The First Clinton/Trump Debate

Here's a thread for talking about the debate.

I'm terrified that Trump has a low bar and will win by not being completely and self-evidently Great Cthulhu himself, risen from the sea to kill us all.

About the low bar for Trump, I think this chart sums it up:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/09/26/debate_expectations_for_trump_...
My favorite is "must not speak Russian when someone holds up a queen of diamonds".

Getting a beer & sandwich ready for the match!

Is this the first time the word "bigly" has been used in a Presidential debate? I'm betting yes.

Logged onto NPR online transcript of the debate with fact checking.

http://wfae.org/post/first-presidential-debate-fact-check

Another fact check site:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/sep/26/live-fact-checking-f...

>4 davidgn: .... amateurs...Bush quote.

"One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures."—U.S. News & World Report, Jan. 3, 2000

Carter Flip-flops, Ford can't pour a glass of water :

How debates ought to be done.

From the good old days---

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QP_aZcsq7dU

So, there you are: "round #1" of "Two Very, very rich people go at it verbally for ~ 80 minutes."

Are you a mega- multi-millionaire? Then you got to watch two people who personally know your lifestyles and who understand your preoccupations firsthand face off and argue about who ought to become the next president of the (starkly-divided) "United States."

On the other hand, if you're just barely getting by or, worse, if you're broke, unemployed, homeless, a high-school drop-out, have no much-desired Silicon Valley start-up skills, to represent your interests you get to choose between one of these two-- a self-absorbed demagogue with a somewhat sincere appearing but rather lately-found concern for people like you, a guy who spent his life consumed with becoming and staying rich and in-charge of various things or a career self-promoting politician who has similarly been on-the-make all her adult life--only made mainly in the "public sector"--where she's held one post after another and mined these for their lucrative contacts with other influential people around the world, later peddling influence gained thereby on the circuit of private foreign and domestic wealth--with which she and family are now so completely at home that she's effectively the moral and intellectual captive of this social class.

Both of these people are so completely wedded to the status quo that neither can go beyond a very modest challenge of its operating norms since both of them depend on them.

And yet, the so-called liberal, progressive half of the nation--including the vast majority of the "lucky few"--are in a hair-on-fire panic at the narrowness of the race as indicated in opinion surveys of the public, including, exceptionally, ordinary people like you, like us.

Without having gone to actual civil warfare, the nation is now, for many practical intents and purposes, a divided world in which two halves (though nothing like numerically equal) live separate and very different kinds of existences, knowing little first-hand of the other, distrusting it, quite often despising it for its preferences, each speaking through its own vocabulary in which the same phrases often mean very different things according to which of the divided societies is voicing them.

On one side only one finds all the politically-connected and influential--though these break down into various factions, they have a real political participation in common as they periodically send their champions into the arena of public affairs. Thus, both of these candidates are by, of and for one and the same side of the socially-divided two unequal halves of "America." Did you attend Donald Trump's most recent marriage? How about Chelsea Clinton's wedding--were you among the invited guests? Well, close friends of each of these candidates were at both nuptials.

As for those who'd never have any prospect of an invitation to such events, who are and always have been locked out of any except a trivial role in the nation's political affairs, they, too, are found all together on one side of the divided society--whichever candidate they favor.

Stay tuned for Round #2 in this psychodrama.

But, bear in mind: whichever candidate wins, the nation's effective de facto secession, division into two antagonistic parts, remains and continues.

In that, you're also a spectator but you don't even have a ballot-casting role.

Whatever happened to Timothy Leary? We'll settle for NOFX.

Fuck off, drop out
Never trust a fucking hippie
For that matter don't trust anyone

Anyway I can't think of a more complete waste of time than yesterday's debate. The idea that there are people still on the fence (?) between the one or the other seems absurd and appalling at the same time. At least for me and yeah Trump is worse but the alternative is something truly awful. Neither of them are credible let alone believable. Hillary at least is lucid I suppose. For an analogy she would be like the worst, most overrated and overpaid player on my hockey team that I just want to get rid of and I don't care how. And yet again she's so much better than Trump. Well you don't expect much from Republicans anyway but somehow---somehow they managed to find something that had died, putrified and poisoned everything from the bottom of their barrel on up. I hope their political party dies. Who needs two major political parties when one will do? and who needs debates?

The answer that best exemplifies how badly Donald Trump was out of his depth in the debate:

...moderator Lester Holt asked Hillary Clinton how to defend against cyber attacks. Clinton responded that it was a serious threat, as evidenced by the Russian hacks of American institutions including the Democratic National Committee.

Then it was Trump's turn. Take this in your hands. Look at it.

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

"You don't know who broke in to DNC."

"But what did we learn with DNC? We learned that Bernie Sanders was taken advantage of by your people, by Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Look what happened to her. But Bernie Sanders was taken advantage of. That's what we learned."

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

"We came in with the internet, we came up with the internet, and I think Secretary Clinton and myself would agree very much, when you look at what the Islamic State is doing with the internet, they're beating us at our own game. ISIS."

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

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

Everything is broken and only Trump can fix it -- though the problem and the solution were left almost completely unarticulated.

As I said: The debate in a nutshell.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/27/the-answer-that-best-e...

>7 DugsBooks: ".... amateurs...Bush quote.

"One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures."—U.S. News & World Report, Jan. 3, 2000"

So, you don't think this is one of the great things about books?

>12 cpg: Perhaps the only redeeming value in a lot of books.

>10 lriley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EXCIWlm1fs

>9 proximity1: & others.....I hope the next debate has a session on health care. I think this is a subject both candidates are shying away from. With several insurance companies pulling out of the fed health plan I would like to see Hillary come up with a "federal" plan as she has touted in the past. Lots of dirty details to work out.

I just developed a problem with a couple of teeth and the {expensive to find out!} estimates I got for the {good} solution is literally just under half of what I paid for my house - either that or develop an affinity for soup!

>1 timspalding: >2 Taphophile13: The "low bar for Trump" was picked up by a lot of people - especially comedians I noticed. Steven Colbert started his live show after the debate with something similar.

