I don't know about you but she looked pretty energized to me. On the other hand, by the end of the debate he was slumping and hanging on to the podium like he'd been hit with an animal tranquilizer dart:
I'm just saying. Between that and his ongoing sniffling problem is it irresponsible to question whether his "report" from his quack doctor might not be telling the whole story? As Peggy Noonan famously said, it would be irresponsible not to.
*By the way, Trump's sniffing is something he does all the time. It's actually a verbal tic, like "uhm" or "you know." But after the way his campaign has behaved and the despicable way the press treated her when she caught the bug going through her campaign, the least they can do is follow their usual "both sides do it" in this one case. Just because he's a strapping man doesn't mean he shouldn't be questioned as thoroughly. He is orange, after all. That's really not normal.
I know that people find Clinton's Tracy Flick wonkiness to be boring and wish she wouldn't get into the weeds the way she does, but this is important and I am really glad she's engaged the subject and brought it up before more than 80 million people last night:
It came after moderator Lester Holt asked whether or not police are implicitly biased against black people.
“I’ve met with a group of very distinguished, experienced police chiefs a few weeks ago,” Clinton said. “They admit it’s an issue.”
And according to the police chiefs Clinton consulted, a second pressing problem for law enforcement officers is insufficient training on how to interact with mentally ill constituents in crisis situations. While this is a separate issue from race, discrimination against the mentally ill is widespread and extends beyond policing.
“Police are having to handle a lot of really difficult mental health problems on the street,” Clinton explained. “They want support, they want more training, they want more assistance. And I think the federal government could be in a position where we would offer and provide that.”
If elected, Clinton promises to allocate $1 billion of her first federal budget to law enforcement training programs to reduce implicit bias, according to NPR.
Law enforcement training on bias is actually part of Clinton’s larger mental health plan, which calls for more funding for community mental health centers, increased research on the brain and behavior, and better access to care and insurance coverage for psychiatric disorders.
The police are right to want more training in this regard. According to a Washington Post investigation tracking fatal shootings by police last year, one in four police killings involved a person with mental illness.
In fact, police officers typically only receive about 16 total hours of de-escalation and crisis intervention training, compared to approximately 60 hours of firearms training, according to a 2015 survey by the nonprofit Police Executive Research Forum.
Even worse, some techniques that police are taught, such as yelling commands and pointing their weapons at suspects, can backfire.
Such tactics are “like pouring gasoline on a fire when you do that with the mentally ill,” Ron Honberg, policy director with the National Alliance on Mental Illness, told The Washington Post.
Some police forces have increased their crisis intervention trainings to a 40-hour program, which includes scenario-based training and techniques to diffuse potentially violent interactions between officers and mentally ill community members. But for now, there are no national requirements on CIT training for new recruits.
Trump, who angered critics by touting New York City’s controversial and unconstitutional stop-and-frisk policy, didn’t mention mental health in the context of policing and doesn’t have a policy about it on his website.
I hope that some people heard this and saw that she was showing compassion for mental health sufferers and the dangers they face in our mean streets, but also compassion fro police who are often charged with dealing with such problems without training and support. Between this and the proliferation of guns we have a terrible epidemic on our hands. And Clinton is showing leadership by proposing a multi-dimensional set of possible solutions. That ought to be worth something.
MSNBC had their expert reporters do some fact checking of the debate last night and NBC's top foreign correspondent Richard Engel came in looking rather shell shocked by what he'd heard. He had a lot to say but this stuck out at me because it tracks with one of my greatest fears about all this lunacy:
A lot of things Donald Trump was proposing were frankly destabilizing, dangerous, dangerous to the United States, dangerous to the world order, if you will. The United States foreign policy is based on agreements often long negotiated agreements sometimes negotiated over decades and longer.
If you listen to the debate he's basically saying that he's a business man and he's going to tear up the old agreements and negotiate better deals. If you're a foreign country and you're listening to this and you're listening to this and you have an agreement whether NATO or a nuclear deal or a protection agreement or a sovereignty agreement or a trade agreement and you suddenly think, "is the leading world power just going to tear up the agreement that we've had for decades?" What is that going to mean for me? Are my neighbors going to invade?
There are dozens of reason why Trump must be defeated but this, I believe, is number one. If he wins we will wake up the morning after the election to a changed world and it's unlikely to be changed in a positive way. In fact, it's likely to be the beginning of a very dangerous military build-up.
On both Twitter and Facebook, Trump was a livelier subject than Clinton. Twitter said the "final share of conversation around the candidates on stage" was 62% for Trump and 38% for Clinton.
On Facebook, the results were even more lopsided, with Trump earning 79% share of conversation and Clinton having the remaining 21%.
I guess any publicity might be considered good publicity but it really doesn't appear that the "conversation" about Trump is generally positive. That big audience saw an arrogant, lazy, belligerent, petulant ignoramus "debating" an intelligent, mature mainstream politician. Sure, a large number of Americans probably prefer the ignoramus. They like that in a person. But it's hard to imagine that a majority does.
I asked, "How would you respond to young women who are nervous about voting for you?" This question was inspired by the countless students I spoke to earlier that day who told me they were nervous about the future of women's rights if Trump were elected. My phone was out and already recording in anticipation of the answer Trump would hopefully give me to my question. Instead, another reporter behind me yelled a question to him (something about what he'd say to the people of Westchester, New York). He then looked at me, grabbed my right wrist (which was the hand holding the phone), said, "Put that down" and pushed my hand down.
I should be clear that it didn't hurt — physically or emotionally, as some on Twitter have blamed me for the incident saying I "woke up as a victim waiting to happen." It's my job as a reporter to point out what happens at these types of events, and I take what I do very seriously.
So Trump never verbally answered my question about how he would respond to women who are nervous to vote for him, but I got the answer I needed.
