Friday, September 30, 2016
He just doesn't "learn".
.....................................................................................................................................
"... recent polls have shown Trump lagging far behind Clinton in terms of who voters believe has the better temperament to be president." And he is totally responsible for his predicament.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Trump’s Overnight Twitter Tirade Sums Up His Weaknesses
By Issie Lapowsky, September 30, 2016
SLEEP. REMEMBER SLEEP? The thing you were doing just a few hours ago, before you woke up, and the man who could potentially be the next President of the United States told you to “check out” a sex tape? Sleep was nice, wasn’t it?
Donald Trump, apparently, doesn’t get much sleep. Because, beginning at 5:14 am, the Republican nominee for President picked up his phone and started firing off tweet after tweet about former Miss Universe Contestant Alicia Machado, who Hillary Clinton name-checked during the first presidential debate last week. After Machado gained some weight following her Miss Universe win, she says Trump took to calling her Miss Piggy. Trump has since defended himself on Fox and Friends, saying, “She was the winner, and you know she gained a massive amount of weight and it was a real problem.”
But Trump wasn’t finished digging himself into a hole with female voters just yet. Then came the tweets:
During the first debate, Trump brought up his temperament, saying, “I think my strongest asset by far is my temperament. I have a winning temperament.” Clinton’s disagreed, and with good reason. Though both candidates have historically low favorability ratings, recent polls have shown Trump lagging far behind Clinton in terms of who voters believe has the better temperament to be president. And it seems that line of attack worked, considering most methodologically sound post-debate polls (not the flash polls Trump’s team has been celebrating) show that Clinton got a boost from the debate. And according to one NBC News and SurveyMonkey poll, 27 percent of likely women voters said the debate made them think less of Trump.
For Trump to unleash such a temperamental attack against a woman—flaunting a sex tape that does not appear to exist, no less—is an altogether curious strategy, if it’s a strategy at all.
Our advice to Trump: Get some sleep.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Trump’s Overnight Twitter Tirade Sums Up His Weaknesses
By Issie Lapowsky, September 30, 2016
SLEEP. REMEMBER SLEEP? The thing you were doing just a few hours ago, before you woke up, and the man who could potentially be the next President of the United States told you to “check out” a sex tape? Sleep was nice, wasn’t it?
Donald Trump, apparently, doesn’t get much sleep. Because, beginning at 5:14 am, the Republican nominee for President picked up his phone and started firing off tweet after tweet about former Miss Universe Contestant Alicia Machado, who Hillary Clinton name-checked during the first presidential debate last week. After Machado gained some weight following her Miss Universe win, she says Trump took to calling her Miss Piggy. Trump has since defended himself on Fox and Friends, saying, “She was the winner, and you know she gained a massive amount of weight and it was a real problem.”
But Trump wasn’t finished digging himself into a hole with female voters just yet. Then came the tweets:
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrumpAnd here we are. That Trump would unleash a tweetstorm before sunrise shouldn’t surprise anybody at this point. But this one in particular seems to encapsulate two of the biggest issues dogging Trump’s campaign: his attitude toward women and his apparent problems with impulse control. They also showcase his propensity for seeding conspiracy theories, just as he has with regard to Hillary Clinton’s health and President Obama’s citizenship.
Wow, Crooked Hillary was duped and used by my worst Miss U. Hillary floated her as an "angel" without checking her past, which is terrible!
2:14 AM - 30 Sep 2016
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Using Alicia M in the debate as a paragon of virtue just shows that Crooked Hillary suffers from BAD JUDGEMENT! Hillary was set up by a con.
2:19 AM - 30 Sep 2016
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Did Crooked Hillary help disgusting (check out sex tape and past) Alicia M become a U.S. citizen so she could use her in the debate?
2:30 AM - 30 Sep 2016
During the first debate, Trump brought up his temperament, saying, “I think my strongest asset by far is my temperament. I have a winning temperament.” Clinton’s disagreed, and with good reason. Though both candidates have historically low favorability ratings, recent polls have shown Trump lagging far behind Clinton in terms of who voters believe has the better temperament to be president. And it seems that line of attack worked, considering most methodologically sound post-debate polls (not the flash polls Trump’s team has been celebrating) show that Clinton got a boost from the debate. And according to one NBC News and SurveyMonkey poll, 27 percent of likely women voters said the debate made them think less of Trump.
For Trump to unleash such a temperamental attack against a woman—flaunting a sex tape that does not appear to exist, no less—is an altogether curious strategy, if it’s a strategy at all.
Our advice to Trump: Get some sleep.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"There’s just one teensy, tiny problem with this idea: It would give Congress greater responsibility over foreign policy, and Congress doesn’t handle foreign responsibility terribly well."
...................................................................................................................................................................
The unbearable idiocy of Congress
Congratulations, America! We now live in a political system in which, most of the time, only one person has to be the grown-up.
By Daniel W. Drezner, September 30, 2016
One of Spoiler Alerts’ running themes in recent years has been the ways in which the executive branch has learned to bypass Congress on foreign policy, and how that has vested a disturbing amount of power into the office of the president. This has come through in recent discussions of just how much damage Donald Trump could wreak on the country and the world if elected.
A natural response to this is to call for Congress and President Obama to restore the balance of power between legislative and executive branches. Constitutionally, this sounds like a great idea, something that would forge a powerful consensus between small-government conservatives on the right and foreign policy doves on the left.
There’s just one teensy, tiny problem with this idea: It would give Congress greater responsibility over foreign policy, and Congress doesn’t handle foreign responsibility terribly well.
For the latest example of legislative fecklessness, let’s turn to the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), a bill that allows 9/11 families to sue the government of Saudi Arabia for any culpability it had in those terrorist attacks. Back in the spring I blogged about how, regardless of its emotional power, this bill wasn’t a very good idea. Since then, well-respected international lawyers have said the same thing in greater detail. The British government pointed out that the bill “could allow hostile states to take legal action against the U.S. and allies such as Britain.”
So it’s not surprising that Obama vetoed the bill, warning that JASTA would, “among other things, remove sovereign immunity in U.S. courts from foreign governments that are not designated state sponsors of terrorism.” But for the first time in Obama’s presidency, Congress overrode his veto in bipartisan fashion, turning JASTA into law.
Hooray for congressional power! Sure, Arab governments did not react well, but overriding that veto must have felt damn good!
And now we get to the morning after, in which Congress realizes what it has done. From the Hill’s Jordain Carney:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) opened the door Thursday to changing legislation that allows families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia in U.S. court.
“I do think it’s worth further discussions, but it was certainly not something that was going to be fixed this week,” he told reporters when asked about a push by some senators to tweak the measure.
Across the Capitol, Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) agreed that Congress may need to “fix” the legislation, but said he wasn’t sure when that would happen.
Huh, that’s weird. Why fix something that was passed in the teeth of a presidential veto? Bloomberg News’s Steven Dennis and Billy House elaborate:
When it comes to Congress and foreign policy, here’s the spoiler alert: Members of the legislative branch want recognition without responsibility. They want the biggest, bulliest pulpit they can find, so they can pound their fists, decry all of America’s enemies and then pass legislation that makes them feel good. Then they want the president to be the grown-up in the room and shoulder all the responsibility and blame. God forbid they actually exert power over the executive branch, because that’s how policy own-goals like JASTA get turned into law. In essence, Congress wants to be the Lieutenant Weinberg of foreign policy.
This is not a new trait of Congress. A deeply flawed law like JASTA just brings the problem to the fore. This is why, over the years, Congress has voluntarily ceded swaths of authority in areas like foreign economic policy to the president. And this worked out mostly fine, because presidents have been willing to be the grown-up in the room and occasionally take actions that were politically unpopular but the right thing to do.
As of now, there is a — checks FiveThirtyEight — 1-in-3 chance that the next U.S. president will possess the emotional and intellectual maturity of a 7-year-old. If the president can’t handle a crisis, Congress might have to shoulder a greater burden of responsibility. The saga of JASTA is a stark reminder that Congress is woefully unprepared to be a responsible actor in foreign policy.
Or, to put it in Aaron Sorkin-like language:
...................................................................................................................................................................
The unbearable idiocy of Congress
Congratulations, America! We now live in a political system in which, most of the time, only one person has to be the grown-up.
By Daniel W. Drezner, September 30, 2016
One of Spoiler Alerts’ running themes in recent years has been the ways in which the executive branch has learned to bypass Congress on foreign policy, and how that has vested a disturbing amount of power into the office of the president. This has come through in recent discussions of just how much damage Donald Trump could wreak on the country and the world if elected.
A natural response to this is to call for Congress and President Obama to restore the balance of power between legislative and executive branches. Constitutionally, this sounds like a great idea, something that would forge a powerful consensus between small-government conservatives on the right and foreign policy doves on the left.
There’s just one teensy, tiny problem with this idea: It would give Congress greater responsibility over foreign policy, and Congress doesn’t handle foreign responsibility terribly well.
For the latest example of legislative fecklessness, let’s turn to the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), a bill that allows 9/11 families to sue the government of Saudi Arabia for any culpability it had in those terrorist attacks. Back in the spring I blogged about how, regardless of its emotional power, this bill wasn’t a very good idea. Since then, well-respected international lawyers have said the same thing in greater detail. The British government pointed out that the bill “could allow hostile states to take legal action against the U.S. and allies such as Britain.”
So it’s not surprising that Obama vetoed the bill, warning that JASTA would, “among other things, remove sovereign immunity in U.S. courts from foreign governments that are not designated state sponsors of terrorism.” But for the first time in Obama’s presidency, Congress overrode his veto in bipartisan fashion, turning JASTA into law.
Hooray for congressional power! Sure, Arab governments did not react well, but overriding that veto must have felt damn good!
And now we get to the morning after, in which Congress realizes what it has done. From the Hill’s Jordain Carney:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) opened the door Thursday to changing legislation that allows families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia in U.S. court.
“I do think it’s worth further discussions, but it was certainly not something that was going to be fixed this week,” he told reporters when asked about a push by some senators to tweak the measure.
Across the Capitol, Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) agreed that Congress may need to “fix” the legislation, but said he wasn’t sure when that would happen.
Huh, that’s weird. Why fix something that was passed in the teeth of a presidential veto? Bloomberg News’s Steven Dennis and Billy House elaborate:
Both House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that the measure could have unintended consequences — including the fact that it could leave U.S. soldiers open to retaliation by foreign governments …So, basically, Congress’s excuse is that they didn’t realize that the president was seriously opposed to JASTA despite the fact that he vetoed it, publicly articulated why he vetoed it and personally warned congressional leaders about the implications. And so a stupid bill that adversely affects American national interests is now law.
Before the vote, senior administration officials warned lawmakers of this exact problem — that weakening the concept of sovereign immunity could backfire if foreign countries tried to do the same for the U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter sent House Armed Services Chairman Mac Thornberry of Texas a letter saying that could potentially expose Americans to lawsuits and “an intrusive discovery process” even if the U.S. is ultimately found not to be responsible for a particular event.
But Republicans said the White House didn’t make a forceful case, putting themselves in the awkward position of blaming the president for a bill they enacted into law over Obama’s veto.
When it comes to Congress and foreign policy, here’s the spoiler alert: Members of the legislative branch want recognition without responsibility. They want the biggest, bulliest pulpit they can find, so they can pound their fists, decry all of America’s enemies and then pass legislation that makes them feel good. Then they want the president to be the grown-up in the room and shoulder all the responsibility and blame. God forbid they actually exert power over the executive branch, because that’s how policy own-goals like JASTA get turned into law. In essence, Congress wants to be the Lieutenant Weinberg of foreign policy.
This is not a new trait of Congress. A deeply flawed law like JASTA just brings the problem to the fore. This is why, over the years, Congress has voluntarily ceded swaths of authority in areas like foreign economic policy to the president. And this worked out mostly fine, because presidents have been willing to be the grown-up in the room and occasionally take actions that were politically unpopular but the right thing to do.
As of now, there is a — checks FiveThirtyEight — 1-in-3 chance that the next U.S. president will possess the emotional and intellectual maturity of a 7-year-old. If the president can’t handle a crisis, Congress might have to shoulder a greater burden of responsibility. The saga of JASTA is a stark reminder that Congress is woefully unprepared to be a responsible actor in foreign policy.
Or, to put it in Aaron Sorkin-like language:
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... Trump is not rational. He's on tilt." And deranged as a result. [snicker]
...................................................................................................................................................................
Hillary Clinton ran a perfect psyop to derange Donald Trump
By Josh Barro, September 30, 2016
In poker, there is a concept called "tilt."
When a poker player is on tilt, that means he's angry, and his anger is interfering with his judgment. A player on tilt will tend to play aggressively, but not in a good way — he'll make big bets when he has a bad hand, and then he'll lose.
You might remember the climactic scene in "Rounders," in which Mike McDermott discovers his poker nemesis Teddy KGB has a serious "tell." You can figure out whether Teddy has a good hand based on the way he eats his Oreos.
One way to use this information would be to keep quiet, sit back, watch him eat, and bet accordingly. But Mike realizes that if he reveals to Teddy that he knows about the tell, Teddy will flip out and go on tilt, making bad choices and ultimately losing all his chips.
This is roughly what Hillary Clinton did to Donald Trump on Monday. It worked better than Clinton could possibly have imagined.
Ahead of Monday night's debate, one of the facts we knew about Clinton's preparation was that she was consulting with a team of psychologists about how to get under Trump's skin.
"Her campaign is preparing ways for her to unnerve Mr. Trump and provoke him to rant and rave," The New York Times reported.
This worked during the debate. But more impressively, it has worked for days after the debate.
Clinton has gotten Trump to spend the whole week litigating the question of whether he was out of line to publicly humiliate then-Miss Universe Alicia Machado over her weight gain in 1996.
Clinton based her debate strategy on a key insight: Trump has poor impulse control, but he is more impulsive at some times than others. He is not always an uncontrollable pile of sputtering rage — he was more controlled than normal during the month leading up to the debate — but if you find the right way to provoke him, you can send him off the rails.
Over the past few months, he has seemed less able to stifle himself when he is under attack (as during the Democratic convention) when he believes his campaign aides are second-guessing his choices (as when Paul Manafort was too openly discussing the need for Trump to change) or when he is slipping in the polls (the way he was immediately after the Democratic convention).
Having observed this, Clinton set off a series of dominoes.
She attacked Trump where he is sensitive — calling him "Donald," questioning his wealth, bringing up past feuds — and got him not only to lash out in self-destructive ways but also to be so distracted by the need to lash out that he forgot to bring up key attacks on Clinton.
