You know what the biggest gaffe in the debates was???
Trump pledging “no first strike with nuclear weapons”
All presidents since before georgevwashingtin, and every country on earth says…
“All options are on the table”
One nuke may save 500 from being fired !!!
You have no fucking clue what your intelligence will be…!!!
Trump was a shithead!!! Not a president!
Even if the president disagrees with it, they’re supposed to say it!!
It’s a fucking Cold War in this world …
And trump tripped and choked on his own vomit here
She made a fool out of him.
Watching it now.
Trump: You cant do what you’re looking to do with twenty trillion in debt."
Enough said, really.
Her campaign site as fact checker… absurd, exemplary of the leftist belief in their own objectivity. But Trump has to struggle now.
His temperament is the only thing working against him… and yet it is what makes me trust him. I very much like what he is saying and how. Very relieved, I was actually putting some stock in the public opinions.
Sarcastic Hillary fucking atrocious, pukeworthy., What the fuck is wrong with people.
What Trump has said so far is true, and relevant. Hillary has lied and said hollow universals, and avoided all his challenges.
Religion at work on the left. God is undead and living in the New York Times.
Fuck I just wrote and my whole post was eased. I must have gotten a defective microphone (er, I mean, Internet browser).
To sum my point I was saying before it was erased, Trump lies all the time. And no I am not defending Hillary. Nor am I saying that Trump never says true things. I will support him on what he says that is true and call him out on what he says that is false, I’m no ideologue for either side.
From the NYT (not your favorite I know, but these are all sourced so feel free to check that out to confirm), here are 27 lies that Trump told just in the last debate alone. Some are small or exaggerations or could be interpreted in different possible ways, but others are flat wrong. Trump’s method is ingenious: he spits out lie after lie nonstop so that no one can pause to catch their breath and refute any of it. The sheer pathology of personality we are dealing with here is stunning.
To say that Trump tells the truth and doesn’t lie is… not true at all. Of course some of these aren’t lies, just his perception of things, which perceptions should be argued more directly but for which, example being his comment about the Fed doing Obama’s bidding, no evidence is offered at all by Trump to back up the claim… So we are left to wonder, why does he believe it? Does he have some reasons that could be presented but for some reason aren’t, or is he a paranoia pure ideologue? My guess is the latter.
And yes the NYT has its bias, namely in calling all of these “lies” when in reality some are just his unsupported opinions and others are just outright untruths. But I digress.
mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/op … -told.html
He lied about the loan his father once gave him.
He lied about his company’s bankruptcies.
He lied about his federal financial-disclosure forms.
He lied about his endorsements.
He lied about “stop and frisk.”
He lied about “birtherism.”
He lied about New York.
He lied about Michigan and Ohio.
He lied about Palm Beach, Fla.
He lied about Janet Yellen and the Federal Reserve.
He lied about the trade deficit.
He lied about Hillary Clinton’s tax plan.
He lied about her child-care plan.
He lied about China devaluing its currency.
He lied about Mexico having the world’s largest factories.
He lied about the United States’s nuclear arsenal.
He lied about NATO’s budget.
He lied about NATO’s terrorism policy.
He lied about ISIS.
He lied about his past position on the Iraq War.
He lied about his past position on the national debt.
He lied about his past position on climate change.
He lied about calling pregnancy an “inconvenience” for employers.
He lied about calling women “pigs.”
He lied about calling women “dogs.”
He lied about calling women “slobs.”
Yes, he has no trouble lying. But his facial expression never lies.
I noticed that Hillary was lying at a far quicker rate though - she started out with lies, and only after ten minutes said something that was vague enough so that it could also be true.
Bush lied about everything and Obama did. Clinton did, everyone did - we are used to that. But now we have the internet.
Trump is just a more human type of liar in my eyes. He lies like a human, that is, not like an institution. Hillary truly has never said anything that was both pertinent and true.
Yes what you say is true. Trump is “truthful” precisely because the form of his lies is so human. Also I notice that on the one hand Hillary is receiving almost constant negative press in articles in the news, but on the other hand her own lies aren’t accounted for either. Even Trump’s lies aren’t usually accounted for, it’s like journalism doesn’t want to dig for truths anymore.
Lying like an institution, that’s a good way to put it. Systemic lies. The kind of “subjective violence” Zizek talks about in that one book of his on violence… violence that establishes a zero-point normalcy from which more “crude” lies (such as Trump’s) are supposedly judged.
