Tonight’s debate

UPDATE: And so the madness begins. From CNN:

Donald Trump made a surprise appearance with women who in the past have accused Bill Clinton of inappropriate sexual activity.

The women are expected to attend Trump’s debate with Hillary Clinton, which is airing on CNN at 9 p.m. ET. The town hall forum is co-moderated by CNN’s Anderson Cooper.

What kind of moron could possibly think that trotting out those women could help him?


The mere thought of having to watch tonight’s debate makes me ill. There will be a lot of yelling, Hillary Clinton will bring up Trump’s latest idiocies early and often, Trump will be expected to show contrition (he will, but he won’t mean it), and it’s going to be a reality show of the worst type. I got my absentee ballot today and will mark it for Clinton (and other Democrats) tomorrow.

Given that my vote is as good as cast, I’m not sure what reason I’d have to watch the debate. Entertainment? None for me there. Information about the candidates’ stand on the issues? If you expect that, you don’t know the political climate.

Seriously, the thought of watching this is nauseating, and so I won’t. But I’m putting up this post so that readers who do—and I don’t fault you for it—can weigh in as the “debate” progresses, and perhaps give a final evaluation. Or, if you’re like me and not watching, go ahead and predict what you think will happen.

As for me, I have 500 pages left in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.


  1. Geoff Toscano
    Posted October 9, 2016 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

    Personally I think Trump will attack Clinton like nothing we’ve seen so far.

    • Posted October 9, 2016 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

      Yes, people should feel free to predict the action.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted October 9, 2016 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

      Trump held a press avail today with four women who accuse the Clintons of misconduct regarding women.

      So I think that’s a safe bet.

    • Andy
      Posted October 9, 2016 at 9:39 pm | Permalink

      Yes, getting towards [now at] the end of the debate, I think you’re right!
      He’s just throwing a lot of (let’s say) crud and hoping something will stick. He’s repeated a lot of right wing talking points, with zero evidence but a lot of spite. Hillary stuck to facts, was respectful and truthful.

      I suspect the nuts will love it, and some of the attacks hit home, but: Who do you think looked like a President?

      • Posted October 9, 2016 at 11:24 pm | Permalink

        Trump went with the Gish Gallop tonight, as clear a signal as possible that he’s got nothin’.

  2. Ken Kukec
    Posted October 9, 2016 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

    “The Vagina Demagogue”

    • somer
      Posted October 9, 2016 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

      And Verbal Vomit Comet

  3. Stephen Barnard
    Posted October 9, 2016 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

    I’m eagerly awaiting the debate, and close to overdosing on schadenfreude after the grab-the-pussy tape. I’ll be disappointed by anything less than an epic meltdown that makes television history. They’ll be running this footage for years to come.

    • Lurker111
      Posted October 9, 2016 at 7:11 pm | Permalink

      The debate will be too cringeworthy for me to watch. I’ll wait to hear what the critics say and catch it on re-runs.

      But I’ll bet $20 right now that, during the town-hall part of the debate, a woman from the audience will get up and say something like, “If I get up on the stage, Mr. Trump, are you going to grab my pussy?”

      The thing is, I’m certain that I won’t find anyone to take that bet. 😦

    • Diane G.
      Posted October 9, 2016 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

      You & me, both, Stephen!

  4. Cindy
    Posted October 9, 2016 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

    I will not be watching the debates.

    If you want to be really sick, read the Podesta emails:


    • rickflick
      Posted October 9, 2016 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

      I read the first link and did not see a smoking gun. Yes, it is suggestive of some degree of conflict of interest, but nothing extraordinary. It could be that Clinton actually gave her assent to selling the uranium company, but 5 other agencies, including Homeland Security signed off too. I’ll ignore the other links, but thanks for doing the research.

      • Cindy
        Posted October 9, 2016 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

        The other two links are the two that I was referring to regarding the term “depressing”

        Basically they are about the damage that unrestricted Muslim immigration is doing to Europe and how SJWism is being used as a tactic to shame people into accepting it.

        Was a really sad read. I have not yet read the very first link – I just pasted it because it is the first in the series.

        I was not implying that anything at all was a “smoking gun” that was NOT my intent.

        • somer
          Posted October 9, 2016 at 7:46 pm | Permalink

          I agree there’s a PC problem about realistically and coolly discussing issues impacts of different kinds of policies. I think Germany can handle – but its taken enough and can handle no more and other countries don’t intend to (and shouldn’t) to take such a large intake. I think I heard she plans to take another 500,000 and that seems really unwise. I don’t agree though the countries shouldn’t take significant numbers of refugees – just that they should be able to control it and decide what is viable.

        • somer
          Posted October 9, 2016 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

          From Debate:
          Trump is correct that Clinton has proposed a 550% increase in refugees, from 10,000 in 2016 to 65,000 in 2017.

          But this does not add up to “hundreds of thousands”, as he says. He appears to have borrowed this figure from an ally, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who invented it. Session falsely claims Clinton would continue to grant asylum to 55,000 Syrian refugees every year in addition to 100,000 refugees from the Middle East in general. Clinton has called for allowing 55,000 refugees from Syria for one year, and has not proposed yearly asylum for 155,000 Middle East refugees for her term.

        • somer
          Posted October 9, 2016 at 9:25 pm | Permalink

          Trump: “People are coming into our country, like, we have no idea who they are, where they’re from, what their feelings about our country are … We know nothing about their values and we know nothing about their love of our country”

          This is false. The US has likely the most intensive screening process in the world for refugees: it requires they register and interview with the United Nations, which then must refer them to the US; refugees who pass this test then interview with State Department contractors and have at least two background checks; then they have three fingerprint and photo screenings; then US immigration reviews the case; then Homeland Security interviews the refugee; then a doctor examines the refugee; and finally several security agencies perform one last check after the refugee has been matched with a resettlement agency.

          The process takes 18 months to two years. The US has a very clear idea about which refugees it allows into the country.

          • Cindy
            Posted October 9, 2016 at 9:31 pm | Permalink

            The director of the FBI admitted that they cannot possibly vet every “refugee”


            Lack of resources and 1) some who claim to be refugees do not have any identifying documents thus impossible to vet 2) ISIS even stated that they would disguise terrorists as refugees.

            I suspect that the issue that Germany is having is that unstable people are permitted to enter the country with zero documentation. This has lead to, ahem, problems.

            • rickflick
              Posted October 9, 2016 at 10:34 pm | Permalink

              Definitely there is a dilemma. We should want to share the responsibility for rescuing refugees in significant numbers(not sure what the right number is). But, to do so, there will almost certainly be a small number of undesirables among them even if good vetting is in place. We have to decide if the risk is something we can live with. Trump, clearly says no. Clinton, yes. I think that we should take the risk.

              Another point to be made: Huge numbers of Muslims would have a negative impact in the US. Simply because Islam is not a product of democratic, enlightenment values. Too many Muslims would likely undercut American values and principles of government.

