The absurd debate

Hillary has to seem forthright. Trump has to seem presidential. I think I'll check out Netflix.

My wife mentioned to me this morning that thinking about the debate makes her want to throw up.

I feel your cynicism, Griff. I've been periodically overcome by despair in this political season.

I know what I want in a president and Clinton is vastly closer to best case and Trump has reset the worst case standard.

The highlighted terms in your post are talking/promotion points important to the media, a sea in which we swim, but not characteristics that really matter, or that reliably indicate fitness for the office.

I'll definitely be watching. I will notice the things that you mentioned, but they're not deciding factors for me. They're only important for promoters, and other shallow thinkers.

When my kids are having an argument,
sometimes I'll make them put their foreheads together and count to ten, in unison.

if that stops working:

'Merica needs a get along t-shirt.

We watched Hail Caesar! and continued our post weekend clean-up.

You missed a big ol"can of whoopass.

Find a clip of BigV-approved whoopass and I'll probably watch it. But I can't bring myself to slog through hours of crap just to find that nugget.

Challenge accepted.

[ATTACH]58037[/ATTACH]

I watched about 40 minutes of it. Listened, is more honest. I was on my device while the TV was on.

I didn't see any major screw ups by either one and don't think any supporter of either candidate saw anything to change their minds.

Trump all but admitted that he doesn't pay taxes. He said something like "they would be wasted by poor government spending choices too" where "would" implies a hypothetical situation that doesn't actually exist. When confronted with all the examples of how he's a ruthless businessman who doesn't pay for work done for him, he replied that he takes advantage of the laws available in the countries where he does business. So he wasn't denying the stiffing contractors thing, or the not paying taxes thing.

Hillary kept pummeling him with accusations without sounding like a bitch, but he just deflected every one with his Trump lies. A Trump supporter would think he had an answer for everything and did a good job.

So in a nutshell, I felt dirty and gross having listened to those 40 minutes, and I wish I had watched Hail Caesar! like Grifftopia did.

The debate changes nothing in this election.

hoping the electoral college will do the right thing and vote in Radio Raheem. Or anyone but Trump.

The most unsettling thing is so many 'Merican's (intentional gratuitous apostrophe) agree with him and see nothing wrong with his belligerence and where it could take us; t worst to some huge cluster fuck or a war that would make Vietnam and Iraq pale in comparison, or at best create an immense US Global PR problem on account of his big stupid tactless lying mouth.

He reminds me of a high-functioning Duterte.

glatt;969927 wrote:

So in a nutshell, I felt dirty and gross having listened to those 40 minutes, ...

When it gets dirty, most of us blame all participants. That is the emotional response. Fewer then blame the one who turned it all dirty. That one person makes all others appear dirty because cheapshots by one always turn discussion into a childish spitting match.

We know The Donald is an expert. His best support exists from mocking one as Little Marco or attacking the beauty of Fiorina. Even Ted Cruz, another unscrupulous bully, could not outdo The Donald's abuse. Ridicule is why he is popular. Because children and adults who are still children respect and want to be hostile just like that bully.

Anytime a bully becomes venomous, it dirties all others in the room - if listener is only hearing emotionally.

Substance: didn't hear anything from either that I haven't heard already (from them, their proxies, their critics).

Style: he was poorly focused and frenetic; she was smarmy and smirky.

Neither did well.

henry quirk;969934 wrote:

she was smarmy and smirky.

That is an only good strategy when another mocks any intelligent discussion. Again, the bully dirties everyone else in the room who came for intelligent conversation. One need only see the circus call Republican debates. When only the bullies - Cruz and Trump - survived by being belligerent - not cerebral.

tw,

Don't know if you're criticizin' me, Trump, Clinton, Republicans, Cellar-folk, or some-one or -thing else entirely.

All of the above, it's his style.

henry quirk;969939 wrote:

Don't know if you're criticizin' me, Trump, Clinton, Republicans, Cellar-folk, or some-one or -thing else entirely.

Why assume criticism? Stated are facts and ironies. It keeps xoxoxoBruce in line. Ok. Back to relevance.

Nobody is the subject. Subject is what happens when cheapshot artists subvert discussion. Either a wacko extremist must be attacked with similar insults - so that the emotional remain confused.

Or a cheapshot artist is permitted to entangle himself when confronted with smarmy and smirky. That latter strategy worked. The Donald eventually became confused, kept interrupting, talked in circles, would not stop talking, admitted he does not pay taxes, admitted to demeaning women by calling them fat (when he is quite portly), and eventually blamed the microphone.

A bully dirties everyone in the room. You nor all Republicans nor Democrats nor Putin were listed. Listed was how Trump, Cruz, Hitler, and Berlusconi types so pervert honest discussion.

Bullies, throughout mankind's history, dirty everyone in the room. Hitler so successfully obtained power using that technique - as delineated in a book to teach his followers. Also defined is how some confront bullies.

Every listener, to be informed, must define which one started 'dirtying' the room and only blame him. Most of us only blame everyone rather than rightly attack the few who make informed discussion impossible.

Now, you want names? In Republican debates, Cruz and Trump constantly dirtied the room. Even Christie, who is also a bully, could not keep up. Other and superior politicians were driven from the running by voters who only understand slurs and abuse.

Numerous intelligent Republicans (ie Snow, Romney, Dole, et al) have stated their disgust with the party's choice. And rightly so. They are shocked to discover large numbers in their party only see demeaning insults and cheapshots - do not hear intelligent discussion. They were shocked to learn how The Donald found so many lesser educated Republicans who think like him. Mainstream Republicans who are more intelligent are now finding themselves an alienated minority by others who use disparagement to obtain power. A violation of Reagan principles.

Persons are not criticized. Criticized is the philosophy and why it works. So many foolishly believe the antagonist. Noted from history are people brought to power only by mockery, insults, and other low brow soundbytes. Those people 'dirty' all honest discussion. Then too many among us blame all participants - not the instigator.

'Persons' are irrelevant here. The philosophy - what 'people' do - is contrasted. Person and people are completely different in this context.

"Why assume criticism?"

Cuz that's what it is.

henry quirk;970072 wrote:

"Why assume criticism?"
Cuz that's what it is.

Then you are not reading the intent - what is being defines - and a philosophy used to be uncivil. For example, where is one sentence that criticized you?

"Then you are not reading the intent"

Cuz your intent is unclear, as is your explanation of your intent.

#

"where is one sentence that criticized you?"

Where did I say you were critical of 'me'? All I know: you 'are' criticizin'. What I (still) don't know (or get): who or what you're bein' critical of.

Meh...chalk it up to my being dumb (cuz, obviously, it has nuthin' to do with you bein' a crappy writer..cuz you're not...a crappy writer, I mean...any one who thinks 'that' is just wrong and wrong-headed...right?).

That last bit (the crappy writer schtick) was unkind and uncalled for...sorry about that.

henry quirk;970074 wrote:

Meh...chalk it up to my being dumb (cuz, obviously, it has nuthin' to do with you bein' a crappy writer..cuz you're not...a crappy writer, I mean...any one who thinks 'that' is just wrong and wrong-headed...right?).

Or read the relevant sentences. ie. " 'Persons' are irrelevant here. The philosophy - what 'people' do - is contrasted. "

Sometimes people make this mistake. They assume criticism of a philosophy, concept, proposal, or theory is personal criticism. The concept becomes its own entity - independent of the person who spawned it.

*shrug*

Still got no friggin' idea what your point is.

You seem to say '*hate the sin, love (or be indifferent to) the sinner' but I'm just guessin'.









*a horse manure position to take...the sin only 'is' cuz of the sinner, so -- yeah -- hate the friggin' sinner.

But, but, what if you agree with the "sinner" that what they're doing is not a sin?

As in, if the "sin" is stopping people keeping slaves, even though the Bible endorses it, do you lovie the man who buys and sells people like cattle, but also love the man who tries to stop it?

Or alternatively, if you believe homosexuality is a sin, how do you separate the person from their desires?

Paedophiles can be put in a prison indefinitely to keep them from harming the public, which makes some sense. But the conditions they are kept in are similar to those who deliberately chose and planned to kill another person.

You may as well ask, "What is justice and how do we perceive it?"
It can't be Biblical, as the Old Testament was supplanted by the New.
In this country we hanged people for petty theft, even children. Did it work? Are we theft-free now? Nope.

Sorry, wanderings of a bemused mind and in no way connected to Trump.

Sounds like you're exploring the idea of letting homosexuals have pedophiles as slaves until one of the group steals something then hang them all.

I suppose that kind of peer pressure might work.

Your suggestion that Sundae has a peer is absurd.

The Donald is planning on using a proven strategy, developed by the British, to defeat Hillary Clinton. He'll do it with just six words. Everyone will have to watch and listen carefully as it may not be obvious when he places his notion in motion by candidly saying at some point "Don't you think she looks tired?"

Unfortunately for him, he can't regenerate either.

Thous shalt not be Miss Universe and get fat. There is a sin in there somewhere.

Realistically? No, thou shalt not. You also can't take a job at Hooters and get breast reduction surgery. You also can't become a Vidal Sassoon model and then shave your head.

Are these industries shallow and horrible? Of course. But that's what the job is. If you morally objected to it, you shouldn't have propped it up with your labors and efforts to "win" a job contract.

That being said, thou absolutely shalt not publicly humiliate the employee you need to fire. Trump is still wrong for his campaign of shaming this woman. But anyone claiming she had the right to do anything she wanted with her body, while still keeping her bullshit job based solely on her body's appearance, is being deliberately obtuse.

Clodfobble;970441 wrote:

But anyone claiming she had the right to do anything she wanted with her body, while still keeping her bullshit job based solely on her body's appearance, is being deliberately obtuse.

She has the right as long as it is not in the contract.

But we are not discussing business law. We are discussing a sinner. Where did she sin? Apparently a sinner exists somewhere. Which one has a long history of sinning? Ie lying to and not paying contractors. Ie insulting people for personal gain. Mohammed will not have 50 virgins for him? Or will they be fat?

So the next debate will be rape vs pledges to protect bankers from regulation and lying about the TPP.

“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

An oligarchy.

Yes, yes we do. A plutocracy to be precise.

I watched some of the second debate, enough to reach the obvious conclusion that ... Ivanka is still looking really good.

I wonder if anyone else noticed?

[ATTACH]58129[/ATTACH]

I watched nuthin' of #2...there was no point cuz I know what I'm doin' in November.

Did listen to some of what the talkin' heads had to say this morning (msnbc, cnn, hln, fox) and, it seemed to me -- when any of 'em could pull themselves away from the 'Trump is a misogynist' line -- everyone ('cept a few hardliners favoring Clinton) thought Trump did 'okay' to 'good'. It was painful for them to admit it, but admit it they did.

Those same talkin' heads were quick to praise Clinton for her performance while, it seems to me, lookin' a little irked that she didn't do better.

Talking heads were critical of Hilary for not going after the many Trump flubs. For example, she mentioned major Republican standards recently renouncing their support for Trump. But she did not make those points bluntly to so many who did not know who those Republican standards are (ie John McCain). She was criticized for making statements that assumed listener knew facts; for not defining those facts to so many who ignore real news.

Trump focused his attacks without becoming befuddled this time. But is again criticized for doing much taking while providing no substance.

Curious is why Trump would constantly talk over Martha Raddatz and not Anderson Cooper. Few talking heads mentioned that. Raddatz also repeatedly interrupted Trump asking him to answer the question. Trump is great at answering questions with talk that sidesteps questions and, again, provides no substance.

Talking heads praise Trump for successfully stopping his downfall. He did not gain new supporters. But his performance successfully stopped an exodus of supporters. To most talking heads, that was Trump's victory in a debate that was otherwise a draw.

And no, I do not hear talking heads declare victory or defeat for either candidate. They are often a best source of what was really said in these debates. Since their criticisms and highlights go both ways.

Best ignored are the interviews with party officials. They cannot tell the truth. Will even lie. However their behavior sometimes reflects a more honest assessment. Christie refused to talk to reporters after the first debate. A Trump campaign official gave Trump a big hug after this last debate. From talking heads: what was probably a draw this time was also success for Trump due to his self inflicted campaign implosion.

I never knew that's where the lizard people ballot must have come from.

A state-owned Russian propaganda site publishes for a short time a misattributed quote about Clinton and Benghazi. On the very same day the article comes out, Trump makes the exact same misattribution in a rally.

Happy Monkey;970915 wrote:

A state-owned Russian propaganda site publishes for a short time a misattributed quote about Clinton and Benghazi. On the very same day the article comes out, Trump makes the exact same misattribution in a rally.

Yes, but it's just words. He doesn't know anything about Russia. Except in Syria, which has already fallen, where we'll work with Russia to defeat ISIS, which he knows more about that the generals, who know nothing... but they all support him.

...which he knows more about that the generals...

*than* the generals