My interest is in to what extent this systemic violence of being is necessary, healthful, Hegelian, or Nietzschean. Or maybe it’s just pathological; not even realpolitikal. In any case I want to see some truths. Especially without the recourse to damaged personalities.
Trump’s value seems to be to remind people that they are human beings and not institutions. But most of this comes in the form of reminding us of ugliness. It’s not that this isn’t valuable or needed, but that I seriously doubt such a limited critique of human being qua institution can really enact a coherent standard in the world at large. The very reason we have institutions is because the world is way to goddamn big to boil down to an earthy human level, and then there’s the fact that institutional logic exists to counter-punch against the brutal ugliness of the wolves of our nature that still seek to drag us down into pre-philosophical entropic madness.
How to enact clear, clearly human values at the level beyond entropy? Maybe Trump fails here, but maybe whoever comes next will be able to find some success in that.
Aah, we are screwed either way.
Trump = entrepreneurial nationalist.
Hillary = venal globalist.
So far the national and regional polls differ
Nationally, they are a bit crossed, but it “seems” to be leaning towards Clinton, despite the only polls since done give Trump a boost, like the LA Times poll. I don’t know how to explain what metric allows Clinton to pull ahead when the only evidence since the debate shows a Trump boost, I will be scouring around for the next few days trying to figure that logic out.
In regional polls for the swing states, essentially the only populations that matter, Trump is dominating, moving ahead. Clear sign he win the debates.
I have tried to explain this countless times over the years here, between my saying there are no logical fallacies, emphasis on the logic of rhetoric and comedy first and foremost, disregard for the efforts to impose Magsj’s or Only_Humeans warped since of rules and order on debates… That has nothing to do with philosophy, it is Anti-Philosophy, purely obstructionalist to the final aim of Philosophy.
When your engaged in dialectics, you gotta be like Miyamoto Musashi, disregarding the traditional rules and aesthetics of debate, because the only thing that matters is the effectiveness of your delivery in erecting change.
We don’t live in a serious philosophical era anymore. Trump grew up in a world of terse international Business English, arguing his points in vague debates where emotions mattered a lot, and signalling no-go intolerance to motions and ideas from the other side was absolutely necessary, if you don’t assert your position and back it up you will get trampled on.
He talks international business, at the big wig level. He can care less about the luxuries of academic debates. Hillary lost because she approached it from the perspective of backing liberal sensitivities, that expect a formalized, ritualized pattern of rules of engagement.
It backfired primarily because most people don’t do that. It is absolutely absurd to suggest they do, go sit in the food court of a mall and evesdrop if you don’t believe me… When the average person is talking about issues or candidates.
Reason Trump can get away with bring a non-tax paying sleezebag is because we know guys just like him already exist, and he gave the same excuse they give. He goes through the same loopholes anyone else would try for if they could. Nobody is refuting the legitimacy of his mode of thinking, we all perfectly damn well understand it, however unfair and displeasing it is, that’s more our fault for not closing those loops though. Thing is, things are so very, very rotten right now with the establishment, that people in the Midwest are willing to shrug it off in reply for effective change.
Short if a miracle before the next debate, I don’t see Hillary profiting when it matters more, save in ineffective abstract generalities that matter not one damn bit on election day.
I’m also like K, thinking shit… Under no circumstance can it he Hillary for president, but Trump, fuck. He is certainly the far lesser if two evils, but that doesn’t translate to enthusiasm. I have yet to hear him explain how he will enforce his police policies of Stop and Frisk… Places that need it the most are Democratic strongholds, and it is primarily black neighborhoods in Chicago or Latino areas across the west and southwest. Judges instituted long ago a rather absurd president saying if your primarily searching in “black areas” or primarily frisking “black people” then it is racial profiling, even if cops ate merely focusing on areas where statistically they are mist called on, or where more crime occurs- your damned if you do it right, as your automatically wrong.
It is undoubtedly a highly effective method, we wouldn’t do it for our courthouses and congressional buildings and airports if it wasn’t, exact same theory, but he has so far failed to explain it. I think he really needs to go in depth to explain this idea a bit more, argue why the court was wrong to strike it down (and it wasn’t the supreme court that knocked it down, I remember when it happened, so it can still be enacted across other parts of the country, and legally signed into law revoking that judge’s order for the areas it does apply to).