>13 DugsBooks: Sounds like it's time for some fun in the sun. http://www.webmd.com/oral-health/features/dental-tourism

ETA: As far as the "low bar" -- they either picked up the meme or got the memo.
Reminiscent of this: http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/07/how-clinton-and-her-shallow-brained-media-d...

I'm extremely relieved. Frankly, I thought he won the debate--not on points or intelligence or anything, but simply because a low-information "undecided" voter could have seen him go toe to toe and open his mouth and say forceful things and conclude he fought and won a fair fight. I'm glad to find out I was wrong, and undecideds seem to have concluded Clinton won it.

I have little else to contribute. Debates are stupid. This election needs to be set down on the pavement and crushed with a brick.

>14 davidgn: I had wondered why no one mentioned Trump's obvious game plan as pointed out in your link:

"A. Create "outrage"
B. Get huge media cov for 0 cents
C. Increase vote share
D. Laugh at stupid journos
E. Repeat"

>15 timspalding: I think the advantage of debates is that you get to see the candidates together and unfiltered. Most of us don't have that opportunity, which means you have to rely on "objective" reporting from the media. Then, of course, you can find anything you want. I was very pleased with the debate last night. It validated concerns about Trump and I thought Hillary did a good job given the environment in the country. In the end, what will matter with respect to the effectiveness of President HRC is the Congress that she will inherit. Congress was a disaster these last 8 years.

>17 krazy4katz:

I haven't dug into it, but I gather various polls are saying the opposite--that he won it. God, I hope that's wrong.

>18 timspalding:, my concern as well. I had the sense Trump came off the worse also, but only in a reasoned sense. That isn't proving to be a decisive quality among American voters this year.

In terms of spectacle, he brought the spectacle. I heard this morning it was (perhaps?) the highest American debate ratings ever. Additional people watched because they expected to be entertained, and they were. But not by Hillary. Implication being, they're swayed by whoever puts on a good show, content being of secondary importance. Probably tied to what >9 proximity1: has said above, that neither candidate can be related to by the average American. The issues are almost a non-issue in this environment.

>18 timspalding: I am fully prepared to relinquish my last remaining shreds of faith in humanity come November 9. I only hope that when the apocalypse comes, I go in the first wave.

>19 Cecrow:

He did seem increasingly rattled in the second half. But I wonder if that matters—by the second half even I was flipping through my phone, bored and a little overstimulated by the wrangle.

I'm going to be in Turkey when the election comes. I'm not sure if that's going to make it easier or harder. Don't worry, we've got the absentee ballots.

>19 Cecrow: I realize what you are saying regarding how people feel that the Clintons are out of touch with "normal" Americans, but I don't understand it. They did not come from rich backgrounds -- quite the opposite! -- and they worked very hard to get to the point where Bill Clinton could run for president. Yes, they are now very wealthy but that happens to lots of presidents after their term. I just don't understand why people don't realize all the work HRC did for children and impoverished Americans before the 2 of them moved to the national stage. Their Foundation has helped millions, regardless of the possibility that people "thought" they may get more access to the power couple if they contributed. There is no evidence anyone did. The Clintons are not the clueless wealthy stereotype -- at least it's not obvious in my opinion.

>22 krazy4katz:

Clinton has spent most of her adult life in very close proximity to power, often enormous power, either hers directly or her husband's. She inhabits the rarified air of financial and political power, surrounded by bodyguards. She is almost always the most important person in the room—the one toward whom everyone turns. She has any number of aides and flunkies standing by to help her, and has had them for decades. Although she's pretty close to the pinnacle of the it, this is true of many in politics, and doesn't make her a monster. It is, however, reasonable to believe she is "out of touch" with regular Americans.

>23 timspalding: It is, however, reasonable to believe she is "out of touch" with regular Americans.

Obama and Bill Clinton were a lot younger, and maybe are different. But who among Donald Trump, Mitt Romney, John McCain, George W. Bush, John Kerry, and Al Gore were different? Almost by definition, if you're qualified to be president of the United States of America, you went to schools that most Americans didn't even think about applying to, you've spent your life studying things in depth that most people have the vaguest idea of and little interest in improving their knowledge of. You then take jobs that regular Americans can't imagine doing until sometimes you are the most important in the room except for Xi Jinping or Enrique Peña Nieto. Then and only then can you properly do a job where you can claim that you are the most important in the room despite Xi Jinping standing in it. If that makes you "out of touch" with regular Americans, then the whole idea is pretty silly?

(I didn't realize how much John Kerry had a normal, "regular American" background until this. He did such an amazing job expressing the out of touch rich guy.)

>23 timspalding: Yes, what >24 prosfilaes: said. You have to have to be pretty much on the edge of the bell shaped curve in terms of ego and education to even want this job. The search for someone who is an "average American" or in touch with them doesn't really help (in my opinion) to figure out who would make the best president. I look for someone with whom I share general principles (decent education, health care, equality for all Americans etc etc) and then who would be a good manager and can deal reasonably well on the international political scene. Otherwise you could look forever and not find anyone.

ETA: I guess the other question is: who is the average American? Is it someone on LT who loves Greek literature? Is it the professor of Cell Biology & Physiology who loves history, fiction and biographies? Is it the person living on the street corner who lost his job 6 months ago? Who among us is an average American? What we need is someone with the talent and insight to see all of America in its complexity and select the most effective way to solve the problems we have. One can't just eliminate all rich people from that category categorically (if ya know what I mean).

But who among Donald Trump, Mitt Romney, John McCain, George W. Bush, John Kerry, and Al Gore were different?

I'm not claiming any of them are. If you read me again, I made it clear this sort of thing was common among politicians. Some handle it better than others, some fight it more than others, but it's common. It's an occupational hazard, and not silly or irrelevant.

Why if I say something pretty obvious about Clinton must it be understood as (1) a vile attack, and (2) an occasion for "but what about so-and-so"? Partisanship and the illogic of defensiveness, I hazard.

If that makes you "out of touch" with regular Americans, then the whole idea is pretty silly?