If someone had told me 10 years ago that the first general election presidential debate of 2016 would feature a CNN chyron that said “Awaiting the Historic Clinton-Trump Debate,” I would have thought you were crazy. If you had told me the polls would be tied going into that debate I would have thought the world had gone crazy. But that’s where we are and last night’s debate showed how far we’ve gone down the rabbit hole.
My preview of the debate yesterday focused on the fact that Trump’s “serious” debates at the end of the primaries, when there were fewer rivals, gave us some clues about how he might perform in the main event. He was aggressively incoherent and sometimes completely unintelligible, proving repeatedly that he had absolutely no idea what he was talking about. This has actually been obvious from the beginning of his campaign if you watched his rallies and interviews. It’s just that his personality is so remarkably bizarre that I think the lack of substance is easy to overlook. (I confess I have been somewhat surprised that so many people find his rambling “braggadociousness” appealing enough that they fail to notice that he is ignorant about everything important to the job of president.)
In recent days with the hiring of campaign manager Kellyanne Conway and CEO Steve Bannon as well as sage advice from his pal Roger Ailes, Trump has been tamed just enough to read a stump speech on a Teleprompter, and he’s sounded a bit more intelligible. So there was always the possibility that he would have done a little bit of prep work, read a briefing paper or two and otherwise taken the debate seriously. It is the most important office in the world, after all. It wouldn’t hurt to do a little cramming on the details before appearing in front of 100 million people to make the case for why you are the best person for the job.
Trump’s campaign made it very clear that he wasn’t doing any of that, but I think many political professionals assumed there was a large element of spin involved. He had to have at least done some practice debates, right? But it turns out that for the first time his campaign was telling the whole truth. Last night Donald Trump demonstrated not only that he didn’t prepare but that he has no underlying knowledge of the subjects a president is required to know. He simply tried to bluff his way through with incoherent misdirection, hostility and sarcasm, even as he made the absurd claimed that his temperament is his best quality. He gave the worst debate performance of his short political career. In fact, it may have been the worst debate performance of any political career.
I wasn’t sure whether or not Hillary Clinton would be able to handle him. It’s disorienting to see someone spout gibberish at such an important event, particularly when it’s combined with Trump’s narcissism, as when he oddly asserted that Clinton only started talking about jobs in response to his candidacy, or that NATO created a terrorism policy because he goaded them into it. (That’s ludicrous, of course.) But she handled him well, with humor and authority, proving that it can be done.
The reviews all seemed to indicate that Trump’s best moments were his early comments on trade policy. Which is probably true but it’s actually not saying much. He name-checked some Rust Belt states where the issue is particularly salient, which shows that he may have had some coaching, but his obsession with the subject, to the exclusion of all other economic concerns, is one-dimensional to say the least. In fact, it doesn’t seem to be economic at all, and is better seen as an illustration of his crude nationalism. He shows no interest in workers as people. They are nothing more than statistics that prove America is being screwed over by foreigners. Trump seems to think that screwing workers is an American billionaire’s prerogative.
In fact, Clinton deftly turned the tables on his populism by painting him out as a rich Republican swell just like all the rest, hitting him repeatedly on his business practices and failures. As Washington Post reporter Robert Costa said on MSNBC after the debate:
She yanked him toward the Republican Party. She said, “You’re not going to be able to run as an outsider, you can’t be a populist.” She said, “You’re just like George W. Bush, you’re trickle-down economics like Ronald Reagan, you’re supply-side, Trumped up. This is a candidate whose real appeal is that he’s non ideological, that he’s not running as a partisan Mitt Romney, George W. Bush Republican, and she said “I’m not going to let you.”
I don’t know whether anyone was convinced by that but it was one of many moments that confused Trump and pushed him off his game. When Clinton hit him for saying he hoped for the housing collapse, he reacted with a very plutocratic answer: “That’s called business, by the way.” He made the same mistake later when she pointed out that there were times when he hadn’t paid any taxes by saying, “That makes me smart.” These were just two of many errors, lies and flashes of ignorance, temper and petulance that characterized Trump’s embarrassing performance.
The simple fact is that Hillary Clinton dominated him. The debate was all her thrusting and him parrying over and over again. By the end he was visibly slumping and seemed confused. And since being a “winner” is so central to his candidacy and his personality, the loss is even more devastating.
The pundits are all wondering if that means Trump will bother to prepare for the next two debates (if he deigns to show up at all). But that may not be something he’s actually capable of doing. His former co-writer Tony Schwartz, who knows him well, says that Trump has an extremely short attention span and is unable to study or learn in any concentrated way. But just because he has no interest in or ability to learn any substance, it doesn’t mean Trump won’t make changes. From his comments at the end of the debate and later in the spin room, it appears that he believes Clinton wasn’t “nice,” so he plans to attack her personally by bringing up her husband’s infidelities at their next meeting. He won’t be better informed or more controlled, he’s just going to take the gloves off. But she’s got a much thicker skin than he does, and unless he learns how to take a hit it’s highly likely she’ll be able to get the best of him next time too. It turns out that along with a thin skin, Trump has a glass jaw. digby 9/27/2016 09:00:00 AM
Clinton trumps Trump
by Tom Sullivan
If there was any red on Donald Trump's face as last night's presidential debate wore on, his orange makeup hid it well. The Republican candidate who boasts at rallies he will negotiate the best deals, great deals, tre-men-dous deals with world leaders last night could not negotiate 90 minutes against an American one. Hillary Clinton demonstrated she is a leader with knowledge, experience and intelligence that far outstrips Trump's.
Within the first half hour, dry mouth set in and Trump had to keep sipping water to stay lubricated. (It didn't make his answers any more coherent.) At one point, he seemed to wipe a bead of sweat from his upper lip. But it was the regular, audible sniffing like a cokehead that started early and continued through most of the debate that had Twitter buzzing. Likely, Donald Trump is allergic to being around strong women.
