Trump Takes Round Two

Trump’s campaign appeared to be on the ropes after the October Surprise release of tapes revealing trashy talk about women some 11 years ago. If campaigns are to be judged by debate performances, The Donald has once again proven to be an effective counter-puncher. Rich Lowry said it well:

When Trump said that Hillary would be in jail if he were in charge, it seemed like a debate meltdown would be the capstone to a disastrous weekend. But it ended up being a pivot point. From that point on, Trump had the advantage. He started overly sedate and then rambled and lashed out when the topic was the Access Hollywood tape. At the inception, Hillary was at her rehearsed best. But the topic terrain got tougher for her–emails, etc.–and she could never summon any spontaneous wit or righteous indignation to hit back at Trump effectively. Over and over, she said what Trump was saying was wrong, without saying how or why. Trump managed to establish something like the stage dominance he had in the primaries. He didn’t wander down as many rabbit holes and went out of his way to bring up topics and points awkward for Hillary. His performance was still rocky and strange at times–the wandering around the stage idly as Hillary spoke, for instance–but much improved.

To which Tucker Carlson added:

Republican Donald Trump may or may not win the presidency but he far exceeded expectations in Sunday’s debate with Democrat Hillary Clinton and shows he is still in the race, Fox News’ Tucker Carlson said.

“He is an escape artist,” Carlson said in Fox News Channel’s post-debate coverage. “I don’t think there’s a single person in the world I live in who thought his campaign could continue after this. It will be tough for Donald Trump to be elected president.”

But, he added, “the campaign is not over,” and Trump defined the terms of most of the debate.

“He rattled Secretary Clinton on stage and off stage,” Carlson said. “One spokesman tweeted out ‘F you,’ spelled it out. That is the kind of response to a campaign that is bewildered.”

Trump’s main advantage from the start was that he was not taken seriously, so the expectations were lower, Carlson said. “It’s not over, which is amazing relative to expectations.”

I agree with William Whalen’s observations:

I give this debate to Trump. He was in better form than the first encounter in Hofstra. This time around, he wasn’t as clunky when defending his record. Unlike the first debate, when he started strong but fell apart, Trump improved as the night went on.

Add to that his decision to bring along the Bill Clinton accusers – the equivalent of Hillary dropping Alicia Machado on Trump at the end of the previous debate – and Trump had good night in terms of strategy and surpassing expectations.

I can’t close the post without commenting on another Hillary whopper. Trump said, “First of all, she was there as secretary of state with the so-called line in the sand, which…” And Clinton shot back, “No, I wasn’t. I was gone. I hate to interrupt you, but at some point…At some point, we need to do some fact-checking here.” Yes, let’s do some fact-checking:  Clinton was SOS from 2009 to 2013 and Obama drew his line in August of 2012.

Faux Piety Within GOP
Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners October 7, 2016
  • pennywit

    Trump’s chief accomplishment last night, IMO, was that he managed to keep his temper mostly under control.

    • Scalia

      I think he did more than that. He sounded much more prepared and pressed Clinton on her vulnerabilities. Given his sub-par performance in the first debate, I was expecting more of the same. He was clearly the stronger presence last night.

      • pennywit

        That he was, and it makes me wonder what might have happened if the Republicans had nominated a candidate whose negatives weren’t quite so high.

        • Scalia

          Such a Republican would win in a landslide. Knowing that will make a loss in November particularly bitter.

          • pennywit

            Of the runners-up, I think a Rubio-Kasich ticket could have plausibly captured a winning slice of the electorate … although Rubio’s mostly an empty suit, from what I saw this year.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Kasich could have won in a landslide, but a large segment of the GOP labeled him a RINO and he was dead on arrival in the primaries. Too bad the primary voter and the general election voter are so radically different.

          • Scalia

            Would you have voted for him over Hillary?

          • pennywit

            I would not have voted for Rubio over Hillary, but John Kasich would have gotten my vote.

          • pennywit

            I do not believe Kasich would have been anywhere near a landslide. He has a better temperament and lower negatives than Trump, but Kasich also does not connect with people very well.

          • Scalia

            That was one of Kasich’s main problems. He looked dour when he was in a good mood. That would definitely have been a problem in a general campaign. That said, in contrast to Clinton, I think he would have won easily.

          • pennywit

            I think Kasich would have done better in the veep spot, maybe as second banana to Ted Cruz.

          • Scalia

            Hello?? Would you have voted for Kasich over Hillary? It’s a pretty simple question, no?

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            No. I find him reasonable and wouldn’t be that upset as I think he is a good and decent man, but as I have mentioned before, this election is about Supreme Court Justices and I prefer them to be liberal.

          • Scalia

            Then everything you’ve said about not being able to stomach or abide Trump is meaningless. You were merely posturing to give the appearance of being even-handed. It was nothing but a ruse.

            A more honest person would have said, “Look, I’m liberal, but even though I hate Clinton, I’ll vote for her because of the Supreme Court.” Since that is your view, you can at least quit pretending that Trump’s too sour for your taste. You wouldn’t vote for Abraham Lincoln against Clinton if you thought he would appoint conservative judges.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            There are no Abraham Lincoln’s running, not even close.

            Trying to draw a line between the current Republican Party, especially a Trump candidacy and Abraham Lincoln is disingenuous. What he did was radical at the time and to assume he would be Republican in the current incarnation of the GOP is a bridge too far.

