In a world of rational actors, last night’s Presidential debate ended the 2016 Presidential campaign. Hillary Clinton, a woman whom I once loathed, proved that she has the knowledge, experience, and temperament to serve as President of the United States of America. Donald Trump showed that he is a brittle, easily baited, ill-informed narcissist who cannot be trusted to keep America safe.
On race and police relations, Clinton promised to include in her first budget funding for training programs that police chiefs are asking for to help police deal with racial bias and mental health. She also expanded to call for ending private prisons, implementing comprehensive background checks for gun buyers, and banning individuals on the terrorist watch list from buying guns. NRA-endorsed Trump ceded the latter point, advocated the unconstitutional stop-and-frisk policy to take people’s guns away, but otherwise mostly just growled “law and order.” Implicitly flipping Trump’s occasional sally that Clinton’s comments were “all words,” Clinton responded by saying we can’t just say “law and order”:
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 [Hillary Clinton, first 2016 Presidential debate, as transcribed by Washington Post, 2016.09.26].
On cybersecurity, Clinton said we need to strengthen countermeasures against independent hacking groups motivated mostly by money and the growing amount of state-sponsored cyber attacks. Donald Trump said his ten-year-old son is “so good with these computers, it’s unbelievable.”
On foreign policy, Clinton turned to the global audience and assured them that the United States will honor its mutual defense treaties. “Our word is good,” Clinton said, clearly contrasting herself with Trump’s willingness to abandon NATO allies over financial disagreements and his chronic stiffing of his own contractors. Clinton defended the Iran nuclear deal as a brilliant example of diplomacy, enlisting global rivals in an effort to rein in Iran without firing a shot. She contrasted that diplomacy with Trump’s wild promise to fire on Iranian soldiers for merely taunting U.S. Navy ships. “That would not start a war,” Trump interrupted, but… seriously? Opening fire on another nation’s military is kind of the definition of launching a war.
Asked about his comment that Hillary Clinton lacks a “Presidential look,” a question a wiser candidate would handled with brief contrition pivoting to assertions of respect for women and a discussion of his daughter’s platform of women’s equality (no matter how false), Trump committed four errors:
- Trump stuck with his sexist claim that somehow Clinton’s looks will prevent her from conducting foreign policy.
- Trump further questioned Clinton’s “stamina,” another sexist insult, which Clinton deftly parried by appealing to her global experience and co-opting the infamous Benghazi hearing as a further proof of stamina.
- Trump responded to Clinton’s citation of his sexist and racist comments he leveled on a Miss Universe by asserting that because Rosie O’Donnell was “very vicious” to him, “I think everybody would agree that she deserves it and nobody feels sorry for her,” showing he thinks some women deserve misogyny and showing that he will manufacture an imaginary consensus to justify his failings.
- Trump suggested that he has nobly refrained from saying “something extremely rough to Hillary, to her family,” despite the “hundreds of millions of dollars” Clinton has spent on false ads against him, demonstrating that when confronted with evidence of inappropriate behavior, Trump is the incorrigible and spoiled schoolboy who cries, “Have not! You have!”
Clinton put Trump on defense numerous times, and Trump obliged with various clueless and self-absorbed responses that would crush any normal candidacy. Clinton noted Trump’s 2012 declaration that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese to hinder America’s manufacturing competitiveness. Trump denied he had ever said that, and Twitter erupted with screen caps of Trump’s 2012 statement. Clinton suggested that one rational explanation for Trump’s tradition-bucking refusal to release his tax returns is that maybe he hasn’t paid any income tax lately, Trump said, “That makes me smart.” Clinton cited Trump’s six bankruptcies as an example of how “sometimes there’s not a direct transfer of skills from business to government” and how “sometimes what happened in business would be really bad for government,” and, taking the bait, Trump said, “I take advantage of the laws of the nation.”
Add Trump’s continual reference to his properties and wealth, and we come away from last night’s debate with a clear picture of Donald Trump as a narcissist consumed with looks and money.
Review Clinton’s regular, steady responses; her description of problems and her prescriptions for solutions; and her regular expression of concern for others, here and abroad, and we see a woman who is ready to lead the free world.
Yes, I’m over my 1990s anti-Clinton Republicanism. Hillary Clinton deserves to be our next President.
Hillary is contrived as were many of her responses but Trump pushed the real Hillary out a few times. He certainly seemed more thoughtful than previously and treated her like any other tough opponent. Loved every minute of it but only made it through half when it was clear he was the winner based on facts and ends up had a few better qualities than he has shown previously. His facial expressions are priceless.
Cory says “Yes, I’m over my 1990s anti-Clinton Republicanism.”
Better late than never! :-)horrible according to Trump. He blamed HRC for everything
Another thing that hit me about the debates was that Trump pretty much called everything in the US a disaster and said he would fix things. What he didn’t really say was how he would fix things or specific policy proposals to fix things. Trump’s argument was fit for a caveman: Things bad. She bad. She no fix. I fix. I have no plan. I make plan. I make secret plan.
Happy says ” . . . he was the winner based on facts and ends up had a few better qualities than he has shown previously.”
What facts? What better qualities? You agree that Trump’s best quality is his temperament? ROTFLMAO
If you only made it through half, you didn’t see Trump’s full neurotic glory.
happy: “but only made it through half when it was clear he was the winner”
I think you were on the wrong channel – you were watching the SNL version. The real debate was quite the opposite. Trump didn’t present a single specific policy proposal but instead just told us to believe him that he will fix what is broken. He blatantly lied numerous times, contradicted himself on a few occasions, and allowed his ego to take over from his brain as he formed a few of his responses. Clinton baited him and he bit – unfortunately it made it clear he hasn’t the temperament to be an effective leader.
He also bragged about not paying taxes saying it was smart, and he bragged about his bankruptcies saying what was important was taking care of himself and his family. There wasn’t any concern over the men and women that lost jobs or the tens of millions of taxpayer dollars that subsidize his lifestyle. He only cares about himself and when pressed he doesn’t even hide that fact. He just calls it good business.
It was a lopsided victory for Clinton, but at this point it is clear that Trump’s supporters won’t be swayed by facts nor logic. They will continue to support their guy, but it is clear that based upon that performance, undecided voters will most certainly be moving towards Clinton. The best part is she was holding back. She has reserved her best whoppers for the next two debates when her knowledge of the issues and proven track record of leadership will be unleashed.
Cory, the fact that Trump doesn’t think that shooting another country’s sailors or soldiers is not going to start a war was very revealing of his temperament. He can’t stand the slightest barb so he would start a shooting war over a little taunt like a kid on the playground.
How is this the guy that is going to keep us out of wars? He was for every war before he was against every war. He suggested we get all of our troops out of Iraq before he later said that removing the troops was a disaster and he would have never done that if he was president. He suggested we take Gaddafi out in Libya before later saying that we shouldn’t have taken Gaddafi out.
