|
An Inconsequential Debate
These two were on some TV show last night? They subsequently had champagne?
From the first reactions I see the show made no difference to the outcome of the U.S. election. Both sides spin that their paymasters won.
My hunch is still that this election will come down to a deeply felt "not-Clinton" attitude in the general U.S. electorate.
Would that be good or bad? I don't know. Both candidates are obviously lying. Clinton proudly knows some very selective facts. Her general plans can be inferred from her political history. They would be mostly bad for this world. Trump doesn't care about facts, nor do most voters. Nobody seems to know what his real plans would be. With him we all are in for a lot of surprises – likely bad ones.
From a global perspective the election again shows why U.S. global influences must be cut to size. The fate of the world should not be left in the hands of some Intellectuals but Idiots, to people who can not see beyond their noses, to "thinkers" for whom human history starts with their high school prom. Their linear analysis, their inexperience with real life, their linear solutions are inadequate for our complex, non-linear world. This needs to change.
Such a change requires some cataclysmic events. Both candidates seem well positioned to achieve such.
You talkin ‘bout The Chosen, then you doin’ some posin’.
The Donald wants to invade your country, or build a wall around it, or just charge you protection money. But the only reason world leaders dislike him is specified by protocol.
Folks seem unaware that one of the few charities for which regular contributions can be documented for The Duckhead is the Anti-Defamation League. “Some people might be surprised to learn that, among many other causes, he contributed generously to ADL in years past.”
Those pesky facts!
Speaking of pesky facts, here are a few you overlooked from The Great Debate. You Trumpeters are back at it again.
“Sure it appears he actually lost the debate. But since pundits are talking about The Donald in the same breath as ‘The Presidency,’ it really means we won!” That would be mostly a breath saying “not fit to be near the presidency”. Just lower the bar into the Marianas Trench and be done with it, OK?
Here’s a guy that did what, fifty debates in four years with over 1,000 opponents (well, the Rethuglican clown car primary seemed that way)? No reason to lower the bar, IMHO. Hasn’t his job since well before the convention been to look presidential? Results do rather suggest that he’s not really been working too hard at it.
Most analyses, like these from HuffPost; and from The Daily Banter thought that Mrs. Clinton won it going away.
Early polling gave the victory to Mrs. Clinton, 55-45. But of course, as Chief Spokesfraud Conway has pronounced, The Donald’s shy supporters are hiding from the pollsters and other meanies who don’t want to Make America Great Again ™! They’re only voters, after all, why would you want to ask them?
So, I’m wondering when the last time a “normal” post-debate analysis featured even Trump’s surrogates saying he blew it? Here’s a summary of Tweets. I like this one by David French of The National Review.
After the first fifteen-twenty minutes, it was like the SS Trump hit the iceberg, then backed up and hit it again just because.
Chuck Todd called it The Most Abnormal Event I’ve Ever Witnessed.
When was the last normal debate that produced such a clip reel of such interruptios, mansplaining and contemptuous facial expressions?
When was the last Presidential candidate who said he had “Nothing to say” to African Americans?
When was the last time doubling down on fat-shaming a former Miss Universe as “Miss Housekeeping” got you in good with the feminist and Hispanic voters?
I understood he closed by saying “Hey, I coulda talked a lot more shit about her. But it’s even too embarrassing even for me.” Sure sounds like winning, and oh, so very, very presidential….
So one must consider any defense of this poor performance translates into dumbing shit down for The Donald. “Since he wasn’t reduced to a blathering blob of orange protoplasm, he looked presidential and won the debate.” Apparently, just blathering won’t do for the loss.
Does The Donald email these talking points? Given the poor state of his campaign “organization,” I’m guessing one cribs them from Breitbart. That’s what Bannon’s there for, right?
You’re certainly not getting them from Fox. You Trumpeters didn’t get the memo, HQ has said the on-line polls are not to be relied upon, as Fox News Tells Hannity To Knock It Off Citing Bogus Insta-polls. Crooks and Liars quotes Business Insider.
Dana Blanton, the vice president of public-opinion research at Fox News, explained in the memo obtained by Business Insider that “online ‘polls’ like the one on Drudge, Time, etc. where people can opt-in or self-select… are really just for fun.”
…”Another problem — we know some campaigns/groups of supporters encourage people to vote in online polls and flood the results,” she wrote. “These quickie click items do not meet our editorial standards.”
…Trump had come out ahead in a slew of unscientific polls, or polls in which the sample of participants did not accurately reflect the sample of viewers who watched the debate. Such polls are almost always discounted by professional pollsters and analysts….
“News networks and other organizations go to great effort and rigor to conduct scientific polls — for good reason,” Blanton wrote in the memo. “They know quick vote items posted on the web are nonsense, not true measures of public opinion.”
Hey, let’s start a conspiracy theory — Ailes’ Sex Crime thing was all a plot by the DNC and the Illuminati to take over a conservative mouthpiece and throw the election to Mrs. Clinton. Humpty Dumpty was pushed!
And seriously, The Duckhead, following an agreement or a script? He can only with diffuiculty stay to his teleprompted utterances. Not when best and most fabulous words come out of his… whatever.
Posted by: rufus magister | Sep 29 2016 0:25 utc | 97
Oh, rufus: so you are for defamation? What is wrong in being against defamation? And donations are not particularly puzzling. The usual profile of ADL donors are elderly rich Zionist Jews, which would mean dad of Duckhead’s daughter’s father-in-law, and humoring family members was presumably the motivation for Trump’s donations.
That said, by objective observations and public confessions, Trump’s views are to an unusual degree molded by family and acquaintances, so ADL donations are indeed matched by typical pro-Zionist behaviors like penchant for quoting or praising Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu, hostility to Iran and the deal with Iran, etc. And that allows to conjecture that his policies on Syria, Libya etc. would not be a whit better than those of HRC, and perhaps quite a bit worse (his penchant for instructing Navy and Air Force to shoot during peaceful encounters). On Russia, Ukraine and Crimea the Duckhead was indeed “refreshing”, and that can well be due to his acquaintance with Manaford or whoever recommended the chap to him. But here is how the Duckhead explained his hostility to the deal with Iran:
“Trump comment on the Iran nuclear deal during a campaign rally in South Carolina on July 21, 2015. Try to follow the train of thought (good luck!):
Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, okay, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, okay, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right — who would have thought?), but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.”
Somehow this speech rings in my ears and evokes Bob Marley. “And so, and so, I shot the sheriff, but I didn’t shoot no deputy, oh no no! No womah, no cry, ooo, no womah no cry! So I say, they just kill us, ooo no no!” With a strong reggae rhythm, it actually can sound well.
In fact, this gives room for cautious optimism. Because the Duckhead bragged how he would instruct the military to shoot at Ruskies and the Persians, I claimed that he would cause WWIII. But by gazing into the crystal ball I learned that he will conduct four meeting on the matter, but each time he will interrupt himself so many times that nothing will come out of them.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Sep 29 2016 7:08 utc | 98
|