Oh, I don't know. I'm not claiming that a politician must be Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama—to give to recent more-in-touch examples. Certainly some of the best—FDR, for example, or Reagan ;)—were not. But it's something to notice, and it can present problems connecting with voters, or understanding them. I think George H. W. Bush was a good president, for example. But his famous gaffe "this is for checking-out?" revealed something important about his relationship the world as Americans actually live it. And I don't think that sort of out-of-touchness was entirely absent from his policies or, especially, how he communicated them to the public. A president who literally doesn't know how to buy groceries finds it hard to convince Americans that he gets the pain caused by a recession, such that, although the Bush recession was not deep, his standing suffered more for it.

If I were contrasting—and I was not—I think the contrast is entirely to Trump's detriment. He's never actually been that important, but he created a distorted bubble of personal importance for himself, and he's wildly out of touch with regular people, not to mention reality. If he ever becomes president, his combination of self-importance and ignorance will hurt us all. And that's the point: these things are not always and everywhere "silly" at all.

But Trump isn't just out of touch. He is egomaniacal and irrational. He is head and shoulders above (or below) the rest.

>26 timspalding: Why if I say something pretty obvious about Clinton must it be understood as (1) a vile attack, and (2) an occasion for "but what about so-and-so"?

Communication theory 101: when people say something, they mean something. When you say that "it is, however, reasonable to believe she is "out of touch" with regular Americans.", it is reasonable to conclude that this is not a fact you believe is universal or standard about presidential candidates. If I were to say that Clinton is 5'5", I would expect you to understand that that had something to do with something, and I wouldn't be surprised if you brought up something about height tendencies in recent presidents and presidential candidates.

But his famous gaffe "this is for checking-out?" revealed something important about his relationship the world as Americans actually live it.

Snopes says it reveals about as much as when Palin said she could see Russia from her house. Image matters more than reality in these things.

>1 timspalding:

How dare you insult Cthulhu like that! ;)

>4 davidgn:

I'm pretty sure he's saying "big league", although it does sound like he's saying "bigly":

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37483869

I think it's the Queens accent (New Yorkers, please advise).

>9 proximity1:

Did you attend Donald Trump's most recent marriage? How about Chelsea Clinton's wedding--were you among the invited guests? Well, close friends of each of these candidates were at both nuptials.

Close friends, hell - Hill and Bill themselves were at the last Trump wedding:

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/jul/21/carlos-curbelo/clintons...

PS FWIW, I thought HRC cleaned Trump's clock in the debate.

Cthulhu 2016 - Make the Universe Great Again!

>26 timspalding:

"If I were contrasting—and I was not—I think the contrast is entirely to Trump's detriment. He's never actually been that important, but he created a distorted bubble of personal importance for himself, and he's wildly out of touch with regular people, not to mention reality. If he ever becomes president, his combination of self-importance and ignorance will hurt us all. And that's the point: these things are not always and everywhere 'silly' at all."

I'd say the same--about Hillary Clinton who, even if she could muster no other redeeming features, ought to at least easily contrast favorably to Trump. For me, she doesn't even manage that.

As a Leftist-progressive, one for whom the lives of George Orwell, Upton Sinclair, Bertrand Russell, William O. Douglas, Cesar Chavez and Robert M. La Follette, Sr. were the models of what genuine liberal politics is all about, rather than cheap knock-off's of liberals such as Bill Clinton, the Obamas, Joe Biden, Congressman Elijah Cummings and many, many others like them, of course I'd say the same about Hillary Clinton.

You are correct: the topic here has little about it which qualifies as 'silly.' Hillary Clinton's record, seriously and honestly scrutinized, is nothing to write home about. She has occupied important positions but has not used them to consistently defend the legitimate needs and interests of the weak against the predations of the powerful. Her accolades are largely fabricated by public relations experts or are the stuff of fan-worship. On balance, the genuine and lasting harms the Clintons --both of them--have produced in the course of their self-promoting political careers have greatly outweighed the benefits (unless one is living a very wealthy and privileged life). Throughout their careers, right up to the present, their pursuits of their own calculated advancements have always trumped every other consideration. That's how her entire career has gone and we certainly have no reason to expect anything different and better from her as president.

I defend free speech in all its forms and in my defense if it, political and social satire is far from the least valued. When idiots and morons denounced the French satirical weeky, Charlie Hebdo, I argued that its writers and cartoonists never sought to mock or belittle the weak, poor, disabled or otherwise beleaguered. Instead, when some among these figured in their work, the objective was always to hold the mirror up to those who were their victimizers. There never was and isn't anything stupid, shallow or gratuitous about the point and object of their humor in text or drawings.

But what I see here is vain and empty joking about matters which themselves are not funny at all. Those cracking wise with "Make the universe great again" might reflect on the lives of those still surviving in Aleppo. They're not joking about their politics. They don't have time to joke with all the bodies that must be buried. Those here who think our political conditions are good for empty, pointless wise-cracks ought to go live six months in Aleppo.

It's very clear that Obama and Biden are worried that voters might not produce an election outcome which is a ringing endorsement of their two terms nearing their end. Well that's the voters'right and I see no reason why the Obama-Biden administrations shouldn't be met with a vote which repudiates them. Their dismal results deserve repudiation. When millions of ordinary people, and, notably, the genuine political left-wing voters in the U.S. needed and called on those elected officials they'd supported to do more than pay lip-service to ideals by vain virtue-signalling, they received in return from Obama insults, undisguised disdain and mockery.

If our political order is "offering" voters the "choice" between Clinton and Trump, the faults and the problems are not to be found primarily in the people who resrort quite desperately to Donald Trump as their champion. As dreadful as he is, many of these voters, so thoroughly and permanently locked out of their country's political affairs, have rightly seen they are offered nothing else and, so, have nothing better in a real electable alternative . They lack the financial clout to get a meeting or even a phone call with with a top Clinton aide, let alone with Clinton herself.

I say this election constitutes a reckoning. However miserable and inadequate it is as a reckoning, it's all we've got and, until things are profoundly reformed, it's all we're going to get. It's long overdue. So I'd hope that voters make the most of it. Senator Sanders couldn't be more mistaken when he admonishes his supporters, "This is no time for a protest vote."

