text:
L'era Vargas és el període de la història del Brasil entre 1930 i 1945, quan Getúlio Vargas va governar el Brasil de forma continuada. Comprèn el Govern Provisional, el Govern Constitucional i l'Estado Novo. Aquest període va ser un punt d'inflexió en la història brasilera, a causa dels nombrosos canvis que Vargas va fer al país, tant socials com econòmics.

Antecedents

Amb el Crac del 29 va començar una crisi econòmica a escala mundial que va aixafar totes les economies amb participació en els mercats internacionals, en el cas del Brasil i les seves exportacions de cafè. Els oligarques de l'Estat de São Paulo van trencar l'aliança amb els ramaders de Minas Gerais, coneguda com la política del café com leite, i van proposar Júlio Prestes, el governador de l'estat de São Paulo, com a candidat a la presidència de la República i com a reacció, el governador de Minas Gerais, Antônio Carlos Ribeiro de Andrada, va donar suport a la candidatura opositora del gaúcho Getúlio Vargas. L'1 de març de 1930 es van celebrar eleccions a la presidència de la República, que van donar la victòria a Prestes, que no va poder prendre possessió per un cop d'estat el 3 d'octubre de 1930, i es va exiliar, i es va deposar al president sortint Washington Luís, i el 3 de novembre de 1930 la Junta Militar Provisional va passar el poder a Getúlio Vargas, el líder del moviment revolucionari, posant fi a la República Velha i assenyala l'inici de l'era Vargas amb la derogació de la constitució de 1891 per establir un nou ordre constitucional, la dissolució del Congrés Nacional,la intervenció federal en els governs estatals i l'escenari polític i amb la supressió de l'hegemonia fins aleshores apreciada per les oligarquies agràries de São Paulo i Minas Gerais.

Era Vargas
L'Era Vargas es compon de tres fases successives: el període del Govern Provisional (1930-1934), quan Vargas va governar per decret com a Cap del Govern Provisional, càrrec creat per la Revolució, a l'espera de l'adopció d'una nova constitució per al país que establia el sufragi universal i donava major autoritat al govern federal; el període de la constitució de 1934 (quan, després de l'aprovació de la nova constitució per l'Assemblea Constituent de 1933-1934, Vargas va ser elegit per l'assemblea en virtut de les disposicions transitòries de la constitució com a president, juntament amb una legislatura escollida democràticament), i la dictadura de lEstado Novo.

Vargas tenia una visió nova de la política brasilera per a produir el desenvolupament nacional utilitzant aranzels protectors i altres polítiques per limitar les importacions, alhora que fomentava la fabricació nacional. Es va aprofitar de la ruptura de les relacions directes entre treballadors i els directors de les fàbriques del Brasil i els obrers es convertirien en la nova base del poder polític populista, promulgant una legislació social que beneficiava a la classe treballadora. Els privilegis de l'agricultura van acabar i el sector es va diversificar, i la indústria va créixer mitjançant la substitució de les importacions per producte local, i la classe mitjana va guanyar més poder polític.

Govern Provisional (1930-1934)
Getúlio Vargas va assumir la presidència del Brasil el novembre de 1930 en un govern que havia de ser provisional, i durant aquest període va prendre les primeres mesures centralitzadores, va afeblir el poder legislatiu i reforçar l'executiu i ampliar l'aparell de la burocràcia, recolzant-se en els càrrecs que anomenava. El seu autoritarisme i la seva negativa a celebrar unes eleccions va donar lloc a la Revolució Constitucionalista de 1932 i es van organitzar unes eleccions generals i es va redactar una nova Constitució per al Brasil.

Es van convocar eleccions presidencials per al gener de 1938, a les quals s'havien postulat José Américo de Almeida, Armando de Sales Oliveira, tots dos partidaris de la revolució de 1930, i Plínio Salgado. Un suposat Pla Cohen, un pla comunista per prendre el poder, fou denunciat pel govern, i el 10 de novembre de 1937 un cop d'estat de Vargas va instituir l'Estado Novo en un discurs a la ràdio.

Govern Constitucional (1934–1937)
La radicalització política i ideològica va créixer molt al Brasil, sobretot entre l'Ação Integralista Brasileira (AIB), d'inspiració feixista, liderada per Plínio Salgado, i l'Aliança Nacional Libertadora (ANL), moviment dominat pel prosoviètic Partit Comunista del Brasil (PCB). El tancament de l'ANL i la detenció d'alguns dels partidaris, van precipitar les conspiracions que van portar a l'aixecament comunista el 24 de novembre de 1935 a el nord-est del Brasil i el 27 de novembre de 1935 a Rio de Janeiro.

Estado Novo (1937-1945)
El període de l'Estado Novo en el què Vargas governà en forma de dictadura va començar quan Vargas va imposar una nova constitució en 1937 després d'un aixecament comunista, mitjançant un cop d'estat autoritari, diluint el congrés, assumint poders dictatorials amb l'objectiu de perpetuar el seu govern i va desposseir al Brasil dels instruments democràtics traslladant les funcions polítiques, econòmiques i socials dels estats al govern nacional.

Els estudiants universitaris es van començar a mobilitzar l'any 1943 contra Vargas. Hi va haver un descontentament creixent en acabar la Segona Guerra Mundial per les polítiques autoritàries de Vargas. Els creixents moviments polítics i les manifestacions democràtiques van obligar Vargas a abolir la censura el 1945, alliberar nombrosos presoners polítics i permetre la reforma dels partits polítics, inclòs el Partit Comunista del Brasil, que va donar suport a Vargas per ordre de Moscou. Les vagues, prohibides, van començar a ressorgir per la inflació de guerra, i fins i tot Oswaldo Aranha es va mostrar partidari d'un canvi democràtic. Vargas va crear el Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro i va aconseguir el suport dels treballadors urbans i de l'esquerra. El nou codi electoral, establia el 2 de desembre de 1945 per a l'elecció del president i una assemblea constituent, i eleccions estatals el 6 de maig de 1946 i va anunciar la seva intenció de no presentar-se a la presidència. Els militars, que temien que Vargas estigués a punt d'apoderar-se del poder absolut després que el 25 d'octubre de 1945 destituís João Alberto com a cap de la policia del Districte Federal i el substituís per Benjamin Vargas, van forçar la seva dimissió i el van destituir el 29 d'octubre. La renúncia de Getúlio Vargas al seu règim de l'Estado Novo el 1945 i la posterior redemocratització del país, amb l'adopció d'una nova constitució el 1946, marquen el final de l'era Vargas i l'inici del període conegut com la Quarta República Brasilera.

Quarta República
En aquest nou període democràtic, Vargas tornaria a la Presidència de la República, elegit per vot directe, i governaria el Brasil durant tres anys i mig: des del 31 de gener de 1951 fins al 24 d'agost de 1954, quan es va suïcidar, amb un tret a la cor, en el seu quart, al Palácio do Catete, a la ciutat de Rio de Janeiro, aleshores capital federal.

Referències

Bibliografia

Vegeu també
 Història d'Amèrica del Sud

Segle XX al Brasil
Esdeveniments del segle XX


We run workshops by invitation in many countries. If interested please contact us via email or phone 00 33 (0)475 53 20 27. We also take people for holidays and to learn about the local ecology, as well as horse and cattle behaviour.
To obtain the maximum from these courses/holidays it is best to stay at the centre.
2) Gites: Gite 1 - Two bedrooms, can sleep up to 6.
3) Lodge: (one bedroom, verhandah, small kitchen & shower) up to 2 people:.
5) Attic dormitory (sleeps up to 3):.
- Handling & teaching mammals, including, dogs, cattle, sheep, equines.
€70 private/hr, €45/hr group 2 - 5 persons, (with your animals or ours).
Rides out : only after a lesson €40/ person/2 hrs (2 and more).
Pilgrimage to the natural world with horses: with instruction on horses behaviour, other animals we meet, and the ecology of this beautiful area.
- All day: €200/person, if more than 4 then €100/person.
Horse accomodation: we have yards, stables and fields, an outdoor manege with music player, 40 x 20m, an indoor manege 20 x 20m, possibilities for endurance training & advise & accompaniment on local rides , self catering bunk accommodation adjacent to the horses, a resident farrier, cooperative animal educators & trainers up to Grand Prix dressage & international endurance.
DIY: in stable or yard & out during day bring own food. Hay & straw provided: €8/night/horse, €50/week.
Overnight Randonneurs: including hay & food €10/night . Dormitory accomodation & kitchen: €20/person/night.
Dr Marthe KILEY-WORTHINGTON runs a consultancy in behaviour welfare & designing environments for mammals including: pets, horses, animals in zoos, wildlife parks & circuses.