After Trump flunked the debate, his advisers predictably leaked all over about how they tried and failed to get him to prepare. This further angered Trump, leading his campaign to organize a conference call with surrogates and supporters instructing them to stop leaking and start saying Trump had won the debate.
The substance of that conference call predictably leaked too, leading the man who practically invented the phrase "many people are saying" to tweet at 3:20 a.m. that any story about his campaign based on anonymous sources was based on lies.
The bad debate has also hurt Trump's poll standing, and as Trump comes to realize the polls are deteriorating he will most likely become angrier and more erratic — at a time when he ought to be trying to become calmer and more prepared for the next debate on October 9.
Alicia Machado turns out to have had a more checkered past than most people realized on debate night, a fact that makes some people wonder whether the Clinton campaign fully vetted her before putting her in the national spotlight.
My guess is the Clinton campaign knew exactly what it was doing.
The existence of scandal around Machado made it irresistible for Trump to spend his week insisting that Machado was the real villain here — a message choice that made Trump look petty and silly even before he urged voters in a series of overnight tweets to check out Machado's "sex tape" (which is actually a clip from "La Granja VIP," a reality show about C-list celebrities working on a farm).
A rational candidate, coolly focused on what message he could send to best win over voters, would understand that there is nothing to gain by arguing about whether Machado is a good person, let alone about whether her weight gain was "a real problem."
But Trump is not rational. He's on tilt.
In poker, if you go on tilt, the best strategy is to stop playing. Get up, step away from the table, and come back to play again only when your mood has normalized.
You don't have that option in a presidential campaign, but I'd note even more importantly that you don't have the option in the presidency. If Clinton can get inside Trump's head so easily, foreign leaders will be able to do so, too. This personality trait would make Trump a very dangerous president.
Fortunately, it has also made him a danger to himself in his own campaign.
Trump has no option to take a tilt break. My expectation is he will come back to debate on October 9 still mad as hell — and I also expect that Clinton has plans up her sleeve to make him even more unhinged.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Hillary Clinton ran a perfect psyop to derange Donald Trump
By Josh Barro, September 30, 2016
In poker, there is a concept called "tilt."
When a poker player is on tilt, that means he's angry, and his anger is interfering with his judgment. A player on tilt will tend to play aggressively, but not in a good way — he'll make big bets when he has a bad hand, and then he'll lose.
You might remember the climactic scene in "Rounders," in which Mike McDermott discovers his poker nemesis Teddy KGB has a serious "tell." You can figure out whether Teddy has a good hand based on the way he eats his Oreos.
One way to use this information would be to keep quiet, sit back, watch him eat, and bet accordingly. But Mike realizes that if he reveals to Teddy that he knows about the tell, Teddy will flip out and go on tilt, making bad choices and ultimately losing all his chips.
This is roughly what Hillary Clinton did to Donald Trump on Monday. It worked better than Clinton could possibly have imagined.
Ahead of Monday night's debate, one of the facts we knew about Clinton's preparation was that she was consulting with a team of psychologists about how to get under Trump's skin.
"Her campaign is preparing ways for her to unnerve Mr. Trump and provoke him to rant and rave," The New York Times reported.
This worked during the debate. But more impressively, it has worked for days after the debate.
Clinton has gotten Trump to spend the whole week litigating the question of whether he was out of line to publicly humiliate then-Miss Universe Alicia Machado over her weight gain in 1996.
Clinton based her debate strategy on a key insight: Trump has poor impulse control, but he is more impulsive at some times than others. He is not always an uncontrollable pile of sputtering rage — he was more controlled than normal during the month leading up to the debate — but if you find the right way to provoke him, you can send him off the rails.
Over the past few months, he has seemed less able to stifle himself when he is under attack (as during the Democratic convention) when he believes his campaign aides are second-guessing his choices (as when Paul Manafort was too openly discussing the need for Trump to change) or when he is slipping in the polls (the way he was immediately after the Democratic convention).
Having observed this, Clinton set off a series of dominoes.
She attacked Trump where he is sensitive — calling him "Donald," questioning his wealth, bringing up past feuds — and got him not only to lash out in self-destructive ways but also to be so distracted by the need to lash out that he forgot to bring up key attacks on Clinton.
After Trump flunked the debate, his advisers predictably leaked all over about how they tried and failed to get him to prepare. This further angered Trump, leading his campaign to organize a conference call with surrogates and supporters instructing them to stop leaking and start saying Trump had won the debate.
The substance of that conference call predictably leaked too, leading the man who practically invented the phrase "many people are saying" to tweet at 3:20 a.m. that any story about his campaign based on anonymous sources was based on lies.
The bad debate has also hurt Trump's poll standing, and as Trump comes to realize the polls are deteriorating he will most likely become angrier and more erratic — at a time when he ought to be trying to become calmer and more prepared for the next debate on October 9.
Alicia Machado turns out to have had a more checkered past than most people realized on debate night, a fact that makes some people wonder whether the Clinton campaign fully vetted her before putting her in the national spotlight.
My guess is the Clinton campaign knew exactly what it was doing.
The existence of scandal around Machado made it irresistible for Trump to spend his week insisting that Machado was the real villain here — a message choice that made Trump look petty and silly even before he urged voters in a series of overnight tweets to check out Machado's "sex tape" (which is actually a clip from "La Granja VIP," a reality show about C-list celebrities working on a farm).
A rational candidate, coolly focused on what message he could send to best win over voters, would understand that there is nothing to gain by arguing about whether Machado is a good person, let alone about whether her weight gain was "a real problem."
But Trump is not rational. He's on tilt.
In poker, if you go on tilt, the best strategy is to stop playing. Get up, step away from the table, and come back to play again only when your mood has normalized.
You don't have that option in a presidential campaign, but I'd note even more importantly that you don't have the option in the presidency. If Clinton can get inside Trump's head so easily, foreign leaders will be able to do so, too. This personality trait would make Trump a very dangerous president.
Fortunately, it has also made him a danger to himself in his own campaign.
Trump has no option to take a tilt break. My expectation is he will come back to debate on October 9 still mad as hell — and I also expect that Clinton has plans up her sleeve to make him even more unhinged.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"If Coulter was worried about what might happen if she appeared on the show, she should have been far more fearful of what would go down if she didn’t."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Chelsea Handler Burns Ann Coulter and Her ‘Piece of Sh*t’ Book After Canceled Appearance
After Ann Coulter canceled her appearance on Chelsea Handler’s Netflix show at the last minute, the host spent most of the episode tearing her to shreds.
By Matt Wilstein, September 28, 2016
The first sign that something was up came when Chelsea Handler posted an Instagram story Wednesday afternoon in which she literally set fire to Ann Coulter’s latest book, In Trump We Trust.
The conservative pundit, fresh off her crash-and-burn performance at Comedy Central’s Rob Lowe roast last month, was scheduled to be a guest on the episode of Handler’s Netflix talk show Chelsea set to start streaming early Friday morning. But as the studio audience learned midway through Wednesday’s taping, Coulter canceled her appearance at the last minute.
A disappointed Handler, who had been looking forward to squaring off with Coulter, made the most of the situation. Setting up a bit early in the show that compared headlines from The Drudge Report and The Huffington Post, the host joked, “The problem is that most news sites are biased. They only filter through stories that you already agree with. That’s why I always get my news from wherever Ann Coulter doesn’t.”
Another joke that would have stung Coulter hard came at the end of that segment when one of Handler’s writers presented a WorldStarHipHop video of a young boy climbing a refrigerator. “I don’t know what nationality that baby was, but if Trump builds that wall, he’ll be able to climb back over it,” Handler remarked.
But it was during the part of the show in which Coulter was supposed to appear that Handler really turned up the heat. Most talk show hosts probably wouldn’t have even mentioned the last-minute cancellation, but Handler decided to go in the opposite direction, calling in her friend and comedian Fortune Feimster to play Coulter’s “body double,” complete with long, blond wig.
“Since I am always accused of not representing both sides in this election, I went out on a limb and booked one of the most vocal Trump supporters in the country,” Handler said of Coulter before introducing her replacement. “And you know what she did? She called in sick just before the show today. Oh sorry, she emailed in sick.”
“Do you know how seriously I take this job?” Handler continued, no longer joking as she held Coulter’s book in the air. “I was up at 5 a.m. this morning reading this piece of garbage.”
Coulter’s replacement talked about how much she “loves” her book, how Comedy Central “tricked” her into participating in the roast, and admitted she’s used to being called the “c-word.” When Handler asked her to share some of her political views with the audience, Feimster pulled out a dog-eared copy of the book and read what appeared to be passages from it aloud, but were really some of the more infamous Coulter quotes from over the years.
“It would be a much better country if women did not vote, that is simply a fact,” she read to groans from the audience, explaining, as Coulter did in an interview with The Guardian, that if only men had voted in every election since 1964 the Republican candidate would have won. Handler shot back, “Which is exactly why women should be voting.”
Asked if she, as a woman, wants the right to vote, Feimster deadpanned, “I’m a woman, but I don’t love it. It’s not my favorite.”
Other quotes singled out from Coulter’s repertoire included the time she said “gays are the molecular opposites of blacks” because “everybody likes gays moving in next door,” and the one in which she declared that the government “should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport,” adding “I’d watch.”
Just as Hillary Clinton is using Donald Trump’s words against him in the campaign ads he thinks are so mean, Handler let Coulter’s words speak for themselves. With each quote, the audience started to boo louder and louder, causing the comedian to say, “You guys clearly didn’t read my book.”
“In all fairness, in defense of my audience, it’s hard to get through that piece of shit,” Handler said in response.
In an interview following the taping, Handler confirmed to The Daily Beast that she did read the entire book this morning before Coulter emailed to say she would be canceling her appearance. “I was like, ‘Oh my God,’” she said. “But it was better to have Fortune anyway. It made it much more fun.”
She had already been texting with Feimster, who had a memorable role in Handler’s Netflix documentary series Chelsea Does, that morning, so it just occurred to her in the moment to have her stand in. She added that she really did want to talk to Coulter about why she supports Trump, but after she canceled she thought, “Why not just throw her out to pasture?”
Handler said Coulter was not the first Trump supporter she invited onto her show, but they tend to turn her down. “All of the people who want to come on are Hillary supporters,” she added. She figured Coulter would be good because she’s not easily “intimidated” and “doesn’t seem to care” about what people think.
If Coulter was worried about what might happen if she appeared on the show, she should have been far more fearful of what would go down if she didn’t.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Chelsea Handler Burns Ann Coulter and Her ‘Piece of Sh*t’ Book After Canceled Appearance
After Ann Coulter canceled her appearance on Chelsea Handler’s Netflix show at the last minute, the host spent most of the episode tearing her to shreds.
By Matt Wilstein, September 28, 2016
The first sign that something was up came when Chelsea Handler posted an Instagram story Wednesday afternoon in which she literally set fire to Ann Coulter’s latest book, In Trump We Trust.
The conservative pundit, fresh off her crash-and-burn performance at Comedy Central’s Rob Lowe roast last month, was scheduled to be a guest on the episode of Handler’s Netflix talk show Chelsea set to start streaming early Friday morning. But as the studio audience learned midway through Wednesday’s taping, Coulter canceled her appearance at the last minute.
A disappointed Handler, who had been looking forward to squaring off with Coulter, made the most of the situation. Setting up a bit early in the show that compared headlines from The Drudge Report and The Huffington Post, the host joked, “The problem is that most news sites are biased. They only filter through stories that you already agree with. That’s why I always get my news from wherever Ann Coulter doesn’t.”
Another joke that would have stung Coulter hard came at the end of that segment when one of Handler’s writers presented a WorldStarHipHop video of a young boy climbing a refrigerator. “I don’t know what nationality that baby was, but if Trump builds that wall, he’ll be able to climb back over it,” Handler remarked.
But it was during the part of the show in which Coulter was supposed to appear that Handler really turned up the heat. Most talk show hosts probably wouldn’t have even mentioned the last-minute cancellation, but Handler decided to go in the opposite direction, calling in her friend and comedian Fortune Feimster to play Coulter’s “body double,” complete with long, blond wig.
“Since I am always accused of not representing both sides in this election, I went out on a limb and booked one of the most vocal Trump supporters in the country,” Handler said of Coulter before introducing her replacement. “And you know what she did? She called in sick just before the show today. Oh sorry, she emailed in sick.”
“Do you know how seriously I take this job?” Handler continued, no longer joking as she held Coulter’s book in the air. “I was up at 5 a.m. this morning reading this piece of garbage.”
Coulter’s replacement talked about how much she “loves” her book, how Comedy Central “tricked” her into participating in the roast, and admitted she’s used to being called the “c-word.” When Handler asked her to share some of her political views with the audience, Feimster pulled out a dog-eared copy of the book and read what appeared to be passages from it aloud, but were really some of the more infamous Coulter quotes from over the years.
“It would be a much better country if women did not vote, that is simply a fact,” she read to groans from the audience, explaining, as Coulter did in an interview with The Guardian, that if only men had voted in every election since 1964 the Republican candidate would have won. Handler shot back, “Which is exactly why women should be voting.”
Asked if she, as a woman, wants the right to vote, Feimster deadpanned, “I’m a woman, but I don’t love it. It’s not my favorite.”
Other quotes singled out from Coulter’s repertoire included the time she said “gays are the molecular opposites of blacks” because “everybody likes gays moving in next door,” and the one in which she declared that the government “should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport,” adding “I’d watch.”
Just as Hillary Clinton is using Donald Trump’s words against him in the campaign ads he thinks are so mean, Handler let Coulter’s words speak for themselves. With each quote, the audience started to boo louder and louder, causing the comedian to say, “You guys clearly didn’t read my book.”
“In all fairness, in defense of my audience, it’s hard to get through that piece of shit,” Handler said in response.
In an interview following the taping, Handler confirmed to The Daily Beast that she did read the entire book this morning before Coulter emailed to say she would be canceling her appearance. “I was like, ‘Oh my God,’” she said. “But it was better to have Fortune anyway. It made it much more fun.”
She had already been texting with Feimster, who had a memorable role in Handler’s Netflix documentary series Chelsea Does, that morning, so it just occurred to her in the moment to have her stand in. She added that she really did want to talk to Coulter about why she supports Trump, but after she canceled she thought, “Why not just throw her out to pasture?”
Handler said Coulter was not the first Trump supporter she invited onto her show, but they tend to turn her down. “All of the people who want to come on are Hillary supporters,” she added. She figured Coulter would be good because she’s not easily “intimidated” and “doesn’t seem to care” about what people think.