Trump couldn’t keep up with Clinton’s knowledge of policy, and became increasingly obstreperous when she attacked him. He interrupted her repeatedly and then, frustrated with questions from host Lester Holt, he interrupted him, too. Eventually, Trump lost focus and started to ramble. The lack of impulse control, the derogatory attitude toward women, the utter disregard for truth ― all of it came into full view.
And at that point, maybe, Trump’s style stopped seeming refreshing ― and started seeming disturbing.
Perhaps three scheduled debates is too few. The wonkish Clinton shined last night. She may be a strong leader and relentless campaigner, but has been a weak candidate. She admits her speaking skills are no match for her husband's, which are legendary. She often appears aloof and defensive. After 25 years of constant attacks, who can blame her? (A lot of people.) And she could not put away Bernie Sanders through the unexpectedly long Democratic primary. But against Donald Trump the loudmouthed reality TV star, Hillary Clinton dominated the dominator and was clearly in control. No contest:
Republican pollster Frank Luntz reported on Twitter that 16 people in his focus group thought Clinton, the Democratic nominee, came out as the winner. Only six people thought the winner was the Republican nominee Trump.
A CNN focus group of undecided Florida voters arrived at the same conclusion. Eighteen of the 20 participants chose Clinton as the winner.
Clinton hit Trump hard on his claim to renegotiate a host of postwar treaties that have defined international relations and stability over the last half century. When he attacked on her negotiation of the Iran nuclear treaty, "one of the worst deals ever made by any country in history," she looked into the camera to reassure world leaders:
CLINTON: Well, let me -- let me start by saying, words matter. Words matter when you run for president. And they really matter when you are president. And I want to reassure our allies in Japan and South Korea and elsewhere that we have mutual defense treaties and we will honor them.
It is essential that America's word be good. And so I know that this campaign has caused some questioning and worries on the part of many leaders across the globe. I've talked with a number of them. But I want to -- on behalf of myself, and I think on behalf of a majority of the American people, say that, you know, our word is good.
It's also important that we look at the entire global situation. There's no doubt that we have other problems with Iran. But personally, I'd rather deal with the other problems having put that lid on their nuclear program than still to be facing that.
And Donald never tells you what he would do. Would he have started a war? Would he have bombed Iran? If he's going to criticize a deal that has been very successful in giving us access to Iranian facilities that we never had before, then he should tell us what his alternative would be. But it's like his plan to defeat ISIS. He says it's a secret plan, but the only secret is that he has no plan.
"Donald Trump Punches Himself Out" writes Michael Tomasky at Daily Beast:
For the first hour or so, it was kind of a rope-a-dope performance by Clinton. She let him punch himself out. For the first 20 minutes or so, some of the punches landed. On trade, and on other issues. But then Trump started to over-punch, especially in the way he interrupted Clinton repeatedly.
Then, in the closing 30 or 40 minutes, she went into him hard, on his failure to release his tax returns in particular. Trump tried to hit her hard, on ISIS, but the punches didn’t quite land.
I could go into issues. But really, the particular issues don’t matter here so much. These things are about affect. As the wise heads say, you can watch these things with the sound down. And I would imagine that if you did watch this one with the sound down, Trump looked petulant and, well, low-energy.
Mostly, Trump looked down at his podium.
Already flagging, Trump tried to argue she has "no business ability," and "doesn't have the look. She doesn't have the stamina" to be president. Clinton counterpunched:
CLINTON: Well, as soon as he travels to 112 countries and negotiates a peace deal, a cease-fire, a release of dissidents, an opening of new opportunities in nations around the world, or even spends 11 hours testifying in front of a congressional committee, he can talk to me about stamina.
When she pointed out Trump had tried to switch from looks to stamina, Clinton brought up Trump's past derogatory remarks about women's looks. Trump, the would-be president of the world's only superpower, responded by referencing his personal feud with Rosie O'Donnell, "I said very tough things to her, and I think everybody would agree that she deserves it and nobody feels sorry for her."
When the debates are on, my comedian friends and I are trying to come up with funny tweets. We'll comment on the zingers and if they landed or not. We retweet the ones we think are the funniest. Getting a like for a funny tweet is nice, but getting a retweet really hits the ol' dopamine centers. ( Frank Conniff is my favorite. The HRC camp should classify him as a national treasure and put him in charge of strategic zingers.)
While I'm trying to craft 140 character zingers, my political friends are trying to fill out their debate bingo drinking cards.
"When Hillary's opponent says, 'I'm going to build a wall!' take a drink. If he says, 'Mexico will pay for it,' take a shot of tequila.' If the moderator, asks 'How will that work?' or cites comments from the Mexican President about paying for the wall, eat the worm. (Don't worry, you won't have to eat a worm!)"
When I watched the first GOP debate I knew I was no longer watching a political debate but the TV show Who Wants to be President? which morphed into Last Comic Standing. It was all about the zingers, insults and nicknames. I expect a lot of the same in tonight's debate.
I'll admit it, it's great fun to make fun of the debates, but, as we used to say in the shop, "It's all fun and games until someone launches a nuke."
Like most sentient beings, I don't want to help the short-fingered vulgarian get into power. You might not either. Beyond screaming at the TV during one of his lies, what can you do now? it turns out that you should also Tweet smart, because the media is dumb.
Tweeting Smart example for sane people: Because some analysis only counts keyword use, Tweet Hillary Clinton's full name vs. The Talking Yam's. "Hillary won. #imwithher You heard me, Hillary Clinton won the #debatetonight and we are #strongertogether
The mainstream media covering the Presidential election has an over reliance on social media to replace their "man on the street" pieces. Every word we say, or don't say, is counted, sorted and analyzed by the media then presented as "the public's reaction." So, if you don't use the right keywords you might get missed by the dumb tools in the media. As far as the media is concerned, my funny-pithy tweet doesn't count because their tool didn't see I was commenting about the debate.
Credit, Shout: Wired TwitterBots Eagle
But you know whose tweets will get picked up? The millions of TwitterBots controlled by a handful of people. They know how the keywords, counting and sorting tools of the media work. This means that when the media talks about "the public's reaction" It's not totally the public's reaction. This is a problem. How big is it?
