Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[(poco) Sforzando]

Clinton mopped the floor with El Tupe tonight and I loved every minute of it. He's a tyrant, a complete bigot, and, most of all, absolutely not presidential material.

Three moments stood out:

"I will keep you in suspense."
"She's a nasty woman."
Refusing to shake hands.

He's done for. Excerpts from Andrew Sullivan:

10:36 p.m. In my view, this was easily the most decisive debate. She devastated him. He melted down. His refusal to accept the results of this election disqualifies him automatically from any office in the United States. There were several areas where he was utterly incoherent, grasping at "facts", without any understanding of policy. His personal foulness emerged.
It seems to me he also has internalized that he has lost this election. May God save this democracy from him.

10:28 p.m. Her point about Trump complaining about Ronald Reagan was a stunner. She has been superb tonight – and got better as she continued.

10:20 p.m. He's now free associating and falling apart. He just doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. And surely viewers will see that. That was a completely unhinged rant. And "good luck with that, Hillary," implies that he already thinks she will be president. He's now in full collapse.

10:04 p.m. Trump will not say in advance that he will respect the results of the election. This is the first time ever that a candidate for the presidency has refused to abide by the result. He is a threat to our entire democratic system.

9:58 p.m. She is masterful tonight on his core character. Her answer to the last question destroyed him. I suspect he knows he's finished. Surely the country sees who this monster is by now.

[Mirror Image]

Three moments stood out:

"I will keep you in suspense."
"She's a nasty woman."
Refusing to shake hands.

He's done for. Excerpts from Andrew Sullivan:

Yep, I think he put the final nail in that gold-plated coffin he called a campaign tonight.

[Zeus]

I thought that debate was watchable, unlike the second one.  I thought both candidates presented themselves relatively well.

But Hillary really pulled away from Donald on several occasions. She demonstrated repeatedly that she's intelligent enough to discuss the issues, even if not every one of her answers was convincing. She also was quite skilled at politely lobbing bombs over onto Donald.

Donald, on the other hand, always reminds me of some half-drunk bigmouth at a bar, who is convinced he knows how to solve all the world's problems. No substance, just puff. And he won't shut up or go away, no matter how many hints you drop.

Like "I'm gonna grow the economy at 6% annually."  Oh really? What a great idea. Funny no one else has ever thought of that before. But why not 7%?

But at least he wasn't constantly making his Zoolander "presidential" look and wandering the stage like a stalker.

I also found it interesting that Donald hedged on his Roe-v-Wade answer. It makes me think he is "pro-life" purely for political reasons, but doesn't really believe it. That or he doesn't want to upset his daughter Ivanka, who might cut him off if he actually bans abortion.

[kishnevi]

What I posted on a political blog/forum
.This is the only debate I watched.
If I was a LIV, I would probably think she would be a better POTUS.
–She had wonky policy details, he had slogans and vague promises about how he would make great deals.
–I wouldn't know what he was talking about when he referred to the Project Veritas videos, and Haiti, and wouldn't know enough to understand Wallace's references to the Wikileaks emails. And if it was left to Trump, we would have no references to them. In fact, she made better use of them than he did as a point of attack.
–She looked calm and collected, like a polite hostess. He looked stressed and petulant.
—And final point: he looked like he had health problems, but not her. For one thing, he looked flushed and orange skinned. Maybe the make-up was rigged?
Of course, I know about the videos, etc and know how corrupt she is, so I won't vote for her. But LIVs....

[Mirror Image]

On several occasions I thought El Tupe was going to blow his top. I mean he looked like a volcano. Hats off are in order to moderator Chris Wallace who I thought did a good job tonight. He certainly controlled it much better than his predecessors.

[Tritone]

Sit down and watch this if you think politics is more corrupt today!! It's Capra-Korn ... but it has some unpleasant realities at its cheesy core:

https://archive.org/details/MrSmithGoesToWashington1939480x360

[Karl Henning]

What I posted on a political blog/forum
.This is the only debate I watched.
If I was a LIV, I would probably think she would be a better POTUS.
–She had wonky policy details, he had slogans and vague promises about how he would make great deals.
–I wouldn't know what he was talking about when he referred to the Project Veritas videos, and Haiti, and wouldn't know enough to understand Wallace's references to the Wikileaks emails. And if it was left to Trump, we would have no references to them. In fact, she made better use of them than he did as a point of attack.
–She looked calm and collected, like a polite hostess. He looked stressed and petulant.
—And final point: he looked like he had health problems, but not her. For one thing, he looked flushed and orange skinned. Maybe the make-up was rigged?
Of course, I know about the videos, etc and know how corrupt she is, so I won't vote for her. But LIVs....