If Coulter was worried about what might happen if she appeared on the show, she should have been far more fearful of what would go down if she didn’t.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Thursday, September 29, 2016
Are we surprised that bumper sticker isn't already on the plane?
...................................................................................
Same ol' same ol' #Lyin'Donald, Kellyanne.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Megyn Kelly Is Calling Out Trump's Absurd History with Women
Cutting right through the bullsh*t.
By Sarah Rense, September 29, 2016
Last night, Megyn Kelly said two words to Kellyanne Conway, manager of the Trump campaign: "Kellyanne. C'mon."
Finally.
Kelly was referring to Conway's defense of Trump's record with women, one Conway described as "a couple of comments he's made over 25 years or so with respect to women." To which Kelly countered, "You know that's not true." Here's why it's not true.
As Kelly reminded Conway, Trump made disparaging comments about Carly Fiorina, Heidi Cruz, and Hillary Clinton during this election alone. Kelly didn't bring it up, but he also made disparaging comments about her. Recently, Kelly told investigators she was sexually harassed by Roger Ailes, who is advising Trump for the debates. Today, a former Philadelphia Inquirer reporter recalled Trump calling her "that cunt" after she wrote a story about his Atlantic City casino dealings—a story he didn't read past the headline. This is an incomplete list.
But Conway didn't want to talk about Trump's history with women. Why did Kelly have to keep bringing it up?
"Because she's killing him with women," Kelly said, which makes this conversation relevant and makes Kelly's line of questioning fair. Polls have Clinton beating Trump by 17 percent among likely women voters.
Unfortunately for Conway, there's no good rebuttal. Trump has made it crystal clear he stands firmly by his comments about women. Conway can't make him unsay things, nor can she claim they were mistakes made by an old, more regrettable version of Trump—he was doubling down on his comments about Alicia Machado's weight yesterday on Fox & Friends. This is a thankless task. But thank god Kelly made her acknowledge it.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Megyn Kelly Is Calling Out Trump's Absurd History with Women
Cutting right through the bullsh*t.
By Sarah Rense, September 29, 2016
Last night, Megyn Kelly said two words to Kellyanne Conway, manager of the Trump campaign: "Kellyanne. C'mon."
Finally.
Kelly was referring to Conway's defense of Trump's record with women, one Conway described as "a couple of comments he's made over 25 years or so with respect to women." To which Kelly countered, "You know that's not true." Here's why it's not true.
As Kelly reminded Conway, Trump made disparaging comments about Carly Fiorina, Heidi Cruz, and Hillary Clinton during this election alone. Kelly didn't bring it up, but he also made disparaging comments about her. Recently, Kelly told investigators she was sexually harassed by Roger Ailes, who is advising Trump for the debates. Today, a former Philadelphia Inquirer reporter recalled Trump calling her "that cunt" after she wrote a story about his Atlantic City casino dealings—a story he didn't read past the headline. This is an incomplete list.
But Conway didn't want to talk about Trump's history with women. Why did Kelly have to keep bringing it up?
"Because she's killing him with women," Kelly said, which makes this conversation relevant and makes Kelly's line of questioning fair. Polls have Clinton beating Trump by 17 percent among likely women voters.
Unfortunately for Conway, there's no good rebuttal. Trump has made it crystal clear he stands firmly by his comments about women. Conway can't make him unsay things, nor can she claim they were mistakes made by an old, more regrettable version of Trump—he was doubling down on his comments about Alicia Machado's weight yesterday on Fox & Friends. This is a thankless task. But thank god Kelly made her acknowledge it.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"'It is clear that [Trump's] vision of America is one of division and exclusion, not unity and acceptance.'" Has there ever been any doubt about it?
...................................................................................................................................................................
“Should we keep them?”: Donald Trump floats booting all non-Christians from his rally
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump openly joked about booting non-Christians from his rallies after singling them out during two campaign stops on Wednesday.
Appearing in Council Bluffs, Iowa, as he rolled out his Iowa Christian Conservatives for Trump coalition Wednesday, which the campaign said included more than 650 religious leaders from the state, Trump first held up a sign with a blue background reading, “Christian Conservatives For Trump. Make America Great Again.”
Then the Republican presidential nominee boasted that he won more support from the evangelical Christians during the GOP primary than anyone had predicted.
“We have our Christian conservatives for Trump today. And they’re in the room. Let’s go. That’s what we want. That’s beautiful,” Trump told the cheering crowd.
“Raise your hands, Christian conservatives everybody,” he said, as most of the hands in the draped-off convention center went up. Then, he asked those who are [sic] not to raise their hands before jokingly questioning whether he should “keep them in the room.”
“Raise your hand if you’re not a Christian conservative. I want to see this. Right,” he said, according to Time.
He paused and looked around until he spotted a few hands.
“That is a couple of people,” he said. “That’s alright. I think we’ll keep them, right? Shall we keep them in the room? I think so.”
Trump repeated his pandering schtick at a rally in Waukesha, Wisconsin, on Wednesday.
Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said Trump’s comments were disturbing, citing his proposed temporary ban on all Muslims entering the United States.
“Given Mr. Trump’s history of targeting religious and ethnic minorities, it is disturbing that he would single out non-Christians during his rally in Iowa,” Hooper said in a statement. “It is clear that his vision of America is one of division and exclusion, not unity and acceptance.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
“Should we keep them?”: Donald Trump floats booting all non-Christians from his rally
Trump let an audience vote if non-Christian conservatives should be kicked out of a rally
By Sophia Tesfaye, September 29, 2016Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump openly joked about booting non-Christians from his rallies after singling them out during two campaign stops on Wednesday.
Appearing in Council Bluffs, Iowa, as he rolled out his Iowa Christian Conservatives for Trump coalition Wednesday, which the campaign said included more than 650 religious leaders from the state, Trump first held up a sign with a blue background reading, “Christian Conservatives For Trump. Make America Great Again.”
Then the Republican presidential nominee boasted that he won more support from the evangelical Christians during the GOP primary than anyone had predicted.
“We have our Christian conservatives for Trump today. And they’re in the room. Let’s go. That’s what we want. That’s beautiful,” Trump told the cheering crowd.
“Raise your hands, Christian conservatives everybody,” he said, as most of the hands in the draped-off convention center went up. Then, he asked those who are [sic] not to raise their hands before jokingly questioning whether he should “keep them in the room.”
“Raise your hand if you’re not a Christian conservative. I want to see this. Right,” he said, according to Time.
He paused and looked around until he spotted a few hands.
“That is a couple of people,” he said. “That’s alright. I think we’ll keep them, right? Shall we keep them in the room? I think so.”
Trump repeated his pandering schtick at a rally in Waukesha, Wisconsin, on Wednesday.
Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said Trump’s comments were disturbing, citing his proposed temporary ban on all Muslims entering the United States.
“Given Mr. Trump’s history of targeting religious and ethnic minorities, it is disturbing that he would single out non-Christians during his rally in Iowa,” Hooper said in a statement. “It is clear that his vision of America is one of division and exclusion, not unity and acceptance.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
OK, Feds, it's time to indict Trump!! And, Conway, tell #Lyin'Donald it's also not fair to go after what the Clintons did in the '90s either.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* He wants to talk about Billy boy’s sexcapades. Hell, that’s 20 years old.
* If this had been Clinton, there would be 9 Congressional investigations into it all. THAT is your double standard.
* Trump and his brigade of liars just cannot keep up with all of his shady business.
* There is a minor difference between talking about Clinton in the Nineties and talking about Trump in the Nineties. He wants to talk about the Lewinsky matter in which the worst he can say of Hillary is that she talked trash about Lewinsky, which is certainly legal and given her position quite understandable. One could argue that he is attempting to bring up old, irrelevant garbage having no bearing on her ability to be President. Trump is accused of, and his Ann Coulter look-alike stand-in admits, violating a serious federal law for which one can go to prison. Perhaps the Cinton camp should turn Trump’s words back on him and do a few “lock him up” chants at her rallies.
* He spent money in Cuba while it was both embargoed and on the STATE SPONSORS OF TERRORISM list. That is high treason. It’s not a question, it’s not a technical violation. It’s treasonous, end of story.
* We’re talking about Donald Trump having committed a federal crime by spending $68K in Cuba during the embargo. Valleygirl Kellyann Conway is great at deflecting, but she admitted that he did this, and it’s a serious crime. Why is it that Bill’s affairs from that period are subject to discussion by the Trump campaign, but Trump’s federal crime from the same period should be off-limits. Thank goodness The View didn’t buy this nonsense.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Trump’s campaign manager accidentally admits Trump broke the law on live TV
Conway complains it’s not fair to go back to 1998.
By Josh Israel, September 29, 2016
Donald Trump’s campaign manager appeared to unwittingly confirm an explosive Newsweek story on Thursday, telling ABC’s The View that a Trump company did indeed spend money in Cuba in 1998, in violation of a longstanding U.S. embargo that Trump has vociferously defended.
Newsweek’s Kurt Eichenwald reported on Thursday that Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts spent at least $68,000 in 1998 in Cuba, “at a time when the corporate expenditure of even a penny in the Caribbean country was prohibited without U.S. government approval.” The story notes that “with Trump’s knowledge, executives funneled the cash for the Cuba trip through an American consulting firm.” After the consultants traveled to Cuba and spent the funds, the consultants instructed Trump’s company on “how to make it appear legal by linking it after the fact to a charitable effort.”
Asked about the report, Conway first tried to defend Trump by pointing out that the company ultimately decided not to invest in Cuba and therefore was “not treasonous.”
“Read the entire story. It starts out with a screaming headline, as it usually does, that he did business in Cuba. And then it turns out he decided not to invest there.”
Asked if she was denying that they spent the funds, she conceded: “I think they paid money, as I understand from the story, they paid money in 1998.” Conway then attempted to claim a double standard, “We’re not supposed to talk about years ago when it comes to the Clinton, but with Trump, there is no statute of limitations ever.”
Conway then noted that Trump has been “very critical of Cuba” and gave a speech to the Cuban American National Foundation in Miami “critical of those who want to do business with Castro” a year later.
Watch:
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who has endorsed Trump after losing the Republican nomination to the millionaire real estate investor, said on Thursday that the allegations are “very serious and troubling” and called on Trump’s campaign to answer the questions raised by the report.
UPDATE: BuzzFeed’s Kyle Blaine reported on Thursday afternoon that the Trump campaign distributed talking points to surrogates urging them to dismiss Eichenwald as a “totally discredited reporter” with “manufactured reports,” to dismiss this and other reports as “being from “10, 20, or even 30 years” back, and to change the subject to the Clinton’s “special interest donors.”
Eichenwald responded with a Tweet noting that the Trump campaign still has not addressed the allegations.
Soon after, on MSNBC, Trump surrogate Steve Cortes acknowledged much of Eichenwald’s report, but argued, “If this was a violation, I think it was an incredibly technical one” and “if he had a technical violation there, I don’t think we can really fault him much for that.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* He wants to talk about Billy boy’s sexcapades. Hell, that’s 20 years old.
* If this had been Clinton, there would be 9 Congressional investigations into it all. THAT is your double standard.
* Trump and his brigade of liars just cannot keep up with all of his shady business.
* There is a minor difference between talking about Clinton in the Nineties and talking about Trump in the Nineties. He wants to talk about the Lewinsky matter in which the worst he can say of Hillary is that she talked trash about Lewinsky, which is certainly legal and given her position quite understandable. One could argue that he is attempting to bring up old, irrelevant garbage having no bearing on her ability to be President. Trump is accused of, and his Ann Coulter look-alike stand-in admits, violating a serious federal law for which one can go to prison. Perhaps the Cinton camp should turn Trump’s words back on him and do a few “lock him up” chants at her rallies.
* He spent money in Cuba while it was both embargoed and on the STATE SPONSORS OF TERRORISM list. That is high treason. It’s not a question, it’s not a technical violation. It’s treasonous, end of story.
* We’re talking about Donald Trump having committed a federal crime by spending $68K in Cuba during the embargo. Valleygirl Kellyann Conway is great at deflecting, but she admitted that he did this, and it’s a serious crime. Why is it that Bill’s affairs from that period are subject to discussion by the Trump campaign, but Trump’s federal crime from the same period should be off-limits. Thank goodness The View didn’t buy this nonsense.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Trump’s campaign manager accidentally admits Trump broke the law on live TV
Conway complains it’s not fair to go back to 1998.
By Josh Israel, September 29, 2016
Donald Trump’s campaign manager appeared to unwittingly confirm an explosive Newsweek story on Thursday, telling ABC’s The View that a Trump company did indeed spend money in Cuba in 1998, in violation of a longstanding U.S. embargo that Trump has vociferously defended.
Newsweek’s Kurt Eichenwald reported on Thursday that Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts spent at least $68,000 in 1998 in Cuba, “at a time when the corporate expenditure of even a penny in the Caribbean country was prohibited without U.S. government approval.” The story notes that “with Trump’s knowledge, executives funneled the cash for the Cuba trip through an American consulting firm.” After the consultants traveled to Cuba and spent the funds, the consultants instructed Trump’s company on “how to make it appear legal by linking it after the fact to a charitable effort.”
Asked about the report, Conway first tried to defend Trump by pointing out that the company ultimately decided not to invest in Cuba and therefore was “not treasonous.”
“Read the entire story. It starts out with a screaming headline, as it usually does, that he did business in Cuba. And then it turns out he decided not to invest there.”
Asked if she was denying that they spent the funds, she conceded: “I think they paid money, as I understand from the story, they paid money in 1998.” Conway then attempted to claim a double standard, “We’re not supposed to talk about years ago when it comes to the Clinton, but with Trump, there is no statute of limitations ever.”
Conway then noted that Trump has been “very critical of Cuba” and gave a speech to the Cuban American National Foundation in Miami “critical of those who want to do business with Castro” a year later.
Watch:
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who has endorsed Trump after losing the Republican nomination to the millionaire real estate investor, said on Thursday that the allegations are “very serious and troubling” and called on Trump’s campaign to answer the questions raised by the report.
UPDATE: BuzzFeed’s Kyle Blaine reported on Thursday afternoon that the Trump campaign distributed talking points to surrogates urging them to dismiss Eichenwald as a “totally discredited reporter” with “manufactured reports,” to dismiss this and other reports as “being from “10, 20, or even 30 years” back, and to change the subject to the Clinton’s “special interest donors.”
Eichenwald responded with a Tweet noting that the Trump campaign still has not addressed the allegations.
