposed in public.
But at this late stage in the race, it's another thing that takes him off message and focuses on him and not Hillary, so it helps her. He needed some solid debates and a few good weeks and could have kept this thing close. It still may be close, but he's flailing now.
I do wish Rand Paul were running and, if--God forbid!--Hillary wins, I hope Rand will at least make a stronger run next time.
Chuck, 'lifelong Republican', why would you be so happy to see Trump lose? Are you eager for a couple of Prog SCOTUS appointees? Open borders? More Syrian immigrants? Gun control by executive order? You'd better stop and think what's at stake here.
When did liberal Democrats get so bellicose?
Other than the now clearly aberrant end to the Vietnam war, which they started, when weren't they?
mockturtle said...
Chuck, 'lifelong Republican', why would you be so happy to see Trump lose? Are you eager for a couple of Prog SCOTUS appointees? Open borders? More Syrian immigrants? Gun control by executive order? You'd better stop and think what's at stake here.
Where did I ever write one single goddamned thing about being "happy to see Trump lose"?
I know goddamned well, what is at stake here. And I am going to vote for this ignorant fuckhead Trump, because I won't let idiots like you blame me for this historic loss in what should have been a winnable year for a Republican.
I stopped, and thought long and hard about a nominee during the primary season. Others should have done the same.
Ann Althouse said...That happened that one time, and, looking back, it doesn't seem that significant.
Yeah, doesn't seem that significant...I mean it just helped that one guy win the Presidency, you know, no big deal, no big deal.
That's why I shake my head ruefully at sentiments like Jonah Goldberg's "the nation can survive Hillary." Sure, sure we can. A few years from now it'll all seem so insignificant...sure.
What I have found to be bizarre is how all the Hillary people are complaining about how terrible - and wrong! - it would be to threaten criminal prosecution of a political opponent.
They obsessed over it with Bush. And Hillary actually committed crimes. As mentioned elsewhere, re-question the leads and inform them that lies or refusals to answer revoke their immunity deals wholesale.
And, yes, the music Obama loves and the celebs who support Clinton have made comments markedly more offensive than Trump. True, they aren't candidates...but he wasn't one back then, either.
they are trying to get Trump on a technicality by suggesting that he didn't get express verbal consent every single time he kissed someone. But I'll be honest, I never got express verbal consent every time I kissed someone.
Nobody does. Women don't want that. How many women would prefer a guy who asks "can I touch your breasts?" over, you know, some spontaneous action. I've never met a woman who dreams of a man who is as non-spontaneous as humanly possible.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "And I am going to vote for this ignorant fuckhead Trump, because I won't let idiots like you blame me for this historic loss in what should have been a winnable year for a Republican."
I wonder if Chuck has ever called Hillary any names remotely as negative as he has called Trump. One could safely guess "no".
Why might that be you might ask?
The answer lies somewhere between "lifelong" and "republican".
Drago: I wrote that I cannot understand why she has not been indicted. But in any event, we agree on Hillary. That's a non-issue. Where we disagree, is Trump.
Trump said all he needed to say about the Supreme court, "SCALIA!"
He "blathered" about Hillary not putting her own money where her mouth is because she brought up Citizens United. It was about free speech and her, he signaled her hypocrisy, she being bought and paid for.
Mike Slywester said...Trump agreed meekly to these moderators and to these rules.
I think that's the GOP itself, Mike--I'm pretty sure the party leadership negotiates the debate structure, rules, #, etc. Assuming that's right it doesn't leave Trump with much room to work the actual format. Your point is correct, though, insofar as it is another example of how stupefyingly awful the GOP "leadership" is.
...wrote Hillary Clinton supporter, Chuck.
Per Hoodlum I think that's the GOP itself, Mike--I'm pretty sure the party leadership negotiates the debate structure, rules, #, etc. Assuming that's right it doesn't leave Trump with much room to work the actual format. Your point is correct, though, insofar as it is another example of how stupefyingly awful the GOP "leadership" is.
It is only too clear that the GOPe wants Trump to lose. And by making this clear, they are--as I said the other day--digging their own grave as a party.
mockturtle said...
It is only too clear that the GOPe wants Trump to lose. And by making this clear, they are digging their own grave as a party.