On the contrary, this is exactly the time for a protest vote.

Deliver a stinging and, for Obama, Biden and the Clintons, an "insulting," repudiation at the polls in November? Oh, Hell, yes! Goddamn right people ought to do that. This shit isn't funny. Those who think it is ought to count their undeserved blessings and examine their conscience.

Vote Trump, Stein, Gary Johnson or just stay home. In each case, Obama and the Clintons get what they deserve --though they'll reject and refuse the message it sends, others may understand it.

Given the United States' position in the world, the consequences of the POTUS election spill far, far beyond its borders and yet all the rest of us can do is sit on our hands and watch. A Canadian poll indicated we'd vote for Clinton in every province, coast to coast, so I guess our hopes are showing.

>32 Cecrow:

True. A foreigner (to U.S. politics) has a rather different set of priorities. The long-term health (not to say mere existence) of meaningful representative democratic government in the U.S. is all well and good but, from a foreign person's point of view, "whatever-gets-most-of-the-rest-of-us-through-the-foreseeable-future-and-just-over-the-horizon" is to be preferred over the nearer-term risks (for Amricans and, alas, perhaps for others) which may be unavoidable in doing something over a much longer time-frame to, as Americans see it, better secure democratic government for themselves.*

It's a reason why each nation's own people should determine their own political course, not the consensus of the rest of the world, which shall always prefer an expedient course that seems, rightly or wrongly, to secure their near-term "safety"--this latter defined by rather low common-denominator.

-----------------

* Americans shall experience this from the perspective of the "foreigner" when China's domestic political scene becomes the the dominant one played out on the world stage and has people holding their breath as that newly dominant nation goes through hard learning processes.

>31 proximity1: "As a Leftist-progressive, one for whom the lives of George Orwell, Upton Sinclair, Bertrand Russell, William O. Douglas, Cesar Chavez and Robert M. La Follette, Sr. were the models of what genuine liberal politics is all about, rather than cheap knock-off's of liberals such as Bill Clinton, the Obamas, Joe Biden, Congressman Elijah Cummings and many, many others like them, of course I'd say the same about Hillary Clinton."

So, that list of people proves you don't have to be president to have a positive effect on conditions in the world. However that doesn't mean any of them would have accomplished more as president.

Is there any president in history that you would have voted for? I am just curious because it seems that to get elected one has to be more centrist. However community leaders can help presidents move in different directions. Perhaps MLK is an example. Johnson possibly could not have gotten a Civil Rights bill without him. That's not to say he was my idea of a great president -- far from it in fact.

>33 proximity1:

True. A foreigner (to U.S. politics) has a rather different set of priorities. The long-term health (not to say mere existence) of meaningful representative democratic government in the U.S. is all well and good but, from a foreign person's point of view, "whatever-gets-most-of-the-rest-of-us-through-the-foreseeable-future-and-just-over-the-horizon" is to be preferred over the nearer-term risks (for Amricans and, alas, perhaps for others) which may be unavoidable in doing something over a much longer time-frame to, as Americans see it, better secure democratic government for themselves.

Isn't that a serious (and arguably the most serious) concern for Americans as well, though? Shouldn't we be concerned about voting for a candidate who has stated that global warming is a hoax? Shouldn't we be concerned about voting for a candidate that seems either uninterested in (or perhaps incapable of) understanding the history of the United States' policy vis-à-vis nuclear weapons?

>31 proximity1:, "However miserable and inadequate it is as a reckoning, it's all we've got." Understood, but is there not a line that can be crossed, after which the American citizen must regrettably say to the Republican party "As much as we need and desire this reckoning, your candidate is incapable of receiving the responsibility we want to bestow on him"? There are considerably worse qualities to have in office than the typical politician's flaws of dishonesty with voters and self-serving career moves, however exasperating those can become. I would be sorry to see the United States, of all countries, having to learn that the hard way.

>35 artturnerjr:, exactly this. Shaking thing up makes perfect sense as a motivator, as is making a statement to teach a disliked political party a lesson (Canadian voters are sympathetic to this and have thought along similar lines in our own elections, to be sure), but endangering the wellbeing of the country and possibly the world to do so looks reckless, even frightening given some of Trump's remarks.

>34 krazy4katz:

I did vote for Carter--in '76 & '80, Mondale/Ferraro in '84, Dukakis/Bentsen in '88, and Clinton in '92. It's not that I regret that vote, it's that Carter proved a disappointment--as did the others, elected or not.

In 1978 I wrote to Carter, Vance, my Senators and Congressman telling them that our close ties to the Shah of Iran were courting disaster. I got the usual BS replies in return.

By 1996, I was too disgusted with Clinton to vote for him again so I abstained. At first I held his fling with Ms. Lewinsky against him--though not her. But later decided that the press, Kenneth Starr and Republicans were to blame for taking a private matter between Clinton, Lewinsky and, perhaps, Mrs. Clinton, and making a public affair out of it for pure political advantage. The press was at fault for asking about her and Clinton was at fault for replying--though a refusal to answer would have ended in the public concluding that the suspicions were correct and Lewinsky would be pilloried for it. As it happened, after Clinton's foolish fling began, Lewinsky foolishly confided in Linda Tripp, who then taped Clinton talking with her about it on the phone. Plenty of stupidity to go around. The money wasted on this could have helped a small community--rather than a small community of lawyers and politicians. But American politics was already so debased and Americans politically so naive and stupid that this stuff is just part of the oligarchy's tools of power and gamesmanship.

I voted for Gore against Bush (2000) but I'll tell you that I'm sure I'd have found Gore a bust had he been seated as he ought to have been--and I would not vote for him today--and sat out the 2004 Bush-Kerry race. What I've since seen of Kerry as Sec. of State revolts me no less than did Madelaine Albright, Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton in that post so I don't regret Kerry's defeat.

I had planned to vote for Obama in 2008 but before I mailed my ballot, I concluded that he wasn't to be believed--he wildly over-promised things and, even before election day I considered him a talented con man--which he is, but he's actually much worse than any regular con man who knows that he's a fraud. Today I regard Obama as one of the worst presidents ever to occupy that office.