text:
Ombudsman to investigate John Key's dirty politics communications
Clinton vs Trump; Debate 1
Written By: te reo putake - Date published: 8:52 am, September 27th, 2016 - 274 comments
Categories: class war, Dirty Politics, Environment, Hillary Clinton, International, Politics, polls, racism, scoundrels, us politics - Tags:
The first of the live Presidential debates kicks off at 2 pm this arvo (assuming I've got my head around daylight saving).
On one hand, the candidate endorsed by every living being round the world who has both brain and heart in good working order. On the other hand, the candidate who is endorsed right across the political spectrum, all the way from neo fascist Vladimir Putin to the neo fascist KKK.
Neither candidate is much cop, but one is clearly less bad than the other. Never before has the weakness of the American political system's reliance on the evil of two lessers been more obvious and more dangerous for the world.
If Trump wins, the world loses.
So today's match up is vital. Media talk suggests this debate will the most widely watched scrap in decades and a fair percentage of the voting public will make up their mind without bothering to watch the the other two debates. The polls are tightening and even Nate Silver's fivethirtyeight is showing Clinton's poll lead has dipped.
It's now or never for lumpen populist Donald Trump, the darling of the 1% who has managed to fool a large percentage of working Americans into think he offers something better than what they have now. A comparison of the two candidates suggests that what Trump is promising is misery at home and death abroad.
Of course, some would say Hillary Clinton is already operating on that formula. But that's bollocks.
By any objective analysis, Hillary Clinton has been a progressive force all her adult life. That won't change when she is President. What might change this election is the ability of a Democrat party President to actually achieve legislative change. There is a good chance that the Democrats will gain the majority in the senate, which will mean passing progressive bills will be much, much easier.
Clinton will be buoyed by getting through the worst week of her campaign relatively unscathed. The misogynist dog whistling about her health peaked when she was laid low by pneumonia. The big news of the last few days has been the apparent endorsement of her by former President George H Bush. That's symptomatic of Donald's Trump's major issue. His own party is not backing him.
Trump doesn't have the supporters on the ground, he doesn't have the money. He's been reduced to endless town hall meetings where he talks to the already committed in words of few syllables. It looks like campaigning, it feels like campaigning. But it doesn't matter a damn.
The debate can be watched live here, here and here. The Guardian has a rolling blog here and the BBC's coverage is here. Rolling Stone has a good summary of things to look out for here.
Popcorn ahoy, Standarnistas! It's going to be entertaining, if not illuminating.
In the meantime, here's Zach and Hills:
tereoputake@gmail.com
Tweets by tereoputake
https://tereoputake.wordpress.com/
274 comments on "Clinton vs Trump; Debate 1"
Sabine 1
bloomberg to fact check debate onscreen during debate 🙂
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/09/bloomberg-to-fact-check-debate-on-screen-228670?cmpid=sf
vodka for every mention of 'tremendous'
Not recommended if you want to see the evening …
Andre 1.1.1
I'm off to get my stomach pumped.
Rae 1.1.1.1
Colonial Viper 2
It's now or never for lumpen populist Donald Trump, the darling of the 1%
Fact check: almost every dollar of Wall St hedge fund donations this Presidential campaign has been to Hillary Clinton.
This is no surprise as the Clintons have been partners with Wall St for almost 2 decades.
Hillary Clinton is Wall Street's preferred candidate: Financial execs pouring millions into her campaign to defeat Trump.
Wall Street has raised $23 million for Clinton, reports the WSJ. Many who backed Rubio and Bush now support Hillary
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/09/hillary_clinton_is_wall_streets_preferred_candidate_financial_execs_pouring_millions_into_her_campaign_to_defeat_trum/
(Bill Clinton repealed Glass Steagal in the 90s allowing US investment banks to conduct highly risky highly profitable betting activities which led directly to the Global Financial Crisis).
Lanthanide 2.1
When people with money want to save their country's economy from destruction, somehow they're being unpatriotic or evil or something.
Boggles the mind.
First time I've heard any one on the Left describe the Wall St Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan crowd saviours of the economy.
Lanthanide 2.1.1.1
Not really, because I didn't actually say that.
If you read what I wrote, I implied that Donald Trump will destroy the economy.
I made no statement about Wall St, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan or Hillary Clinton.
Colonial Viper 2.1.1.1.1
Well, the "people with money" I was referring to who donated $$$ to Clinton but not to Trump were Wall St/hedge fund types so that's who I thought you were referring to.
I should also add that the Bilderberg family ran a big fundraiser for Clinton a few weeks back.
I do not think that it was their concern for the Main St economy of the 99% which drove them to do that.
Lanthanide 2.1.1.1.1.1
Except that there have been a couple of times over the last two months where Clinton's lead in the polling has dropped, which has subsequently caused the Dow and S&P 500 to drop, over concerns that Trump might win the presidency.
Similarly, the US dollar has dropped on bad polling for Clinton.
It seems that most of the investment class think Trump will be bad for the economy.
Yes the titans of financial capitalism "think Trump will be bad for the economy (i.e. financial markets)" and think that Clinton will be "good" for the economy (i.e. financial markets).
BTW the ordinary people whom Trump is reaching out to often don't give a Flying Fig about what the NYSE is doing when those corporate profits come from shuttering down factories, shops and mines around their home towns.
Lanthanide …
Ordinary people in America have things called 401Ks, which are largely invested in the stock market.
I think a lot of those ordinary Americans with 401Ks realised the bankers used those vehicles to destroy their retirement savings, through fees, malinvestments, and fraud.
I'm a bit disappointed that Helen Clark set up Kiwi Saver to feed more NZ wages to Wall St.
Kiwiri 2.1.1.2
Those saints were divinely saving the economy for themselves. That is one way of looking at things.
Garibaldi 2.1.1.2.1.1
Let's face it— it is pretty hard to destroy something that is already destroyed.
rhinocrates …
Just when you think that things can't get any worse than they are, someone will come along to prove you wrong.
Yeh it's a sad indictment of my life that I am looking forward to this so much, I am actually finishing work early to watch it live…hi I'm Adrian I'm a political junkie
Not sure who in Clinton's team would have thought letting her do between two ferns was a good idea, she of course came out looking ridiculous …pretty funny though.
te reo putake 3.1
LOL! Sadly, this fellow tragic will be working through most of it, but I'll be snatching a glance at the little screen where I can.
I've taken Wednesday 9th November off work…
TheExtremist 3.2.1
As have I
alwyn 3.2.2
If Hillary wins I suppose you will be breaking out the champagne.
If Trump wins will you be digging a very large, very deep fallout shelter and stocking it?
Phil 3.3
hi I'm Adrian I'm a political junkie
*Rest of the support group, in unison*
"Hello, Adrian"
*quiet smattering of applause*
You're in good company here, brother.
Not sure who in Clinton's team would have thought letting her do between two ferns was a good idea, she of course came out looking ridiculous
I thought she came out of it fine. From a comic perspective, it was a better result than Obama's interview a couple of years earlier.
Also, Zach is much more rigorous interviewer than Dr Oz – he's pathetic.
In the youtube clip above:
Zach to Hillary: "So what's the best way to reach you…? Email?"
Nate Silver: 51.1% chance of Trump victory if election was today
Mind you just a few weeks ago, Nate Silver's site gave Hillary Clinton a 92% chance of winning.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-26/nate-silver-511-chance-trump-winning-if-election-held-today
Wow, you've found someone as equally ignorant of polling statistics as yourself – well done.
The model you're looking at is the 'nowcast'. As in; if an election we held today, what would the (probabilistically) result be?
The model focuses heavily on the latest polling results. 538 have made it clear all along that this model would swing all over the place, especially given the high level of undecided and 3rd party voters in this cycle.
It helps explain why "Obama's team isn't laughing at Donald Trump any more."
For Obamaworld staffers who had just been starting to settle into a new buoyancy about the president's climbing approval numbers, Trump's growing strength is an agonizing reminder of how far short they have fallen in delivering on 'hope.' Even if Clinton wins, the Republican has shown not only that America is divided between red and blue but that there's an America that Obama never connected with at all, and where all his data and rational arguments and appeals to sensibilities are as useless as Monopoly money.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/barack-obama-donald-trump-228649
dukeofurl 5.1.2
So true . CV is a complete idiot when it comes to stats
Manuka AOR 6
Bernie – two days ago:
From Truthdig: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_corporate_media_needs_to_play_hardball_in_the_first_debate_20160925
Excerpt: No matter what Clinton does, the Trump-wins-first-debate narrative has already been written:
● Trump and Clinton will share the same stage. He is not a normal candidate, or even a normal person. She is. No matter what happens during the debate, it is declared afterward that the one-on-one matchup has "normalized" Trump. So Trump wins.
● Because the bar for a successful Trump performance has been set so low, when Trump fails to threaten to punch Clinton, it is acclaimed as evidence of his presidential temperament and general election pivot. Trump wins.
● Trump will attack Clinton. Clinton will defend herself. The verdict: Trump was strong; Clinton was on the defensive. But people want strength. Trump wins.
● The moderator, NBC's Lester Holt, will call Trump on a lie. Trump will heap scorn on Holt, NBC, MSNBC, the Commission on Presidential Debates and the corrupt, dishonest media. Gallup says public trust in the media is now at an all-time low. People will love Trump's attack on Holt. Trump wins.
● Clinton will nail Trump for lying. He'll lie so much, she won't be able to keep up with him. Fact-checkers will say, after the fact, that his pants were on fire, but it won't matter. The debate will be scored for entertainment value, not truth-value. Clinton's zingers will be called scripted. Trump's taunts will be so uncivil, so beyond the political pale, so viciously funny, he will be crowned the change candidate in a change election year. Trump wins.
● Trump and Clinton will go after each other so relentlessly that the debate will be called a draw. But the Beltway consensus is that Clinton needs to win; Trump just needs to tie. So a tie is a win. Trump wins.
Colonial Viper 7.1
Correct. The Clinton campaign team allowed Trump to set himself up as the underdog, and helped Trump lower the public's expectations of him at every turn.
In doing so, Trump won this TV debate several weeks ago – but he is inexperienced and temperamental – he could still have a huge melt down on live TV in front of 100M people.
Or for an actual analysis, from 538:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-may-have-more-to-gain-from-the-first-debate-than-clinton/
Eight out of 10 times, the non-incumbent party's candidate — that's Trump this year — gained in the polls after the first debate.