Trump brings his fondness for business risk to his policy decision-making. He brags about using OPM-Other People’s Money. The problem is the country can’t just declare bankruptcy if his risky decisions go wrong.
I thought he controlled the early parts of the debate when he kept talking over her and got a few zingers in. I thought he got his ass kicked in the latter portions. Painful points that stood out for him:
1. The temperament stuff was awful for him. He didn’t even look like he believed it.
2. The climate change denial and blaming China for it was damning when it’s publicly available info from his twitter page.
3. The birther stuff is going to haunt him, particularly given the growing popularity of Obama at the end of his term.
4. The tax line was rough. While I get his point (avoiding taxes when you can is smart for a businessman,) it also comes across as callous and out of touch given the setting.
5. The “cyber” stuff. I still don’t know what he meant to say.
There were others, mostly missed shots he could have taken at her but was too busy rambling about god knows what. On her side, she avoided major gaffes. She did come across as a bit wooden at times, but I think she comes out looking better by a good bit after last night.
Clinton did well, but not perfect. Trump did not as well, but made some points early on that Clinton missed.
While talking economics, Trump repeatedly mentioned people who have been left behind by the economy in rust-belt states Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania and that he would find ways to punish companies like Carrier and Ford who outsource industrial jobs. A lot of working class voters want to hear that. Clinton said nothing about the pain so many are feeling in those swing states. Instead she talked up trade agreements that many laid off factory workers blame for their jobs being outsourced. She did have a specific plan for building infrastructure and green energy jobs, but she missed a real opportunity to connect with voters she needs just by mentioning them and empathizing with them. She just had to acknowledge them like Trump did, but she couldn’t do it. You know that Bill Clinton would have acknowledged those blue collar people who are hurting and spoken specifically to them at some point if he were on stage.
I don’t know what debate happy was watching either. Trump had a few good shots early on but then, like my Vikings, Hillary took charge the 2nd half. Trump was boring, talking about himself and how great he is. Clinton had poise and was ready for his master manipulation comeback lines. He was disorganized and you could clearly see by his facial gestures and his hands clasped to the podium how frustrated he was getting by getting beat by a woman who was very clearly better prepared.
Six bankruptcies and stiffing your employees were touchdowns for Hillary when speaking about the kind of businessman Trump is.
Trump thoughtful? Trump factual? I cannot accept either claim, Hap. Trump thinks only of himself and his self-professed greatness. His policy pronouncements sound like undeveloped barroom ranting, not the product of thoughtful study and discussion. Trump flatly lied about his own past statements. Trump repeated and expanded his lie about Clinton starting the birther movement.
Craig, your point about Trump’s shameless lack of concern for others is very important. As Nikki Bootz said earlier this summer, Donald Trump has never worked for anyone; he has only worked for himself. He does not understand the idea of serving others. He can’t even unplug his narcissism long enough to realize that sounding like a narcissist may turn other people off and thus may not be good for his self-interest.
Dicta, Clinton will always come across as somewhat wooden. She’s a policy wonk.
Funny—I can see Clinton and Trump each representing distinct weaknesses of my own. Clinton represents my policy nerd side, an eagerness to go charging into the weeds of policy details that will leave many audiences bored. Trump represents my extemporaneous impulses, my sometimes laziness in preparing and revising my remarks, relying instead on just opening my mouth and hoping good things come out. That extemporaneous style can easily lead to answers like Trump’s “cyber” ramble, a stream of consciousness that fills the time but never coalesces around a coherent point.
I recognize those weaknesses in myself and try to check each. Clinton recognizes her policy nerdiness and occasionally tries to soften it… but while policy nerds may not make good television, they’re good to have in the room when crafting real policy. Trump plows ahead with his weakness, portraying it is an overwhelming strength.
Trump’s sniffles didn’t help. Here’s the Trump sniffle supercut:
Trump sounded a touch congested and tired. Clinton sounded perfectly healthy.
Hannity and Charles Krauthater called the debate a draw. I haven’t seen the Nielsen ratings, but I can imagine the Monday Night NFL game was more of a draw. See what I did there? No way last night’s debate could be seen as a draw other than tv ratings.
@cah: “unconstitutional stop-and-frisk policy”
Please show me the court decision that overturned the Warren Court’s 8-1 decision in Terry vs Ohio. The US District Court ruling in Floyd vs City of New York only held that the NYPD had systematically conducted stop and frisk in a racially discriminatory manner not that stop and frisk was in itself unconstitutional. Stop and frisk for reasonable suspicion is still constitutional and the NYPD is still using it
Trump was on Fox News this morning claiming that he had problems with his microphone (static and cutting out) so the audience in the room could not hear him. He felt that is was poor setup by the staff or maybe it was rigged not that he believed it was a conspiracy.
I fail to see how the defective mike didn’t work in the room but was crystal clear on the TV.
He will blame his poor performance on everyone but himself as usual.
Trump was a slightly medicated version of himself starting out the debate. He seemed under control, and even made some sense on trade. The first 20 minutes or so I thought Trump had Clinton playing defense, but she played defense well during that period, weathering the storm while get out her far more detailed plans on the economy and getting in some points about Trump’s ridiculous tax scheme. After that, the medication seemed to wear off, and Trump reverted to his manic buffoon persona, mugging, sniffing and interrupting his way through the rest of the debate. When he starting repeating “law and order, law and order” over and over, it was as if he was Arlo Guthrie in “Alice’s Restaurant,” jumping up and down yelling “kill, kill, kill.” Arlo was trying to get out of the draft, but Trump was trying to show is alt-right base that he would keep “the blacks” under control. His little trick is to make it sound like a police state would be in the blacks’ interest (wink, wink, nod, nod). He was a complete disaster from that point on, and Hillary just kept poking the poor mentally ill guy. With the meds wearing off, he just couldn’t help himself, and he became essentially incoherent.
“Judge Scheindlin issued an order in Floyd v. City of New York, finding that the City had violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments “
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1682306.html
@Anne: Did Floyd vs City of NY overturn Terry vs Ohio? No. Floyd only determined that the NYPD implemented stop and frisk in a racially discriminatory manner and imposed remedial reforms on the NYPD. Stop and frisk is still constitutional. Also Judge Scheindlin’s ruling was stayed by an appeals court which also criticized her actions concerning the case and removed her from it, details which seem to have been misplaced by Lester Holt and Cory.
Sniffling or sniveling Trump is either has pneumonia or is using coke, again.
His sniffling was a distraction for many viewers.
It pains me, but I gotta call it a draw. Both are fortunate there was not a 3rd candidate present because he or she could have shot straight to the top. Hillary apparently was not prepared to respond to the e-mail question as Trump clearly offered to disclose his taxes if she would release the missing e-mails. Trump behaved despicably but Clinton did not come off much better. Neither did anything to reduce their ‘unfavorable’ rating.