If I had a ballot now, I'd mark it for Trump only to try and keep Bill & HRC out of office, with few or no hopes or expectations of anything else positive from it.

Hillary handed Trump his hat. It was like watching Muhammad Ali fight a street brawler.

>35 artturnerjr:

RE :

"Isn't that a serious (and arguably the most serious) concern for Americans as well, though? Shouldn't we be concerned about voting for a candidate who has stated that global warming is a hoax? Shouldn't we be concerned about voting for a candidate that seems either uninterested in (or perhaps incapable of) understanding the history of the United States' policy vis-à-vis nuclear weapons?"

In the full context of our circumstances today, of course I think that the answer is, no, we shouldn't be allowing those concerns to sway us to support the Clintons--otherwise I'd be advocating voting for them.

Neither global warming--the science is fine, but it's the conclusion-- the interpretation that the warming is primarily the result of human activity--which is not good scientific work and may be very seriously flawed and, yes, we can afford to investigate this more thoroughly and we ought to. (See : http://www.librarything.com/author/galamserge )-- nor worries about Trump's blundering into a nuclear war are good grounds to favor the Clintons.

UP-DATED

..."His (James Lovelock's) Gaia hypothesis, which contends that the earth is a single, self-regulating organism, is now accepted as the founding principle of most climate science, ...

...
Lovelock now believes that “CO2 is going up, but nowhere near as fast as they thought it would. The computer models just weren’t reliable. In fact,” he goes on breezily, “I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy, this climate change. You’ve only got to look at Singapore. It’s two-and-a-half times higher than the worst-case scenario for climate change, and it’s one of the most desirable cities in the world to live in.”

"There are various possible explanations for his change of heart. One is that Lovelock is right, and the models on which his former predictions were based were fatally flawed. Another is that his iconoclastic sensibility made revision irresistible. An incorrigible subversive, Lovelock was warning the world about climate change for decades before it began to pay attention, and just when the scientific consensus began to call for intervention to prevent it, he decided we were already too late. But there is a third explanation for why he has shifted his position again, and nowadays feels 'laid back about climate change'. All things being equal – 'and it’s only got to take one sizable volcano to erupt and all the models, everything else, is right off the board' – he expects that before the consequences of global warming can impact on us significantly, something else will have made our world unrecognisable, and threaten the human race." - James Lovelock (The Guardian (London)

James Lovelock: ‘Before the end of this century, robots will have taken over’

| Fracking is great, the green movement is a religion, his dire predictions about climate change were nonsense – and robots don’t mind the heat, so what does it matter? At 97, the creator of Gaia theory is as mischievous and subversive as ever |

Trump's basic judgement and political instincts for survival--his own and this country's--are at least as good as Clinton's. His taking to Putin bothers me but the value of throwing a wrench in the party duopoly is well worth these risks. The likelihood of a Trump starting a nuclear attack or provoking one is no greater today than it was under Reagan or George W. Bush. Obama's tenure, however, has, it seems to me, made nuclear war somewhat more likely than before he came to office.

>36 Cecrow:
you ask -- doesn't Trump's candidacy cross the line of prudence?

"As much as we need and desire this reckoning, your candidate is incapable of receiving the responsibility we want to bestow on him"?

I consider Trump's own abilities would probably better qualify him as president than did George W. Bush's when he was first elected. In my family we frequently said aloud that literally anyone off the street would have been better than George W. Bush. That proved only a slight exaggeration. Thus, Trump is easily better qualified _today_ than was Bush before he was first elected.

>39 proximity1: "Trump's basic judgement and political instincts for survival--his own and this country's--are at least as good as Clinton's. His taking to Putin bothers me but the value of throwing a wrench in the party duopoly is well worth these risks. The likelihood of a Trump starting a nuclear attack or provoking one is no greater today than it was under Reagan or George W. Bush. Obama's tenure, however, has, it seems to me, made nuclear war somewhat more likely than before he came to office."

No. Trump has no basic judgement and no political instincts for this country's survival, only his own. That is different than almost everyone else who has ever run for president (except maybe George Wallace etc.). It is not worth the risk to mess up the 2 dominating parties. Obama's only "sin" was inexperience and taking over the disaster from the previous administration as well as a Congress that won't even allow a vote for a Supreme Court nominee. He never had a chance, but he isn't ruthless and totally uninformed or a megalomaniac. We can not afford to risk a Trump victory.

ETA: >40 proximity1: True George W. Bush was also unqualified and look where that took us. And I don't think he is as bad as Trump (although he was bad enough). So much for the "connecting with the average American" test, which Bush passed with flying colors.

>41 krazy4katz:

The press's and pundits' wild fear-mongering over Trump is like a parent who tells her toddler that a big mean monster shall make off with the child if he doesn't eat his peas and carrots. It's a disgrace that it's so effective.

>42 proximity1: Quite correct.
If you want something to worry about, Prof. Stephen F. Cohen (emeritus, Russian Studies (et al.), NYU and Princeton) has a more compelling case:

https://www.thenation.com/article/more-squandered-opportunities-to-deal-with-the...

Emphases mine:
 § The Obama-Putin plan for a joint US-Russian military campaign against terrorist movements in Syria was disrupted by the acknowledged US attack on Syrian Army forces and then by an unidentified attack on a UN humanitarian convoy to Aleppo. Such evidence as we have strongly suggests that the attack on Syrian forces was not an “accident,” as American officials claim. Nor does it suggest that Russian-Syrian forces, which had no motive, attacked the humanitarian convoy, as US officials also claim. These developments raise the question, now openly asked in Moscow and even in the West: Who is making US foreign policy—President Obama or the Department of Defense and other enemies of détente?

 § The political impact has been negative both in Washington and in Moscow. In Washington, the Syrian fiasco has led to more vilification of “Putin’s Russia” and thus made proposals for US-Russian cooperation anywhere even more difficult. In Moscow, the collapse of the Putin-Obama attempted détente in Syria has resulted in scarcely veiled criticism of Putin’s “soft” diplomatic approach to Washington, expressed mostly in criticism of his foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov.