" The moderator, NBC's Lester Holt, will call Trump on a lie. Trump will heap scorn on Holt, NBC, MSNBC, the Commission on Presidential Debates and the corrupt, dishonest media. Gallup says public trust in the media is now at an all-time low. People will love Trump's attack on Holt. Trump wins."
Also, the moderator is NOT going to be fact-checking either candidate. This plays into Trumps hands, but not the way outlined here.
Matthew Whitehead 7.3
Yeah, those are all realistic dangers.
The one thing going for Clinton is that Trump is not very good at giving coached responses. He is an unengaging speaker when he follows a script, because he's so used to just following his trail of attention. It's entirely possible he'll slip up and say something outrageous.
But relying on an unforced error by Trump isn't a strategy.
Lanth's concerns about what happens with active moderation is realistic, unfortunately- Candy Crowley fact-checked Romney in a similar way, as what he was saying was factually incorrect but the gist of it wasn't entirely wrong, and she got blasted by the right-wing for daring to do her job. So I expect we'll get risk-averse moderation (read: the "moderator" will only be there to ask questions and will be little more than a "host" in reality) at best, or that fact-checks will end up aiding Trump at worst.
McFlock 7.4
heh – Stuff is calling it a narrow win for Trump at the moment. If that's all he can manage against a woman who is on death's doorstep from brain injuries and all the other tellyquack diagnoses, then his supporters had better pray she doesn't find better medication…
gsays 8
i find the notion of 'fact-checking' in this context hilarious.
right from the start of this post and the way trp has framed it, can be described as 'factual', through to cvs responses, equally 'factual'
to get a non partisan view of this election, debate, poll results is like capturing lightning.
personally, i find myself attracted to the spectacle in a ghoulish way, kinda like a fight, equally revolted, interested and emotionally affected in the gut.
the policies, history and connections of the candidates matter little, like brexit i feel the vote for a change will carry a lot of weight when the time comes to vote.
Fact-checks are reasonable ways to stop politicians from making outlandish claims that aren't even arguably true, or to give context that there are people that disagree with their assumptions if the truth of a claim is widely contested.
Usually they are in the form of "records show that X" or "independent organisation Y claims that number is actually Z."
Providing that kind of context isn't laughable, it's journalism. It is the bare minimum required of a serious reporter, as opposed to say, someone editorialising, or doing opinion journalism, like more serious blogs do. It's essentially the entire reason you have a moderator at all, rather than having the audience deliver the questions.
Now, you're right that Americans want a change. The issue is whether of those who feel that Trump is the wrong sort of change, (because there's certainly more than enough of them to swing the election) whether enough are actually willing to vote for Hillary. Right now I expect she will narrowly win if nothing goes wrong for her and she continues on with her poorly-advised strategy of trying to win over moderate Republicans by tilting corporate. (the issue with this strategy is that most voters who hate trump also dislike pro-corporate government, and don't think it provides any solutions)
Of course the fact is that if the DNC and most media hadn't attacked and undermined Sanders, and it somehow worked out that now is was Sanders heading into this debate, with a double digit lead in the polls no doubt… but no the DNC have now got what they deserve, Hillary, only more palatable than Trump by the width of a cigarette paper…if that, fascinating and amusing to watch and analyze, but really a disaster in the history of American politics… a direct result of the cynical corruption of epic proportions from both parties.
Garibaldi 9.1
I don't think either candidate is palatable Adrian , but there again I don't smoke.
You say the DNC have got what they deserve. Imo, so have the Republicans.
Trouble is the World doesn't deserve either of them.
Trump has destroyed the Republican Party
Sabine 9.1.1.1
Trump is the logical conclusion to the republican party as is Hillary Clinton to the democratic party.
i still maintain that Sanders should have run as an independent and he would have won.
Phil 9.1.1.1.1
I think 'conclusion' is the wrong word to use for the Democrats. Hillary is smack-bang in the middle (by ideological voting record and fundraising) of the Democratic party spectrum. She is, to put it bluntly, the perfect example of a generic Democrat.
With that kind of fantasy mindset, you should be helping GRR Martin finish writing Game of Thrones.
Adrian 9.1.1.1.3
You are on the button there, both parties have created their own monsters, I guess the one big difference is that Clinton is like a robot monster controlled by the usual suspects to do the usual destruction on civil society in the name of unending profit.
Whereas Trump, who the really knows, I am not sure even he knows which master he serves…yet.
But if he gets any where near the White House, he will find out soon enough the answer to that question, that much is for sure.
Matthew Whitehead 9.1.1.1.4
Sanders would not be winning as an independent. Americans are incredibly distrustful of the idea of voting for third-party candidates as they dislike the spoiler effect as much as everyone else, but they haven't taken this through to its logical conclusion of electoral reform.
He did exactly the right thing running as a Democrat, and arguably, if not for several shenanigans with the process, he might actually have won the nomination in a fair contest. (it's difficult to claim who would have won a popular vote given the caucus process followed in some states where Sanders did well, but he would probably have lost in a national popular vote as the process is shorter and gives you less time to meet the candidate, wheras the state-by-state primaries let him prove he had good ideas and was a real contender)
Sabine 9.1.1.1.4.1
well, we will never know. Right?
Matthew Whitehead …
In the same way we'll never know whether throwing a tennis ball as hard as you can in a random direction will crack someone's windscreen, yes. lol
Adrian 9.1.1.2
I read a good piece on the Clinton campaign the other day, bemoaning their strategy of separating Trump from the 'good 'ol Republicans like Bush and Reagan, in other words chasing their votes, but thereby letting the Republicans off the hook of having to swim in their own shit with their man Trump.
She has done this rather than chase the young progressive vote, which speaks volumes about her own positions.
Clinton's campaign team would have taken for granted the youth vote as theirs, so they put their energies somewhere else.
Paul 9.1.1.2.1.1
More young people voted for Bernie Sanders than Trump and Clinton combined — by a lot
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/20/more-young-people-voted-for-bernie-sanders-than-trump-and-clinton-combined-by-a-lot/
one reason the Democratic hierarchy ensured Sanders got shafted
red-blooded 9.1.1.3
But surely he's made it great again? That's what he's so good at; he's told us! He's got a plan to do it to his country.. (Well, maybe "plan" is overstating it…)
if the DNC and most media hadn't attacked and undermined Sanders
Sanders got a free ride through the primaries.
The Republicans knew he wouldn't win and ignored him. Once Clinton got into a strong (and mathematically difficult to assail) position with pledged delegates, she pivoted to attacking Trump. The idea Sanders was excessively/disproportionately the target of attacks or negative advertising is a fiction on par with Trump's claim that Mexican immigrants are rapists and murderers.
Sanders heading into this debate, with a double digit lead in the polls no doubt
I've pointed this out to CV before. There is literally zero evidence that the hypothetical general election match-ups, when polled during primary campaigns, have any indicative value for general election results.
Easy win Trump Nov 8. And you are right, no one would have predicted that from the polls 6 months ago, but it was obvious to anyone who looked.
Phil 9.2.1.1
it was obvious to anyone who looked.
You are the worst kind of broken clock, claiming to be right twice a day.
I only have to be right twice a day to be ahead of most other punters.
Matthew Whitehead 9.2.2
LOL Sanders did not get a free ride. There are significant questions of various types of voter fraud, abuse of parliamentary procedure, and voter disenfranchisement that impacted the primaries. From that perspective alone he was hardly treated fairly.
You are correct that the one-to-one matchups during the primaries where there are several candidates on either side are unreliable. However, there were one-to-one matchups after Donald Trump was the de facto winner of the republican nomination, but before it was reasonable to assume Hillary would win the nomination. I would consider it a lot more reasonable under those circumstances to get an accurate answer on each one-on-one contest, even though it doesn't exactly mimic the circumstances of a general election, I wouldn't have expected it to be too different from the starting point of the general election campaign. And it wasn't for Clinton, so I don't see why Bernie wouldn't have started off in a better position than she did, and I can't think of any reasonable argument that he would have squandered his lead in a way that led to lower poll results than Clinton's.
The only argument left is that he would be more vulnerable to attack ads by Trump, which makes no sense to me. It was quite clear that Clinton was the more vulnerable candidate during the primaries by the way she initially avoided debates and public appearances, and attempted to coast by on pure name recognition. You don't do that if you're expecting to gain ground and you're confident of being able to deal with attacks.
vto 10
fact-checking should be hooked into voice recognition so that fact-checking happens instantaneously on an adjacent screen….
… that way the lies can be exposed as they are said
we have the technology
Lanthanide 10.1
Er, no we don't.
We can do a reasonably good real-time transcription (although that could get very noisy/messy with interjections from the other candidate, the moderator, and the crowd).
But automated real-time fact checking by an AI is not possible, by a long shot.
She's out spending him in Florida (a key state) by 56 to 1 and still can't get in front of him.
Lends itself to the Clinton foundation money.
Conspiracy theory??
1997….Clinton foundation, founded……..only 15% goes to charity.
2000…Bill's term ends….Hilary has no "chops" to run against Bush.
2004…Bush is incumbent so Hilary can't stand against him and democrats don't want her
2008…Bush's term ends..Hilary goes for it and loses to Obama
2012..Obama incumbent Democrats won't oppose him.So no opportunity for Hilary.
2016…First chance for Hilary to stand since '08 and probably last chance.
Clinton foundation money used to promote Hilary after being earned in pay for play Sec. of State.
Clinton foundation set up to get another Clinton into the Whitehouse??
Past history shows Clintons very dodgy….White water scandal cost Bill his lawyers licence.
Matthew Whitehead 11.1
She's outspending him so dramatically because Trump is a fraudster and can't actually afford to finance his campaign, lol. (and because corporate donors are abandoning the Republicans in favour of the Democrats for once, because Trump represents an unstable business environment, despite having a tax plan that is absolute heroin to the extremely wealthy)
She's losing ground however because Clinton's strategists haven't realised that the traditional rules of campaigning do not apply very well to her contest against Trump. This is the first time ever two people both viewed so unfavourably have gone head-to-head in US politics, and there's little chance for either of them to gain votes or pull in non-voters beyond what they already have in the primaries.