Gordon Howie disagrees with you, Curt. He says that “by any measure,” Hillary Clinton won:
Roger, I agree: whatever the cause, the sniffling degraded his image.
Just released CNN debate polling gives it to Hillary with a whopping 62% to Donald’s 27% of American voters.
Not even close to a draw or a tie.
“Hannity and Charles Krauthammer called the debate a draw.”
If the debate had been a draw, those two GOP talking heads guys would have declared Trump the winner. If draw is the best they can bring themselves to claim for their boy Trump …
Another way you can tell Clinton won the debate: Trump failed to mention Benghazi, while Clinton cited the Benghazi hearing to her advantage.
Fat head Michael Moore says Trump won.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/27/michael-moore-says-trump-won-the-debate/
Trump can’t even fake empathy:
I have to wonder how this guy ever wins a negotiation. Does he only bully people, in part by lying about his wealth and making people think he’s more powerful than he really is?
I the next debate, Clinton needs to:
1) Speak to the laid off factory workers in the swing states whose jobs have been outsourced. She needs to talk about how her policies are going to create new blue collar jobs for them to do and/or retrain them for new economy jobs. She needs to feel their pain like Bill did.
2) Show some righteous indignation when Trump rudely interrupts her. Turn directly to him and ask, “Is this how you talk to your wife? I certainly hope that Melania doesn’t put up with this kind of treatment from you, and I’m not going to be mansplained to either. Wait your turn!”
I am surprised by happy’s assessment as I often agree with many of his points. Giving Trump credit based on his statements and behavior in last night’s debate seems like magical thinking.
Don is correct that the district court did not overrule Terry v. Ohio, which upheld the authority of a police officer who can articulate a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to stop a suspect and frisk him for weapons. Terry, however, did not authorize seizing a weapon absent an officer’s reasonable determination that there is probable cause that the person has engaged in, or is engaging in, criminal behavior. In other words, the officer must have reasonable suspicion for the stop, and must let the suspect go unless during the stop the officer determines there is probable cause to make an arrest.
Trump has never mentioned the reasonable suspicion requirement and seems to think an officer can seize any weapon found on the person stopped and frisked. On its face Trumps’ gives police carte blanche to stop anyone they want to, search them and seize any gun that the person happens to be carrying. While one might suspect that Trump wants police to use stop and frisk to take guns away from only minorities, he has never said it should be limited in such a manner as that would make it unconstitutional as contrary to Terry.
Yesterday I received a call from an NRA representative asking me to listen to a message from Wayne LaPierre. I asked him about Trump’s stop and frisk policy and asked whether the NRA I was worried that this could result in gun confiscation. He appeared to agree that Trump’s proposal could be a major problem for gun owners.
I think that another indication that HRC won the debate is that Trump is now vowing to take the gloves off in the next debate and Trump surrogates are complaining about Lester Holt not going after Clinton.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/27/trump-threatens-to-hit-her-harder-at-next-clinton-debate-as-surrogates-rip-moderator.html
I agree with Rorschach that Clinton needs to do a better job of connecting with the laid off workers–the people that have been left behind by the information economy. She needs to speak to their pain and talk about job skills retraining, technical education opportunities, and other programs for those left behind. She also needs to explain that the biggest reason for manufacturing job losses in the US are because of automation and Trump can negotiate until he is blue in the face but manufacturing jobs will become a smaller portion of GDP just because of computerized automation. Instead of a welder on the assembly line. There is a robot. We need to train folks to build and fix the robots and write the software to control the robots. We still have good jobs in the information economy and we still have the best economy in the world. We need to continue to build on that.
For the next debate, Clinton needs to continue to stick to policy issues which is her strong suit. Let Trump talk about conspiracy theories, bimbos and email. If Trump is going to take the gloves off, he is going to look increasingly unpresidential. He will blow himself up in the eyes of undecided voters.
At the end of the day, the view of Dems already supporting Clinton and Repubs supporting Trump are irrelevant. Both in the polls have rallied roughly 90% of their respective parties to support them (whether enthusiastically or reluctantly). What matters is opinion of the 10% of both parties whose distaste for their nominee has them tempted to vote for another candidate and the 10-20% of the electorate who are Independents who appear to be undecided or vacillating.
Frankly, your liberal bias (and my conservative bias) is an impediment to making a good judgment of which candidate spoke best to those whose opinion matters.
There is no doubt that factually Clinton won the debate. I felt that for the first 45 minutes Trump dominated, however. But within the totality of the entire debate, Clinton won in the eyes of most fact-checkers, but I question if any Trump voters were swayed to change their vote last night.
I still remember the first debate in 2000 between Gore and Bush where the media claimed that Gore won, too, but within days Bush’s numbers climbed in respond to that debate.
What is really frustrating is that this presidential election cycle is not about facts, because if it was then Trump would not even be a nominee. This is a race dictated by an emotional phenomenon, which no candidate or media can affectively sway in the other direction. The only remedy for it is to hope that it does not metastasize across the land any greater than it has and to make sure you get all of your voters out to negate it.
This race is truly getting scary. Real Clear Politics is now beginning to track Minnesota as that state has begun to tighten-up as well – a state which has not gone Republican since 1972 with Nixon’s landslide victory.
Last night Hillary failed to even rise to the Obama’s level of “likeable enough”. She was an automaton and could only recite rote answers. I’ve wiped stuff off of the bottom of my shoes that had more personality than Hillary projects. She has a naturally repellant personality that was on full display last night. Babies start wailing in her presence and dogs slink away with their tails between their legs. No wonder she’s in free fall in the polls.
Troy Jones and other Trump supporters will never concede the fact that Hillary won the debate and thus are forced to call it a draw which it obviously was not.
Minnesota is evolving politically. Blue collar workers in the once solid Democratic iron range are now voting Republican, and the GOP has taken over iron range legislative seats by the dozen – switching the state house to GOP. The US house seat in the iron range, held by Democrat Rick Nolan, is highly competitive with a GOP millionaire self-funder running for the second election cycle in a row. Twin cities and suburbs continue to grow and trend Democratic putting GOP congressional seats at risk of takeover by Democrats. One open GOP seat will probably fall this year with the GOP incumbent in Michelle Bachmann’s former district likely holding on. Minnesota is a light blue state with maybe a tinge of purple. I don’t see Trump taking Minnesota.
Your bias is showing Mr. Coyote. Hillary turned in a solid but not spectacular performance with room for improvement. Trump started out strong and faded dramatically. You’re right that she fails to connect on an emotional level. Trump connects, but too often in a negative way by offending people and appealing to prejudices. I believe they are both sociopaths whose primary concern is themselves. They have a lot in common.
People are talking about Trump sniffling. I watched the whole thing and never noticed any sniffling.