 § Movement toward a negotiated settlement of the Ukrainian civil and proxy war, where the new Cold War was firmly established and from which it spread to Syria and to the Baltic states, also faltered. There the problem remains as it has been for two years. Despite pressure from Europe, especially France and Germany, Ukrainian President Poroshenko has refused to grant the rebel Donbass provinces a degree of home rule, as required by the Minsk Accords. (The implicit reason being that the Banderist/neo-Nazi ultra-right threatens to overthrow him should he do so --davidgn) Europe now threatens to withdraw its support for Kiev altogether, leaving Washington as Poroshenko’s primary, and perhaps only, major backer. This emerging truth was illustrated last by US-coordinated efforts to bolster Poroshenko’s crumbling standing in his own country, which included a meeting with Hillary Clinton and various Washington officials, and appearances at the Council on Foreign Relations and on Fareed Zakaria’s CNN show. None are likely to help Poroshenko at home, where his popularity is low and his ultra-right enemies numerous and armed.

 § Unlike during the preceding Cold War, there is no real discussion of perilous issues in the mainstream media, which continue to blame all aspects of the new Cold War solely on Putin and Russia, or even in the ongoing presidential campaign. Once-gold-standard media degenerate almost weekly—even apart from their neo-McCarthyite slurs of Trump­—from The New York Times to CBS News’s 60 Minutes. On September 25, for example, 60 Minutes presented a segment on nuclear weapons that can only be characterized as Strangelove-like, nuclear warmongering without any dissenting voices. Still worse, at the presidential debate on September 26, though Trump raised several issues at least elliptically, neither candidate discussed the Syrian or Ukrainian crisis, the new nuclear-arms race, or the larger issue of cooperation instead of Cold War with Russia. Nor did the moderator, Lester Holt, who apparently thought such existential dangers did not warrant time for debate—or knew nothing about them.

 § What continues to make the new Cold War more dangerous than the preceding one is in large part its near-total absence from American political discourse, certainly from any critical discussion, in sharp contrast to the intense discussions under way in Europe and in Russia. In that regard, America truly is exceptional.

>42 proximity1: I don't just listen to the press. I watched the debate -- because it's the only way to see the candidates side by side without filtering from the press. I was horrified by his behavior and it validated the worst of what I had read elsewhere. The press on Clinton is almost as bad but the evidence is not there.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4621738/dunford-tells-wicker-controlling-airspace...

Dunford tells Wicker controlling airspace in Syria means war with Russia. McCain throws tantrum. Dunford refines answer.
Sen. Wicker pushes Carter and Dunford about a enforcing a no-fly zone in Syria but calling it by a different name ("more palatable terms"). Carter stammers while giving his answer. Dunford tells Wicker that controlling the airspace requires going to war with Russia and Syria. Sen. McCain throws a small tantrum. Dunford says a no-fly zone wouldn't ("necessarily" --davidgn) require a war.

Not that any of this matters to the American people. We only have one choice to make, after all: Trump or Hillary. Yes?

ETA:
Don't forget: it's three minutes to midnight.

The Bulletin's editor on the debate:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-debate-nuclear-commentary-idUSKCN11X1ZX

>35 artturnerjr:

See my Up-date to >39 proximity1::

>46 proximity1:

Thanks for that. I've actually heard of the Gaia hypothesis.

I still disagree with your conclusions. I'm sure you're aware that the vast majority of scientists have concluded that climate change is real and that human activity is contributing to it,* so Lovelock is part of a very small minority.

What is perhaps more troubling to me about Trump's stance on climate change is his denial that he has claimed that climate change is a hoax, when it is so easily provable that he did in fact claim that.** A very clear demonstration (should yet another one be required) of his contempt for the average voter, thinking we won't take a minute to get online to fact-check that.

Additionally, I think Trump would be an even worse president than George W. Bush, who was the worst president since Richard Nixon, and perhaps worse than that. Dubya at least had the sense to demonstrate some degree of respect for Islam*** (even if it was primarily rhetorical), which Trump clear does not - something both conservatives and liberals have (quite rightly) taken him to task for.

* http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
** http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-climate-change-tweet_us_57eac24ae4b0c2...
*** https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/ramadan/islam.html

“CO2 is going up, but nowhere near as fast as they thought it would."

Of course this depends on who you believe.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/global-carbon-levels-highest-ever-point-1.3784...

>47 artturnerjr:, and it's not just Islam he disrespects. Mexicans, women, veterans, etc. Name a minority, vulnerable or disadvantaged group and we can probably dig up a Trump slander quote (or at this rate it's coming soon). It's difficult to see the tie between Trump's values (or lack thereof) and what's stated in the American constitution, which presumably Americans still want to see upheld, promoted, protected and represented by the face of their government.

>47 artturnerjr: & >48 Cecrow:

Just so there no misunderstanding, I want to be sure it's clear that I've never called the green house gases/global-warming research or findings part of any scientific hoax. I grant the data are probably quite valid. All I am questioning is the validity of the interpretation of that data--and this is both quite a recent change of opinion for me and completely unrelated to anything about Trump.

Personally, I regard Lovelock as rather more than just a bit of a kook. His remarks on the impending "deliberate" take-over by robots is ludicrous in my opinion--or maybe I've misunderstood his view.

--------------

RE : ..."demonstrate some degree of respect for Islam*** " ...

Seriously? The president of the United States ought to openly and, as a public official, "demonstrate some degree of respect for Islam" or any other religion, for that matter? Why?

Trump demonstrates no respect for Islam? Another point in his favor as far as I'm concerned.

Being an agnostic, atheist or whatever you want to call it myself (I'm not particular), I'm a big fan of church-state separation. If that's what you're driving at then I'd agree, let's not have the President getting these lines crossed. But I think by 'respect' we're talking about common person-to-person human decency, i.e. tolerance for one another's differences and not passing judgement on people you don't know. Trump is prone to statements which imply that what one individual of this group does, they can all be held liable for, or all be viewed as having that characteristic. Outside of claiming the same faith (i.e. the label), I don't think anything else can be assumed, not even the degree of faith. I know "Catholics" who never attend church, can't quote a single line from the Bible, don't know the pope's name, etc.

