This is Clinton now.
I aim to help. Relax. Because no matter what she does, the media will find a way to exaggerate the inconsequential into catastrophe. Al Gore’s “sigh”, Howard Dean’s “yell”, her performance won’t matter at all. All Trump needs to do is say something incredibly stupid, get her to react, (or not react; there is no safe choice), and he wins.
I just read the policies and ignore the debates unless something truly noteworthy comes up.
pipefighter @1: If everyone did that, there would be some hope. But that’s not how it goes down. Gore and Dean (and Carter before them) were fucked by the media. You may not remember, but the widespread opinion was that Gore easily won a particular debate with Bush, until the media started in on Gore’s ‘eye-rolling’, and manufacturing/distorting things he said. People often blame Nader or the Supreme Court for Gore’s loss. If the media had done its job, those wouldn’t even have been issues.
It’s worse for Clinton, because she’s a woman. Was she too shrill? Too passive? Did she look tired/unhealthy? Did she say ‘and’ when she should have said ‘or’? Trump will certainly lie, and almost certainly get a free pass. Clinton cannot win, she can only, through heroic effort and restraint, draw.
What I’d really like is for someone to explain why this is happening. How can so many people see something so different than what I see? I like to think that there is some sort of reasoning behind any action. It might not be logical,but surely it must make sense to them?
Other than that, all I can say is that I get why the Bernie-fans were so upset. As South Park so eloquently put it, the election seems to be a choice between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich.
Erlend Meyer @3: I like South Park, but they’re never eloquent, and rarely politically astute. It’s a choice between a Turd Sandwich and a Giant Fucking Black Hole.
Erlend Meyer @3,
Seems to me that your second paragraph answers your first.
Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but your first paragraph implies that you agree that Trump would be a disaster, and that some explanation is needed for why this election is even close.
Then you go on to endorse the glib analysis of South Park that invokes a false equivalence between Trump and Clinton.
Well, presumably a lot of Trump supporters also agree with South Park. If it’s a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich, then why not vote for the candidate who will probably lower taxes/appoint conservative judges/be a constant source of entertainment and humor/piss off the liberals/whatever? Sure, he’s unqualified and dangerously unstable, but giant douche/turd sandwich, it’s all the same, right?
Interesting. Yes, I cannot fathom why anyone except rich assholes would vote for Trump. It’s putting the inmates to run the asylum. But I also get why people are holding their nose while supporting Clinton. That sure as hell isn’t change you can believe in. But still, Trump? Are people really that desperate for a change? If so, we could be halfway up shit creek already.
I have a eerie feeling like everything is about to be turned upside down, but I have no idea what to expect. A new Hitler? A new Mao or Stalin? Or perhaps it will be some absurd cult with Gwyneth Paltrow’s steamed vagina at the top. I don’t know, all I know is that I will get the short end of that deal.
I am scared to death. Drumpfh has obliterated the “pants on fire” record and his cracker hick rube loser followers are blissfully and goonishly unaware of his continuous bullshit. We are soooooo doomed.
The other thing here that pisses me off is calling these things “debates.” They are not “debates” but should be. Let’s see actual DEBATES. Look it up.
I’m not terribly worried. It’s also quite possible for Trump to completely shoot himself in the foot.
In particular, Clinton has a long history of experience with appearing cool under pressure. I doubt that there’s anything that can happen during these debates that will be more exasperating than what she’s already had to put up with regard to the multiple congressional hearings on her e-mail server and Benghazi.
Trump, by contrast, is very easily flustered. It should be trivially easy for Clinton to goad Trump into saying some horrible and/or absurd stuff.
The media may declare Trump the winner, but there’s little reason that will have any impact on the election results. See here for some data-based reasons to not worry (yet):
http://election.princeton.edu/2016/09/25/three-reasons-to-ignore-debate-related-punditry/
Kimberly Dick @8 has a point: Clinton has already been provoked, shat upon, et cetera ad fucking nauseum. She’s been shat upon, nigh-uninterrupted, for the past couple decades. If Trump’s master plan is to provoke Clinton into some sort of “intemperate” reaction, I honestly don’t see what he can do that would inspire, in Clinton, any reaction other than “Wow, another Monday.”