Roger,
Here is the reality:
1) 43.1% of the voters support Clinton and 41.5% of the voters support Trump. If either candidate’s message was most well received by their respective supporters they run the risk of not impacting the other 15%.
2) Of this 15%, 10% are currently supporting two candidates who have no chance to win and may be open to selecting in the end either Clinton and Trump. Since I’m not among that group (and neither are you), I assert neither of us know what might trip their trigger to vote for either Clinton or Trump and Ino idea if either of them gave these people anything upon which to change their minds.
3) Of the remaining 5%, despite the widespread coverage and name ID of these people, they appear to like nobody. I assert neither of us know what they will do (vote for one or the other, make a protest vote, or stay home.
Thus, whether we like it or not or we think the choice is clear, the next President will be the one who in the end prevails among groups #2 and #3.
Trump will not take MN. The Vikings have a better chance winning the Super Bowl.
Jenny,
I assume your statement is hyperbolic to make a point but in case it isn’t and you are willing to put your money where your mouth is, how about a friendly bet.
If the Vikings win the Super Bowl and Clinton wins Minnesota, you win.
If the Vikings don’t win the Super Bowl and Trump wins Minnesota, I win.
In the other two scenarios, it’s a push and we just shake hands.
You can pick the wager between $1 and $100. ;)
Troy,
You kind of went off on a tangent there, you also made the comment on the Powers Dump Site.
I wasn’t talking about the election or it’s outcome, I made the simple comment that republicans will not concede the fact that Hillary won the debate and thus have to call it a draw or tie.
Bets clearly designed to be a push are boooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrring, Troy.
Roger,
Depends on how you define win. Do you think Hillary’s performance addressed her weaknesses with those who are undecided or supporting the two Independent candidates? If so, how did she do it? Similarly, how do you think Trump failed to address his weaknesses with the same people?
And since I think all that matters is the reaction of those I described above and I don’t think it was a draw. I think Trump did a better job speaking to those in the middle concerned about their economic security/job and crime while Clinton’s answers solidified her with those already supporting her on those issues. But, I could be wrong and we’ll see soon enough.
Troy,
Do you really need to have win or won defined for you? Seriously do you ?
I did not find Trump’s “sniffling” as much of an irritant. I think discussion of such indicates the actual relative narrowness of any “win” by either of them. Hillary had one good line, “Trumped-up, Trickle-Down economics.” And, Hillary must have gotten enough voice lessons to not launch into one of her screechy school-maiden teacher speech modes that is terribly irritating. That was enough of an improvement from my perspective.
In any case, I think the real reaction to this debate will indicate it is nearly a draw…even if Hillary probably “won”. The press spends a lot of time on distinctions that don’t make a difference.
coyote, u are such a putz:
“She has a naturally repellant personality that was on full display last night. Babies start wailing in her presence and dogs slink away with their tails between their legs. No wonder she’s in free fall”.
your dear leader now calls it “the look” she is without, but to avoid retaliation by 51% of the population he changed it to the staying power or some such made up “fact”. He has no ethics whatsoever and is not even in the same league as Hillary. No mention of his trademark “crooked Hillary” either. You’re fired, chicken.
Oh, and you don’t like Michael Moore either. Did you see his latest movie: “Where do we invade next?”
Flip a coin, Troy. Heads Jenny wins. Tails you lose. That is the way Drumpf would demand the rules be.
I’m enjoying Steve Schmidt (former campaign mgr., McCain-Palin) on MSNBC. Speaking of Trump this morning: “First rule of holes–when you’re in one, stop digging”. . .”Historically BAD performance”. Kellyanne Conway gives him credit for NOT bringing up sex issues “out of respect for the family”. . .he has no wiggle room on sex scandals and it doesn’t belong in the campaign. He’s just not used to anyone opposing him on the one-on-one and doesn’t know how to handle it. He only knows how to be a boss with yes-men all around him, who only say “yes boss” to whatever he says. He’s not temperamentally equipped or qualified to be president. Well said, Cory.
So what does this mean with the debacle last night, it means that the Rump base will not change their racist ideas and the Clinton folks will not change their minds either, both are solidified in South Dakota. This is what makes a blog such a fun thing to thank Cory for each time we read stuff that has little to do with the trouncing Rump took last night. From reading coyote, he has not stopped crying in his stale beer over this. No answers for the guns being taken away, no answers on cheating the United States government, just the berating of a woman. Coyote has not had a date since Eisenhower was prez, no wonder he hates women.
Given how well prepared Hillary was, leslie, she was probably just hoping and waiting for Trump to bring up sex scandals.
Hillary most likely is well informed on all of Donald’s marital indiscretions and would have thrown them in his face.
Wik-what if trump’s kids, seeing their dad freaking out and unprepared minutes before the debate, tooted him up? Disco Don’s dancing days are back! Is that what we witnessed?
He then tramples all over the debate and participants and complains it was rigged. such a waste of time. http://www.nytimes.com/?WT.z_jog=1&hF=t&vS=undefined
“Trump Lashes Out, Calling Debate Unfair”
Goes on Attack Against Moderator, and Pageant Winner
By ALEXANDER BURNS 49 minutes ago
Donald J. Trump said his mike might have been tampered with and that he was right to comment on a beauty queen’s weight.
He also threatened to make Bill Clinton’s infidelity a campaign issue. (He’s so kind because Chelsea was “sitting right there”!)
751 Comments
and stop and frisk-
“Hundreds of thousands of innocent people were being stopped every year so that the city could arrests tens of thousands for having weed.
Applied almost exclusively to minorities, the stop-and-frisk tactics in New York became an elephantine government project that wasted time and money, degrading both to the personhood of the men and women who were stopped and to the professionalism of the people doing the stopping.
It was poor social hygiene, not defensible as a matter of law or as effective law and order.
As Mr. Trump said, it was “tremendous beyond belief.” http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/nyregion/what-donald-trump-got-wrong-on-stop-and-frisk.html
What a dumb schmuck.
Troy, Coyote, Happy? It is too bad you three don’t get nuance, the law, and sociology. Trump is no better and no worse than Geo. Bush, the dear leader/bully of N. Korea, and Dick Cheney. 2 of three had colin powell to listen to, but they didn’t. Trump doesn’t listen to anyone. Of course you three listen to Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan and Sarah Palin. ( ‘)( ‘) eye rools GIF https://giphy.com/gifs/geekandsundry-dan-casey-nerdist-l0MYsLWSE6ODJoSqI
Good critique, coach.
While Troy’s math prediction may well come true there was an interesting poll by MSNBC asking people whether the debate changed anyone’s mind about who to vote for. Apparently 30% of the respondents said it changed their minds. I can’t imagine that Trump won any new voters with his bad boy antics so perhaps that 30% could be good news for Hillary.