>50 Cecrow:

..." i.e. tolerance for one another's differences and not passing judgement on people you don't know."

I do this--and virtually everyone else does this--many times every day. I pass judgements on people I don't know because, very frankly, there is no way to avoid doing this. Now, we can pretend that we don't, we can certainly refuse to be honest about our doing it, we can make all manner of excuses for why, when we do it, "it's different," "it's not really bigotry," "I have a good reason,"--which is often quite true--but the fact is, we do it.

Now, if a person I don't know tells me--whether overtly or implicitly (by dress, by ostensible prayer, by other outward indications of a religious affiliation)-- that he or she is a member of this or that religion, then I'm going to notice that as the person so dressed or so behaving is going to expect me to do. And, on noticing it, I'm going to take it into account. In Paris, on the Métro, I "profile" those with whom I share a wagon. You better believe I do. If you don't want to, that's your choice, that's up to you. But I've known occasions when i had a creepy and uncomfortable feeling in my gut while on a journey and chosen to get off at the first convenient stop. I'd do this again whenever the occasion arose--with no apologies for it.

If Muslims expect not to be the occasional objects of profiling, they're seriously deluded--which, of course, in my opinion, on religious matters, they are anyway--but the same would and does go for Jews, Christians, and what-have-you.

Trump is prone to statements which imply that what one individual of this group does, they can all be held liable for, or all be viewed as having that characteristic.

Damn! That reminds me of someone else--wait, give me a moment, no, uh--wait, don't tell me, I'll think of it, it was, uhm, damn! something about "baskets" but the rest just won't come to me. My memory has become deplorable! It's like I'm basket-case! A deplorable basket case, that's what my memory is!

Outside of claiming the same faith (i.e. the label), I don't think anything else can be assumed, not even the degree of faith. I know "Catholics" who never attend church, can't quote a single line from the Bible, don't know the pope's name, etc.

I know some, too. I knew this gorgeous young Catholic woman. We'd been friends since high school--a group of ados, young guys and women who'd hang around together between classes and after school. Looking at her without her clothes on, (as I was to discover, a few years later) you'd swear she was a Playboy Playmate. And, well, she taught me some things I'd call heavenly without those clothes on. So, you see, I don't discriminate on the basis of religion. But I don't give people points for being religious. The idea that, after we'd spent some time together alone doing "not a whole lot," her supposed faith's doctrine required her to go into a little booth and speak through a screen to a priest, telling him all about it-- (by the way, what's he doing over there in his darkened booth all the while?)--I regard that as extremely stupid and vile. (I do believe she could cite certain verses of the Bible, however.)

for certain purposes, I don't think it makes a great deal of difference that, on an individual level, every religion's faithful have many, many differing qualities and faults. What I'm concerned about are their adherence to a respect for others' civil liberties and rights. Their religion is their business--except as it may concern and involve their actual toleration of others' rights. Then it is very much a proper matter for public attention. And, if they want to bring their religious practices into the public sqaure and practice them there, that, too, becomes the public's business.

Today it's personal attacks on a woman
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-machado-twitter-1.3785537

Every time he says the next outrageous thing, I expect it to sink his campaign but it just keeps weathering on. There's no reason to believe he'll sound any different if he's in the White House, and a huge proportion of voters are entirely okay with that. The people he slanders will then be victims of the President. Is that an acceptable model to be set by the highest office in the land? One of the most powerful figures in the world?

I think it's a slippery slope. Trump has lowered the bar and given his success, even if not voted into office, there will be more candidates like him in future.

He is simply revolting. How someone like that got to be a presidential candidate is a mystery to me. I don't care about and don't profile people by the way they dress or their religion--at least I try not to. But what someone says and how they say it matters a lot. For me Trump is the perfect example of someone who should not be in control of anything that is important to people --the government, for example.

http://nytimes.com/2016/09/29/opinion/vladimir-putins-outlaw-state.html

Mark Ames ‏@MarkAmesExiled Sep 29
The language in this NYT editorial on Putin recalls old edits on Milosevic & Saddam. They're preparing us for war

For some reason I feel this sudden urge to evacuate the Northern Hemisphere...

ETA: A piece from Michael T. Klare early this month that's been on my mind.
"Sleepwalking into a big war"
https://mondediplo.com/2016/09/02war

The major powers are planning for war and claim that’s the best way to defend against war. Will this mutual hawkishness lead to armed conflict?

I'm drifting off-topic, perhaps, but in a saner world this is the sort of thing people would be discussing instead of the Horrible Candidate Competition...

>53 krazy4katz:

" How someone like that got to be a presidential candidate is a mystery to me."

It's a mystery to Hillary Clinton, too--or, at least she feigns being mystified by it. I suspect that she actually does understand the sources of Trump's campaign success but to admit these openly would undermine her own claims and expose her to further charges of being a shallow, self-obsessed fraud and liar.

Now as for your mystification, I can't say. But here's a suggestion: you could take some time and, sitting all alone in a room at home, reflect honestly on the question, "What things distinguish my living conditions and habits from those of people I see described in the press as belonging in Hillary Clinton's 'basket of deplorables' "?

Yesterday, the image of this election campaign came to me this way :

We have two candidates: one of them might be thought of as a 'Dorian Gray' figure while the other candidate is Dorian Gray as his portrait depicts him.

Underneath, both are similarly slimy, revolting people but only one of them will, every time you see him, keep that fact fresh in your attention.

For which shall you vote--the handsome one or the hideous but quite accurately appearing portrait version?

So I think I'll add this here to the above comment.

>55 proximity1: "Now as for your mystification, I can't say. But here's a suggestion: you could take some time and, sitting all alone in a room at home, reflect honestly on the question, "What things distinguish my living conditions and habits from those of people I see described in the press as belonging in Hillary Clinton's 'basket of deplorables' "?

I guess if I do that I see 2 kinds of people: (1) the racist, mysogenysts etc -- which is what she meant; and (2) those people who have lost their jobs, healthcare etc and I believe she will try to help them.