Hillary has been caught in a few nasty lies in her “fact checking”, and it has been spilling out across the net too. I don’t know how Trump will acknowledge this I his next debate, if he does at all, like his opposition to the Iraq War, he has been proven right. Clinton says check the facts, knowing her crowd won’t dig very far, just to the first liberal website, which will shrug and say she is right, and they will rest content. Does he try to counter this in the second debate, or does he let conservative and independent radio take on liberal media, pointing out her lies?
I have a good memory when it comes to history and politics, and so was able to remember a lot of his denials were factual. Most people can’t do that. It isn’t in news organizations desireD political outlook, like CNN or MSNBC, to present that information. How should such information be delivered when your up against a notorious liar and crook like Hillary?
Another story, does Trump counter or let go buy, his treatment of women… He ran the Miss Universe Pagent, it is a organization that exists purely to objectify women in the worst of ways, fuck, they don’t even ask women what their opinion on anything till the final showdown, and it is usually bullshit like “Peace to the world, I support homeless puppies”. I’m half surprised they don’t have experts out like for dogshows checking for over bites! Can we get lab results on her urine and stool samples too? What’s her pedigree?
Trump didn’t invent the pagents, the concept evolved over centuries. He used it as a businessman, as a showman, and offered objective data. Is it feminist? Absolutely not, but everyone who ever tried to dress up or put makeup on, or got their hair done to look attractive plays that game, they are all in the runnings for males attentiinctor that better man, and it hurts like hell to receive negative reviews, especially from him. We know he likes easy super models, but how many men wouldn’t want just that if in a position to choose otherwise unattainable women? He fits brutally well with the ugly logic of feminism, not the first symbol you would reach for to explain the movement, he is a sleezeball of sorts, but judges women by their own standards, albiet on the shallow end. If women want to become patent dogs, he let’s them. He judges them by their “merits” in those departments. He stood by his daughter Ivanka, she is a business powerhouse in her own right, a very strong woman. His choice in women… I am not a big fan of, but I’m not Trump, he can choose who he wants, his current wife seems accepting, his ex disgruntled, as we all expect it to be. I don’t know how this deals negatively to his presidency, considering what Bill Clinton did with Monica to Hillary, which should be far worst from a feminist perspective, or how far too many presidents have since been exposed to be rather chauvenistic, fucking around left and right. They kept a clean cut demeanor, but fucked as any head of state in medieval times would be expected to do. If I was president, I would be having all sorts of naked bouncy time, and they would all be hot as hell. No realistic feminist expects me in that role to get a plain looking or ugly mistress, they know damn well what I would be after. As long as it was consentual, I wasn’t married, and I treated her well, it abides by reasonable expectations of womanhood for HER. Is it unfair only ‘these types’ of women are picked, over your butt ugly, man hating feminist writers? In a sense, yes, but it would be cruel to make a man engadge sexually in cases he doesn’t want to engadge in, for ideological charity. That isn’t exactly feminist.
I doubt trump could explain that sort of thing in a debate, or if it is even worthwhile to do so, given the people asserting these positions are radicals (think Pandora, with her cutting vaginas to avoid sex statements, that’s psychotic assinine thinking)… they aren’t asserting it as a political statement, but as a collective justification for their version if womanhood. They were after all deeply hateful of Sarah Palin, they aren’t for all women, just certain kinds, their kind.
Should Trump bother to reason with that crowd in the next two debates, or is he better off with letting Hillary only associate with them? As I pointed out, initially Variety Magazine was 50-50 between Trump and Hillary just after the debate, since then, it’s Pro Trump… I think many women are just as disgusted with such feminist as man are, knowing Trumps type and brand, while not applauding it, long ago resigned it is common and certainly exists, we all placate it to degrees to get by in the world. It is a crude yet highly predictable sexual type, and not the worst, or even really that wrong. We are all chauvenists when it comes to picking our mates. Women know this, and hope they fit that expectation well enough in their mates eyes.
I’m not seeing a lot of need for him to change his temperament in the debates, steam rolling her in the first twenty minutes really worked, but as I predicted, he puttered out a bit- this can’t be fixed easily from my experience, and she will catch on and hit him later on in the debates.
The point and purpose of the Media is to influence the public. So if you get your information from the Media, you are getting efforts to persuade you, the nation, and the world.
NBC (hosting the debate) is especially invested in the Clinton hegemony (as evidenced by their employment of Chelsea at $600k/annum for grunt work) and thus was prepared to target Trump and announce Hillary’s victory no matter what Trump said. Note that in the opening introduction Lester Holt announced that the “debate” would be won based upon which candidate “appeared more presidential”. In other words, the issues were irrelevant to NBC’s assessment of victory. Their only measure was based on which one looked more like a politician, which Trump proudly does not (as they already knew).
It was, as usual, not at all a debate, but merely a public performance, theater. Unlike Hillary, Trump wasn’t entirely informed on that although the result would have been the same regardless of what he said or did.
What does Hillary need to do to win the race? My last post was on Trump, I obviously support Trump, but one should be able to critic either side.
Hillary has the wrong support. That’s right, the wrong support, she ud trying to conserve people on the far left, insteadvof reaching out to new groups, and is assuming the whole country agrees with her historical narrative.
Big chunks of the country remember her scandels, from Watergate to the present Email Crisis. Nobody not strictly in her camp for purely ideological reasons like her, and even those people have their deep reservations. The traditional Anti-War Left crowd, from Marcuse’s era is just utterly sidelined and ignored by both parties, it is bad when someone like Trump can look the relative Dove. She us completely lacking in credibility for competency with how she handled the Libya War, where we spontaneously decided to go to war with a regional ally during the Arab Spring, how she handled the wider Arab Spring, and her extreme incompeteny in negotiating with Iraq… something that could of easily of prevented ISIS. She couldn’t even muster support for her embassy in Libya, our Ambassador died from her inactivity. That’s her primary job as secretary of state, blew it completely. Perhaps the worst in American History, you would have to look to whoever the Confederate States of America appointed to run foreign affairs (nobody except the Papal States recognized the Confederacy, and that recognition amounts to the willingness to dispatch diplomatic letters not De Jure recognition- clearly they did a bad job internationally).
She can’t argue "I was Secretary if State, I know what to do’. She can however argue she has learned from her mistakes… Explain how she has since changed her outlook and way of thinking, her approach to diplomacy and statecraft. We can never go back to having Hillary, Secretary of State as President, we need someone far wiser, competent, and worthy for the job. She hasn’t made the case to the nation how she qualifies, far too many independents like me are strictly opposed to her on this alone. You can’t point to career generals, worried they will lose their jobs in a Trump downsizing, as evidence she has military support, he current standing in the military are abysmal, hardly any will vote for her.
In order to secure swing independent voters, she needs to reinvent herself prior to the third debate. Take someone like General Patraeus on as a public advisor, make some trips to the middle east (I personally hate candidates doing this, but Trump us running around doing this sort if thing already. Won’t stop me from blasting both, but if he is doing it, she should be too purely from a position of winning the debates and race, not the larger arena of ethics).
I don’t think anyone will believe a 180° about face, Hillary coming to oppose her past policies, but if she admits she made some mistakes, was bewildered, couldn’t own up to it due to her egoism, but even then was obsessed with rethinking everything and believes she understands what went wrong and why, and how she will be more clear headed and dynamic in the future, aware that every life matters, that she us responsible for them, and will try her damnest to do look out for the US first and for most by the highest standards developed by great leaders through history, that she will assemble a bipartisan support network, and get as much as competent genius advising her and in military and foreign leadership positions, and will value what it means to be a US Ally, and not throw them under the bus like she did with Qaddafi… She might sway a big chunk of the voters, but she needs to be sincere and slow in making these statement so making a bug show of pursuing people on both sides of the isle, especially her strongest critics. She needs to make this known in the debate, by the third. If she can’t, she loses.
Jobs… We know Bill Clinton destroyed the economy for short term gain… 90’s the economy seemed to work so well, because everyone was climbing on board Sub-Prime Mortgages, the bloated military designed to defeat the Soviet Union on two fronts started to be dismantled, and we were in a position to pay off our debt from it.
During Bill’s presidency, the Steel Crisis, which he unilaterally started, occurred, Ohio Valley collapsed, several states, especially West Virginia. It happens to border three Swing States, Ohio, Pennslyvania, Viginia- the state went from a Democratic, nearly Marxist stronghold to a radical Republican State, where claiming your a liberal can get you shot, how dangerous Bill and Hillary’s legacy has become. We suffered twice as long in a economic depression that only grew as we became necrotic, and Hillary and promised to bring down the finally death blow on what’s left if our economy by destroying the coal industry. Nothing is left except gambling, you can’t run a state on gambling alone. Nevada can’t even do that.
It is a damn near impossible hurdle to fix. I don’t know how, and this state has a hugh pull with Ohio, we share a very long border with them, our media mingles. She has a chance, however, with Michigan, Minnesota, Eastern Pa, by running a strong pro manufacturer message. How can she do this when Trump has better credibility?
She can go the union route, but more importantly, craft a bill PRIOR to the next debate, that she will submit to the house, correcting Bill’s NAFTA blunder. Have it already written, ready to be downloaded ONLY when the debate begins. She needs to become more Brexit/Amerixit than Trump, to retain the Michael Moore Anti-Globalization liberals in the rust belt. Michael Moore already knows Killary list, he sees his political base shift hard for Trump, he doesn’t want to follow, he disgusts him, but it sounds undeniably attractive to finally get some attention from any president, even one you detest. His for me rally middle class supporters across the rust belt have a much weaker attachment to the left than trump does, Hillary is the candidate that is effectively severing their support. If Trump as president manages to stop the job loss and increase manufacturing jobs in these areas, you don’t see another Democratic president again for years. Decades. She has no choice, she has to Out-Trump Trump, or else it is over.
In Colorado, she has to come up with a message that breaks the Libertarians. How? Trump us unlikely to do anything to stop the Majijuana legalization, the left in Colorado isn’t scared of him. They don’t feel strong attachment to Hillary, she us a lying, evil sack of shit.
We might be seeing the start of the Libertarian Party gobbling up the old Democratic party, in rural Democratic strongholds where Bernie Sanders style socialism is less viable ina fiscally conservative state than youthful, careless, more hendonistic emphasis on pleasure mixed with fiscal responsibility that the Libertarians offer. It is the path of least resistance for a drug culture trying to cut a deal with older American conservative outlooks on liberty and responsibility. Am I a libertarian? No… but I understand it enough to grasp it is a threat to both parties, as it will attract a lot of the youth vote. The young, they don’t think, they will smoke and inject whatever, not worryingbabout the consequences to themselves or the larger society afterwards and later on.
She also needs to break the “Ice Queen” persona, and show she is passionate, a real person. We know Trump is real. We don’t know if he is serious about being president, will live up to his promises, but know a lot of bigwigs think just like him, he isn’t original. How well can he follow up?
Hillary needs to show she is alive, can walk at faster than a snails pace to the podium, not look drugged up, and deliver a passionate speech, what her real vision is- socialist like Bernie Sanders supports know she isn’t really for them, pacifists know she isn’t really for them, the workforce is warry of her- only people who support her is wall street, she needs to show why her trust in wall street is good for all of us.
I don’t know how you do that, so I recommend adopting a different belief system prior to the next debate. One that resonates with people, and not her Yes Crowd.
If she can do it, she might stop her slide in the polls. If Trump after the first debate shows his support is growing, it means he won. She has list by any standard that matters. Might fail by the standards your philosophy or communications professors standards, but their standards, when it mismatches reality, are utterly worthless. The only rules that matter are those of persuading the human mind. We’ve gotten away from that in modern times for absurdities. Hillary needs to be less heavy on facts and more real. She was a completely worthless secretary of state because she played by Washington Standards, not American, not business. We practically wrote the book on such matters, why politicians trying for the executive think they can behave otherwise is beyond me, we needs to play to our strengths. Trump is doing it instinctively, it’s his world, Hillary isn’t as a outsider, she choose Sauwelios like people as her supporters. You need people who are honest, with a backbone, with real world concerns to back your bid. Trump as a businessman knows compromising and backing your workforce is what matters most in getting operations running smoothly. If they get too bold or out of line, fire them, but bend over backwards for the rest. You need to know their outlook to give them what you want, and if you do this, you get far more back in return.
All she needs to do is stay in the race.
I dont believe that any ranking military man, who has made rank in war, would feel okay about Hillarys defiant, indignant grins, head tilted back. An unambiguous tic of someone not handling their shit. Imagine how she would react in a real confrontation, like with Putin.
Any man voting for her now is just a purely unnatural, suicidal crazy person. Women cant be totally blamed… I suppose, out of gallantry.
What I have seen is the promotion of a woman in office. This is a wrong. They are appealing to an emotion. And so damn many idiots fall for it, male and female. Her record in holding office has way too many questions way before she decided to run. Trump is just as bad in his own way. But, give either free reign to make this country great and financially solid in 8 years , Trump. Clinton only wants history. If anyone wants a qualified female to run then they need to convince Rice to run. Democrats and Republicans would vote her in.