Home | About | Donate

Their Own Reality: It Was Contest Over Content in Trump/Clinton Debate


#1

Their Own Reality: It Was Contest Over Content in Trump/Clinton Debate

Richard Eskow

This was undoubtedly the first presidential debate in history to include a mention of Rosie O’Donnell. Even grading on a curve – something the press tends to do with Donald Trump – the Republican fared poorly on Monday night. Democrat Hillary Clinton took him down on issue after issue, from his tax returns to his business practices.


#2

Oh shucks, I missed all the fireworks. My mind's been made up for some time now,
Stein Baraka!


#3

It's just so much Kabuki Theater. Don't watch it. Don't analyze it. Don't listen to what the Mighty Wurlitzer (MSM) makes of it. It's just there to distract us from the real task of organizing locally and taking care of each other in the face of more war, more profits for the big banks and the MIC, and global warming that will turn the planet into a living hell for most of its inhabitants, human and otherwise. Keep focused on that instead.


#4

Holt must have had all that Matt Lauer criticism in the back of his mind last night, as the debate was essentially a Clinton/Holt tag team effort against Trump. Time and again he challenged Trump on facts and on not answering questions, as he should have. I'm surprised he didn't challenge him on the way he was breathing (as pundits are taking delight in today). But with Clinton, not so much. For example:

  • Clinton lumped in tax cuts to the wealthy as a major factor in the 2008 crash. Really, how so? She did mention poor regulation but failed to mention Bill C's killing of Glass Steagall. Nothing from Holt on this.

  • She again denied calling TPP the gold standard of treaties, instead saying that she thought it "might" be. The facts and her own words show her to be lying. But from Holt? Crickets.

  • Holt never followed up with the Clinton campaign's role in the birther issue 8 years ago. Sidney Blumenthal did, in fact, ask James Archer, former McClatchy bureau chief in Washington, to investigate the birther issue. Also, said Archer:

Blumenthal visited the Washington Bureau of McClatchy, where he and I met in my office. During that conversation and in subsequent communications, we discussed a number of matters related to Obama. He encouraged McClatchy to do stories related to Obama and his connections to Kenya.

But Holt apparently thought it might not be a good career move to ask Clinton about any of this.

And wouldn't this have been a great question: "Madam Secretary, you called millions of Trump supporters 'deplorable,' in part for their racist attitudes. But a survey in the spring found that a quarter to a third of your own supporters think that blacks are 'less intelligent' than whites, are more 'lazy,' more 'criminal,' more 'violent,' and more 'rude.' Will you now, tonight, look into the camera and call these millions of supporters of yours deplorables?"


Those Who Failed to Recognize Trump as 'Greater Evil' Made a 'Bad Mistake': Chomsky
#5

My husband wanted to watch the debate, so we watched (and gagged, appropriately.) I agree; Holt was anything but fair and impartial in his fact checking and that will only serve to enrage and energize Trump's supporters. As for the notion that "Clinton took down Trump on issue after issue", as per the author, not so. On the serious issues of the economy and foreign policy, neither candidate did well, but Clinton certainly didn't take down Trump.

It was the fluff issues about tax returns, personality attacks, the birther thing and so on that only confirmed what I expected the debate to be and that is a strutting match between two power hungry, dishonest egomaniacs. Calling it a debate is criminal.


#6

"Nor did she attack Trump on his misguided deficit fixation – a fixation shared by too many Democrats in the Clinton camp."

Pundits almost always misunderstand this aspect of governance.

Deficit spending on green jobs seems like a great idea on the surface. A majority of economists tell us that deficit spending to prime the pump and provide jobs is acceptable policy after capitalism sucks the latest bubble dry.

Economists, however, do not think about the health of democracy or the design of the US government, which is constructed around the unspoken and responsible idea of a balanced budget.

Do you remember when your civics teacher explained to the class why the house of representatives has the shortest term? Two years. Remember? It is because US representatives are in charge of the budget.