The first has been obvious for a while. Not sure the second statement is true, in the mid term. The GOPe clearly believes that they are preparing for the future, when they will have to put together a multi-ethnic/racial coalition, as the Dems have done, in order to compete. They view Trump's, essentially whites only, appeal as no longer viable at the presidential level of politics.
This is an email between Doug Band, John Podesta, And Cheryl Mills:
"Late last night, laura graham called me as she couldn't reach my brother >>> or her shrink. She was on staten island in her car parked a few feet from >>> the waters edge with her foot on the gas pedal and the car in park. She >>> called me to tell me the stress of all of this office crap with wjc and cvc >>> as well as that of her family had driven her to the edge and she couldn't >>> take it anymore. I spent a while on the phone with her preventing her from >>> doing that, as I have a few times in the past few months, and was able to >>> reach roger and her shrink. >>> >>> Bruce said the stress of specifically the office had caused his very >>> serious health issues as you both know. >>> >>> But I'm sure chelsea is more concerned with a mostly false story in the >>> distinguished ny post about mf global and teneo not her role in what >>> happened to laura/bruce, what she is doing to the organization or the >>> several of stories that have appeared in the ny post about her father and a >>> multitude of women over the years. >>>"
But yes. Let's only talk about Donald Trump, America.
Imagine if they had a inside Trump memo saying Donald and Ivanka were driving their CEO to suicide and didn't care.
I absolutely predict a Trump victory, Chuck. I've never waivered on that since he's been the nominee. I'd hate to win another bottle of single malt from you -- but if you'd like a second bet, you're on!
The events leading up to this debate and the debate itself was a setup to knock Trump out of the race. It was the product of desperation. The video was chump bait and Ryan, McConnell, and Reibus Penis took it. The Republican establishment has proven this year beyond a doubt that they are the stupid party. The Clintons fooled themselves into thinking that Trump was a bigger randy old goat than the original randy old goat, Bill Clinton himself. You have to give some credit to the Clintons, Had this worked, the Republicans would have been without a candidate on the ballot. I suppose that made the timing worth the risk in their minds. Trump has many faults but he is not stupid.
"they are the stupid party" Yes, but not so stupid they are going to lift their chins for the crushing blow that's coming.
"I absolutely predict a Trump victory" Making fun of such true believers will be the only point of light the day after.
But then what? What will the GOP to deal with the wreckage? Who will lead the Trumpites away from their PTSD and back to sanity? And what will the country do when a woman with utter contempt for law becomes CiC?
MayBee,
Interesting re Teneo, a PR consulting firm supposedly.
They handle some major M&A deals, from Wiki -
Teneo advised clients on "communications and investor relations for 10 different M&A deals worth a total of over $60 billion."
Its owned by a group including Doug Band, who is a Clinton consigliere.
The Wiki lays out a very impressive web of contacts, subsidies, "consultants" (payoffs?) that include Bill Clinton and Huma Abedin, revolving doors of all sorts including former politicians such as George Mitchell, Tony Blair, etc. And of course, payoffs to academia including endowed chair at Cornell.
Very typical of these "intermediary organizations" that seem to be at the nodes on the web of the political-financial corporatist system.
"Who will lead the Trumpites away from their PTSD and back to sanity?"
What is sanity? It is a world gone mad.
That fly on Hillary's face sent me way back to Tony Perkins in "Psycho".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AJhjHucjLU
Start at 2:05
"Those girls" = Bill's unknown victims
"That man" = Vince Foster
Kellyanne Conway's orders to Trump regarding last night's debate strategy are now clear:
"RELEASE THE KRAKKEN!!!"
One of the first events Hillary attended after taking office as Senator was a conference on urban renewal held in a particularly blighted section of Long Island. Newsday reported she told the assemblage that she, personally, had no solutions but would be happy to beg, borrow or steal any good ideas others might have. This to me encapsulated Hillary Clinton perfectly. Her pedestrian intellect was on display last night and was reflected in that puny list of so-called accomplishments she recited. That was just sad and I was actually embarrassed for her.
Townhall debates are a waste of time. The questions demonstrate the average citizen has a tenuous, at best, grasp of what's truly important in the national scheme of things. If we want to hear a bunch of mundane, mostly irrelevant, self-absorbed questions, we might as well just leave it to the "professionals."
If I believed in signs and wonders, I would say the fly landing on Hillary's Botox-numbed face was a portent. And a little creepy.