            So, because I lean liberal, I am not allowed to question the candidacy of Trump? Ok, I get it. Carry on.

          • Scalia

            As I said, you wouldn’t vote for Lincoln if you thought he would appoint conservative judges. You didn’t deny that, so the point stands.

            You can question Trump all you want. I’ve certainly done it plenty of times on these boards, but your, “Well, I know Clinton is bad, but I can’t abide Trump,” is dishonest. You couldn’t pull the lever for ANY Republican who would appoint conservative judges. You should have made that clear from the start. That’s been my position on the other end. Just be forthright.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Well then, let me amend my position, “Well, I know Clinton is bad, but I can’t abide Trump and I favor liberal Supreme Court Justices.”

            I thought I had been clear that I thought this election was about Supreme Court Justices and I have made no secret of the fact that I am a liberal, but if I wasn’t then I apologize.

          • Scalia

            It is not clear. One can be a liberal and honest about the Constitution. It’s one thing to support, say, abortion rights; it’s another to read that into the Constitution. An honest liberal will say that the Constitution nowhere addresses abortion, so the issue is left to the states.

            Now, whether or not you agree with my characterization is not the point. I know liberals who do not attempt to read their views into the Constitution, so your statement that the SCOTUS is what’s driving your vote does not ipso facto mean you’re a Hillary voter—especially when you’ve couched your observations in what I consider a misleading way.

            Now that you’ve made yourself clear, you can dispense with your I-don’t-like-Hillary-but-I-cannot-abide-Trump shtick.

        • Retired military

          They would have never brought up any of Hillary’s scandals for fear the press wouldnt like them and they would appear mean. Pljus they wanted to keep going to their DC cocktail parties.

          • pennywit

            They would have never brought up any of Hillary’s scandals for fear the press wouldnt like them and they would appear mean

            I’m not convinced that’s a bad thing, actually. Rehashing them does help strengthen narrative. However, the attack loses potency outside the base when you repeat it constantly.

        • WHO’S THE BUSTER

          The same thing that would have happened if the Democrats had ran anyone but Hillary. Imagine if Tulsi Gabbard had ran. Woman, military service, served overseas, governmental experience and something even the Donald would approve of, she is easy on the eyes.

          I still can’t believe that our choices are these two. This is going to a low turnout election (which should benefit Trump as the lock her up people will certainly show up and there are a lot of them). He will not win, but apparently he can knife someone and not lose support. Of course I am reasonably sure that there are more tapes to come. We shall see.

          • Scalia

            If Trump inches up in the polls, you can be certain that more tapes will be released. The Clinton campaign (the MSM) will stop at nothing to derail Trump.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            “The Clinton campaign (the MSM) will stop at nothing to derail Trump.”

            I don’t think either side has a monopoly on that behavior.

          • Scalia

            The MSM does. They are part of Clinton’s campaign without any pretense at objectivity. I’ve been around a long time, and this is worse than anything I’ve seen.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Perhaps that is because Trump is also at war with the media. I understand why, because it appeals to his base, but it is not a one-sided battle.

            Of course, there has never been a candidate like Trump. Let’s face it, every morning news show now starts with, “What did Donald say last night?” He is incendiary and bombastic by nature and it is a key component of his campaign strategy.

            Heck, even last night he claimed it was 3 against 1 even though the result was he spoke more than Hillary.

            I will have to admit that while most of my objections to him are political, his personality is of a type that I always despised. I am from Michigan and we have a tendency to be polite, rather than combative. His general demeanor is not only something that I abhor, but a characteristic that, in my opinion, is not well-suited for national politics. He embraces a scorched Earth strategy and doesn’t know the meaning of turn the other cheek. I see obvious anger and outrage as a weakness, but I understand many are unlike me (like most of my family and friends) and they see Trump as the embodiment of their vitriol.

          • Scalia

            So, it’s okay to throw your objectivity out the window because somebody doesn’t like you? That’s sounds rather childish, don’t you think? And Trump was right about the moderators. They were pretty bad last night, though I admit it wasn’t the first time moderators behaved like cheerleaders for one of the candidates.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            “So, it’s okay to throw your objectivity out the window because somebody doesn’t like you?”

            Who doesn’t like me?

            If you mean isn’t like me, that is only a small part of the equation.

            His tempermant and demeanor is not only something I don’t like, but I also don’t think it is useful as President.

            I don’t disagree with everything he offers, but his thin skinned nature scares me. Additionally, I am a “homework” guy. I have never failed to succeed due to preparation and I find him to be intellectually lazy.

            Of course, just as I am no fan of Clinton, most on this site, save Chico, are less than enthused by Trump. So what does it come down to? Who will cause the least harm and appoint Supreme Court Justices that align with their views. Mine are different than yours, so I understand why you may vote for Trump and it explains why I will go in another direction.

            As far as moderators, well, I suppose Chris Wallace will meet his approval, although that is no sure thing as Trump is often at odds with everyone at Fox News apart from Hannity. No coincidence, I find him to be the most objectionable personality at Fox News; well except for Fox and Friends, but that is not exactly a Mensa meeting and seems to be more entertainment oriented.

          • Scalia

            “So, it’s okay to throw your objectivity out the window because somebody doesn’t like you?”