              • Cindy
                Posted October 9, 2016 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

                There are Muslims who are fleeing theocracy and those who are simply fleeing war. We want the ones who will embrace a secular democracy and not honour kill their daughters.

        • Michiel
          Posted October 10, 2016 at 5:10 am | Permalink

          I’m not sure what these links really show though. They just seem like, let’s call it “immigration-critical” blog posts of which you can find many on the internet. And though I do share the author’s worry over unfettered “multiculturalism” (which usually means mostly muslim immigration), at least some of his numbers are not correct. He says that “Locally and regionally, Muslim dominance will make itself felt much sooner in Europe. For example, overwhelmingly Muslim immigrants already account for about half of the population in the Netherlands’ four biggest cities, even forming a small majority in Amsterdam.”

          This is simply incorrect. It is true that about half of Amsterdam or Rotterdam’s population is “allochtoon” as we call it here, but this does not mean muslim or arab. Allochtoon is anyone of who at least one parent was not born in the Netherlands. So this also includes our queen and the princesses, and also my girlfriend whose father was born in Hungary.
          Non-western immigrants, afaik, account for a bit more than half of the immigrant population, so perhaps a quarter of the population (of the big cities) and of those there is also a sizeable Surinam population. So you’re looking at maybe 10-15% muslim population in the big cities, and not even 10% in the whole population of the Netherlands (2014 number of “non western immigrants”, according to the central statistics bureau of the Netherlands, of which about 5% are Turks and Moroccans which are the biggest muslim groups). The idea of “Muslim dominance”, at least in the Netherlands, is simply ridiculous considering those numbers.

    • somer
      Posted October 9, 2016 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

      Yes Disturbing about Germany and obviously Clinton is cognisant of the problem. Russia hacked these for their little patsy Julian and Russia Really wants Trump to win. Its absolutely no reason to vote Trump. Putin is backing Assad and friendly with Iran – and the latter two have been supporting terrorism – including Sunni terrorism – in the ME for some time according to Kyle Orton ME analyst at Henry Jackson Foundation. Plus there are plenty of other references that Assad has long been supporting terrorists and at least had earlier supported ISIS

      Its absolutely no reason to vote Trump, whose policies if they could be called that, are both grossly irresponsible (re foreign policy especially re NATO, or cavalierly starting a war) and however ludicrous and probably unimplementable building a wall across the board with Mexico and making Mexico pay, or monstrous – deporting Muslim migrants or saying he’d have the families of terrorists killed, forcibly expelling All illegal Mexicans etc. I don’t like the Clinton’s free trade record but its GW Bush that got NAFTA signed and i think Trump would cause economic mayhem – you can’t just completely rescind an agreement with countries as powerful as China – – but I do think some of it could be pared back and stop what Obama has in mind especially anything about multinationals having rights to sue for business losses due to govt policy. The Great depression followed a period of rigid trading blocks and trade barriers.

  5. Ken Kukec
    Posted October 9, 2016 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

    … not sure what reason I’d have to watch the debate.

    A shot of pharmaceutical-grade schadenfreude? Couldn’t happen to a better buffoon.

    • Posted October 9, 2016 at 6:49 pm | Permalink

      In general I try to avoid Schadenfreude as an emotion. Of course Trump is reprehensible, and, as I predicted, he brought himself down, but I take no joy in this election season. Mighty Bernie has struck out :=)

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted October 9, 2016 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

        I’ll take the highroad, and swear off schadenfreude, once the Donald gives his version of the “you won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore” speech. Promise.

        • Gordon Davisson
          Posted October 10, 2016 at 12:22 am | Permalink

          That’s a very bad precedent. The “you don’t have Nixon to kick around any more” speech was in 1962, after he lost the race for governor of California. 6 years later, he was elected president of the United States.

          I *really* don’t like that precedent.

    • Posted October 9, 2016 at 8:32 pm | Permalink

      schadenfreude is a very worthwhile emotion. There is no fault in enjoying the crash of hateful idiots. The “mighty Bernie” never had a chance with his evinced ignorance of reality.

  6. Posted October 9, 2016 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

    “The mere thought of having to watch tonight’s debate makes me ill.”

    Likewise, which is why I won’t be watching.

  7. Mary Drake
    Posted October 9, 2016 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

    I can’t bear to watch the debate either, but the reason is that I suffer from stage fright for other people. I don’t even like to see people I loathe (such as Trump) embarrass themselves. Hillary is a poised, sane woman, and a hard-nosed politician; she can take care of herself, I know, but I will have to mute the tv and play Scrabble on my computer until the whole thing is over. Then I will watch it.

    • Andy
      Posted October 9, 2016 at 9:43 pm | Permalink

      Nice post! I like this, “I suffer from stage fright for other people.”
      So do I. I honestly don’t see why I should; I suspect neither millionaire nor billionaire needs sympathy from me. But I do find it very stressful!

  8. Posted October 9, 2016 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

    For me, the upcoming debate was an opportunity to watch Herr Drumpfenfurhrer get the second of his third assholes drilled by Hillary. Unfortunately, the buffoon used the last five shots in his revolver to shoot himself in the face, neck, head AND both feet. Hillary’s now only going to be able to drill into a corpse.

    Still, it will be fun to learn how she does it and how deeply she’ll be able to drill. I predict she hits bile.

    • Lurker111
      Posted October 9, 2016 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

      Clinton needs to be careful not to overdo it. She needs to let Trump make his own mistakes, which he will, because he doesn’t have any other option.

      If Clinton beats down too hard on him, she may get the “beating a man who’s already down” sympathy directed at Trump.

    • dabertini
      Posted October 10, 2016 at 8:38 am | Permalink

      Brilliant rev. El mundo!!

    • Reginald Selkirk
      Posted October 10, 2016 at 8:46 am | Permalink

      She baited him by repeatedly bringing up Putin and the Russians. He didn’t seem to bite on that one. Yet. Tune in again some day soon at 3 AM to see how that turns out.

  9. Mark Sturtevant
    Posted October 9, 2016 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

    NPR today said that Hillary is expected to say relatively very little about the scandal. The reasoning is that the incident has done its work in maybe losing votes for Trump, but what she needs to do is give the undecideds and those who dumped Trump a reason to vote for her rather than choose to not vote. So she will emphasize her policies, which I remember was a subject that was pretty scarce in the 1st debate.

  10. Mark R.
    Posted October 9, 2016 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

    I’m recording it, but don’t know if I’ll watch. Couldn’t watch the first one or the VP debate. Started, then couldn’t handle it. We’ll see…I know what to expect and hope for an orange meltdown.

  11. rickflick
    Posted October 9, 2016 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

    I’ll watch the debate simply for vascular conditioning. Once my heart rate drops back under 140 bpm, I’ll call it a night and hit the showers.

  12. Posted October 9, 2016 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

    Check the latest bit of clown madness in the addendum I’ve added at the top of the post.