Interesting that the guy in the Rockwell pic is dressed in a style (floppy shirt collar protruding from jacket) that "Esquire" described back in the 1970's as a "deplorable".
(I think they were talking about Israeli fashion then)
Sebastian
As with the Tea Party nothing will be learned by the ascendancy of Trump and Sanders. Not One Thing
buwaya puti:
So many people are slow to understand that the government no longer feels constrained. Washington, D.C. has relieved itself of rules. The people who work there no longer have to mingle amongst the plebeians. They stand above and worse still believe - truly - that they should rule.
We are where every other country has been in their respective pasts. The results we will get will be exactly what those other countries achieved. The world is more dangerous and less wealthy.
This cannot be undone through normal political means. Never has that happened.
The government is Leviathan unleashed.
So many people are slow to understand that the government no longer feels constrained. Washington, D.C. has relieved itself of rules. The people who work there no longer have to mingle amongst the plebeians. They stand above and worse still believe - truly - that they should rule.
That's the biggest problem and the elites don't seem to realize that. Few people are more easily replaceable than the drones in the bureaucracy and the dolts in the government overall. If they all died tomorrow, nothing would be lost.
I've been watching that new show Designated Survivor, where the Sec of HUD is the only survivor of a huge attack killing the entire government.
After 2 episodes, the show hasn't really mentioned anything involving average citizens outside of "Muslims got treated badly in Michigan". Because most people wouldn't be hurt if the government suddenly died. DC is becoming another NYC --- convinced that the country truly gives a shit what they think on issues. We just want them to leave us alone.
And the elites have been told, repeatedly, that people are pissed. They just ignore it. Over and over. And when they're killed by the citizenry they disdain so and they ask God why He didn't save them, He will just say "I sent you a lot of warnings. You chose to ignore them."
CStanley said...
Agree with Mike Sylwester, that SCOTUS response was one of Trump's weakest last night. It's like he doesn't have it in him to elaborate on his pledge regarding these appointments, and that is going to hurt him with people who might ONLY consider voting for him on that basis.
You dopes, and I mean that kindly, what else need he say? You think the masses care about judicial argle-bargle and foofaraw? I guess if you were artful you could say "I agree with my opponent, I will appoint such judges." He did add more than you say, including a defense of 2A, which indeed, brought the viper out in Hillary again. No credit from you.
You are just mad because he's not doing what you want him to do how you want him to do it. If you want to be in the debates, you go run for President. He's doing it his way, as best he can - he is obviously not polished and I don't say he's perfect, no; but OTOH, who expected him to invoke Gruber? - and I think he wiped out the tape thing and made Hillary look awful. If it's momentum you want, he rebounded excellently. Discount blips in the polls, they are all bulges in the snake showing different scores at different times.
Stay on target. Stay the course. This is no time to go wobbly.
The great thing is not to lose your nerve.
I must have seen another debate last night. What I saw was Trump in his own Trumpy way make a comeback from the political dead. As for Hillary she told me she was going to tax the hell out the rich which always means the middle-class bears the brunt and thus tank the already bad economy. And that's without choking the economy with more regulation. Then she is going borrow even more money to give away and bankrupting the country and distract us all from this fiscal nightmare by starting a shooting war with the Russians as a distraction and is going to replace the current electorate with a new one that is more compliant. And to help insure all of that she wants to remake the Supreme Court into an unelected House Of Lords, a super legislature for laws that Congress doesn't have the moxie to pass. Other than finishing off the complete corruption of the federal government she pretty much summed what her plans are for the remaking of the US.
Trump for all his crassness, boorishness, hucksterism, vulgarity and inarticulateness has been the only one to have the moxie to get the would be criminal-in-chief to expose herself and to thoroughly expose the media to be what they are, house organs of the DNC. Can he win? Maybe but considering how vicious and how rigged the campaign has been so far against Republicans I doubt that at this point no matter who the Republican candidate might have been the DNC-MSN campaign would have been the same but only Trump seems to have the guts to fight them back. As an example one would have thought Paul Ryan would have learned this lesson in 2012. But no, he has been whipped.
Blogger Sebastian said...
"they are the stupid party" Yes, but not so stupid they are going to lift their chins for the crushing blow that's coming.
"I absolutely predict a Trump victory" Making fun of such true believers will be the only point of light the day after.