            Who doesn’t like me?

            If you mean isn’t like me, that is only a small part of the equation.

            I can’t believe what I just read. I’m talking about the MSM. You defended them by saying “Trump is at war” with them. I wasn’t referring to YOU, per se. Man alive.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Trump must know something because he just said on television that if they release more tapes he is prepared to go deeper on Bill and Hillary.

            Watching the debates last night was uncomfortable and it looks like it is not going to change. Boy, I miss the days when they were simply boring.

          • Scalia

            Well, I can agree with you there. This is far removed from Reagan-Carter.

          • Commander_Chico

            Tulsi Gabbard in 2020.

        • They’d be down 15 points or more. The typical RNC strategy has focused on being as ‘inoffensive’ as possible. Look at how they acted when Palin was made fun of on SNL – the media was criticising her and promoting the ‘She’s stupid’ label when anyone who looked at her real record could see she was smart and politically astute. But they sidelined her after that. Seeing she had more charisma and was more popular than McCain was, that was a big mistake.

          Romney – their strategy was to just kind of hunker down and let the accusations pass. Yeah, that worked well…

          You can bet there was a massive file on all the potential Republican candidates with stuff that would have had the RNC ‘handlers’ cringing apologetically. Thankfully, Trump refused the ‘help’ the RNC offered in running his campaign.

          • pennywit

            I’m not sure this works. Unless you have a new scandal or allegation that’s easily understood or has a salacious element, you get diminishing returns once you get outside the base. I mean, bringing Broaddrick, Willey, and Jones together to accuse the Clintons will energize both bases. But to people outside the solid red and solid blue columns, it’s like watching a Home Improvement rerun.

            Same deal with Benghazi. The incident is several years old now, and the GOP has been banging the drum so heavily on it, that a new Benghazi accusation doesn’t move the needle much anymore, except to reinforce pre-existing conceptions of Hillary Clinton.

            That said, there is a certain value to reinforcing the narrative.

            Now on the Trump videotape … there was a bit of newness there, as we’ve never heard that particular tape before. Trump’s language certainly added to the salaciousness, too. So .. it had a pretty heavy effect over the weekend. But now we’re seeing rumblings about Geraldo Rivera having some Trump tapes, and former Apprentice staff workers might have some too … but those tapes are going to have much less effect than the initial Billy Bush tape.

            Incidentally, the Clinton campaign has gotten a little better about managing these PR disasters. Clinton’s instinct has usually been to circle the wagons and prepare for siege. She’s gotten a little better about simply explaining, apologizing, and trying to move on, although she still sounds too much like a lawyer when she does it.

            Trump’s instinct seems to be to lash out — hard — when something negative comes at him, and he’s particularly sensitive to attacks on his wealth. Over the weekend, he seemed a LITTLE better about not lashing out. He lashed out a bit, but he managed to control himself. HIs staff’s influence, I hope.

          • Scalia

            I mean, bringing Broaddrick, Willey, and Jones together to accuse the Clintons will energize both bases. But to people outside the solid red and solid blue columns, it’s like watching a Home Improvement rerun.

            Not quite. If he trots them out in the next debate, I’d agree, but bringing them in last night was important to counter Hillary’s dishonest attack on his views about women. Having them there assisted in driving home his words:

            If you look at Bill Clinton, far worse. Mine are words and his was action. His words, what he has done to women. There’s never been anybody in the history of politics in this nation that has been so abusive to women. So you can say any way you want to say it, but Bill Clinton is abusive to women. Hillary Clinton attacked those same women, and attacked them viciously, four of them here tonight. One of the women, who is a wonderful woman at 12 years old was raped. At 12. Her client, she represented, got him off and she is seen laughing on two occasions laughing at the girl who was raped. Kathy Shelton, that young woman, is here with us tonight. So don’t tell me about words. I am, absolutely, I apologize for those words, but it is things that people say, but what President Clinton did, he was impeached, he lost his license to practice law, he had to pay an $850,000 fine to one of the women. Paula Jones who is also here tonight. And I will tell you that when Hillary brings up a point like that and she talks about words that I said 11 years ago, I think it’s disgraceful and I think she should be ashamed of herself, if you want to know the truth.

            To me, it was a very effective counter-punch–his misstatement about the “fine” notwithstanding.

          • pennywit

            Hnh.

            I have a bit of bias on Clinton representing the accused rapist. As I recall, she accepted that case as a court appointment. Once she did that, she did have an obligation to zealously advocate for him, regardless of who the alleged victim was.

            As for the rest … the weak point in Donald’s argument is (at least to my eye), he’s trying to tie Bill Clinton’s conduct to Hillary Clinton. At this point, I’m not sure if it’s a Hail Mary pass or a desperation move. They pretty much look the same until the receiver catches the ball and races into the endzone.

            We’ll have to wait for a few post-debate polls to see which of us is right.

          • Scalia

            I don’t read him attempting “to tie Bill Clinton’s conduct to Hillary Clinton.” He was tying Hillary’s conduct to what Bill did. Hillary exhibits faux outrage at Trump’s words, but she called her husband’s accusers “bimbos” and Senator Packwood’s accusers “whiners.” That demonstrates her hypocrisy when it comes to Trump’s words. She couldn’t care less what a man did to a woman so long as her political agenda were advanced. That’s the point.