One estimate from Twitter Audit is that 1 out of every 4 followers of Big Orange Hair are fake. And yes, both sides do it, Hillary Clinton has the same percentage of fake twitter followers as her opponent. You can be outraged or see it as "Bot Parity" for those accounts.
However, simply looking at fake followers of one candidate isn't enough. Think about all the dark money spent on the election. Millions of fake followers from the 11 GOP presidential candidates can be endorsing Mr. "Issued Two Death Threats To Hillary In a Month" with a few keystrokes.
Social media bots exist and they are being used. Fake Twitter accounts are a great way for corporations and rich people to push a trend. They can even order up positive tweets about the Mr. "My Ex-Wife Testified I Raped Her" from millions of hispanics, women and black tweeters. Plus, the tweets can't be traced back to them.
How much do these fake tweets influence people? Does the media understand them and factor them out before talking about "public perceptions?" (Have you ever heard anyone in the news media even mentioning them when they read off Twitter stats?)
I would say, 'Buyer Beware." but we are the ones being sold. In the world of social media there is no regulation, no Federal Election Commission pushing for transparency.
Social media manipulation tools exist, they are being used all the time and we know nothing about them. If the mainstream media doesn't understand how they are being played, we the people need to understand this, so we can act appropriately.
Let the #debatenight tweets begin. And may the best real Tweets from actual individuals win. Spocko 9/26/2016 05:30:00 PM
31 mentions of "Trump"
7 mentions of "Donald"
Total Trumps: 38
4 mentions of "Clinton"
2 mentions of "Hillary"
Total Clintons: 6
Put another way, today the Huffington Post believes that Trump is more than 6 times as important as Clinton.
Adding, I was speaking to my smart daughter about this and she said, "Yeah but most of the headlines are negative. Doesn't that matter, that he's being trashed?"
It would if this were seen as a political campaign, but that's not how Americans perceive this election. Sorry, fellow liberals and wonks. There are no big ideas at stake here. It's just marketing exposure doing what marketing exposure does.
Suppose you make decent organic peanut butter. And you decide to advertise it by creating an ad campaign in which you trash Jif more often than you tout your own good qualities. Suppose every commentator everywhere agrees with you, and chooses to emphasize how lousy Jif is more than they mention your product. They're reasoning is, "Once Americans realize how unhealthy Jif is, they'll know they have to eat organic peanut butter!"
Suppose in addition, because the makers of Jif are such cunning marketing people, that the name "Jif" is ubiquitous - on fancy buildings, on major highways, on huge casinos, on every magazine cover, on TV, social media, in the schools, and there are even books and TV movies about the greatness of Jif.
So even though your organic peanut butter is a demonstrably healthier product on so many levels, Jif appears to be pretty tempting, what with that added sugar and all. And besides, Jif''s being mentioned more than 6 times as often as any other nut spread - can't remember exactly what they said...it's all too technical and a blur...There's gotta be something there, maybe it's good!
So seriously, what's the big deal about Jif being bad? Besides, what's the alternative? I mean, how bad can Jif be?
And that is what is going on right now.
(With apologies to Jif: consuming 1 mg of Trump is way more dangerous than eating an entire case of Jif in one sitting.) tristero 9/26/2016 05:00:00 PM
A vendor at the Bloomsburg Fair in Pennsylvania advertised his wares by displaying a large Nazi flag next to a Donald Trump banner, according to The Citizens' Voice, a local Pennsylvania paper.
The flag was taken down Monday after it was initially spotted and a fairgoer posted a picture of it on social media Sunday night.
“Security and the directors and other people did take care of it,” concessions clerk Barbara Belles told The Citizens’ Voice. Belles also said the vendor was apparently displaying the flag for political purposes.
In case you were wondering, it wasn't some ironic anti-Trump protest. Here's a sample of his other Trumpish "politically incorrect" wares:
They also found a bunch of Nazi paraphernalia at his home. No need to worry though. He wasn't a Muslim.
Justin Wolfers in the NYT has a story about the betting markets and tonight's debate. Obviously it doesn't really tell us anything real but it's illustrative of what these people know about the presidential race:
They don’t seem to expect much substance on issues, judging from the under-over bets on how many times various issues or words will be mentioned. The top three terms are “email” (you can bet on whether there will be over 7.5 mentions, or under 7.5 mentions), “deport” (the line is 6.5 mentions) and “liar” (5.5 mentions). Expect less discussions of “racism” (an over-under of 2.5 mentions), Wall Street (3.5 mentions) or each candidate’s “foundation” (4.5 mentions). If you’re wondering how there can be half a mention, there obviously can’t; this is how Las Vegas breaks a tie.
This is what people have "heard" and expect to hear more of. Because these are all words they've heard over and over again and which have determined for many Americans what this campaign is about.
Over the weekend, various major media outlets discovered that Donald Trump lies a lot.
“Never in modern presidential politics has a major candidate made false statements as routinely as Trump has,” the LA Times reported.
“Donald J. Trump has unleashed a blizzard of falsehoods, exaggerations and outright lies in the general election, peppering his speeches, interviews and Twitter posts with untruths so frequent that they can seem flighty or random — even compulsive,” wrote the New York Times.
Politico had a worthy plan to evaluate Trump’s truthfulness. It decided to track the public statements of both candidates for one week and compare them.
That exercise found that Trump says something false every 3 minutes and 15 seconds while Clinton utters a falsehood every 12 minutes.
“Compared with Trump’s machine-gun style of spewing falsehoods, Clinton’s detours from the truth were rarer and more targeted,” Politico concluded.
But dig a little deeper and you’ll see that Politico went to extreme lengths to create even this level of equivalency between Trump and Clinton.
One of Clinton’s eight “lies” is her claim that Donald Trump’s plan to eliminate the estate tax would be a $4 billion tax cut for his family. Politico argues that this is a lie because it is based on Donald Trump’s own estimate of his net worth.