"But then what? What will the GOP to deal with the wreckage? Who will lead the Trumpites away from their PTSD and back to sanity? And what will the country do when a woman with utter contempt for law becomes CiC? "
Sanity? We were sane when it was the TEA party. The republicans cheered when Obama sent the IRS after us "wacko birds."
Now we are way past all of that. And you better believe it is the traitorous republicans who are first in line. Paul Ryan better hope trump wins.
Hillary could, of course, clear up the context of "public and private positions" on issues by releasing the transcripts of those paid speeches. Of course she won't, but she could.
You know what the content seems to be? Stuff that Goldman Sachs employees could have learned reading the "right wing" media. Stuff like the Russians are behind a lot of the opposition to fracking and pipelines, which she admitted in her speech to a group in Canada.
She also took millions from those same Russians and killed the Keystone XL pipeline... just sayin'
Trump will not be a terrible president. But we will never get to find out because the fix is in. Rigged.
10/10/16, 10:39 AM
Just vote for him, get others to vote for him, and see what happens, AA. Why don't you admit that you don't understand what is going on? It's OK, nobody does.
Hillary gets her deplorable on:
She added, “So they don’t know if, you know, jihadists are coming in along with legitimate refugees. Turkey for the same reason.” - HRC
Stay on target. Stay the course. This is no time to go wobbly.
The great thing is not to lose your nerve.
B.L., I couldn't agree more. And I don't see Trump losing his nerve.
First, I'm "Unknown Reasoner"
1. Thank you, Professor, for the interesting summary and commentary.
2. Celebrate Diversity means allowing people to be different, not all the same. Allow men to be men in private.
3. Trump did not say anything improper in public. It was a private conversation. And unlike Bill Clinton, he does not have a record of being an alleged serial sex abuser/rapist and pederast (see multiple trips by WJC to Jeffrey Epstein's Orgy Island).
4. Your reading of "criminal sexual assault" seems to be both confirmation bias (wanting to see it) and epistemic closure (you made up your mind, tightly screwed the lid closed [heh], and refuse to see it differently).
5. Argument by assertion is still bullshit.
6. It is easy to read Trump's "lewd statement" about grabbing pussy and "doing anything with them" as simply man-talk. Celebrate Diversity! Women now go to Chippendale's male stripper shows---have you what they scream in that private setting?, and I've heard worse raunch come from upper class women at the country club.
7. There is no moral, spiritual, ethical, or legal equivalency between Trump's private masculine conversation about sex, and the existential threat from a Clinton presidency.
8. Trump's statements were crass and made people feel bad.
9. Clinton's presidency is a verified risk to the rule of law (see a. executive abuse and illegal immigration, a la Obama; b. abuse of private citizens and businesses by the IRS and the DOJ/FBI/USDA/EPA).
10. Clinton and her globalist elite paymasters wish to destroy the sovereignty of the USA (see UN policies about small arms, immigration, and money transfers through the UN bureaucracy).
BOTTOM-LINE: What Trump said is nothing compared to what Clinton has done. Any Republican recoiling from Trump is a pussy-cat, not a lion.
-Unknown Reasoner
Hell, we haven't had a revolution in over two centuries. Maybe it's time.
10. Clinton and her globalist elite paymasters wish to destroy the sovereignty of the USA (see UN policies about small arms, immigration, and money transfers through the UN bureaucracy).
This, alone, should scare anyone into voting for Trump.
mockturtle
I'm all in, down side is we're dead, upside we become university professors.
basket-of-deplorables type
Insufficient class diversity.
To mock a civil rights leader:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the content of their character (e.g. principles) but by the "color of their skin."
The woman is not redeeming. The female chauvinist faction deplores women, men, and babies, too.
There was no debate winner. Even the American people lost last night. What a mess. That said, Trump had to knock it out of the park to get back on track and he didn't do that. Even if you think he won - and I guess some do think he did.
In which Matt pretends he is a fair , unbiased observer instead of the Leftist, collectivist political shill he is on every other thread.
Bad Lieutenant to 1:56 PM
You are just mad because he's not doing what you want him to ,,,
When Trump is given two minutes to speak about the Supreme Court, then he should do so. If he cannot do so, then this makes a bad impression -- especially on undecided voters.
Mike Sylwester said... [hush][hide comment]
Way to go moderators.