Just finished watching the debate. She wiped the floor with him.
What was with Trump and the red eyes and sniffing and snorting?
Trump also looked a bit pale, like he wasn’t as ripe as he normally is. Anyone else catch that quip about the 400 lb guy sitting on his bed? Yeah, Hillary smoked him. Most entertainment I’ve had from a debate in memory (although “Please proceed” was good too).
Here’s a brief excerpt of Trump dissolving into a puddle of incoherence:
And here’s just one of Trump’s dozens of lies: “I never said she doesn’t have a Presidential look.” He said that during the debate tonight. Here is what he said in an earlier interview with ABC’s David Muir: “I just don’t think she has a presidential look and you need a presidential look.”
I don’t like trump but I can certainly understand why people would vote for him. Full disclosure, i’m a canuck who is terrified of this election and how it will turn out. The first thing we need to get out of the way is how low the approval ratings of both the candidates are. The reason that’s important is because it means most of the people voting for him probably can’t stand him much like with clinton. I swear if either candidate was squaring off with someone more universally likable they’d be screwed. The alt right people make an excellent(and real) boogey man but what it really comes down to with most people is jobs and corruption. Most of trumps support comes from places that used to have a great deal of manufacturing and resource based jobs. People had decent wages, pensions, benefits, and a future for their children. Then nafta happened, and one of the people running for office is openly(although i’m betting disingenuously) calling out the deal. The other is married to the guy who championed it and has herself pushed for more of the same thing. She only backed off on the tpp because of sanders and that will be hard to shake. She also basically committed campaign suicide with that basket of deplorables comment. I just watched the longest running provincial government in canadian history disintegrate because its leader told us to look in the mirror. Never insult your electorate, they won’t forget that. Never characterize huge swaths of the population as bad or evil or dumb. You still hear people saying those sorts of things about people in the middle east and look at how well that is working out. The left continuously misunderstands the blue collar community, its why they lost brexit and its why they will probably lose this election. The other thing is everybody knows about wall streets hand in ’08 and hillary’s connections to wall street is universally known. For me what it really boils down to is that trump is a facist in hillary is not. If there ever was a single issue that would decide my vote that would be it. I just watched the same thing play out in the philippines and now we’re trying to get my wives family members out of there(they were very active against marcos back in the day and duterte has something of a soft spot for the guy). I had a lot of one on one with people that were victims of some of the policies that trump is proposing and I really think a lot of his supporter could use the same thing. There I nothing quite like talking to someone who was kidnapped and torture and had family members taken away never to be seen again to give you perspective on just how dangerous this shit really is. I really fear for you people.
Trump accused Hillary Clinton of being “very cavalier” when she talks about Russia. Is he defending his boyfriend, Putin?
He went from that comment to saying that he is not inclined to do a first strike when it came to nuclear warfare, but that he also is “not taking anything off the table.” He also said, “Once the nuclear happens, it’s over.” That’s an exact quote.
Who is “cavalier”?
Trump spent a lot of time complaining that Hillary Clinton has aired ads on TV that are “not nice” about him. He repeated the “not nice” complaint many times.
Then he claimed that before the debate he was thinking of hitting Hillary hard, but that he decided not to do so because that would not have been “nice.”
Trump also said the Rosie O’Donnell deserved every bad name he called her, “and everybody knows it.”
Holy typos batman. I’m not used to doing this on a phone. Also if I didn’t make it clear enough I don’t think they are equivalent. Clinton actual has experience and trump really is a racist mysoginist xenophobic dunning kruger personified scum bag.
I may have to refrain from rolling my eyes at any “Hillary DESTROYED Trump” type headlines tomorrow. (Although “Trump destroyed himself.” would be more appropriate)
pipefighter @13, a lot of other people feel the same way.