So it's essentially a game of deflection and attack. Trump is great at attacking, and terrible at deflection. Hillary is still trying to pump herself up too much, and has only recently started to get effective at attacking him. (The Joss Whedon spot around the internet is a good example of what will work- attack ads that don't feature or even endorse Clinton, but exhort people to make a sensible choice at the polls)
Clinton can still win this.
As for whether she's corrupt, the answer is, sadly, yes. This is the reality of American politics, it's a very rare candidate, (like say, Sanders) who can honestly claim to be unbought. Clinton is corrupt in the usual Washington manner, where she will be open to legal bribery from the right people. Trump, however, is corrupt in a much more dangerous manner, where he will be essentially using the presidency to directly make money in whatever ways he can. (as opposed to indirectly, which is the current norm)
Colonial Viper 11.1.1
"Clinton can still win this" – maybe she has an outside chance of it.
Matthew Whitehead 11.1.1.1
538 puts her at 54% chance to win after the debate. (It has had Trump narrowly ahead in the past, too, which I would say was correct pre-debate)
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
They're not flawless in terms of methodology but they're pretty good, and they do react when evidence shows their methodology is flawed.
Matthew Whitehead 12
TRP- I'd fact-check whether it's reasonable to defend Hillary as being a progressive. She's at best a centrist liberal in terms of American Democratic politics. (and that's arguable, given she hasn't really met a pro-corporate policy she doesn't like, which in my mind makes her roughly the equivalent of Nikki Kaye, ie. a right-wing liberal) Progressive is usually what they call the left wing of the Democratic Party, a faction which Hillary demonstrably doesn't belong to, even though she has eventually joined the correct side on voting for things like gay marriage or healthcare reform, as you would expect from a liberal who cares about social progress. (although it's legitimate to say she's a follower on these issues as well, not a leader, as she wasn't advocating gay marriage until it was already clear it was a winner with the electorate)
Phil's argument that she represents the centre of the Democratic Party (at least, in terms of the caucus, rather than looking at the members, who especially post Bernie's campaign, swing much further Leftwards than the caucus does) is actually a lot more reasonable, as there are centrist conservatives that are closer to being a Republican than she is, and probably a few people further to the Right in the Party on the economic axis than she is too, so she's a pretty good exemplar of what you get from any given Democrat elected to national office.
TheExtremist 13
And here we go. Trump looks less orange today
Cinny 13.1
and sniffing like a bloodhound
Paul 14
Trump hammering Clinton on NAFTA and promises not to sign the TPP.
Manuka AOR 15
Bernie tweets through the debate here:
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/09/26/watch-clinton-and-trump-face-first-2016-presidential-debate
✔ @BernieSanders
If Trump is concerned about companies going abroad maybe he should move his plants out of Bangladesh where workers are paid 30 cents an hour
BOOM! Feel the Bern 🙂
And this is why if there were any real reason to have Superdelegates they should have voted for Bernie. Man would he have lit Trump on fire in the debate.
dukeofurl 15.2.1
And ignore the wishes of the 17 million primary votes Clinton won.
feel the absurdity.
yes, best to, most were ill gotten, and the Democratic Party will come to regret nominating her.
dukeofurl 15.2.1.1.1
Ill gotten ? laughable Trump level nonsense.
Colonial Viper 15.2.1.1.1.1
That's winning nonsense, then
dukeofurl …
Like you have a talent for prediction ?
Your questimate of Trump getting 280 is rated by experts as 'very unlikely'
To be fair, the race is close enough that Trump might well win by election time. 280 is not out of the realm of possibility, but I think how things are going so far it would mean Trump completely stomps Hillary from now on. (which the debate seems to indicate isn't going to happen, as there was no knock-out winner regardless of who you want to call it for)
Matthew Whitehead 15.2.1.1.1.2
Nope, independent reports have called into question enough primary delegates to swing the election, so arguably in a fair contest Bernie might have won.
Other independent reports say differently – I have a link.
Sanders was far behind in the popular vote count which indicates that he was less popular. To say now he would beat Trump now defies common sense.
http://www.thenation.com/article/the-democratic-primary-wasnt-rigged/
Clinton did do better than Sanders in closed primaries, winning 17 to his 9 but she also won more open primaries than he did, 13 to 10.
Yet when we come to the no democratic closed caucuses
Anti-democratic caucuses, where Sanders did very well, hurt Clinton far more.
In summary, Sanders benefitted from closed caucuses, which are highly un-democratic. Clinton still did better in both open and closed primaries to Sanders.
Its worth remembering that the caucuses are organised by the local democratic party while primaries are run by the state /local government.
Remember there was a candidate in a previous election who was behind in the total primary vote ( 17.5m to 17.8m) but had the outsize support from super delegates over Clinton. It was Obama in 2008. he was the great hope back then and no complaints about the S-Ds
Like I said, if there were any real reason to have them.
Trump says he'll spend the 6 trillion dollars on Middle East wars on America.
Does this mean an isolationist policy under President Trump?
ianmac 16.1
I thought he said that the US had spent that huge money on war in the Middle East which should have been spent on rebuilding USA.
Matthew Whitehead 16.1.1
That's what Paul is saying, and he's asking if the US would go isolationist because of it.
I think Trump would try to go isolationist, but I'm not sure he'd manage it because he's so damn easy to provoke.
when was Trump easy to provoke?
Matthew Whitehead 16.1.1.1.1
All of the time? He never not responds to anything he perceives as an attack. Look at the man's twitter feed.
gsays 17
up until the 'racist birther lie' segment, trump has been able to sheet responsibility/blame back to 'the politicians'.
he does remind me of our dear leader when coming under pressure, twisting and turning like a twisty turny thing.
Yes gsays. He does twist and turn. But will it matter in the polls?
gsays 17.1.1
hi ianmac, i have a feeling that u.s. voters will more than likely vote against a candidate rather than for a candidate.
most of trumps bigger laughs or cheers came off cheap shots.
It'll hurt him with independents. Hillary actually came out of this (at least IMO) looking like the more trustworthy of the two. That's quite an achievement for her.
That said, I'll wait to see how the polling shifts on that sort of thing to see if Americans agree, because they are very good at falling for right-wing spin over there. (Not that it doesn't work to some degree everywhere, but Americans fall for things that wouldn't work anywhere else quite a lot)
john 17.1.2.1
Maybe if things are evened out at the next debate, we'll hear nothing of Trumps taxes and everything about her EMails, pay for play donations to the Clinton foundation, death of an Ambassador in Benghazi, expansion of ISIS, red lines in Syria, the fact that they, after withdrawal, they have put 4500 troops back into Iraq etc etc
She has loads of experience…..all bad all, incompetent, all failures…no successes to point to.
We already heard all about her emails in the disastrous National Security Forum (or whatever it was called) thing where the non-moderation just had trump spewing forth random thoughts the entire time, and even the MSM in the US thought that moderator was a miserable failure.
To quote a rather famous politician, we're all tired of hearing about her damn emails. 😉 Even those who want a Trump victory should know there are much better avenues of attack on Hillary.
(And honestly, if you're part of the NZ right wing, you probably wouldn't mind Hillary winning anyway, as it'd be like having Nikki Kaye as US president)
FFS don't tar Kaye with the Killary brush.
Why not? 😉
That said, Kaye would make a much less hawkish Foreign Affairs minister, lol. I think it's a fair comparison on roughly where Hillary sits on policy issues, if not on specifics, judgement, or character.
dukeofurl 17.1.2.1.1.2
Clintons emails ?
"HOLT: He also — he also raised the issue of your e-mails. Do you want to respond to that?
CLINTON: I do. You know, I made a mistake using a private e- mail. TRUMP: That's for sure.
CLINTON: And if I had to do it over again, I would, obviously, do it differently. But I'm not going to make any excuses. It was a mistake, and I take responsibility for that.
etc etc
What I dont get is the Clinton haters are like Trump; Detached from reality
It was all there- been done to death – but still there so they pretend it didnt come up
Yeah I'm pretty sure John is just upset it didn't take up half the damn debate this time and instead just got a few seconds of rebuttal. Hillary has addressed it as much as she needs to at this stage.
Honestly, the Clinton Foundation stuff is more of an issue- that would actually get her sacked as a Minister if she had done it in New Zealand. Or rather, it SHOULD do, lol. You never know with certain Prime Ministers. 😉
Raising money for a respected charitable foundation is sackable?
Grip and grins are all part of the political – donation circuit.
No…it has largely been ignored.
The death of an ambassador that she was responsible for …on her EMail to Chelsea she says "terrorists" to the US public she says riot caused by video. This is why her EMails are still relevant.
If a corporate exec. had sent an employee into this kind of danger knowingly (and she did know, warned by him, the British and the red cross)…He would be facing manslaughter charges…but Hilary…..NOTHING!!!
Any junior intel officer behaves with a cavalier attitude to national secrets, Hilary did, he would be in jail.
ianmac 18
Not sure that the content matters so much as the image. Clinton seems to be tiring by 3pm? Trust is contradictory and repetitive but that might not matter to a huge chunk of the electorate.
Remember Key had little in the way of policy in 2014 and used plenty of confidence and humour to win another term. I think little is remembered from extended speeches. Image matters.
I think Clinton is fading? 3:28.
It was the evening in America, not 3pm?
ianmac 18.2.1
I meant 3:28 NZ time Matthew. I thought that her posture suggested fading though she finished with her main talking points.
mauī 19
Clinton is coming over better than I thought and is making Trumpit look crazier than usual. Trumpit is using very negative messaging and I suppose it all depends on how many hurt Americans his message can tap into. Trumpit winning when he interjects, Clinton isn't so good at that.
The interjections may backfire though, as they'll play well with his base but might turn off people who actually care about whether voting for him would mean they get perceived as being a sexist like he is.
rsbandit 20
Interesting to see that Trump and a well-known anti-trade activist here are on the same page….
Adrian 21
OK debate over, my prediction Trump gets the bump in the polls.
Not because he was any better than Clinton, but just because footed it pretty good with her and didn't fuck up.
Pasupial 21.1
Trump looked sick (sniffles ironically being one thing that isn't his fault) and much more than two years older than Clinton. Watching mostly without sound it was all Clinton!
McFlock 21.1.1
Sniffles? He must be hiding the fact he has ebolafluenza brought on by his coke habit 🙂