    • rickflick
      Posted October 9, 2016 at 11:18 pm | Permalink

      Trump is using his reality show mentality to distract from his video tape fiasco. No surprise.

  13. Ken Kukec
    Posted October 9, 2016 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

    At some point, look for Hillary to launch a Joseph Welch-style “have you no sense of decency, sir?” speech.

  14. nicky
    Posted October 9, 2016 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

    The sad thing is that the ‘grabbing by the pussy’ is one of the three truths the Donald has spoken. Powerful and celebrated males can all too often get away with sexual assault and rape.
    The fact that in the (recent) West, unlike the rest of the world and history, that is not necessarily always the case is one of the feathers in the Wests hat. See Laura Betzig.

    [The other 2 times being:
    1 – Crimea being indeed more Russian then Ukrainian (particularly after Stalin ‘removed’ the Tartars): it was ‘given’ to Ukraine by Nikita Khrushchev in the 50’s. NĶ was, surprise, surprise, Ukrainian.
    2 – The overwhelming majority of the ‘Syrian refugees’ into Europe were young, ‘fighting age’ males].


    • charlize
      Posted October 9, 2016 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

      Drowned out in the din of pearls being clutched in reaction to Trump’s latest gotcha is the fact that the observation he made therein, as crudely phrased as it may have been, (and as inconvenient it is to feminists) accurately reflects a phenomenon clearly observable in our society: women can and do respond rather differently to men of great wealth, fame and power, reflecting what we have learned from the mechanisms of mate selection.

      The multitudes of women tripping over each other to get involved with the Tiger Woods, Wilt Chamberlains, celebrities and million/billionaires were neither paid nor coerced.

      • nicky
        Posted October 9, 2016 at 10:28 pm | Permalink

        Could not formulate it that well, you do an immeasurably better job. Thank you for that.

      • eric
        Posted October 10, 2016 at 7:40 am | Permalink

        Trump isn’t being lambasted for observing that people in power often get away with sexual assault. He’s being lambasted – rightly – for happily admitting that he’s done it.

        Personally, I think someone needs to rake him over the coals for his ‘locker room talk’ defense. And by that I don’t mean saying it wasn’t just locker room talk. What I mean is pointing out that even if it was just locker room talk, a person worthy of the Presidency would stand up to it rather than participate in it. It may be understandable if a person-on-the-street goes along with their co-worker’s crude sexist humor so as not to rock the boat. That may not be praiseworthy, but its understandable. However we should and do expect better from someone who wants to be President. They are supposed to be the sort of person who stands up to peer pressure and does the right thing even when it’s difficult. They aren’t supposed to be the sort of person who is so weak that they follow a middle manager’s descent into the gutter. If you can’t call out a mere Billy Bush for sexism, you don’t have the strength of character to stand up to the real b*stards of the world.

      • Somer
        Posted October 13, 2016 at 10:26 am | Permalink

        SOME women respond rather differently to men of great wealth; moreover Trumps personality is on clear display; apart from his wife/s there is no way he would be allowing any female to get monetary advantage out of sex with him, and (what about his treatment of his own very sick nephew- cutting off the healthcare fund) I really can’t see him helping out some pregnant past fling.

        There is a long sad history of abuse of naive young woman from disturbed/abusive homes. They are vulnerable – AND (Lots of pearl rattling here) if they have the wrong sort of peers they are assumed to be cold sexless selfish bitches if they aren’t friendly and expecting the best out of males, and then when things start going wrong with the wrong sort of male – they are tarts and its their fault and they are a helpless joke for complaining about it. They they can be manipulated and used. and only 30% of rape victims report rape and few of those actually get a conviction after being hauled over the experience in an aggressive manner by the legal system. Someone like trump and his powerful wealthy friends could use connections and blackmail to deter victims from bringing the case forward. Only This avalanche of public attention on Trump and the matter has enabled some people to come forward.
        Right now Trump has even said he will sue the NY Times if it publishes stories of the latest rape allegations (that have just come out 13/10) Trump is not just talking dirty he’s boasting of sexually harassing and he has plenty of allegations against him of sexual harassment and even rape.

        I know several people who had abusive background who ran away as adolescents and guess what – prostitution – and kept on the game by getting them hooked on drugs. One threw herself under a car and somehow survived after major operations.Thats not to say some sex workers aren’t in control of what they do and enjoy it – just thats not the norm. And many women who come the way of wealthy men are put in that situation by others reducing their circumstances, or by youthful naivety. The ones with the means to do so on their own terms (like Murdoch’s current and previous wives – a famous model and a clever gold digger respectively, and Trump’s present and past wives) are relatively unusual. And that gets my rattle.

      • somer
        Posted October 13, 2016 at 11:48 am | Permalink

        “women can and do respond rather differently to men of great wealth, fame and power, reflecting what we have learned from the mechanisms of mate selection.”
        The name of the game is survival of offspring over successive generations – thats why humans, uniquely amongst species, not only live in large societies, but are dependent on those societies for the successful rearing of their young, whilst also human cooperating in societies are able to plan for the future in ways that can alter their environment. The basic reproductive unit of male and female can not raise offspring to autonomous maturity on their own; they require goods, services and security provided by the wider unit. Humans accept social rules that maximise the chances of longer term reproductive survival of members of the society; individual and family interests sometimes infringe this but if they rebel too much the society punishes them. The norms of traditional societies are patriarchal for these reasons, and they resist change because they historically have had to impose social norms over the individual for the good of all – albeit often doing little more than alleviate non-biological forms of oppression such as class, caste, etc. And of course these tribal traditional norms have quite often encouraged aggression against other societies.

        Not long ago religious figures in the West said all kinds of things were “natural” to women including not having a career or education, obeying the husband, having lots of children. Those things changed ultimately because technology and the enlightenment had reached a point where it could change some biological parameters directing most societies’ unpleasant treatment of women. Most significantly these were medical changes such as antibiotics, vaccinations, basic sanitation, and access to clean (or cleaner) water that slashed infant mortality (ie ages 0-5) worldwide in the years after world war two. At the same time, in many parts of the world, new ways were found to make food production more efficient, and ever new medical advances were made; both of which also increased the upper limit of life expectancy . The reduction of infant mortality in particular, combined with a general reduction of severe hunger or disease meant that women did not need to have so many children to maintain the population. At the same time in wealthier countries, the nature of labour changed, such that few jobs now involve physical strength. Secondly the contraceptive pill (and other reliable contraception) was developed – which for the first time gave women power over their fertility. It takes time for traditional cultures to respond to change, especially when it appears to be human and not purely environmental, because they are adapted to constrain many individual impulses. All the more reason to continue to put forward the case for rational change.

        In the modern hyper globalised world we have to muddle together for our ultimate survival as a species – one of these ways is with genuinely progressive, enlightened values. I don’t understand why some atheists, in common with some traditionalists – don’t believe in positive social change and the power of science, in the same way that regressive versions of leftists think that pre industrial non western society is better than enlightenment culture which they equate with the most exploitative versions of capitalism.