In other words, Clinton is guilty of lying because she took Trump at his word about his own net worth. It’s not enough for Clinton to tell the truth and to accurately describe the impact of his estate tax plan. She also has to identify and correct Trump’s lies.
Trump’s actual net worth cannot be independently determined because, among other things, Trump has not released his tax returns.
What a long strange trip it’s been since I wrote about the first GOP debate in August 2015. The stage was so crowded with Republican all-stars they couldn’t fit them on the same stage. The anticipation of seeing amateurs like Dr. Ben Carson and Donald Trump face off with seasoned pols like Gov. Chris Christie and former governor Jeb Bush, and the fringier Sens. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, was thick enough to cut with a knife.
Trump got off to a great start and set the tone for the rest of the debates when he responded to Fox News’ Megyn Kelly quoting him saying women are “fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals” by replying, to the great amusement of the crowd, that he had said that only about Rosie O’Donnell. It’s doubtful there were more than a handful of people in the country that night who dreamed that a little over a year later he would be standing on the stage facing Hillary Clinton.
There were 12 debates and seven candidate forums during the Republican primaries. Trump participated in all but one of the debates and three of the forums, and he dominated all of them. After Trump was asked a tough question early on about the nuclear triad and looked like a deer caught in headlights, he learned to take advantage of the time constraints by volleying insults and crude zingers to avoid answering difficult questions. He found that he could deflect and distract by being outrageous.
But the final debate between the last four standing, Trump, Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio and Gov. John Kasich, was different. It may be the template for what we’re going to see tonight. Trump wasn’t his usual garrulous self. He was “serious” in that debate, no name-calling, no acting out. And he made absolutely no sense.
Take just this one question as an example:
Moderator: Mr. Trump, you don’t want to raise the retirement age, and you also don’t want to cut benefits, even for wealthier Americans. But according to the Social Security Administration, unless adjustments are made, Social Security is projected to run out of money within 20 years. So specifically, what would you do to stop that from happening?
Donald Trump: Well, first of all, I want you to understand that the Democrats, and I’ve watched them very intensely, even though it’s a very, very boring thing to watch, that the Democrats are doing nothing with Social Security. They’re leaving it the way it is. In fact, they want to increase it. They want to actually give more.
And that’s what we’re up against. And whether we like it or not, that is what we’re up against.
I will do everything within my power not to touch Social Security, to leave it the way it is; to make this country rich again; to bring back our jobs; to get rid of deficits; to get rid of waste, fraud and abuse, which is rampant in this country, rampant, totally rampant.
He babbled on for some time about how he would get rid of deficits and how China is ruining everything and how he will cut all the fat and make America great again. It was a simple bold promise to “fix everything” and voters don’t have to worry their pretty little heads about the details.
But you’ll notice where he also said, “the Democrats are doing nothing with Social Security. They’re leaving it the way it is” and “that is what we’re up against” but then immediately said, “I will do everything within my power not to touch Social Security, to leave it the way it is.” It’s a bizarre, contradictory statement that allows him to have it both ways, to criticize the Democrats while taking exactly the same position.
The confused moderator let that go but followed up with facts and figures suggesting that “waste, fraud and abuse” would only amount to about 2 percent of the money needed. Trump replied that there’s plenty of money if we stop being the policeman of the world — and said in the same breath that we must spend whatever it takes to build up our military. He ended with:
We are going to be in a different world. We’re going to negotiate real deals now, and we’re going to bring the wealth back to our country. We owe $19 trillion. We’re going to bring wealth back to our country.
If you wrap all that up, what Trump was apparently saying is that we’re going to “negotiate deals” to “bring back” wealth and make other countries pay for the massive costs of building up our military, shoring up Social Security and everything else. This is inane twaddle, but it isn’t name-calling. He soundedserious.
When Trump’s numbers were challenged by Marco Rubio, this was how he responded:
Look, I’m just saying very simply we have a country that I’ve never seen anything like it. I’ve been going over budgets and looking at budgets. We don’t bid things out. We don’t bid out, as an example, the drug industry, pharmaceutical industry. They don’t go out to bid. They just pay almost as if you walk into a drugstore. That’s what they’re paying.
I’m self-funding my campaign. Nobody is going to be taking care of me. I don’t want anybody’s money. I will tell you something. We’re going to go out to bid in virtually every different facet of our government. We’re going to save a fortune.
That is nonsense word salad worthy of former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. (He’s going to “bid out” the pharmaceutical industry? Even in Trump’s fantasy universe, what does that mean?) Word salad is very difficult to rebut, particularly if it is delivered with a confident attitude. Sure, it’s incoherent gibberish, but because it’s all over the place it’s difficult to nail down specifically what’s wrong with it without getting lost in the weeds. Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton is a skilled and seasoned debater, but she’s never dealt with anything like this.
It’s possible that Trump will lose his cool on Monday night and demonstrate to the world that he is temperamentally unfit for the presidency. But it’s unlikely. He’s already proved that he is capable of keeping it together if he has to. What he has not been able to do is demonstrate that he knows what he’s talking about. The question is whether a majority of the American people can see that, or perhaps more important, whether they even think that matters. digby 9/26/2016 09:30:00 AM
"As of November 9, there will be a bloodbath at Fox"
by Gaius Publius
I couldn't help circling back to this.
Roger Ailes with his wife, Elizabeth Tilson, on July 19 in New York City. Credit Drew Angerer/Getty Images (source)
There's too much information in it to capture here, but near the end there's a section that discusses what Fox becomes post-Ailes, and I'd like to focus on that. If Sherman is right on both of his counts — about the changes at Fox, about the emergence of Trump TV — the media landscape will drastically change post-election.
Will that change be for the better? That's a consideration for another time.