All in all I think it went better than the primaries, behaviour-wise. He needs to get better interjections than yelling "wrong" repeatedly, and his meandering answer to the last question was just weird.
Andre 21.1.1.1
Best theory I've seen so far is there actually is a soul in there that's trying really hard to escape so he has to keep sniffing it back in.
red-blooded 21.2
Adrian, you've got to be kidding. He was flustered and under-prepared. While his usual fans might stick by him, it was hardly a knock-out performance. What do you think he said or did that would help influence undecided voters?
Clinton was calm and articulate, she clearly knows a heck of a lot more than him about government (shock, horror) and I think she did a pretty good job of explaining her core principles. Those principles might not be radical, but in the context of US politics they're reasonably progressive.
Adrian 21.2.1
I am not saying what I think people want to hear, or what I would like to happen, I am just giving my prediction to how I think this will play out in the polls, ie what the undecided US public take away from it.
I just think Trump will get the bump, but then what the hell do I know.
You're overstating Clinton's performance a bit. Remember, they're trying to knock supporters away from each other, they're largely not convincing new voters to their side. (largely, although Clinton might pick up some few moderate educated republicans by looking competent)
Trump was pretty good at attacking Clinton at first, but he stopped being so effective in the second half of the debate and lost the plot on his own answers, making Clinton's line that she was preparing for the debate and to be President much more effective.
Actually I disagree with your conclusion. Trump was winning at the start of the debate, hitting her pretty hard on trade, but he will have lost the American public towards the end of the debate, protesting too much about not supporting the Iraq war, (even though he did) and making him look like a child who's not prepared to be president, but we'll see if the public was swayed or not.
If Trump doesn't lose ground after this debate, there's probably no stopping him.
I only managed to watch about half an hour of the debate and caught up on some of the commentary afterwards.
I think Trump did enough to stay in the running.
Papers like the LA Times declared every round unanimously as Clinton wins, but i don't think that Trump was playing the same game as they were scoring.
Expectations around his performance were low, to some extent he exceeded them, I think he will get a slight poll bump (less than +3%) out of it.
Pasupial 21.3.1.1
The gamblers seem to think that Clinton won with her being up 5.6% today (now 68.7% favoured to win the presidency). This isn't at all statistically robust, but it is faster than polling.
https://electionbettingodds.com/
Colonial Viper 21.3.1.1.1
It will be very interesting to see what the polls do over the next week.
The gamblers were overbuying Clinton before the debate, (polling suggests that Trump was marginally ahead of her in terms of the states likely to shift the electoral college votes needed to win before the debate started) so I'm not sure I'd put too much stock in their becoming more confident in their previously inflated opinion of Clinton. It's more relevant whether confidence in Trump went down as a result of the debate than whether confidence in Clinton went up.
Trump is by no means out of the running after the debate, you're absolutely right about that.
What I'm saying is that if we're not analysing this correctly and Trump does better in polling after the debate than before it, I expect then that he'll get the White House as essentially Hillary won't be able to do anything effective to attack him.
If, however, she comes out ahead, then she might yet closely win the election. It's a matter of whether she can arrest her free-falling poll numbers with her victory-on-points in the first debate.
Andre 22
For someone that's about to drop dead from Parkinson's and a bunch of other ailments, Hillary held up pretty well.
But I suppose we have to score it a win for Trump coz he managed to not whip out a tape measure, drop his trousers and say to Hillary "Let's see what ya got"
TheExtremist 22.1
It was her body double and not the real Clinton. Fact.
Adrian 22.2
Judging by the size of his hands…not much.
Let's see how many public campaign speeches she does this coming week, shall we?
Why? Campaign rallies are only good for the media exposure these days, and that goes to trump because of his buffoonery.
Sensible policy is always going to lose media exposure to public demands for war crimes and walls.
Smart move is to do more fundraisers and buy more ads. Trump gets airtime by being racist and stupid. Hillary gets it from advertising. The number of people to actually see either candidate these days is pretty small, percentage-wise.
Clinton doesn't have the legs to visit five states in five days like Trump does, is the point I am making.
And yes, she has booked advertising to outspend Trump thirty to one.
McFlock 22.3.1.1.1
yeah, you must have missed the bit where he tried to slide his original "look" comment into "stamina", and she blew him out of the water with a prepared response to his predictable attack:
"As soon as he travels to 112 countries and negotiates a peace deal, a cease fire, a release of dissidents, an opening of new opportunities in nations around the world, or even spends 11 hours testifying in front of a congressional committee, he can talk to me about stamina,"
Sure, when she was younger she was healthier.
So we're going to see her out on the campaign trail more then instead of hiding away?
Presidential candidates shouldn't be oompah loompahs, dancing and singing a funny little song to distract you from the perilous conditions in the chocolate factory…
edit: to clarify, clinton is working to her campaign strategy, not your obsession
But why is she hardly doing any public campaign events? She's just going to let her big money ad buys speak for her while she stays at home?
Asked and answered, for your given values of "hardly" and "public".
Trump is a circus freak – he gets big crowds and big headlines. A normal (read "qualified") person can't compete with that because, should they win, they don't want to spend the next four years reaping the domestic and international fuckstorm they created during the campaign.
Trump doesn't give a shit about that.
He just wants to give tax breaks to his companies so they don't go bankrupt so often.
The facts dont agree with you
hillaryspeeches.com/scheduled-events/
Yes I see now that she has finally put on a few events for this coming week. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
These things are arranged weeks if not a month ahead.
They're practically the same age, and Trump got a draft deferment for Vietnam back when he was younger, so he has no ground to stand on attacking her health, either he's suffered health problems since his youth or he is a draft-dodging liar.
As for not being out on the campaign trail all the time, as someone who wants Trump to lose, I think it's a good thing she's not hogging so much face time. Whoever gets the biggest exposure this election is the loser, as the public hates both candidates pretty badly.
rhinocrates 22.3.1.1.2
There's a difference between campaigning and governing (or being Oxford Professor of Fine Arts):
As usual you are so wrong.
The schedule is here
27th Raleigh NC ( US Time)
28th New Hampshire Clinton and Sanders together !
29th Des Moines
30th Florida x2 locations
Heres Trumps schedule
http://www.donaldjtrump.com/schedule
he does his signature airport quickies but not so different to Clinton. – as you would expect for as this stage as there is 43 days to go.
That's more rallies than she's done in the last month and a half. Could be clever time management from her doing more debate prep work than public appearances.
You dont have any idea about the coming week, why should you be credible about last month?
Yes Trump has a different strategy, spend big money hiring local stadiums or airport hangers and do his signature rallies ( which last how long?)
Someone who has been to 'big rallies' – Sanders and Trump- go figure
"I have been to three rallies and all of them were this year. I went to two Bernie Sanders rallies and one Donald Trump rally. There were of course guest speakers at all of them who spoke for about an hour-an hour and a half before either Sanders or trump came out. At the first Bernie rally he spoke for about an hour, at the second he spoke for Almost an hour and a half. At the trump rally he arrived a half hour late and spoke for twenty minutes
Its all part of the BIG man strategy, big crowds rah rah normally only one a day. Why doesnt he do small groups ?
That's more rallies than she's done in the last month and a half.
Actually, it's the same number of rallies:
August 10, 2016 Des Moines, Iowa Rally Hillary Clinton
September 6, 2016 Tampa, Florida Rally Hillary Clinton
September 15, 2016 Greensboro, North Carolina Rally Hillary Clinton
September 21, 2016 Orlando, Florida Rally Hillary Clinton
But the slide into rallies is because you made the point:
Looking at Sept 5-9, she did Ohio and Illonois on day 1, Florida day 2, New York day 3, North Carolina and Missouri day 4, and back to New York on day 5 ( 9Sept). That's six states in five days, beating your trump benchmark when she had pneumonia.
Once again, you're both "technically" wrong and objectively wrong in the point you were trying to make.
Tony Veitch (not the partner-bashing 3rd rate broadcaster) 23
God help the world – between a rock and a hard place
On one hand, Hillary – with more, much more of the same. Like Obama in 2008, she made a lot of good noises, but Wall street will see that few of her policies will happen.
And then Donald J. The best that can be said about him is he's unpredictable! And that he still thinks 'trickle down' works! So more of the same, only worse!
We, the rest of the world, really needed Jill Stein on the stage to give us hope!
Anne 24
Trump looked and sounded what he is:
An emotionally unstable, lying, bullying, ignorant, intellectually barren buffoon.
Did I miss anything out?
He's a much less experienced political candidate and debater than Clinton is, Anne.
One reason he's not the best candidate. One of many.
One Anonymous Bloke 24.1.2
Your man's the underdog for sure.
Sarah Palin was inexperienced too and she was a big hit , a bit loose on some facts
Did this Sarah Palin run for President of the USA?
Sarah Palin's issue was that she was a stupid woman, not a stupid man. Sexist attitudes in US politics means a dumb man is "relatable," and a loudmouth is "strong."
Trump is objectively worse than Palin on every metric that people criticised her for, and she was such a drag on the ticket that she absolutely impacted McCain's run because it called his judgement into question. Trump is still ostensibly a credible candidate because he's good enough at emotive appeals and because of the double-standards that make his stupidity into a positive, that he can sway huge amount of uneducated voters. He's winning by 20% more than republicans usually do among non-college educated white men.
oh yes its the ignorant irreedemable deplorable blue collar class
More like "democrats are elitists who don't understand working America," combined with a little bit of the anti-intellectualism we're familiar with in NZ politics. It's not an attack on the working class, but it is a reality of how electoral politics work in the US. Trump is coming so close because voters don't like Hillary, and he's soundly locking up white people as a demographic, especially white men. It's only older educated white people that Hillary makes significant inroads with, and then usually among women.