        Trump would happily oppress working class white men too – he boasts about how he likes being around oligarchs and how much he likes economic inequality.

    • somer
      Posted October 10, 2016 at 3:07 am | Permalink

      Really, Russia and Assad are Not fighting ISIS, they are enabling ISIS
      if you as a shortcut do a search of ISIS in this article its very clear

      • Posted October 10, 2016 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

        I use every opportunity to give a link to a cartoon from mid-2014. It shows Assad enebling ISIS to cast himself as the acceptable alternative:

        Drawn by an Iranian expatriate, it was published by the Vox, proving that even regressive-left sites can sometimes be useful.

        As for Russia, the first thing it did after openly intervening in Syria was to bring there fighter jets – to which people commented: “Why fighter jets? Russians allegedly go to fight ISIS, don’t they? And ISIS has no air force!”

        • somer
          Posted October 13, 2016 at 10:29 am | Permalink

          Yes the same Russian jets that strategically bombed about 12 or more hospitals in a period of 48 hours recently

    • Reginald Selkirk
      Posted October 10, 2016 at 8:44 am | Permalink

      3 – During the primary season he said that Cruz lied. That was true.

      • nicky
        Posted October 10, 2016 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

        Eeeeh, forgot that one! Pertinent observation.
        However, although Ted is indisputably lying, Donald appears to imply he himself is not, which is, of course, a blatant lie. Probably the reason I forgot to mention the ’embedded’ truth.
        It is possible there are a few more of those ’embedded’ pearls of thruth….

  15. Billy Bl.
    Posted October 9, 2016 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

    I don’t follow American politics too closely, but I love a good circus. I’ll be watching for sure. There’ll be clowns, jugglers, escape artists, animal acts, knife throwers. Can’t wait.

    • DiscoveredJoys
      Posted October 10, 2016 at 4:56 am | Permalink

      Including a grudge match between Trump ‘The Operator’ vs Clinton ‘The Machine Politician’.

      Each with different strengths, pleasing to different audiences.

    • eric
      Posted October 10, 2016 at 7:44 am | Permalink

      There’ll be clowns, jugglers, escape artists, animal acts, knife throwers…

      And Hilary too!

    • Billy Bl.
      Posted October 10, 2016 at 9:33 am | Permalink

      I managed to watch nearly all of it but was very disappointed. I was hoping that Trump would get Hilary in a headlock, and Hilary would end up with a handful of hair or whatever it is. Verbal mudslinging is boring. I wanted action.

  16. Posted October 9, 2016 at 7:28 pm | Permalink

    The Jerry Springer Show is now a town hall event. Let the gaffes ensue…

  17. GBJames
    Posted October 9, 2016 at 7:36 pm | Permalink

    I skipped the last one for pretty much the same reason. But I’m watching tonight. There’s this terrible traffic accident along the road and I can’t avert my eyes.

    • Posted October 9, 2016 at 7:47 pm | Permalink

      “There’s this terrible traffic accident along the road and I can’t avert my eyes.”

      I may be an odd duck, but I avert my eyes at traffic accidents as well.

  18. Karen Bartelt
    Posted October 9, 2016 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

    Green Bay is playing the Giants on NBC. 🐱

    • neil
      Posted October 10, 2016 at 6:47 am | Permalink

      Green Day are playing They Might Be Giants?


  19. dougeast
    Posted October 9, 2016 at 7:44 pm | Permalink

    Winning strategy tonight for Trump would be to declare himself a born-again christian and ask his god to forgive him in his opening statement. His religious supporters would swallow it completely and forgive him before he finished.

    • GBJames
      Posted October 9, 2016 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

      The Jimmy Swaggert gambit!

    • somer
      Posted October 9, 2016 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

      But for those who are attracted to his obnoxiousness this would smack of hypocrisy and be a cave in to the Republican Establishment a la Newt Gingrich’s Christian apologies for his serial infidelities.

    • ladyatheist
      Posted October 9, 2016 at 10:50 pm | Permalink

      He would only allow himself to be baptised in champagne.

    • Posted October 10, 2016 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

      And he must appear in modest monk-like attire, like the one worn by Andrzej in the Sept. 28 “Hili dialogue” post:

      It will be worth seeing.

  20. busterggi
    Posted October 9, 2016 at 7:44 pm | Permalink

    Damned good read though I’ve yet to talk myself into re-reading it.

  21. Christopher
    Posted October 9, 2016 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

    I bought a 6-pack just to get me through the debate. I do feel I ought to watch, even if I will not change my vote from Clinton to Trump, ever. There is nothing “The Donald” could do to make up for everything he’s already done. oh, and 8:09 and Cooper’s already brought up the video, and Trump’s already said it was just “locker room talk”, and is rambling on about ISIS instead.

    • Christopher
      Posted October 9, 2016 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

      And he’s claiming he didn’t sexually assault any woman, oh, and “NOBODY has more respect for women that I do” he says…seriously?

      This is like a car crash in slow motion…

    • madscientist
      Posted October 9, 2016 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

      Is he groping ISIS or is it more “locker room talk”?

  22. madscientist
    Posted October 9, 2016 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

    I wouldn’t watch a Trump clown show as a matter of principle, just as I avoid watching Mel Gibson movies due to his ideological hatred of Jews.

  23. Randall Schenck
    Posted October 9, 2016 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

    The so-called debate has been on nearly an hour now and it is more pathetic than anyone can imagine. If mudslinging is debating, then I guess it could be called a debate.

    There is very little if any structure to this thing to keep it on track. I suppose they did not want any. This was suppose to be a town hall type debate with the people asking questions. It is not that. I’ll just say, it is the poorest performance from all, including CNN that I have seen in a presidential debate.

  24. enl
    Posted October 9, 2016 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

    I tried. Really. I tried. Then, the cat barfed up a hairball on my lap. Took about ten minutes. I’m not saying there is a connection between the debate and the barfing, but my furry brother hasn’t brought one up anywhere but his litter box since 2013.

  25. zoolady
    Posted October 9, 2016 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

    I’m boycotting it, too! Honestly, why get upset by that horrible man and his nasty mind. It’s a good thing I’m not pretty enough to catch his attention, because I’d rather lick a toilet brush than let those awful, lying lips touch mine!

  26. BobTerrace
    Posted October 9, 2016 at 9:43 pm | Permalink

    I watched the entire debate: the only time Trump was not lying was when he was fabricating complete and utter nonsense. He rarely responded to the actual question.

    • Andy
      Posted October 9, 2016 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

      Yes. One of my favorite lines was when the moderator had to say something along the lines of “Mr Trump, let me remind you that the question was….”
      The other bit that was particularly puzzling was when the moderator asked Clinton about the emails, then Trump’s response included a complaint that the moderator hadn’t asked about the emails. No one really knew what to say…

      • BobTerrace
        Posted October 9, 2016 at 10:02 pm | Permalink

        Moderator: did you sexually assault women?

        Trump: I will defeat ISIS.

        • ladyatheist
          Posted October 9, 2016 at 10:48 pm | Permalink

          he will send our troops over with instructions to grab their crotches?

  27. Randall Schenck
    Posted October 9, 2016 at 10:05 pm | Permalink

    If I just forget about the show and go back to the opening, I think the response from Trump about the tape will not go well with women. He said oh well, it was just locker room talk, I don’t do any of that stuff (even though that is exactly what he said he does) then goes into a speech about how bad ISIS is. It’s as if to say, What I did was nothing compared to cutting off heads and all the evil stuff going on in the world. It’s like the guy thinks he can do card tricks with his mouth.

    • Andy
      Posted October 9, 2016 at 10:23 pm | Permalink

      You’ve hit on an important point!
      It’s the argument of a 4-year old: “But Mummy, he started it!” Isis cuts off heads, so Trump thinks he can assault women.

    • ladyatheist
      Posted October 9, 2016 at 10:47 pm | Permalink

      Someone on msnbc’s panel, which is in front of the audience, said “When the best you can say for yourself is that you’re better than ISIS….”

  28. ladyatheist
    Posted October 9, 2016 at 10:44 pm | Permalink

    I found it amusing that Trump said “hundreds of thousands” of unvetted Syrian refugees would be flooding into the country under Clinton and then the co-moderator said it would be 65,000.

    A slight difference in interpretation?

    • Pali
      Posted October 10, 2016 at 1:41 am | Permalink

      You could even tell exactly which part of the answer was scripted, something he’d been told to say by an advisor, when he gives the accurate percentage increase of 550% (10k to 65k)… And then he returns to running his mouth and the hundreds of thousands comes out because he has no idea what the actual numbers are.

    • Reginald Selkirk
      Posted October 10, 2016 at 8:39 am | Permalink

      Also, they are Syrian refugees, but “we have no idea where they’re from.”

      Basic logic fail.

  29. Diana MacPherson
    Posted October 9, 2016 at 11:03 pm | Permalink

    I don’t get why Trump gets away with holding Hilary accountable for things her husband did. She’s not an extension of her husband. I can see why Trump thinks that but why does no one ask him about it?

    The first debate was enough for me. I don’t want to listen to a narcissistic loud mouth when I’m not being paid to.

    • mordacious1
      Posted October 9, 2016 at 11:28 pm | Permalink

      His strategists would reply that they’re not attacking Bill, they’re attacking her because she viciously went after his accusers.

    • Carl
      Posted October 10, 2016 at 12:15 am | Permalink

      It’s a fair point to raise against her. If this behavior on Trump’s part should count against his presidency, why did she so firmly support her husband during two elections, when his actions were (I believe) worse.

      Beyond her hypocrisy, is the accusation that she actively participated in cover-ups and intimidation.

      I wonder how many recall the 60 minutes interview where the loving couple, Bill and Hillary, explained to the gullible nation how they had put behind them Bill Clinton’s well known affair with Jennifer Flowers? Hillary’s cover here probably gave Bill his first term in office, at a time when the nation was more easily shocked.

    • Reginald Selkirk
      Posted October 10, 2016 at 8:37 am | Permalink

      Another odious thing: one of the women Trump appeared with before the debate was the victim in a rape case in which Hillary Clinton was the court-appointed lawyer for the accused. Can we please get past the notion that providing constitutionally-mandated legal defense for the accused is somehow immoral or abhorent? The accused are entitled to competent legal defense, even if they are guilty, which of course isn’t known until after the trial.

      • FA
        Posted October 10, 2016 at 9:25 am | Permalink

        That’s not why it’s brought up. It’s Clinton laughing afterwards that she lost her faith in polygraphs when her client actually passed it.

        • jeremy pereira
          Posted October 10, 2016 at 9:34 am | Permalink

          The Internet meme that crossed my Facebook page today was that she volunteered to defend the rapist, that she accused the victim of imagining it, that she freed the defendant and that she laughed about the whole thing afterwards.

          Snopes, of course, debunks every single one of those points. They are all false.

        • Reginald Selkirk
          Posted October 10, 2016 at 11:32 am | Permalink

          That’s not why it’s brought up.

          I do not feel obligated to accept whatever Trump and the anti-Hillary fanatics say at face value.

  30. mordacious1
    Posted October 9, 2016 at 11:19 pm | Permalink

    Most voters don’t listen to content. Trump’s strategy was to deflect the attention off the video talking about women. Another strategy was to disrupt Hillary and get her off her game. He starts by having past accusers of both Clintons in the studio. Then he attacks Bill (I did that, it was talk, but Bill Clinton actually abused women). He moved around the stage to distract the audience and Hillary. He interrupted. He changed the topic. He sniffed.

    Trump accomplished his strategy. We will see if it backfires.

    My favorite part (or least favorite) was when he said that if he is elected, he would put his opponent in prison. That’s not what democracies do. That’s what dictators do.

    • somer
      Posted October 10, 2016 at 3:13 am | Permalink

      Yes it was all Trump deflection and hate lies – the most untruthful candidate ever according to the fact checkers – and 70% lies. But the voters just want someone who gives them clear targets to blame or else someone who is anti liberal.

  31. frednotfaith2
    Posted October 9, 2016 at 11:25 pm | Permalink

    I can’t stomach listening to Trump speak. He’s just too loathsome. I wish Hillary was a better candidate but I find her far more preferable than any of the Republican candidates that vied for the 2016 nomination. The only thing I’m undecided on is whether Trump is really all that much worse than either Cruz or Carson — I’m leaning towards yes, but they’re all horrid. I have no use for either JEB or Rubio either but they didn’t sink to the same level of awfulness as those other three.

  32. frednotfaith2
    Posted October 9, 2016 at 11:34 pm | Permalink

    Oh, and I’ve read Rise & Fall of the Third Reich at leas twice since I got that book about 20 years ago. Admittedly, I’ve long been fascinated with the lives of both Hitler & Lincoln, one to loath and the other to admire and by now I probably have dozens of books related to them or the U.S. Civil War and World War II. In today’s NYTimes, I read a review of a new book about Hitler’s rise to power, focusing on his appeal to the worst instincts of the German voters and so much of it reminded me of Trump’s tactics. Disturbing, really, to see they could work so well in our own country in the 2010s as they did in 1930s Germany.

    • Carl
      Posted October 9, 2016 at 11:56 pm | Permalink

      All honor to William Shirer.

      You badly mistake our country.

    • mordacious1
      Posted October 10, 2016 at 1:26 am | Permalink

      Why would you loath Lincoln? 🙂

      • frednotfaith2
        Posted October 10, 2016 at 1:31 am | Permalink

        If that’s a joke, it’s a very bad one or your reading comprehension is terrible.