          • pennywit

            But regardless of the substance (which you and I disagree on), how will it play with undecided and casual voters?

          • Scalia

            Anybody undecided and casual at this point can’t be suffering from an overload of “bimbo eruptions” since they’re not paying close enough attention to be jaded by such things.

            I don’t know what you mean by disagreeing over substance. Aides and close friends reported what she said about various accusers, and we’ve reproduced videos in Hillary’s own words regarding them. Are you driving at something else?

          • pennywit

            The issue of whether this is tying Bill’s scandals to Hillary vs. this being about Hillary’s conduct.

          • Scalia

            I don’t think there can be reasonable disagreement about that. If Hillary said those things about women, then it demonstrates her hypocrisy. She’s outraged at Trump’s words but indifferent to her husband’s acts. That’s fair political football.

          • pennywit

            *Shrug* YMMV, as they say.

          • Scalia

            With respect to the zealous defense of her client, I most obviously agree with that. However, John Q. Public doesn’t look at it that way. They already have a lot of complaints about attorneys who get guilty clients off on technicalities, so such a thing would definitely play well in Peoria. Moreover, the victim said that Clinton (er, Rodham-Clinton) laughed at her. So, do we simply call the victim a liar as Clinton apparently calls female victims liars when they get in her way?

          • pennywit

            However, John Q. Public doesn’t look at it that way. They already have a lot of complaints about attorneys who get guilty clients off on technicalities, so such a thing would definitely play well in Peoria.

            Which is a pity.

          • Scalia

            Agreed, but remember, we’re discussing the public’s reaction to such statements.

          • pennywit

            **Grumble grumble **

          • pennywit

            Speaking of which … I think altering the carried interest rule is a VERY good idea, but Donald Trump never explained WHAT it is.

          • Scalia

            Again, I agree (this is getting dangerous). To most people, he might as well have spoken Chinese.

          • pennywit

            You agree with me. Pretty soon, I’m going to take you out for a night drinking whole milk. The next morning, you will wake up surrounding by Democratic campaign paraphernalia and “Hillary + Scalia 4Eva” tattooed on your back.

            Inside a little heart.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            From Fortune Magazine

            “So Trump can’t get rid of carried interest, per se, but he is proposing to close the tax loophole ― thus resulting in private equity and hedge fund managers having to pay more to the feds on a sizable portion of their income (partially offset, of course, by his income tax cut proposals). Hillary Clinton also has proposed closing the carried interest loophole, despite a Trump assertion last night to the contrary.

            The idea of changing the tax treatment of carried interest has been around for the past decade, with some even arguing that the IRS could do so without an act of Congress. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama supported such a change during the 2008 presidential campaign, with Obama reiterating it while running against former private equity exec Mitt Romney in 2012 (Romney opposed). But no such bill has ever made it to the President’s desk — partially due to widespread Republican opposition (many view it as a tax hike), and partially due to a broader lack of comprehensive corporate tax reform legislation.”

          • Brucehenry
          • Scalia
          • Brucehenry

            Clinton was a court appointed lawyer defending her client to the best of her ability. Are you opposed to that?

            Shelton of course feels anger for the lawyer who defended her rapist. Who wouldn’t? But she is simply wrong when she says Clinton “laughed it off.” Read the link I posted.

            Nor did Clinton “terrorize” or “mock” this victim. I know you, when convenient, like to diss Snopes, but it’s debunking of this assertion goes into detail:

            http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

            By the way the rapist didn’t go free — he accepted a plea deal and served time for what he did.

            What happened to this poor girl was terrible. A similar thing happened to a very good friend of mine a woman I’m still friends with four decades later — at about the same time. But blaming Clinton or pretending she is a monster who “freed a rapist and laughed about it” is false and wrong.

          • Scalia

            As usual, you have a hard time following an argument. This is what I said to pennywit:

            Moreover, the victim said that Clinton (er, Rodham-Clinton) laughed at her.

            I said nothing about tapes, court affidavits, etc. The victim, per the tweets I reproduced, said that. Trump mentioned a recording. The recording (did you listen to it?) picks up Clinton laughing about this “travesty of justice.” It’s unclear to me why she laughed, and it can be spun both ways. I would not have used that as evidence against Clinton, but the victim certainly has her opinion of what Clinton did to her, so what I wrote was perfectly accurate.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes I see what you mean.

            But you also said that it was a good thing, a thing that helped Trump “drive home his points,” that Trump said that Hillary “got him off” (meaning the rapist) and that she “is seen laughing at the girl who was raped.”

            Both of those assertions are false, but you think it was a good thing that Trump used this poor woman to advance these falsehoods.

          • Scalia

            And so, if Trump were running against Johnnie Cochran and brought Denise Brown into the debate hall and attacked Cochran for getting OJ off for murder, would that be out of bounds? Here, let me connect the dots with your crayon: The victim believes that Clinton mocked her and Clinton is on record saying that the victim (female) should be believed. Tactically speaking, it WAS a very effective counter-punch.

            Man, you’re thick.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes I get that it was effective in solidifying another false meme into the minds of those already willing to believe any and every allegation against Hillary.

            I doubt anyone not already convinced that Hillary is the anti-Christ was persuaded to change their vote, and if it made anybody look into the matter they will see, as I did in 30 seconds of Googling, that the claim was false and therefore may end up helping Hillary as much as Donald.