“A Message from Grandma & Grandpa” is a powerful video. Jewish senior citizens emphasized to their grandchildren and to the broader community the dangers that Trump represents. They encourage everyone to vote for Hillary Clinton.
Link, scroll down for video.
Cross posted from the Moments of Political Madness thread.
My wife and I were cracking up so hard by then that we had to turn the TV up to 11 to here what they were saying.
Clinton was smart tonight, not great, but smart. A few sharp zingers, then just shut up and smile while Trump destroys himself.
No. Just no.
Trump proposed stop-and-frisk (again!) even though he must know by now that that policing practice was deemed unconstitutional.
What a Maroon @19, I apologize for the “boyfriend Putin” comment. That was stupid.
I find it odd how, even in a presidential debate, Trump interrupted Clinton to defend Russia. Putting that feeling the way I did with the “boyfriend” remark was stupid. Sorry.
When Trump was asked if he would accept the results of the election if Clinton won, he rambled a bit about making America great again, and then he said:
What the heck?
Conservative websites have been sounding an alarm about supposed plans by the Obama administration to speed up the naturalization process for immigrants so that they will all vote for Hillary. Such bullshit.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/johnson-grassley-dhs-citizenship-applicatoins
Yes, the link is correct. TPM misspelled “applications.”
I think was Trump was dog-whistling to his followers that no, he would not accept a Clinton win because he too thinks Obama is rigging the election by importing and naturalizing new voters.
Then Trump finished by saying that yes, he would accept the election results.
What? Dude, you just said two contradictory things.
Lynna @ 21,
Thanks. For what it’s worth, I agree with the sentiment. Clinton wasn’t going to go there, but I really think that Trump isn’t releasing his returns to hide some unsavory dealings with Russian billionaires.
I doubt it’s only Russians.
During the debate, Trump advertised his newest hotel:
Several media sources have pointed out that the Old Post Office hotel did not come in under budget, nor ahead of schedule. “You can open ahead of schedule and under budget by setting fluff goals….”
Actually, I don’t care all that much if he opened his hotel ahead of schedule. I do care that he thought it was an appropriate topic to discuss during the debate.
In Australia we don’t know who has won a political debate until the reporters tell us in the paper the following morning.
Trump accused Hillary Clinton of being “very cavalier”
I’m amazed that Trump could say that without Monty Pythonesque “gales of uprorious laughter”
Apparently some of the futures markets have declared a winner, Hillary Clinton.
@ Magistramarla 10. That’s what some are speculating, like Howard Dean. I caught a bit of it right after work, and yes, the sniffling, the eyes, and the water drinking (what WAS that?) looked awfully familiar to an 80’s person.
Full disclosure: In those days, everyone was either doing it or knew someone who was.
Oddly, a whale of mooch mails (soliciting campaign contributions ) declared Hillary the loser.
All the usual DNC sponsored doom and gloom mails.
Trump is the far right’s gift to the Democrats. Is the DNC now the left’s gift to the right?
Nerd, #28: “Hillary Clinton appears to have edged out her Republican opponent Donald Trump…”
“…appears to have edged out…”. Wow. They’re evidently as good at interpreting and reporting the result of a debate as they are with handling money…with as little respect for actuality as their preferred world view allows. Safe but still profitable.
Trump was at his best earlier in the debate. By the end he ran out of arguments and started spewing word salad. He lacks stamina.
Lynna @12 – Hmmm… your statement implies that he had previously said something coherent. If he did, it escaped me. (I will grant that the word salad cited above is remarkably nonsensical, even by Trump standards … approaching Sarah Palin territory here.)
Since when when are debaters to be the other sides “fact checkers”? To say the moderators have no duty to fact check is to misconstrue the raison for debates to begin with. Debates are the two giving their answer to the question with the other side allowed a rebuttal. If allowed to fact check each other the audience may start thinking the debaters are just arguing “opinions” that the debaters are disagreeing about.
When Hillary said “Trump called climate change a hoax” to which Trump just heckled with “Did not say that”. For the moderator to not jump in and say there is documented evidence that Trump said exactly that (repeatedly), is to leave it as nebulous accusation, and denial.