Fox After Ailes
On what Fox is about to become, Sherman writes:
Ailes’s ouster has created a leadership vacuum at Fox News. Several staffers have described feeling like being part of a totalitarian regime whose dictator has just been toppled. “No one knows what to do. No one knows who to report to. It’s just mayhem,” said a Fox host. As details of the Paul, Weiss [a law firm] investigation have filtered through the offices, staffers are expressing a mixture of shock and disgust. The scope of Ailes’s alleged abuse far exceeds what employees could have imagined. “People are so devastated,” one senior executive said. Those I spoke with have also been unnerved by [senior executive VP Bill] Shine and [Fox general counsel Dianne] Brandi’s roles in covering up Ailes’s behavior.
Despite revelations of how Ailes’s management team enabled his harassment, Murdoch has so far rejected calls — including from [Murdoch's son] James, according to sources — to conduct a wholesale housecleaning. On August 12, Murdoch promoted Shine and another Ailes loyalist, Jack Abernethy, to become co-presidents of Fox News. He named Scott executive vice-president and kept Brandi and [PR department executive Irena] Briganti in their jobs. Fox News’s chief financial officer, Mark Kranz, is the only senior executive to have been pushed out (officially he retired), along with [Ailes’s longtime executive assistant Judy] Laterza and a handful of assistants, contributors, and consultants. “Of course, they are trying to isolate this to just a few bad actors,” a 21st Century Fox executive told me.
Many people I spoke with believe that the current management arrangement is just a stopgap until the election. “As of November 9, there will be a bloodbath at Fox,” predicts one host. “After the election, the prime-time lineup could be eviscerated. O’Reilly’s been talking about retirement. Megyn could go to another network. And Hannity will go to Trump TV.” ...
Meanwhile, the Murdochs are looking for a permanent CEO to navigate these post-Ailes, Trump-roiled waters. According to sources, James’s preferred candidates include CBS president David Rhodes (though he is under contract with CBS through 2019); Jesse Angelo, the New York Post publisher and James’s Harvard roommate; and perhaps a television executive from London. Sources say [Murdoch's son] Lachlan, who politically is more conservative than James, wants to bring in an outsider. Rupert was seen giving Rebekah Brooks a tour of the Fox offices several months ago, creating speculation that she could be brought in to run Fox. Another contender is Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy.
You may remember the name Rebekah Brooks from the U.K. phone-tapping scandal (emphasis added):
Brooks was a prominent figure in the News International phone hacking scandal, having been the editor of the News of the World when illegal phone hacking was carried out by the newspaper. Following a criminal trial in 2014 she was cleared of all charges by a jury at the Old Bailey, which accepted her defence of incompetence: that she had no knowledge of the illegal acts carried out by the newspaper she edited.
In September 2015, Brooks was confirmed as CEO of News UK, the renamed News International, re-establishing the working relationship with News Corp founder and chairman Rupert Murdoch.
O"Reilly, Hannity, Megyn Kelly and more, all could be gone from Fox News after the election. It will be interesting to watch Fox reinvent itself as the competitor to what may be a network to its right, Trump TV, a network perhaps run by the attack dog, Roger Ailes, who turned Fox into what it used to be.
Trump TV, if it emerges after the election, will throw a spanner into the workings of a once unified right-wing (and alt-right) messaging ecosystem:
The prospect of Trump TV is a source of real anxiety for some inside Fox. The candidate took the wedge issues that Ailes used [in order] to build a loyal audience at Fox News — especially race and class — and used them to stoke barely containable outrage among a downtrodden faction of conservatives. Where that outrage is channeled after the election — assuming, as polls now suggest, Trump doesn’t make it to the White House — is a big question for the Republican Party and for Fox News.
As right-wing as they are, both Trump and Murdoch care about the money that goes to the most-watched media outlets. They're about to become competitors for it:
Trump had a complicated relationship with Fox even when his good friend Ailes was in charge; without Ailes, it’s plausible that he will try to monetize the movement he has galvanized in competition with the network rather than in concert with it. Trump’s appointment of Steve Bannon, chairman of Breitbart, the digital-media upstart that has by some measures already surpassed Fox News as the locus of conservative energy, to run his campaign suggests a new right-wing news network of some kind is a real possibility.
And notice this tidbit, a hint of the infighting to come:
One prominent media executive told me that if Trump loses, Fox will need to try to damage him in the eyes of its viewers by blaming him for the defeat.
A battle for the eyes of the "deplorables" (an unfortunate, though interesting word) between Fox News and Trump TV — as well as for eyes and minds of the non-deplorable segment of the Trump-supporting world — should be fascinating to watch. One hopes they split the pie as they knife-fight to own it. I'd rather see an electorally divided "deplorables" than to see that group united, no matter how weakened their numbers.
As to the non-deplorable portion of Trump supporters — those suffering from the economic ravages of both pro-wealth Democratic rule and pro-wealth Republican rule — perhaps a newly populist Democratic Party can attract them for a change.
Again, if you can spare the time, do read the whole thing. It's fascinating, incredibly lurid, and very well documented. If sexual office politics is your cup of tea, you'll drown in it. Fox News was a pit of predatory males, office women retained and passed around for sex, and mid-to-upper-level executives (of both sexes) who acted as procurers — "talent scouts" — to feed one toxic man's toxic need, along with the needs of those around him. Some of those needs were simply to survive in that kind of environment.
I was just about to comment on a post at Raw Story when another headline there grabbed my attention. And what an appropriate lead-in:
If you want to avoid the new Dark Ages: Get out and vote
But the first headline at Raw Story was about Donald Trump advisor Gen. Michael Flynn on Meet the Press yesterday taking issue with Mark Cuban being invited to tonight's presidential debate:
In response [to] the news that Cuban will attend the first presidential debate of the 2016 general election, Trump tweeted over the weekend that he may invite Gennifer Flowers, who allegedly had an affair with Hillary Clinton’s husband decades ago.
On Sunday, Flynn deflected questions from NBC’s Chuck Todd about the invitation to Flowers.