I appreciate the view from the Loyal Opposition, Jeffrey.

[zamyrabyrd]

Sit down and watch this if you think politics is more corrupt today!! It's Capra-Korn ... but it has some unpleasant realities at its cheesy core:
https://archive.org/details/MrSmithGoesToWashington1939480x360

Exactly, a system might be basically good or sound but can be abused. If it can be abused, then it almost always is. It was astonishing to hear that criticism of possible rigging (that already has been admitted by busing people out en masse of their neighborhoods and not checking ID's) is anti-democratic. Its implications are incredible -  challenging the premise that a system is perfect (no "systems" are anyway) and that unscrupulous people can work it to their own advantage, which actually happened many times over! This accusation should have been answered much better, calmly and rationally.

It took about a hundred years from the abolition of slavery in the US for African Americans to get full voting rights. In certain states there were poll taxes, arbitrary literacy tests, and all manner of intimidation to prevent them from voting.

[San Antone]

I thought it was incredible that both Chris Wallace and Hillary Clinton acted like it was unheard of to question the results of a presidential election.  I mean, really, Gore vs. Bush?

Get real.

[James]

I thought it was incredible that both Chris Wallace and Hillary Clinton acted like it was unheard of to question the results of a presidential election.  I mean, really, Gore vs. Bush?

Get real.

Amen brother. He's not perfect but I've been rooting for Trump for awhile now. He ain't cookie cutter and speaks his mind ..

Hilary is more of the same. Satan in disguise.

[Madiel]

I thought it was incredible that both Chris Wallace and Hillary Clinton acted like it was unheard of to question the results of a presidential election.  I mean, really, Gore vs. Bush?

Get real.

Gore vs Bush had nothing to do with alleging voter fraud. It had to do with alleging problems with the way the system was set up so that votes were not correctly counted.

The basis of challenging the results matters. A hell of a lot. YOU get real.

[Karl Henning]

During the debates, Clinton's weakness has been defending her positions

Taken cumulatively, the debates have revealed real weaknesses on the part of the Democratic nominee that could nag at her in the campaign's final days and, if she wins, hamper her ability to pull the country together and govern effectively following a long and bitter race.

Before Wednesday, her performances did little to turn around the public's largely negative impression of her — a handicap that would loom larger in the race if not for the many controversies surrounding Trump. Heading into the final debate, just 36 percent of likely voters said they found her to be "honest and trustworthy," according to last week's Washington Post-ABC poll.

Clinton's often-lawyerly and halting answers during all three debates could foreshadow challenges ahead should she win the election and face the task of reassuring a skeptical American public and courting a potentially hostile Republican-led Congress.

Moreover, a failure to put to rest the controversies that have damaged her standing would only fuel the rationale for congressional investigations and outright hostility from Republicans. When the campaign ends, it will not matter that Trump was just as untrustworthy — the burden will be on Clinton to overcome her weaknesses.

[Madiel]

To me, the fact that Trump refuses to accept the possibility that the whole country might not think he's utterly marvelous is reason enough to show that he's not Presidential material. Well, that and his consistent reaction to anyone who individually indicates their dislike for them, which is to call them names, threaten to sue or dare them to sue.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: he has the emotional make-up of a 12-year-old boy in the playground. How the blazes can people think that he's capable of making difficult, complex decisions about running a large country? I strongly suspect a lot of his supporters don't even consider that question. They want to send him to "shake up" Washington without any thought to what happens next after that. They want to throw a brick through the window without thinking about whether there'll be anyone available to repair it when the house gets drafty in the winter.

The man is living in a bubble of his own fragile ego. And he's bloody dangerous because somehow he's ended up with millions of people hanging on his words without regard to facts, feeding their delusion while they feed his. He's promised a whole bunch of disaffected white male Americans that they can have "their" country back - that this shrinking demographic doesn't have to settle for having a seat at the table, they can go back to owning the whole goddamn table.

The prospect that he will tell them come November to keep on with the delusion, that they still have the majority and the power and that there's no way they could really lose, is frankly terrifying. Because more than once it's felt as if he's preparing the ground to have them move from the first stage of grieving to the second, from denial to anger. More than once, it's felt as if he's deliberately preparing the ground for his supporters to take violent action.

He's said he wants to put his political opponent in jail. He's also somehow managed to hint at an assassination attempt being a good idea. For fuck's sake.

Meanwhile, I've heard a suggestion that Republicans might continue trying to block a Supreme Court judge being appointed by Clinton? For how many years?

This is not a party running for government. This is a party talking about how to achieve a coup.

[Karl Henning]

Gore vs Bush had nothing to do with alleging voter fraud. It had to do with alleging problems with the way the system was set up so that votes were not correctly counted.

The basis of challenging the results matters. A hell of a lot. YOU get real.

Aye, Trump apologetics:  If it were not for the false equivalencies, how should we try to justify anything?

Trump's breathtaking repudiation of American democracy

[zamyrabyrd]

I thought it was incredible that both Chris Wallace and Hillary Clinton acted like it was unheard of to question the results of a presidential election.  I mean, really, Gore vs. Bush? Get real.

Interesting reading:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/12/elec-d13.html

Florida Supreme Court's decision that election officials in the 64 counties should set the standards for determining voter intent was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's requirement of "equal protection of the law." With unparalleled cynicism, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas, invariably hostile to "equal protection" arguments when made by plaintiffs who were black, Hispanic, female, poor or otherwise politically disadvantaged, embraced the argument on behalf of the millionaire son of a former president.
Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissent for the minority, wrote: "Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."
...the same 5-4 majority handed down its final ruling, declaring, in a perfect Catch-22, that the delay in the recount—caused by its own order—had made it impossible to complete a recount in time to meet the December 12 deadline for certifying electors. Accordingly, the decision of the Republican-controlled state government, awarding the electors to Bush, was upheld.

Just imagine if Gore had won, most probably no Iraq quagmire. Things would have turned out much differently.
As I cited in previous posts, the Bushes were/are the most insidious denizens on this planet with connections across party lines.

[Madiel]

Plus, it's not just Democrats he accuses of rigging. He threw the same tantrum against his own party any time he wasn't being sufficiently loved by the electorate:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-10-18/since-iowa-donald-trump-has-cried-rigged-when-he-s-losing

The man just cannot cope with not being beloved. The prospect of how he would behave when dealing with leaders of other countries... the mind boggles.

EDIT: And just now, I've seen Clinton's detailed response. He couldn't even cope with not winning an Emmy, for heaven's sake.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Gore vs Bush had nothing to do with alleging voter fraud. It had to do with alleging problems with the way the system was set up so that votes were not correctly counted.

The basis of challenging the results matters. A hell of a lot. YOU get real.

Exactly. And neither Bush nor Gore contested or protested the potential results prior to the election.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Plus, it's not just Democrats he accuses of rigging. He threw the same tantrum against his own party any time he wasn't being sufficiently loved by the electorate:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-10-18/since-iowa-donald-trump-has-cried-rigged-when-he-s-losing

The man just cannot cope with not being beloved. The prospect of how he would behave when dealing with leaders of other countries... the mind boggles.

EDIT: And just now, I've seen Clinton's detailed response. He couldn't even cope with not winning an Emmy, for heaven's sake.

The immaturity and lack of self-control are amazing. When he's on his own turf, in his endless rallies, knowing every word will be cheered on by the enraptured faithful, he's king. Put him face-to-face against a strong opponent and (as with every debate) he starts off reasonably measured, but then the mania sets in and we're off to the races. If he has so little self-control in a political debate, how is he going to handle the endless confrontations with congressmen, governors, cabinet members, foreign heads of state? Forget all the sexual morass on either side. Hillary if nothing else can stand her own against challenge.

[zamyrabyrd]

Exactly. And neither Bush nor Gore contested or protested the potential results prior to the election.

Post factum, it is something to be concerned about, isn't it?

[(poco) Sforzando]

Post factum, it is something to be concerned about, isn't it?

Not if the argument comes down to, "I lost, therefore there is proof of widespread voter fraud."