          • Scalia

            Yeah, “false meme” that a victim says that Hillary mocked her? Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar, but you want to believe her over a girl that was raped? No, you want to reframe the discussion I was having with pennywit to recordings and affidavits and overlook the fact that this woman, to this day, hates Clinton. You’re sick.

          • Brucehenry

            It’s not just that the victim says Hillary mocked her. She most likely honestly believes that, and it is true in her mind. But Donald said it too, and wants us all to believe it actually happened. It didn’t.

          • Scalia

            It didn’t happen? You were there? Were you sitting beside this girl? She’s not merely basing her opinion on a tape recording. She’s recounting her experience. Yes, you are believing a proven liar over a girl that got raped. You’re done here.

          • Brucehenry

            I don’t doubt she was raped or that she feels she is telling the truth. It is Trump who is lying.

          • Scalia

            Clinton was a court appointed lawyer defending her client to the best of her ability. Are you opposed to that?

            The very post you replied to contained:

            With respect to the zealous defense of her client, I most obviously agree with that.

            Go to bed. You’re obviously worn out.

          • Brucehenry

            Wouldn’t be the first time a commenter on Wizbang was inconsistent.

            Or hypocritical. You say in plain English that you agree with a zealous defense of a criminal client, but also quote with approval, as helping to “drive home a point,” a disparaging reference to a lawyer “getting him off” — that is, the accused client. Who, again, did not “get off,” but pleaded guilty to a lesser included offense and served time.

          • Scalia

            What an idiot you are. pennywit and I were discussing how the public would perceive what Trump did. Included in that is the public’s disdain for lawyers who get guilty clients off on technicalities. You’re going from bad to worse. Get some cookies and milk. It might help your brain focus.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL this scornful tone of yours when addressing commenters you personally dislike is hilarious.

            I followed what you and pennywit were discussing. I just thought it would be useful to point out that the assertion that Trump was advancing in his sleight-of-hand that played to the Great Unwashed Joe Sixpack Non-Elitist voters was a dishonest one.

          • Scalia

            You deserve scorn, and you’re lying again. You weren’t “following” the discussion. If you were, you wouldn’t have made the stupid comments above.

            You must like the taste of your foot.

          • Brucehenry

            On the contrary. Pennywit and you were discussing the obvious — that people hate lawyers and many don’t understand the adversarial system in which a defense attorney, whether or not she personally believes her client to be guilty, is obligated to defend her client to the best of her ability.

            But you thought it was a good thing, a thing that “drove home his points,” that Trump played to that ignorance.

            Yes it drove home his point. It may have even been a good tactical move. But it was the wrong thing to do, he told lies to do it, and it is unworthy of a candidate for the chief law enforcement officer in the land.

          • Scalia

            Told lies? What, that Hillary attacked women that accused her husband? That’s no lie. You think it’s a good thing to attack a man for words but overlook the acts of another.

          • Scalia

            We’ll have to wait for a few post-debate polls to see which of us is right.

            I like one one fella said:

            Liberal: “We only do SCIENTIFIC polls.”

            The People: “What is a scientific poll?”

            Liberal: “If the poll shows Hillary losing, it isn’t scientific.”

          • pennywit

            I’ll give you a rimshot for that one before I point out that President Romney did fantastically in the “unskewed” polls.

            In seriousness, I want to wait for poll results because the only polls immediately after a debate tend to be self-selected Internet polls, and those are (to coin a word) unscientific due to self-selection bias.

          • Scalia

            Yes—especially CNN’s wherein 58% of the “respondents” were already backing Clinton.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            RCP had a great post a few weeks ago that examined the inherent bias in all of the polls, which varied from minimal to considerable, which is why a consensus of polls tends to paint the most accurate picture.

            Of course this election may just be a horse of a different color.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            One of the realities of defending criminals is they are, you know, criminals.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Mark Burnett, who is an ardent Trump supporter, has threatened a lawsuit against anyone that releases any Apprentice tapes, which are rumored to be rife with sexist and racist comments, but I wouldn’t be surprised if someone volunteers to provide a defense team. Additionally, as we have learned, it is hard to keep anything secret.

          • pennywit

            By the way, Trump is quite good at connecting with voters. He has a flair for theatrics and he has a way of distilling policy into simple, vivid phrases.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Which policy? Did he cover any last night?

            I keep waiting for when he says he is going to take care of ISIS, somebody, anybody, to make him explain how he is going to accomplish this feat. Additionally, his health plan, which is apparently a secret plan, should be looked at in detail.

          • pennywit

            “Build the wall,” for example. It’s an evocative image that easily summarizes his border policy. Even if he doesn’t build a physical wall, it functions well as a metaphor.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            That is true, it turned out the idea of a wall was all it took, because you never hear talk of an actual physical wall.

          • Scalia

            But when Hillary grandstanded and gave talking points, you were’t waiting for anybody to press her on how she “is going to accomplish this feat,” right? All politicians grandstand, but you only seem to notice when the other side does it.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Go to their websites and examine policy. Whether you agree or not, one website has policies, while the other has only a handful.

          • Scalia

            We’re talking about the debate, not their websites. Focus Buster.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Well then, they would have to extend it for a few hours. Perhaps in the next debate they can have policy questions and insist that they stick to those answers. I doubt it, but one can only hope.

          • Scalia

            That’s not the point. You don’t have to have an hours-long discussion on policy in order to get specifics. If you tried, people would drop off in short order. Again, we’re discussing the debate, and you notice platitudes from one side.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Specifics? There was no room for policy. Perhaps we got all the salacious nonsense out of the way. I know that a lot of Trump’s core supporters have been waiting for this event for decades, so perhaps they are now sated.

            I am no fan of Clinton, heck, who is, but I simply cannot abide a Trump presidency, so I make no claim to objectivity.

            If it does come down to policy, however, I think Trump will have some issues. Why? Because he is the guy that apparently does not do his homework and studying policy and knowing how government works is the preparation that every other candidate will do without question.

          • Scalia

            I am no fan of Clinton, heck, who is, but I simply cannot abide a Trump presidency, so I make no claim to objectivity.

            You apparently cannot abide a Kasich presidency either—given the fact that you won’t answer whether or not you’d vote for him over Hillary.

          • pennywit

            Personally, I’m not looking forward to my tax bill if Hillary Clinton get her wish list. Pushing up taxes on the rich is all fine and dandy, but soaking the rich is not going to finance Clinton’s social programs.

            (That said, I think the feds really do need to crank up the gas tax.)

          • Commander_Chico

            Work with Russia, Syria,Iraq and Iran instead of covertly helping ISIS through arms to the rebels.

          • pennywit

            PS. The oppo research on Mitt Romney consisted of him saying “Gosh darn it to heck” after a whole-milk bender in 1987.

          • Scalia

            Good one!

          • But dog on the roof! Binders full of women! He FIRED someone and made his wife get cancer!

            It didn’t seem to make any sense, but it silenced his campaign for a time.

          • pennywit

            The dog and the binders were his own damn fault.

          • Vagabond661

            LOL

  • The ‘October Surprise’ isn’t much of one. Is there anyone here who hasn’t said stuff in private that’d be totally embarrassing if it were to get out? (Thinking about my own past, there’s a good bit of stuff I did thirty+ years back that was rude, crude, and socially unacceptable in these ‘enlightened’ times.)

    As it is – Should I suddenly get the vapors over what Trump said, and swing my vote to Hillary? Why in the Wide, Wide World of Sports would I do that, knowing what she’s done over the last 30 years politically?

    So it kind of boils down to – vote for the psychopathic micromanaging, incompetent (and possibly incontinent) grandma from Hell, or Trump.

    I ain’t wild about either, but I damn sure want to see her kept out of the White House. I somehow think that when/if she loses, a whole lot of the edifice she’s built politically is going to crumble fast and hard. Right now she’s got influence because she’s been angling for President the last 8 years. Take away that possibility – and the Clinton Foundation’s done for.

    • pennywit

      For the most part, if you already dislike Trump, this video is further evidence. If you like Trump, it’s excuseable. I have seen a little movement among some of my conservative acquaintances, who have gone from “*Sigh* I guess I’ll vote Trump” to “Can we get another look at that Bernie guy?”

      However, nobody’s really feeling the Johnson.

      • Well, I’m sure not going to touch that last line of yours…

        🙂

        • pennywit

          If we take this conversation any further, it will ruin our respective presidential campaigns in 2028.

          • Nah, my history is such I’d never be able to run for President.

            The ’80s were a lot of fun for a single guy in MENSA, though.

          • pennywit

            I’m sure there’s a story there.

            At my end, I’d already go into a campaign with around forty-some percent of the electorate against me because I’m agnostic. According to the last poll I saw on the issue, only 58 percent of Americans would vote for a atheist for president.

          • A number of stories… but that was then. Got tired of finding Ms Wrong, found the right woman, just celebrated 23 years married.

            Your religion, or lack thereof, wouldn’t be a stopping point for me. It would depend on a lot of other factors, like your tax plans, foreign relations goals, what you promise to do about government overreach, and of course your blood type.

            I mean, A+ is just right out. You can’t trust someone who’s always A+ everywhere they go.

          • pennywit

            What if you added some photoreactive particles? You might not like A+ blood, but maybe you’d like the Blood Light!!

            (Anything else is just a light).

          • *Groan…*

          • Scalia

            Congrats on your anniversary!

          • pennywit

            Indeed, Congrats.

          • Thanks!

          • Thank you! Finding the right woman really helps.

          • pennywit

            Yeah, that’s good to know. I wish more Americans thought like you do. I typically am less concerned with a politician’s faith then in the politicians actual beliefs and how he applies those beliefs to policy. To use an example, I wouldn’t oppose a Scientologist congressional candidate for being a Scientologist. But I would vote against that candidate if he wanted to replace Medicare with the Bridge to Total Freedom.

          • Or someone trying to replace modern medicine with homeopathy and chiropractic care. (Though chiropractic as an adjunct I’d have no problems with – when I bunged up my back I was in pain for years until I tried it. Been pain-free for close to 20 years now…)

          • pennywit

            “Bunged up [your] back?” Sounds like something Donald Trump paid a hundred fifty an hour for in Vegas.

          • Lol… I could wish. Disqus is temperamental at various sites, so… ‘bunged’.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Isn’t Trump someone that has only a passing interest in religion, which appears to be nothing more than an obvious attempt to placate evangelical voters?

          • Retired military

            Oh you mean like Obama.

          • pennywit

            I considered Trump’s conversion a rather obvious act of political opportunism. But there are people who consider it genuine, and evaluate him as such.

          • Jwb10001

            Did you notice over the years how Clinton’s views have changed? When she needs christians she supports DOMA, when she needs secular, gay support she’s always been in favor of gay marriage etc. This is a sin all presidential candidates are guilty of. As has been pointed out endlessly you’ve got blinders Trump bad Clinton good, the right answer is they are both terrible.

    • Commander_Chico

      Trump did OK, but could have bored in on Hillary on war with Russia and better explained things like his healthcare plan. Hillary did some damage to herself with her obsession with fighting Russia.
      October 10, 2016
      October 10, 2016
      What about that, Bruce?

      • WHO’S THE BUSTER

        What is this Trump health care plan that you speak of? Is he keeping it a secret like all of his other “policies?”

        • Commander_Chico

          Something about interstate insurance competition. As I said, not explained.

        • Jwb10001

          What is the Clinton health plan, more of the same or does she suggest that now that the government has broken the system we need greater government influence? A weak plan is better than a bad plan.

      • Brucehenry

        Trump until this year never had a problem with Goldman Sachs, was an apathetic “I guess” on Iraq and a hawk on Libya, does plenty of business in and with the Gulf States (I think) and has business entanglements with Russia. That’s what about that.

        • Commander_Chico

          A vote for Hillary is a vote for war with Russia over Syria, the DNC hacks, Pussy Riot, and Putin.

          All other concerns Trump that.

          • Brucehenry

            A vote for Trump is a vote for war with whoever pisses him off in the moment. An unstable, visibly mentally ill man.

          • Commander_Chico

            Yeah he has only run a huge business and become a successful media brand.

            His instincts are anti-war. Hillary never saw a war she did not like. She is threatening Russia now!

          • Jwb10001

            Bruce, Trump has zero history of war making, Hillary is knee deep in supporting wars and interventions. It appears to me that Hillary pushed the Libyan adventure to help line Blumenthal’s pockets and I suppose her’s that’s just as bad as any motivation I can think of. As you know I’m not fan of Trump but on this one deeds vs words should apply.

          • That’s the kindest thing you could say about him.

          • Commander_Chico

            Traitorous cucks won’t be forgotten.

          • Who are you again? I’ve already forgotten…

          • Commander_Chico
          • Whatever, “Mike.”

  • Hank_M

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen a republican candidate fight as hard as Trump did in a debate, perhaps anywhere. That was refreshing. But what I really enjoyed was that Trump rattled Hillary, he got under her skin and it showed.

    And the moderators sucked, as usual.

  • Retired military

    And David wrings his hands and tears up his upcoming thread on the death of Trump’s campaign.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Okay, I didn’t watch the debate – just too painful. But, did anybody bring up Hillary’s “dream … of a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders,…” This would be right up DT’s alley. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927

    WikiLeaks published these e-mails on Friday.

    • Scalia

      There was some discussion of the leaks, particularly Clinton’s public and private position statement. Clinton foolishly tried to compare herself to Lincoln, but nothing about her dream of a common market and open borders. The moderators, as usual, aren’t doing their job.

    • Jwb10001

      The other emails leaked should be of big concern for soft Trump supporters, it looks like they may have been played by the very elements we all hate the most, the media. Several emails show Clinton’s camp pushing the media to legitimize Trump along with Carson and Cruz. This manipulation should be eye opening for at least some of Trumps supporters.

  • Retired military

    Hillary should have picked McCain as a running mate as I have said.
    Imagine the debate McCain vs Pence. He would not have done nearly so bad as Kaine did. Plus Hillary could bash Trump at every opportunity about a former R presidential nominee being her running mate. Instead she got crazy Kaine and gets to talk about republicans that noone has pretty much ever heard of.

    • Commander_Chico

      It’s true, McCain would have fit in with Hillary’s threats against Russia.

  • LiberalNightmare

    Trump scared the crap out of Hillary, because she knows he means it.
    The Clintons in particular and the democrats in general have gotten so used to the dirty tricks, that they have forgotten the risk.

    Think what you want about the audio tapes, but they were a dirty trick, and Trump doesnt have to take it laying down like most of HRC’s victims.

  • pennywit

    Scalia, pursuant to our previous discussion, RCP is beginning to list polls that overlap yesterday and Sunday. So far, it’s not looking good for Trump, with Clinton registering a consistent +5 or better margin. The RCP electoral map currently puts Hillary at 260 electoral votes as well. Meanwhile, if I’m reading the latest in Politico correctly, Trump is more or less abandoning campaign strategy in favor of starting personal feuds with Paul Ryan and other Republicans. It’s looking fairly desperate to me.

    • Scalia

      To me, it hasn’t looked good for Trump for a very long time. He got some momentum with Hillary’s health, but it appears to be receding; however, Trump has proved to be one resilient cat. As I predicted, the press is in full carpet-bombing mode, especially after the “locker room” talk.

      The latest batch of emails has this interesting tidbit from Podesta:

      I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans, but I think we should use it once the first time she says I’m running for president because you and everyday Americans need a champion. I think if she doesn’t say it once, people will notice and say we false started in Iowa.

      It will be interesting to see her explain that in the next debate.

      • Hank_M

        No way that sees the light of day, especially since it explains not only how Hillary feels, but represents how the media, hollywood, colleges and pretty much every liberal feels about “everyday Americans”.

      • pennywit

        Good question re: spinning the email. However, Trump’s providing a nice diversion today with his Paul Ryan comments.

        • Scalia

          I can assure that if the tables were reversed, anything said about Ryan would be ignored. We would get another carpet bombing run of media on how Trump hates everyday Americans.

          Trump puts his foot in his mouth (like Bruce Henry) and has a potty mouth. Hillary hates Americans, attacks women who accuse her political allies of sexual harassment (or worse), and is a pathological liar—but Trump’s buffoonery is somehow worse?

          • pennywit

            Bread and circuses. Trump’s meltdowns are far more entertaining than a bunch of dusty old emails.

            In seriousness, I think the political establishment press will probably get to the emails by Thursday or Friday.

          • Scalia

            Agreed. Trump’s are far more entertaining—we’ve got to stop meeting like this.

            Whatever the entertainment value, it will not play well for Americans to hear that the Dem candidate hates them.

          • pennywit

            OTOH, Hillary Clinton doesn’t melt down as long as you keep the firmware upgraded.

            However, I have concluded that Donald Trump runs on the same hardware as the Samsung Galaxy Note 7.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Donald Trump has tweeted something to the effect that now the shackles are off. If he thinks he has been shackled I can’t imagine what is coming next.

          • Scalia

            You still haven’t answered my question.

          • Scalia

            Your posts will be deleted until you answer my question. Once you answer it, I will restore your posts.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            What question?

            I apologize, I was unaware of the requirements of the comment pages. This is entertainment, right?

            What question do you need me to answer for you?

          • Scalia

            Quit playing dumb. I twice asked you the same question and specified exactly what I was asking. Look at your profile and you’ll see the question.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Ok, I answered your question. I have to admit this is the first comment board I have ever been on with participation requirements.

          • Scalia

            I got tired of your dodging questions. There is no requirement, per se, to answer questions, but in this instance there is because you’ve dodged so many.

          • He ain’t playing…

          • pennywit

            I don’t know how much impact that will have in the long term. In the short term, though … I suspect that Donald Trump’s going to keep us thoroughly entertained, not to mention distracted, until Nov. 8.

            If Trump hadn’t spent so much money on this campaign, I would consider it an elaborate piece of pro-Clinton performance art.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Did Trump really spend any money on this campaign? I am asking because I don’t know.

          • pennywit

            PS. The mainstream press are apparently sniffing around the Wikileaks emails already, and Clinton’s press secretary is annoyed. Check his Twitter feed:

            https://twitter.com/brianefallon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

          • Scalia

            About the reaction I expected. Trump colluding with the Russians. Rich.

        • Scalia

          BTW, there’s a TON of stuff in the new WikiLeaks release. Drudge lists them quite conveniently.

        • Scalia

          Spot on. Many liberals don’t love America. They love their idea of what America should be, but they hate this country.

          • pennywit

            I don’t think I’d go that far. My own position (and the position of liberals I interact with) is not a hatred of America, but a dislike for what America has been, and a love of what America could be. Then again, most of my friends are middle-aged center-leftish university grads, not twenty-something firebrands.

          • Scalia

            That’s why I didn’t say “all.” Many liberals hate me and others like me for my values, yet those values have been part of America since our founding. Loving America for what it “could be” is akin to what I am saying. Many of them don’t love it as it is now merely because somebody disagrees with them over gay marriage or abortion. That’s who I’m talking about.

          • Ayup.

          • pennywit

            You mention abortion — take a look at today’s Slate article about the next generation of the pro-life movement. Some interesting tidbits in there.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            I was surprised by that post on Slate.

          • Scalia

            Good piece. I had not seen that. As you’re probably aware, many early feminists were also pro-life.

          • pennywit

            Were they? Can you link to an article about it? I know that the early suffrage movement was intertwined with the temperance movement, but I am not aware of early feminist opinions on abortion.

          • Scalia
          • pennywit

            Hm. I find it interesting that later in the piece, I see recommendations for a number of things that are left-wing proposals in modern American politics.

          • Scalia
          • Scalia

            You might also enjoy LIberal, Feminist, Atheist, Pro-Life, Rocker Chick.

            Ok, that’s enough for now!

  • About that double digit polling lead…

    • Scalia

      Yes, they’re deliberately padding the polls. This is an all-out war.

    • Scalia

      Wow! I just read the whole thing. Totally in bed with Hillary.

  • Wild_Willie

    Trump won the debate. He only had to do one thing well and that was take people off their so called ‘offensive stance’ on the hot mic episode. We got a lot more then needed. As I said before the debates, Hillary really doesn’t want to have to go there because of the luggage she carries for Bill. He is a predator that the dem’s elected. So their fake noise about locker room talk doesn’t work. Social Media is keeping the truth out there. ww

  • pennywit
  • r_o_c_666R_O_C

    I said “I need a fresh DEPENDS, not PENCE!”

  • r_o_c_666R_O_C

    Quickly, notify medics. I’m dizzy and the room is spinning, surrounding me with a dozen TRUMP’S.