It is not the audiences JOB to fact check. It is strongly recommended, but the point of a debate is to hear which side spouts falsehoods, and to be informed be the moderator which one did so.
oh, I see with Trump unable to tell the truth, the time would be dominated by the moderator fact-checking everything Trump said. But that is not a bad thing, to see immediately that he is speaking lies.
I listened to the debate on NPR, so I missed the visuals. I did hear Trump’s sniffling though. I can’t pretend to be “objective”, but all of the NPR personnel seemed convinced that Clinton had clearly won.
Just a thought…
Politics are not sports. There are no winners, and there are no losers. If there are winners or losers, then something is seriously screwed up.
I don’t care the least who was the wittiest or who kept their temper the best. I only care about their views and ideas and how they are going to make them real.
slithey tove,
The problems is that everything Trump says is a lie or his own exaggerated opinion of himself. I thought Holt did a pretty good job of calling him out on some of his blatant lies. If every falsehood was correct it wouldn’t give Clinton any time to speak.
He got rattled as the debate went on and it’s clear he isn’t used to someone standing up to him. His campaign so far has been in front of adoring racists who cheer everything he says and in the primary he was able to bully the other contenders. Clinton won’t be bullied and it drove him nuts. But at least we know he wants to be “tough on cyber”.
That debate was pretty much the definitive example of bluster vs confidence.
The longest word Trump will probably ever use in his life (and pretty much sums him up) is “braggadocious” (yes I looked it up.)
The problem was, before the debate Trump neglected to sacrifice to his patron god, Sterculius.
I understand people’s desires to make fun of Trump as a cokehead (he has to have tried it during the 80s, at least!), but let’s be charitable. More likely he just has a bit of a cold or allergies. That would explain all the symptoms just as easily.
We haven’t seen him looking coked-up on TV at other times. Granted, the stress of a debate might drive him to recreational pharmaceuticals in a way an appearance on Sean Hannity’s show wouldn’t, but come on. The man stood upright for 90 minutes. I suppose coke may have improved over the decades, but that’s a long time to go on one fix.
Will there be a second debate? I doubt it. Trump may find a way to weasel out of it — the moderator was very, very unfair, disgusting questions, let me tell you, they gave me an allergen infested podium, the water was tainted, that’s why I went into a crazy stream of consciousness rant at the end. Even now Fox News is spinning the story that Holt was tough on him and easy on Clinton.
Guiliani is advising Trump to cancel the rest of the debates.
Ah, the usual. Don’t fact check The Donald, who is always right. *snicker*
Make him look good compared to Clinton.
Talk about rigging the election, its there in black and white from Team Donald. Just rig it OUR way.
Surly his personal magic sky faerie is Trump.
(I obviously mean “Surely”, but the offering to Typos seems so apt…)
Trump went on Fox news this morning and confirmed with his answers to host Steve Doocy that Hillary Clinton got under his skin when she noted that he had called a Miss Universe contestant “Miss Piggy” and “Miss Housekeeping.”
Trump claimed that Clinton didn’t get under his skin: “No, not at all. I didn’t see it that way.”
Then he proceeded to prove to us that, not only did Clinton provoke him, but that, yes, he was a misogynistic asshole to Alicia Machado, a Latina woman who became a U.S. Citizen.
Here is a video of Alicia Machado talking about the way that Donald Trump treated her. He invited reporters to watch him demean her for gaining weight (she still looked fabulous); and he didn’t pay her for the commercial work she did. He broke contracts.
When Trump spoke to Fox News this morning, he still couldn’t say Alicia Machado’s name.
Indeed (albeit he’s not known to have seasonal allergies). At the moment, he’s claiming he had a defective microphone. Neither his health nor anything he did…
Defective microphones are not, of course, any sort of a (sane) reason for interrupting, shouting, incoherence, lying, self-contradiction, or much of anything he actually said; that is, a defective microphone or sniffling does not explain much of behaviour nor any of the content.