        • mordacious1
          Posted October 10, 2016 at 7:50 am | Permalink

          My reading comprehension is just fine, thank you. You said you loathed one and admired the other. You didn’t specify which was which. And yes, it was a joke (hint: smiley face).

          • frednotfaith2
            Posted October 10, 2016 at 10:54 am | Permalink

            I would have thought it was clear from the context, but for the record I do admire Lincoln and loath Hitler but find it fascinating how Lincoln came from an impoverished background and could have remained an uneducated redneck hick, he willfully learned as much as he could, rose above his background, overcame many of his prejudices, learned from his mistakes, had tremendous empathy, was willing to hear out other opinions, even from those he strongly disagreed with, but ultimately followed his own ideals in a pragmatic fashion and became a great leader, ultimately winning a war of massive civil insurrection against the legitimate federal government and pushing for the abolition of slavery, the greatest blight in our nation’s history. Hitler, on the other hand, came from a middleclass background, pretty much impoverished himself during his early adulthood, learned how to manipulate people, was unwilling to listen to other people, especially those he disagreed with, did not learn from his mistakes and had virtually no empathy for anyone and while he showed some potential to have been a great leader, ultimately he was an abysmal failure, responsible for the murder of millions of people and massive destruction throughout Europe.
            I hope that makes my stance much clearer.

            • zoolady
              Posted October 10, 2016 at 10:56 am | Permalink

              Well said!

            • mordacious1
              Posted October 10, 2016 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

              IT. WAS. A. JOKE.

              I hope that makes my stance much clearer.

              • frednotfaith2
                Posted October 10, 2016 at 1:14 pm | Permalink


  33. Carl
    Posted October 9, 2016 at 11:49 pm | Permalink

    I saw some post debate analysis of FOX and CNN. This my impression taking into account my perceived honesty of the commentators.

    Trump really didn’t do too badly. He certainly wasn’t wiped out. Some of his comments may come back to haunt him, for instance threats to throw his opponent in jail when he wins, in the manner of banana republics.

    Trump did well enough for his campaign to continue. However, it was suggested that Clinton didn’t finish him off on the spot by design. If she had, a Trump replacement might have some chance of winning, but it’s clear now Trump will continue to slowly bleed out – barring some truly monumental discovery about Clinton malfeasance.

    Then Sean Hannity and Rudy Juliani came on. They were jubilant, claiming a TKO victory for Trump. You can be sure this has little reality outside their own minds.

  34. Merilee
    Posted October 10, 2016 at 12:31 am | Permalink

    Am watching it now, with stomach churning. At least Anderson and Martha aren’t letting Trump interrupt quite as often.

    • Julian
      Posted October 10, 2016 at 3:35 am | Permalink

      Five Thirty Eight tweeted the interruptions by the moderators. They interrupted Trump 8 times, fleetingly interrupted him 19 times. In contrast they fleetingly interrupted Clinton 3 times.

      • eric
        Posted October 10, 2016 at 7:54 am | Permalink

        I thought Martha, in particular, was pretty heavy-handed towards Trump. Anderson Cooper seemed much more objective.

        While liberals might’ve found it enjoyable to watch her (Martha) hold Trump’s feet to the fire, in terms of swaying independents and mainstream GOPers I don’t think she did Clinton any favors. IMO she came off a bit bullying, her very aggressive moderating did not appear neutral, and I expect her behavior may generate some sympathy for Trump amongst wavering Republicans.

        • BobTerrace
          Posted October 10, 2016 at 8:45 am | Permalink

          I disagree with your analysis. She was heavy-handed with Trump because he kept talking over the top of her, where Clinton actually listened most of the time to the questions instead of answering anything but the question as Trump did. Trump was quite uncivil.

          Cooper also had to interrupt Trump to re-ask the question that he was not answering in any manner at all.

          • eric
            Posted October 10, 2016 at 10:14 am | Permalink

            Cooper did interrupt Trump, and that’s to me part of the contrast; the way he did it seemed much more neutral and focused on moderating rather than seeming to be personal. Martha’s interruptions seemed much more personal. To me her voice even seemed to have a bit of angry-shake in it.

            But sure, not everyone will come away with that same impression. Suffice to say that I personally found her interactions with Trump off-putting and lop-sided against him, even though I’m firmly in the vote-Clinton camp.

            • darrelle
              Posted October 10, 2016 at 11:39 am | Permalink

              It seemed to me that Martha nearly lost it at one point. Understandable, but I do think it is best if a moderator remains neutral despite the provocation.

              On the flip side I think Trump is so low that it is a travesty that we (general we) are in a position, due solely to our own sense of what is right, of showing him the respect of including him in presidential debates and the like. He doesn’t deserve it. Our politics was in a pretty sorry state already but Trump is turning it into a complete farce.

          • Merilee
            Posted October 10, 2016 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

            I think you’ve nailed it, Bob. There’s interrupting to keep the debate on track and then there’s what DT does. I would have so much trouble not just yelling STFU at him ( which I was admittedly doing from the couch.)

    • Reginald Selkirk
      Posted October 10, 2016 at 8:32 am | Permalink

      At least Anderson and Martha aren’t letting Trump interrupt quite as often.”

      True, but they did very little fact-checking. For example, he once again pretended that he did not support the Iraq war (although this time he didn’t appeal to his bro Hannity to supply him with an alibi). The moderators did not point out that this has repeatedly been shown to be false. That was left to Hillary. That puts it into the context of “he said, she said” for those who can’t be bothered to do their homework.

      Occasionally when he wandered off topic, as he did all night, they tried to pull him back. They did this with a question about Aleppo for example, and it was clear that he didn’t have a policy at all. He just tries to cut down other people’s ideas by bad-mouthing them, but he doesn’t have anything of his own to replace it with.

      • darrelle
        Posted October 10, 2016 at 11:48 am | Permalink

        As I was watching the debate I began day-dreaming about some way of communicating in real time to the viewing audience a sense of how truthful each candidate is being. I dreamt of a lie-o-meter. Each time a candidate utters something demonstrably false the meter advances by one. A team of fact checkers runs the meters. The meters are in plain view of the viewing audience at all times, but not in view of the candidates.

        • BobTerrace
          Posted October 10, 2016 at 11:57 am | Permalink

          It would not make much difference. Many Trump supporters are uneducated on many of the issues. A lot of that is because they do not want to spend the time or effort to be informed. It is easier for them to just listen and believe his 90% lies. The movie “Idiocracy” really does reflect the way they process things, but the scarier part is that they willingly and enthusiastically see themselves as superior for being uneducated.

          • darrelle
            Posted October 10, 2016 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

            Damn. You paint a grim picture. I can’t disagree much with it. Except that maybe if the press where to again hold politicians accountable that over time we might again reach a point where a Trump like candidate this close to the presidency would be impossible.

            I need a drink.

        • Les
          Posted October 10, 2016 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

          CGI Pinocchio noses.