Soon after, on MSNBC, Trump surrogate Steve Cortes acknowledged much of Eichenwald’s report, but argued, “If this was a violation, I think it was an incredibly technical one” and “if he had a technical violation there, I don’t think we can really fault him much for that.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
"You hear that over all that sniffling, Trump?" Double slam!
...................................................................................................................................................................
This Glorious Mexican Beer Ad Trolled the Shit Out of Trump
Oh, and it aired during the first presidential debate.
By Sammy Nickalls, September 27, 2016
Say the word "wall" (in an obnoxious, sniffily, authoritative whine) and anyone who's been remotely alert during 2016 will immediately think of Donald Trump and his grand plans to build a wall between the United States and Mexico. However, Mexican beer company Tecate has a totally different kind of US-Mexico wall in mind.
Those who watched the first presidential debate last night on Fox News—many of whom, likely, are totally for Trump's preposterous wall proposition—sat through a commercial that was pretty much 30 seconds of "hey, fuck the fuck off, Trump."
"The time has come for a wall," the narrator boldly says as the video displays a desert landscape split by a tiny wall. "A tremendous wall. The best wall. The Tecate beer wall."
"A wall that brings us together," the ad continues as Mexican residents and American residents meet up at the wall to chill over some brewskis. "This wall may be small, but it's going to be huge. You're welcome, America."
Sounds like a pretty great plan to us. You hear that over all that sniffling, Trump?
...................................................................................................................................................................
This Glorious Mexican Beer Ad Trolled the Shit Out of Trump
Oh, and it aired during the first presidential debate.
By Sammy Nickalls, September 27, 2016
Say the word "wall" (in an obnoxious, sniffily, authoritative whine) and anyone who's been remotely alert during 2016 will immediately think of Donald Trump and his grand plans to build a wall between the United States and Mexico. However, Mexican beer company Tecate has a totally different kind of US-Mexico wall in mind.
Those who watched the first presidential debate last night on Fox News—many of whom, likely, are totally for Trump's preposterous wall proposition—sat through a commercial that was pretty much 30 seconds of "hey, fuck the fuck off, Trump."
"The time has come for a wall," the narrator boldly says as the video displays a desert landscape split by a tiny wall. "A tremendous wall. The best wall. The Tecate beer wall."
"A wall that brings us together," the ad continues as Mexican residents and American residents meet up at the wall to chill over some brewskis. "This wall may be small, but it's going to be huge. You're welcome, America."
Sounds like a pretty great plan to us. You hear that over all that sniffling, Trump?
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Anti-immigration sentiment has become widespread, and if you’re looking to explain it, you’d do well to start with hostility to Latinos and to Muslims."
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Real Reason So Many Americans Oppose Immigration
By Cass R. Sunstein, September 28, 2016
Why do so many Americans oppose immigration, and why has it become a central issue in the presidential campaign? A growing body of research suggests that the answer isn’t economic anxiety, or concerns about public spending, or even general nationalism. It is more specific -- and more disturbing.
The question of what drives anti-immigrant sentiment is put in sharp relief by an extensive report released last week by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. The report finds that immigration has positive effects on economic growth -- and doesn’t hurt the employment or wages of native-born workers.
As my Bloomberg View colleague Paula Dwyer wrote, the picture isn’t all rosy: Immigration seems to reduce the number of hours worked by native-born teens, and depress the wages of native-born workers who didn't finish high school. But the general lesson of the report is that immigration promotes and is even “integral to the nation’s economic growth.” What, then, explains widespread public opposition? Here are four possibilities:
In 2008, the University of Michigan’s Nicholas Valentino, Ted Brader and Ashley Jardina asked respondents a series of questions about “several groups in society,” asking them to rate their attitude toward blacks, Asians, Hispanics and whites. They asked the same people a series of questions about immigration, such as “How likely is it that immigration will have a negative impact on jobs for American citizens?” Finally, they asked people questions about their economic situation (including household income) and their level of economic anxiety.
Their central finding was that whites’ attitudes toward other groups have a “statistically enormous effect on negative views of the cultural and economic impact of immigration.” Social scientists don’t ordinarily use the word “enormous,” so what we have here is a really dramatic effect: As whites show more negative attitudes toward blacks, Asians and Hispanics, their negative feelings toward immigration skyrocket.
You might not be amazed that nativists would tend not to like members of different racial groups. But there’s a kicker: Once the data are disaggregated, it emerges that essentially all of the movement came from negative attitudes toward Hispanics. Attitudes toward Asians and blacks didn’t correlate with views about immigration.
While negative attitudes toward Hispanics helped explain negative views about immigration, economic anxieties had a much weaker effect. True, people with serious concerns about their own economic situation were more likely to agree that immigration hurts the job prospects of the native-born. At the same time, low-income workers and the unemployed didn’t show more negative feelings about immigration than other groups in the population. “Material interests make only a small contribution to explaining” views on newcomers, the authors concluded.
Those findings are broadly consistent with numerous other studies, including recent ones, which also find that racial, religious and ethnic prejudices predict attitudes toward immigration -- and that anti-Latino attitudes are particularly important. (There is a separate question about why those attitudes exist and also about the possibility that some people associate Hispanic immigration with the distinctive problem of illegal immigration. But that’s a subject for another occasion.)
It follows that in highlighting immigration from Mexico, and in calling for a wall, Trump was targeting widespread sentiment. More than that, he was legitimating, activating and even amplifying it. The authors of the 2008 study forecast that phenomenon as well: “Bad news about Latino immigrants, but not immigrants of other groups, causes whites significant anxiety, and this anxiety is critical in triggering opposition to immigration.”
In 2016, of course, Muslim immigration has also become especially prominent in the public eye (and in Trump’s speeches). But it’s not the first time. Valentino and his coauthors find that after the Sept. 11 attacks, there was an upsurge in coverage of Muslim immigrants, corresponding to a period in which negative attitudes about Muslims were correlated with negative attitudes toward immigration. And a study released just last week finds that in Europe, anti-Muslim bias plays a big role in shaping attitudes toward asylum seekers.
An important clarification: I am outlining empirical findings, and none of them means that America’s borders should be opened, or that those who seek to tighten those borders are wrong to emphasize the risks (among others, from those who wish to do us harm); they might be right. And illegal immigration raises its own questions; some people welcome immigrants so long as they are here lawfully.
But some truths turn out to be unpleasant: Anti-immigration sentiment has become widespread, and if you’re looking to explain it, you’d do well to start with hostility to Latinos and to Muslims.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Real Reason So Many Americans Oppose Immigration
By Cass R. Sunstein, September 28, 2016
Why do so many Americans oppose immigration, and why has it become a central issue in the presidential campaign? A growing body of research suggests that the answer isn’t economic anxiety, or concerns about public spending, or even general nationalism. It is more specific -- and more disturbing.
The question of what drives anti-immigrant sentiment is put in sharp relief by an extensive report released last week by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. The report finds that immigration has positive effects on economic growth -- and doesn’t hurt the employment or wages of native-born workers.
As my Bloomberg View colleague Paula Dwyer wrote, the picture isn’t all rosy: Immigration seems to reduce the number of hours worked by native-born teens, and depress the wages of native-born workers who didn't finish high school. But the general lesson of the report is that immigration promotes and is even “integral to the nation’s economic growth.” What, then, explains widespread public opposition? Here are four possibilities:
- Right or wrong, opponents are concerned about the risks of market competition. They want native-born Americans to keep their jobs, and they don’t want them to face wage cuts.
- Right or wrong, opponents are concerned about the fiscal burdens imposed by first-generation immigrants.
- Opponents are hostile to any group -- national, ethnic, racial or religious -- different from their own.
- Opponents are hostile to certain groups -- Latinos and Muslims in particular.
In 2008, the University of Michigan’s Nicholas Valentino, Ted Brader and Ashley Jardina asked respondents a series of questions about “several groups in society,” asking them to rate their attitude toward blacks, Asians, Hispanics and whites. They asked the same people a series of questions about immigration, such as “How likely is it that immigration will have a negative impact on jobs for American citizens?” Finally, they asked people questions about their economic situation (including household income) and their level of economic anxiety.
Their central finding was that whites’ attitudes toward other groups have a “statistically enormous effect on negative views of the cultural and economic impact of immigration.” Social scientists don’t ordinarily use the word “enormous,” so what we have here is a really dramatic effect: As whites show more negative attitudes toward blacks, Asians and Hispanics, their negative feelings toward immigration skyrocket.
You might not be amazed that nativists would tend not to like members of different racial groups. But there’s a kicker: Once the data are disaggregated, it emerges that essentially all of the movement came from negative attitudes toward Hispanics. Attitudes toward Asians and blacks didn’t correlate with views about immigration.
While negative attitudes toward Hispanics helped explain negative views about immigration, economic anxieties had a much weaker effect. True, people with serious concerns about their own economic situation were more likely to agree that immigration hurts the job prospects of the native-born. At the same time, low-income workers and the unemployed didn’t show more negative feelings about immigration than other groups in the population. “Material interests make only a small contribution to explaining” views on newcomers, the authors concluded.
Those findings are broadly consistent with numerous other studies, including recent ones, which also find that racial, religious and ethnic prejudices predict attitudes toward immigration -- and that anti-Latino attitudes are particularly important. (There is a separate question about why those attitudes exist and also about the possibility that some people associate Hispanic immigration with the distinctive problem of illegal immigration. But that’s a subject for another occasion.)
It follows that in highlighting immigration from Mexico, and in calling for a wall, Trump was targeting widespread sentiment. More than that, he was legitimating, activating and even amplifying it. The authors of the 2008 study forecast that phenomenon as well: “Bad news about Latino immigrants, but not immigrants of other groups, causes whites significant anxiety, and this anxiety is critical in triggering opposition to immigration.”
In 2016, of course, Muslim immigration has also become especially prominent in the public eye (and in Trump’s speeches). But it’s not the first time. Valentino and his coauthors find that after the Sept. 11 attacks, there was an upsurge in coverage of Muslim immigrants, corresponding to a period in which negative attitudes about Muslims were correlated with negative attitudes toward immigration. And a study released just last week finds that in Europe, anti-Muslim bias plays a big role in shaping attitudes toward asylum seekers.
An important clarification: I am outlining empirical findings, and none of them means that America’s borders should be opened, or that those who seek to tighten those borders are wrong to emphasize the risks (among others, from those who wish to do us harm); they might be right. And illegal immigration raises its own questions; some people welcome immigrants so long as they are here lawfully.
But some truths turn out to be unpleasant: Anti-immigration sentiment has become widespread, and if you’re looking to explain it, you’d do well to start with hostility to Latinos and to Muslims.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Maybe #Lyin'Donald can scrape up some Orange Dust.
......................................................................................................................................
On Monday night, I think Clinton followed these suggestions pretty well! [snicker]
...................................................................................................................................................................
Hey, Hillary Clinton: Here’s How to Debate a Narcissist
Threaten his ego, force him into the policy weeds, and maybe, just maybe, even flatter him.
By Keith Campbell, September 24, 2016
I had an odd inquiry from a member of the press recently. She wondered if I were the narcissism expert hired by the Clinton campaign to help in debate prep. I wasn’t. But that inquiry did start me thinking: Assuming that candidate Trump is a pretty narcissistic character—a showman, attention-seeking, materialistic, self-promoting—how would he act in a debate? And how could he be derailed?
Narcissism—a personality trait including an inflated sense of self, a lack of empathy, and a tendency toward self-promotion—sounds bad to people. In reality, however, narcissism is a trade-off. This is especially true in leadership positions, where narcissism is a double-edged sword with a “bright side” appearing as boldness, charisma and strength, and a “dark side” appearing as hubris, demagoguery and unethical behavior.
The bright and dark sides of narcissism often involve the same characteristics. Boldness and self-confidence are inspiring, but can lead to risky and poorly thought-out actions. Aggression and power are off-putting when they seem uncontrolled, but are praised when channeled to confront a major problem. And context matters as well when deciding whether narcissism is bright or dark. When times are dangerous or uncertain, we want powerful narcissistic leaders to guide us to safety, but when times are good, we want more management-focused leaders to keep things running smoothly. And, of course, if the culture is becoming more narcissistic as Jean Twenge and I argue in The Narcissism Epidemic then a reality TV star president makes perfect sense.
One major bright side of narcissism is that it is well suited for public debate. Debates allow the narcissistic individual to be the center of attention, to compete, show off his or her skills, and hopefully vanquish a rival. While many people choke under the pressure of a live audience, narcissists seem to perform better.
So, how would these ideas translate into the upcoming debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton? Trump will want to maximize his narcissistic bright side (strength, charisma, energy, boldness) and hide his dark side (callousness, hostility, instability). A debate in front of an audience of millions is an incredible opportunity for him to self-promote so he will be energized and engaged. Clinton will have the opposite goal: cloak Trump’s bright side and unveil his narcissistic dark side. Rather than seeing a bold, visionary fighter, Clinton wants the audience to see Trump as a petty, unstable, self-absorbed bully.
Here are four specific strategies I would predict Trump would use based on the research literature.
• Trump will present a “bold and broad” message rather than focus on details. In many research studies, psychological power is linked to a broad or global view of the present and future as well as an orientation towards action rather than analysis. Trump’s message will be self-promoting. He will focus on his status and success.
• Trump will deflect criticisms he receives. When faced with negative feedback, narcissists usually dismiss it as being another person’s fault or unimportant. Sometimes the person providing the negative feedback will be attacked as well. Trump seemed to do this in the primary debate where he went after the moderator, Megyn Kelly. Another tactic along these lines is memory distortion. Trump’s failures in the past will be rewritten to make the present Trump look smart and successful.
• Trump will also note the instability and chaos in the world. Strong, narcissistic leaders are in demand when there is crisis. So it is in Trump’s interest for the world to seem dangerous and chaotic. This week supplied terrorist attacks in the Northeast and riots in the South that seem like good material for making the case for instability.
• Finally, Trump may also try a “communal shift.” That is, he will add some warmth and caring to his message, especially targeting women and children. This will be intended to obscure fears he is a dangerous demagogue and make him appear instead a caring but strong leader—to borrow from the other Mr. T, Trump will want to appear tough on the bad guys but tender with the women and children. That said, his message will be primarily about dominance, strength and winning.
So, how should Secretary Clinton counter Trump’s strategy? Here are four research-based tactics designed to thwart Trump’s “bright side” appeal and reveal his narcissistic “dark side.”