@coyote. My understanding and that of https://ccrjustice.org/home/press-center/press-releases/landmark-decision-judge-rules-nypd-stop-and-frisk-practices is that neither Judge Torres nor the appeals court nullified Judge Scheindlin’s declaration of the stop and frisk practice to be unconstitutional. In fact both decisions cite the Constitutional concerns. In withdrawing the appeal, NYC let that determination stand as the reason for ordering the practice to be stopped and for a monitor to continue supervisor of reformed practices. That finding was not found in fault.
Mr. C, I find it hard to believe that Mr. Trump has as many moments as Ms. Clinton’s husband does, but I suppose it is possible. I thought Ms. Clinton did best when she shut up and smiled and let Mr. Trump just blather on. Let Trump talk as much as possible, that would be her best strategy.
We’re all screwed no matter what.
Why isn’t Grudzilla leading a congressional investigation into every one of Drumpf’s admitted scandals/crimes?
Grudz,
Here’s just a little reminder, Bill Clinton is not running for president and Donald Trump is.
Someone will have to remind me how many times Trump has dumped a wife for a younger immigrant woman.
It seems that Evangelical Christians would be taking a stronger stance against Trump for his multiple affairs and marriages that seem to go against their family values.
Trumps said today that he didn’t bring up Bill’s sex scandal out of respect, he didn’t bring it up because he knew damn good and well Hillary was well prepared to go after his own sexual indiscretions.
I thought what Hillary did best was to say nothing. Trump hung himself a lot with Hillary just sitting back and smiling.
You could tell that Trump doesn’t like to be taken out back to the woodshed by a woman. A lot of Republicans have that problem.
Roger, don’t forget Trump’s personal Vietnam hell where he said he was in constant danger of getting STDs from his multiple sexual conquests.
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/donald-trump-calls-sleeping-around-as-his-personal-vietnam-w432176
U.S. wealthy civilians get purple hearts for getting VietNam Dead.
Colbert: ‘Trump Sounded Like He Was Fighting Off A Cold With Cocaine” For a healthy guy that never gets sick, he sounded worse that Hillary Clinton did with pneumonia. I kind of remember that sniffing when I had kids at home and they were playing with their toys.
“The fact that everyone you know thinks Hillary Clinton won is of no practical significance.”
Dan Froomkin
Ain’t it the truth. Unfortunately,.
Maybe I’m naive but I’m not as interested in who is the “winner” as whom shows me they have the temperament and skills to be the President of the United States. I personally don’t really care much about debates. Except for the ones on Coreys cool blog.
My daughter’s reaction to the debate was priceless “BERNIE!!!!! Where are you!!!!!!” No doubt he would have livened things up.
Correct Curt. Oligarchy won, the American people lost.
https://theintercept.com/2016/09/27/beyond-sniffles-and-sexism-what-the-hell-was-the-debate-about/
Trump said this morning that Lester Holt was picking on him in the debate, but Trump says he is not complaining. No, he is not complaining about getting beat by a girl. Oh, but it is eating him up. He is going to be nasty in the next debate.
Another sign that Trump lost: Guiliani thought that Trump shouldn’t agree to do another debate unless the moderator agreed not to fact check during the debate. Yes, let’s leave facts out of this Giuliani and just hurl insults and lies.
Trump doubled down this morning on explaining why it was ok to fat shame Miss Universe and call her “Miss Piggy” and arrange to have the media watch as she worked out. Coyote complains about HRC’s mundane personality. Coyote prefers Trump who is a terrible person who constantly brags about how great he is, how rich he is, how he takes advantage of people and the system. To him, women are merely objects measured solely by their outward appearance and what they can do for him. To him, minorities are people to be used to his advantage as long as they know their place like when he said: “look at my African-American over there. Look at him.” I agree with Mr. Khan that Trump is a dark soul.
While Trump was avoiding the draft and Vietnam War and discriminating against African-Americans in the 70’s, shagging women through his own personal Vietnam war in the 80’s, cheating on his spouse and remarrying and cheating on his spouse and remarrying in the 90’s and 2000’s, HRC was working for children, women and providing an example of a lifetime of public service:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsxbCplcfHI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_GYGsIpP54
Here is Trump:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h822LPnM5uw
Hillary Clinton thinks she can win by courting Republicans and not Progressive Democrats. Can she?
http://observer.com/2016/08/clinton-wants-to-keep-the-republican-majority-in-congress/
Bad strategy for down ticket DEMs.
If one reads to the bottom of your linked article from observer.com, Leo, one will see that the publisher of that online rag is Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. If you’re going to post propaganda generated by the Trump family here, you should disclose that fact.
Yes, it is good that that disclosure was part of the story, Rosrschach. Happy that you are observant. Would like to see disclosures like that in other publications trying to defend Hillary Clinton for the last year. They don’t do it. Now for the content. Are you telling me that none of it is true? Think deep. Let’s go fact by fact.
Leo, Instead of looking at what Trump’s son-in-law says about Trump or Clinton maybe you should review an independent source? Crazy idea, I know!
How about the Arizona Republic which since it began in 1890 had never endorsed a Democrat for President. They did just that yesterday:
“Since The Arizona Republic began publication in 1890, we have never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican for president. Never. This reflects a deep philosophical appreciation for conservative ideals and Republican principles. This year is different.”
“Trump’s long history of objectifying women and his demeaning comments about women during the campaign are not just good-old-boy gaffes. They are evidence of deep character flaws. They are part of a pattern.”
“Trump mocked a reporter’s physical handicap. Picked a fight with a Gold Star family. Insulted POWs. Suggested a Latino judge can’t be fair because of his heritage. Proposed banning Muslim immigration.”
“Each of those comments show a stunning lack of human decency, empathy and respect. Taken together they reveal a candidate who doesn’t grasp our national ideals.”
http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/editorial/2016/09/27/hillary-clinton-endorsement/91198668/
And of course she lied once again, giving the impression that 30,00 Americans are murdered with black rifles every year.
When one has to hyperbolie in an effort to sway opinion, it shows they have NO argument and they are unfit for office. present company included.
Curt, the tax-returns-for-emails quid pro quo is a distraction. If we accept the tax-return tradition as normative, Trump is bucking an accepted practice. No previous Presidential candidate has said, “Well, I’ll release my tax returns, but only if my opponent performs X,” where X is some other non-tax-related disclosure. It’s like a new English teacher saying, “Sure, I’ll show up on time for work, but only if the math teacher stops hogging the copy machine.” The math teacher’s monopolization of the copier may be a valid issue, but it has zero impact on the validity of expecting the English teacher to show up for work on time. Trump can’t shift responsibility for an expected action onto someone else.
Coyote, Moore says Trump “won” only in the sense that Clinton didn’t lower enough booms on him to make the emotional appeal that you appear to crave and that others here (Ror, Jones…) suggest is essential to winning the crucial middle sliver of undecideds.
Yet while Clinton won the debate itself on facts and presentation (as Roger Cornelius says should be clear), Trump provided more than enough negative emotional content to drive undecideds away. How can a guy brag about dodging taxes, express his self-centered view of the housing collapse and recession as a personal business opportunity, and say that any woman deserves sexist insults and not lose on ethos and pathos?
Roger C nails the likely and sleazy reason Trump took only the passive-aggressive swing at Clinton the infidelity issue. He only wants to raise the issue in a venue where he won’t be challenged immediately, with everyone watching. He baits Clinton on stage with the unspecified attack, cloaks it in faux-nobility, then makes the same undignified attack off stage for the mics.
How Hillary Clinton confronted her husband’s infidelity, how they worked out their marital issues, is her business. The fact that she didn’t play it out i the tabloids perhaps speaks in her favor. And Bill Clinton is not on the ballot.
Spike, I won’t try to speculate on the polling numbers following the Trump/Sanders debate that happened in an alternate universe just a few bosons down the multi-continuum. But I will suggest that the debate dynamic would have been notably different in a Presidential race where Donald Trump couldn’t play his brutish male chauvinist id for the masses revolting at the first likely female President.
The fact that Coyote is responding on an emotional level against HRC instead of a logical, policy based level of discernment about which candidate is the best for our country is quite amusing. Isn’t it liberals who are supposed to be ruled by emotion and devoid of logic and reason?
(Dog whistle), here boy! Come on boy! Good boy!
I thought this was a wonderful piece about what happens when people put aside the “sports team” approach to politics and actually look at the candidates:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/isaac-saul/i-wrote-that-i-despised-hillary-clinton-i-take-it-back_b_12220124.html?
Anybody on here voting for Trump care to explain draft dodging Trumps ignorant comment about Japan if we went to war?
what a messed up comment he made. I don’t care how many hotels he built, how many jobs he created, how many billions he has. Hyperbole Freed? Clinton? Seriously?
Alas the political days of good Senator John Warner are gone. But he’s not. But I guess his opinion no longer matters to any people voting republican.
Darin, excuse me, but I review a lot of different sources. The Arizona paper’s decision and that of the Cincinnati Enquirer proves my point and the point put forth in that article. The establishment GOP does not want to be tied to Trump, BUT they should be, they should be held accountable for the creation of this political monster. He did not rise out of nowhere and suddenly get the GOP nomination. Please stop telling me and others that by criticizing HRC, the DNC, her campaign and their terrible decisions that I am a Trump supporter, or am voting for him – nothing could be further from the truth. What is it about freedom of expression and thought that you hate so much? Seems to me that “party loyalist hack” just might be appropriate in this circumstance.
Oh, by the way, why is Hillary Clinton running for President? Does anyone know?
Leo: “Oh, by the way, why is Hillary Clinton running for President? Does anyone know?”
Because she is a life-ling public servant who sees the opportunity to continue to do good work and positively affect change. — if I had to guess.
Leo, if you review a lot of different sources, then cite those sources. Don’t cite Trump’s son-in-law.
At this point, Gary Johnson is at 10% or less. Jill Stein is at 5% or less. Neither of them is going to be president. Your choices are HRC or Trump. If you are overly critical of HRC, then you are indirectly supporting Trump, even if you are not voting for him.
What I would like is a fair debate of Clinton versus Trump. If you come on here and cite Trump’s son-in-law, you are darn right I’m going to question your position. If you are going to go after HRC, I would like to see a comparison with Trump. I provide the case for HRC. If you are against HRC, you have to provide the case for why Trump should be president, because those are the only two viable choices at this point.
Your freedom of speech is your right and I support your right, but don’t expect my freedom of speech to be curbed just because you want to advocate against HRC and not for Trump. Your distinction is without a difference in my estimation.
Frontline last night was interesting on why Hillary runs. History indicates she wants to get things done for the whole country. Bernie forced her to make those positions more obvious. The other reason may be a long-burning ambition to have power based on her own accomplishment and independence rather than being tied to husband Bill’s fame, etc. It appeared that was partially why she ran for US Senate in NY. My perspective on the show may be all wrong, so you may want to check PBS.ORG if you did not see it already. May be on TV again today, but I don’t know.
And, Leo, just because your posts are criticized, does not necessarily mean that your critic is opposed to freedom of expression. That kind of BS is another form of strawman diversion. Also, if your intent is only to clear things up about Trump, etc., maybe you should make that clear before rather than after your posts get criticised.
As I have indicated before, I don’t think either Trump or Hillary did as well as possible, but also think that both did better than their usual performance even if the total result of the debate may be essentially a toss-up. How well they did seems mostly to depend on pre-conceptions of the rater.
Well I hope she doesn’t affect change too much because change is necessary, and she clearly represents the status quo.
PS Leo- As o mentioned, HRC has lived a life of public service starting from the time she was a college student. She is continuing that in her run for the presidency.
What is Trump’s motivation for running–to better his brand.
Thanks Darin, thanks o, you answered my question….she has no strong message for the American people, she simply wants to serve. Oh elect me, I want to serve you. Why do you want to serve us? Is it because you are one of us and that you understand our problems and we require an honorable leader, or is it merely “to have” all that power received in office by deceiving us, cheating us, and sending the people’s sons and daughters off to your wars that are not in our interests but in yours.
Tulsi Gabbard is an example of a strong, principled leader who gave up power in order to serve!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzYoDOXsNm8#t=331.13727
o’s recent post and link to the Huffington Post article is an important piece to read, if you haven’t already.
Isaac Saul’s article reveals how he despised Hillary for all these months and how he now enthusiastically supports her now based on her policy positions and more.
Saul went from not having a choice with Hillary and Trump to why it is important to vote for Hillary, his support for Hillary is not just based on what a horrible person and candidate Donald Trump is, but how Hillary will lead and govern.
Drumpf is making money of this campaign. He is in it for Drumpf. The gubmint is paying Drumpf for his Secret Service people. He holds events at his hotels and charges a premium for their use. His kids are all paid advisers- not that any of them know any more than Drumpf himself. It is about Drumpf’s bank account and that is what a Drumpf in the WH would be all about.
Some rwnj was screaming yesterday that HRC had the debate questions a week in advance so she was better prepared for the debate. Hogwash. Drumpf doesn’t study for anything. He makes a steaming mess and then blames everyone except himself for the outcomes.
Leo: “Thanks Darin, thanks o, you answered my question….she has no strong message for the American people, she simply wants to serve. Oh elect me, I want to serve you. Why do you want to serve us? ”
Leo, I think you just did a bait-and-switch: you asked one question, got an answer, then say that that answer does not address another question you have. You asked why is she running, not what is her message. Are you now asking what her message(s) is(are)?
Both of these candidates are frauds and cheaters, one just does it better and is much more savvy, and the other is now apparently the underdog. America loves the underdog. Guess which dog wins.
The lead dog wins like in any other race.
Darin, please don’t tell Americans what their choices are. If you have two turds in a toilet and ask an American which one they want, my guess is that they will flush them both down.
Leo capitulates to the ‘they are both bad candidates’ when he can’t concede the fact that Trump is a horrible person and candidate.
Another required reading for today is the just posted Northern Valley Beacon by David Newquist. David provides another perspective on how Trump is real bad at debate and can only provide corporate big business answers to economic problems.
I reject the false equivalency of the right which has been perpetuated by too much media: this is not a race between two “equal evils” or two equally despicable candidates. This is a choice between a reprehensible person and a truly decent person. Certainly both are imperfect and have made mistakes in their lives, but calling their level of bad/wrong equal is to fully ignore truth.
See John Oliver’s report on comparing the “scandals” of both candidates.
A Link to the Oliver piece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Lfd1aB9YI
Bonus, like the Huffington Post piece I referenced above, both talk about the problem of politics being too much like sports and the rooting on of your “team” BECAUSE it is your team.
Roger, I do concede that Trump is a horrible person. Please tell me why we live in a binary political United States when the American people do not want fewer choices, but more. IMHO, my turd analogy is a good one because both turds came out of the same 1% oligarchic ass that is crapping all over the American people.
Come get my vote Hillary Clinton! I am a progressive Democrat. Please come out strongly and oppose the Dakota Access Pipeline.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0o9_8IrQdSg
Why can’t we have a powerful woman of integrity leading us like Elizabeth Warren?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OpLFsememc
Leo, pardon me for being blunt, but you don’t seem to have a clue. Review some of the information that has been referenced on here. Do some reading about what Clinton has done in her life compared to what Trump has done in his life. They are not two turds. Trump is one big royal turd who thinks his turds don’t stink.
You don’t have to like everything about HRC, but if you are really a progressive Democrat, you should be supporting HRC just like Bernie is. How is your progressive agenda going to go with a Trump presidency?
As far as HRC and Trump being the same, you have got to be kidding me. HRC has been fighting for the rights of children, women and families and the well being of the middle class virtually since she graduated from high school. That is a heck of a long time to be acting a part in order to carry out some Machiavellian plan to ascend to the presidency. Trump hasn’t been for the middle class ever. Trump has only been about himself. Clinton grew up middle class and knows what it is like to not have a lot of money.
Clinton has more knowledge and experience to lead this country in her pinky finger than Trump has in his entire person.
If your contention is that Trump and Clinton are the same, then you need to go back to the books, right now you are earning a failing grade.
Leo, if I may. Elizabeth Warren is leading. She just lead the consumer bureau of her creation into some of the biggest settlements of all. Things that would not have been achieved without her in the senate, where she needs to stay for right now. BTW, those two ding a ling crooks at Wells Fargo, the CEO and his moll, have to pay back the loot they stole. Thank Warren for that as well. The prez depends on what the senate can do. Obama still has Gitmo open, even when he said he would close it.
Warren has said she can work with Clinton. Warren sure as hell cannot work with Trump and that is whose vote you will cast if you do not vote or if you vote for the others. We get that you do not like either one of them, but the alternative is just to risky.
Jerry, please, as disastrous as it will be, Trump will be President. The DNC and the Superdelegates did a bad thing supporting Hillary Clinton and conspiring against Bernie Sanders. The Democratic Establishment gave us a Trump Presidency, not little ‘ole me in nowhere’sville! If you think you want to defend Hillary Clinton, you better go (or phone bank) to Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Colorado, etc. and convince people, not me. Good luck.
Leo,
Your turd analogy sounds very Trumpy.
Roger, Bless your Heart!
Leo is sounding more and more like a troll. What crimes has HRC been tried and convicted of? She has only been convicted in the court of rwnj public opinion because those people are too stoopid or lazy to find out the truth.
Fake Noize was living it up after the debate with on-line polls claiming Drumpf won. Then they got a memo from the head shed telling them that their polls were not scientific and didn’t count. At least one person at Fake Noize lives in the real world.
But you go right ahead and swill the swill of Fake Noize. That is your right as an American.
Hey Mike, I oppose Dakota Access Pipeline vociferously. How are you on that? I have not heard one word from the Clinton campaign suggesting that HRC would like to protect our water. Have you heard anything from them?
I hope leslie, Roger C, Spike, and Mr. Seamans to name a few will like this from the administration of President Obama https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-loretta-e-lynch-and-secretary-interior-sally-jewell-announce-settlements
This man is gonna be a tough act to follow. I think that Clinton can do it though. Native folks will need to GOTV though to help the cause. While they are out there doing the lifting, they can look at what Cory posted on great ideas of how to cast your vote regarding amendments and such. Here we go. The bride and I voted today. Damn, it always feels good to do that. We sure as hell did not vote for that lying sack of crap, Donald J. Trump. We voted for someone who we think will do the job we expect her to do.
“The Department of the Interior manages almost 56 million acres of trust lands for federally-recognized tribes and more than 100,000 leases on those lands for various uses, including housing, timber harvesting, farming, grazing, oil and gas extraction, business leasing, rights-of-way and easements. Interior also manages about 2,500 tribal trust accounts for more than 250 tribes.”
Just like Jerry said, Hillary Clinton always speaks to native issues and makes them important. Hillary even visited South Dakota an incredible total of ZERO times this election season….and she always says how committed she is to thwarting the Dakota Access Pipeline. Way to go Hill!
Here is the dude that did though Leo, they are both speaking on the same page, where the hell are you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf9ljsxTmBQ
jerry,
Thanks for the link to DOJ, this is but one of the disasters in the making if we have a Trump presidency.
Indian Tribes will be doomed by Donald, republicans led by Trump will immediately legislate tribes and their resources out of existence.
I don’t know what Hillary’s position is on Dakota Access is at this point but I know she is opposed to KeystoneXL.
I have never been a one issue voter and refuse to start now, we’ll get to Hillary and Dakota Access when the time is right.
Jerry, at this point, I am on the independent side, the third-party side. If I could vote for Bernie again, I would do so in a heartbeat. Thanks for sharing the video. Appreciate that.
How many times did Trump visit South
Dakota Tribes, Leo? ZERO.
He wouldn’t dare show his face on a reservation, they’d scalp him!
One more time just for Leo.
Bernie Sanders is not a candidate for president.
Elizabeth Warren is not a candidate for president.
Bernie Sanders supports and is campaigning for Hillary Clinton.
Elizabeth Warren supports and is campaigning for Hillary Clinton.
Do you understand now, Leo?
Leo is for Trump, bless his heart. There is no other way to describe it.