Trump agreed meekly to these moderators and to these rules.
Meekly? Trump agreed like Mike Tyson and Muhammed Ali agreed to fight anybody. No fear, and extreme confidence in their ability to win.
When Trump is given two minutes to speak about the Supreme Court, then he should do so. If he cannot do so, then this makes a bad impression -- especially on undecided voters.
If you can make your point in five seconds, why spin it out to two minutes? As I said before, he had to take what few opportunities he had to make his other points.
Mike Sylwester:
mockturtle 10/10/16, 3:33 PM +1
they didn't give him questions where he could answer with one word and then riff on whatever he thought would get votes.
seriously, go on, show us how it's done.
go write us some 2 minute speeches to show what he could have said at every point. then write some 30 second rebuttals for when she went below the belt, over time, etc.
oh, and do so in real time in makeup under lights with a hundred million people watching you.
no erasing!
are you some hot National Forensics League alum who thinks this is easy?
Trump's stunt of inviting the media to see his prep & then instead giving them a parade of women Bill Clinton was alleged to have assaulted = CLASSY. Guy drags US politics straight into the Reality TeeVee gutter & the "Real American Patriots" cheer. Remember that juvenile stunt when the next Trump features Nude Jello Wrestling & a Tractor Pull at his campaign rallies, or offers to raffle off Cabinet posts, or promises to get his foreign policy advice from 4chan.
Also note "you'd be in jail" - for things you've already been cleared of ... with the subtext being "regardless of the verdict" ... wow, guess he really DOES admire Putin after all.
The real punchline here is that Trump is far more lethal to the GOP than he is to Clinton. The October Surprise is The Donald systematically disembowelling the Republican Party in real time by being such a political nail-bomb (with so much support from their voters) that they're equally screwed whether they support or condemn him. Anyone who still seriously believes that a party this divided running a campaign this inept can win needs to check into rehab &/or see a shrink. Give the RNC credit for focusing on down-ticket races if nothing else - though it's obvious they're going to get creamed across the board there too (Democrats taking back the House of Representatives would've been seen as a pipe-dream as recently as July; now it's looking like a real possibility).
These debates are events he needs to win decisively & he simply lacks the aptitude, mental discipline or political IQ to do it. His word salad goes over great - with people already committed to voting for him. Everyone else is either baffled or sickened, & those are the people he needs to win over to have a shot at winning.
Trump fans: This is what he thinks of you.
"Can't fool those circle flies, though."
Birkel
"In which Matt pretends he is a fair , unbiased observer...."
I'm not pretending to be fair and unbiased. But if I was a 'Leftist, collectivist political shill' then I would clearly come over here and say Hillary won. I'm not kidding - the debate was ugly all around. I'm quite sure you thought Trump easily won.
@jim, point of information, Clinton was not "cleared." Comey said that it would be impossible to find a prosecutor to take the case. In Loretta Lynch's DOJ that is easy to believe. An independent prosecutor was called for, and under an honest administration one would have been appointed long ago.
Chuck takes a lot of heat here,
Chuck said:
"I know goddamned well, what is at stake here. And I am going to vote for this ignorant fuckhead Trump, because I won't let idiots like you blame me for this historic loss in what should have been a winnable year for a Republican.
I stopped, and thought long and hard about a nominee during the primary season. Others should have done the same."
Chuck....well said. I could not agree more and I will be doing the same next month. This was an epic mistake, moreso if it results in a flip of the Senate or House. Make no mistake, this will result in at least 4 more years of Clintons destroying whats left of the country I grew up in. And many of us are PISSED OFF!
I've taken comfort in ridiculing idiots from the left who voted for the cult of personality, now I prepare my self for years of ridiculing like minded idiots for doing the exact same thing.
All rationale is sacrificed when you're livin' in a Don Trump paradise.
HA
mockturtle at 3:33 PM
If you can make your point in five seconds, why spin it out to two minutes? As I said before, he had to take what few opportunities he had to make his other points.
He talked about the Supreme Court for 15 seconds, and then he spent the rest of his two minutes talking about how he has spent his own money on his campaign.
"We are all [Deplorables] now"
"I know goddamned well, what is at stake here. And I am going to vote for this ignorant fuckhead Trump, because I won't let idiots like you blame me.."
And trump is the narcissist....
Sorry Chuck..but your phrasing makes it sound like you will take one for the team to stay popular.
Mike Sylvester..if you admit the format is slanted and essentially fucked, you either abstain to wide ridicule or try to jam your points in regardless.
But I've covered this before. Any relevant thoughts?
At this point, if not here to rally whatever side you've gone with..what the hell is the point?
Walter,
At the risk of offending the tender sensibilities of our hostess, who may not understand, the answer to your question is:
Bitches gotta bitch.
No, Mike S, he spent the rest of his time attacking HRC over her corruption and specifically Citizens United.
Trump needs guys like WI Ron Johnson to win in the Senate. Ron Johnson, the guy who got ole Hillary to screech "What difference at this point...."
But Russ Foolsgold is looking likely to win back his seat he rotted in for 18 years prior.
Johnson needs Trump, where is the help Donald?
I've met Johnson..he would never reach out to Trump. "Believe me"
He talked about the Supreme Court for 15 seconds, and then he spent the rest of his two minutes talking about how he has spent his own money on his campaign.
You've made my point.
He's still a fan of Romney.
Mike Sylwester
Do you not understand the linkage between Hillary not spending any of her own money instead of spending Wall Street donors' money on her campaign and Hillary wanting to nominate justices to overturn Citizens United?
Supreme court answer was all the needed to be said, "SCALIA".
I think we should have debates but maybe they should only be on the radio or transcribed. What we often have instead is - and this is at their best - theater.
Also note "you'd be in jail" - for things you've already been cleared of ... with the subtext being "regardless of the verdict" ... wow, guess he really DOES admire Putin after all.
Nice to see the Hillary trolls self identify. It's like wearing a badge or something.
Thanks, jim.
Interesting, buwaya.
Mike Sylwester said...
Trump -- the super-duper tough bargainer -- agreed to these moderators and to these rules.
* He agreed that the moderators could give different questions to him and to Clinton.
* He agreed that the moderators could interrupt him during his two minutes.
* He agreed that the moderators could spend much of the time asking him about his personal conduct.
* He agreed that "undecided questioners" could be Black women, Moslem women, men whose main concern is tax rates of the top 1%, and other such obvious plants.
Trump -- the super-duper tough bargainer -- agreed that all the debates can be anti-Trump carnivals, moderated by Democrats out to get him.
-----
Anyway, though, it doesn't matter.
Trump cannot talk intelligently on major topics for even two minutes.
* He had two minutes to talk about Obamacare.
* He had two minutes to talk about the Supreme Court.
* He had two minutes to talk about energy policy.
* He had two minutes to talk about Syria.
He squandered each such opportunity. He demonstrated that he lacks the knowledge and eloquence to serve as President.
Instead of studying the issues during the past couple of years, he has spent all his time and energy watching TV news, tweeting, giving interviews, speaking to crowds. shmoozing talk-show hosts, and traveling.
He's a scatter-brain buffoon.
However, I will vote for him, because I do not want the next President to keep flooding our country with Third-World uneducated immigrants.
I suggest you go over to Vox Day's blog and read what he says about dialectic vs. rhetoric. Really.
======================================
Incidentally, Trump is the only one of the Rep candidates who can beat the Big V. She, her bribers, and the media would have by now made any Rep out to be Hitler (remember Romney's dog, Ryan pushing grandma off the cliff?). Trump is the only one of them who could have fought back, and is. He is also the only one to say the words "wall" "NAFTA" "trade agreements" "law and order", to name a few. Yes, he's actually talked about issues American care about. And his slogan, Make America Great Again, is great too. America is not great anymore, and we know it.
Sylvester has an imaginary candidate in mind....
"But what if..___"
(He and Chuck need to look at a calendar..and hug)
America is not great anymore, and we know it.
And if we let ourselves be sucked irretrievably into globalism, we shall never be great again.
Stay strong and vote. Make sure your like-minded friends are registered+voting, too.
Yes, it sucks that with the hour this late, the media stories, the pollsters are all proclaiming doom, doom doom for us.
Did you forget brexit already? Did you forget that the doomsayers are our enemy? Screw your courage to the sticking place.
@Bad Lieutenant:
I wrote that I felt his SCOTUS reply was his weakest and I stand by that opinion. That is not to say I could have done better or that I felt he performed badly overall- I actually felt he had a very strong showing in the debate. He was, overall, the best Trump he could have been last night and he put Hillary on defense which is remarkable under the circumstances at the beginning of the weekend and with the obvious moderator bias.
But if you and other Trump supporters want him to win you should face the reality of his weaknesses. There are voters who oppose HRC so strongly that they want to vote against her but can't get there with Trump. Do you want to convince them or not? I dont know how many votes are up for grabs in this category, but I can assure you that there are voters who are wavering between not voting or going with Trump in the hopes that he will prevent HRC from filling SCOTUS seats. At the same time, this same group of people are skeptical and he needs to try to close the deal with them. A 15 second rote reference to Scalis isn't going to cut it.
As for the rest of his response, I'll have to take your word on it that he was tying the finance issue to Citizens United because he didn't connect those dots. I thought he was just taking the opportunity to fit in something he wanted to say, using the unused time since he wasn't interested in talking about SCOTUS with any detail. Now, perhaps it was a case of thoughts he was trying to string together in the heat of the moment and he didn't quite get the point across, which is certainly understandable (IOW, I completely concede your point that it is far easier to critique while sitting in our living rooms.) All I can say is that I am in the target audience for that question and his response fell flat.
In which Hillary shill Matt pretends to know things.
Why are Leftist collectivists so poor at argumentation?
To ask the question is to answer it.
All right, CStanley, I'm not one of these guys that wants to say that black is white. I know that it's white, but maybe there's a shadow on it, or it got schmutz when they opened the package, or you have a spot on your glasses. Just as long as you're not messing with me.
So...
1) If "Scalia," and a summation of the many things he has said outside the debate hall (e.g., his list of 20; protect 2A<--which again was a landmine that Hillary was all too glad to throw herself upon, which should arouse you), won't satisfy you, did you want to hear more, did you want to hear additional, did you want to hear Not-A? Could you indicate with more or less specificity the kinds of things that you wanted to hear instead/in addition to his words, at this time, in this room?
2) as I'm on a cell phone now, I appeal to your candor. Get a transcript and look for what I told you about cits united. No, he wasn't just being braggadocious (is that a word?) about his outlay, which I'm afraid you read into it because you've been conditioned thusly.
3. Again a flaw, or possibly not, unstructured Trump is carrying points across response blocks. Don't confine your read to one passage.
4. Hillary, who has the formal speaking chops, was no bright light either. If you're saying Trunk should have expressed himself more like her, I say meh. I could have done for better than either of them.
And I suspect this is good tactics on OTH sides. You're shoveling chum over the transom of the boat. You don't begin each scoop with "My fellow Americans" type talk.
BTW, once you have announced whether you are for strict constructionist/originalist, or for "the law is what my voting bloc and I say it is," you really have said it all.
A thing that would be good to know, and explain, is how you will keep from picking judges and justices - yes Trump could have said that too, there are hundreds or thousands of judges at lower levels; all matter - from being bent or "evolved" later, qua Roberts, Breyer, et al. Somehow lefty judges never move rightwards. But IMHO zero candidates could answer that question, though I'd like to hear what Cruz would say.
But CStan, in fairness, you are definitely the choir, and there's the cliché about preaching to the choir.
The great thing about a choir, I guess, is that you can invoke 2nd Corinthians to them, or 2 Corinthians haha, without having to read them the whole passage. So really, shorthand should suffice for you. Why not?
Again, what did you want him to say that he didn't say or that he hasn't said before? If you're afraid he's lying to you, he can lie all he wants.
Re Westworld: the correct actor is Yul Brenner.
I think Trump should appoint Ted Cruz to the Court. He'd be more effective there than he has been in the Senate.
Yeah, I get it. Voting this year is all about failing to feel good. Somehow in years past either by feeling good about my candidate or feeling bad about the opposition, voting did not feel "bad". This time it is like a choice of either to go to the car wash where sometimes the workers do a decent job cleaning the interior and other times they leave it smelling of body odor with various streaks here and there and all my parking meter change gone or go to the cardiologist and sit in the very clean waiting room reading fairly recent magazines until you go in and watch the white-clad spotless physician type into his computer and look to see your name before greeting you and leaving feeling like a file entry. We are talking just feelings here.
Mz. Althouse (she's now just Ann, no more Professor) posted Norman Rockwell, evoking a zeitgeist that millennials cannot access, just as my father, born in the 1800's used to cherish pictures of unwashed, ear-haired country fellows with bad teeth (and bad breath), poorly manicured hands, crooked arms and legs and dirty hats that I could not relate to in the way he did. A millennial would say: "How can you admire and respect such ignorant, unhygenic, poorly shod (no Nikes), un-cell-phoned, louts who have never used an X Box?"
The elites regard the deplorables with disdain and the deplorables regard the elites...well, let's keep it clean. Somewhere in there is a country to be run and still a few dollars left to be spent. With the state of government under President Obama I would have to meet him on the tarmac in Air Force One to have any possibility of finding out whether or not they are still printing money. I believe we can safely say that our country has matured to the point that one can buy what one wants without worrying about any dedicated citizen who still adheres to and values our Constitution holding office and screwing up the system by demanding respect for the rule of law which might interfere with what is desired to be done at the time. Some would say that we never had politicians who kept their promises so I won't go there. Suffice to say that we owe our understanding of how our government works today (IRS, FBI, Clinton Foundation - wait, that's not Government... yeah, I guess it is - VA, etc.) only to the ineptitude of Hillary who clumsily spilled the beans.
Some voters are able to cast a ballot for Hillary in order to avoid having our leader be someone who [fill in here whatever female stuff makes you able to stomach Hillary] and others are able to cast a ballot for Trump who [fill in here whatever male stuff makes you able to stomach Trump].
So what is one to do? Well, actually we already know the outcome of this election. It was on national TV. Thanks to our lovely media we are convinced that we did not actualy see what we saw. A not uncommon occurrence these days. Just, as they say, wait for it. Of course nothing is certain and many a slip etc. but the Trump October Surprise will soon be announced and then this will all be over.
@Bad Lieutenant:
Sorry I wasn't around to respond and don't have a lot of time now either but I appreciate your comments.
Your last at 7:58 am is probably the crux of the problem for me personally- I don't trust him because I don't think his position on this comes from principle. If he doesn't care then there is probably no reason not to assume he will do as he says on the appointments, but will he fight for them? I'd like to hear him perhaps show his trademark ball busting attitude when talking about how he'll make sure we don't end up with another Clarence Thomas "high tech lynching" or worse, another "Borking".
And if I'm honest, part of my disappointment is a desire for him to pander to people like me a bit more! I know that's dumb because he either means it or he doesn't, but it's human nature to at least expect someone to try to appeal to you. It's also the way politics works, and the way it has to work, because mandates result from the rhetoric and the limited ability that we have to hold politicians to their word is implied in the words they campaign on and the response of voters to those words.
As for checking the transcript, I haven't yet but I will.
One more thing to press my point: if repetition and such isn't important, than why does he repeat himself on other issues like immigration?
If he had not begun his campaign stressing his plan to build the wall, and rarely mentioned it but at some point was pressed to give an answer and elaborated a plan which checked off all the boxes for you, but he didn't express passion about it....would most people have gotten behind him? It's really only because of the strength with which he expresses himself on that topic, and the overarching principles involved (opposing bad trade deals and globalization) that people take him seriously on immigration as far as I can tell.
And again, that's somewhat normal (even in the midst of the most abnormal political season I've ever seen.) The candidates say stuff, we don't know if they mean it, but consciously and unconsciously we form an opinion about whether they will at least try to do what we feel is important.
… what happened last night — that a town hall isn't what it's supposed to be. What it's supposed to be is — I'll use the word again — flummery. I'd dispense with the backdrop of inert, uncomfortable human beings and their stilted questions. There is no town. We're not in Iowa and New Hampshire anymore. Spare us the inane scenery. We don't need to pretend to return to a bygone era — to "lost times."
Nicely put, as far as it goes. Nope, it was not a “town hall.” And, yes, it was “flummery” for sure, because “flummery” means “nonsense.” But that’s too general. If it wasn’t a “town hall,” exactly what was it? Let’s all put on our thinking caps and concentrate real hard:
It seems to me that all of these “debates” are nothing more than a series of one-sided hostile interviews. They have nothing to do with what the voting public might want to know about the candidates. This cycle the “debates” are all about bringing Trump down by any means necessary; the MSM, the Clintons, the Democrat party and the eGOP are all doing their part in this collective effort.
Post a Comment