• The most straightforward way to bring out the worst in a narcissistic individual is through ego threat: Say “you aren’t that good” or “you can’t do that.” Narcissism plus ego threat often elicits anger and aggression, which might make the narcissist look unstable, childish, or like a bully. We have seen this play out throughout Trump’s campaign and it has worked nearly every time. He gets defensive about his small hands; he attacked the parents of a slain war hero; and he even went after a debate moderator. If I were Team Clinton, I would scan through Twitter and create a database of all the threats that had set Trump off. I would distill those down to one or two key ego threats and then pepper them throughout the debate. The goal would be to make Trump seem erratic or dysregulated, angry, and ideally to get him to “punch down” at someone—that looks weak and insecure. Everyone loves a fighter (bright side) but everyone hates a bully (dark side).
• Another tactic would be to take the debate to the level of policy detail rather than bold vision. This “wrestle in the weeds” strategy has the potential to deflate Trump’s apparent power. People don’t look like bold leaders talking about details; they look like managers or wonks. Bold leaders look like Napoleon on horseback, Washington standing in a boat, or Joan of Arc leading troops into battle with sword unsheathed. And people especially don’t look like bold leaders when they haven’t mastered the details in question.
• Focusing on economic growth and stability would be another good tactic. Use phrases like “job gains” and “economic progress.” This message will diminish the appeal of a bold, narcissistic leader because there simply wouldn’t be a need for a change agent. If people believe things are stable, they will want an experienced insider at the wheel rather than an erratic outsider.
• Finally, if Clinton wants to try some risky psychological jujitsu, a little selective puffery might work. One of the most straightforward ways to manipulate narcissistic individuals is through flattery. Complimenting Trump would be confusing to him—and perhaps also the audience—and this might throw him off his game. Trump seems to like compliments almost as much as he dislikes criticism. Putin was smart enough to use this strategy, so maybe Clinton will be as well.
In short, if I were Team Clinton, my goal would be to make Trump look angry, unstable, ill-informed, and scary. I would want his narcissistic dark side out there for all to see. Trump is a political Godzilla. He crushed the entire Republican primary field with a tiny team and a Twitter account. We love Godzilla when the chips are down and Mothra is attacking because we know Godzilla is the right monster to save us; we hate Godzilla when he breaths fire at weak humans and knocks down city blocks; and we want Godzilla safely back on the screen where we can watch him for entertainment when calm is restored.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Hey, Hillary Clinton: Here’s How to Debate a Narcissist
Threaten his ego, force him into the policy weeds, and maybe, just maybe, even flatter him.
By Keith Campbell, September 24, 2016
I had an odd inquiry from a member of the press recently. She wondered if I were the narcissism expert hired by the Clinton campaign to help in debate prep. I wasn’t. But that inquiry did start me thinking: Assuming that candidate Trump is a pretty narcissistic character—a showman, attention-seeking, materialistic, self-promoting—how would he act in a debate? And how could he be derailed?
Narcissism—a personality trait including an inflated sense of self, a lack of empathy, and a tendency toward self-promotion—sounds bad to people. In reality, however, narcissism is a trade-off. This is especially true in leadership positions, where narcissism is a double-edged sword with a “bright side” appearing as boldness, charisma and strength, and a “dark side” appearing as hubris, demagoguery and unethical behavior.
The bright and dark sides of narcissism often involve the same characteristics. Boldness and self-confidence are inspiring, but can lead to risky and poorly thought-out actions. Aggression and power are off-putting when they seem uncontrolled, but are praised when channeled to confront a major problem. And context matters as well when deciding whether narcissism is bright or dark. When times are dangerous or uncertain, we want powerful narcissistic leaders to guide us to safety, but when times are good, we want more management-focused leaders to keep things running smoothly. And, of course, if the culture is becoming more narcissistic as Jean Twenge and I argue in The Narcissism Epidemic then a reality TV star president makes perfect sense.
One major bright side of narcissism is that it is well suited for public debate. Debates allow the narcissistic individual to be the center of attention, to compete, show off his or her skills, and hopefully vanquish a rival. While many people choke under the pressure of a live audience, narcissists seem to perform better.
So, how would these ideas translate into the upcoming debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton? Trump will want to maximize his narcissistic bright side (strength, charisma, energy, boldness) and hide his dark side (callousness, hostility, instability). A debate in front of an audience of millions is an incredible opportunity for him to self-promote so he will be energized and engaged. Clinton will have the opposite goal: cloak Trump’s bright side and unveil his narcissistic dark side. Rather than seeing a bold, visionary fighter, Clinton wants the audience to see Trump as a petty, unstable, self-absorbed bully.
Here are four specific strategies I would predict Trump would use based on the research literature.
• Trump will present a “bold and broad” message rather than focus on details. In many research studies, psychological power is linked to a broad or global view of the present and future as well as an orientation towards action rather than analysis. Trump’s message will be self-promoting. He will focus on his status and success.
• Trump will deflect criticisms he receives. When faced with negative feedback, narcissists usually dismiss it as being another person’s fault or unimportant. Sometimes the person providing the negative feedback will be attacked as well. Trump seemed to do this in the primary debate where he went after the moderator, Megyn Kelly. Another tactic along these lines is memory distortion. Trump’s failures in the past will be rewritten to make the present Trump look smart and successful.
• Trump will also note the instability and chaos in the world. Strong, narcissistic leaders are in demand when there is crisis. So it is in Trump’s interest for the world to seem dangerous and chaotic. This week supplied terrorist attacks in the Northeast and riots in the South that seem like good material for making the case for instability.
• Finally, Trump may also try a “communal shift.” That is, he will add some warmth and caring to his message, especially targeting women and children. This will be intended to obscure fears he is a dangerous demagogue and make him appear instead a caring but strong leader—to borrow from the other Mr. T, Trump will want to appear tough on the bad guys but tender with the women and children. That said, his message will be primarily about dominance, strength and winning.
So, how should Secretary Clinton counter Trump’s strategy? Here are four research-based tactics designed to thwart Trump’s “bright side” appeal and reveal his narcissistic “dark side.”
• The most straightforward way to bring out the worst in a narcissistic individual is through ego threat: Say “you aren’t that good” or “you can’t do that.” Narcissism plus ego threat often elicits anger and aggression, which might make the narcissist look unstable, childish, or like a bully. We have seen this play out throughout Trump’s campaign and it has worked nearly every time. He gets defensive about his small hands; he attacked the parents of a slain war hero; and he even went after a debate moderator. If I were Team Clinton, I would scan through Twitter and create a database of all the threats that had set Trump off. I would distill those down to one or two key ego threats and then pepper them throughout the debate. The goal would be to make Trump seem erratic or dysregulated, angry, and ideally to get him to “punch down” at someone—that looks weak and insecure. Everyone loves a fighter (bright side) but everyone hates a bully (dark side).
• Another tactic would be to take the debate to the level of policy detail rather than bold vision. This “wrestle in the weeds” strategy has the potential to deflate Trump’s apparent power. People don’t look like bold leaders talking about details; they look like managers or wonks. Bold leaders look like Napoleon on horseback, Washington standing in a boat, or Joan of Arc leading troops into battle with sword unsheathed. And people especially don’t look like bold leaders when they haven’t mastered the details in question.
• Focusing on economic growth and stability would be another good tactic. Use phrases like “job gains” and “economic progress.” This message will diminish the appeal of a bold, narcissistic leader because there simply wouldn’t be a need for a change agent. If people believe things are stable, they will want an experienced insider at the wheel rather than an erratic outsider.
• Finally, if Clinton wants to try some risky psychological jujitsu, a little selective puffery might work. One of the most straightforward ways to manipulate narcissistic individuals is through flattery. Complimenting Trump would be confusing to him—and perhaps also the audience—and this might throw him off his game. Trump seems to like compliments almost as much as he dislikes criticism. Putin was smart enough to use this strategy, so maybe Clinton will be as well.
In short, if I were Team Clinton, my goal would be to make Trump look angry, unstable, ill-informed, and scary. I would want his narcissistic dark side out there for all to see. Trump is a political Godzilla. He crushed the entire Republican primary field with a tiny team and a Twitter account. We love Godzilla when the chips are down and Mothra is attacking because we know Godzilla is the right monster to save us; we hate Godzilla when he breaths fire at weak humans and knocks down city blocks; and we want Godzilla safely back on the screen where we can watch him for entertainment when calm is restored.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... what makes anyone on his team think that in the next debate, he will be able to squelch his impulse to double down? He never has before."
..................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* It's not enough to on and on and on about he dangers of Trump. You have to be willing to vote for the one person who will keep him out of the White House…
* Thank you!! People think Trump is going to come in and do what ever he wants and Congress will let him, really? Now............. some of us think Congress, specifically Republicans did everything in their power to block President Obama because he is black. Republicans will go to their death denying this. Are we to then believe that they are going to just let Trump do whatever he wants?? Why would that be, because he is white and Republican? Clearly Republicans don't care if their antics harm our country so.............. why would they go along with Trump?
* ... This is the message the DEMs need to broadcast far and wide up to election day: "If we are to make progress on our problems electing just Hillary is not enough; all of us must vote a straight DEM ticket at all levels of government to kick out the Party of No, the Party of Lies and Spin, the Party of Birtherism, the Party of Obstruction, the Party of Bigotry/Homophobia/Misogyny, the Party with No Morals or Shame. The nation must rid itself of today's entire GOP for trying so hard for 8 years to make 1 black man fail rather than help 320,000,000 of us succeed. If you want your highways and bridges fixed, vote DEM, if you want our infrastructure repaired for the 21st Century vote DEM, if you want to see a doctor when you're sick vote DEM, if you want the government out of your bedroom and doctor's office VOTE DEM.
* In the event that Donald Trump is elected President, he will be the first holder of that office who has suffered with early onset Alzheimers from the start of his term of office. How else can one explain his appalling short and long term memory losses. He cannot remember showing support for the invasion of Iraq. When questioned immediately after the debate on Monday night he denied saying that his non payment of taxes was smart. He becomes upset when challenged and maintains that his version is correct whilst all others are concoctions of his enemies. The question US voters must ask themselves is 'Do I want to put a person who is suffering from dementia in charge of the United States?'
* You may be right. Alzheimers runs in his family as his father had it for many years and was the cause of his death. After all Trump is 70 and the odds of getting it go up as you age.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Trump doubles down on defeat
By Jennifer Rubin, September 28, 2016
It is not enough that Donald Trump refuses to release his tax returns and may be using every available loophole to avoid paying taxes. He had to brag at the debate that he was “smart” not to pay taxes.
It is not enough that he cruelly berated former Miss Universe winner Alicia Machado for gaining weight. He had to go into his comfort zone at Fox News to insist: “She was the winner and you know, she gained a massive amount of weight and it was a real problem. We had a real problem.”
It is not enough that Trump uses his foundation’s money to donate to a politician (Florida state attorney general Pam Bondi) with the power to investigate him. His tone-deaf flunky, Russian-born Putin propagandist and hedge fund investor Boris Epshteyn, had to tell The Post’s David A. Fahrenthold that it was acceptable for Trump to use foundation money to buy a giant portrait of himself and hang it in his hotel because he was “storing” it for the foundation. No, really.
That’s what he said:
It is not enough that in the primary Trump says another housing crisis would be good for him because he could buy low. He has to lash out when Hillary Clinton brings it up in the debate: “That’s called business, by the way.”
It is not enough that Trump has a history of business bankruptcies and allegedly stiffing small-business people. He had to respond to Clinton’s example of one architect who wasn’t paid: “Maybe he didn’t do a good job and I was unsatisfied with his work.”
It is not enough that Trump lashes out at foes, insults opponents, encourages violence and spouts bigotry. He had to say in the debate that his “temperament” was his best quality. That drew guffaws from the audience.
In each instance (and there are likely more that have slipped my mind), Trump is incapable of backing down or even being silent. His raging narcissism compels him to double down, thereby confirming the original charge and demonstrating his unfitness. As Kevin Madden, a former Mitt Romney adviser, and other Republican strategists have explained, Trump thereby extends coverage of a losing debate and provides more and more fodder for Clinton ads (e.g., on his selfishness, Miss Universe).
Trump insists he won — of course. But in complaining and dwelling on the debate, the moderator, the microphone and more, he reinforces the image of a petulant child. His team says he is going to study harder — so he did lose. But it is far from clear that Trump himself believes things went poorly. Moreover, Trump’s famously short attention span and aversion to reading makes it hard to imagine he’ll actually hit the books and absorb significant amounts of material. In any event, what makes anyone on his team think that in the next debate, he will be able to squelch his impulse to double down? He never has before.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* It's not enough to on and on and on about he dangers of Trump. You have to be willing to vote for the one person who will keep him out of the White House…
* Thank you!! People think Trump is going to come in and do what ever he wants and Congress will let him, really? Now............. some of us think Congress, specifically Republicans did everything in their power to block President Obama because he is black. Republicans will go to their death denying this. Are we to then believe that they are going to just let Trump do whatever he wants?? Why would that be, because he is white and Republican? Clearly Republicans don't care if their antics harm our country so.............. why would they go along with Trump?
* ... This is the message the DEMs need to broadcast far and wide up to election day: "If we are to make progress on our problems electing just Hillary is not enough; all of us must vote a straight DEM ticket at all levels of government to kick out the Party of No, the Party of Lies and Spin, the Party of Birtherism, the Party of Obstruction, the Party of Bigotry/Homophobia/Misogyny, the Party with No Morals or Shame. The nation must rid itself of today's entire GOP for trying so hard for 8 years to make 1 black man fail rather than help 320,000,000 of us succeed. If you want your highways and bridges fixed, vote DEM, if you want our infrastructure repaired for the 21st Century vote DEM, if you want to see a doctor when you're sick vote DEM, if you want the government out of your bedroom and doctor's office VOTE DEM.
* In the event that Donald Trump is elected President, he will be the first holder of that office who has suffered with early onset Alzheimers from the start of his term of office. How else can one explain his appalling short and long term memory losses. He cannot remember showing support for the invasion of Iraq. When questioned immediately after the debate on Monday night he denied saying that his non payment of taxes was smart. He becomes upset when challenged and maintains that his version is correct whilst all others are concoctions of his enemies. The question US voters must ask themselves is 'Do I want to put a person who is suffering from dementia in charge of the United States?'
* You may be right. Alzheimers runs in his family as his father had it for many years and was the cause of his death. After all Trump is 70 and the odds of getting it go up as you age.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Trump doubles down on defeat
By Jennifer Rubin, September 28, 2016
It is not enough that Donald Trump refuses to release his tax returns and may be using every available loophole to avoid paying taxes. He had to brag at the debate that he was “smart” not to pay taxes.
It is not enough that he cruelly berated former Miss Universe winner Alicia Machado for gaining weight. He had to go into his comfort zone at Fox News to insist: “She was the winner and you know, she gained a massive amount of weight and it was a real problem. We had a real problem.”
It is not enough that Trump uses his foundation’s money to donate to a politician (Florida state attorney general Pam Bondi) with the power to investigate him. His tone-deaf flunky, Russian-born Putin propagandist and hedge fund investor Boris Epshteyn, had to tell The Post’s David A. Fahrenthold that it was acceptable for Trump to use foundation money to buy a giant portrait of himself and hang it in his hotel because he was “storing” it for the foundation. No, really.
That’s what he said:
Epshteyn’s explanation was, in effect, that Trump hadn’t used his foundation to buy his resort some art. Instead, Trump’s resort was helping the foundation — which has no employees or office space of its own — find a place to store its possessions.It is not enough that Trump tricks the press into attending a no-questions-allowed press conference in order to advertise his hotel. He had to say at the debate: “I’ll give you an example. We’re just opening up on Pennsylvania Avenue right next to the White House, so if I don’t get there one way, I’m going to get to Pennsylvania Avenue another.”
Tax experts were not impressed by this reasoning.
“It’s hard to make an IRS auditor laugh,” Brett Kappel, a lawyer who advises nonprofit groups at the Akerman firm, said in an email. “But this would do it.”
It is not enough that in the primary Trump says another housing crisis would be good for him because he could buy low. He has to lash out when Hillary Clinton brings it up in the debate: “That’s called business, by the way.”
It is not enough that Trump has a history of business bankruptcies and allegedly stiffing small-business people. He had to respond to Clinton’s example of one architect who wasn’t paid: “Maybe he didn’t do a good job and I was unsatisfied with his work.”
It is not enough that Trump lashes out at foes, insults opponents, encourages violence and spouts bigotry. He had to say in the debate that his “temperament” was his best quality. That drew guffaws from the audience.
In each instance (and there are likely more that have slipped my mind), Trump is incapable of backing down or even being silent. His raging narcissism compels him to double down, thereby confirming the original charge and demonstrating his unfitness. As Kevin Madden, a former Mitt Romney adviser, and other Republican strategists have explained, Trump thereby extends coverage of a losing debate and provides more and more fodder for Clinton ads (e.g., on his selfishness, Miss Universe).
Trump insists he won — of course. But in complaining and dwelling on the debate, the moderator, the microphone and more, he reinforces the image of a petulant child. His team says he is going to study harder — so he did lose. But it is far from clear that Trump himself believes things went poorly. Moreover, Trump’s famously short attention span and aversion to reading makes it hard to imagine he’ll actually hit the books and absorb significant amounts of material. In any event, what makes anyone on his team think that in the next debate, he will be able to squelch his impulse to double down? He never has before.
...................................................................................................................................................................
So much for stamina: "Trump ... grimaced, leaned on his podium, sighed and seemed to tire ..."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Why Donald Trump’s attack on Hillary Clinton’s ‘stamina’ fell flat, in 1 picture
By Chris Cillizza, September 27, 2016
Late in Monday night's first presidential debate, Donald Trump tried to make the case that Hillary Clinton lacked the basic stamina to do the job which they are both seeking. Here's what he said:
But it just didn't work on Monday night for Trump. Why? See for yourself.
Trump's problem is that Clinton didn't look sick or tired. She didn't cough. She didn't sniffle. (He did. A lot.)
And it wasn't just any single moment or any single split screen image. As the debate wore on -- it started at 9 p.m. Eastern -- Clinton seemed to warm to the task, looking comfortable, confident and, yes, healthy. Trump, on the other hand, grimaced, leaned on his podium, sighed and seemed to tire -- particularly in the final 20-ish minutes of the event.
Plus, unlike Trump, Clinton was prepared for the stamina attack and had a perfect sound bite at the ready. "Well, 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," Clinton said to applause from the crowd.
It's this simple: Trump took a stamina swing. And he missed.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Why Donald Trump’s attack on Hillary Clinton’s ‘stamina’ fell flat, in 1 picture
By Chris Cillizza, September 27, 2016
Late in Monday night's first presidential debate, Donald Trump tried to make the case that Hillary Clinton lacked the basic stamina to do the job which they are both seeking. Here's what he said:
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 does have the stamina. To be president of this country, you need tremendous stamina ... You have to be able to negotiate our trade deals. You have to be able to negotiate, that's right, with Japan, with Saudi Arabia. I mean, can you imagine, we're defending Saudi Arabia? And with all of the money they have, we're defending them, and they're not paying? All you have to do is speak to them. Wait. You have so many different things you have to be able to do, and I don't believe that Hillary has the stamina.It's a line of attack Trump has used before, a way to not-so-subtly raise Clinton's health as an issue -- particularly in the wake of her near-collapse at a Sept. 11 memorial event in New York City earlier this month. It's also a way of suggesting that Clinton isn't telling the whole truth about the state of her health, a whisper campaign that the Democratic nominee emboldened by her secretive handling of a pneumonia diagnosis.
But it just didn't work on Monday night for Trump. Why? See for yourself.
Trump's problem is that Clinton didn't look sick or tired. She didn't cough. She didn't sniffle. (He did. A lot.)
Jennifer Jacobs ✔ @JenniferJJacobsTrump's words questioning whether Clinton was up to the job just didn't match the pictures tens of millions of Americans were seeing on their (split) screens. It was incongruous. That dog didn't hunt.
"She didn't look frail or sick last night. ... He sniffled throughout the debate" and looked tired last half, @jheil says on Morning Joe.
3:51 AM - 27 Sep 2016
And it wasn't just any single moment or any single split screen image. As the debate wore on -- it started at 9 p.m. Eastern -- Clinton seemed to warm to the task, looking comfortable, confident and, yes, healthy. Trump, on the other hand, grimaced, leaned on his podium, sighed and seemed to tire -- particularly in the final 20-ish minutes of the event.
Plus, unlike Trump, Clinton was prepared for the stamina attack and had a perfect sound bite at the ready. "Well, 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," Clinton said to applause from the crowd.
It's this simple: Trump took a stamina swing. And he missed.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
"When Trump gloated about not paying taxes, many called it a huge mistake."
...................................................................................................................................................................
When Trump said that not paying taxes ‘makes me smart,’ undecided voters in N.C. gasped
By Mary Jordan, September 27, 2016
Donald Trump so captured Ron Townley’s attention as “an outsider ready to tear down the system,” just the one who might break the Washington logjam, the doer to build new airports and highways, that he was considering voting for him.
But Trump’s response Monday night when Hillary Clinton accused him of not paying a cent of federal tax left Townley appalled.
“That makes me smart,” Trump said, unapologetic and smiling, during the presidential debate, held in Hempstead, N.Y.
That comment caused a gasp in the hotel conference room where Townley and five other undecided voters in this -battleground state were watching the debate.
“That’s offensive. I pay taxes,” said Townley, 52, a program -director for a local council of governments.
“Another person would be in jail for that,” said Jamilla Hawkins, 33, who was sitting beside him in the Crescent conference room at the Embassy Suites in this city of 150,000 near Raleigh.
Hawkins’s mother had chided her to get off the fence and support Clinton, but the 33-year-old felt no connection to the Democratic nominee. “I just wasn’t sold on her. A lot of my friends were on the Bernie Sanders train,” she said.
But Hawkins said the debate made her appreciate Clinton more. She said she now leans toward voting for her — a feeling shared by most of the undecided voters gathered here for an informal focus group.
Polls show that the race between Clinton and Trump is deadlocked in North Carolina, a once solidly conservative state that has seesawed between Republicans and Democrats in recent years and is too tight to call for either candidate.
Many say the race will come down to undecided voters such as Townley and Hawkins — those committed to voting but not yet to a candidate. In North Carolina, the undecideds amount to about 10 percent of the electorate, according to surveys; in other parts of the country their numbers are even higher.
Most voters in this polarized election support either Trump or Clinton and couldn’t possibly consider voting for their rival. Yet there are a significant number who see attractive qualities and flaws in each of the two major-party candidates and have not yet decided whom to choose.
A Washington Post-ABC News poll released Sunday showed that 17 percent of registered voters said the debate might change their minds about which candidate to support; 6 percent said there was a “good chance” the debate could do so.
The undecided voters gathered here Monday by The Washington Post were from all over the state; they were in Cary to attend a Rural Center conference, where gubernatorial and Senate candidates were among the speakers.
Each of the men and women said they had not yet found a candidate to rally around because they found fault with both. But after the debate, four of the six undecided voters said they now leaned toward Clinton after she showed mastery of the issues and appeared more presidential. A fifth voter declared himself essentially now in the Clinton’s camp: “After tonight, I think I am convinced, I will vote for Clinton,” said the Rev. Kelly Andrews, a Baptist pastor from Tarboro.
Cindy Adair said that the 90-minute debate did not help her at all. She still abhors some of the policies that Clinton has supported, including the North American Free Trade Agreement, which destroyed the textile industry that Adair grew up in.
“That’s a lie!” she said as Clinton, under attack for the trade agreement blamed for sending jobs overseas, insisted that domestic manufacturing jobs increased in the 1990s.
Clinton “looked snarky” at times, Adair said — though she did think she looked “more professional” than Trump. She said she didn’t find Clinton’s better performance surprising given that the former U.S. senator and secretary of state is a “career politician” practiced in this kind of forum.
Adair, a registered Republican, said she likes that Trump says he will reduce taxes. She thinks it is a big mistake that Clinton will -continue the Affordable Care Act “and the move toward socialist health care.”
On a scale of 1 to 10, Adair said, Clinton scored a 5 and Trump a 2. By the evening’s end, she was still at a loss about whom to support on Nov. 8.
The others watching the televised debate had new problems with Trump after listening to him one-on-one for an extended time. They said he appeared racist in some of his remarks about African Americans, not as prepared and rude in his frequent interruptions of Clinton.
When Trump gloated about not paying taxes, many called it a huge mistake. Clinton accused him of hiding something by not publicly releasing his federal tax returns, and she noted that some returns seen by state authorities showed that he had paid no federal taxes.
Hawkins, 33, who works in community development, said that gave her a new view of the Republican candidate: that he is out of touch with the ordinary middle-class person who doesn’t think it’s right for the rich to not pay their share of taxes.
“He started out okay, but then after 30 minutes, he started attacking. He is inconsistent and doesn’t have the temperament,” she said.
Hawkins’s eyes widened with incredulity at Trump’s unexpected answer about the culprit behind recent cyberattacks: “It could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay?”
“Really?” she said, calling it childish and offensive to those with weight problems.
Hawkins’s main issue with Clinton — her difficulty relating to ordinary voters — hasn’t disappeared. But she has many more issues with Trump.
Amy Bridges, 49, who voted for President Obama in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012 — a mirror of how this state went — was troubled by Trump’s inability to keep his attention focused.
“He cannot stay on topic,” she said when Trump started talking about the Islamic State after he was asked about his call for Obama to produce his birth certificate to prove he is a natural-born citizen. “I just want you to answer the questions!” she said at another point.
Before the debate, Bridges discussed her reservations about Clinton, especially “the feeling that she was untrustworthy.” But afterward, she said: “It was far more obvious she knows her stuff. I feel a bit more comfortable with her.”
Andrews, the Baptist pastor, said he had been attracted to Trump’s business experience and his understanding that people are upset about manufacturing jobs being sent overseas. He said that his wife lost her job when a plant that made tools and drills closed. But as he listened to Trump on Monday night, he started shouting at the TV screen.
“Stop-and-frisk is unconstitutional!” he hollered. Andrews, who is African American, said that Trump’s call for the controversial policing practice to instill “law and order” would allow officers to frisk any black person.
Trump also said that African Americans and Hispanics in urban areas are “living in hell because it’s so dangerous. You walk down the street, you get shot,” Trump said.
Andrews found that statement ridiculous.
John York, a tech consultant, said the bottom line for him was that Trump gave few details and “showed he really doesn’t have a plan.”
“The very big highlight for me was when Hillary tried to assure the world” rattled by this election, York said. Trump talked about ripping up trade and other international agreements, while Clinton promised that the United States would honor its defense treaties and said “our word is good.”
“I think people want change, but they are not ready to flush the whole system,” he said.
...................................................................................................................................................................
When Trump said that not paying taxes ‘makes me smart,’ undecided voters in N.C. gasped
By Mary Jordan, September 27, 2016
Donald Trump so captured Ron Townley’s attention as “an outsider ready to tear down the system,” just the one who might break the Washington logjam, the doer to build new airports and highways, that he was considering voting for him.
But Trump’s response Monday night when Hillary Clinton accused him of not paying a cent of federal tax left Townley appalled.
“That makes me smart,” Trump said, unapologetic and smiling, during the presidential debate, held in Hempstead, N.Y.
That comment caused a gasp in the hotel conference room where Townley and five other undecided voters in this -battleground state were watching the debate.
“That’s offensive. I pay taxes,” said Townley, 52, a program -director for a local council of governments.
“Another person would be in jail for that,” said Jamilla Hawkins, 33, who was sitting beside him in the Crescent conference room at the Embassy Suites in this city of 150,000 near Raleigh.
Hawkins’s mother had chided her to get off the fence and support Clinton, but the 33-year-old felt no connection to the Democratic nominee. “I just wasn’t sold on her. A lot of my friends were on the Bernie Sanders train,” she said.
But Hawkins said the debate made her appreciate Clinton more. She said she now leans toward voting for her — a feeling shared by most of the undecided voters gathered here for an informal focus group.
Polls show that the race between Clinton and Trump is deadlocked in North Carolina, a once solidly conservative state that has seesawed between Republicans and Democrats in recent years and is too tight to call for either candidate.
Many say the race will come down to undecided voters such as Townley and Hawkins — those committed to voting but not yet to a candidate. In North Carolina, the undecideds amount to about 10 percent of the electorate, according to surveys; in other parts of the country their numbers are even higher.
Most voters in this polarized election support either Trump or Clinton and couldn’t possibly consider voting for their rival. Yet there are a significant number who see attractive qualities and flaws in each of the two major-party candidates and have not yet decided whom to choose.
A Washington Post-ABC News poll released Sunday showed that 17 percent of registered voters said the debate might change their minds about which candidate to support; 6 percent said there was a “good chance” the debate could do so.
The undecided voters gathered here Monday by The Washington Post were from all over the state; they were in Cary to attend a Rural Center conference, where gubernatorial and Senate candidates were among the speakers.
Each of the men and women said they had not yet found a candidate to rally around because they found fault with both. But after the debate, four of the six undecided voters said they now leaned toward Clinton after she showed mastery of the issues and appeared more presidential. A fifth voter declared himself essentially now in the Clinton’s camp: “After tonight, I think I am convinced, I will vote for Clinton,” said the Rev. Kelly Andrews, a Baptist pastor from Tarboro.
Cindy Adair said that the 90-minute debate did not help her at all. She still abhors some of the policies that Clinton has supported, including the North American Free Trade Agreement, which destroyed the textile industry that Adair grew up in.
“That’s a lie!” she said as Clinton, under attack for the trade agreement blamed for sending jobs overseas, insisted that domestic manufacturing jobs increased in the 1990s.
Clinton “looked snarky” at times, Adair said — though she did think she looked “more professional” than Trump. She said she didn’t find Clinton’s better performance surprising given that the former U.S. senator and secretary of state is a “career politician” practiced in this kind of forum.
Adair, a registered Republican, said she likes that Trump says he will reduce taxes. She thinks it is a big mistake that Clinton will -continue the Affordable Care Act “and the move toward socialist health care.”
On a scale of 1 to 10, Adair said, Clinton scored a 5 and Trump a 2. By the evening’s end, she was still at a loss about whom to support on Nov. 8.
The others watching the televised debate had new problems with Trump after listening to him one-on-one for an extended time. They said he appeared racist in some of his remarks about African Americans, not as prepared and rude in his frequent interruptions of Clinton.
When Trump gloated about not paying taxes, many called it a huge mistake. Clinton accused him of hiding something by not publicly releasing his federal tax returns, and she noted that some returns seen by state authorities showed that he had paid no federal taxes.
Hawkins, 33, who works in community development, said that gave her a new view of the Republican candidate: that he is out of touch with the ordinary middle-class person who doesn’t think it’s right for the rich to not pay their share of taxes.
“He started out okay, but then after 30 minutes, he started attacking. He is inconsistent and doesn’t have the temperament,” she said.
Hawkins’s eyes widened with incredulity at Trump’s unexpected answer about the culprit behind recent cyberattacks: “It could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay?”
“Really?” she said, calling it childish and offensive to those with weight problems.
Hawkins’s main issue with Clinton — her difficulty relating to ordinary voters — hasn’t disappeared. But she has many more issues with Trump.
Amy Bridges, 49, who voted for President Obama in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012 — a mirror of how this state went — was troubled by Trump’s inability to keep his attention focused.
“He cannot stay on topic,” she said when Trump started talking about the Islamic State after he was asked about his call for Obama to produce his birth certificate to prove he is a natural-born citizen. “I just want you to answer the questions!” she said at another point.
Before the debate, Bridges discussed her reservations about Clinton, especially “the feeling that she was untrustworthy.” But afterward, she said: “It was far more obvious she knows her stuff. I feel a bit more comfortable with her.”
Andrews, the Baptist pastor, said he had been attracted to Trump’s business experience and his understanding that people are upset about manufacturing jobs being sent overseas. He said that his wife lost her job when a plant that made tools and drills closed. But as he listened to Trump on Monday night, he started shouting at the TV screen.
“Stop-and-frisk is unconstitutional!” he hollered. Andrews, who is African American, said that Trump’s call for the controversial policing practice to instill “law and order” would allow officers to frisk any black person.
Trump also said that African Americans and Hispanics in urban areas are “living in hell because it’s so dangerous. You walk down the street, you get shot,” Trump said.
Andrews found that statement ridiculous.
John York, a tech consultant, said the bottom line for him was that Trump gave few details and “showed he really doesn’t have a plan.”
“The very big highlight for me was when Hillary tried to assure the world” rattled by this election, York said. Trump talked about ripping up trade and other international agreements, while Clinton promised that the United States would honor its defense treaties and said “our word is good.”
“I think people want change, but they are not ready to flush the whole system,” he said.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... it’s indicative of Trump’s inability to understand and connect with black communities ..." Any black American who still supports Trump after this is sadly misguided.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Trump’s message to people of color offended by his birther campaign: ‘Nothing’
“I say nothing.”
By Natasha Geiling, September 27, 2016
Anyone hoping Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump would take time during the first presidential debate to apologize for the damage caused by his years-long “birther” crusade was sorely disappointed Monday night, when instead of apologizing to either President Barack Obama or black communities, Trump told moderator Lester Holt “I say nothing.”
“We’re talking about racial healing in this segment,” Holt said, “What do you say to Americans and people of color…”
“I say nothing,” Trump interjected, “because I was able to get him to produce [his birth certificate]. He should have produced it a long time before. I say nothing.”
The exchange flew a little under the radar, topped by many of Trump’s other misdirections and outright lies, but it’s indicative of Trump’s inability to understand and connect with black communities, a group he has struggled to attract — a recent ABC News and Washington Post poll found that just three percent of black voters support Trump.
For years, Trump made perpetuating a racist claim that Obama was not born in the United States a cornerstone of his political identity, something that Clinton alluded to during the debate.
“He has really started his political activity based on this racist lie that our first black president was not an American citizen,” Clinton said. Clinton also connected the birther movement to Trump’s history of racist practices in his business ventures, noting he had been sued by the Justice Department for racial discrimination in 1973 because he would not rent apartments to African Americans.
“So he has a long record of engaging in racist behavior,” Clinton said. “And the birther lie was a very hurtful one.”
Trump refused to acknowledge, however, that perpetuating the birther lie might have created pain for both Obama and black communities. During the debate, Trump told Holt that he decided to make an announcement a few weeks ago, noting he had changed his mind on the birther issue mostly because “nobody was caring much about it” and he knew the question would be raised during the debate.
But Trump’s assertion that “nobody was caring much about it” erases the fact that, for years, Trump was trying to undercut the validity of the first black U.S. president, a historic accomplishment for both the country and for black communities across America.
A recent Huffington Post/YouGov poll found that 72 percent of black voters feel Trump should apologize for his role in fueling the birther lie.
But Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, told the Huffington Post after the debate that he was not surprised Trump refused to apologize.
“He just dug himself deeper in there with the birther statement in regards to the first African American president of the United States,” Meeks said. “He just showed that he has no desire to do anything with the African American community other than insult them.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Trump’s message to people of color offended by his birther campaign: ‘Nothing’
“I say nothing.”
By Natasha Geiling, September 27, 2016
Anyone hoping Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump would take time during the first presidential debate to apologize for the damage caused by his years-long “birther” crusade was sorely disappointed Monday night, when instead of apologizing to either President Barack Obama or black communities, Trump told moderator Lester Holt “I say nothing.”
“We’re talking about racial healing in this segment,” Holt said, “What do you say to Americans and people of color…”
“I say nothing,” Trump interjected, “because I was able to get him to produce [his birth certificate]. He should have produced it a long time before. I say nothing.”
The exchange flew a little under the radar, topped by many of Trump’s other misdirections and outright lies, but it’s indicative of Trump’s inability to understand and connect with black communities, a group he has struggled to attract — a recent ABC News and Washington Post poll found that just three percent of black voters support Trump.
For years, Trump made perpetuating a racist claim that Obama was not born in the United States a cornerstone of his political identity, something that Clinton alluded to during the debate.
“He has really started his political activity based on this racist lie that our first black president was not an American citizen,” Clinton said. Clinton also connected the birther movement to Trump’s history of racist practices in his business ventures, noting he had been sued by the Justice Department for racial discrimination in 1973 because he would not rent apartments to African Americans.
“So he has a long record of engaging in racist behavior,” Clinton said. “And the birther lie was a very hurtful one.”
Trump refused to acknowledge, however, that perpetuating the birther lie might have created pain for both Obama and black communities. During the debate, Trump told Holt that he decided to make an announcement a few weeks ago, noting he had changed his mind on the birther issue mostly because “nobody was caring much about it” and he knew the question would be raised during the debate.
But Trump’s assertion that “nobody was caring much about it” erases the fact that, for years, Trump was trying to undercut the validity of the first black U.S. president, a historic accomplishment for both the country and for black communities across America.
A recent Huffington Post/YouGov poll found that 72 percent of black voters feel Trump should apologize for his role in fueling the birther lie.
But Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, told the Huffington Post after the debate that he was not surprised Trump refused to apologize.
“He just dug himself deeper in there with the birther statement in regards to the first African American president of the United States,” Meeks said. “He just showed that he has no desire to do anything with the African American community other than insult them.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... why Trump will fail in the end: He simply won’t be able to keep track of all his lies." He's not called #Lyin'Donald for no reason.
...................................................................................................................................................................
If you can't remember all your lies, you're telling too many
By Roger Simon, September 20, 2016
Truth be told, it isn’t really about Hillary anymore.
Her picture comes on the screen, and you are very tempted to channel surf away from it.
But The Donald comes on, that orange pumpkin face fills the screen, and you stop to listen to what new outrage gushes forth from his lips.
It does not matter if what he says is false. That Trump lies on a regular and dismal basis is no longer a question. It is a fact.
For months and months, the national press corps has been tiptoeing around this. But now it has stopped clutching its pearls and has decided to call the truth the truth and a falsehood a falsehood.
“Trump Gives Up a Lie, But Refuses to Repent,” was the front-page headline on Michael Barbaro’s tough-as-nails piece in The New York Times on Friday.
The article, labeled a news analysis, was about “birtherism,” the racist lie that sought to discredit Barack Obama by saying he could not have been born in the United States because no African-American could honestly ascend to such a job.
“It was never true, any of it,” Barbaro wrote. “Mr. Obama’s citizenship was never in question. No credible evidence ever suggested otherwise.
“Yet it took Mr. Trump five years of dodging, winking and joking to surrender to reality, finally, on Friday, after a remarkable campaign of relentless deception that tried to undermine the legitimacy of the nation’s first black president.”
“He nurtured the conspiracy like a poisonous flower, watering and feeding it with an ardor that still baffles and embarrasses many around him.”
But not everybody around Trump is embarrassed. And his staff is paid to be baffled on a full-time basis.
“We own both the momentum and enthusiasm dynamics right now,” Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway said a few days ago, in the Trump version of English.
“Everybody loves a winner, so people now see these polls tightening where we’re up, tied or within the margin of error in nearly all of the swing states,” Conway said. “People are starting to see that Trump can actually pull this off.”
That’s right. Trump is exposed as a liar and this gives him the “enthusiasm dynamics” to pull off a victory, because lies make the polls tighten and tight polls make everybody love a winner even if he lied to get his victory.
Poisonous flowers grow in such word salads, I guess. What was Conway really saying? A translation was provided in a Washington Post story on Sunday: “After five years of peddling lies and innuendo about the circumstances of President Obama’s birth, Trump on Friday bowed to the facts and acknowledged for the first time that Obama was born in the United States, although he refused to apologize for his efforts to delegitimize the nation’s first black president.”
There it was in a news story by Philip Rucker and Dan Balz: A major party candidate had peddled lies for five years, had finally been forced to admit the truth, but was refusing to take any responsibility for his lies and their outcome.
“Everybody loves a winner,” Conway said.
On Friday, Trump said he was going to make a “major statement” about the whole birther mess. And he was going to make this statement from his lavish, which is to say tasteless, new hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue, just blocks from the White House.
The press usually goes along with Trump’s buffoonery, giving him virtually unlimited airtime, Internet coverage and newspaper space regardless of what he has to say. This time, however, he went a little far.
He managed to squeeze a lie into the nothing he had to say.
“Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy. I finished it. I finished it, you know what I mean,” Trump said. “President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Period.”
With that, Trump left the stage, taking no questions and making no apologies.
Two days later, John Dickerson had Conway on “Face the Nation.”
Dickerson: Donald Trump advocated something for five years that was a lie. Why did he do that?
Conway: Well, you’re going to have to ask him, but again, I think this is a sideshow now.
Dickerson said our next president might have to send young Americans off “to die in wars” and, therefore, it might be important whether the president was a truth teller or a liar.
Conway reacted as if Dickerson was speaking Martian and said the press really ought to be concentrating on Trump’s new child care plan. (Though she did not say if Trump was telling the truth about his new child care plan.)
On Saturday, President Obama addressed the annual Congressional Black Caucus Foundation dinner. “Now, there’s an extra spring in my step,” he said with a broad smile. “I don’t know about you guys, but I am so relieved that the birther thing is over.”
“I mean, [ISIS], North Korea, poverty, climate change — none of those things weighed on my mind like the validity of my birth certificate!” he said as the audience laughed.
Truth and falsity are important, but so is balance. Having just quoted a Democrat, I’ll end with the words of a Republican, Abraham Lincoln: “No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar.”
Which may be why Trump will fail in the end: He simply won’t be able to keep track of all his lies.
...................................................................................................................................................................
If you can't remember all your lies, you're telling too many
By Roger Simon, September 20, 2016
Truth be told, it isn’t really about Hillary anymore.
Her picture comes on the screen, and you are very tempted to channel surf away from it.
But The Donald comes on, that orange pumpkin face fills the screen, and you stop to listen to what new outrage gushes forth from his lips.
It does not matter if what he says is false. That Trump lies on a regular and dismal basis is no longer a question. It is a fact.
For months and months, the national press corps has been tiptoeing around this. But now it has stopped clutching its pearls and has decided to call the truth the truth and a falsehood a falsehood.
“Trump Gives Up a Lie, But Refuses to Repent,” was the front-page headline on Michael Barbaro’s tough-as-nails piece in The New York Times on Friday.
The article, labeled a news analysis, was about “birtherism,” the racist lie that sought to discredit Barack Obama by saying he could not have been born in the United States because no African-American could honestly ascend to such a job.
“It was never true, any of it,” Barbaro wrote. “Mr. Obama’s citizenship was never in question. No credible evidence ever suggested otherwise.
“Yet it took Mr. Trump five years of dodging, winking and joking to surrender to reality, finally, on Friday, after a remarkable campaign of relentless deception that tried to undermine the legitimacy of the nation’s first black president.”
“He nurtured the conspiracy like a poisonous flower, watering and feeding it with an ardor that still baffles and embarrasses many around him.”
But not everybody around Trump is embarrassed. And his staff is paid to be baffled on a full-time basis.
“We own both the momentum and enthusiasm dynamics right now,” Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway said a few days ago, in the Trump version of English.
“Everybody loves a winner, so people now see these polls tightening where we’re up, tied or within the margin of error in nearly all of the swing states,” Conway said. “People are starting to see that Trump can actually pull this off.”
That’s right. Trump is exposed as a liar and this gives him the “enthusiasm dynamics” to pull off a victory, because lies make the polls tighten and tight polls make everybody love a winner even if he lied to get his victory.
Poisonous flowers grow in such word salads, I guess. What was Conway really saying? A translation was provided in a Washington Post story on Sunday: “After five years of peddling lies and innuendo about the circumstances of President Obama’s birth, Trump on Friday bowed to the facts and acknowledged for the first time that Obama was born in the United States, although he refused to apologize for his efforts to delegitimize the nation’s first black president.”
There it was in a news story by Philip Rucker and Dan Balz: A major party candidate had peddled lies for five years, had finally been forced to admit the truth, but was refusing to take any responsibility for his lies and their outcome.
“Everybody loves a winner,” Conway said.
On Friday, Trump said he was going to make a “major statement” about the whole birther mess. And he was going to make this statement from his lavish, which is to say tasteless, new hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue, just blocks from the White House.
The press usually goes along with Trump’s buffoonery, giving him virtually unlimited airtime, Internet coverage and newspaper space regardless of what he has to say. This time, however, he went a little far.
He managed to squeeze a lie into the nothing he had to say.
“Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy. I finished it. I finished it, you know what I mean,” Trump said. “President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Period.”
With that, Trump left the stage, taking no questions and making no apologies.
Two days later, John Dickerson had Conway on “Face the Nation.”
Dickerson: Donald Trump advocated something for five years that was a lie. Why did he do that?
Conway: Well, you’re going to have to ask him, but again, I think this is a sideshow now.
Dickerson said our next president might have to send young Americans off “to die in wars” and, therefore, it might be important whether the president was a truth teller or a liar.
Conway reacted as if Dickerson was speaking Martian and said the press really ought to be concentrating on Trump’s new child care plan. (Though she did not say if Trump was telling the truth about his new child care plan.)
On Saturday, President Obama addressed the annual Congressional Black Caucus Foundation dinner. “Now, there’s an extra spring in my step,” he said with a broad smile. “I don’t know about you guys, but I am so relieved that the birther thing is over.”
“I mean, [ISIS], North Korea, poverty, climate change — none of those things weighed on my mind like the validity of my birth certificate!” he said as the audience laughed.
Truth and falsity are important, but so is balance. Having just quoted a Democrat, I’ll end with the words of a Republican, Abraham Lincoln: “No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar.”
Which may be why Trump will fail in the end: He simply won’t be able to keep track of all his lies.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"For 90 minutes, we watched one candidate for president display the seriousness the office demands while the other did what was once unthinkable: show up unprepared for a globally televised job interview."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Donald Trump bombs on the ultimate reality TV show
By Jonathan Capehart, September 27, 2016
What on earth was that? For 90 minutes, we watched one candidate for president display the seriousness the office demands while the other did what was once unthinkable: show up unprepared for a globally televised job interview. The first presidential debate between reality-television star and wealthy builder Donald Trump and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was mind-blowing. Trump brought the vaudeville shtick that worked for him in the primaries to the main stage and bombed.
Trump’s performance was the rhetorical equivalent of hurling garbage on the lawn. A question about x would lead to mentions of y, z and whatever else came to mind. For instance, a response about Hillary Clinton’s emails led to a mention about the sorry state of New York’s LaGuardia Airport. And then there were the gasp-worthy moments that would sink any other presidential aspirant.
Clinton said the only time Trump’s tax returns were seen was when he sought a casino license. “[T]hey showed he didn’t pay any federal income tax,” the Democratic nominee charged. Trump’s response? “That makes me smart.” Neither average Americans nor the Clintons (who have released more than three decades of tax returns) could get away with that.
Clinton hammered Trump on rooting for the 2008 housing crisis. Quoting the Republican nominee, she said, “He said, back in 2006, ‘Gee, I hope it does collapse, because then I can go in and buy some and make some money.” Trump’s response? “That’s called business, by the way.” Never mind the millions of devastated families who lost their homes and their jobs because of that collapse.
And for a candidate who says he is serious about earning the African American vote, Trump delivered a tone-deaf response to a question about healing the racial divide. “Secretary Clinton doesn’t want to use a couple of words, and that’s law and order,” said Trump. “We have a situation where we have our inner cities, African Americans, Hispanics are living in hell because it’s so dangerous. You walk down the street, you get shot.”
Not only did Trump continue to dabble in racial stereotypes about people of color, but he also used his answer to advocate the reinstatement of the unconstitutional practice of stop-and-frisk. A practice deeply unpopular with African Americans. And that was before Trump vigorously defended the racist birther lie he rode to the political prominence he used to win the nomination. An offensive delegitimizing of the nation’s first black president that remains an insult to millions of Americans, especially African Americans.
If there was one undeniable truth spoken by Clinton at the debate, it came in response to Trump’s dig at her for “stay[ing] home” last week. “I think Donald just criticized me for preparing for this debate. And, yes, I did,” Clinton said. “And you know what else I prepared for? I prepared to be president.” Kaboom.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Donald Trump bombs on the ultimate reality TV show
By Jonathan Capehart, September 27, 2016
What on earth was that? For 90 minutes, we watched one candidate for president display the seriousness the office demands while the other did what was once unthinkable: show up unprepared for a globally televised job interview. The first presidential debate between reality-television star and wealthy builder Donald Trump and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was mind-blowing. Trump brought the vaudeville shtick that worked for him in the primaries to the main stage and bombed.
Trump’s performance was the rhetorical equivalent of hurling garbage on the lawn. A question about x would lead to mentions of y, z and whatever else came to mind. For instance, a response about Hillary Clinton’s emails led to a mention about the sorry state of New York’s LaGuardia Airport. And then there were the gasp-worthy moments that would sink any other presidential aspirant.
Clinton said the only time Trump’s tax returns were seen was when he sought a casino license. “[T]hey showed he didn’t pay any federal income tax,” the Democratic nominee charged. Trump’s response? “That makes me smart.” Neither average Americans nor the Clintons (who have released more than three decades of tax returns) could get away with that.
Clinton hammered Trump on rooting for the 2008 housing crisis. Quoting the Republican nominee, she said, “He said, back in 2006, ‘Gee, I hope it does collapse, because then I can go in and buy some and make some money.” Trump’s response? “That’s called business, by the way.” Never mind the millions of devastated families who lost their homes and their jobs because of that collapse.
And for a candidate who says he is serious about earning the African American vote, Trump delivered a tone-deaf response to a question about healing the racial divide. “Secretary Clinton doesn’t want to use a couple of words, and that’s law and order,” said Trump. “We have a situation where we have our inner cities, African Americans, Hispanics are living in hell because it’s so dangerous. You walk down the street, you get shot.”
Not only did Trump continue to dabble in racial stereotypes about people of color, but he also used his answer to advocate the reinstatement of the unconstitutional practice of stop-and-frisk. A practice deeply unpopular with African Americans. And that was before Trump vigorously defended the racist birther lie he rode to the political prominence he used to win the nomination. An offensive delegitimizing of the nation’s first black president that remains an insult to millions of Americans, especially African Americans.
If there was one undeniable truth spoken by Clinton at the debate, it came in response to Trump’s dig at her for “stay[ing] home” last week. “I think Donald just criticized me for preparing for this debate. And, yes, I did,” Clinton said. “And you know what else I prepared for? I prepared to be president.” Kaboom.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"No sniffles", #Lyin'Donald? Watch any one of the myriad YouTube videos of the debate, and you'll find proof!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Any cop will tell you when someone sniffs constantly, bounces like a spring and can't even make a coherent statement they are probably on drugs and cocaine would be my guess. Drug of choice of the wealthy. He should be drug tested and his family should do an intervention.
* 80 million plus watched and heard him sniffing but he says no. Typical.
* I think Donald Trump should be drug tested and the police should be allowed to Stop, Question, and Frisk him for illegal substances such as cocaine.
* He seriously says that he didn't sniffle some? I mentioned it to my wife early on, and then she noticed it too, the rest of the way through. It was mildly irritating, but it wasn't horrible, and I can't understand why he denies it. The amount of stuff that he denies that can be proven by video and old tweets is staggering. Hillary twists the facts some, like when it comes to her email. Trump just ignores them completely, figuring that the rest of us are deaf, dumb, blind and stupid, I suppose.
* I have a friend who used to do cocaine, and she says all the signs were there...he was sharp for an hour, he had sniffles, his lips grew dry and he had to drink, and then after half an hour, he got really, really cranky. Look at his long-haired doctor, who probably prescribed the cocaine to him. No wonder he can't remember what he has said from time to time.
* Every 1st grade student in America knows what sniffles sound like and if trump thinks he can pull the wool over their eyes he better hope they don't get to vote.
...................................................................................................................................................................
‘There was no sniffles,’ Trump says after debate
By Caitlyn Dickson, September 27, 2016
Was Donald Trump sniffling throughout his first presidential showdown with Hillary Clinton Monday night? Absolutely not, so the candidate said Tuesday morning.
“I have no allergies. No cold,” Trump said on “Fox & Friends.”
“There was no sniffles,” he said.
Trump has recently attacked Hillary Clinton’s health, using his Democratic rival’s recent bout of pneumonia to question whether she has the “stamina” to be president.
Before long, #TrumpSniffles was trending on Twitter, and the tweets continued well into the morning after.
Trump attempted to put the sniffles debate to rest during his Fox News interview.
“No sniffles, no,” he told the hosts, arguing that his microphone was simultaneously “very bad” and possibly “good enough to hear breathing.”
Other presidential debates have also featured candidates’ distracting tics. During a 1992 debate, President George H.W. Bush infamously checked his watch while an audience member asked him a question about the national debt.
On Monday night, Trump drew the most comparisons to Al Gore, whose performance during an October 2000 debate with George W. Bush is still remembered for incessant sighs and looks of exasperation.
VIDEO
COMMENTS:
* Any cop will tell you when someone sniffs constantly, bounces like a spring and can't even make a coherent statement they are probably on drugs and cocaine would be my guess. Drug of choice of the wealthy. He should be drug tested and his family should do an intervention.
* 80 million plus watched and heard him sniffing but he says no. Typical.
* I think Donald Trump should be drug tested and the police should be allowed to Stop, Question, and Frisk him for illegal substances such as cocaine.
* He seriously says that he didn't sniffle some? I mentioned it to my wife early on, and then she noticed it too, the rest of the way through. It was mildly irritating, but it wasn't horrible, and I can't understand why he denies it. The amount of stuff that he denies that can be proven by video and old tweets is staggering. Hillary twists the facts some, like when it comes to her email. Trump just ignores them completely, figuring that the rest of us are deaf, dumb, blind and stupid, I suppose.
* I have a friend who used to do cocaine, and she says all the signs were there...he was sharp for an hour, he had sniffles, his lips grew dry and he had to drink, and then after half an hour, he got really, really cranky. Look at his long-haired doctor, who probably prescribed the cocaine to him. No wonder he can't remember what he has said from time to time.
* Every 1st grade student in America knows what sniffles sound like and if trump thinks he can pull the wool over their eyes he better hope they don't get to vote.
...................................................................................................................................................................
‘There was no sniffles,’ Trump says after debate
By Caitlyn Dickson, September 27, 2016
Was Donald Trump sniffling throughout his first presidential showdown with Hillary Clinton Monday night? Absolutely not, so the candidate said Tuesday morning.
“I have no allergies. No cold,” Trump said on “Fox & Friends.”
“There was no sniffles,” he said.
Trump has recently attacked Hillary Clinton’s health, using his Democratic rival’s recent bout of pneumonia to question whether she has the “stamina” to be president.
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrumpBut on Monday night, it was the Republican presidential nominee who roused suspicion — and plenty of jokes — from the online peanut gallery, which couldn’t help but notice the apparent sounds of congestion coming from Trump’s mic throughout the debate.
Mainstream media never covered Hillary’s massive “hacking”
or coughing attack, yet it is #1 trending. What’s up?
8:31 AM - 6 Sep 2016
Before long, #TrumpSniffles was trending on Twitter, and the tweets continued well into the morning after.
Jon Favreau ✔ @jonfavs
Why won't Trump just tell us about his pneumonia?
6:16 PM - 26 Sep 2016
Andrea Stone ✔ @andreastonez
Does Trump have the sniffles? A cold? Pneumonia? Where are his health records?
6:14 PM - 26 Sep 2016
W. Kamau Bell ✔ @wkamaubell
Many people are saying that @realDonaldTrump's #sniffles are the result of a cocaine problem. Many, many people. Credible sources. #Debates
7:38 PM - 26 Sep 2016
Sophia @sopeaslee
Donald Trump's nose is running faster than the jobs leaving this country #TrumpSniffles #debatenight
6:16 PM - 26 Sep 2016
AndrewJClock @AndrewJClock
Many people are saying #TrumpSniffles are a sign he's hiding a serious illness. Judging by his answers, I'd say dementia or brain tumors.
4:20 AM - 27 Sep 2016
Paul Blumenthal ✔ @PaulBlu
Many people are saying Trump's sniffles are from a terminal illness -- or holding back tears. Many people. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-sniffle-debate_us_57e9ce6fe4b0c2407cd902d2?dgebad49x8ldw8kt9 …
8:12 AM - 27 Sep 2016
Donald Trump Sniffled His Way Through The Debate, And People NoticedThe candidate’s noticeably heavy breathing even inspired a few parody accounts, like @TrumpSinuses and @TrumpSniff, which had accumulated well over 3,000 followers by midday Tuesday.
Do you need a tissue, Donald?
huffingtonpost.com
Trump attempted to put the sniffles debate to rest during his Fox News interview.
“No sniffles, no,” he told the hosts, arguing that his microphone was simultaneously “very bad” and possibly “good enough to hear breathing.”
Other presidential debates have also featured candidates’ distracting tics. During a 1992 debate, President George H.W. Bush infamously checked his watch while an audience member asked him a question about the national debt.
On Monday night, Trump drew the most comparisons to Al Gore, whose performance during an October 2000 debate with George W. Bush is still remembered for incessant sighs and looks of exasperation.
VIDEO
Matt Wilstein ✔ @TheMattWilstein...................................................................................................................................................................
Trump sniff is the new Gore sigh #debatenight
6:19 PM - 26 Sep 2016
Jack Nargundkar @MahaTweeter
Trump’s deep inhaling every now and then reminds me of Gore’s deep sighs – sounds like he is nervous… #debatenight
6:47 PM - 26 Sep 2016
Patrick Kelly @PatGKelly
Donald Trump's sniffles are more distracting than Al Gore's sighs. #Debates2016 #debatenight
6:15 PM - 26 Sep 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)