On climate change:
Hillary Clinton brought it up, saying, “Donald thinks that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. I think it’s real.”
Trump interrupted to deny that he had said that: “I did not. I did not. I do not say that.”
In a 2012 tweet, Donald Trump wrote: “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”
Donald Trump interrupted Hillary Clinton more than fifty times: Video of all the interruptions.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/trump-bewilders-with-foreign-policy-answers-773764163573
The link above is to a video of Richard Engel fact-checking Donald Trump’s foreign policy answers.
of course the microphone was defective (or at least the sound engineer was at fault)
it heard exactly what he said not how he wanted it to sound or anything
uncle frogy
Lynna@22 includes a quote from teh trump-prat (my edits):
There has been a claim circulating for about a week now, apparently based on a DHS report, that “At least 858 people that had been ordered deported or removed under another name were improperly granted US citizenship due to a failure to maintain adequate fingerprint records, according to a new report.” (DHS Report: More than 800 people wrongly given US citizenship). That’s from CNN, which I do not consider to be terribly reliable (I have not seen / found anything in a more reliable source, and admittedly have not read the report itself.) Anyways, CNN claims:
Teh trum-prat’s claim about what happened (pushing a wrong button or corruption) is horseshite.
By the way, at the debate Giuliani kissed Miriam Adelson’s hand.
A nice post-debate moment on PBS:
Mark Shields was going on about how Hillary didn’t come across as “likable” when one of the anchors (Gwen Ifill or Judy Woodruff–I forget which one) interrupted him to say (roughly) “Why do we always ask that about the woman candidate? Do you think Trump is likable?”
To which Shields, clearly flustered, responded “Of course not,”
Tens of millions is almost certainly an underestimate. Pretty much all the 7 billion people in the world minus half the voting US, a few Russians, and maybe ISIS think that life on earth depends on your beating Trump, Ms Clinton. But no pressure.
dianne:
World population: ~7 billion
Tens of millions: 10 millions.
Ratio of tens of millions (10,000,000) to world population (7,000,000,000): a bit over one tenth of one percent — around fourteen in every ten thousand. Rather insignificant in purely numeric terms, no?
(Hey, if you up it a couple of orders of magnitude, it might become somewhat significant!)
You think that’s an underestimate. Fair enough, but you give no good reason for your thinking.
I, personally, do not think that “that life on earth depends on your beating Trump, Ms Clinton”.
Not even slightly.
(What I take from your comment is that you’re easily pressured, and impute your predilection to others)
Bah.
Re. @ 53, 54
Humoristic hyperbole is acceptable to me. If you say, for instance, “This is Fox News lie # one million bajillion” about Hannity saying somethng that is definitely false, the context makes it OK as the statement is not intended to convey numerical accuracy to the tenth decimal, but rather an emotional response to a display of dishonesty.
“life on Earth depends on your beating Trump
At least those orgaisms that are more likely to go extinct with continued climate channge. Since we are already at the beginning of a human-induced mass extinction, the remark is not as hyperbolic as I would wish…
PS -I get nostalgic about Clint Eastwood adressing an empty chair.
(it was a reference to the “driving instructor” sketch of the 1960s, before most of the voters were born. A honest mistake by Eastwood. Most of the mistakes by Trump and his followers have had a more unpleasant taste. Like the assumptions about black people. )
Incidentally, not to piss in the Cheerios, but discussing who “won” the debate is really a pointless exercise. I didn’t watch it (because I already know how I’m voting and I’m sick of the theater of the campaign), but everyone I spoke to believes their candidate won handily, and both sides seem incredulous that the other side could believe they won. Granted, this isn’t a proper poll or anything, but rarely do these sorts of events seem to prove decisive.
Matrim: anyone who is convinced will not be convinced by the debates, though they might lose enthusiasm. But many people live under a rock (not that there’s anything wrong with that, lots else to think about in life than politics) — that’s who is going to maybe change their mind.
Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal has a spot-on comment to the debate media circus http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/a-new-debate-format