If your representative spends too much money and your taxes go up for something unwanted, you can vote that representative out. Pronto. A balanced budget was accepted as an unspoken fact of life by the writers of the US constitution. US founders knew there would be times when major improvements cost more than annual taxes could afford. Their solution was a ballot proposal to create a public bond for large projects; exercise democracy. Exercise of democracy is a continuous act that includes examination of bond proposals. That is one constitutional expectation of a balanced budget. Current budgetary practices by the house of representatives are contrary to this expectation and thus destroy democracy.

Deficit spending destroys democracy even though clever economists serving capitalist pirates spin webs of confusion to obscure how the US government is designed to work.


#8

It Trump has an A game he sure didn't bring it. Clinton did well as expected. Of course being in numerous one-on-one debates with Obama and Sanders she had a big advantage. Experience matters. I think Trump tried to look presidential by referring to Clinton as Secretary Clinton rather than Crooked Hillary. That alone probably threw him off track. Unless he is at his nastiest he seems lost. And his repeated outbursts while Hillary was speaking showed again his lack of control. He still has a chance because this is an unusual race with the country divided based on whether or not people have college degrees. Usually college degrees do not matter in these elections this time the division is wide.


#10

" Don't watch it."
Enough said!


#11

To call this a debate, is the epitome of nonsense. More like a boxing match to keep the masses entertained where the fix has always been in by the oligarch's.


#13

Hill:
"We have to address the systemic racism in our Justice System."

Which was aided by Bill's 1994 crime bill (three strikes and then life/ $8.7 billion for new Prisons/ gave states Incentives to build Prisons and Increase Incarceration)) that she championed as "...Well Thought Out and Tough".

The D:
Answer to Black Lives Matter : Go to Stop and Frisk. (Seriously, WTF?)

Read Michelle Alexander to see what Damage is done by Stop and Frisk and Why Hill Doesn't Deserve the African American Vote.

Hill:
That "Claiming Iraq's oil is "...at once unlawful, unethical and impractical."

Claiming the right to Aggressively Destroy that Nation's Infrrastructure and Murder its People...not so much?

The D:
Sniffled loudly.

"...had Clinton done it ...would ...have been characterized by the Right as Proof of a Life Threatening Disease."
Left is in on this one, too.

Hill:
"Missed chances... to appeal directly to the voters she needs most."

If the Primaries are any indicator, she really doesn't need the Voters, as she seems to have the People Who Count the Votes all tied up.


#15

At least they didn't take her to a Basement and leave her Cuffed to a Chair, this time.
Shows that her Profile has, at least, risen to the point where they are not so sure they could get away with it again, without everyone finding out in real time.
A Flicker of Progress, I guess.


#16

Who gives a shit? Our giving a shit means we give legitimacy to the shitty candidates the oligarchy gives US.

Direct Democracy


#17

Didn't watch. Didn't listen.
Stein, Baraka.


#20

Yeah man, f^ck those green jobs!

Save that money for dropping bombs on kids,

and lets not forget the ever present need to arm our police with the latest military grade tech, so they can dispatch niggas coast to coast.

what does your understanding of deficit spending say about all that^ ....???

But no, you didn't have the courtesy to inform us about that did you?
You just let us know that "deficit spending on green jobs = death of democracy"

You might be an alright person, great even, and you could be spot on about that "two-year term" thing...
But your kinda sounding like a little bi#ch right now.


#21

"two other options"...

...uh oh.

Mark, are you a closet libertarian? (I see that you are not^)

Out of fairness I agree, the greens as well as the libertarians should be included, but I can only "imagine that a single additional option" would have suited me.

Similarities aside the libertarian party is a pro-business party, and I'm for the people.
A broken clock is right twice a day.

Were desperate men and women to behave like idiots by latching on to anything with a bit of buoyancy, they would drown like a ball of panicked rats.

No, the libertarian party is not a substitute for a progressive party.


#22

A balanced budget will put a real crimp in eternal war.

Perhaps I should have explained further.

The reason I mentioned borrowing money for green jobs is problematic is because the idea of further economic growth in a nation that already consumes Earth at a four planet rate is nonsensical. An official vote on a bond issue to establish a particular set of green jobs is supportive of democracy and presumably we will all have discussed the particular goal.