The astounding thing, however, is that Trump is even more of an elitist than Hillary is, he just doesn't sound that way to voters because he doesn't have a vocabulary. And thus it is revealed that the euphemism "straight talker" actually means "someone who doesn't use big words." My contempt is for the fact that this guy is essentially taking the electorate for a ride with techniques that any journalist can spot and getting away with it, not for the fact that there exist people who can be convinced by this sort of stuff. And it's all because people don't pay attention to the working class.
Wait are you actually pulling for Trump? LOL
Hi Matthew, I've predicted an easy victory for Trump over Clinton for months now. (I'd originally started out predicting a landslide for Trump, but I think it'll end up being 20-30 more electoral votes than Clinton gets. Say 250 something for Clinton vs 280 something for Trump in terms of electoral votes).
Ah, so you think he'll win but don't want him to?
I think people grossly underestimate Trump's electoral appeal, but I don't think we should be happy about that, even based on the "Hillary is such a bad Democrat it's better tactically for her to lose and someone new to run in 2020" theory, because Trump will likely have started a nuclear war by then based on his comments on nuclear weapons.
I expect it to be reasonably close (ie. within 20 EVs) either way, with Clinton probably winning the popular vote unless Trump completely pulls away with it.
I believe a Trump presidency will be far better for NZ than a Clinton one, so yes, I back him for that reason.
Trump will de-escalate tensions with Putin and move relations with China to a far more business-like footing.
So less sabre rattling argey bargey, and less chances of a nuclear exchange, deliberate or accidental.
Trump won't "de-escalate" with Putin, he'll suck up to him because he owes Russia huge amounts.
I agree that Hillary is more overtly hawkish than Trump, but it's worth remembering that Hillary can control her temper and doesn't fire back at anyone who criticises her. Trump won't intend to increase tensions with other nations, he'll just do it because he'll be slighted in a diplomatically acceptable way and then suddenly go off the rails.
Even if his policies were actually better, (outside of his opinion on trade deals and his tendancy to be slightly less hawkish in certain areas, they're largely disastrous) I'd be seriously worried about someone with his personality and (lack of) judgement in charge of any significant country.
Clinton is part of the regime changing neoconservative crowd, that's much more than being just "hawkish."
How much money does Trump owe the Russians?
This is your scenario
"The result? Clinton would carry the popular vote by 1.5 percentage points. However, Trump would win the Electoral College with 280 votes by holding all 24 Romney states and flipping Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa and Maine's 2nd Congressional District from blue to red. And the real disparity between the electoral and popular votes could be larger, because this model doesn't even factor in Trump's Mormon problem.
Don't get me wrong: This scenario is still very unlikely.
But heh what do the people at http://fivethirtyeight.com/ know ?
RedLogix …
In a sane world it shouldn't be this close.
I judged a Sanders vs Trump election a safe-ish bet, but Clinton vs Trump … anything damn thing could happen. Lots of uncertainty.
A Trump Presidency slashes open the can of worms right now; a Clinton one kicks it down the road some unknowable distance. It's hard to feel hopeful either way.
At least $650 million, according to the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/donald-trump-debt.html
Like I said, I don't disagree Clinton is a danger. She's just a manageable danger that can be anticipated, managed, and most importantly, shows no signs of further undermining America's crumbling democracy. Trump however shows every sign of an authoritarian and someone who would start taking measures to arrest his enemies and (further) undermine elections.
I know elections aren't preventing corruption in the USA as-is, but the issue is more that once those democratic institutions are gone, they're very hard to get back. I mean, the fact that the moderator had to even ask one of the candidates whether he would respect the election results if he lost…. that's really damning.
AmaKiwi …
Colonial Viper
"I believe a Trump presidency will be far better for NZ than a Clinton one"
The Deep State (of which Hillary is a charter member for life) will either wrap Trump around their little finger or kill him off.
Amakiwi: quite.
Manuka AOR 24.2
I don't often agree with @MittRomney but he's right: Trump is a "fraud" and a "phony." #DebateWithBernie
AmaKiwi 24.3
Anne – Correct!
"Trump looked and sounded what he is: an emotionally unstable . . . bullying . . . buffoon."
Bullying was his HUGE mistake in the debate. People do not like men who bully women. Her look while he was bullying said it all: "I will not be bullied, little Donny."
It was a Trump fiasco. We shall not forget.
Moderator or team Clinton?
Excellent questions about his tax returns (as there should be).
ZERO questions about her EMails, Benghazi, Iraq, ISIS, Syria, Russia in Crimea ("Russian reset") etc etc
All giant fails for her.
Trump had to bring up some of these himself and when he did the "moderator" tried to shut him down.
Paul 26.1
Yes and Trump's support was asked to be quiet.
Clinton's wasn't.
I don't support Trump.
Yet I notice the bias.
john 26.1.1
On the record, for and against…..tight decision, I support Trump. Simply due to her appalling record.
Dead ambassador
Supports Obama's economy, with record low employment rate, infrastructure disintegration, failed energy policy (especially "green energy" (Solyndra was a joke))
doubling of the debt, almost as much US investment camped out of their country than in it, Large corp.'s like Courier, Apple setting up and keeping their profits and paying their taxes outside of the USA….That's where all the money has gone Hilary, you and Obama drove it out of the country. Raising corporate taxes in the USA may be better for NZ than they will be for the USA. Come here employ us and pay taxes to us.
You know they went around asking delegates at the Republican convention whether Trump would be a success if he achieved Obama's numbers on unemployment, on GDP, etc… and the delegates all said yes?
Obama's economy, on average, is fine. The issue is that it's fine on average because all the gains are going to the wealthy and almost everyone else is being squeezed for it. America doesn't need to grow the economy, it just needs to distribute the gains fairly.
78 straight months of economic expansion.
currently enjoying the longest period of private sector job creation in American history.
unemployment has dropped from 10.1% in October of 2009 to 4.9% by early 2016.
Federal budget deficit is shrinking. It's been reduced by two-thirds since 2009
government spending has increased only 3.3% annually, the lowest rate since Eisenhower was president
18 million more Americans now have health insurance than before.
currently have fewer soldiers, sailors, and airmen in war zones than we did at any time in the last 12 years
stock market continues to set new record highs since President Obama took office. [Important as a lot have people have their retirement funds in stock markets]
Yep nothing to see there.
Right. Any fact-based criticism of the Obama administration basically has to conclude that its flaws were mainly on environmental policy, not cutting down sufficiently on wasted government spending, and not managing to address immigration or income inequality.
On everything else the US is doing better than before, if not necessarily as good as it could have been doing had congress been more in line with Obama in general.
The moderator isn't required to grill both candidates about every single scandal, there's honestly so many for both of them that you could potentially run the clock trying to do that even on Hillary's side, let alone Trump's.
Part of it is to try and give the public a sense of the positive vision that each candidate should have, and their approach to policy problems. It was when we actually got into those sorts of questions that Hillary started beating Trump, because he ruined her on the economy, and had some good one-liners attacking her, even when he was being an annoying interrupter and I wanted to hear what she was saying, there are parts of the american public that that will play well for.
Puckish Rogue 27
M'eh, anticlimactic
What with the m'eh all the time?
Are you about 15?
It's his version of D'oh! 😈
Paul 27.1.1.1
expressing a lack of interest or enthusiasm.
"meh, I'm not impressed so far"
uninspiring; unexceptional.
"a lot of his movies are … meh"
One Anonymous Bloke 27.1.1.1.1
Pedantic joke falls flat. M'eh!
One Anonymous Bloke 28
I was too busy to watch the first bit. Probably preoccupied with local elections too.
As for the rest, I liked the bit where Hillary smashed 'im on basic trust issues: 'America keeps its word' may or may not be true depending on the circumstances, and it was a great response to Donald's emotive rambling.
I also liked her self-confidence on the 'stamina' issue. "…let him do 11 hours…"
She went up in my estimation, which wasn't a difficult hurdle to get over. He stayed the same: an embodiment of centre-right values: if lying to the electorate is a winning strategy, you open the door to the best lies of all: fear and hate.
Jill Stein escorted off debate campus site by police
You gotta love American plutocracy, uh, democracy.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/jill-stein-escorted-by-police-away-from-debate/article/2602896
Um, she wasn't invited and had no credentials to enter. So….yeah, not really a story
That's how they keep the system locked down to the two big parties.
Not really a story eh?
TheExtremist 29.1.1.1
No it isn't a story because she wasn't invited, showed up anyway, and was escorted out.
That's what happens when you crash an event you are not invited too.
So no, not a story
(The whole two party system is another story in itself. A person being escorted from an event they weren't invited to isn't a story)
Given that the attendees are invited by the two major parties, I don't think it's actually legitimate to talk about invitees anyway. Who attends shouldn't be up to the democrats and republicans.
it's been noted in quite a few MSM media reports. Apparently, it is a story.
If you have some interest on the subject, maybe watch this…
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/9/19/two_party_tyranny_ralph_nader_on
[Hi, Adrian. It's been pointed out below that your handle has been used by another poster since waaaay back. Would you mind amending yours to avoid confusion? Cheers, TRP]
It should be a story. She's on the ballot nationally, as is Gary Johnson. They ought to get at least one debate with the larger party candidates, especially as Gary Johnson's polling is pretty respectable- if he was in NZ, the Libertarians would be clearing the party vote threshold.
dukeofurl 29.1.3.1
The poll threshold is 15%
"Under the 2016 Criteria, in addition to being Constitutionally eligible, candidates must appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning a majority vote in the Electoral College, and have a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations"
Commision on presidential debates.
remember its for President not a seat in Congress. So comparison with NZs MP threshold is …well misjudged.
I know it is.
It's 15% because it's set by the Democratic and Republican parties, through the commission on presidential debates. (because that commission is appointed by the parties)
My point is that if you applied a reasonable standard, such as New Zealand used to for its leaders debate, (ie. with minor parties' leaders debates) you would expect to have a debate featuring at least Gary Johnson, if not also Jill Stein.
It's absolutely ridiculous that you can have independents or third-party candidates polling above 5% and not have their ideas represented in general election coverage.
And given how difficult it is to be on the ballot for President in enough states to win the electoral college, I think that's a perfectly reasonable qualifying line. Only serious candidates will meet it.
NZ does have a range of parties in parliament so its reasonable they are included.
The 15% threshold has been achieved before by a 3rd party candidate. For the US 5% is fringe.
rhinocrates 30
People's champion? Going to stick it to the plutocracy? Apparently not:
When the Democratic nominee cited Trump as an example of someone who wanted the markets to fail, claiming that in 2006 he cheered a real estate crisis so that he could buy property more cheaply, Trump interrupted, "That's called business, by the way."
Undecided voters might not appreciate that view. Many lost their homes in what he blithely calls business.
It got worse. When Clinton attacked Trump for refusing to release his tax returns, she managed to squeeze out four possible reasons why he is breaking decades of precedent—he's not as rich as he says, he's not as charitable as he says, he's deeply in debt to foreign banks, and he pays no federal taxes—before Trump seemed to confirm he's not a taxpayer. "That makes me smart," he said.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/hillary-did-what-she-needed-to-do/501743/
She also worked at length to tie Trump to the idea of trickle-down economics, a connection he readily accepted. "The wealthy are going to create tremendous jobs," he said.
http://www.theatlantic.com/liveblogs/2016/09/first-presidential-debate-clinton-trump-2016/501647/
Yeah I took his comment to suggest he doesn't pay any tax at all.
It's incredibly likely that he arranges things to pay little to no income tax. I don't think there's been a Republican who's paid above 60% of the nominal rate in a long, long time.
The invisible hand of the market says Clinton won. Reuters have this summary:
"Markets have tended to see Clinton as the candidate of the status quo, while few are sure what a Trump presidency might mean for US foreign policy, trade and the domestic economy.
MSCI's broadest index of Asia-Pacific shares outside Japan bounced to be up 0.2%, while South Korea and Shanghai inched higher.
Japan's Nikkei more than halved its losses and was down 0.4% by late morning, while the U.S. dollar edged up to 100.74 yen from a low of around 100.08.
EMini futures for the S&P 500 also recouped all its losses to trade 0.5 percent firmer."
Not surprised that the financial markets and the big hedge funds which drive them are pleased with Clinton's performance
Lanthanide 31.1.1
Yes, not having a maniac for a president is good for business. Who'd've thunk it?
having a shill for the corporate military industrial surveillance complex is definitely good for business
Lanthanide 31.1.1.1.1
I'd take a shill over a maniac. Shill is more predictable and less likely to start a nuclear war, unlike Trump who repeatedly asked "if we have nukes, why can't we use them?".
oddly, I have the opposite opinion on this to you.
I see Hillary Clinton as an integral part of the neoconservative regime change cadre in Washington DC who wanted to take out 7 countries in 5 years, and who have been playing escalating games of brinksmanship with Russia and China, in Russia and China's own backyard, over the last several years.
Paul 31.1.1.1.1.2
From a NZ perspective, Trump made it clear the TPP is dead.
And from a Middle East perspective, he indicated he'd cut the spending on the military there.
red-blooded …
Clinton made it clear she doesn't support TPP (supported the general concept but not the final product) and that she's voted against trade agreements that she didn't support in the past. Of course, her reasons for not supporting it wouldn't be the same reasons that people here don't like it, but the issue wasn't really explored in that much detail.
On the TPP
Trump: "You called it the gold standard of trade deals. You said it's the finest deal you've ever seen, and then you heard what I said about it, and all of a sudden you were against it."
Clinton: "Well, Donald, I know you live in your own reality, but that is not the facts. The facts are: I did say I hoped it would be a good deal, but when it was negotiated which I was not responsible for, I concluded it wasn't. I wrote about that in my book —"
Trump: "So, is it President Obama's fault?"
Clinton: "—before you even announced."
Trump: "Is it President Obama's fault?"
To be fair, it's pretty credible to think that she's making a tactical decision on opposing the TPP because she thinks Obama and Congress will pass it in the lame duck session, and she can shrug and say "well, it's done now! Sorry everyone!"
The TPP is absolutely the sort of deal Clinton has supported in the past.
Yeah, I've had that worry since she flipped on it. But if it doesn't pass in the lame duck, then I now think she knows it's seriously unpopular and not worth her effort. To give Trump his due, it looks like he's turned more than a few Republicans into TPP opponents as well.
Indeed. Of course, if that happens but TPP still stays alive somehow, she can try to flip enough democrats for it behind the scenes to have it pass so soundly she couldn't veto it, so that is probably one of my bigger worries if we do get a Clinton presidency.
One Two 31.1.1.1.1.3
"Less likely to start a nuclear war"
That's not possible for you or anyone else here to know..
I gave you evidence – Trump repeatedly asked the question, "if we have nukes, why can't we use them".
Does that sound like someone who actually understands what a nuclear war is?
Trump will clearly de-escalate with Russia. That reduces the chances of nuclear war dramatically right there.
Yip, that might reduce the chance of nuclear war.
Might not be so good for Europe, though.
Europe can look after itself. With its own money.
I thought that was more a reference to Trump refusing to rule out nuking Europe, lol.
No, it reduces the chance of Russia starting one. You still have to deal with the fact that Trump doesn't understand why nobody in government wants to have to fire the damned things, which may in fact mean that he orders a nuclear strike.
Wherever you stand, I think we have to admit this is the most worried anyone has had a right to be about nukes since the cuban missile crisis.
North …
Wow ! Colonial Crosby Viper Textor. Just like Trump. 'It will be! Because I say so!'
'Tremendous tremendous tremendous! There's a lot of tremendous out there folks!'
Damn!…….the 'purest' leftie on this site rooting for Trump. There's something very puzzling here…….
Manuka AOR …
Trump will clearly de-escalate with Russia.
… Until he received his first perceived insult, some spoken or tweeted comment that he could find offensive or that challenged his bloated, fragile ego…
CV, you're projecting your own potential approach, your own sanity onto him, imo. Nothing about Trump is "clear" – he reverses his own directions mid-sentence!
To be fair, you just have to watch for when his hand gestures start going horizontal for when a reversal is likely coming, that's what he does whenever he has no bloody clue what he's saying.
It's 2016, CV, not 1986.
One Two …
Of course he understands what nuclear war is and would entail
It sounds like the comment could be interpreted various ways
To those living in fear the comment might sound terrifying…
But living that way is pointless with the nuclear genie long since out of the bottle and in the custody of a species which can't control the power or technology
Live life and try looking through a different lens
Uh, what?
I'm sorry, but how exactly do you interpret repeated queries to his advisors of "why do we even have nukes if we aren't going to use them?" other than "I don't understand why we don't want to start nuclear war"? (protip: because it results in a post-apocalyptic wasteland)
It's a basic prerequisite of leading any nuclear armed state that you understand the very extreme political risks of ever using nuclear weapons, and that the philosophical reason for their existence is mainly to make sure other people with nukes don't use them on you either.
Supporting the military/ industrial complex sounds pretty maniacal to me.
Pasupial 32
This bit I had the sound on for, and it was fine, but a too obvious for; line of the debate (I missed Trump ranting about the quality of his temperament and her"whew, OK!" putdown, hopefully there'll be a clip somewhere without having to endure the whole tedious thing):
Clinton's best line (apart from "whew, OK!"): "I think Donald just criticized me for preparing for this debate. And yes I did. And you know what else I prepared for? I prepared to be president. And that's a good thing."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2016/sep/26/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-presidential-debate-live
Some fact checking from the Grauniad, turns out Trump tells porkies:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/26/debate-fact-check-trump-clinton-live-quotes-hofstra
Say it 'aint so!
marty mars 34
trump – "I will reduce taxes from 35% to 15% for companies small and big"
Clinton "trumped up trickle down"
sounds like the don wants an increase in income for his companies… funny that
edit – re above – watching replay – jeeze that sniff from the don is a shocker
Full transcript is here:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-presidential-debates/full-transcript-first-presidential-debate-between-trump-clinton-n655141
TRP and fellow Moderators, who is this "other" Adrian, I have been on The Standard since the first week using Adrian as my name, both real and commentator, any chance of sorting it out please. My understanding is that the Adrian on here today only started commentating about 18-24 months ago. I'm not getting antsy but it's a bit confusing. Thanks.
[Fair call. You've got first dibs on the handle, though you both have genuine reasons for using it. If the newer Adrian is reading this, please change your posting name to avoid confusion. TRP]
trump – "you're telling the enemy everything you want to do"
shouty, bullyboy trump struggling and showing it
clinton "the trump loophole" – good line – she's coming up with some good ones
trump "who gave it that name, who gave it that name" lol
trump "694M income for the past year"
no not a 1%er a 0.1%er the dirty top of the 1%ers
trump pretty well admited he doesn't pay tax – "that makes me smart"
I wonder how all the little people supporting him feel about that – fucken 0.1%ers we know how you get and stay so rich – by not paying your fair share!!!
Yeah, I hope she picks that up in debate 2 and hits him as unpatriotic, a lawbreaker, and a cheater for not paying tax.
How about her taking big pay days from the banksters who crushed the American economy?
marty mars 40.1.1.1
yeah back the guy who doesn't pay tax – no hospitals, no roads, no military – so all his bullshit exposed
then there's Hillary taking foreign money as Sec State while her department was approving deals to sell US uranium resources to Russia
marty mars 40.1.1.1.1.1
Rubbish, that claim is disproved – check out the John Oliver video. Your man is an idiot, a liar and a cheat – get used to it 5ppm
"Cash flowed to Clinton Foundation amid Russian uranium deal"
By the way, that's the New York Times headline, not mine.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0
Yeah, and it still doesn't explain how Clinton wangled the votes of the eight other departments and agencies that also okayed the deal (as well as her vote which was in line with state department advice) well after almost all of the donors no longer even stood to gain from the authorisation. Not that she stands to gain from the Clinton Foundation, either.
The line between the trump foundation's illegal donation to the campaign fund of a DA who chose to not prosecute him over his "university" is much shorter and straighter.
Just pointing out the obviousness of Russian business interests donating millions of dollars to the Clintons.
Follow the money McFlock, I find it strange that you would be gullible enough to believe John Key's, uh I mean Clinton's claims that all the money goes to charity.