Yeah Jerry, that is how to convince an undecided voter….you moron! Thank God the video you shared didn’t have to make any listener’s have to hear Hillary because we all know how that would go. By the by, I always switch channels when Trump starts speaking as well.
Just decided to vote for Gary Johnson, tomorrow! Thanks guys. You are great persuaders!
Leo, explain to me and Bernie Sanders how voting for Gary Johnson helps Bernie Sanders get a progressive agenda to the top of the list in Washington.
Leo, you could not have seen the entire video by the time of your response. It is quite good and after my man Bernie speaks he then introduces my gal Hillary and she gives one helluva speech as well. This was today man, this was today. There can be no doubt about what choice there is if you are not anything remotely close to Trump. Trump is a racist, he hates religion (look out Catholics, you are in the same boat as the Muslims), he hates women, unless they are subservient to his desires. He hates you to Leo, even if you are sending the guy money, he hates you man. Yet that is who you will vote for if you vote for anyone other than Clinton or choose to not vote at all. I was a Bernie supporter, still send money for the cause, but I also know the reality of how stuff works.
Leo is fibbing, he will vote for Clinton!!! What a kidder. Had me going there for a minute you rascal.
Jill and Bernie, sittin’ in a tree, D.E.M.E.X.I.T. Leo out!
Leo- exactly how does one thwart anything if they are not in a position to thwart it? Once she is elected we will see just how unwilling a wingnut led congress will be to help her achieve her goals.
HRC has a better environmental record in a single strand of hair than Drumpf has in his entire life. Drumpf doesn’t care about anything but Drumpf.
Why does Drumpf want to be Potus? He has stated over and over that he cares not for the daily grind. He will let his subordinates run the place while he markets himself to the world and makes money.
Dumbass Dubya also was not interested in the nuts and bolts of being in charge. He turned out well, didn’t he?
jerry,
Good catch on how long it took Leo to watch the video and post a comment.
He lies as much as Trump.
All this support being drummed up in support of electing a pathological liar president is troubling. The other main party candidate being a compulsive liar isn’t a good option. I get it. Still, it’s disturbing to think that while I’m cautioning children about the slippery slope of knowingly and intentionally saying things that aren’t true, there are adults trying to convince others that someone with a lengthy and well-documented history of such behavior would make a great leader for our country. If that isn’t tearing at the fabric of our society, I don’t know what is.
Sort of an amusing comment on public radio today. I think it was an old interview with Simon Peres ? of Israel who may have died today.. It was, “Polls are like perfume. Good to smell, but poisonous to drink.”
Troubling as it may be Mr. Sanchez, it is what it is. The facts are in and both choices have their baggage that is for sure. I think that giving all that I know about the two of them, I will still go with Clinton as I just voted for her today. If you think that not voting for either of them will be your answer to your moral dilemma, then that is your call. I would say that the tearing of our society has happened long ago, by our turning our collective backs on the issues that got us here. Racism is a huge part, probably the most major part. Religion is a close second. While we may not admit it, we do not like others that are not from the same religious cast we think is our moral compass. One thing about Trump and the tearing of our society, he will not tear it, he will burn it down. Oh, and one other thing, why do we have this hatred and fear of women and the power we feel is ours?
Steve Sanchez, if you are looking to vote for Jesus, He isn’t on the ballot. Neither is Mother Theresa, although people apparently find fault with her even posthumously. If you are looking for saints among the vipers and the money changers, I think you are going to be continually disappointed. Few people of high moral character are going to slog around in politics for very long. As the saying goes, “Never wrestle with a pig—you get dirty and the pig likes it.”
When you get past the fact that politicians are not saints, especially on the national level, you can start making decisions based on who will implement the best policies for the country. The lesson for the kids is that the world is not black and white. It is gray and full of compromises and disappointments.
Like O, I reject the false equivalency. That’s lazy talk for people who want to justify dodging the effort and the responsibility of distinguishing good from bad in any degree.
To challenge Leo’s analogy, the two main Presidential nominees are not identical useless pieces of s—. These are not two pieces of refuse that we can simply flush away and never think about again. They are living, acting humans, and one of them will become President of the United States. We will live with one of these people as our commander in chief for the next four years. Hillary Clinton is willing and qualified to do the job. Donald Trump is too “lazy and unfocused” to even sit for debate prep, let alone spend hours every day in the Oval Office reviewing policy and intelligence briefs to guide real decision-making.
I’m done facilitating the false equivalency with phrases like, “Well, Hillary has her flaws, but….” That’s a non-unique statement: every human has flaws. That’s not a voting issue any more than, “Bob has fingers.” We need to analyze the nature of those flaws and how they will affect job performance. Clinton’s flaws are largely matters of interpretation (often willful misinterpretation) that have not stood in the way of her functioning ably as a First Lady with policy teeth, a U.S. Senator, and Secretary of State. Trump’s flaws are matters of obvious, objective fact (lack of diplomacy, lack of diligence, lack of empathy, lack of experience as or interest in being a public servant) that should have disqualified him from this job interview but for the celebrity-fueled rump-id impulses of far too many voters unwilling to see a woman become President.
I have fingers?
Douglas, that’s a fine Peres quote. Polls can provide some useful information, but when we’re in election mode, we need to get out, knock on doors, and talk up the best candidate, no matter what. And as Roger says, South Dakotans have one candidate on the ballot who will advance our progressive agenda, Hillary Clinton, and that candidate has the backing of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
(Robert, yes, I assume you are digital. Your comments are too well written to be the product of a dictaphone.)
I don’t know any progressives who would label any other human being a piece of human waste to be flushed away. Someone who would make such a statement and then claim to be a “progressive” raises red flags that suggest duplicity – someone who has been hired to say things on social media to convince voters who can’t support Trump to vote against Hillary or stay home.
And Cory is right, neither Trump nor Hillary deserve such atrocious hateful labels. While Hillary has spent her entire life working for the benefit of others and has the education and experience to be President, that does not turn Trump into a piece of waste. While not qualified in experience or temperament to be President, Trump is a fellow human being and deserves better than that.
On a personal note, prior to this Presidential campaign I thought very little about Islam. As Trump began to spread his false and stereotypical theories about how terrible Muslims are I started looking at such claims more seriously.
In doing so I have gained a great appreciation of the good that many in the Muslim community do for their friends, neighbors, and communities. I specifically credit and thank Trump for boosting my knowledge about Islam and the Muslim community in America and across the world. Thanks Donald!
For comedic relief, dissect this video:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/see-stephen-colberts-hilarious-recap-of-day-1-of-the-dnc-w430916
Watched it all Trump wins on sincerity it’s that bad with Hillary the most condescending faker ever in front of a podium.
Happy must be a part of that vast right wing conspiracy the HRC claimed was out to get Clinton’s of all stripes.
It all started with an outfit you never heard of-Citizens United, and persists to this day.