August 8, 2016 was Earth Overshoot Day. That is the day when the world economy overshoots Earth’s ability to resupply and recycle wastes. Earth overshoot day occurs earlier each year. Greenhouse gasses, water pollution and specie extinction are among the more dangerous overshoots.*

The world economy requires 1.6 Earths. If every one on Earth lived like the US, the world economy would require 4.8 Earths — 5.4 Earths if we all lived like Australians. With this in mind; imagine a world economy that grows to match the US. Imagine every working age person on the planet as busy 40 hours a week making updated iGizmos to keep their company sales growth on target.


#23

What "clashing visions?" Neither candidate has any vision other than "power." Both candidates---and the Duopoly that put them forward as electoral "choices"---are hard slaps to the faces of anyone who'd actually like to see democracy in this benighted country.


#26

yeah, but assuming the green jobs actually have a net result in reducing our economies cost on the environment you would essentially be increasing the "Earthly supply" coefficient, maybe move that "earth overshoot day" back a day, which means you would conceivably be doing a grave disservice by opposing green job initiatives.

water... now there is an elephant.
You know about them Fracking Subsidies?
You know how Fracking ruins boat loads of water?
You know Fracking releases methane, the green house gas that made CO2 its bitch?
You know the end result of all this spent energy and waste we've created gets burned up only once?

Sure makes the investment into green energy look attractive. Any environmental toll in the manufacturing of a windmill or solar panel is likely to be a minimal one-time expenditure, after which we can foresee decades of clean energy.

But your right we are asking too much of our planet and even with clean energy we would still be asking too much of Earth, windmills and solar panels won't solve every problem. But will they hurt??? nah I don't see that being a real issue to concern ourselves with. Lets worry about nuclear war or worry about nuclear power for that matter. Did you know radioactive fallout is bad for you? So are atomic Blasts! and guess what nuclear energy is apparently the thirstiest form of energy. Thermoelectric power plants, including nuclear plants, make up 40% of freshwater usage in the US. Should you replace that power source with one that doesn't use water, like wind or solar, and you would actually save some serious amounts of water.

WOW! Some pretty big holes just got blasted there. Hope everybody is all right. Craters Baby!!

Think we'll see any return fire?

Are we calling it? Victory??? yeah?

ALRIGHT! 40 hour work weeks and iGizmos for everybody!

lol JK, not really sure what the argument was there. Are we suppose to maintain or revert to a subsistence agrarian lifestyle? And if so am I allowed to have an iphone? What about the internet, is that too expensive too? Or are we just suppose to bend over and kiss our asses good bye?

Fine but before we bite the dust, just one more idea real quick.
Nuclear powered dildos...just think about it.


#27

"Are we supposed to maintain or revert to a subsistence agrarian lifestyle? And if so am I allowed to have an iphone?"

My impression is that quality can grow to infinity on a finite planet. We humans have dreamed about the stars since we sat around fires in front of our caves. Humans can travel to the stars and also heal Earth. On the other hand, Human will exist for just a few more decades if Earth life support systems change to some form of life not yet evolved for the new natural balances.

Remember that lowly single-celled life altered the atmosphere so that our form of life could live on Earth. It took millions of years for rock eating bacteria to make an atmosphere with oxygen. Commercialized life and morals of capitalism has dumped poison pollution on land and in the sea and air and undone what the living Earth has made for us. Humans have the ability to heal what has been hurt for profits to the few and change primitive capitalism to something modern that supports all life on Earth.


#28

LOL^ loving the bleakness

so... we definitely should "modernize" our socioeconomic model, thumbs up to that. What did you have in mind?
what are the advantages to a ballot proposal to create these public bonds? Beside preserving democracy of course?

Remember we are on a time crush, the sooner these green energy sources come on line the better no?
(also since you seem to be informed on the subject just what would this ballot proposal look like? (describe it for a 5th grader))

So then it becomes a question of whether or not to compromise democracy to save the planet (we have compromised plenty already and for not so significant a payoff) unless of-course you insist democracy must flourish in order to save the planet from capitalism, in which case won't it be too late??? And if we are doomed, what is the value in focusing our attention on the preservation of democracy, wouldn't this be secondary? Seems I've described a catch-22. So do me a solid and fill me in, Why is green-initiative deficit-spending wrong?