ETA: The problem is that the second group of people think the Democrats have abandoned them. So they just want to change the government to anything but… I don't think that is true. I think the Republican Congress has blocked Obama's attempts to help these people. Trump doesn't care and doesn't know how to fix it (more trickle down…). Hillary may be able to help if Congress lets her.

>55 proximity1: We have two candidates: one of them might be thought of as a 'Dorian Gray' figure while the other candidate is Dorian Gray as his portrait depicts him. Underneath, both are similarly slimy, revolting people but only one of them will, every time you see him, keep that fact fresh in your attention.

Ted Bundy killed a lot fewer people than Adolf Hitler. Letting people openly act lets them get a way with a lot more shit, a lot faster, than forcing them to act under the table. It's also better for society if people doing bad things aren't openly espoused as being a-okay.

Unlike Hitler, who was clearly responsible for the murder of vastly more people than those for whose murder Bundy was tried and convicted, Bundy murdered his victims personally. Hitler's victims were killed--or comitted suicide--following Hitler's orders.

So, if we rank them according to the numbers of people whose lives were taken either directly by his own personal act or by others, acting on his orders, we have, so far as is currently understood,

Hitler : millions (non-combatants)

Obama: scores or hundreds (non-combatants;
drone-strikes by personal order of the president)

George W. Bush : scores or under a few hundred (?)

Ted Bundy : 30 - 36+ (Wikipedia)

>58 proximity1:

George W. Bush : scores or under a few hundred (?)

George W. Bush is responsible for many more civilian deaths than that. An estimate of almost 25,000 civilian deaths in the Iraq War between March 2003 and March 2005 alone was given by the Iraq Body Count project.* And this was caused by an unnecessary invasion of a country which, before the war, was not responsible for the death of a single US citizen.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Iraq_Body_Count_project

>56 krazy4katz:

"I guess if I do that I see 2 kinds of people: (1) the racist, mysogenysts etc -- which is what she meant; and (2) those people who have lost their jobs, healthcare etc and I believe she will try to help them. "

If Clinton helps those who've "lost their jobs, healthcare, etc. ..." won't she also at the same time be helping those, the "racists, misogynists etc.," who've "lost their jobs, healthcare, etc. ..."? And, is that, in and of itself such a terrible thing after all?

Your reply points up the all too often oversimplified assumptions so many who support and defend Hillary Clinton seem to hold.

You've got all the supporters of Clinton on "one side" and all the "basket of deplorables" on the other--don't you? As though it never occurred to you that among Clinton's supporters there could be "racists, misogynists etc."--or that Clinton herself could be racist, sexist, a misandryst because, it seems, you view people in a most reductive and simplistic way rather than, as they are in fact, complicated and resistant to tidy classification.

Shall Clinton sort, separate and reject those votes she gets from people who are mixed in with others in the basket of deplorables? Or, like Trump, shall she take and count every vote she gets without asking for the voters' moral bona fides?

>59 artturnerjr:

In any case, Trump comes in last among them with, so far, "0 (zero) killed," doesn't he? Thus, I clean forgot to list his name after Geoege W. Bush's.

>60 proximity1: No if racists and misogynists have lost their jobs, they should be helped too. Curing bias with vicious anger doesn't work very well. I prefer the Thich Nhat Hanh and MLk approach.

The 2 groups probably overlap. Some of them are voting against their own interests by voting for Trump.

>62 krazy4katz: : ..." The 2 groups probably overlap. Some of them are voting against their own interests by voting for Trump."

k4k --

Without a doubt, true.

---------
ETA :
More to the point, it's simply not a practical possibility to write and implement policy which helps only those who hold approved opinions even if one were inclined to try to do that.

E.g. -- In the course of rescuing good, decent, innocent war-refugees, aid-workers are bound to rescue some who are violent, dangerous and sometimes even criminals. The violent and dangerous sometimes flee war-zones, too. And they might refuse to identify themselves as such if asked to raise their hand. After all what if the good, decent and innocent come mixed together with violent, dangerous criminals in the same family?

But racism and bigotry are even less tractable. These are widely-held human traits, not anomalies. If you actually weeded out every racist, every bigot of whatever type, you'd end up with almost no one left. This used to be more generally understood among liberals.
-------

Still others have perhaps recognized that they have a variety of interests and, more so than usually, in this election, no matter how they vote, some of those interests are going to suffer. It's quite possible that, in weighing these gains and losses, they decide that voting for Trump/against Clinton produces less essential harm and more essential benefit over the period (short, medium or long) which is their focus.

The time when we could politely and painlessly reform the corrupt political order is, I believe, not only passed, it is now more and more recognized as having passed: We squandered what was perhaps the final opportunities of it on Obama's two terms and in return--some are only beginning to grasp--we got nothing --and I do mean "nothing." The cheap symbolism of identity-politics in "the first Black president"--is the measure of our political shallowness. Having sown the wind, we're going to reap accordingly.

Whichever way it goes, the election outcome won't change that.

"Dorian Gray" or his "portrait" takes the oath of office in January.

Wikileaks plans an announcement tomorrow--Tuesday, 4 October.

----------

See also, for example :

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xa2YhXdLJ38

if the link doesn't work, search the key-terms : "YouTube + Jonathan Pie + hate crimes"

>63 proximity1: I can't imagine that voting for Trump over Clinton could possibly "produce less essential harm and more essential benefit" to anyone except maybe a half dozen or so eccentric billionaires or people in favor of government gridlock. Even if one likes what he is saying, he is too incompetent to carry out his own ideas. I'd be willing to bet that due to complete ignorance Trump would commit an impeachable offense within his first year.

If Trump became President and was then impeached then Pence would become President. Perhaps that's what the Republican establishment is counting on.

Hah! Great idea!

https://www.facebook.com/wikileaks/posts/1110192049015906:0
It's been rumored that additional releases are to be announced at this press conference, which will be based in Berlin.
10 AM CEST, which is 3AM Eastern, but I'm planning to watch.

ETA:
To be live-streamed here: http://rsbn.tv/live-stream-wikileaks-julian-assange-october-surprise-press-confe...
"October Surprise Press Conference." That says it all, eh?