“I would just go with what you have seen,” Flynn said. “And we’ll wait to see what happens tomorrow night.”
“Was it appropriate to invite Mark Cuban?” the Trump adviser continued. “I mean, he’s not a legitimate person. Why is he invited?”
First they came for Mark Cuban, etc.
Donald Trump's political career grew out of his deciding Barack Obama was "not a legitimate person." That mindset seems to have filtered down to his mouthpieces. Imagine a Trump administration populated with Trumps, Trumpettes, and Michael Flynns empowered to decide on a whim which Americans are illegitimate.
It wasn't that long ago conservatives joked about bringing back the Dark Ages:
Conservatives have invited 3,000 right-leaning luminaries to a New Year's retreat in Florida intended to rival the annual Renaissance Weekend in Hilton Head, S.C., attended by friends of President Clinton. The conservatives, those wags, are calling theirs the Dark Ages Weekend.
The letter of invitation, topped by a black dragon logo, seeks to rally conservatives at the posh Doral Golf Resort in Miami to sharpen their blades for the fight to slay that common enemy of all Americans -- the "big, fat and unaccountable" federal government.
Other common enemies would come later, one supposes. Except back then, the conservative elite felt they got to decide who was or was not illegitimate. Now, with Bravehair off script and leading commoners in revolt, the conservative elite are not so glib. They are Illegitimati. And Mark Cuban. And you're next.
Frankly, we should be discomfited that many Americans have absorbed the idea that Hillary Clinton is less honest than Donald Trump, giving Trump an edge in polls of trustworthiness.
Hello? There is no comparison.
And then he proceeded to compare the two:
One commonly cited example of Clinton’s lying is her false claim in 2008 that when she was first lady she came under sniper fire after her plane landed in Bosnia. In contrast, with Trump, you don’t need to go back eight years: One examination found he averages a lie or an inaccuracy in every five minutes of speaking.
Why does this matter? Because this construction creates a rhetorical equality. It doesn't matter who is the more egregious liar. What people take away is the comparison, not the details. Add together the fact that Trump is getting literally double the headline and photo coverage of Clinton with the fact that despite what he says, Kristof behaves as if they actually are comparable (like nearly everyone else in the media) and you've got a recipe that all but guarantees a dangerously close election.
Just this. I know everyone wants to vote for someone for whom they feel great affinity. I hope that happens for everyone at least once in their life. It's kind of a rare thing. But when someone like Trump comes along it's important to take a stand against what he stands for. This guy says it well:
He forgot to note that Obama lost white millennials by 7 in 2012. But hey, who needs perspective, amirite?
This raises an issue I think people need to be a little bit more aware of. When we talk about millennials becoming less racist, which is true, it's important to be aware of the fact that it's mostly because they're becoming less white.
Men aged 16-29 are more likely to hold traditional attitudes towards gender roles than older men, a new study has found.
35 per cent of young men were shown to believe that the man should assume the role of primary earner whilst the woman should remain home – shouldering the responsibilities of childcare, cooking and cleaning.
In comparison, only 26% of men aged 30-44, and 21% of men aged 45 and over, shared these views.
Millennials, those Americans now between 16 and 36 years old, are often spoken of as if they’re ushering in a new era of enlightened interpersonal relations. For example, in 2013 Time predicted Millennials would “save us all” because they are “more accepting of differences…in everyone.” That same year, The Atlantic stated that Millennials hold the “historically unprecedented belief that there are no inherently male or female roles in society.” And in 2015 the Huffington Post wrote that Millennial men are “likely to see women as equals.”
If these characterizations are even close to accurate, we should expect the pervasive, damaging biases against women leaders to diminish substantially, if not end entirely, once Millennials assume positions of economic, academic, and political power. But before we start celebrating a coming age of gender parity, we need to ask whether there is any truth to these characterizations. Do Millennials really believe there are no inherently male or female roles in society? Do Millennial men really “see women as equals”? Unfortunately, the best information we have indicates the answer to both questions is no.
In February 2016 researchers at the National Institutes of Health published a study on how college biology students view their classmates’ intelligence and achievements. The researchers found that male students systematically overestimated the knowledge of the men in their classes in comparison with the women. Moreover, as the academic term progressed, the men’s faulty appraisal of their classmates’ abilities increased despite clear evidence of the women’s superior class performance. In every biology class examined, a man was considered the most renowned student — even when a woman had far better grades. In contrast, the female students surveyed did not show bias, accurately evaluating their fellow students based on performance. After studying the attitudes of these future scientists, the researchers concluded, “The chilly environment for women [in the sciences] may not be going away anytime soon.”
Millennial men’s views of women’s intelligence and ability even extend to women in senior leadership positions. In a 2014 survey of more than 2,000 U.S. adults, Harris Poll found that young men were less open to accepting women leaders than older men were. Only 41% of Millennial men were comfortable with women engineers, compared to 65% of men 65 or older. Likewise, only 43% of Millennial men were comfortable with women being U.S. senators, compared to 64% of Americans overall. (The numbers were 39% versus 61% for women being CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, and 35% versus 57% for president of the United States.)
Moreover, according to a 2013 Pew survey of Americans, Millennial women are significantly more likely than older women to say that the country needs to continue making changes to bring about equality in the workplace, but Millennial men are the group most likely to say that all necessary changes have been made.
A glimmer of hope was found in the huge survey of Harvard Business School MBAs in a 2014 HBR article, which found that Millennial men were more likely than Gen X and Boomer men to predict that their wives would have equal careers, and less likely to do the majority of the child care. But that hope vanished when the researchers found the gap between what Millennial men and Millennial women believed was still wide: “Whereas three-quarters of Millennial women anticipate that their careers will be at least as important as their partners,” they reported, “half the men in their generation expect that their own careers will take priority.” The gap was similar when it came to child care responsibilities. Fewer than half of Millennial women believed they would handle most of the child care, but two-thirds of their male peers believed their wives would do so.
I'm not picking on millennials. My generation was way worse. My parents generation was way way worse.. Things are getting better. But these issues still exist and pretending otherwise is as old as the hills. When I was young men said they believed in equality too.
All this stuff runs deep and it's important that all of us do a gut check once in a while. I know I have to, anyway.
(By the way, it was 3 emails in an email chain that she may not have seen. All the others were classified after the fact for ridiculous reasons. Just saying. The "lie" is pretty venial. But anyway ...)
Politics and Reality Radio: Roy Edroso on the Right-bloggers’ Election by digby
This week, we'll speak to OG blogger and Village Voice right-wingologist Roy Edroso about the 2016 election as seen through the prism of the conservative blogosphere. Then Heather "Digby" Parton will join us to preview Monday's first presidential debate. And last but not least, David Turnbull, campaign director for Oil Change International, will tell us about his group's new study showing that fully exploiting the fossil fuel projects that are already online will force global temperatures above the target agreed to in Paris last year. Playlist: PowerSolo: "Knucklehead" Edith Piaf: "Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien" Bill Withers: "Ain't No Sunshine" Talking Heads: "My Love Is You" As always, you can also subscribe to the show on iTunes or Podbean.
I'm late weighing in on this election—late in more ways than one. Monday brought my ninety-sixth birthday, and, come November, I will be casting my nineteenth ballot in a Presidential election. My first came in 1944, when I voted for a fourth term for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, my Commander-in-Chief, with a mail-in ballot from the Central Pacific, where I was a sergeant in the Army Air Force. It was a thrilling moment for me, but not as significant as my vote on November 8th this year, the most important one of my lifetime. My country faces a danger unmatched in our history since the Cuban missile crisis, in 1962, or perhaps since 1943, when the Axis powers held most of Continental Europe, and Imperial Japan controlled the Pacific rim, from the Aleutians to the Solomon Islands, with the outcome of that war still unknown.
The first debate impends, and the odds that Donald Trump may be elected President appear to be narrowing. I will cast my own vote for Hillary Clinton with alacrity and confidence. From the beginning, her life has been devoted to public service and to improving the lives of children and the disadvantaged. She is intelligent, strong, profoundly informed, and extraordinarily experienced in the challenges and risks of our lurching, restlessly altering world and wholly committed to the global commonality. Her well-established connections to minorities may bring some better understanding of our urban and suburban police crisis. I have wished at times that she would be less impatient or distant when questions arrive about her past actions and mistakes, but I see no evidence to support the deep-rooted suspicions that often surround her. I don’t much like the high-level moneyed introductions and contacts surrounding the Clinton Foundation, but cannot find the slightest evidence that any of this has led to something much worse—that she or anyone has illegally profited or that any legislation tilted because of it. Nothing connects or makes sense; it beats me. Ms. Clinton will make a strong and resolute President—at last, a female leader of our own—and, in the end, perhaps a unifying one.
The Trump campaign has been like no other—a tumultuous and near-irresistible reality TV, in which Mr. Trump plays the pouty, despicable, but riveting central character. “I can’t stand him,” people are saying, “but you know, wow, he never stops.”
We know Mr. Trump’s early transgressions by heart: the female reporter who had “blood coming out of her whatever”; the mocking of a physically impaired reporter; the maligning of a judge because of his Mexican parents; the insulting dismissal of the grieving, Gold Star-parent Khans; the promised mass deportation of eleven million—or two million—undocumented immigrants, and more. Each of these remains a disqualifier for a candidate who will represent every one of us, should he win, but we now are almost willing to turn them into colorful little impairments. “Oh, that’s ol’ Donald—that’s the way he is.”
But I stick at a different moment—the lighthearted comment he made when, in early August, an admiring veteran presented him with a replica of his Purple Heart and Mr. Trump said, “I always wanted to get the Purple Heart. This was much easier.” What? Mr. Trump is saying he wishes that he had joined the armed forces somehow (he had a chance but skimmed out, like so many others of his time) and then had died or been scarred or maimed in combat? This is the dream of a nine-year-old boy, and it impugns the five hundred thousand young Americans who have died in combat in my lifetime, and the many hundreds of thousands more whose lives were altered or shattered by their wounds of war.
Reservations like this are predictable coming from someone my age, but I will persist, hoping to catch the attention of a few much younger voters, and of those who have not yet made up their minds about this election. I do so by inviting them to share an everyday experience—the middle-of-the-night or caught-in-traffic moment when we find our hovering second thoughts still at hand and waiting: Why did I ever?… What if?… Now I can see… and come to that pause, the unwelcome reconsideration that quiets us and makes us mature. It’s the same thought that Judge Learned Hand wanted posted in every school and church and courthouse in the land: “I beseech ye … think that we may be mistaken.”
Mr. Trump is endlessly on record as someone who will not back down, who cannot appear to pause or lose. He is a man who must win, stay on the attack, and who thinks, first and last, “How will I look?” This is central, and what comes after it, for me, at times, is concern for what it must be like for anyone who, facing an imperative as dark and unforgiving as this, finds only the narcissist’s mirror for reassurance.
If Donald Trump wins this election, his nights in the White House will very soon resemble those of President Obama. After he bids an early goodnight to his family, he sits alone while he receives and tries to take in floods of information from almost innumerable national and international sources, much of it classified or top secret. His surroundings are stately, but the room is shadowed and silent. There are bits of promising news here and there, but always more bloodshed, sudden alarms, and unexpected lurking dangers. The import of the news is often veiled or contradictory, or simply impenetrable. The night wears on, and may contain brief hours of sleep. There’s time to tweet. A new day is arriving, and with it the latest rush of bad news—another police shooting out West, another suicide bomber in Yemen, and other urgent briefings from a world already caught up in the morning’s difficult events. He needs to respond, but the beginning of this President’s response is always reliably at hand: How will I look?
The real question is why he looks so much better to to so many Americans. But then we know, don't we? He is their voice.