          • darrelle
            Posted October 10, 2016 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

            I’d vote for that.

        • rickflick
          Posted October 10, 2016 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

          I think there are elements of body language which serve to a degree as a lie-o-meter. Maybe the rate of blinking. Looking away. How much sniffing. A jump in heart rate. Widening of the eye. Nervous voice. Etc. If candidates were appropriately instrumented for all the data, it would certainly restrict their mobility. But, it’s hard to put a price on the truth.

        • nicky
          Posted October 10, 2016 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

          Donald’s lie-o-meter would probably make an efficient bathroom vent1ilator 😆.

  35. bric
    Posted October 10, 2016 at 3:11 am | Permalink

    I was really hoping Hillary would turn up in a cheerleader outfit

  36. Julian
    Posted October 10, 2016 at 3:39 am | Permalink

    Jerry, I’d recommend you skip the first 20 minutes. Easily the dirtiest, nastiest stuff you’ll see in presidential debates. Once they move on to Clinton’s emails it gets back to normal debate activity. I’ve noticed that a lot of people on twitter seem annoyed at Trump suggesting it would be good if they could have good relations with the Russians. Presumably, those people are neo-cons.

    The final question was actually quite cool – each candidate was asked to identify something positive about their opponent. If you watch nothing else, I’d recommend you watch that part.

    • veroxitatis
      Posted October 10, 2016 at 6:57 am | Permalink

      The last question was somewhat predictable. Mrs Clinton ought to have admired Trump’s thick skin.

    • Reginald Selkirk
      Posted October 10, 2016 at 8:28 am | Permalink

      The final question was actually quite cool – each candidate was asked to identify something positive about their opponent. If you watch nothing else, I’d recommend you watch that part.

      Meh. I was not impressed with that part. It’s a softball question. Moreover, while Hillary may have been searching for an easy answer, I do not admire all of Trump’s children. At least one of his sons seems to be sympatico with white supremacy.
      Donald Trump Jr. Shares White Supremacist Meme

      A discussion of his relationship to his children would also bring up the question of what role he played in their upbringing (very little), and his many creepy incestuous remarks and actions towards his oldest daughter.

    • Carl
      Posted October 10, 2016 at 11:13 am | Permalink

      The last question was stupid and irresponsible, as if Clinton and Trump are school children scrapping over some trifle. It was completely out of place following the level of venom that preceded.

      It had all the appropriateness of asking everyone to get on their knees and pray for peace. It was nauseating.

      • darrelle
        Posted October 10, 2016 at 11:59 am | Permalink

        I lean more towards your interpretation than Julian’s. I would have loved to have heard Hillary respond with something like, “Well, I don’t know Donald well enough to be sure of my answer and I wouldn’t be surprised to find that there are some admirable things about him but based on what I do know of him there isn’t anything I admire about him.

  37. veroxitatis
    Posted October 10, 2016 at 3:57 am | Permalink

    I watched it in the UK. There was no knock outs and not even any knock downs. But Clinton won on points by a very long margin.
    I think however the name of the game for both was damage limitation. Trump needed to stop his support bleeding away. In so far as nothing new was revealed and he managed not to blow up, he probably succeeded in that. Clinton needed to hold on to the lead which she had. Again, in so far as there was nothing new said, she managed that.
    Waste of time all round. But how can it be that this guy who cannot martial his thoughts for a two minute answer, string together a few sentences and deal with one idea at a time, will garner a core vote of maybe 40% or so. that’s a hell of a lot of imbeciles!!

    • bobkillian
      Posted October 10, 2016 at 7:46 am | Permalink

      The Imbecile Rate, aka Crazification Factor, is firmly established at 37% of the electorate. Trump will collect another 3-4% out of party loyalty.

      We’ve had 8 years of a President speaking in coherent, grammatically correct paragraphs. The Imbeciles are fed up with that. Oh, and dignity.

      • charlize
        Posted October 10, 2016 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

        Paragraphs sadly as politically correct as they were grammatically correct especially regarding Islam which we were lectured: has Nothing To Do With Terrorism®.

  38. enl
    Posted October 10, 2016 at 5:45 am | Permalink

    After getting up early and reading some transcript, I’ve decided to forget them both and throw in with Walt Trowbridge.

    • mordacious1
      Posted October 10, 2016 at 8:08 am | Permalink

      It can’t happen here. Can it?

  39. DrDroid
    Posted October 10, 2016 at 7:53 am | Permalink

    Though it was expected by some, Trump did not implode. He certainly did better than he did in the first debate. I managed to watch the whole thing, something I could not do for the first debate, when Trump’s incessant interruptions made me so furious I stopped watching. My assessment is that the second debate was pretty much a draw. Trump’s scattershot attacks may often be in conflict with the facts, but I think many viewers will not know (or care) about this. They will see him as more aggressive and certain, while Clinton constantly went back to her concern for children. When Trump promised a special prosecution of Hillary it furnished a sneak peek into what will happen in a Trump presidency, in case you doubted it: relentless bullying and prosecution of anyone who disagrees with him. He is a Tyrant in the making. Voters will see what they want to in this second debate. I just have to hope that Trump will be defeated, and soundly.

    • eric
      Posted October 10, 2016 at 8:02 am | Permalink

      When Trump promised a special prosecution of Hillary it furnished a sneak peek into what will happen in a Trump presidency…

      Yes, I couldn’t believe Hillary let that go. She should’ve pointed out that jailing ones’ political opponents is the sort of Banana Republic Dictatorial behavior America stands against, and is utterly unworthy of the US Presidential office. As much as the far right rants about jailing Democrats for treason (and so on), I think the business core of the GOP as well as the vast majority of independents would find the idea of the President using the government to go after personal enemies just as disturbing and unacceptable as Democrats would. Trump offered her a clear independent-vote-getter moment, and she passed it by.

      • darrelle
        Posted October 10, 2016 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

        Well, it was just the thing to fire up his core supporters. I don’t think this could have hurt him very much if at all no matter how Hillary responded to it. The Republican Party has been going after the Clintons hammer & tongs for about 20 years now. People are used to special prosecutors investigating the Clintons. I don’t think that Trump brazenly adding the word “jail” to that will have much affect. Heck, at least some Independents and Democrats seem very much to be of the opinion that jail is just what Hillary deserves.

        But darn, I sure hope you are right.

        • frednotfaith2
          Posted October 10, 2016 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

          I’m hoping more women will come forward to verify that Trump did grope them without their consent.

  40. Posted October 10, 2016 at 8:08 am | Permalink

    I’d say “nauseating” is about right. I can’t stand to watch those debates either. I went with Monday night football.