Well, let's see: we can inspect her tax records over the last fifteen years, the Clinton Foundation is a registered public charity that is audited and has a very high rating for spending its funds actually on charity rather than governance, most of the donors weren't even in a position to profit when the decision finally came before the US Government, and eight other agencies with no connection to clinton gave their okay.
Dunnokeyo and trumps claims about charitable donations and/or personal wealth are completely unverifiable. Trump hasn't even released his tax records, hiding behind a bullshit audit excuse – he's legally able to release all his tax returns. He just doesn't want to. And you're still lobbying for the coward.
As long as she pays tax on it I'd vote for her ahead of Trump if I got a vote. 😉
Seriously though, I agree with basically everything you have to say against Hillary, I just think Trump is a much bigger danger to the US and the world, and this is one of those rare situations where I'd outright counsel people to vote against him rather than for whoever the most progressive option is.
Andre 40.1.1.2.1
Ahh screw this timid "lesser of evils" shit. Vote for the greatest evil of all. Chthulhu for president!
Hillary is the greater evil.
marty mars …
Go on suck up to the 0.1%er – trump "694M income for the past year" – your man showed his stinking credentials in that debate.
The 0.1%'ers – including the Rothschilds who organised a $100,000 per ticket fundraiser for her – have chosen Hillary to suck up to.
Right, which should tell you something, because even though Trump's tax plan is heroin for the super-rich, even they are abandoning him because he's too unstable to bear, and they'll literally condemn people to starvation to make more money.
They didn't "abandon" Trump, they were never with Trump.
They have always been with their established dependable DC insider, Hillary Clinton.
I agree with you that lesser of two evils is normally a terrible argument regarding who is the best choice to vote for.
However, in a contest where one candidate is an actual authoritarian, I think it's reasonable to say you should vote for the candidate who believes more in democracy.
The candidate "who believes more in democracy" must be the candidate who got her party hierarchy to shaft Bernie Sanders, and then when the officers of the DNC got found out and punished, that candidate must have offered them jobs on her campaign team as a reward for their actions, right?
yes don you have created an 'unbelievable' company (repeat unbelievable 3-5 times to make it believable) totally unbelievable…
19 WTF Moments From the First Presidential Debate
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/19-wtf-moments-from-the-first-presidential-debate-w442029
eg On whether Clinton looks "presidential"
Trump: "She doesn't have the look; she doesn't have the stamina. I said she doesn't have the stamina. And I don't believe she has the stamina. To be president of this country you need tremendous stamina."
Holt: "The quote was: 'I just don't think she has a presidential look —'"
Or on "the cyber"
Trump: "As far as the cyber, I agree to parts of what Secretary Clinton said. We should be better than anybody else, and perhaps we're not. I don't think anybody knows it was Russia that broke into the DNC. She's saying Russia, Russia, Russia, but I don't – maybe it was.
On Clinton's plan for the economy
Trump: "Secretary, you have no plan."
Clinton: "In fact, I have written a book about it. It's called Stronger Together. You can pick it up tomorrow at a bookstore or at an airport near you."
FFS, this shit.
Fox News commentator: Trump looked "annoyed, put out, uncomfortable," Clinton looked "composed, smug sometimes, not necessarily attractive" pic.twitter.com/OJFxdw4Ver— Mashable News (@MashableNews) September 27, 2016
Takere 44
US Isolationism is good for the World! Go Trump!
Yeah nah.
In which Trump says both:"I would certainly not do first strike.""I can't take anything off the table."https://t.co/pGiU8asTLW— Katherine Miller (@katherinemiller) September 27, 2016
Takere 44.1.1
That was hours ago…he's changed his mind since then! 🙂 They're both lairs, idiots & enablers … either one will produce the same result(s) as the other. Poor Bernie shouldn't have sold out.
Don't worry, he'll change it back again, Trump aides have been quoted saying he changes his mind depending on who he last talked to about an issue.
Some light relief:
https://giphy.com/gifs/vs-hillary-donald-11ziErSEWbAlXi
And Trump's sniffles got me thinking of this:
#trumpsniffles
Post debate podcast from fivethirtyeight:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/first-presidential-debate-election-2016/?ex_cid=2016-forecast
I've just started myself, so I've no comment or precis.
dukeofurl 48
"Hillary Clinton belongs in the White House. Donald Trump belongs on my show."
Jerry Springer, host of "The Jerry Springer Show" – Twitter.
Second place –
Notice Trump sniffing all the time. Coke user?— Howard Dean (@GovHowardDean) September 27, 2016
One Two 48.1.1
'User' with Slick Willy on the 'lolita express'…
joe90 48.1.1.1
Notice how thirty minutes in his sniffles cleared …she don't lie, she don't lie, she don't lie…….cocaine…
pffft Trump doesn't even drink
Manuka AOR 48.1.2.1
Howard Dean's replies when questioned about that tweet:
"So, he sniffs during the presentation — which is something users do — but he also has grandiosity, which is something that also accompanies that problem. He has delusions — I'm not talking about being crazy, but for example, when he told everybody he thinks it's smart not to pay taxes, then denied he said it after he said it in front of a hundred million people."
"It's not that he's delusionary [sic] about it, he thinks somehow he won't get caught," he said. "That is delusional."
Trump, Dean said, showed us that he has poor impulse control. He interrupted Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton 29 times on Monday night.
"He couldn't keep himself together," said Dean, a former physician and ex-head of the Democratic National Committee.
"I don't think this is a ridiculous idea," Dean said. "Something funny was going on with Trump last night. Do I think it was cocaine? Probably not, but again — the sniffling, the grandiosity, the delusions, the pressured speech? This guy's already proven himself to be unstable, so why is he unstable?" http://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/howard-dean-stands-by-cocaine-tweet-something-funny-was-going-on-with-trump-last-night/
now the winningest winner in the history of winning is complaining that they gave him a defective microphone.
The fool is a buffoon
Henry Filth 50
Fox News had some fairly good analysis and commentary on this. The best pairing was probably Charles Krauthammer and Mrs Clinton's press secretary. Their verdict was a draw.
Looking forward to round two.
Juan Cole:
"The things Trump said bore no relation to reality.
"So the debate did not take place.
It was not a debate so much as an opportunity to display his ability to weave an alternate reality for his acolytes." http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/09/27/presidential-debate-did-not-really-happen
He interrupted her 26 times in 25 minutes. For the first 20 minutes moderator Lester Holt, a Republican, was AWOL. He let Trump repeatedly cut Clinton off, badger her, and even take over Holt's putative role, of asking her questions. If there is one rule of debates, it is that one debater is not allowed to ask the other the questions.
Trump also wove his alternative reality. In that world, he ceased his racist birtherism as soon as President Obama produced his long form birth certificate, and did the president a favor in making him publish it (something never required of any white president [i.e. from any of them]).
In Trump's alternate reality, he never said that climate change is a Chinese-promoted hoax. But of course he had said it.
Juan Cole knows full well Clinton's tragic record of warmongering in both Libya and Syria.
rhinocrates 51.1.1
He probably knows of Trump's promise to commit war crimes in the Middle East too. Specifically a policy of targeting of civilian non-combatants because they're the families of suspected or accused terrorists.
"Buuuuut KKKillary…"
See? This can go on forever.
The West's plans to forceably and illegally regime change Assad are not going to be successful.
The West could terminate their support of the Jihadist head choppers and bring their colonial old style Syrian adventure to an end.
She was Secretary of State, not Secretary of defense.
Obama is President the decisions are his.
Syria only started to hot up from the end of 2011 and that was because of major support from Turkey. The US support using CIA dates from 2012
Clinton is part of the Washington DC regime change neocon set. State Department staff have previously written briefs on how to destabilise and damage the Syrian regime.
In Libya, Clinton is acknowledged to have been the senior voice in the Obama administration who consistently pushed to regime change Gaddafi out.
My assumption is that she played a similarly active role in maneuvering the US into supporting the overthrow of Assad, and especially in fostering and funding "colour revolution" style unrest in Syria, and especially in working with Israel, Qatar, Jordan and Saudi Arabia to deliver the results desired by the USA.
Observer Tokoroa 52
. Felling Sorrow for you Viper
. You do the right thing. You get cuddly Putin to use Trump and rake through all USA Business and confidential documents. You tell Trump how great and honest he is. You jump for Joy when Putin bombs Aleppo.
You have not discouraged the secretive Trump from getting his mentally defect followers to shoot Mrs Clinton dead. In the names of Mao, Stalin and Putin you may have to do it yourself.
Sadly, Putin and Trump the lazy bastards have not done one thing they promised. In fact, TRump looked drunk on his podium of thrills and dills.
You usually let yourself down Viper. You certainly don't need Putin and Trumph letting you down too.
rhinocrates 52.1
Cuddly Putin:
http://weirdrussia.com/2015/05/06/vladimir-the-doll-the-plush-toy-of-the-year/
(Corollary of Rule 34: whatever it is, there is a cuddly plush doll of it)
Observer Tokoroa, get off the weed, then try to make the points that you intended.
CNN has a poll in that says Clinton won 62% to 27%. (this is an actual poll, not an online website poll)
47% didn't change their opinion based on the debate, but…
34% more likely to vote Clinton after
18% more likely to vote Trump after
Public Policy polling also had Clinton winning more narrowly at 51% to 40%.
Basically the only post-debate polls having Trump win are unscientific online polls.
Even Fox News' internal focus group broke 16-6 for Clinton, lol.
You really think that Trump is not going to get a bump in the polls this week from the debate? Really?
Trump has been trending down over time since the first debate. Whether you agree or disagree with the particular numbers, the trend is pretty clear among scientific polls that his polling went down after the debate. While I would have called the direction correctly ahead of time, I probably would have been more pessimistic about Hillary's relative performance than it appears the American public were, so I'm breathing a bit of a sigh of relief with recent events.
I don't always agree with the particular methodology of a poll, but taking the trend of all of them together and controlling for the recency of each poll is a great way to get a general picture of what's going on over time, and in the USA they actually do them regularly enough for it to be very useful as opposed to the level of speculation we need to engage as to what each poll means in New Zealand because they don't even average out to being weekly between the four companies that publish their results.
Clinton public event at Wake Technical College, Raleigh N.C.
A medium sized turn out. 1442 in the audience, official count.
On the campus of a college with 73,000 students.
It looks to me like Clinton may lose NC however, despite the influx of educated white collar workers into urban centres like Raleigh.
271st comment. That's a winning number.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl