Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Winstonm]

What do you think she should have said?

 

You're no P.T. Barnum.

[kenberg]

Carl Becker's question was quite good and I think it probably threw off HRC. Its like being in a job interview and you've prepared for all of the canned question and things are humming along and then suddenly you get asked a question and you have to think on your feet.

 

I like the 'he's a great promoter' answer suggested above. It would been somewhat of a backhanded compliment since a President needs to have substance and not just coming up with ideas off the top of his head.

 

"He's a good promoter" would not have been a backhanded compliment, it would have been a backhanded slap. It would have been an insult to the viewer who posed the question, taking his request to try to find something good to say and using it to be insulting. The answer that she actually gave might well have been the straightest answer from either candidate the entire night. And Trump's answer that she had tenacity (I am not sure of the exact wording) had merit as well. It is not possible for the two of them to speak of each other as they did for ninety minutes and then say something nice about the other's character. Trump says that she belongs in jail. Clinton says that the recorded remarks about the groping of women is exactly who he is. After that, some nice words about the other's children and a comment about tenacity is absolutely the most that can be expected.

 

I suppose, in the spirit of "good promoter", Trump might have said "She and Bill have been admirably agile in avoiding the legal consequences of their actions".

 

I'm fine with the answers that they gave.

[Al_U_Card]

Trump is right about one thing: there is most definitely a conspiracy - a conspiracy of sane, rational people attempting to prevent the crazies from taking over.

Seems to me that it was Hillary that claimed there was a "right-wing" conspiracy to crucify her hubby Slick Willie. What say, crazy CTer HRC?

[Al_U_Card]

Well, let's see; in private it was Good ol' boy Harry S. that said "after making Adam, something about the left-over dust being niggers and Chinamen.

 

Or along the same sexist lines, LBJ refers to his strategy as working up their (the Russians IIRC) leg one inch at a time until he gets to the snatch...

 

Face it, your presidents are real people with real foibles which helps to explain the messes that they get you into.

[kenberg]

Seems to me that it was Hillary that claimed there was a "right-wing" conspiracy to crucify her hubby Slick Willie. What say, crazy CTer HRC?

 

I Googled CTer:

 

Council for Tribal Employment Rights

Council for Technical Education Research

Center for Therapeutic Effectiveness Research

 

 

This is harder than the Sunday Crossword, I am ready for a hint.

 

Oops, got it. See old Mel Gibson movies.

 

Last week the theme was O changed to U, perhaps just phonetically.

So: Actor Grant, when Hollywood bound, was Westward Hugh.

I'm getting the hang of this.

[PassedOut]

"He's a good promoter" would not have been a backhanded compliment, it would have been a backhanded slap. It would have been an insult to the viewer who posed the question, taking his request to try to find something good to say and using it to be insulting.

After mulling this over for awhile, I still don't see that "He's a good promoter" has a negative connotation. Trump is in fact a good promoter and promoting is a useful skill. I must be missing something here, but am not sure what.

[kenberg]

After mulling this over for awhile, I still don't see that "He's a good promoter" has a negative connotation. Trump is in fact a good promoter and promoting is a useful skill. I must be missing something here, but am not sure what.

 

Think of it as being like calling someone, oh, let's see, Miss Housekeeping.

 

Promoter, like Housekeeper, can be an honorable profession. The skills are useful.

 

I was replying to Phil's observation:

"I like the 'he's a great promoter' answer suggested above. It would been somewhat of a backhanded compliment since a President needs to have substance and not just coming up with ideas off the top of his head."

He and i agree on the "backhanded". Really there is not that much difference between "backhanded compliment" and "backhanded slap"

 

Bottom line: I believe "He is a good promoter" would have been taken as an insult and I believe it would have been intended as an insult.

 

But once burned twice shy so I am wary about debates over what is insulting and why.

 

As it happened, Trump was put off his stride a bit by the compliment to his children. He was looking for a trap "I'm not sure it was intended as a compliment". As I see it, Clinton was challenged to say something nice about Trump. This was the best she could come up with on the spot, and better than I could have come up with. If I were then in Trump's shoes, I like to think that I could have responded "Thank you, I am proud of them, I appreciate the kind words". After a little stumbling,I think he did get to something like that. He probably still has people looking for the trap in it.

[kenberg]

Sometimes the same idea hits many people at the same time. The other day I was visiting with twin grandkids, boys, now 12. This was about my age when I took an interest in politics. A child's interest, but an interest. I did not chat with the twins about this, but I was wondering later what if anything they made of it. And, I thought, how about teachers? When I went to school part of the time was given over to current events. It seems tricky.

 

That visit was just before this heavy fleeing from Trump by Rs. As I read about these defections, I was struck by how many of them mentioned their kids or their grandkids. Not so much their wives or their sisters, or their mothers, but their kids. One woman, an ordinary voter, had just given up on Trump. She said something like "I wouldn't be able to look my kids in the face". I watched the debate on PBS. One of the commentators, Amy Walter, mentioned her fourth grader.

 

For many reasons, Trump is done. But we do polls on everything it seems, and I would like to know how Trump scores with parents of teens or pre-teens. I am thinking the answer might be very bad for Trump.

[y66]

This just in:

 

Putin Cancels Campaign Event with Trump BY ANDY BOROWITZ

 

“As the father of two daughters, I cannot condone or defend Mr. Trump’s behavior,” the Russian leader said in a curt official statement.

[PassedOut]

Think of it as being like calling someone, oh, let's see, Miss Housekeeping.

 

Promoter, like Housekeeper, can be an honorable profession. The skills are useful.

 

I was replying to Phil's observation:

 

"I like the 'he's a great promoter' answer suggested above. It would been somewhat of a backhanded compliment since a President needs to have substance and not just coming up with ideas off the top of his head."

 

He and I agree on the "backhanded". Really there is not that much difference between "backhanded compliment" and "backhanded slap"

 

Bottom line: I believe "He is a good promoter" would have been taken as an insult and I believe it would have been intended as an insult.

Well the actual question asked was:

 

“Would either of you name one positive thing that you respect in one another?”

After Hillary said that Trump was not fit to be president and Trump said that Hillary belonged in jail, I'm pretty sure that the asker knew neither considered the other qualified to be president. He just wanted to hear one positive thing. Had Hillary complimented Trump's skill as a promoter, I surely would have taken that at face value, not as an insult.

 

But at least I now know what you meant. Thanks!

[onoway]

Was reading a couple of forums elsewhere and the drift of them was definitely " a pox on both their houses" and a recurring suggestion to boycott the election. If so, the Trump might just slither in. I hear that there are several outside party candidates, since so many people seem so distressed about either of the main offerings, why is nothing at all being heard about the outsiders in the running?

[hrothgar]

I hear that there are several outside party candidates, since so many people seem so distressed about either of the main offerings, why is nothing at all being heard about the outsiders in the running?

 

Neither Stein nor Johnson understands the distinction between getting elected and governing.

As such, they are vanity candidates rather than a serious alternative to Clinton / Trump.

 

If / when the Libertarians and the Greens are able to start winning local elections, show that they can create a governing coalition, and demonstrate that their policies are effective; that's when their candidates will start being treated as legitimate both by the press and by the populace at large. (And oh, by the way, it will help a lot if theey stop nominating whackadoodles like Johnson and Stein)

[helene_t]

For many reasons, Trump is done. But we do polls on everything it seems, and I would like to know how Trump scores with parents of teens or pre-teens. I am thinking the answer might be very bad for Trump.

I think he scores quite well with kids. The older you get, the more the black-and-white thinking fades into shades of grey. Sanders scores well with young people also. I was an extremist when I was young, as were most of my peers. Not saying that Sanders is an extremist, but he does sound like one.

 

One of my first jobs was for a psychometric company. We actually used age calibration for certain outcomes, because if the scale is 0-10 then teens tend to use the entire scale the same way that pensioners use the 3-7 range.

[Al_U_Card]

What started this latest round of one-upsmanship? Why release those tapes of DT's candid comments? Hillary surely knew that it would affect the debate, divert attention and... divert it from what exactly? It wouldn't have anything to do with Friday's wikileaks release of Podesta's (her campaign manager) emails containing transcripts of Hillary's private speeches to bankers (a couple of years ago and not 11 years ago like DT) about her globalizing agenda, would it?

 

Hillary repudiated that agenda to entice Bernie's supporters to vote for her. But she never wanted to release transcripts of those meetings. Part of the wikileak included tactics to disparage Rep candidates....2 years ago! List included Trump. What a surprise...NOT.

[kenberg]

What started this latest round of one-upsmanship? Why release those tapes of DT's candid comments? Hillary surely knew that it would affect the debate, divert attention and... divert it from what exactly? It wouldn't have anything to do with Friday's wikileaks release of Podesta's (her campaign manager) emails containing transcripts of Hillary's private speeches to bankers (a couple of years ago and not 11 years ago like DT) about her globalizing agenda, would it?

 

Hillary repudiated that agenda to entice Bernie's supporters to vote for her. But she never wanted to release transcripts of those meetings. Part of the wikileak included tactics to disparage Rep candidates....2 years ago! List included Trump. What a surprise...NOT.

 

Am I reading this right? Wikileaks released stuff about her speeches, the Washington Post released the Trump tapes. You ask:

" It wouldn't have anything to do with Friday's wikileaks release of Podesta's (her campaign manager) emails containing transcripts of Hillary's private speeches to bankers (a couple of years ago and not 11 years ago like DT) about her globalizing agenda, would it?"

 

You are thinking that after the Wikileaks, the editors at the Post decided to publish previously unreleased tapes of Trump in direct response? You are seeing a causal chain here?

 

If this is the best counter punch the Trumpies have, they are in deep stuff. And, of course, they are.

[hrothgar]

Part of the wikileak included tactics to disparage Rep candidates....2 years ago! List included Trump. What a surprise...NOT.

 

Hillary is running a competent political campaign.

The horror. The horror!

 

FWIW, if the Clinton Campaign did have something to do with the timing of the leak (and I hope that they did)

 

1. I think that it demonstrates competence

2. I think that the timing had a lot more to do with a concerted attempt to crush Trump coincident with the second debate

 

The following has a decent enough discussion of the timing surrounding the leaks

 

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/07/media/access-hollywood-donald-trump-tape/index.html

[Zelandakh]

No matter who wins the election, this undignified spectacle over the months causes considerable damage to the image of the land which claims worldwide leadership.

I think that having a land claim worldwide leadership does more harm to its image than everything else put together. Most Presidents are careful not to go so far as to claim any such leadership while playing to the assumptions of those at home that that leadership is obvious.

 

 

What do you think she should have said?

My answers from the night:

 

HC: His ability to put on a good show, then pivot to lies and deception.

DT: Her loyalty in standing by her husband, followed by dredging through the various claims made against him and pivoting to her wider judgement.

 

There are better answers available with time to prepare but the beauty of such questions is precisely that they usually force the candidate to think on their feet slightly. That neither candidate was really able to come up with any sort of classic feint and pivot answer probably speaks volumes about their capabilities without the teams behind them telling them what to do and say.

[PassedOut]

Interesting piece about Hillary in the NYT Magazine: ‘I’m the Last Thing Standing Between You and the Apocalypse’

 

When I spoke to her over the Fourth of July weekend in 2015 in New Hampshire, Clinton had clearly been thinking about the impact of new technology on human development and how people communicate. We were talking about mental health and substance abuse, two issues that a lot of voters in New Hampshire were raising with her. She described a meeting with a group that had developed online mental-health programs. One woman predicted to her that a big challenge in mental health over the coming years would be “how to undo the damage that the internet has caused young people.”

 

It’s striking to me now that Clinton’s main interest in these new media technologies was not so much as a political tool but as a policy concern for the citizenry. Clinton described “the insidious, pernicious comparisons” that online communities can foster in young people, and the temptation to “put out an identity online before it’s ever formed” in real life. Thinking about this exchange 14 months later, after what feels like a generation’s worth of lines crossed and taboos shattered, her concern seems strangely prescient.

 

Trump, of course, both shares and feeds his audience’s addiction to stimuli and entertainment. Early in the campaign, during the Republican primaries, he would pretty much say yes to anyone who wanted to put him on TV or in a magazine. He was indefatigable in reaching out to reporters, lobbying for coverage. He can be undeniably fun and, to a point, seductive. My first encounter with Trump, more than a year ago, came in an unsolicited note that said simply, “Mark, It’s Time for a Cover!”

 

Clinton, on the other hand, proceeds with immense caution. When we first spoke last July, she agreed to our meeting on the maddening proposition that we do it off the record. I went along, reluctantly, as it was my only entree (she agreed later to put parts of it on the record). Her hesitancy to give interviews and allow media access has barely subsided over time. When I asked Robby Mook, Clinton’s 36-year-old campaign manager, how his candidate had adapted to the insane rules of engagement that this campaign has “normalized” (to use a 2016 buzzword), he essentially said that she hadn’t. “Hillary approaches this campaign through the portal of wanting to fix problems,” Mook told me. “And so politics for her is, first and foremost, not an exercise in communicating to the masses. It’s about finding the right solution and then going after it.”

 

Clinton is, in other words, the anti-Trump. She is not a political novelty, nor is she especially entertaining as a media personality or in front of big groups. She and her campaign know this and have been smart about not pretending otherwise. Trump’s big shadow and outrage machine have even allowed her to become slightly and perhaps blissfully lost; to fade, if not into obscurity, at least into a background that cuts the glare of the scrutiny to which she has been so averse. In a sense, she is daring voters to study her positions, listen to her answers and not look to her for entertainment or emotional impact. In 2016, that can seem almost risky.

 

“I’ve laid out all of these policies, and look, people kind of made fun of it, because ‘Oh, there she goes with another policy,’ ” Clinton told me. “I’m trying to run a campaign that presents an alternative case.” It’s telling that a candidate with the name recognition, résumé and baggage of Hillary Clinton is nonetheless left to present her campaign as an “alternative case.”

 

“My husband and I laugh sometimes about the ‘Antiques Roadshow,’ ” Clinton told me, referring to the PBS show about antique appraisers that she watches devoutly. “Sometimes we feel like we are the antiques on a roadshow when it comes to politics.”

I hope Hillary wins despite her difficulties with communicating on television. But this has become a big problem. In particular, I think that future politicians will have to get a lot better at using mass media to promote the value of facts.

[PassedOut]

I think that having a land claim worldwide leadership does more harm to its image than everything else put together.

Agree 100%. I cringe whenever I hear claims like that.

[Al_U_Card]

Despite the fodder for comedians (of which there is much) candidates have no more to hide than before, there is just much less place to hide it. Instant and wide-spread exposure is the hallmark of the current (and future) political scene. Obama did the best with his handling of this emerging paradigm and is to commended for it. Hil and DT are not mastering the technique and we get to see the underbelly in all its detail.

 

Likely no better than those that came before, I think that the worst is yet to come...

[barmar]

After mulling this over for awhile, I still don't see that "He's a good promoter" has a negative connotation. Trump is in fact a good promoter and promoting is a useful skill. I must be missing something here, but am not sure what.

Snake oil salesmen are "good promoters", and I think that's how such a response would likely be interpreted.

 

I think she did OK with the comment about his kids. Basically, she was saying that despite being a total a-hole in business and political arenas, he still managed to raise his children well. But it also appears that he didn't really have lots to do with this. From Vanity Fair's A SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF HOW DONALD TRUMP’S KIDS TURNED OUT (RELATIVELY) NORMAL

On some level, he did it by outsourcing the job. Trump and his first wife, Ivana, left their young children in the care of two Irish nannies and, for a time, their maternal grandparents, before sending the kids off to boarding school (Eric and Donald Jr. to the Hill School; Ivanka to Choate). “My father is a very hardworking guy, and that’s his focus in life, so I got a lot of the paternal attention that a boy wants and needs from my grandfather,” Donald Jr. told New York Magazine in 2004.

BTW, I assume if there were any blemishes in the nannies' immigration status, someone would already have brought that up -- other politicians have been brought down when it was discovered that they had undocumented immigrants working for them.

[kenberg]

A musical interlude about children

 

 

 

If the kids have a good life, we begin with a celebration and, if it fits in with beliefs, a prayer of thanks. Later, perhaps, we try to explain it.

[Winstonm]

It is amazing that Donald Trump has been able to turn this election into a reality t.v. show with viewers and networks waiting for the next outrage to top the last. It is a Kardashian campaign, a carnival freak show, an armless man shuffling cards with his feet.

 

Somehow, Hillary Clinton has to stay above this while sharing the same stage?

[andrei]

Reality show, indeed.

Media specialty after all.

 

Every time emails are leaked, new allegations surface.

Buckle up, there is more to come.

[Al_U_Card]

Both sides fight using what is available. The big difference is that DT's errors have not yet been in the political/national arena while Hil's malfeasance is more and more becoming available to scrutiny.