    As for “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” it’s another journalist’s attempt to write history, and suffers from all the usual defects of the genre. Journalists insist on writing history as an epic struggle of the good guys against the bad guys. Instead of illuminating the past, they bowdlerize it. Shirer can get away with it when it comes to the Nazis, but when complex characters like Bruening or von Papen are dismissed with a wave of the hand and a few snarky remarks, it may be “journalism,” but it’s not history. Read the memoirs of these people, and the accounts of contemporaries, and then try and tell me that Shirer gave us an accurate portrayal of the Weimar Republic. I don’t think so.

    • BobTerrace
      Posted October 10, 2016 at 8:50 am | Permalink

      I started watching the game, then watched the 95 minutes of the debate, then finished out the game seeing that really not much changed in the game in the interim.

      • Posted October 10, 2016 at 8:59 am | Permalink

        You’re right, when it comes to Packers vs. Giants, the NFL championship game of ’62 was a lot more interesting. BTW, can anyone tell me who won the NFL championship in ’63? Wait! Before you answer that question, have another piece of Polish sausage!

  41. jwthomas
    Posted October 10, 2016 at 8:09 am | Permalink

    The vacuity of the questions from the audience says a lot about why Trump can get away with so many lies unchallenged.
    Mrs Clinton answered even the dumbest questions with sympathy and grace. Trump prowled relentlessly behind her like a beast longing to burst out of its cage.

    • veroxitatis
      Posted October 10, 2016 at 11:12 am | Permalink

      But fortunately for Mrs. C not his zipper.

      • nicky
        Posted October 10, 2016 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

        Meh, she’s safe there (apparantly safer than his own daughter): Donald prefers to grab younger flesh.
        Note, in a sense I’m somehow inexplicably relieved that the case against him for raping -and according to the complaint not ‘just’ statutory rape- a 13 year old was not brought up.
        Why? I’m not really sure, maybe I feel that his wanting to spread the nukes, disintegrate NATO, dictatorial tendencies and the like should be ground enough to completely dismiss him as the dangerous lunatic he is.

        • frednotfaith2
          Posted October 10, 2016 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

          Alas, if any of that was sufficient to bring Trump down he would have been dumped long ago and would not be the current Republican nominee. Those aspects we loath about Trump are what his base loves about him and unfortunately he has a pretty big base that seems content to forgive him nearly anything as long as keeps acting like a strong, tough man who will run roughshod over Congress, the Supreme Court, other countries and anything else that gets in his way. Hell, they’d probably still stick with him if a video came out showing him raping a 6 year old, hollering, “Way to go! Trump’s da man! He does what he wants and nothing can stop him! Yay, Trump!”

          • somer
            Posted October 11, 2016 at 3:57 am | Permalink

            Which makes me pessimistic about the chances of others stepping forward if they have been abused. Because he has a very large toxic fan base who will make their lives more unpleasant as a given and because any case brought against him is unlikely to succeed against a very wealthy man whose also a vindictive pig with terrific contacts and no scruples in arm twisting. And because a number of powerful wealthy people he knows have done similar. He was great friends with Roger Ailes, and he and Clinton both visited Jeffrey Epsteins “orgy island” – Clinton flew on Epsteins private jet 26 times.
            “Epstein was also a regular visitor to Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago, and the two were friends. According to the Daily Mail, Trump was a frequent dinner guest at Epstein’s home, which was often full of barely dressed models. In 2003, New York magazine reported that Trump also attended a dinner party at Epstein’s honoring Bill Clinton.”
            Jane Doe “alleged that Epstein wired his mansion with hidden cameras, secretly recording orgies involving his prominent friends and underage girls. The ultimate purpose: blackmail, according to court papers.””According to a 2011 court filing the victim said she saw Clinton and Prince Andrew on the island but never saw the former president do anything improper.”
            “Trump said [of Epstein]. “Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.” (apart from this NYPost article is the recent allegation you refer to – that Trump raped a girl of 13 at Epstein’s place.)

            • somer
              Posted October 11, 2016 at 4:00 am | Permalink

              err Bill Clinton not Hilary. But Trump makes a point of cultivating powerful contacts generally.

            • veroxitatis
              Posted October 11, 2016 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

              You make it sound like he wants to be POTUS only because he’ll be able to go to Silvio Berlusconi’s Bunga, Bunga parties. Pity Berlusconi’s out of it and Trump will never be POTUS.

              • somer
                Posted October 13, 2016 at 9:56 am | Permalink

                He can do the bunga bunga parties anyway. He wants political power too.

  42. Randall Schenck
    Posted October 10, 2016 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

    It is very late to add anything now but wanted to add a few things that was said about Trump today and the person saying this is President Barack Obama.

    Demeaning women, degrading women, but also minorities, immigrants, people of other faiths, mocking the disabled, insulting our troops, insulting our veterans — that tells you a couple of things. That tells you he is insecure enough that he pumps himself up by putting other people down, not a character trait that I would advise for someone in the Oval Office. It tells you he does not care much about the basic values we try to impart to our kids. It tells you he would be careless with the civility and respect that a real vibrant Democracy requires.

  43. Posted October 10, 2016 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

    When Trump lied about Hillary laughing at the young girl who was raped by a man Hillary was ordered to defend in court, why didn’t she bring up the accusations by a woman who named Trump and Jeffrey Epstein as her rapists back in the 1990’s when she was a mere 13 y.o.
    ? It’s all so bizarre and deeply troubling.

    This jerk is clearly using the tactic of ‘the best defense is a good offense’. He’s the quintessential pot calling the kettle black. He’s totally untrustworthy, and totally lacking in good judgement and any sense of decency or shame.

    • BobTerrace
      Posted October 10, 2016 at 9:52 pm | Permalink

      Why didn’t she? She told you why. When he goes low, she goes high.

      • Posted October 11, 2016 at 10:19 am | Permalink

        Yes, that is true, and might have been the best thing to do. However, here was a chance to slay the bad dragon. How can someone being accused of being a pedophile have come so far?! Doesn’t the public have a right to know about the accusations against the firebreather?

        • rickflick
          Posted October 11, 2016 at 10:38 am | Permalink

          Wait ’till the next debate.

          • Posted October 13, 2016 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

            I’m looking forward to when Melania kicks him to the curb. She recently said, ‘he has the heart and mind of a leader’. He’s totally conned her.

            • Diane G.
              Posted October 14, 2016 at 1:17 am | Permalink

              With that accent, it’s quite possible she said “lecher” and was simply mis-heard.

      • Posted October 15, 2016 at 10:07 am | Permalink

        It looks like this was the right strategy to follow.

  44. Posted October 12, 2016 at 9:12 am | Permalink

    check out inside the third reich by Albert Speer. not reliable in terms of his own actions because often self serving but an amazing first hand portrayal. truly haunting – surreal and real at the same time. a horrible band of selfish murderous incompetent gangsters. such a crazy story.

  45. Posted October 12, 2016 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    I watched the debate at my sister’s place. Since her young son was trying to sleep, we watched mainly via the subtitles. It didn’t seem *that* bad civilitywise. Of course, Trump’s answers were often a case study in _ignoratio elenchi_, but …

%d bloggers like this: