Home | About | Donate

The Presidential Debate That Did Not Really Happen


#1

The Presidential Debate That Did Not Really Happen

Juan Cole

Regular readers will know that in my view the 2016 presidential election did not happen.


#4

The real Presidential debate is taking place this morning between Stein and Johnson at DemocracyNow.


#6

I must admit I watched it mainly to see whether HRC would exhibit any of the neurological issues which have shown up more and more frequently in her public appearances lately. She didn't.

Other than that, I suppose it was mildly entertaining, though also a bit disturbing, to watch two sociopaths engage in a 90 minute lie-a-thon. HRC is clearly the more polished and fluid liar, as con-man Trump is somewhat clumsy and inarticulate. Listening to her hilarious campaign promises, I almost felt embarrassed for the naive Hillary-bots who actually believe what she says. Now we are apparently going to have to endure articles full of drivel from some of those Hillary-bots.

Given HRC's medical issues and her age, it is highly unlikely that she would run for reelection in four years if she wins this time. That means there won't be any hesitation for her to file her campaign promises safely away in the nearest garbage receptacle after the results are announced. Or maybe she and her campaign team will hold a private ceremony where they will burn some list of her campaign promises as they all engage in a hearty group laugh. Afterwards, she will order her minions to begin the real work of setting up meetings with representatives of Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, General Dynamics, Exxon-Mobil, etc..., to set up her actual agenda.

Thinking of that reminds me of the late, great George Carlin's most memorable quote: "It's a big club and you ain't in it!"


#8

I agree with you that Trump is a lunatic and that Hillary is a "twisted deviant sociopath."

I also agree with you that for Progressives the only sensible choice is to vote for Jill Stein.


#9

Mr. Cole, we all know that Thwimpie is nothing more than a blowhard mo-RON -- your article just verified it; BUT ... it is my considered opinion that you failed as spectatularly as Thwimpie did b/c you said absolutely nothing about the other blowhard mo-RON; ergo, your article that was never written described the debate that never happened!


#11

Thanks for the title --- That's exactly what it was -- and was not!


#12

Is war better?

Would you rather an ignorant bigoted buffoon who will be unable to get anything through Congress, or a warmonger whose every war and austerity measure will be approved?

Thanks to the DNC rigging the primaries for Clinton that's the choice we're being offered.

Me, I'm not going to vote lesser, greater or more effective evil.

I'm voting for Jill Stein.

Because when your only choices are bad, it's time to find other choices.

Vote Sane: Vote Green.


#13

The oligarchy gives us war, poverty, pollution and dictatorship. Why fight the symptoms and not their cause?

Fight the oligarchy.

Direct Democracy


#15

This debate was totally on target for this election. The number one issue this time around is race. The birther question could not be more appropriate. Trump did not answer the question and when asked again he couldn't answer it. The journalists should keep asking Trump why he continued with the birther stuff even after Obama produced his birth certificate. Of course to answer that question Trump would have to admit what he is. But he will never do that. He will continue to stonewall that question. None of his surrogates can answer it either. It is a shame that many other issues that should get more time are getting short-changed. If the Republicans has nominated a different candidate there would be more discussion of those issues but the reality is with Trump running the discussion should center on racism. The country is deciding whether or not to become a white nationalist country. That is what needs to be talked about most right now.


#16

My belief is that HRC will be able to get through Congress any and all that she wants. After all, she's an ardent supporter of Wall Street crime; she's first puppet in line to support the rest of greedy Corporate America; she's demonstrated she is just as responsible as her husband for slashing funds for the poor (so-called entitlements); she's exposed her racial and class bias against her country men and women; she's a war monger who is fighting both against AND with terrorist groups in the Middle East. So in regard to any problems we think she may have getting legislation passed, she'll have more than enough congressional support.

BTW, as far as our need to put more liberals on the Supreme Court, she'll nominate neo-cons just as Obama did on his recent nomination to replace Scalia.