I haven't read yet anyone pointing out the contradiction between Melania's interview statement said that Trump had apologized for his remarks on the bus and Trump's statement during Debate 3 that he didn't apologize to her.
23
What needs decisive analysis at this juncture (and what actually needed decisive analysis) months, or even two years aog, is how and why the 2016 Election Campaign was conceived with 100% birth defects. The bizarre eggsaucetion of the past 24 months has been, and is, beyond the comprehension of any American citizen.
This has easily become one of those situations in which it is possible to say: "Suppose they held an election and nobody showed up to vote." The entire situation seems to have no legitimacy and no validity.
The write-in candidates are going to do very well in 2016. A truly average American citizen such as Ken Bone could be elected as our next president.
This has easily become one of those situations in which it is possible to say: "Suppose they held an election and nobody showed up to vote." The entire situation seems to have no legitimacy and no validity.
The write-in candidates are going to do very well in 2016. A truly average American citizen such as Ken Bone could be elected as our next president.
Re: The Entitlement Myths:
1. Eliminate the cap on withholding for SS and Medicare, which is a regressive form of taxation----rewards those with higher income and punishes those with lower income. Respectable studies have shown this will keep Social Security healthy for decades.
2. It is ludicrous to ignore the cost savings and improved coverage for all citizens offered by a single-payer Medicare for all. This type of program has been proven for many years in Europe & Canada. The only ones who fight vigorously are those who generate billions in profits by describing their business as "health insurance" when it is simply an added layer of unproductive cost--- bringing no benefits whatsoever, and offering no actual health care delivery.
3. If we continue spending trillions on wars of opportunity that benefit only the war profiteers and arms merchants, we are lost. These trillions would go a long way toward providing a stable infrastructure and providing health care for all. Oh, I forgot. We have been told by our elected officials that we cannot afford those things, but those same elected officials somehow find unlimited tax dollars for wars with no end and no definition of victory. War is no longer an activity designed to defend our nation, but has become (like health insurance) a profit center unto itself.
1. Eliminate the cap on withholding for SS and Medicare, which is a regressive form of taxation----rewards those with higher income and punishes those with lower income. Respectable studies have shown this will keep Social Security healthy for decades.
2. It is ludicrous to ignore the cost savings and improved coverage for all citizens offered by a single-payer Medicare for all. This type of program has been proven for many years in Europe & Canada. The only ones who fight vigorously are those who generate billions in profits by describing their business as "health insurance" when it is simply an added layer of unproductive cost--- bringing no benefits whatsoever, and offering no actual health care delivery.
3. If we continue spending trillions on wars of opportunity that benefit only the war profiteers and arms merchants, we are lost. These trillions would go a long way toward providing a stable infrastructure and providing health care for all. Oh, I forgot. We have been told by our elected officials that we cannot afford those things, but those same elected officials somehow find unlimited tax dollars for wars with no end and no definition of victory. War is no longer an activity designed to defend our nation, but has become (like health insurance) a profit center unto itself.
29
Mr. Ali says, "Despite the titillation, I’m sad."
But why are you sad? Everything that you have said reflects badly on Trump and it is unlikely that he will win. You should be happy.
You might have asked why we are almost at war with Russia and whether a "no fly zone" will not make that war a near certainty.
Or you might ask whether it is really OK to kill an 8.5 month old fetus and "government must not interfere". (Islam forbids abortion after quickening. But perhaps you are no longer a believer.)
Or you might ask whether it was really OK for Hillary to laugh and clap her hands when Gaddafi was lynched.
But these are hard questions for Hillary and you prefer to stick to criticism of Trump.
To be fair, if my name was Ali, I too would dislike Trump intensely.
But if Hillary takes us to war with Russia with her "no fly zone" it won't matter whether your name is Ali or Smith. We will all be equally dead.
But why are you sad? Everything that you have said reflects badly on Trump and it is unlikely that he will win. You should be happy.
You might have asked why we are almost at war with Russia and whether a "no fly zone" will not make that war a near certainty.
Or you might ask whether it is really OK to kill an 8.5 month old fetus and "government must not interfere". (Islam forbids abortion after quickening. But perhaps you are no longer a believer.)
Or you might ask whether it was really OK for Hillary to laugh and clap her hands when Gaddafi was lynched.
But these are hard questions for Hillary and you prefer to stick to criticism of Trump.
To be fair, if my name was Ali, I too would dislike Trump intensely.
But if Hillary takes us to war with Russia with her "no fly zone" it won't matter whether your name is Ali or Smith. We will all be equally dead.
Trump has accused Hillary of being sick, tired and on drugs but she was the picture of health, looked rested, was sharp and full of energy.
She was smart and prosecuted a coherent case against him.
On the other hand Trump was sucking in air and had a dry mouth, looked tired and thirsty, confused and agitated, outright lied when asked about not being for the war in Iraq, demonized the women he sexually assaulted and drifted from topic to topic.
Hillary for President!
She was smart and prosecuted a coherent case against him.
On the other hand Trump was sucking in air and had a dry mouth, looked tired and thirsty, confused and agitated, outright lied when asked about not being for the war in Iraq, demonized the women he sexually assaulted and drifted from topic to topic.
Hillary for President!
37
What happened? First sentence, second paragraph should be "the post debate writings by media are about Donald Trump's refusal to say he WILL accept the election results. Please, Mr. Wehner, go back and correct your sentence.
I've been critical in the last few years of Maureen Dowd's columns and have said her best days as a columnist are behind her. But I have to admit: when she is good, as she was in her column after the debate, she's the best writer around, and no one at the Times or anywhere else can compete with her.
3
Yes we have seen for ourselves the type of person Donald Trump is. Yes, a lot of us have come to the conclusion that Donald Trump lacks the moral fortitude and sound character of an adult. Yes, aside from our political affiliation, a vast majority of the population has realized the man is not a “good fit” for the position he is applying for.
Don’t you think that it is time to stop taking enjoyment from poking him with a sharp stick just to see what he reaction will be. Don’t you think that there is a certain amount of cruelty in maliciously antagonizing him for the entertainment of watching him wallow in his own mire?
It’s time to move past the spectacle and focus on the circumstances leading to the disconnection between our political system and the public it is supposed to serve. It is not just Trump, it is also the overall implosion of the Republican Party; the strong support of the progressive movement behind Bernie Sanders that the caught the democrats off guard, and the obstructionist maneuvering and counter moves have left US with a political body that does not do the job, it does not govern.
We need to take advantage of this moment, take advantage of the reconstruction process that will follow this election. We need to remain engaged with our elected leader and with our political processes.
Sure, it is a lot of fun to throw rocks at THE DONALD, but we need to address the reasons behind Trump and Clinton being the “choices” in this election.
Don’t you think that it is time to stop taking enjoyment from poking him with a sharp stick just to see what he reaction will be. Don’t you think that there is a certain amount of cruelty in maliciously antagonizing him for the entertainment of watching him wallow in his own mire?
It’s time to move past the spectacle and focus on the circumstances leading to the disconnection between our political system and the public it is supposed to serve. It is not just Trump, it is also the overall implosion of the Republican Party; the strong support of the progressive movement behind Bernie Sanders that the caught the democrats off guard, and the obstructionist maneuvering and counter moves have left US with a political body that does not do the job, it does not govern.
We need to take advantage of this moment, take advantage of the reconstruction process that will follow this election. We need to remain engaged with our elected leader and with our political processes.
Sure, it is a lot of fun to throw rocks at THE DONALD, but we need to address the reasons behind Trump and Clinton being the “choices” in this election.
7
Well said !!
1
Even though it was Donald Trump, to whom enough bad things cannot, in my mind, happen, it was painful to watch him come unglued under the unremitting assault of Mrs. Clinton's carefully honed zingers. The guy is just too easy to provoke, to rattle, and to knock off his spot.
Well, at least the country got a therapeutic dose of what it's like to live inside Donald's head. In that phantasmagorical place, his feelings of self-importance are ever so much more important than the integrity of our Constitutional order. I think people comprehended just "how horrible" this manchild truly is.
No, Donald, it will not be, "Après orange, le déluge." People are counting the days until we can once again safely ignore your self-promoting pomposity. Your incessant bleating and whining will soon enough be just so much noise to an American public that is already becoming bored with you, and in time, you will fade from memory, just another failed Father Coughlin or George Corley Wallace.
Good riddance to bad rubbish, as my mother would say.
Well, at least the country got a therapeutic dose of what it's like to live inside Donald's head. In that phantasmagorical place, his feelings of self-importance are ever so much more important than the integrity of our Constitutional order. I think people comprehended just "how horrible" this manchild truly is.
No, Donald, it will not be, "Après orange, le déluge." People are counting the days until we can once again safely ignore your self-promoting pomposity. Your incessant bleating and whining will soon enough be just so much noise to an American public that is already becoming bored with you, and in time, you will fade from memory, just another failed Father Coughlin or George Corley Wallace.
Good riddance to bad rubbish, as my mother would say.
8
Nobody needs to "bait" Donald Trump. This isn't even quite akin to Sarah Palin's delusional "gotcha" rhetoric. As far as he knows, it's his world and the rest of us are his employees -- ER, tax breaks.
4
Sure, America can with ease roll over and move on after Trump's glare and bullying in the public! It is deplorable that the GOP vetting system produced a candidate like this. The GOP and politics have suffered a decline. Good candidates apparently dislike the current political atmosphere? And sadly stay home. When will there again rise moderate leaders who master prudently all challenges thrown at them. Leaders who can work together and accomplish something instead of being unrelenting radical obstructionists!? It is time for GOP to step aside if Trump is the best they got!? What election is this if the choice is between who is less deplorable!
4
Maureen Dowd keeps mentioning Hillary Clinton's "team of shrinks." It's so petty.
9
And so now we are left with a female Nixon, who keeps a copy of the Prince on her nightstand.
2
Roxane - I agree with you whole heartedly regarding DT's determination to de legitimize a Clinton presidency. What can we do to stop him if the GOP sits on its hands and does nothing???
3
I almost begrudge being a male after seeing what this alpha male A-hole espouses. The sycophants who follow and scream at this creature's rants are themselves slaves to hypocrisy, falsehoods and fairy tales told by a childish purveyor of bias and prejudice.
How did we get to this untenable point, and what is more important, how do we get out?
How did we get to this untenable point, and what is more important, how do we get out?
8
I hope there is an ample supply of Xanax for you Maureen and your followers on Nov 8th.
1
With all due respect, I think the headline "Election? We don't need no stinking election" for Andrew Rosenthal's piece was in singularly bad taste. The line is a riff on a line from the movie, "Treasure of the Sierra Madre". A Mexican gang of three or four men, clearly portrayed as outlaws, claim to be law enforcement. In response to Humphrey Bogart's question, "Where are your badges?", the leader replies, "Badges? We don't need no stinking badges." The line was repeated in parody in Mel Brooks' "Blazing Saddles", when Hedley Lamarr offers (again) some rough looking Mexican characters badges to terrorize the town. In short, the headline trades on the contempt (or contemptuous humor) that viewers of these films are likely to feel toward Mexicans and tries to turn that against Donald Trump. Maybe there's irony there (i.e., a negative Mexican stereotype being turned on Trump). But the fact remains that the humor or contempt is grounded in a Mexican stereotype. To me, the headline uses Mexicans as poorly as Trump does. In "Treasure of the Sierra Madre", the line was a serious threat. But I suspect if Mel Brooks were to re-make "Blazing Saddles" in today's political environment, he might have avoided the reference.
1
Character is destiny.
4
Trump is a phenomena. If he had shown some semblance of civility and constraint Hillary would not have a chance. I think he is trying to as South park (yeah the cartoon) says, trying his best to lose.
What he has laid bare though is the greatest vulnerability of the world - Nukes in hands of potential dictators. The thing we know for sure is, as we travel into the future there is going to be a recession, there probably might be a San Bernandino at some point, and people could still vote.
Its just a matter of time when another demagogue like Trump truly comes and takes the mantle. Like Hillary said there is really only 4 mins before destruction.
Obviously more controls have to be put in place.
What he has laid bare though is the greatest vulnerability of the world - Nukes in hands of potential dictators. The thing we know for sure is, as we travel into the future there is going to be a recession, there probably might be a San Bernandino at some point, and people could still vote.
Its just a matter of time when another demagogue like Trump truly comes and takes the mantle. Like Hillary said there is really only 4 mins before destruction.
Obviously more controls have to be put in place.
1
Do you have any Republicans that follow your columns?
1
Gotta hand it to Trump: he opened up a boxful of Pandoras.
What I saw in the third debate was...nothing. That's right, I refused to watch it after having "done my due diligence" by watching the first two. After seeing Trump go off the rails in Debate #2, and more than that, see him try to deny the video of him bragging about his sexual predation, I decided there was no need to subject myself to mo of his monomania. Frankly, Hillary should have refused to getting on the same stage with him. But having spared my senses from this self-infatuated wanna-be dictator, I hope that everyone else has now seen enough, and sees through all his empty promises at the tinpot despot-in-waiting that he is. Americans need to who this clown the door with a humiliating election defeat so loud, that whether he accepts it or not, it will pierce the denial bubble he lives in.
2
Mark Schmitt is correct. There is a differences between the descriptors “non-partisan” and “non-ideological.” The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is non-partisan, in that it is a pickle jar containing both Democratic and Republican jelly beans. But that doesn’t mean the blue jelly beans and the red jelly beans taste different from one another. (I don’t mean to imply that blue and red jelly beans never taste different, but blue ribbon panels, such as CRFB, are not selected through lottery.)
The other difference between “non-partisan” and “non-ideological” is the latter is a unicorn in the mist; it does not exist, except in Rawlsian dreamscapes.
Mark Schmitt seems like a nice and reasonable man. So, I doubt he would ever suggest that the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and those who tote around their stone tablets should have their doors kicked in at 5:00 am, their persons made to dress hurriedly, only to be delivered to a readymade courtroom and tried for crimes against the people. That would be wrong and zealously ideological.
And we wouldn’t want that.
The other difference between “non-partisan” and “non-ideological” is the latter is a unicorn in the mist; it does not exist, except in Rawlsian dreamscapes.
Mark Schmitt seems like a nice and reasonable man. So, I doubt he would ever suggest that the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and those who tote around their stone tablets should have their doors kicked in at 5:00 am, their persons made to dress hurriedly, only to be delivered to a readymade courtroom and tried for crimes against the people. That would be wrong and zealously ideological.
And we wouldn’t want that.
1
Seth - such a low blow! Trump not even a good reality-TV star - better have your lawyer ready to handle the inevitable defamation suit from Trump (after all - he was so good he deserved an Emmy - he said so himself!)
Watching his rallies, it has seemed to me that what he _really_ wants to be is a stand-up comic. Maybe if we let him have that reality show (I'm even willing to just let him have the Emmy), he will stop messing with our democracy.
Watching his rallies, it has seemed to me that what he _really_ wants to be is a stand-up comic. Maybe if we let him have that reality show (I'm even willing to just let him have the Emmy), he will stop messing with our democracy.
Special thanks to Seth Grossman and Kevin Baker for their creative takes. It really was like bad reality TV or a bullfight in Vegas!
1
Very important that journalists stop calling Social Security and Medicare "entitlements". This term implies some kind of welfare or undeserved benefits. It makes it sound as though the benefits never belonged to the recipients, and therefore can't be "lost" through reckless decisions, when in fact the payments we begin to receive in our 60s and 70s were taken out of our paychecks all our lives. Many people who die relatively early never get back what they put in.
This term will just make it easier for congresspersons to take the money out of these plans and invest it in the stock market, as they have been and will continue to be paid to do by their managers in Wall Street.
This term will just make it easier for congresspersons to take the money out of these plans and invest it in the stock market, as they have been and will continue to be paid to do by their managers in Wall Street.
6
No one "rips" a baby out days before its born. That's called a delivery, not an abortion. He has clearly not educated himself to some basics about later term abortions and the serious medical reasons they would be considered. For someone who states he respects women more than anyone else, please leave our wombs alone!
12
Very well said!!
1
Appalling for Trump to say of McCain is not a hero. Hold it right there Trump. One of our nation’s greatest heroes is McCain. Where was Trump when McCain was flying combat missions over Vietnam and imprisoned and tortured 1967 thru 1973? Trump was living in luxury on Dad’s money while attending the best colleges after military boarding school he recently described as "more training militarily than a lot of the guys that go into the military". Trump was a toy soldier. I enlisted in 1969 while being granted a full deferment as a defense civilian scientist. Trump got 4 college deferments which means he got notice to report for the draft 4 times, then got a medical deferment after being deemed fit for service. One of my fellow GI’s with one leg shorter than the other served a tough 6 months in the Army before his hip failed. He lied about and hid his condition to serve his country. Most startling is that he was a rich kid from a prominent family. His last name was Goldstein. It broke his heart to be forced out of the Army OCS. Where were you then Trump? Shame on you for judging McCain. You are a bully coward. For the record, Senator McCain and I are contemporaries who honorably served in the military concurrently while protecting you. I wish I could have been a POW with him to have helped him endure. God Bless you Senator. You will always be my hero and I can speak for every Veteran - you are a hero to every one of us.
1
I just can't fathom how Trump has any support, he is so poorly educated on how the world works and his delusions are just dangerous. No self respecting woman would back this candidate, one who claims to respect women more than any other human being but then attacks those very women with his vile views on abortion. He has said he will rip up trade agreements and renegotiate to get a better deal, he is assuming that once he rips up those agreements that other countries are going to want to negotiate with him. In terms of trade, the US must look to Brexit and what happened there.
Within 24 hours of them voting out of trade, trillions was wiped off their stock market and now their money is worth nothing. This is what will happen to America under trump,that much is obvious.
Trump is evil, trying to disrupt voting by encouraging hordes to harass legitimate voters at the polls. America's democracy is under attack and the only way to stop that is to look out for each other. If you see people being harassed at polling stations go to their aid. It's imperative that decent folks watch out for each other and stand up for anyone being harassed by their haters of freedom and democracy.
Within 24 hours of them voting out of trade, trillions was wiped off their stock market and now their money is worth nothing. This is what will happen to America under trump,that much is obvious.
Trump is evil, trying to disrupt voting by encouraging hordes to harass legitimate voters at the polls. America's democracy is under attack and the only way to stop that is to look out for each other. If you see people being harassed at polling stations go to their aid. It's imperative that decent folks watch out for each other and stand up for anyone being harassed by their haters of freedom and democracy.
4
Trump apologised to everyone, or not, including his wife, or not - everyone, that is, expect the women he claimed to have groped (and now claims he didn't).
• Donald's current wife: "he apologized to me"
• Donald, a couple of days later: "I didn't even apologise to my wife, who is sitting right here, because I didn't do anything."
Donald Trump doesn't agree with his own wife over whether or not he apologised to her.
He doesn't agree with his running mate over their Syria positions.
And he doesn't agree with himself over whether he knows Putin or not, is pro-choice or not, will release his tax records or not (and so on and so forth, for almost any topic you can think of).
What a joke.
• Donald's current wife: "he apologized to me"
• Donald, a couple of days later: "I didn't even apologise to my wife, who is sitting right here, because I didn't do anything."
Donald Trump doesn't agree with his own wife over whether or not he apologised to her.
He doesn't agree with his running mate over their Syria positions.
And he doesn't agree with himself over whether he knows Putin or not, is pro-choice or not, will release his tax records or not (and so on and so forth, for almost any topic you can think of).
What a joke.
3
With Trump and his minions, as with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, "Their defeat does by their own insinuation grow." Hamlet, Act V, scene 2.
There will be a sequel but it will split into two new reality shows: "Trump TV" and "President Hilary". For Donald there is nowhere to go but down. For Hilary, it's the opposite.
2
That he brought it on himself makes Trump's fall a tasty treat to savor over and over again in replay, but here's a sobering thought: His catastrophic performance last night cleared the way for the Republicans to come back with renewed vigor, just as they did after Goldwater's defeat in
1964. By repudiating him when he finally goes over the edge, they are wiping the slate clean , allowing them to go back to being the snarky, dog-whistling hypocrites they always have been. Take Marco Rubio--please, take him. The little weasel withdrew his support for the Id with a comb-over lid only after Trump's remarks that he would not honor the outcome of the election (BEFORE Chris Wallace got him to repeat it at the debate). Rubio was distancing himself from the Alt-Right wing of the GOP, saying, in effect, "I'm not THAT kind of Republican. I'm not calling for the overthrow of the government." By relegating the crazies to the outer margins, he is deliberately poising himself as the Moderate Face of a new and chastened Republican Party. Watch, now that Trump has incited his mob to stage a coup d'état, the Mainstream will follow Rubio's example. It's safe now to take a stand against crazy.
1964. By repudiating him when he finally goes over the edge, they are wiping the slate clean , allowing them to go back to being the snarky, dog-whistling hypocrites they always have been. Take Marco Rubio--please, take him. The little weasel withdrew his support for the Id with a comb-over lid only after Trump's remarks that he would not honor the outcome of the election (BEFORE Chris Wallace got him to repeat it at the debate). Rubio was distancing himself from the Alt-Right wing of the GOP, saying, in effect, "I'm not THAT kind of Republican. I'm not calling for the overthrow of the government." By relegating the crazies to the outer margins, he is deliberately poising himself as the Moderate Face of a new and chastened Republican Party. Watch, now that Trump has incited his mob to stage a coup d'état, the Mainstream will follow Rubio's example. It's safe now to take a stand against crazy.
Spot on, Ms. Dowd. Spot on.
1
My previous comment refers to the piece by J.D. Vance...
This entire election cycle has been one long anguishing, traumatic nightmare. As a lifelong Democrat, I nevertheless viewed Republicans as having certain core convictions such as patriotism, religious mandates, family centered values, and fiscal responsibilty. However, during the Obama presidency, they have steadily descended into having only one concern, that is to delegitimize the Obama legacy. It is no wonder they left themselves open to allowing this horrible man to walk into the limelight. Where were the gatekeepers who protect party values? They deserve everything they ended up with. My greatest fear is that the this awful excuse for a human being will not disappear from our television screens after he loses to Hillary Clinton.
4
Technically, Donald Trump does not have an oversize ego. He actually has a deficit of ego, as does anyone with Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Here's what the Mayo Clinic has to say about it...
"Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of ultraconfidence lies a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism.
Although some features of narcissistic personality disorder may seem like having confidence, it's not the same. Narcissistic personality disorder crosses the border of healthy confidence into thinking so highly of yourself that you put yourself on a pedestal and value yourself more than you value others."
"Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of ultraconfidence lies a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism.
Although some features of narcissistic personality disorder may seem like having confidence, it's not the same. Narcissistic personality disorder crosses the border of healthy confidence into thinking so highly of yourself that you put yourself on a pedestal and value yourself more than you value others."
4
"Continuing to deploy lethal darts from her team of shrinks, Hillary Clinton baited Trump into a series of damaging nails-in-the-coffin statements."
Gratuitous: team of shrinks. Maureen, how would you address the sociopathic behavior of Trump. And what team of experts is he relying on for his bon mots?
Gratuitous: team of shrinks. Maureen, how would you address the sociopathic behavior of Trump. And what team of experts is he relying on for his bon mots?
4
You don't need a team of shrinks to get Trump's goat. A smart aleck 9 year old will do.
5
Teresa Tritch is entirely wrong when she claims that the "raising the level of wages that are taxed to provide revenue for Social Security" wouldn't "close the entire financing gap in Social Security."
Really? How does Ms. Tritch know that, in the absence of actual, specific numbers? It's a matter of simple arithmetic: If the increase in wages is large enough, it will close the anticipated gap in Social Security funding. If, after an initial period, it becomes clear that the first increase in the taxable wage level is too small to meet the needs of Social Security, it can always be raised again.
Is she disputing this? Or is she just hoping to reinforce the political propaganda, subscribed to by many otherwise astute journalists, that only through "entitlement cuts" can these vital programs---or the nation itself---be "saved?"
Also, whose projections is she citing here? Does she consider the prospect that those predictions might be wrong? Respectfully, I think Ms. Tritch needs to go back and rethink her hoary assumptions, before she writes on this important topic again.
Really? How does Ms. Tritch know that, in the absence of actual, specific numbers? It's a matter of simple arithmetic: If the increase in wages is large enough, it will close the anticipated gap in Social Security funding. If, after an initial period, it becomes clear that the first increase in the taxable wage level is too small to meet the needs of Social Security, it can always be raised again.
Is she disputing this? Or is she just hoping to reinforce the political propaganda, subscribed to by many otherwise astute journalists, that only through "entitlement cuts" can these vital programs---or the nation itself---be "saved?"
Also, whose projections is she citing here? Does she consider the prospect that those predictions might be wrong? Respectfully, I think Ms. Tritch needs to go back and rethink her hoary assumptions, before she writes on this important topic again.
5
"....bad hombres"?? Maybe after the election Trump can star in a Western. "The Good, the Bad, and the Donald".
6
How is Trump different from his Party which refuses to accept the election of our POTUS Obama who won in 2008 and 2012? They refuse to do their job in the nomination of the next Supreme Court justice bc why? Obama is not president?
Paul Ryan and McConnel think they can railroad us and get away with it, and both fully support this nut case as a better option than HRC. ....Really? Time to cut them all lose.
Paul Ryan and McConnel think they can railroad us and get away with it, and both fully support this nut case as a better option than HRC. ....Really? Time to cut them all lose.
6
Very good point. The moderator bias, both about economic theory and neglect of climate change was not discussed by the pundits post-debate.
3
First off on the entitlement myth is that social security and medicare are entitlements! Last I looked at my pay check stub, there were pretty big deductions for social security and medicare. If I pay for it, how can it be an entitlement! This is money, that I saved over the 50 years that I have been working! You want to talk entitlement, talk about the corporate tax breaks or the depreciation real estate owners can claim while their properties are appreciating! That is entitlement. The press needs to stop and THINK! Stop using language that confuses the public.
10
If I hear one more person call something I've paid into my entire life an "entitlement" I don't know what I might do.
Please. Just stop it. You behave as if it's a handout. I live in the real world where most people don't save or plan for retirement, but I assure you, had I had that money I could have gotten a better return than what the government will EVER pay back to me.
So stop. To the electorate there is no more irritating word than "entitlement" where referring to SS and Medicare.
Please. Just stop it. You behave as if it's a handout. I live in the real world where most people don't save or plan for retirement, but I assure you, had I had that money I could have gotten a better return than what the government will EVER pay back to me.
So stop. To the electorate there is no more irritating word than "entitlement" where referring to SS and Medicare.
10
I keep asking myself, "How did all of this mess happen?"
The Republican Party could not stop this insane man. They were/are scared to death of an infantile man.
A really good loud bully is indeed scary, but could not one Republican could stand up to him?
I'm really shocked this mess has gone as far as it has.
The Republican Party could not stop this insane man. They were/are scared to death of an infantile man.
A really good loud bully is indeed scary, but could not one Republican could stand up to him?
I'm really shocked this mess has gone as far as it has.
2
Don't be shocked. Reagan never behaved like Trump. Poppy Bush never behaved like Trump. Then George W. stood up and lied straight to our faces. About his tax plan, but more importantly, he lied about Iraq. For 8 years, under Obama, a big chunk of the Republican base has been seething. But W. laid the groundwork for Trump to get this far. Yes, I know, it was really Cheney who wanted to go into Iraq. But W. gave it life. What he did was the single most important thing in de-stabilizing the whole Middle East. And his insistence on a "(home) ownership society" led to the Great Recession. It's W, that allowed for a Trump.
4
Please Send block-by-block, door-to-door, walk the walk we support Hillary Clinton because she down to earth & she connect people beautifully,she do anything for her people, she loves her people, she loves her country more than money but trumps don’t love people his love is for money & sex...To 8th November. Vote for PRESIDENT Hillary Clinton.
2
Last night before the debate, CNN was scrolling updates at the bottom of the screen next to the all too important "Debate Countdown Clock." The updates were as follows:
1. Donald Trump has invited President Obama's Half-Brother Malik to the debate.
2. Meliana Trump and Bill Clinton will not shake hands
That about sums up how pathetic our political process become - enabled by the media.
1. Donald Trump has invited President Obama's Half-Brother Malik to the debate.
2. Meliana Trump and Bill Clinton will not shake hands
That about sums up how pathetic our political process become - enabled by the media.
1
I love reading these opinion pieces with the eye that people 50 years from now, assuming CLIMATE CHANGE doesn't end society as we know it, will see what the American public had to endure thru both what journalists wrote and the comments by real people. Historical research into sites like Brietbart and the myriad of conspiracy theories debunked time and time again will probably make their heads spin, if only because the progeny of Trump supporters will still be spouting them.
I'm glad you brought up Chris Wallace's comment on Obama's stimulus plan. That to me showed media bias. Like you said the stimulus was not big enough. Austerity will slow or stall our economy as Europe has already shown. God help us if Donald Trump becomes president
5
You seem to be mute as to which side you support. It is the responsibility - NOW - of all peace-loving, democracy-loving Americans to shout "No!" to this madness. As someone with a foot in both worlds, you could play a very positive role - if you would stop being an observer and start being a citizen.
after watching last night's "effort" I am more convinced than ever that Mr. Trump, deep in his heart of hearts, has no interest or desire to win. The fact that he can't is inconsequential. He now doesn't WANT to win. and, more importantly, he doesn't want to SERVE.
I think it's Trump who's feeling the burn this morning... BIG LEAGUE! ;-)
2
Status quo? I would like to know what debate you watched. To say Hillary Clinton was on the same level as Trump is unbelievable. Trump didn't answer the questions put to him; he always manage to attack Clinton. Clinton used her opportunities to attack, but she was not offensive, she was based on fact more of the time and she provided answer to the questions on the table. She was coherent with clear understanding of the issues; I can not say the same of mr. Trump.
.
.
2
Trump is such a petulant child, so weak and easily manipulated, that, as his political opponent(s) have famously famously observed, he can be baited (into war) with a tweet. No way has this guy ever conducted a successful negotiation of any kind, in business or in private. I'll give him this: He does hire people (those seem to be the only people he knows), if only to take credit for their work (branding!) and stiff them when it comes time to paying them for the work he supposedly contracted them to do. He never "created" a job that wasn't performed by a lawyer or an accountant. How much did he manage to make off of 9-11 just because Hillary Clinton didn't pass laws to stop him. Because Congress doesn't make laws, only Presidents and individual senators and legislators do (single-handedly!).
5
@ Arthur Brooks
FALSE EQUIVALENCY to the 100th degree.
Sir have you lost your mind or you maliciously lying?
FALSE EQUIVALENCY to the 100th degree.
Sir have you lost your mind or you maliciously lying?
2
I've been secretly worried that Trump has an actual strategy going on under the "big show". I'm relived to have been proven wrong.
5
@ Arthur Brooks
Status quo? Are you kidding? What part of the term "false equivalency" do you not understand? To include Hillary Clinton in the same boat of ignoring the voting public in these debates as Trump is astounding. Did you not see the primary debates? Trump has been operating in the same vacuum of arrogance all through this election cycle. The debates between HRC and Bernie Sanders (and others -- whatever) were based upon policy discussion, and they, collectively, made every effort to make their case to the voting public. Trump sent this ship into an iceberg, but don't even begin to insinuate that HRC had a chance at grabbing the wheel to veer away. All three debates were setup for her to fail, and she did everything she could to not let that happen. Unfortunately, when you get called out to wrestle in the mud, you can't just say "no thanks" and do the right thing -- you have to fight. "Little Marco" ring a bell?
Your premise is ridiculous.
Status quo? Are you kidding? What part of the term "false equivalency" do you not understand? To include Hillary Clinton in the same boat of ignoring the voting public in these debates as Trump is astounding. Did you not see the primary debates? Trump has been operating in the same vacuum of arrogance all through this election cycle. The debates between HRC and Bernie Sanders (and others -- whatever) were based upon policy discussion, and they, collectively, made every effort to make their case to the voting public. Trump sent this ship into an iceberg, but don't even begin to insinuate that HRC had a chance at grabbing the wheel to veer away. All three debates were setup for her to fail, and she did everything she could to not let that happen. Unfortunately, when you get called out to wrestle in the mud, you can't just say "no thanks" and do the right thing -- you have to fight. "Little Marco" ring a bell?
Your premise is ridiculous.
11
Too bad HRC couldn't ask the Donald to explain his reasoning - so fiercely for the 2nd Amendment-freedom to have combat weapons, the ills of regulation, and the need to get the government off our backs, that government is stupid...then insist the government should invade the private decision a woman makes about terminating a pregnancy ?
His pandering would have been proven insufficient to answer a follow up; his intellectual incoherence would have been fascinating to observe when cornered.
His pandering would have been proven insufficient to answer a follow up; his intellectual incoherence would have been fascinating to observe when cornered.
8
I watched the last two debates NYT "Along with Columinists" and read all their comments plus those few reader comments allowed pass your moderator. Didn't even try to comment on the third and last debate. Why bother?
For some time I was a Sunday home delivery subscriber in San Antonio to NYT until my home delivery service stopped delivering for whatever reason. Wall Street Journal allows me to download their daily newspaper via my NOOK subscription but NYt does not. Must be a contract issue. NYT wants to maximize profits.
Though I will not cancel my subscription . . . i am so disappointed with NYT's use of media to paint Clinton as a white hat and trumpet as the 'bad hombre.'
For some time I was a Sunday home delivery subscriber in San Antonio to NYT until my home delivery service stopped delivering for whatever reason. Wall Street Journal allows me to download their daily newspaper via my NOOK subscription but NYt does not. Must be a contract issue. NYT wants to maximize profits.
Though I will not cancel my subscription . . . i am so disappointed with NYT's use of media to paint Clinton as a white hat and trumpet as the 'bad hombre.'
God Almighty. Don't you see that he's doing it to himself?
1
Donald Trump did a superb job painting himself as a "bad hombre," even supplying the quaint expression for his "badness."
www.endthemadnessnow.org
www.endthemadnessnow.org
1
Loved when he called her " You are a nasty Woman"! when the biggest bully of all times, losing it to the little smart, well qualified, smart lady aka Nasty woman. she just showed us all how easily he gets unnerved, egged on and as Maureen said lost it by losing it. Hillary showed us how to stand to bullies, stay focused on issues, not to lose it and win at the end by being yourself, the same self we all have seen over the decades!!! great moment for all young girls and women, how to handle attacks, & how real leadership looks like! and how the little hurt man feel next to the woman with unshakable inner strength, to the extend that he couldn't even acknowledge the facts about our democracy and treated it as a reality show, with a cliffhanger and suspense, waiting for his ultimate revelations and seal of approval if the results are legitimate or not!!! at the end it was again all about him, not the country, issues, facts or anything else relevant for that matter!!!!
13
Today's headline: "Nasty Woman" punks Putin's puppet.
9
I wish Chris Wallace had asked Donald Trump this question: "If you were ahead in the polls would you still be saying that this election is rigged?"
8
Mike Pence pretty much said this for him when queried after the debate. And, no, Mike, your boss isn't going to win.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
www.endthemadnessnow.org
And now we know - he's OK with a rigged election, as long as he wins it.
Donald: 'It's about a rigged economy, stupid'...NOT a rigged election. We understand, Donald. Glory, gold bathroom fixtures, and the rich and famous lifestyle to which you feel entitled (and have 'earned' off the backs of others), are far more important than improving the economy for those suffering most from the rigged economy you helped build. Thanks for the lies, and the legacy of fear, hate, and mistrust left in your wake, Donald...Heaven help (the) U.S after this election.
5
Maureen, I have a suggestion for another one of your brilliant columns. We've seen Presidential and Vice Presidential debates, but I'd like one more debate...between the spouses of the Presidential candidates; after all, one of them will soon live in the White House.
If you don't write it, I'll suggest it to SNL.
...a long time admirer.
If you don't write it, I'll suggest it to SNL.
...a long time admirer.
3
Thank you, Kevin Baker! You saw and listened to the same debate that I did. Listening to the 24/7 CABLE TV people, one would think that Trump improved a great deal while Hillary did poorly. They seemed to think that the only mistake Trump made was refusing to respect the will of the people after the election. They didn't mention the numerous interruptions, the lies, the incoherent blather, etc. It is reassuring to read assessments like yours and Mr. Wehner. You help to return my hope and belief in Americans.
7
The Donald needs to learn how to cry, with flowing tears and heaving shoulders. He needs to feel a sudden surge of humility and apologize to all Americans for being the fool that he is, placing his own ego ahead of all the American people. Until he recognizes the damage he is forcing upon the American psyche, he will no longer have the respect of most sensible Americans. Go ahead Donald, be a real man. Cry and ask for the love you really crave. We'll give it to you when you humble yourself. But first you have to admit you've been a fool. It's all about growing up to be an adult.
3
"and angry about illegal immigrants and refugees swarming in who might be competition."....but Ms. Dowd according to datum there is no swarming going on. So the anger you refer to is drummed up by statements like yours. Guess you don't want to miss out on those heavenly lunches with the lovely Mrs. Trump.
4
Any drumming up has been courtesy of Fox, Breitbart and the Donald himself, along with his alt-right acolytes. Individually and in combination they've been preaching fear and demonization of "foreigners," along with illegitimacy of American institutions, government and media, for years. It's 100% on them.
To Ms. Dowd,
This is brilliant. bigly brilliant.
Thank you
This is brilliant. bigly brilliant.
Thank you
4
But those European countries also don't have $20T in debt.
Obama's stimulus was like this ... a mayor issues $10M in bonds, he uses the funds to paint 100 houses and pays the painters $100K each. Yes there are jobs and yes there is some economic stimulus ... and yes those painters and those who own the houses will vote for and contribute to the mayor ... the mayor leaves office in 4 years.
But the population of the city owes $10K and are left with nothing (except the painters and the home owners). People, especially productive people who don't want to pay the debt, will leave and the town will be a bankrupt and desolate poverty stricken shell of horror. Fantasy ... no, Detroit.
The city is stuck with $10M in debt with
Obama's stimulus was like this ... a mayor issues $10M in bonds, he uses the funds to paint 100 houses and pays the painters $100K each. Yes there are jobs and yes there is some economic stimulus ... and yes those painters and those who own the houses will vote for and contribute to the mayor ... the mayor leaves office in 4 years.
But the population of the city owes $10K and are left with nothing (except the painters and the home owners). People, especially productive people who don't want to pay the debt, will leave and the town will be a bankrupt and desolate poverty stricken shell of horror. Fantasy ... no, Detroit.
The city is stuck with $10M in debt with
2
To quote trump: wrong, wrong, wrong. This is why most people don't understand economics at the national scale. They keep reducing it to town-sized examples. Who do you think lent that city the $10 million in your example? If it was lent by rich citizens of that same city, would your view of that situation change at all? ie they only owe themselves (collectively) that $10 million.
Now go the national level. This is about 85% true. It is debt owed by America to Americans.
It is less than one years GDP (national income) and the interest on it at current rates is less than 3% of national income.
As long as the growth rate of the economy exceeds the size of the budget deficit, the debt relative to national income will continue to shrink. It doesn't matter what the amount of it is in actual dollars - it is in relation to our collective income (and hence, ability to pay it) that it needs to be measured.
Now go the national level. This is about 85% true. It is debt owed by America to Americans.
It is less than one years GDP (national income) and the interest on it at current rates is less than 3% of national income.
As long as the growth rate of the economy exceeds the size of the budget deficit, the debt relative to national income will continue to shrink. It doesn't matter what the amount of it is in actual dollars - it is in relation to our collective income (and hence, ability to pay it) that it needs to be measured.
1
the city financed the $10k at a low interest rate stretched out over 30 years, assessed on each property owner with his property tax. that's how we got sidewalks.
1
ad hominem thinking, Mr. Brooks, a common fault in logic, and handy defense mechanism
2
Right ... but the opportunity to spend is the opportunity to waste spending on political cronies, thereby, reducing growth rather than stimulating it. So it comes to "bang for the buck." Obama spend, roughly, $400K per job created ... and those are not permanent jobs ... economic theoretically those jobs disappear when the $12T in new debt under Obama (it was only $8T so that's a 150% increase) has to be repaid.
Look at Reagan's stimulus program composed of tax cuts, yes for the rich as well as the poor ... the horror ... but Reagan spent $10K per job created.
Rahm Emanuel essentially admitted the stimulus was a Democrat payola scheme: "Never let a crisis go to waste."
Look at Reagan's stimulus program composed of tax cuts, yes for the rich as well as the poor ... the horror ... but Reagan spent $10K per job created.
Rahm Emanuel essentially admitted the stimulus was a Democrat payola scheme: "Never let a crisis go to waste."
that's like intepreting "to be or not to be" as deciding to make honey
All of Trump's supporters that hate the thought of Hillary as our next President should now focus their energy on changing our two party system by choosing an independent canidate. It would clearly show that we need to have more then two political parties and that we will no longer put up with politicians that don't put the american public first!
That Trump would tell us at the time, and leave us in suspence, is priceless. In fact is is not even worth one pence.
1
Seth Grossman writes that Trump is “not a good collaborator” which is an understatement. The Republican Party is not even an afterthought for Trump. In his mind, the only player on the team is himself.
From a Queens boy --
Mr. Trump, aged 70, is eligible for Social Security benefits without reduction, if he earned money through work and paid FICA?
Since he may have never been "employed" as an individual -- he may not be entitled to Social Security benefits.
Does he get Social Security now, if not will he seek retroactive benefits?
Hmm.
Mr. Trump, aged 70, is eligible for Social Security benefits without reduction, if he earned money through work and paid FICA?
Since he may have never been "employed" as an individual -- he may not be entitled to Social Security benefits.
Does he get Social Security now, if not will he seek retroactive benefits?
Hmm.
1
Eliminating the Social Security tax income limit entirely solves about nine-tenths of the problem. People earning six-figure salaries do not need their retirement accounts subsidized by everyone else. (Just to remove any question of bias: yes, that would increase my SSI contribution also. So be it.)
5
Republicans talk about deficits and that also only when the democrats are in power.
Republican needs to talk about deficits in :
1. Our moral values,
2. Public health,
3. Our democracy,
4. Respect of others
5. Working together
6. Making things better for us and others
.. more to list..
Republican needs to talk about deficits in :
1. Our moral values,
2. Public health,
3. Our democracy,
4. Respect of others
5. Working together
6. Making things better for us and others
.. more to list..
2
Wajahat Ali's editorial perfectly distills this sad and humiliating moment in our country's history. How utterly ironic, in that what Trump abhors most-humiliation-is the very thing he is inflicting on the whole country. God! I hope we can recover from this debacle.
1
Trump's errors are making us to forget the Republican Party errors. Well, Chis Wallace comes to the rescue. As long as the Republican Party mainstream maintains at the forefront the obsolete pure market based society, minimal government and so for, they will be condemned to loose all the elections. The problem is that for democracy to work we need at least two potential contenders .....
1
Thank you so much for your book, Hillbilly Elegy. I have recommended to as many people as will listen for the insights it offers into at least one demographic population's basis for the divide rending the fabric of the nation.
3
The question about Trumpsters behavior after he loses...if he loses...is complex. A percentage will return to their lives, grumbling. Some will vilify HRC even more stridently than they derided Obama. But a small percent will mobilize domestic terrorism, armed & dangerous, driven by internet delusional theories- now legitimized by Trump's exploitation of his extremist base, his white supremacists lunatic fringe.
Just as Trump appears to unravel under the strain of losing (his thinking becoming disordered) his base oppressed by their impotent rage may become a terrible 'insurgency.'
Just as Trump appears to unravel under the strain of losing (his thinking becoming disordered) his base oppressed by their impotent rage may become a terrible 'insurgency.'
3
One of my favorite moments of the debate was the look at Mr. Trump's view of military tactics. In claiming that our administration has given away the advantage of surprise he tried to damn our leadership. What he showed was a child's view of military strategy and action. This is a kid playing G.I. Joe vs. Eisenhower leading a campaign. Of course the leaders of Isil knew this battle is coming. But unlike Trump they knew if they run, their people would lose respect. Trump's strategy would be to turn tail and run. Is this the man who should lead the strongest military in the country?
2
Thanks, Mark Scmitt for providing some much needed context to Chris Wallace's questions about fiscal responsibility. These questions had a point of view baked in.
2
Arthur Brooks said, "...You can insult someone into a fight, or into a lawsuit, or into a divorce. But not into agreement. The most fundamental problem with these two candidates – illustrated so clearly in tonight’s debate – is that they both exhibit an apparent lack of understanding of this axiom..."
Who actually expected Clinton or Trump to come to an "agreement"? Insult and fight are Donald Trump's
only tools so far in this presidential campaign. Hillary has learned her lesson well from the previous debates and has responded appropriately to him. "Putin's puppet," and "...Chinese steel," and insults to women; would Brooks expect Trump to agree with these "insults"? When does a truthful statement become an insult to be criticized for not helping to come to an agreement, btw? What happened to the "art of the deal" and Trump's self-proclaimed ability to create 'agreements'? Does Brooks mean to say that Trump tried to avoid insults but Hillary didn't? Hillary "went high" as much as Trump would allow but to get to Trump it seems, one has to go low and address him at the only level he understands.
Who actually expected Clinton or Trump to come to an "agreement"? Insult and fight are Donald Trump's
only tools so far in this presidential campaign. Hillary has learned her lesson well from the previous debates and has responded appropriately to him. "Putin's puppet," and "...Chinese steel," and insults to women; would Brooks expect Trump to agree with these "insults"? When does a truthful statement become an insult to be criticized for not helping to come to an agreement, btw? What happened to the "art of the deal" and Trump's self-proclaimed ability to create 'agreements'? Does Brooks mean to say that Trump tried to avoid insults but Hillary didn't? Hillary "went high" as much as Trump would allow but to get to Trump it seems, one has to go low and address him at the only level he understands.
3
"The Bullfight in Vegas" was an excellent piece - and quite a spectacle, withlots of bull and lots of fighting, too.
3
On the collision between entitlement funding and growing demand, it's a little optimistic that we can simply bend the costs curves and increase taxes only on the wealthy to get there.
Today medicare recipients receive three dollars in care for every dollar contributed. This is before the bulk of the baby boomers hit their most costly years of care. Obama already increased taxes on the wealthy to the highest point since 1979 to fund the expansion of the ACA.
We're not looking at "tweaks" when consumption is orders of magnitude greater than revenue.
Today medicare recipients receive three dollars in care for every dollar contributed. This is before the bulk of the baby boomers hit their most costly years of care. Obama already increased taxes on the wealthy to the highest point since 1979 to fund the expansion of the ACA.
We're not looking at "tweaks" when consumption is orders of magnitude greater than revenue.
I would have known this to be the insidious voice of the AEI without seeing the name. In truth, there has never been a spectacle as graceless and obscene as thr horrible language used by Republicans that has corrupted the body politic like Ebola virus. The esteemed colleague in the senate who called out "liar". To Obama on the floor of Congress made it clear that Reublicans from then on would abandon all pretense of any claim to or aspiration for goodwill and compromise. Sadly, democracy is a fragile thing, totally dependent upon civil behavior. Like the traffic on a highway, the miracle is that so many sensible people cooperate to make it work as well as it does, and if they become self-centered absolutists, bashing aside the needs of others on the journry, Chaos and mayhem will ensue. And democracy will end. A regime of the physically strongest will take over, and the common man won't be allowed a car, much less access to the highway.
2
Granted Wallace misled by saying stimulus led to slow growth. But I did not hear Clinton counter that argument even though she had to expect exactly that objection to her own stimulus plan. When Trump asks "Why haven't you done it?" she can't say because Obama's too small stimulus hurt politically, and now Republicans block spending. She can't say "yes we can" because she can't. When Trump says four years of Clinton will be a continuation of eight years of Obama, he's correct. Fortunately that's not all bad. But it does promise for a fake liberal corporate Democrats cutting deals with Republicans to pass center right policies that inhibit economic growth and equality. Hence today, Romney care and it's difficulties, 80% of the Bush tax cuts permanent, Obama looking to pass TPP in lame duck session, Hillary willing to cut deal for lower corporate taxes and huge give away for a one time additional $200 billion tax revenue from repatriation. Look for similar in immigration as Republicans and Democrats expand exploitation as all previous so called reform bills did.
As with Simpson-Bowles the forces of austerity and low inflation are determined to cut into gov't programs designed to provide financial support to Americans who have insecure retirement prospects. The Congress will not pass needed spending bills to rebuild infrastructure or raise the minimum wage but they are in full throat when the gov't does spend money on entitlements. The Congress has made the country vulnerable to the draconian anti inflation policy of the Fed.
3
"When Melania Trump stood by her man-child the other night..." - good one, Ms. Dowd!
If Arthur Brooks spins any harder, he'll start an F5 tornado all by himself. Seriously, Arthur, I know you're required to say nasty things about any Democrat, but you must have had your fingers jammed in your ears & been yelling la-la-la to not pick up on who's nasty & who's not. To restructure a line from a Janet Jackson song: "...It's Madam President if you're nasty..."
1
EMILY BAZELON's short and sweet piece is terrific. Thank you.
When asked about more US troops in Syria, he never answered the question. Why didn't Wallace push him? HRC answered the question. This is serious, in my opinion.
4
Good one Maureen! It's all about him. I think he means " Make my world great again". He's an addict of sorts.
Now, Mr Trump, can you explain the billion dollar bankrupsies your casinos went into back then?
Yea, that's easy. It was horrible! They were all rigged.
Yea, that's easy. It was horrible! They were all rigged.
4
This piece, hands down, is the BEST article on what is happening in our election. Thank you for identifying what it really is: a person with NPD running for the leader of the free world. Totally ego-driven as that is his pathos.
Another well-known narcissist was Hitler. So unsettling that the public doesn't see this. They did not in Hitler's rise to power either. Again, thank you for clearly identifying it
Yes. No one respects women more than Donald...unless you have "that face" like Ms Fiorina... If a woman is "hot" she'll get some form of respect. If not "she's just a nasty woman."
I understand where the word "deplorable" comes into play here.
Another well-known narcissist was Hitler. So unsettling that the public doesn't see this. They did not in Hitler's rise to power either. Again, thank you for clearly identifying it
Yes. No one respects women more than Donald...unless you have "that face" like Ms Fiorina... If a woman is "hot" she'll get some form of respect. If not "she's just a nasty woman."
I understand where the word "deplorable" comes into play here.
4
Yours is a sad catch-22 game. Yes Arthur, that is the purpose of the Trump show and the Palin show and the Todd Akin show: "Donald J. Trump calmly proposed conventional conservative policies on taxes, social issues, and the Second Amendment." ....To make THAT seem normal. To bait the country into false equivalence. Unfortunately, their complete wackiness keeps the 'message' from being heard..
3
Maureen, this is a great take on the man-child. I love you. I love the Times. But you and your colleagues consistently butcher the great Montana put-down. It's not "ALL hat, no cattle." It's "BIG hat, no cattle." Your construct emasculates the contrast. But I love you anyway.
1
I don’t know if Samuel Johnson actually said: “patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel,” but if had had watched any of the third presidential debate AND read Arthur Brooks’ column, Johnson would have opined “False equivalence is the last refuge of a scoundrel – as well as a weak and lazy form of critique.” No Arthur, these candidates are not the same, did not say the same things, and do not reflect any kind of similar vision for America. The distinction were palpable and if it was not immediately obvious to you then you are either not as bright as you purport to be, or you are genuinely in thrall to Donald Trump, along with everything he says, does and believes.
10
Amen Jason Shapiro. I think that Arthur Brooks really doesn't get the difference and then he tries to explain nuance with a heavy sigh. His comparisons become comical after a while.
I don't understand why more people aren't refuting Republican claims more often by citing that the actual incidence of voter fraud is so negligibly low, voter fraud is virtually non-existent... voter fraud is bad on the EXTREMELY rare occasions when it occurs, and it should be dealt with properly under state law where it occurs... but it almost NEVER happens, which means it is NOT a factor in the outcome...
https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-i...
https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-i...
8
Donald Trump on where the bucks stops.
First of all there is no buck; the buck is lie, folks, and it does not stop; it does not stop; it just keeps going.
But if there were a buck, it sure would't ever, ever stop with me; it would always stop with HER and Obama--never with ME, I can tell you that! People are saying I am the greatest businessman ever, and I will be the most amazing president this country ever had or ever will have. And as long as I am alive, I can assure everyone: NO BUCK WILL EVER, EVER STOP WITH ME! Why? Because it will always, always stop with HER--she is a nasty lady.
Keep America Great--vote for Hillary Clinton!
First of all there is no buck; the buck is lie, folks, and it does not stop; it does not stop; it just keeps going.
But if there were a buck, it sure would't ever, ever stop with me; it would always stop with HER and Obama--never with ME, I can tell you that! People are saying I am the greatest businessman ever, and I will be the most amazing president this country ever had or ever will have. And as long as I am alive, I can assure everyone: NO BUCK WILL EVER, EVER STOP WITH ME! Why? Because it will always, always stop with HER--she is a nasty lady.
Keep America Great--vote for Hillary Clinton!
4
Did anyone notice that when the debate ended, Clinton went down into the stalls, and Trump's family came onto the platform. His wife stood next to him, THEY DID NOT TOUCH, and only when Ivanka leaned forward, did he kiss her. No contact with any of the others either.
That says a lot.
That says a lot.
15
The Trump "family" is a creepy bunch. I prefer the Addams Family. Much warmer, much more trustworthy, more appealing "people."
1
Great job, Maureen....loved it...bigly!!
3
"Chris Wallace was ... pretty bad on fiscal issues ... still obsessing over the debt
and the Obama stimulus ...""
Right on the money, as usual, Paul!
But should we expect anything else from FoxNews? This is all part-and-parcel of their bedrock bias!
Debts are bad, unless rung up from huge tax-breaks to the rich (which Trump, Pence, and Ryan are STILL proposing), and stimulus is bad, unless it benefits big-time developers or scam-developers like Trump! (cf. Bronx gold course or Atlantic City casinos)
and the Obama stimulus ...""
Right on the money, as usual, Paul!
But should we expect anything else from FoxNews? This is all part-and-parcel of their bedrock bias!
Debts are bad, unless rung up from huge tax-breaks to the rich (which Trump, Pence, and Ryan are STILL proposing), and stimulus is bad, unless it benefits big-time developers or scam-developers like Trump! (cf. Bronx gold course or Atlantic City casinos)
9
Our national debt is not and was not created by tax breaks for the wealthy, go buy a clue. It is and was caused by our governments deficit spending mind set. Of course the billions if not trillions of dollars wasted in more of a decade of armed conflict and then repairing the infrastructure we helped destroy in Iraq and Afghanistan added to the mess.
I am proud to be a Nasty Woman.
10
I am proud to be married to one....no, seriously; really! I am proud that my wife is no pushover for anyone and Hillary is, even with her faults, a model of a strong, American woman.
I think the rules for the presidential debates need to change. What America needs is debates, and these debates need to be constructive. The American people need to know what a candidate's positions, policies, and plans are to confront the vital problems impacting the nation. The American people deserve to know a given candidate's stand on each issue.
I think the format of the debates needs to be changed. The moderator should publish a list of topics to be addressed by each candidate. The public should have an opportunity to weigh in on its collective priorities, but this need not be absolute - a moderator should have the opportunity to list subjects that the nation should be thinking about, but didn't list - like "climate change."
The candidates should have a set period of time to say their piece. Next, the challenger(s) should have an opportunity to rebut the candidate, and finally, the candidate should have a short time to respond. If a candidate veers off topic, or fails to respond, the microphone goes off. No insults, catcalls, interruptions, anything. Microphone off when it's not your turn. Show all of the candidates all of the time. No close-ups, no nothing.
I, for one, am sick and tired of politicians (and clowns like Donald Trump) wasting my time with grandstanding, personal insults, and other sundry garbage.
It's time for the American people to get some benefit from this process.
I think the format of the debates needs to be changed. The moderator should publish a list of topics to be addressed by each candidate. The public should have an opportunity to weigh in on its collective priorities, but this need not be absolute - a moderator should have the opportunity to list subjects that the nation should be thinking about, but didn't list - like "climate change."
The candidates should have a set period of time to say their piece. Next, the challenger(s) should have an opportunity to rebut the candidate, and finally, the candidate should have a short time to respond. If a candidate veers off topic, or fails to respond, the microphone goes off. No insults, catcalls, interruptions, anything. Microphone off when it's not your turn. Show all of the candidates all of the time. No close-ups, no nothing.
I, for one, am sick and tired of politicians (and clowns like Donald Trump) wasting my time with grandstanding, personal insults, and other sundry garbage.
It's time for the American people to get some benefit from this process.
20
Donald's expression summed up his campaign in one word: loser.
3
Maureen Dowd's comment about Hillary Clinton's "team of shrinks" is pointed, and worth noting.
We need a president who knows how to use all available resources to understand and gain the advantage over an adversary.
And doing it three times in a row? Bonus points!
We need a president who knows how to use all available resources to understand and gain the advantage over an adversary.
And doing it three times in a row? Bonus points!
7
Psychologists and psychiatrists in this country probably already have a diagnosis for Trump.
Yes, I believe that that the nation will indeed more past Trump. In fact, I think that his insane approach to politics will actually HELP us move forward, not backward (as Obama used to say).
The craziness in American politics was not invented by Trump. He has just tapped into it. Now, we can explore ways of moving forward. Pres. Hillary Clinton and the nation can work on this, day by day.
Churchill said: "You can always count on the Americans to do things right, AFTER they have tried everything else. "
"Forward, not backward" (Obama)
The craziness in American politics was not invented by Trump. He has just tapped into it. Now, we can explore ways of moving forward. Pres. Hillary Clinton and the nation can work on this, day by day.
Churchill said: "You can always count on the Americans to do things right, AFTER they have tried everything else. "
"Forward, not backward" (Obama)
4
I don't think Maureen Dowd is up to the task expected of a NY Times writer. Very weak column today. It was at Trump's elementary school level.
2
Appomatox. From early on he appealed to a group of people that can't accept surrendor.
2
Sorry. After reading the header, I don't even have to bother reading the segment. El Trumpo's hole just dug bigglier, he's got the shovel in his own hands, and we all watched him implode. (Is that what you mean by "status quo"? If so, ok.)
Nothing about this debate said "oh well, same old same old", and to suggest such is nothing more than the obscene, irresponsible denial that infests people in the "leadership" of the Republican party. Keep whistling past the graveyard, I double dare you: you're going to be left without a party before it's over.
Nothing about this debate said "oh well, same old same old", and to suggest such is nothing more than the obscene, irresponsible denial that infests people in the "leadership" of the Republican party. Keep whistling past the graveyard, I double dare you: you're going to be left without a party before it's over.
2
A better description of Trump's thinking process would be "scrambled eggs."
4
I'm a nasty woman today and I like it!
5
I disagree with Mr Wehner on most policy but I must complement him on the way he has been a soothsayer and truth speaker f...he has criticized both Trump for what he is and his party for not calling it out and tolerating Trumpism which has been in the making for years.
After the election, Republicans must decide who they are and what they stand for...the country is changing and all they can do is pay lip service to it...eg we must be a more inclusive party....and then support rampant nativism and voter suppression...and they wonder why minorities do not even try to understand what the party is about?
After the election, Republicans must decide who they are and what they stand for...the country is changing and all they can do is pay lip service to it...eg we must be a more inclusive party....and then support rampant nativism and voter suppression...and they wonder why minorities do not even try to understand what the party is about?
2
This article makes me wonder whether Donald Trump would succeed with a Trump Cable TV enterprise. After all, he does fail a lot. Examples: Trump Airlines, Trump Steaks, Trump University, Trump Casinos (Atlantic City). It seems to me that viewers would be pretty quick to tire of him as a Rush Limbaugh wannabe.
4
Yes, it would be all over lown rhetoric free of actual content. How long would anyone stay tuned into that? It becomes so repetitive.
Yes, the stimulus worked, but the lack of sophistication of the economic debate in this election goes well beyond that. Why won't Democrats say that clear evidence shows that tax cuts for rich people do not stimulate growth? Why does no one point to the cuts in spending instituted after 2011 as largely responsible for the slow the rate of recovery? Except for his role as cheer leader, Obama has had little impact on performance of the economy since 2011. Do Democratic politicians, Hillary included, just figure American voters are too dumb to understand economics so that raising the issues is a loser?
1
This debate was like one of those situations where you're invited to a funeral, and at the lunch afterward you get seated at a table with two people you don't know, who've known each other for a very long time, hate each other, never stop talking, and can't either of them concede a point. Maybe just me
1
Dear Mr. Brooks,
"No one in history has ever insulted another person into persuasion. That’s axiomatic."
Yes, and if you don't use our facial cream you will get wrinkles and look ugly.
"No one in history has ever insulted another person into persuasion. That’s axiomatic."
Yes, and if you don't use our facial cream you will get wrinkles and look ugly.
1
I know I will be repeating what others say and I apologize for that. But "The Bullfight in Vegas" has one of the best opening paragraphs I've read this election cycle. Olé!
1
The Donald needs to learn how to cry, with flowing tears and heaving shoulders. He needs to feel a sudden surge of humility and apologize to all Americans for being the fool that he is, placing his own ego ahead of all the American people. Until he recognizes the damage he is forcing upon the American psyche, he will no longer have the respect of most sensible Americans. Go ahead Donald, be a real man. Cry and ask for the love you really crave. We'll give it to you when you humble yourself. But first you have to admit you've been a fool. It's all about growing up to be an adult.
Exhausted by the negative energy of this man, I must get back to work and now take out the garbage -- something the Donald should try himself -- it leads to humility.
Exhausted by the negative energy of this man, I must get back to work and now take out the garbage -- something the Donald should try himself -- it leads to humility.
1
'From schoolboy to caudillo in one leap'
'Caudillo is an interesting word. It does mean 'leader', the preferred title of the late, unlamented Spanish dictator, a diminutive form of 'head'. But it also is a diminutive form of the Latin 'cauda' ('tail).
So one could have a sly chuckle at implying Mr. Trump (or tRump to some wags on the left) is a 'little piece of tail'. And, of course, it seems that being led by his 'little head' has been the source of many of his troubles.
'Caudillo is an interesting word. It does mean 'leader', the preferred title of the late, unlamented Spanish dictator, a diminutive form of 'head'. But it also is a diminutive form of the Latin 'cauda' ('tail).
So one could have a sly chuckle at implying Mr. Trump (or tRump to some wags on the left) is a 'little piece of tail'. And, of course, it seems that being led by his 'little head' has been the source of many of his troubles.
1
Mr. Vance's pithy, accurate comments are a reminder that he is a welcome addition to the Times' group of contributing writers.
I am appalled at the way Arthur Brook saw last night's debate. For him not to see Trump's inanity is preposterous. He clearly demonstrated his partisanship, hence being in denial.
3
Yes, Mo. "But he was all hat, no cattle." Not the first Republican candidate for President to whom that phrase applies. Consider W. Wonder who they'll corral next for the job?
They will enlist whatever candidate promises them the best and/or the most rewards, of course!
Bad enough that Trump views himself as unaccountable. Now "Little Don" say his dad is beneath the office of President. It is a "step down". We are in the presence of The Savior and cannot appreciate His Glory. Sore loser.
1
Kudos to Chris Wallace: he did the people's work. I admit skepticism. My posts to the NYT reveal my liberal bent. I enjoy the comfort of watching and agreeing with my old high-school chum, Brian Williams, on the echo chamber of my choosing. I didn't know what to expect from Chris W., figuring that as he came from Fox we'd see a withering assault on Clinton and softballs to Trump. But he proved to be a much greater man than that, and I am ashamed of my bias.
His questioning was fair-and-balanced. He nailed both of them as he should have. Yes, I would have liked to hear something on Climate Change. So what. The 90 minutes he moderated contrasted the candidates, and revealed both of their flaws and strengths. I might actually tune over to Fox now to see him in his element.
His questioning was fair-and-balanced. He nailed both of them as he should have. Yes, I would have liked to hear something on Climate Change. So what. The 90 minutes he moderated contrasted the candidates, and revealed both of their flaws and strengths. I might actually tune over to Fox now to see him in his element.
"Before it was all over, Fox’s Chris Wallace — who, incidentally, proved himself by far the best moderator of the debates but who, like all the rest, offered not a single question on climate change — was practically remonstrating with Mr. Trump to join his own daughter in pledging to accept the election results." Agreed, but Chris Wallace is still beholden to Fox and it showed when he didn't press Trump on the allegation of the reported who accused Trump of attacking her when she had recounted the incident to several friends and associates in real time. I guess she knew that one day Trump would run for president and she could smear him. Just like Obama's Mother would know Barrack would someday run for president so she claimed he was born in Hawaii when he was really born in Kenya. If journalists had done their jobs, Trump would have been "nipped in the bud" and just so we don't forget, if they had done their jobs there would have been no "W" invasion of Iraq. To which came the most prescience statement of the 21st century by the then King Of Jordan, "If you invade Iraq, you will create a 1000 bin Ladens."
Dear NYT, When it comes to evaluating what may be the most important election of our time, do you really think that anyone with an IQ in the triple digits would be interested in the opinions of people who produce reality shows or whose claim to fame is something called Hillbilly Elegy? You're insulting your readers. I literally stopped two or three sentences into some of these columns, wondering who the heck the author was and why the Grey Lady would think they were qualified to waste our time reading their opinions.
PS to Maureen Dowd: 30 years ago, Hilary's practice of law mostly involved being a fixer as the governor's wife. You know, getting access to AK's movers and shakers. Nothing illegal implied. I know she practiced what most laypeople regard as law, but she wasn't a shark-like killer litigator. What you saw is just Hilary's personality. You don't have to go to Yale law school to smack Trump around with panache.
PS to Maureen Dowd: 30 years ago, Hilary's practice of law mostly involved being a fixer as the governor's wife. You know, getting access to AK's movers and shakers. Nothing illegal implied. I know she practiced what most laypeople regard as law, but she wasn't a shark-like killer litigator. What you saw is just Hilary's personality. You don't have to go to Yale law school to smack Trump around with panache.
1
Hillbilly Elegy is a thought-provoking memoir of a poor white child in the mining regions of Ohio and Tennessee, a stronghold of Trump supporters, written to give insight into an often overlooked culture. Vance, still very young, is a published writer, marine vet and Yale scholar who is certainly worth listening to, just as you obviously think you are.
Perhaps the greatest oddity of all is that some of the things Donald Trump said were actually based in truth. And on those occasions when I detected a kernel of truth, my greatest disappointment is that the deliverer of the message was that ninny. The contrast he provides Clinton renders her utterly unassailable - to the detriment of the American public.
Peter Wehner's comments are right on the money. I wish all republicans were so insightful. Those still supporting Trump should take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask themselves, "Is a vote for this man true to the values I claim to represent as a Republican and as a human being."
1
Very fitting justice to see the narcissist sex offender being filleted by our next female President last night.
1
The bar is so low for Trump, and this election season, that he mashed up Obama and Bill Clinton on trade, spewing idiotic ideas of making better deals than NAFTA, and I felt like he was doing better. The campaign season is making me dumber.
If it were so "easy" to egg Trump on, why did it take all of the primary cycle and part of the nominees' cycle to figure out how to make that work? While everyone else - including most of the NYT's opinion writers - was stunned and distracted by Trump's public seductions and manipulations, Hillary and team were figuring out Trump's psychology and push-buttons, then learning how to use them to "easily" egg Trump on to self-destruct. Please give credit where it's due.
I am still amazed that no one ever speaks of the monopoly power our federal government has over the money supply. Why we don't raise the money supply, without issuing any debt, baffles me. Inject money into the private sector and you get more demand, more buying and selling. Take money out (austerity) and you get less of both. Lincoln did this to fund the northern army with $460 million in currency without issuing a dime of debt. The big banks at that time offered to fund the effort--at 24% interest. That's why Lincoln said he feared the bankers more than the confederate soldiers. Our government has no need to issue debt to fund it's net (deficit) spending. But we do issue that debt, dollar for dollar! This is crazy.
Nice analogy. People shouldn't even reward him by staying at one of his "... fantastic properties, some of the most fantastic properties in the world."
2
Your best ever! A complete expose, flaying and evisceration of the El Trumpo bigly!
Trump lost when Madeleine L'Engle warned us what a country run by a "tremendous machine" would look like.
Bull in china shop vs. Stealth panther
1
I am more than willing to admit I don't like Hilary Clinton. The thing is, when the choice is between "lying, crooked, nasty Hilary" versus "lying, crooked, nasty, batshyte crazy Donald" there is only one choice: Hilary.
2
Now that the debates are over, the choice couldn't be any more clear.
Yet, a well known Wall Street newspaper endorses Trump.
How can this be?
Win or lose, Trump is a danger to democracy.
Yet, a well known Wall Street newspaper endorses Trump.
How can this be?
Win or lose, Trump is a danger to democracy.
The reason is because the Wall Street newspaper you refer to is owned by Rupert Murdoch, and the paper has become a mouthpiece akin to Faux News.
You do sum it up so aptly. Trump is a frightening and dangerous person. If he loses, I fear there will be violence by his supporters
Kevin Baker, I think you mean Donald Trump "sank" rather than "sunk." From The Grammarist: Sank vs. sunk
Sank is the past tense (e.g., the ship sank to the bottom of the sea). Sunk is the past participle, so it’s used in the perfect tenses (e.g., the ship has sunk to the bottom of the sea) and as an adjective (the sunk ship is at the bottom of the sea).
Sank is the past tense (e.g., the ship sank to the bottom of the sea). Sunk is the past participle, so it’s used in the perfect tenses (e.g., the ship has sunk to the bottom of the sea) and as an adjective (the sunk ship is at the bottom of the sea).
1
Excellent. And not one negative word by Maureen about the Clintons-a first!I think her sense of feminism has finally been offended by the Orange Clown's behavior.
1
Certainly glad to see the NYT has embraced Trump's style of interrupting, not listening, not answering the questions asked. Since it was Mrs Clinton using these tactics it made them jussi fine.
And so now we will go forward with a female Nixon, who has a copy of the Prince on her bed stand.
And so now we will go forward with a female Nixon, who has a copy of the Prince on her bed stand.
Watching the final debate,
It's time to declare a checkmate.
Donald Trump is so full
Of bombast and bull,
He makes Denis the Menace look great!
It's time to declare a checkmate.
Donald Trump is so full
Of bombast and bull,
He makes Denis the Menace look great!
1
Donald Trump used a US election as a delivery system as nothing more than a way to burnish his brand
Hopefully he will forever be branded by his actions. This was another, more grandiose "assault"...
this time on the "body" politic.
Hopefully he will forever be branded by his actions. This was another, more grandiose "assault"...
this time on the "body" politic.
2
Brooks is, to quote Don Juan Trump, wrong. The negativity and insult were all generated on one side.The common defense for nastiness from Trump is that he has to "hit back" when he's "hit." But like so many of his observations about himself, his notion that he's a counterpuncher is 180 degrees off and shows a distinct lack of experience of or even knowledge about boxing. He is the one throwing leads, through, ironically, his "mastery of the media" that he complains is against him. But very few his blows observe Marquis of Queensbury niceties; his leads are not jabs but below-the-belt, after-the-bell shots, head butts, and rabbit punches. He's a very, very dirty fighter, and he initiates it. When she observes the unwritten rule of the ring--when they hit you low, you at least tap back there to remind the opponent it's a two-way street--someone like Brooks then includes her in the maundering about the degraded public discourse. And she DOES go high, to use Michele Obama's phrase--her performance at this debate was poised and presidential in every way.
5
Trump had me worried for the first 20 minutes or so. He was calm (medication?). His face was under control (Botox?). He almost seemed (dare I say it?), "Presidential."
But then Hillary said something that broke the spell. You could literally see the storm clouds roll in over his face. It was so visible that my wife and I simultaneously said "Oh boy. Here we go!"
It was all downhill after that. And so delightful to watch. See ya, Cheeto Boy!
But then Hillary said something that broke the spell. You could literally see the storm clouds roll in over his face. It was so visible that my wife and I simultaneously said "Oh boy. Here we go!"
It was all downhill after that. And so delightful to watch. See ya, Cheeto Boy!
1
Thank you, Mr. Wehner, for your honesty. As a Republican, you were able to publicly admit that your opposing party has a competent candidate while your party does not. It takes real character to put country before party. Too few Republicans have been able to do this. Trump, as president, is simply among the greatest threats to our democratic nation that rational and thoughtful Americans have had to worry about. You give me peace of mind that I have been unable to attain during this horrific year and a half of endless attacks on sanity, thoughtfulness, intelligence, and grace by Trump.
Mr. Brooks, Mr Trump is not a typical presidential candidate and nothing about this political season is ordinary. To expect this presidential debate to be about real issues is a fantasy.
2
Following his inevitable, blistering defeat, I suggest Trump & Co. resurrect the old Hollywood Squares show, which used to be the boneyard of has-been tv "celebs." I can just see Melania, Ivanka, Tiffany, and Kellyanne in a daffy war of wits, with their beloved, fluffy-haired Donald as emcee. The warmed-over show would provide a suitable arena for the talents of this crew, and those of us who haven't been able to look away for the past year can continue to get a guilty fix.
Or how about they host Family Feud? Or the Gong Show? The choices are endless.
This election has made me long for the good old days of "boring" election debates.
Of course, no one is as smart or globally as correct on fiscal issues as Mr. Krugman. Or as much of a broken record.
Great metaphor! The matador and the angry bull. With Trump, we can't go "high" or "low" - but need to hit straight on -- which is what cool-headed Hillary did. Now: To incorporate more of Bernie Sander's platforms into her own.
Mr. Vance, as an eloquent liaison between folks in greater Appalachia and those of us in New York and wherever support for Trump is inexplicable - and as a product of Yale Law School, you would be able to make the case - not against Trump as a candidate - but against his view that if he doesn't win the election is "rigged." I can't think of anyone in public life who could even attempt that. You may be the indispensable man in the days after the election.
It may be an exaggeration but someone needs to be Robert E. Lee at Appomattox.
It may be an exaggeration but someone needs to be Robert E. Lee at Appomattox.
Wallace wasn't good - he was lucky. He was the only moderator who faced a Donald Trump who was trying to act "presidential." If the Donald Trump from either of the first two debates had shown up instead, then everyone would be talking about what a terrible job Wallace did last night.
If Donald has a nervous breakdown after the election, it will be Hillary's fault. She's responsible. Yes she is. Responsible.
Maureen Dowd absolutely nailed it in the best and most illuminating commentary of the debate season. When a history of this unprecedented series of three debates is written, Dowd's insights ought to be included. Having a " team of shrinks" to prep Clinton on how to " egg him on" could be the most effective strategy in such a public debate to get the job done.
1
I guess that Hilary's propensity to prepare intensely for the debates, including the significant time that she devoted to preparation, really paid off, eh?
Trump is a rich kid with a great education and the basic intelligence of a gnat. Apologizes to gnats. Anyone know what his college GPA was?
3
Rule number one: Never underestimate the power of an intelligent woman. Trump is getting exactly what he deserves.
4
For those Trump supporters who have repeatedly given Trump a pass on his abhorrent behavior and his lack of critical thought, I say. "be careful what you wish for." This man is totally unpredictable.
3
The GOP created the monster. And their silence is deafening and has been except for a few politicians that live in safety of numbers in their state/district.
We teach our children good sportsmanship and to shake hands after the game and yet, on the national stage we are witnessing a cry baby as the standard barer of the Republicans whine and say he knows the outcome will be rigged and he won't concede. Tell that your little leaguer and see how fast he will be punished for his unsportsmanlike conduct.
He is a national disgrace. And so is the GOP for not dispensing with him early on by withholding their support.
We teach our children good sportsmanship and to shake hands after the game and yet, on the national stage we are witnessing a cry baby as the standard barer of the Republicans whine and say he knows the outcome will be rigged and he won't concede. Tell that your little leaguer and see how fast he will be punished for his unsportsmanlike conduct.
He is a national disgrace. And so is the GOP for not dispensing with him early on by withholding their support.
1
Trump is a squalid human being and no amount of marble or gilding will change that. You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
But worse is the fact that the Republican Party doesn’t get it. I hope Americans have a long memory.
But worse is the fact that the Republican Party doesn’t get it. I hope Americans have a long memory.
1
Donald is a wealthy Democrat who is doing his best to destroy the Republican party and help Hillary to become our next President.
JD Vance has it right - and it's recognition of a reality that appears all too infrequently in this campaign's discourse. All the words, the outrage, and the bombast many of us express when we observe how flawed Mr. Trump is as a human being and as a candidate ... most of his supporters don't care what we think. And all the things Mr. Trump has done and continues to do? Ditto. Period.
1
I agree that Clinton stepped up fully on the Roe v. Wade issue - looked straight at the camera and didn't mince words. As Brazelton said, "she owned" the issue as a feminist and I cheered on that one.
2
Nothing is "almost unfathomable" for Trump and you know it. At this point, it's completely fathomable.
A lot of hand-wringing false equivalencies here. Accept some responsibility for your party's descent into reality show politics for the sake of political gain. Thanks a lot.
A lot of hand-wringing false equivalencies here. Accept some responsibility for your party's descent into reality show politics for the sake of political gain. Thanks a lot.
You are right, sir, that we have a "leadership deficit," and you, as the head of a major conservative political organization, are a prime example of the problem. Conservative elites have clearly lost their bearings. Exhibit A is the deeply flawed candidate for the presidency the Republican Party has saddled the country with. Your audacity in suggesting that Hillary Clinton is equally flawed is appalling: you are either lying through your teeth or are as deranged as Donald Trump.
1
Agree. I have never voted for a perfect candidate because none of them are perfect-- nor am I. But the GOP cannot be taken seriously when their slate of candidates was what it was. Business people and a doctor, none with any political experience. Two dangerously right-wing theocrats, one of whom is a babe in the woods. The only qualified/reasonable candidate was Kasich-- and sorry, his views on abortion are so far outside the mainstream thinking of Americans that he is disqualified on that single issue. Proposing that we go backward on abortion is about as in step with the times as say making interracial marriage illegal again. And so we are left with a complete lack of viable GOP possibilities for president.
The operative words are what we are ... The ability to not see Wikileaks, emails, Veritas, chicanery, Administration mony for agitation, money for access, support for women's enslavement, gay subjugation and intolerance for Christians and Jews as well as decades of self service and vote selling and fraud are hallmarks of the venal press.
It must be cozy in the democrat bag, but the fabric is, we can all hope, unraveling rapidly.
It must be cozy in the democrat bag, but the fabric is, we can all hope, unraveling rapidly.
Does this make sense? You lost me at Wikileaks. There is not much in them, but they could be spun. Trump doesn't have to be spun. Chicanery? clinton has been prosecuted in constant civil suits bought by hard line billionares; congressional hearings; FBI investigations, and every other tool in the rotten Republican box. Result? Very little, but enough political crap for endless endless spin. Why are you Republicans supporting Russia and the little would -be blackmailer Assange in their attempts to get a megolomaniac elected President? Do you think they are altruistic?
Paul Krugman: The man who, from atop his ivory tower with a pair of binoculars sees the Affordable Care Act plummeting to earth in flames and declares "It's working fine."
How is it not working? Please explain yourself.
In the meantime, please also consider what this article has to say (it was not written by a Nobel-winning economist)...
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obamacare-california-model-20161007-...
In the meantime, please also consider what this article has to say (it was not written by a Nobel-winning economist)...
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obamacare-california-model-20161007-...
With time Donald was losing his stance, he is so sensitive must have very low opinion of himself because Trump was given many chances to get to Hillary Clinton and every single time Hillary Clinton outmaneuvered Donald Trump.
There is only one person fit to be the leader of this Country, that one is Hillary Clinton !
There is only one person fit to be the leader of this Country, that one is Hillary Clinton !
Mr. Vance, after reading your book and visiting your state to understand Kentucky better - in particular its current portrayal of its role during the period of slavery, reconstruction, and segregation - I'd love to hear your commentary on your governor's suggestion that blood should be shed if Mr. Trump wins.
Instigating riots and violence is beyond irresponsible; will Kentucky's citizens respond?
Instigating riots and violence is beyond irresponsible; will Kentucky's citizens respond?
Proving he is just plain not smart, th governor of kentucky has nine--9!-- children. Any claim to authority is impeached by that ridiculous lifestyle choice.
Mr. Vance: If you truly believe that the folks back in Tennessee would rather bring the house down around all of our ears, than lose (if it comes to that) with dignity -- then what kind of Americans are they? I could understand if their circumstances were horrific, but from what I can gather, they merely aren't as well off, or as much listened to, as they would like. I understand feeling left out by the American Dream -- you don't have to live in Appalachia for that, by the way -- but I cannot understand a choice of nihilism. It is like a child who, in a tantrum, says "I hate you, Mommy." But then most of us grow up.
2
After reading editorial after editorial about Donald Trump today in The Times, it became too much for me to have to think any longer about the possibility that our democracy could come under his stewardship. For solace I located my copy of Leaves of Grass and found Whitman's four poems, Memories of President Lincoln. They are all beautiful. Today it is therapy to revisit them. Here is the shortest one. It sets forth clearly the qualities that in Whitman's mind had made Lincoln a great president.
This Dust Was Once the Man
This dust was once the man,
Gentle, plain, just and resolute, under whose cautious hand,
Against the foulest crime in history known in any land or age,
Was saved the Union of these States.
One of the candidates running for President today could read this poem and get it. The other wouldn't get it if he read it.
This Dust Was Once the Man
This dust was once the man,
Gentle, plain, just and resolute, under whose cautious hand,
Against the foulest crime in history known in any land or age,
Was saved the Union of these States.
One of the candidates running for President today could read this poem and get it. The other wouldn't get it if he read it.
2
It's not just the mainstream media that is scornful of Trump. It 's mainstream America. That's why Trump is going to lose.
The disturbing thing though, is that Trump has brought back a variety of radical, negative political and social attitudes from the shadows, growing what was a fringe element into the ugly populist movement that has gotten him this far in the election. That movement is unlikely to shrink after November 8, especially given Trump's recent refusal to say he will accept a Clinton victory.
He seems to be deliberately adding momentum to the movement in fact, but to what end? One fantasy scenario: the Trump movement coalesces in the always rebellious state of Texas, building upon the foundation of the state's long-standing secessionist rumblings and anti-mainstream fervor to do what the Tea Party has failed to do . The Trump movement takes over Texas politics and spreads to like-minded states such as those that filed for secession in 2012 (see the Huff Post at http://huff.to/2en6yJW). It gains power in Congress in the 2018 midterms. And in 2020, the next Trump (Ted Cruz?) becomes a much more formidable force.
The disturbing thing though, is that Trump has brought back a variety of radical, negative political and social attitudes from the shadows, growing what was a fringe element into the ugly populist movement that has gotten him this far in the election. That movement is unlikely to shrink after November 8, especially given Trump's recent refusal to say he will accept a Clinton victory.
He seems to be deliberately adding momentum to the movement in fact, but to what end? One fantasy scenario: the Trump movement coalesces in the always rebellious state of Texas, building upon the foundation of the state's long-standing secessionist rumblings and anti-mainstream fervor to do what the Tea Party has failed to do . The Trump movement takes over Texas politics and spreads to like-minded states such as those that filed for secession in 2012 (see the Huff Post at http://huff.to/2en6yJW). It gains power in Congress in the 2018 midterms. And in 2020, the next Trump (Ted Cruz?) becomes a much more formidable force.
1
Mr. Krugman faults Mr. Wallace for bringing up the debt issue, claiming that it is not that important to new wave economists. Even if the economists are correct, it is still important to the people of the country, and it is all of us, not just the economists, who elect a president.
Two equally repugnant candidates hurling invective at each other. Before last night Hillary claimed a self-righteous position but when Trump went low she went lower - joined his ranks in incivility. She won't win a Pulitzer for world peace in diplomacy. by inserting Putin into her 'con'-versation, claiming Trump is his puppet. Could be said she is Wall St's puppet. Like I said, they are equally unacceptable.
1
Trump's fragile ego is so intimately interwoven with his brand that it's difficult to say what exactly he's fighting to protect at this point. Either way, he seems all too happy to take the country down with him as he shreds any last bit of decency with our political discourse - bad for our democracy but great for his fledgling alt-right media empire!
Was wondering if anyone would try to offer up the tired nonsense of false equivalence. No surprise it came from American Enterprise Institute.
There is a consensus, not a conspiracy. Hillary Clinton is well prepared, temperamentally fit, stable and with a wide array of solid policy proposals. She may have times in her career in public service where she did not succeed, but that is because she has decades of public service. No one is always right. No one always wins. But playing the game from the right starting point makes her what we need.
He has no public service record to examine. He is essentially alone among wealthy (allegedly) individuals who have no identifiable charitable works. His Foundation is exposed as a personal piggy bank and means for self aggrandizement. There are no trump libraries, hospital wings, not so much as a lounge at his alma mater because he gives nothing to anyone.
There is a consensus, not a conspiracy. Hillary Clinton is well prepared, temperamentally fit, stable and with a wide array of solid policy proposals. She may have times in her career in public service where she did not succeed, but that is because she has decades of public service. No one is always right. No one always wins. But playing the game from the right starting point makes her what we need.
He has no public service record to examine. He is essentially alone among wealthy (allegedly) individuals who have no identifiable charitable works. His Foundation is exposed as a personal piggy bank and means for self aggrandizement. There are no trump libraries, hospital wings, not so much as a lounge at his alma mater because he gives nothing to anyone.
2
Typical Arthur Brooks equivalency try - but then, what would one expect from the American Enterprise Institute?
2
He has the thin skinned temperament of a spoiled child. Displays old school racism simply in the way he speaks, hombre, and his tired screeds about the inner cities that may have been more accurate in 1973 when he was discriminating against African Americans in his rentals, but is not the reality of 2016.
In the end it will not matter if he concedes. The election results will make that decision for him. If he refuses it just becomes one more reminder of what the Republican party has done to America by creating the cesspool that spawned his candidacy. He will either man up, or slink away to whine on twitter that is was all rigged, just like the nasty women did to him at the Emmys.
In the end it will not matter if he concedes. The election results will make that decision for him. If he refuses it just becomes one more reminder of what the Republican party has done to America by creating the cesspool that spawned his candidacy. He will either man up, or slink away to whine on twitter that is was all rigged, just like the nasty women did to him at the Emmys.
Trump "doesn’t seem to even realize how the American constitutional system operates, repeatedly berating Mrs. Clinton for not having fixed, single-handedly, everything wrong in the world, including his own accountants’ financial wizardry with his taxes."
My take on this is if Trump is such a great businessman, why doesn't he employ every person in the USA, or the world, for that matter? That is the same "standard" he is holding Clinton to.
My take on this is if Trump is such a great businessman, why doesn't he employ every person in the USA, or the world, for that matter? That is the same "standard" he is holding Clinton to.
1
Kevin Baker finally mentioned something that I have been surprised that Hillary never did. Trump has constantly mentioned that Hillary, while in the senate, should have fixed this, fixed that, fixed everything (including his own tax avoidance) Yet Hillary was only one of 100 senators. Does Trump not know how our Congress works? Obviously not. But, unfortunately, she never mentioned that.
2
I would like to politely suggest to Arthur Brooks, that he return to his noxious think tank, and think about why his party is tanking and his contribution to that end. However, in reading his commentary regarding the debate, the predictable false equivalencies, I've no doubt that a clue would evade him.
2
Fiscal stimulus is an antidote to a negative perturbation from normalcy. It does not serve to correct the four-decade long decline in wages as a percentage of GDP. Reversing this destructive trend will require several permanent changes -- a living minimum wage, raising the minimum exempt wage and, ultimately, a constitutional amendment guaranteeing that total wages shall be at least 50% of sales.
Failure to implement these changes will result in the continued destruction of the middle class and our political/economic system by corporatism, automation, globalization and breaching natural limits.
Failure to implement these changes will result in the continued destruction of the middle class and our political/economic system by corporatism, automation, globalization and breaching natural limits.
She got him the moment that she said that he had "caved" when he went to Mexico and never brought up The Wall".
His whole being went, "thunk".
It was all over except for his parting shot: "Such a nasty woman."
Yeah, yeah, yeah... heard it before. It's the same parting shot of every cad who's worn out his welcome, been told his clothes are on the sidewalk, return the keys, and come back again and there would be a restraining order slapped on him.
Trump is done.
He and his bar-room buddies (Newt, Rudy, Roger-podger and that strange enabler, Kelly) will all cry in their beers and dream up nasty plots, but it's all over for the whole crew. They can crawl back to their alt-right man-cave and break all the furniture.
I voted for Clinton three days ago.
I truly regret that she had such an inferior person to run against.
She deserved better.
We deserved better.
No more Trumps!
His whole being went, "thunk".
It was all over except for his parting shot: "Such a nasty woman."
Yeah, yeah, yeah... heard it before. It's the same parting shot of every cad who's worn out his welcome, been told his clothes are on the sidewalk, return the keys, and come back again and there would be a restraining order slapped on him.
Trump is done.
He and his bar-room buddies (Newt, Rudy, Roger-podger and that strange enabler, Kelly) will all cry in their beers and dream up nasty plots, but it's all over for the whole crew. They can crawl back to their alt-right man-cave and break all the furniture.
I voted for Clinton three days ago.
I truly regret that she had such an inferior person to run against.
She deserved better.
We deserved better.
No more Trumps!
Not too fast... :-) She's going to loss this one, believe this!
Yes, it will move beyond Trump. And we'll be the better for it. What he's done though inadvertently is put the spotlight on a certain group of people who feel left out and or who live on the fringe of society - culturally and financially. And neither party has done anything to address their problems. Even in Ohio where Trump has strong support Governor Kaicish hasn't done enough to make this group more viable. And he's a Republican. The last 8 years President Obama and the Democrats have focused their attention on the rights of People of Color, LGBT Q and Transgenders. But the next administration has to bring into the American fold those who are standing there waiting for somebody to give them some attention... some hope. Or sad to say there will be other more tempered trumps in ythe future to deal with.
6
Elect Dennis the Menace as President?
The last Republican to hold the office, the war criminal George W. Bush, resembles that.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene
The last Republican to hold the office, the war criminal George W. Bush, resembles that.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene
4
"Slowest recovery in history!"
Obama's policies have lead to the "slowest recovery in history."
Now compare that to Republicans' policies. They crashed the economy in a flash. Trump will turn the economy right around? Of course he will. In a flash. Why shouldn't we believe him?
Obama's policies have lead to the "slowest recovery in history."
Now compare that to Republicans' policies. They crashed the economy in a flash. Trump will turn the economy right around? Of course he will. In a flash. Why shouldn't we believe him?
5
I believe Peter Wehner meant Trump's "refusal to say he [will, not 'won’t'] accept the election results...."
Odd that no one seems need to say "final" results. The way the question and the commentary have been phrased, it assumes that Election Night equals results. One guy from Tennessee knows better than that.
But it's still an answer from a deal negotiator, not a presidential candidate. File it under: He doesn't get it.
Odd that no one seems need to say "final" results. The way the question and the commentary have been phrased, it assumes that Election Night equals results. One guy from Tennessee knows better than that.
But it's still an answer from a deal negotiator, not a presidential candidate. File it under: He doesn't get it.
2
Apparently Mr. Brooks couldn't find a way to support the conservative candidate. Funny, but I couldn't either. Watching Trump in a debate is like watching a car crash that you already know is going to happen. The only question is how many people are going to get hurt. In this case, as in every other, it was the Donald who got injured.
What Mr. Brooks weakly offers up here is yet another false equivalency. Somehow, both candidates are equally bad. As the Donald would lower himself and say into the mic, "Wrong."
Hillary Clinton might have a rail car's full of baggage, but she is responsible, mature, and battle-tested. To use the Obamaism, she "won't do stupid stuff."
That's all we could expect from Trump - "stupid stuff." Because that's all that ever comes out of the guy's mouth when he starts to speak.
Believe me.
What Mr. Brooks weakly offers up here is yet another false equivalency. Somehow, both candidates are equally bad. As the Donald would lower himself and say into the mic, "Wrong."
Hillary Clinton might have a rail car's full of baggage, but she is responsible, mature, and battle-tested. To use the Obamaism, she "won't do stupid stuff."
That's all we could expect from Trump - "stupid stuff." Because that's all that ever comes out of the guy's mouth when he starts to speak.
Believe me.
11
What I think many people, including Brooks and others who present this false equivalency forget, is that Hillary Clinton is a highly intelligent person. Her strategic brilliance in these debates shows her intellect. Not just with her extraordinary knowledge of policy, but her ability to keep her strategy working well through the lights, the stage, Trump's large presence and knowing the world is judging her.
She and Bill Clinton's mutual attraction stems in part from the fact that both are highly intelligent people who love delving into intellectual discussions on all topics. It's one of the first things I noticed about him in a town hall during the 1992 election. He was asked a complex question about education and after about 5 second of silence he responded with a well crafted and organized answer off the top of his head.
I've always wanted a President who is a good level more intelligent than me (not hard to do). Barack Obama certainly is at that level and I think Hillary has proven with her entire campaign and these debates especially, how smart she really is.
This gives me a great deal of confidence in her capability as President.
She and Bill Clinton's mutual attraction stems in part from the fact that both are highly intelligent people who love delving into intellectual discussions on all topics. It's one of the first things I noticed about him in a town hall during the 1992 election. He was asked a complex question about education and after about 5 second of silence he responded with a well crafted and organized answer off the top of his head.
I've always wanted a President who is a good level more intelligent than me (not hard to do). Barack Obama certainly is at that level and I think Hillary has proven with her entire campaign and these debates especially, how smart she really is.
This gives me a great deal of confidence in her capability as President.
The narcissist can't lose.After he does he will announce that he knew it all aloneHe will start some sort of media outlet to counter the wrong he perceives the media has inflicted on him.His supporters after being played by the Republican party for 30 years are now being played by Mr Trump.They will keep his fragile ego from deflating. It is a sad day for America but it portends the future.
4
Daily I have been combatting feelings of incredulity at this horrendous spectacle and the accompanying sense of anomie. I honestly have no "place" to fit this experience . I think I have been politically and psychically groped...
9
Paying agitators to incite violence at your opponents rallies and manipulating numbers through voter movement is an affront to our democracy, not the nonacceptance of that behavior.
3
Arthur C Brooks should have lunch with Ed Rogers today. Ed claims Trump clearly won the debate. I'll bet they would enjoy each other's company in their alternative reality.
1
Ed is in the same alternate reality as Trump is, it is true birds of a feather do flock together. If Ed thinks Trump is a winner, then he needs to get set for disappointment.
"No one has more respect for that nasty woman than I have."
7
As always, Trump came off as a bully. He favors theatrics, posturing, and bluster and eschews facts. I think it's fair to say that his big-top performance is unprecedented in modern politics. He puts on a bizarre show, with over 70% of what he says proven to be false. However, he whips up crowds with generalizations and misinformation like "ISIS was created by Obama" and "gun control is worthless because there are gun deaths in Chicago." There is his implicit and explicit sexism with his "nasty woman" quote and his hot mic talk, and treatment of beauty pageant contestants. Then the racism, with "Mexican rapists", and the ban on Muslim immigrants, and now "bad hombres".
After three debates I feel like all we've heard is the same false barroom assertions about immigrants and debunked trickle down, and "making America great again" with giant tax cuts to billionaires. Still no plan, still no substance, and still no tax returns. Even though she tried, I feel that Hillary never gave that knockout punch to expose Trump's utter lack of knowledge and substance about anything. Rather, with her little snippets of time, she sometimes whittled away at some bits of his endless avalanche of half truths, fabrication, and unsupported babble.
After three debates I feel like all we've heard is the same false barroom assertions about immigrants and debunked trickle down, and "making America great again" with giant tax cuts to billionaires. Still no plan, still no substance, and still no tax returns. Even though she tried, I feel that Hillary never gave that knockout punch to expose Trump's utter lack of knowledge and substance about anything. Rather, with her little snippets of time, she sometimes whittled away at some bits of his endless avalanche of half truths, fabrication, and unsupported babble.
2
Two things stand out from last night amidst the ever present snuffles. First, his total rejection of over 200 years of American democracy (i.e. election results are final; the people decide). Second, "what a nasty woman". Why? Because Secretary Clinton called him out on almost everything and his facial expressions had that "how dare you?" look of previous debates.
History will judge Donald Trump, but his actions have already condemned him to the dustbin for millions of us. He care nothing about anything or anyone except himself. That alone disqualifies him from any political office. The sun is setting on the "Trump Empire" and may it never, ever return.
History will judge Donald Trump, but his actions have already condemned him to the dustbin for millions of us. He care nothing about anything or anyone except himself. That alone disqualifies him from any political office. The sun is setting on the "Trump Empire" and may it never, ever return.
6
I don't blame Trump for not trusting the election process because our system is badly broken
The Republicans and Democrats are incredibly unethical, and the Democratic party made that quite clear when they did their best to bury Bernie.
Despite all of the appalling things about Donald, I'm so glad he's doing his best to blow up the whole system.
The Republicans and Democrats are incredibly unethical, and the Democratic party made that quite clear when they did their best to bury Bernie.
Despite all of the appalling things about Donald, I'm so glad he's doing his best to blow up the whole system.
"When you spend money to fight a terrible slump, weren’t any disappointments in performance arguably caused by whatever caused the slump, not by the rescue operation?"
Hmmm, no, the disappointments would be caused by the interplay of the rescue WITH the causes of the slump. The two cannot be separated. What we've learned is capital destruction and subsequent deleveraging cannot be dissipated alone by fiscal stimulus, particularly in conjunction with falling productivity, massive new regulation, and other economic drags such as the ACA.
Hmmm, no, the disappointments would be caused by the interplay of the rescue WITH the causes of the slump. The two cannot be separated. What we've learned is capital destruction and subsequent deleveraging cannot be dissipated alone by fiscal stimulus, particularly in conjunction with falling productivity, massive new regulation, and other economic drags such as the ACA.
1
Thanks TM. I’m no expert on your points but I ask for more examples of “economic drags”. Mr. Greenspan stated that his belief in “perfect markets” was wrong. Can wrong beliefs lead to economic drags, like “The Great Recession & Depression”? Can GOP policies that concentrate wealth at the top, that allow our 1% to pay nothing for our 21st century wars, that add those costs to our national debt have something to do with economic drags?
Full disclosure. I was a true believer in Reaganomics, once.
Full disclosure. I was a true believer in Reaganomics, once.
"Is this election a temporary aberration, or are the politics of contempt permanently replacing the politics of persuasion? Whether 2016 becomes an unpleasant memory or the new normal for our nation will depend on us – on our reaction to this election and the kind of leaders we reward going forward."
Is this a real question coming from AEI? Certainly, the folks at AEI understand that no persuasion can succeed when they and their colleagues in Congress can block any and all legislation that threatens to undo the loopholes that protect their special interests. The far Right's refusal to allow the filling of the Supreme Court vacancy is just one example of why this article is just hypocritical crocodile tears.
Is this a real question coming from AEI? Certainly, the folks at AEI understand that no persuasion can succeed when they and their colleagues in Congress can block any and all legislation that threatens to undo the loopholes that protect their special interests. The far Right's refusal to allow the filling of the Supreme Court vacancy is just one example of why this article is just hypocritical crocodile tears.
4
Please Mr. Vance do NOT assume that Trump will lose. So very much can happen in 3 weeks. For the sake of the survival of the integrity of our constitution, do not assume. It isn't over until Trump is in the bag.
1
Wow. This column was the most right think I have read during this election.
I think the networks, moderators, editors missed a terrific opportunity to educate the pubic on fiscal policy and inform them on how fiscal policy, particularly collective investment, can be used to make a competitive response to global warming.
The US is the most advanced energy economy and we know how to create the technologies that will allow our economy to flourish and especially be a leader in the global economy in exporting non-fossil energy technology.
We would be entrepreneurially crazy if we missed this investment opportunity. We can lead an international effort to make very cheap electricity in space where the sun always shines and beam this energy to Earth, we can create synthetic mobility fuels especially for aviation from air and water, and we can invest in a new form of transport like 300 mph, all-weather, no emissions logistics like the Superconducting Maglev transport for trucks as well as passengers see www.magneticglide.com for concept. and quiet, low-fare Maglev commuter systems for intra urban travel.
Enlightened fiscal policy would invest in testing and competing these technologies.
I think the networks, moderators, editors missed a terrific opportunity to educate the pubic on fiscal policy and inform them on how fiscal policy, particularly collective investment, can be used to make a competitive response to global warming.
The US is the most advanced energy economy and we know how to create the technologies that will allow our economy to flourish and especially be a leader in the global economy in exporting non-fossil energy technology.
We would be entrepreneurially crazy if we missed this investment opportunity. We can lead an international effort to make very cheap electricity in space where the sun always shines and beam this energy to Earth, we can create synthetic mobility fuels especially for aviation from air and water, and we can invest in a new form of transport like 300 mph, all-weather, no emissions logistics like the Superconducting Maglev transport for trucks as well as passengers see www.magneticglide.com for concept. and quiet, low-fare Maglev commuter systems for intra urban travel.
Enlightened fiscal policy would invest in testing and competing these technologies.
The other whopper was Mr. Wallace's contention that "The biggest driver of the debt are entitlements," a blatant falsehood that was not rebutted or challenged by Ms. Clinton. When Wallace talks about "entitlements" he is talking about Social Security and Medicare, neither of which have contributed a single dime to the federal debt.
Think about this: a 20-something, snickering, lightweight "Access Hollywood" host was able to egg on a 59 year old, married, self-proclaimed "great" businessman to the point in which he demeaned women, used disgusting language, and outted himself as a serial assaulter of women. If Billy Bush could do that -- then what would a dead-eyed brutal former head of the KGB dictator be able to egg him on to do? And Putin isn't the only one -- there are a host of world leaders who could/would do the same to him.
Melania confirmed what we all know about Trump -- he has the arrested development of a totally unpleasant pathological 12 year old boy.
Melania confirmed what we all know about Trump -- he has the arrested development of a totally unpleasant pathological 12 year old boy.
1
It astounds me that in all this discussion about wages, no one challenges Trump about the way he treats his workers, who are, after all, in the service industry. The Vegas hotel workers voted in a union. Many of them are Hispanic Americans. Yet Trump has yet to create a contract with them. Is it immigrants holding down wages, or business owners. And if that is what good business people do, isn't this why we have to protect the little guy, because we assume businesses by their nature to be about profit, not about fairness?
Did you ever wonder what could become of a child whose institutions, schools and so forth, were subservient to his privelege, so that he never needed to learn anything not suited to his immediate and narrow interests? The man listens to Alex Jones & Roger Stone - the native critical skills of any human have, in him, atrophied away, but his privilege has protected him. Life without consequence leaves only ego.
1
Accurate depiction of a vulgar bully and liar-in-chief, about his absolute lack of knowledge how the electoral system works, and the necessary constraints, and independence, of government branches, so this democracy, however flawed, can survive. Trump is a demagogue and a charlatan, and an admirer of world dictators, no doubt his guide for when the time comes to control everything...and destroy society's framework. You see, when Trump was "constrained" by wealth and entitlement, he was unable to grow up; that is why, as a sexual predator, he thinks his behavior is O.K. as long as he can get away with it. Immoral, you say? He would beg to differ, as any self-respecting thug would.
2
The last time a major American party refused to accept election results was 1860. That party was crushed for the next twenty years. Is that what Der Donald has in mind for the Pubs?
1
I'm glad to see that Hillary is picking up on Bernie's ideas about the economy and is, at least in her talk, backing away from the financial institutions and their ideas of control. For me, their control of the last Bush administration and the first of the Obama administration is what led to the great recession which we still have, and their control of Congress and the Republicans has been beyond words.
1
I agree that Chris Wallace's characterization of the President's stimulus package, questions about the national debt, and invocation of the doom coming as a result of"entitlements" were bad. Since I have never watched any Fox News program I can only conclude this was Fox Lite. However, I must say he did an admirable job and raised substantive issues rather than dwell on Trump's latest outrages. Ms Clinton admirably handled these questions to the extent she was able to without interruption.
2
Sec. Clinton could have an opportunity here with programs and policies that directly address the lives who have been most victimized by globalization. But as you write in your book, the grievances in Appalachia, are partly economic, but also involve a strong cultural component that resists efforts from outsiders to assists failing economies.
At several moments during the debate I turned to my girlfriend and said "Paul Krugman's head is exploding over that one."
The only one of those moments that Professor Krugman didn't mention in his response to the debate is Hillary's failure to defend free trade.
The only one of those moments that Professor Krugman didn't mention in his response to the debate is Hillary's failure to defend free trade.
1
Perhaps Trump's shocking refusal to conform to the most minimal expectations of our democracy is not merely enormous and undisciplined ego. Can it be someone has been whispering in his ear, "Never give in!" Nice try, Putin! But not even this last-gasp attempt to destabilize us will work.
2
Mr. Trump's refusal to say he would accept the results of the election are just an extension of his "Birther" stance, rejecting the legitimacy of the election of President Obama. It is consistent with his own self-image, that either he wins or the system is rigged against him and victory was stolen from him.
2
I have never heard one structured argument from Donald. This has led me to think that either he does not have any logic or his logic is the complete opposite of mine. He also reminded me the elementary school mates that when unable to keep a discussion gave the traditional worst insult (sob). If called like that the only answer they could give was: you are more of a sob!
2
Does the loser have to concede the election for the results to be valid or official? It's what the losers have done for as long as I remember, but maybe it doesn't matter. If he loses, he loses, and we can move on.
Sorry, Peter...Trump the Monster -- the American Id-- is not undermining our democratic system, as you say, because we don't live in a democracy. The Electoral College, mass media, spin doctors, the triumph of the lowest common denominator via Twitter -- this is why we have no idea who we're voting for when we vote for Hillary. Will she be better than Trump as president? Of course. No comparison. But will she be honest enough and real enough to deal with the inherent contradictions of a failing capitalist system that is laying ruin to the planet? No way. Not a chance. Because she IS the system.
1
"democracy as a joint enterprise rather than a sole proprietorship"
This is a line that should be put in the job description of all persons running for elected office. They should have to swear to uphold this.
How much of the last 8 years has reflected a scorch and burn style of non-cooperation in politics. From day one of Obama's presidency to the SCOTUS debacle.
Who do these elected people think they are.
This is a line that should be put in the job description of all persons running for elected office. They should have to swear to uphold this.
How much of the last 8 years has reflected a scorch and burn style of non-cooperation in politics. From day one of Obama's presidency to the SCOTUS debacle.
Who do these elected people think they are.
2
While we are talking about Trump's refusal to acknowledge the validity of the election...we should remember that we have been treated to an extended, eight year long, demonstration of what it looks like to refuse to accept the validity of an election. And I seem to remember another eight year long demonstration of such a refusal while Bill Clinton was in office. Trump has just highlighted what the Republicans have been doing to this nation for years.
3
"Can the country move on?" Can Republicans who survive move on is the real question. When Obama became president, Republican leadership proclaimed Republicans would oppose all things Obama, and Republicans acted accordingly. This was and remains the main reason for the slow pace of economic recovery.
1
Donald Trump demonstrated last night that he doesn't understand, respect or want to protect our country's democratic doctrines. He exhibited the emotional intelligence of a spoiled 13 year old brat indulging in a temper tantrum due to lack of sleep after a 24 hour computer gaming binge. Okay... so he was wearing an expensive, tailored blue suit and a red tie. That's about the only thing that was "Presidential" about him. The American people are not stupid and they will not be mislead by this Neanderthal.
1
Type your comment here the fact that Trump is a nominee proves the people are stupid
Compelled to say that I don't agree with your 'take' on the debate. I see it otherwise and it seems to me that NYT presents a consistently biased view of Mr. Trump. I agree he will likely lose, and he breaks all the rules but much of what he says is true, and that will cut the mustard in the end result. IT could be that the American people will opt to stay with the status quo, likely to disastrous results -stagnation at best. Mr. Trump is an unknown quantity if he reaches office, and the unknown is often scary. But bold action and bold leadership is needed. Good luck to all from a passionately interested Canadian.
It's very unlikely that the potential upsides to a Trump presidency would actually pan out. Disruptors are good at disrupting, but good luck trying to predict the eventual endpoint of their chaos. On the other hand, the potential downsides of a Trump presidency, while perhaps not predictable in specifics, are very likely to play out. (Trade wars, increased racial/socioeconomic tension, strained relations with our allies, military adventures, etc.)
No thanks....I'll stick with the status quo.
No thanks....I'll stick with the status quo.
It is astounding that Trump won't take the time to prepare for a debate in which he could have completely undermined her to the public. At the same time he is inherently inarticulate. As M Dowd said he takes the bait every time. Does not know how to pivot. Never seen a candidate as vulnerable as Hillary. Any body with oratorical skill could easily destroy her. It would not be that difficult.
By winning the Republican nomination, Trump has shown us how alienated and angry millions of American voters are. I think many of us did not fully realize that. Yet as I listened to him last night, his incoherence and nastiness made me wonder how anyone, even those who despise Hillary, could actually want to listen to this man on a regular basis for the next four years. It would be exhausting, and drive even more people away from taking politics seriously.
13
Bottom line, once again the little brat with tiny hands made a fool out of himself.
We have two choices in this election, either a brain dead immature man boy or a highly intelligent highly experienced tough woman who made mince meat of a world class fool, liar and bully. Maureen, even though Hillary is not perfect please endorse her. Even though it appears trump will suffer a humiliating and historic loss you just never known. Trump is so stupid and so immature, he really does pose a scary and real threat to world peace. This is too serious to expect perfection from Hiary.
We have two choices in this election, either a brain dead immature man boy or a highly intelligent highly experienced tough woman who made mince meat of a world class fool, liar and bully. Maureen, even though Hillary is not perfect please endorse her. Even though it appears trump will suffer a humiliating and historic loss you just never known. Trump is so stupid and so immature, he really does pose a scary and real threat to world peace. This is too serious to expect perfection from Hiary.
1
It would be painful to experience, but after being beaten by a woman, it would be so satisfying if D. Trump were to run again and again, to be serially beaten by a gay man, by a US-born daughter of Mexican parents, by a Moslem, and by someone that he cheated in a business deal. He'd be 86 years old by then, but maybe, just maybe, he'd get the message.
It is abundantly clear (as it has been all along) that Trump does not understand the fundamental structure or process of the United States Government. He has never read the Constitution. He could not pass my son's 6th grade social studies test. How I would have loved for Wallace or Clinton to challenge him with one simple question: "How does a bill become law?" (You know, "I'm just a bill...") Clearly he is too old to have enjoyed Schoolhouse Rock along with most of us under the age of 50 or so, but he could at least have studied a little.
The fact that he clearly doesn't even understand the basics is incredibly insulting. Every boss I have ever had could do my job better than I could. Somehow I doubt Trump could effectively replace any of his many thousands of workers...
The fact that he clearly doesn't even understand the basics is incredibly insulting. Every boss I have ever had could do my job better than I could. Somehow I doubt Trump could effectively replace any of his many thousands of workers...
Closest thing I've seen to the extended scene in the movie "The Caine Mutiny," where a confident Captain Queeg, in a great role by Humphrey Bogart, takes the stand. The cross examination comes at him relentlessly, with picador like strikes, less seriously wounding than cumulatively unnerving. Slowly, and then not so slowly, Queeg melts down, presenting for all to see a Queeg whose appearance damns himself. This could only be done by someone who can run circles around Trump in preparation, knowledge, intelligence, and smarts. What a bravura performance! I wonder what a far lesser opponent of Trump, Rubio, who in his own callow and feckless way attempted the same, was thinking as he watched.
Trump is worse than a loser. He is a sore loser.
Even Richard Nixon, who lost in 1960 by the thinnest of popular vote margins and possibly as a result of irregularities in Chicago and Texas, accepted the outcome and conceded.
Let us hope that after November 8 we will no longer have to hear Trump kick America around any more.
Even Richard Nixon, who lost in 1960 by the thinnest of popular vote margins and possibly as a result of irregularities in Chicago and Texas, accepted the outcome and conceded.
Let us hope that after November 8 we will no longer have to hear Trump kick America around any more.
Paul Krugman: Thanks for your comments on Wallace. Overall, I thought he did a good job, but the bar set by the previous moderators wasn't really high. I did gag at his implication that Obama's stimulus caused low growth. I don't care so much that he's wrong or partisan, but such puerile dismissal of the subject closes out real analysis and critical thinking. So, Paul, I hope you'll return to the question of growth of the economy, from the simplest aspect, like why growth is necessary, to the more complex issue of what is holding it back. Trump cites higher growth elsewhere but never with context, such as low labor costs and very low starting points. Then there's the debate on automation versus outsourcing versus declining labor force. What are we to think?
Missing from the discussion is the comment of Trump's as to why he might not respect a victory by Hillary- that she was not a legitimate candidate and should be in jail for serious crimes. To me that is much more dangerous than waffling on whether he will concede the election if he loses. That allows his followers, and the Anarchy Caucus in the House to institute impeachment proceedings on January 21, 2017.The only remedy is for Trump to be hastily brought to Justice in the numerous serious lawsuits pending against him to prove that he is the one who is unqualified to be President.
Edit
"He gets so easily distracted by belittling statements — even though he dishes them out so easily — that he could not focus to make points in areas where Hillary is vulnerable. In order to stop losing, he would have to stop losing it. But he didn’t. He got egged on. Bigly."
Maureen's point is pointed, poetic and perceptive.
But egg occasionally rose to the occasion to become soufflé.
Clinton's shrink-fed Freudian fillips intended for Trump's ego were scattershot. Trump's salvos to her brain, however, were bull's-eyes.
Trump proved her witless and unwise by using her own sorry history of failure, death and destruction, and perhaps more devastatingly, by using the comments of those who know her best, i.e., Podesta: "poor instincts." Bernie: "bad judgment." (Clinton has the distinction of being the only high official, D or R, to be wrong on every single foreign-policy decision.)
Trump's only miss regarding her brain—he failed to discuss the cognitive dysfunction: "Confused" says Huma. "Short-circuited" and "I don't recall" says Hillary herself, 37 times to the FBI & once to Podesta, the latter prompting the following from Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden: "It worries me that (Hillary) doesn’t …know what planet we are (on).”
If Clinton's cognitive dysfunction was compelling enough to keep her out of the slammer, it is compelling enough to keep her out of the White House.
"He gets so easily distracted by belittling statements — even though he dishes them out so easily — that he could not focus to make points in areas where Hillary is vulnerable. In order to stop losing, he would have to stop losing it. But he didn’t. He got egged on. Bigly."
Maureen's point is pointed, poetic and perceptive.
But egg occasionally rose to the occasion to become soufflé.
Clinton's shrink-fed Freudian fillips intended for Trump's ego were scattershot. Trump's salvos to her brain, however, were bull's-eyes.
Trump proved her witless and unwise by using her own sorry history of failure, death and destruction, and perhaps more devastatingly, by using the comments of those who know her best, i.e., Podesta: "poor instincts." Bernie: "bad judgment." (Clinton has the distinction of being the only high official, D or R, to be wrong on every single foreign-policy decision.)
Trump's only miss regarding her brain—he failed to discuss the cognitive dysfunction: "Confused" says Huma. "Short-circuited" and "I don't recall" says Hillary herself, 37 times to the FBI & once to Podesta, the latter prompting the following from Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden: "It worries me that (Hillary) doesn’t …know what planet we are (on).”
If Clinton's cognitive dysfunction was compelling enough to keep her out of the slammer, it is compelling enough to keep her out of the White House.
1
To describe the candidates as equally culpable in subverting a true, informative presidential debate is to
ignore the true nature of this election. We may have an imperfect Democratic candidate with a long,
traceable record where some faults may reside, but to equate her with an essentially no-nothing, dangerous
and blustering fool is to put you on his level of irresponsibility.
ignore the true nature of this election. We may have an imperfect Democratic candidate with a long,
traceable record where some faults may reside, but to equate her with an essentially no-nothing, dangerous
and blustering fool is to put you on his level of irresponsibility.
1
Trump's narcissistic personality disorder means he pathologically cannot accept defeat, admit he is wrong, accept responsibility for mistakes, etc. His one and only goal is to project dominance and prove he is a "winner." He craves adulation like an addict looking for the next fix. Insults cut him to the core and are NEVER forgotten. That's why he goes on 3:00 am tweeting binges, raging at people who have wronged him years ago. That's why he blurted out that he should have won the Emmy's last night when HRC was pointing out how he reacts to losing. That's why he is constantly bragging about how rich and smart he is. He is terrified people will think otherwise.
We really can't ignore this any longer. His inability to accept defeat is threatening the integrity of the election system. He should never have gotten to this position in the first place and we can't pretend he is a normal, rational candidate any longer.
We really can't ignore this any longer. His inability to accept defeat is threatening the integrity of the election system. He should never have gotten to this position in the first place and we can't pretend he is a normal, rational candidate any longer.
3
The author is right on all points--but his and our concern should be less about the defects of Trump's personality and more about why he got this far despite these blatant defects. A good starting point would be the billions of dollars of free promotion he received from the media when it should have been examining his actual record.
Arthur Brooks: "Almost unfathomably, Trump even refused to say he would concede the election if he loses."
Unfathomably? That word seems to imply that we can't figure out why he would say such a thing. Unfortunately, he is all too fathomable.
Unfathomably? That word seems to imply that we can't figure out why he would say such a thing. Unfortunately, he is all too fathomable.
1
After the worst contraction of our economy since the Great Depression, the Tea Party coming onto the scene to protest on the April 15, 2009 - the day when citizens paid less in Federal taxes than they'd paid in decades - after Dr. Seuss's Green Eggs and Ham recital and shutting the government down; after their Senate Majority "Leader" getting so carried away with filibustering that he filibustered even his own bill; and after their former "shoe-in" replacement for John Boehner (i.e., Kevin McCarthy, remember him?) inadvertently describing those tiresome overdone Banghazi hearings as electioneering and really just ignoring Ambassador Stevens' father's beseeching them to not exploit his son's death for politcal gain, to no avail), and now after they've endorsed a birther with several lawsuits pending for fraud in three different states (thus far) who filed for bankruptcy 6 times and is a complete and utter imbecile with the attention span of a flea.... isn't "Gigantic Mess" at this juncture just be known as the Republican party's calling card?
2
Katha Pollitt's post was the first I've seen anywhere in the media that points out the nonsense Trump spouted in talking about the 'day before birth' abortion. Does Trump not understand that Roe v Wade already allows strict limits on abortions after viability (~6 months)?
For that matter, does he not realize that no-one would decide to have an abortion at 9 months, even if it were legal?
For that matter, does he not realize that no-one would decide to have an abortion at 9 months, even if it were legal?
As the rough beast Trump was turned away at the gates of Bethlehem, we now face the fact that we the people must live up to our civic responsibilities. Breathing a sigh of relief is fine. That done we must breathe in repeatedly in order to shoulder to load of making this republic functional again. It's a heavy left. But like any worthwhile community enhancing project, the work will be exhilarating. Part of this labor of love will be to ensure we bring Hillary along with us.
"But that very claim, which is an extraordinary transgression of an unwritten and almost sacred democratic rule, not only will help insure his defeat, but will make the margin of that defeat even worse."
You are welcome to delete after reading: "ensure" means to make certain; "insure" is used only in the context of insurance, like car insurance. A common mistake, and very easy to make.
You are welcome to delete after reading: "ensure" means to make certain; "insure" is used only in the context of insurance, like car insurance. A common mistake, and very easy to make.
I felt a thrill also and admiration for Secretary Clinton's comment on a women's right to control her own body and her intention to protect that right. The overturning of Roe v Wade will not hurt the rich who have always had the means to circumvent the system to get access to abortion and contraception. Overturning this important Supreme Court decision will hurt the poor. Access to women's health through Panned Parenthood has lowered teen pregnancies during the Obama years and we can't go back. Mr Trump's free wheeling " sexapades" where he discussed his attempts to prevent his own STDs in the rollicking 60s and 70s as akin to fighting in the Vietnam Nam war reveals how little he knows or cares about issues larger than his own wants and drives. Bravo HRC!
Perhaps free college will educate our citizens in the way that Jefferson imagined--an informed electorate. The current anti-intellectual movement humiliates us in the court of world opinion. That the US stands for Marlboro men who are proud of their ignorance is a despicable fact of our time. Chris Wallace is a perfect example. In the future, nobody will remember anything about this election but climate change.
1
New Texas school board history books purchase has written franklin (father of our country) and Jefferson (made us a continent spanning nation) out of US history
Stalin must have been their role model
Stalin must have been their role model
The debates show more than Rumps wackiness. It shows how paranoid we are as a country to even consider Rump. We have lost our way and lost being in touch with reslity.
We are no longer “One nation, with liberty and justice for all.” We are less focused on competing with the rest of the world than we are focused on competing with our fellow countrymen. We are losing our stature on the world stage. This has provided an opening for the remainder of the world to catch up and take more of a leadership role. This in turn has led to our present frustration.
The country is more politically divided than it has been for generations. The wrestling match within the country revolves around how do we keep our world dominance. The GOP, believes we can bully our way back to dominance and implement an austerity program geared towards the working class and poor. The Democrats are not addressing the problem at all but rather want to buy their popularity with programs and no means of
The United States was not considered a world power at the beginning of the 1900’s. It was a nation mostly made up of people with roots in Europe. It was still a struggling nation. The 1918 flu pandemic infected an estimated 500 million people worldwide. It killed more people than all the wars of the twentieth century combined, It ravaged families. In my Dad’s family alone more than half of his brothers and sisters were killed by this influenza before he was a teen. ... http://lstrn.us/1nw9m6f
We are no longer “One nation, with liberty and justice for all.” We are less focused on competing with the rest of the world than we are focused on competing with our fellow countrymen. We are losing our stature on the world stage. This has provided an opening for the remainder of the world to catch up and take more of a leadership role. This in turn has led to our present frustration.
The country is more politically divided than it has been for generations. The wrestling match within the country revolves around how do we keep our world dominance. The GOP, believes we can bully our way back to dominance and implement an austerity program geared towards the working class and poor. The Democrats are not addressing the problem at all but rather want to buy their popularity with programs and no means of
The United States was not considered a world power at the beginning of the 1900’s. It was a nation mostly made up of people with roots in Europe. It was still a struggling nation. The 1918 flu pandemic infected an estimated 500 million people worldwide. It killed more people than all the wars of the twentieth century combined, It ravaged families. In my Dad’s family alone more than half of his brothers and sisters were killed by this influenza before he was a teen. ... http://lstrn.us/1nw9m6f
1
It was so frustrating to watch Trump repeat the lies of the alternate universe created by the right-wing media. There is no truth that the Clinton campaign sent trouble makers to disrupt Trump events, but hate-talk radio and right-wing websites are full of fake "evidence" that this is true. There is no evidence that Mrs. Clinton lies about "everything," but the same alternate universe is filled with "proof" that she does. The whole Trump campaign is embraced by those who create fake "news" and lead the gullible and feeble minded to believe bald-faced lies made from whole cloth. As such, once the election is over, these people will be absolutely convinced by the "evidence" of the lies they consume daily that evil has triumphed and that American democracy has been "stolen." We should be very worried about the possibility of violence when this is all over.
1
Actually I am hoping the roll out their 2nd amend, solution. The first people they will need to kill are the police. then the national guard,
they might as well make their treason official - and well armed dems will oppose them
they might as well make their treason official - and well armed dems will oppose them
JDVance-- I have read "Hillbilly Elegy" and I am wondering if the Tennessee voters clearly understand that they are choosing chaotic disruption, as opposed to a more thought-out disruption of the status quo, and I wonder if they understand how fragile a thing is our democracy, and how greatly it depends upon the conventions of a civil people, who will insist upon a modicum of agreement, at the very least in the matter of peaceful elections. I believe they can see this. It is unfortunate that their choice for Grand Disruptor turns out to be certifiable, but their fierce pride is not the same as Trump's megolomania. I have no doubts there issues will finally be addressed in this administration, so I am hoping they will elect impressive local people to form their concerns into a comprehensible argument.
The balance sheet liabilities are a big deal. Primarily Medicare. Social Security can be fixed, but we need reform of an entire healthcare delivery system to stand up Medicare. That's a big deal. On the issue of "slow recovery", there is a reasonable school of thought that says that we could have accepted a steeper decline and a subsequent more robust recovery, letting the market clear. Central banks have hurt more than helped over the last 8 years. Let's talk again in another 4 years.
For those who lament the snarky, circus atmosphere that has been created during the past months of the election, let's remember that by and large, Hilary and Bernie competed in a straight up, respectable way -- focusing on the issues, not the person. The devolution of the election dialogue into lies and barbs can be laid directly at Donald's feet. Obviously Hillary had to fight back against the worst of it, and she was well within her 'moral rights' to make the argument that he is unfit to be president, whether from a skills, experience or temperament standpoint. But she and Bernie proved we can have meaningful, substantive, polite dialogue among political rivals during the primary, so the fault, dear voters, lies not in some abstract state of our political system, but in one man, Donald Trump, who showed little respect for civil discourse or our democratic system.
I agree with Mr. Baker's description of how Hillary did a number on Trump, but equating her with a 'champion matador' all of whom literally torture bulls to death is a breathtakingly sick simile. Matadors, along with all the other participants in that brutal activity, are psychopathic cowards, yet they are heralded as brave heroes by the cretins who cheer them on. Every bull entering the ring has been drugged to reduce its ferocity. Otherwise it would in short order take out everyone in the ring, then turn its attention to the sickos in the stands.
After reading Andrew Rosthenthal's comment, which was great by the way as was all but Brooks tangential response, I am now wondering if the Republicans in Congress will accept the results of the election? The worst of the worst would be if they retain control of the Senate and refuse to confirm, or even debate President Clinton's Supreme Court nominees. There is no one to make them do their sworn duty. All they have to do is wait until one dies, preferably one of the older Democrats and then they'll have a 4-3 majority. That is how un-American I now see the Republican Party and the bought and paid for in Congress.
Wow, Maureen! I had anticipated a continued 3-decade assault on the Clintons (with more then a little validity) but I guess that everything is relative. Trump is so obviously unacceptable as a person (and especially as a candidate) that Hillary is almost elevated to sainthood in comparison.
I hope that Clinton enjoys the temporary reprieve. Once she assumes office the honeymoon is likely over.
I hope that Clinton enjoys the temporary reprieve. Once she assumes office the honeymoon is likely over.
Hillary Clinton has successfully destroyed any and all credibility women have with respect to standing and innocence that has been given over the ages to the female gender.
Never more can women be viewed and given the benefit given to the female gender as to being respected and truthful. Gone is a long standing gentleness and nurturing that society and life in general has given to the female gender. A single women, still supported and held in high esteem by the female gender, Hillary has completely destroyed this respect for ever. The societal view and respect held for women has been killed and buried forever due to the life style and inhumane behavior of what has been considered a successful women.
The respected women of the world has been reduced to a disrespect never seem in the world, and has lowered the world view of the American women to something less than every criminal element in a third world environment.
I pray the American woman, with time can repair the damage done by this inhumane individual.
Never more can women be viewed and given the benefit given to the female gender as to being respected and truthful. Gone is a long standing gentleness and nurturing that society and life in general has given to the female gender. A single women, still supported and held in high esteem by the female gender, Hillary has completely destroyed this respect for ever. The societal view and respect held for women has been killed and buried forever due to the life style and inhumane behavior of what has been considered a successful women.
The respected women of the world has been reduced to a disrespect never seem in the world, and has lowered the world view of the American women to something less than every criminal element in a third world environment.
I pray the American woman, with time can repair the damage done by this inhumane individual.
Glad to see Dr. Krugman finally able to focus on the topic he is most expert in.
We must not forget, now, the shining supreme example of austerity policies in the West.
No, not Kansas, but Germany.
Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank remain in serious trouble, trouble they may not be able to get out of, trouble so big that it will take Germany's economy down and bankrupt an entire generation of pensioners there, whose basic principle is, "better Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, France than us.
We can anticipate a massive reset and rebalancing of the entirety of the EU as a result. This will require President Clinton's close attention, and anti-austerity policies the likes of which the world has never seen.
The only good news in all this is that it will be the final death of the financial equivalent of Know-Nothingism, the end of any talk of austerity for generations to come.
With one exception: austerity for the corporate fascists behind the thirty-year attempted coup against democracy otherwise known as GOP Strategy is going to be a big ticket item on the Clinton Administration's agenda. If businesses can't handle it, there are others who can, and the corporate fascism that is the mirror of current austerity policies (in favor of business, and against people) will quickly die with it.
We must not forget, now, the shining supreme example of austerity policies in the West.
No, not Kansas, but Germany.
Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank remain in serious trouble, trouble they may not be able to get out of, trouble so big that it will take Germany's economy down and bankrupt an entire generation of pensioners there, whose basic principle is, "better Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, France than us.
We can anticipate a massive reset and rebalancing of the entirety of the EU as a result. This will require President Clinton's close attention, and anti-austerity policies the likes of which the world has never seen.
The only good news in all this is that it will be the final death of the financial equivalent of Know-Nothingism, the end of any talk of austerity for generations to come.
With one exception: austerity for the corporate fascists behind the thirty-year attempted coup against democracy otherwise known as GOP Strategy is going to be a big ticket item on the Clinton Administration's agenda. If businesses can't handle it, there are others who can, and the corporate fascism that is the mirror of current austerity policies (in favor of business, and against people) will quickly die with it.
So the president of the American Enterprise Institute is concerned about the politics of contempt & the possibility of it replacing the politics of persuasion. That comment is so ironic as to be mildly amusing. As a leader in the political movement (libertarian / social conservatism) that spawned the level of contempt in today's politics & worships the idea of persuasion only in the context of wealthy individuals & institutions (many of whom fund his propaganda tank) ability to influence elections & drown out any other point of view I find his view disingenuous at best. He tries to come off as a more reasonable version of Jim DeMint from the heritage foundation but in the end he & his organization are just as inclined towards totalitarianism as the Donald, just without the bluster and unseemly behavior. Both are examples of a wealthy privileged sense of entitlement only Brooks hides his behind a pleasant demeanor.
1
I thought Hillary sounded great on women's rights last night. Love that she stuck to her guns and didn't prevaricate about late term abortions. The government has no place inserting itself into a difficult and painful decision that should only be decided by a woman, her doctor and her family. HRC upheld that in no uncertain terms and she didn't back down. As opposed to Trump/Pence who believe women are little more than baby making machines who should be punished if they fail to deliver. Also women should presumably make themselves available to be fondled and groped whenever it strikes the fancy of wealthy and powerful men like Drumpf. If they are attractive enough of course... The choice could not be clearer!
It seems to me that the only "failure" of the stimulus was that it should have been twice the amount that it was. The President was blocked from the moment he took office by a truculent, nihilist group of racist, rabid GOTPower uber alles thugs who chose to deny the nation the most assistance the government could offer in booting up our moribund economy. That catastrophic economic mess was, of course, entirely the fault of the right wing - another "inconvenient truth" ignored by the right wing Wallace. It might have been helpful for HRC to remind the audience whose destructive voodoo economic stupidity trashed the economy to begin with - Wallace wasn't going to do this, and Drumpf is so ignorant, he couldn't speak credibly about economic policy if he tried.
Mr. Krugman: I love ya man. But at some point the level of the debt matters. I have seen analyses that show both Trump's and Clinton's proposals would increase the national debt as a percentage of GDP -- Trump's much more so, no question. If the debt is growing faster than the economy, eventually we are going to outstrip our capability to service it. Super low rates have left us with a lot of slack in that regard; right now it looks like the government can get money almost for free. But the bowl is not bottomless and rates can rise -- or, eventually the Fed will be faced with the question whether to keep rates low to hold down the cost of government borrowing, even if the economy otherwise really needs a rate bump.
Here is the definition of treason:
The offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
By not accepting the results of the election or by threatening (or encouraging followers to assassinate the potential or elected official, wink wink, nod nod) that is by definition treason.
Let's call Trumps words by what they really are: treasonous.
The offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
By not accepting the results of the election or by threatening (or encouraging followers to assassinate the potential or elected official, wink wink, nod nod) that is by definition treason.
Let's call Trumps words by what they really are: treasonous.
1
I just wanted to clarify what seems to be a common source of confusion.
When Trump says "Nobody has as much respect for women as I do", we need to understand that he's referring to women that can lead to new sales records when they appear frolicking in the surf, in the skimpiest of bikinis, on the cover of Sports Illustrated's Swimsuit issue.
And when he says it "would be a good thing" if he could work together with Vladimir Putin, he's very likely referring to some personal business opportunity of his in Russia that is already underway, and that is referenced somewhere deep inside his Federal income tax return.
His slogan should really be, "Make Trump Great Again", because that's all he really ever cares about, at the end of the day. With any luck, the opposite will come to pass in very short order.
When Trump says "Nobody has as much respect for women as I do", we need to understand that he's referring to women that can lead to new sales records when they appear frolicking in the surf, in the skimpiest of bikinis, on the cover of Sports Illustrated's Swimsuit issue.
And when he says it "would be a good thing" if he could work together with Vladimir Putin, he's very likely referring to some personal business opportunity of his in Russia that is already underway, and that is referenced somewhere deep inside his Federal income tax return.
His slogan should really be, "Make Trump Great Again", because that's all he really ever cares about, at the end of the day. With any luck, the opposite will come to pass in very short order.
Mark Schmitt zeroed in on an important aspect of this election--civics--that has gotten little attention. Mr. Trump does not seem to comprehend that the president alone cannot impose his will and wants on America or upon the world. All his life he has reveled in his perceived ability to act correctly and alone in all matters. He seems never to have heard the phrase "checks and balances" or consent of congress. What is more frightening is the seeming fact that his supporters seem not to know civics 101 either. Since Mexico won't build 'the wall' , he will need congress to allocate the funds. Trump supporters, sorry, but that won't happen. Since she retired former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has made civics eduction her mission. I hope she is successful as our citizens need to be educated as to how this country works as a democracy. I doubt Donald and most of his supporters could pass the test required of all immigrants to be come citizens.
Re J.D. Vance's concern that Trumpism will survive even when Trump is defeated, there is hope that those who have been left behind by free trade, union baiting, job loss, and dwindling incomes will find a home in the left wing of the democratic party along with Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Bernie also channeled the anger of the beleaguered middle and working classes but without the bigotry and hatred towards immigrants, visible minorities, contempt for women, and all the other Trump baggage. Hopefully, at least a portion of the Trump supporters will find that they have a voice in the democratic party if they can shed some of their resentment and work towards changes that will really affect their lives.
There was a 3rd grader and a high school sophomore on stage (in reference to language usage).
The sophomore wanted to talk about how much she knew about policy in her years in government. The third grader wanted to talk about why he was losing.
Sure, Trump brought up low taxes, guns, and abortion, as any good Republican should do. And he said nothing about how it would be implemented. But once Hillary opened her mouth to say why those were the wrong decisions, and also out that, as a businessman, Trump did the exact opposite of the policies he's proposed - like lowering taxes (when he's paid none) and punishing manufacturers who send jobs overseas (when his own businesses exploited 'free trade'.). Then, the morally and financially bankrupt accused pedophile and accused racketeer (both current court cases) stated that an accused criminal should be unqualified to run for president (O, dark mirror!)...
It was form and function vs sound and fury. Tantrum vs constrained repose.
And then, just as the lecher was being lectured - he denounced American democracy our decentralized, federal system, and refused to say that he would abide by the will of the voters.
Thank God this was not "status quo".
The sophomore wanted to talk about how much she knew about policy in her years in government. The third grader wanted to talk about why he was losing.
Sure, Trump brought up low taxes, guns, and abortion, as any good Republican should do. And he said nothing about how it would be implemented. But once Hillary opened her mouth to say why those were the wrong decisions, and also out that, as a businessman, Trump did the exact opposite of the policies he's proposed - like lowering taxes (when he's paid none) and punishing manufacturers who send jobs overseas (when his own businesses exploited 'free trade'.). Then, the morally and financially bankrupt accused pedophile and accused racketeer (both current court cases) stated that an accused criminal should be unqualified to run for president (O, dark mirror!)...
It was form and function vs sound and fury. Tantrum vs constrained repose.
And then, just as the lecher was being lectured - he denounced American democracy our decentralized, federal system, and refused to say that he would abide by the will of the voters.
Thank God this was not "status quo".
1
Trump clearly has a difficult personality, very defensive, tending to respond combatively to any criticism, and full of anger. Lacking the self control to stay within the 2 minute debate rule. He has an unstable temperament, and weak ability to control impulsive comments and actions. I think a president has to be secure in him/herself, able to give and take criticism, and be mature and perceptive. Trump is compelled by his personality to be focused on himself at all times. I think that may be part of why he is so ignorant about the world outside his own head. After watching all 3 debates, I see him as a person who can offer nothing more than slogans and insults. He did not have complex or detailed ideas about any national problem. I don't think he is in control of himself at all.
Although I will enthusiastically vote for Hillary Clinton, I must admit that I was both very pleased and somewhat concerned with her performance in last night's debate. I was pleased that she finally exhibited a combative yet appropriate manner in rebuking and lecturing Mr. Trump while detailing her positions and plans - this was the type of performance I expect from a candidate for president who has the courage of her convictions. On the other hand, I was concerned that in this debate her demeanor was vastly different than in the first and second debates in which her response to most of Trump's insults and inaccuracies was to smile, sigh and take the "high" road. So, which performance represents the "real" Hillary? The strong presidential one last night, or the "turn the other cheek" of the first debate? I am hoping it's the former, but we will definitively find out when she becomes president.
Trump's position is that acceptance of an election result is wholly contingent on the outcome.
Trump never definitively says anything. He expresses himself by innuendo and insinuation, charges without backup -- never evidence, never clear statements. Fuzzy thinkers operate on overall feelings. They feel comfortable with "knowing what he means" and are annoyed by anyone trying to pin Trump down to a clear statement. So in answering whether he would commit to "accept the result of this election" Trump's response is "I will look at it at the time." And his explanation appears to be that the media have "poisoned the minds of the voters". That's where the logical steps end. He veers off to say "I think the voters are seeing through it. I think they're going to see through it. We'll find out on Nov. 8, but I think they're gonna see through it." The implication -- but Trump never directly makes his point -- is that if the voters see through the media's poison, he will be elected, and he will, of course, accept the results. But if their minds have been poisoned, and he loses, he would find that result to be unacceptable. Time for a 2nd Amendment insurrection? As Trump says: "I will keep you in suspense."
Trump never definitively says anything. He expresses himself by innuendo and insinuation, charges without backup -- never evidence, never clear statements. Fuzzy thinkers operate on overall feelings. They feel comfortable with "knowing what he means" and are annoyed by anyone trying to pin Trump down to a clear statement. So in answering whether he would commit to "accept the result of this election" Trump's response is "I will look at it at the time." And his explanation appears to be that the media have "poisoned the minds of the voters". That's where the logical steps end. He veers off to say "I think the voters are seeing through it. I think they're going to see through it. We'll find out on Nov. 8, but I think they're gonna see through it." The implication -- but Trump never directly makes his point -- is that if the voters see through the media's poison, he will be elected, and he will, of course, accept the results. But if their minds have been poisoned, and he loses, he would find that result to be unacceptable. Time for a 2nd Amendment insurrection? As Trump says: "I will keep you in suspense."
Whether I can be reconciled with the friends and relatives who celebrate this GOP candidate's rejection of the democratic process? Well, possibly not. For the first time, I am considering the possibility that I must stop concealing my political opinions — something that I have done, up until now, in order to preserve these very old relationships. I am beginning to think that it is not all right to allow my right-wing friends and relatives to believe that opinions and actions like Tump's should in any way be tolerated. By remaining silent when a conversation touches on Trump or Tumpism, I feel that I may be complicit in allowing this evil to flourish. I think I have to speak up, and that certainly might be upsetting to Republicans I have known for many years.
The status of this quo isn't so bad on a number of fronts--look at job report, economy overall, Obama legacy, pressures to move forward on climate change and away from denier wing nuts, among many other signposts--except for the rise of an aggressively ignorant neo-Nazism, fueled by a currently passive, obstructionist, and cowardly Republican establishment which for many years more actively stoked people's basest fears and hatreds; it's not called "the base" for nothing. Reminder: after Obama was in office for a few years, having inherited an economic disaster and lie-based foreign policy entanglements, General Motors was alive and Bin Laden was dead. Republicans after 2010 were the owners of the gridlock. Now a centrist Dem president and Dem senate and the court picks may have some effect on the ignorant evil undercurrents and continue to build opportunity and innovation. And at the very least the status quo is still a democracy--unlike the poisonous evil envisioned as both present and future by Breitbart's orange carnival barker.
2
Trump is the spoiled brat who makes up his own rules and when he is losing takes his ball and bat and goes home. His emotional immaturity was once again on full display. Has there ever been a candidate who feels more entitled to be praised and worshipped by everybody? His son Donald Jr. just made the comment that his father's job as head of Trump Enterprises was far more important then the Presidency. And his wife commenting on his crude language and behavior unintentionally made the point that she had two children to take care of at home; her son Baron and her husband. One thing remained unchanged after the debate his core supporters, white uneducated white males, feel he had easily won. Oh well as Frank Gifford use to say "Boys will be boys."
1
Thank you this well written analysis.
1.Bottom line: trump is a most certainly unworthy opponent to the articulate, intelligent, knowledgeable HRC
2. Let's all hope the GOP has learned a lesson. Our USA may very well depend on it.
They have to get it together on 11/9 & support the will of the people. Divisiveness is killing us.
3. Get citizenship education back into every school curiculum. That's one way to keep another demagogue from trying to steal our democracy. Ignorance is dangerous.
1.Bottom line: trump is a most certainly unworthy opponent to the articulate, intelligent, knowledgeable HRC
2. Let's all hope the GOP has learned a lesson. Our USA may very well depend on it.
They have to get it together on 11/9 & support the will of the people. Divisiveness is killing us.
3. Get citizenship education back into every school curiculum. That's one way to keep another demagogue from trying to steal our democracy. Ignorance is dangerous.
2
Hopefully Hillary's statement about the national debt was metaphorical. She should have made it clear that adding to the national debt is no problem if the addition is in line with increased GDP. Debt is only important relative to income - even the "deficit scolds" should understand than. And the effects of debt are greatly diminished for a nation with a sovereign currency.
It may have been a big mistake if Clinton has locked herself into some "pennywise" nonsense about budget balancing when she promised to not "add a penny" to the national debt.
lff
It may have been a big mistake if Clinton has locked herself into some "pennywise" nonsense about budget balancing when she promised to not "add a penny" to the national debt.
lff
2
Another Chris Wallace failure - the continued referral to earned benefits as "entitlements," and to be fair the continued failure of anyone to challenge the term.
1
The really scary thing to contemplate is how such a blustering, amateurish buffoon managed to defeat all the other republican candidates in the primaries.
2
Maureen when you are on you are on. Great sarcastic comments - I laughed out loud. Your take on Trump reminded me of some of your best columns about "boy" George Bush.
2
In response to Mr. Ali's comments, I, for one, was not entertained. In fact by debate three, I was terribly, terribly bored.
Admittedly, before the first confrontation, there was great anticipation that the debates might just be the best free show in the land since the snake oil sellers came around. And it is true that the first debate had its reality TV suspense moments. But by the second debate, the shtick was getting tired. And by the third--with the same format as the first--well . . .
I'm sure the ratings for the three debates will show a downward sloping trend.
Even car crashes get dull if you see a lot of them in a very short time.
Maybe they could have been livened up with the presences of Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, who would have provided a whole different brand of crazy. But then again, maybe not.
Admittedly, before the first confrontation, there was great anticipation that the debates might just be the best free show in the land since the snake oil sellers came around. And it is true that the first debate had its reality TV suspense moments. But by the second debate, the shtick was getting tired. And by the third--with the same format as the first--well . . .
I'm sure the ratings for the three debates will show a downward sloping trend.
Even car crashes get dull if you see a lot of them in a very short time.
Maybe they could have been livened up with the presences of Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, who would have provided a whole different brand of crazy. But then again, maybe not.
Mr. Brooks insists on propounding a false equivalency regarding Trump and Hillary, insisting that in last night's debate both were equally guilty of driving public discourse down to the subterranean status quo. The problem is I did not hear Hillary refusing to accept the results of the election, only Mr. Trump. I did not hear Mr. Trump reach out to all Americans, regardless of party, to work together for the common good, only Hillary. I have seen two individuals willfully ignore facts, but that would be Mr. Brooks and Mr. Trump..
1
"No one we have ever seen in American political life is as selfish and egotistical as Donald Trump?" Hardly. But what Trump does prove is that experience matters. His whole claim to legitimacy as a candidate has been that as an outsider, he alone in the entire history of the human race is qualified to come in and fix everything so that we will be the greatest ever. And yet, step by step, from the convention to the debates, Trump has been thoroughly outmaneuvered and outclassed by Hillary Clinton.
Hopefully this puts to rest forever the myth of the "pale rider" coming in to town and cleaning up the mess. Now, the Republicans should be thinking hard about why such an incompetent boor thoroughly outmaneuvered and outclassed 16 of their brightest and the best in the primaries.
Hopefully this puts to rest forever the myth of the "pale rider" coming in to town and cleaning up the mess. Now, the Republicans should be thinking hard about why such an incompetent boor thoroughly outmaneuvered and outclassed 16 of their brightest and the best in the primaries.
3
By the way, who gets coerced into something by Billy Bush?
6
Having lived through presidential campaigns since 1964 with a modicum of interest and often a measure of disgust, I can honestly say that I could not believe that a candidate of a major political party could stand in the national spotlight and act like Trump did. His incomprehensible answers notwithstanding, Trump's vile refusal to ratify a common and even sacred practice in American political history left me open-mouthed with shock. Shame on the Republican party for allowing a buffoon take the podium, shame on them for not repudiating him. But then, isn't Trump the declension of such candidates as Dan Quayle, and Sarah Palin, all put forth by a party that somehow has lost the plot. What would the great figures of the GOP say about what I saw last night? Even Warren G. Harding must be spinning his grave. Shame.
5
The subtext of Trump's 'keep you in suspense' is the threat not only of torches and clubs, but creating a situation in which it would be necessary to bring out the national guard. Real civil war! conscious or not - that is what Trump is threatening. And it is time to say that out loud.
1
Yes, it's all about protecting the status quo. I.e., the status of the haves, the power elites, the establishment. Big Media is doing its utmost to guarantee Hillary's ascent to power, and so we read about how she's winning the election.
1
Hillary's strategy was very simple, summed up by a quote from Rameses in the film "The Ten Commandments":
"Let him rave on, that men will know him mad."
"Let him rave on, that men will know him mad."
2
It takes 2 people to have a conversation and if one wants to run away with it, all bets are off. I am not concerned about the future of the American discussion. After Hillary thoroughly thrashes the Donald, things will re-calibrate to the old-normal.
No doubt. Trump is a mere fool. Ms. Clinton will be elected, but it will mean little with a Republican controlled House. Our humiliation will be real. It is called self-destruction. A lot like Trump himself. The side show will end, but the main act is a nation in decline. The election begins and ends with an electorate that is hopelessly divided. Remember what Lincoln said about that "house divided."
Didn't Donald brag he loves debt and is the king of debt? Oh that's right debt to build a casino is good debt to rebuild US infrastructure to benefit all Americans is bad!
2
Wallace didn't do his home work - growth has been tricky for all Western countries since the meltdown. The measure of the effect of the stimulus is that we had any growth - the crisis was catastrophic.
In Europe it has led to the Brexit, and to misery in the countries that were not the economic engines. Ask Greece how austerity is doing, or Portugal, or Ireland.
Turning around the focus from the GOP retread or trickle down to call the stimulus "more of the same" was beyond editorializing, because the stimulus and Obama's control of fiscal policy ended the day after the first mid-term election. If 1% is unacceptable, blame Congress.
"More of the Same" policy could be trickle down, or it could be paralyzation, but it isn't macro-economics. The miracle is that the stimulus had enough time to cauterize the wound and let the patient recover, before Congress could deal more death blows.
In Europe it has led to the Brexit, and to misery in the countries that were not the economic engines. Ask Greece how austerity is doing, or Portugal, or Ireland.
Turning around the focus from the GOP retread or trickle down to call the stimulus "more of the same" was beyond editorializing, because the stimulus and Obama's control of fiscal policy ended the day after the first mid-term election. If 1% is unacceptable, blame Congress.
"More of the Same" policy could be trickle down, or it could be paralyzation, but it isn't macro-economics. The miracle is that the stimulus had enough time to cauterize the wound and let the patient recover, before Congress could deal more death blows.
3
Thank you Mr Trump. For me there is no "suspense" and you have assured so many Americans that your parade has hit the wall at 90 mph totally disintegrating itself. Nice job. I keep thinking that people who have your name on their buildings are looking at their contracts to see if there is not some clause which would nullify the agreement and rid themselves of the embarrassment you are.
1
Donald Trump may disappear back to reality TV after the election, but his millions of supporters won't. Somebody in the Democratic or Republican establishments better figure out how they are going to create a fair economy with reasonable growth that makes most people think that conventional politicians can run the country or there will be hell to pay.
1
Once again trump proved himself to be a pathetic and childish amateur, lacking in knowledge of even the basics of issues, policy, economics and the functions of the government and Supreme Court. He was his usual inarticulate self, he seems to think the way to win debates is to call each other names just like high school mean girls. Like a spoiled brat he issues empty threats of huffing and puffing and threatening to blow the house down is effective. I don't know how he can continue his historic embarrassment he and his enablers call a campaign. Trumps motivation for running for President is purely selfish and 100 ego driven. The RNC and GOP (all elected Republican officials) have a lot of explaining and apoligizing in their future.
2
OK, lots of experience in government. But where do people on both sides come up with thirty years?? I get twelve.
If Donald Trump is such a baaaad man, as Maureen Dowd NOW paints him, then why couldn't she figure this out BEFORE she sat down so many times and interviewed him. Was he grabbing at her, and she tolerated it for the copy for her newest book? If so, shame on her.
If she was treated decently, even warmly, by the presidential candidate -- with NO sexual harassment, as I suspect, then shame on her now for hopping on the bandwagon.
Which is it, Maureen? Are you just jealous of Ivanka and Melania? Cuz you're sure now covering actual issues that people care about.
If she was treated decently, even warmly, by the presidential candidate -- with NO sexual harassment, as I suspect, then shame on her now for hopping on the bandwagon.
Which is it, Maureen? Are you just jealous of Ivanka and Melania? Cuz you're sure now covering actual issues that people care about.
Really, Midway, I come up with just shy of 50 or so, counting Hillary's emancipation as the starting point. Or maybe when she and Bill set sail "together". Our opposites want to have the benefit of resenting Hillary's availability as an asset when it's convenient to count quiet time as assumed to be collaboration time by osmosis or para-sensuality, and I hope so, except that no one voted for her. (Spare me who else was not elected first spouse, Eleanor included.)
At the same time, simultaneously, her presence, and where were she and Chelsea supposed to go? has been examined under the bare unforgiving white bulb of quasi-interrogation and official espionage almost before the addresses were changed… The ladies of the betterment society have been clacking party line 24/7.
So for better or worse, my … OMG just realize am replying to an imaginary letter about Hillary's 30 years of "prior bad acts" (I call them "prior good acts") which my writer considers to be 12 years (of elected or appointed service) … brother and sister, let us rejoice in our golden
knowledge of what our generation has lived through and dealt with.
So this is actually a comment about fortune and also again how fortunate we have Dr. Krugman to fact check the behavior and intelligence of the right. Thank us all.
At the same time, simultaneously, her presence, and where were she and Chelsea supposed to go? has been examined under the bare unforgiving white bulb of quasi-interrogation and official espionage almost before the addresses were changed… The ladies of the betterment society have been clacking party line 24/7.
So for better or worse, my … OMG just realize am replying to an imaginary letter about Hillary's 30 years of "prior bad acts" (I call them "prior good acts") which my writer considers to be 12 years (of elected or appointed service) … brother and sister, let us rejoice in our golden
knowledge of what our generation has lived through and dealt with.
So this is actually a comment about fortune and also again how fortunate we have Dr. Krugman to fact check the behavior and intelligence of the right. Thank us all.
1
Donald Trump is bad, but he is not bad at being bad. He is good at being bad.
When you're good at being bad, no one knows you're bad until you're in a position to do real evil. The fact that he fooled the Republican Party, his scared, homophobic base, Ms. Dowd, and you, dear reader, shows how good he is at being bad.
When you're good at being bad, no one knows you're bad until you're in a position to do real evil. The fact that he fooled the Republican Party, his scared, homophobic base, Ms. Dowd, and you, dear reader, shows how good he is at being bad.
Re: Fiscal Foolishness – Chris Wallace was worse than bad on fiscal issues. He put the FOX spin on the recovery which put us way ahead of the rest of the developed world who relied on the failed austerity plan. Growth would have been much better except for Congress. The republican Congress slowed the recovery down to a crawl because it became very apparent that it would work and they did not want anything Obama to be successful.
Republicans still refuse to believe the economic picture today because that would involve acknowledging an Obama success. This whole attitude has infected the Republican party with racism, bigotry and the false sense of entitlement that puts the party before the country. These same attitude characteristics are the raw lumber from which the Republican planks were hewn.
In defense of Chris Wallace- He had to put some FOX spin on the questions. After all he works for the network. Sarcastically, he softballed the question to Trump and kept the financial topic at the highest level so Mr. Trump wouldn’t get confused between Kinsey and Keynes.
Republicans still refuse to believe the economic picture today because that would involve acknowledging an Obama success. This whole attitude has infected the Republican party with racism, bigotry and the false sense of entitlement that puts the party before the country. These same attitude characteristics are the raw lumber from which the Republican planks were hewn.
In defense of Chris Wallace- He had to put some FOX spin on the questions. After all he works for the network. Sarcastically, he softballed the question to Trump and kept the financial topic at the highest level so Mr. Trump wouldn’t get confused between Kinsey and Keynes.
2
NYT: "I think we have seen enough from his campaign — up to and including his wretchedly stupid conduct since the first debate — to answer confidently, “No.” Trump’s zest for self-sabotage, his wild swings, his inability to delegate or take advice, are not mere flaws; they are defining characteristics. The burdens of the presidency will leave him permanently maddened, perpetually undone."
http://napoleonlive.info/politics/trump-us/
http://napoleonlive.info/politics/trump-us/
Clinton wore red in the first debate, she wore black with a white cowl in the second, with regard to one of the photo captions.
Why hasn’t the press called out the best infantile non-verbal exchange of all which was Trump refusing to shake Clinton’s hand at the end to the extent that the Trump family stayed on the stage until well after Hillary was in the crowd thanking people. What. A. Baby.
2
Implicit in the questioning by Chris Wallace was the assumption that after the Great Recession, President Obama had enjoyed a wide range of choices for stimulating the economy and somehow had chosen the wrong approach. In actual fact, we all remember how the Republicans on Capitol Hill stubbornly resisted efforts to stimulate employment.
4
Gee, Maureen, why all the praise for Hillary Clinton now. I mean, for the past quarter of a century, it seems that all you've wanted to do is demean her as a wife, as a senator, as a cabinet member, and , finally, as a presidential candidate. Now, after this third and (thank God!) final demonstration of Donald Trump's complete unfitness for office, and after all those nasty columns in which you've put her in the public stocks, you finally have something positive--not to mention truthful-- to say about her? Why now? Could it be because even you now realize that the final vote will represent a complete repudiation of your candidate to whom you have been an unabashed fan? Better late than never, I suppose, but you should have seen this coming.
congratulations to MD for finally not attacking Hillary. This is news! And a first.
Wallace is an overrated disgrace. Who does he work for? End of story.
Hillary Clinton deserves to win the presidency. Think about all those men lined up on those Republican primary debate stages with Trump. But none of those Republicans men could figure out how to succeed in knocking off Donald Trump from becoming the Republican presidential nominee and potentially getting to the White House.
It was Hillary Clinton, a Democratic woman, who outfoxed Donald Trump on the debate stage all three times. Not only outfoxed him on the stage, but outfoxed all those Republican men who wanted to be the Republican presidential nominee.
She's got the intelligence and face it, guys, the grit on the playground. Good for her. Onward to the White House, Hillary. Time for the courageous woman out who really did outfox them all. They call that presidential I think.
It was Hillary Clinton, a Democratic woman, who outfoxed Donald Trump on the debate stage all three times. Not only outfoxed him on the stage, but outfoxed all those Republican men who wanted to be the Republican presidential nominee.
She's got the intelligence and face it, guys, the grit on the playground. Good for her. Onward to the White House, Hillary. Time for the courageous woman out who really did outfox them all. They call that presidential I think.
2
Regarding your comments about appealing to the American people in an admirable way...did you listen to each candidate's response to the last question of the night asking to explain to Americans "why they should elect you to be the next president." Mrs. Clinton's response was eloquent and presidential. Mr. Trump's was negative and reminded me of all the sorry aspects of his campaign. Your piece attempts to paint both candidates as mutually unworthy but I DO NOT AGREE.
Maybe you are part of the problem in America of women's inequality in the workplace if you cannot clearly see how UNEQUAL these two candidates are.
Maybe you are part of the problem in America of women's inequality in the workplace if you cannot clearly see how UNEQUAL these two candidates are.
1
For me it's clear that at this election the system hits peaks of disgust ever. I don't know who is more dangerous. Trump who will be an ape with a torch in gunpowder magazine, or Hillary, which will just continue current way to drown the world further into poverty and rule of big money.
I think people should nto be concerned with to whom to vote. People should be concerned with the question how they get to the situation that there is no one to vote for.
It isn't hard to get under Trump's skin: just disagree with him, or get in his way.
All bullies can't handle it.
All bullies can't handle it.
2
This mud slinging contest between equally matched antagonistic personalities has distracted Americans from the real tragedy of the election.
The two finalists are supremely unpopular with large swaths of Americans across the nation and fail to represent the wishes of the people.
The money machine of my native country's electoral process insured that Senator Sanders would not prevail. If he were in the runoff election in November, Americans would have begun to see the glimmering of a return to civility and heartful caring to their country!
The two finalists are supremely unpopular with large swaths of Americans across the nation and fail to represent the wishes of the people.
The money machine of my native country's electoral process insured that Senator Sanders would not prevail. If he were in the runoff election in November, Americans would have begun to see the glimmering of a return to civility and heartful caring to their country!
1
Sanders failed because America has no appetite for 1940s Socialism.
Kevin Baker, what a sorry, sad, completely devoid of imagination analogy is a bull fight when reporting on the debate between homo sapiens.
By comparing Trump to a helpless animal with no power you, (it is hoped) inadvertently make him seem sympathetic.
Shoddy, anthropomorphic reporting. Get an imagination. Stick to facts.
This is no cornered animal who is being slaughtered for entertainment. This is an arrogant, billionaire who, of his free will has decided to make a fool of himself. I will give you that: both the bull and the candidate are unprepared. This is tired writing, Sir. It brings nothing new, it illuminates nothing and it shows a lack of imagination almost as jaw dropping as some of Trump's utterances.
By comparing Trump to a helpless animal with no power you, (it is hoped) inadvertently make him seem sympathetic.
Shoddy, anthropomorphic reporting. Get an imagination. Stick to facts.
This is no cornered animal who is being slaughtered for entertainment. This is an arrogant, billionaire who, of his free will has decided to make a fool of himself. I will give you that: both the bull and the candidate are unprepared. This is tired writing, Sir. It brings nothing new, it illuminates nothing and it shows a lack of imagination almost as jaw dropping as some of Trump's utterances.
1
Re Maureen Dowd on Trump "whose lovely, sphinx-like wife rarely talks at dinners with friends to make room for more talking by Trump":
If you look at his wife, she is standing there, she has nothing to say, she probably — maybe she isn’t allowed to have anything to say, you tell me.
If you look at his wife, she is standing there, she has nothing to say, she probably — maybe she isn’t allowed to have anything to say, you tell me.
6
Mr. Brooks trying to draw a false equivalence between Trump and Clinton, as if the low level of the debates were due to both candidates being equally bad. Seriously, Mr. Brooks? Both candidates are equally bad?
3
Donald doesn't have to win and probably doesn't want to. He has already won because was able to con voters and the news media into making him the candidate of a major political party within striking distance of being the most powerful man on Earth. His greatest contribution to the United States is to expose the fact that a large part of the population is misogynistic, racist and xenophobic. It would be wonderful if the press would give some scrutiny to future candidates who are the same but using dog whistles. At the same time he exposed Democratic voters who are willing to accept any statement made by their candidate. I worry that, from now on, they will accept any candidate just because he or she is not Donald Trump.
It was apparent Chris Wallace has an extended work contract with Fox News!
Can we all now admit that economics is as far from being a science as theology is. So students of economics, in order to gain their degrees and eventually a teaching post or a job at a think tank, must parrot the view of their professors. By the time they are in their late 20s they may even fully believe the party line.
Group think is common in all professions, but the pretense of economists to predict or guide - and to do so with such little success, should give all of them pause. But it does not.
Krugman has stood out as challenging much of the utter nonsense from his field, but those who utter the nonsense keep their posts.
Group think is common in all professions, but the pretense of economists to predict or guide - and to do so with such little success, should give all of them pause. But it does not.
Krugman has stood out as challenging much of the utter nonsense from his field, but those who utter the nonsense keep their posts.
2
I share Ms. Clinton's outrage for Trump's attack on the democratic "free elections." Nevertheless, Trump, as unimaginative as always, has precedence on his side:
The fact that Al Gore won the election and that George W. Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court (having demanded recounts and not accepting the result of the election).
That was a costly slap in the face of the U.S. Constitution and ushered in some of the darkest times in recent history: the atrocity of the war against Iraq, based on no findings of "weapons of mass destruction." The war criminals Bush and Cheney are still at large. Trump's announcement that he "will keep you in suspense" as to whether he will accept the results of Ms. Clinton's victory, are the words of a bully, a coward and a sore loser who has not yet lost, yet, he is citing the 2001 non-acceptance of the election results by G.W.Bush... worked brilliantly for him. How horribly sad and frightening to have a Republican candidate running for U.S. President who is less prepared and even more arrogant than the tragically idiotic George W. Bush.
The fact that Al Gore won the election and that George W. Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court (having demanded recounts and not accepting the result of the election).
That was a costly slap in the face of the U.S. Constitution and ushered in some of the darkest times in recent history: the atrocity of the war against Iraq, based on no findings of "weapons of mass destruction." The war criminals Bush and Cheney are still at large. Trump's announcement that he "will keep you in suspense" as to whether he will accept the results of Ms. Clinton's victory, are the words of a bully, a coward and a sore loser who has not yet lost, yet, he is citing the 2001 non-acceptance of the election results by G.W.Bush... worked brilliantly for him. How horribly sad and frightening to have a Republican candidate running for U.S. President who is less prepared and even more arrogant than the tragically idiotic George W. Bush.
2
Important difference 2000 and Trump 2016: Gore conceded. Then, being informed of problems in Florida, he withdrew the concession. When the men in black announced their judgment, Gore again conceded like an American gentleman. Trump's word? Not "I'll wait and see of all is well," but "I'll keep you in suspense." The words of a publicity hungry "TV star."
I think that his behaviour last night is really a subtle advertisement for his new television show.
1
Yes, let's hope when Trump loses the election, he will switch to self-obsessing about his new TV channel.
But what do we find for his angry and sometimes violent supporters to do when he loses, because they fully believe what he tells them about rigged elections. I heard an interview with Trump supporters in FL on NPR this morning, and they are stubbornly gullible and just as scary as Trump.
But what do we find for his angry and sometimes violent supporters to do when he loses, because they fully believe what he tells them about rigged elections. I heard an interview with Trump supporters in FL on NPR this morning, and they are stubbornly gullible and just as scary as Trump.
A comment compared Trump as a would be Berlusconi? I beg to differ inasmuch as a would be Mussolini is a more appropriate comparison, and a far more hellish one!
2
Arthur Brook's "pox on both your houses" just is not acceptable. Trump began losing his cool at 9:29, and by 10pm was raving lunatic until Wallace signed off. Did Hillary goad and bait him? Damn right. She exposed him for the fool and adolescent he is. In each of the 3 debates he fell to pieces and demonstrated through temperament alone just how unfit he is.
3
Go away Mr. Lucky Sperm gone terribly awry. You are a petulant child who can not be trusted. I am worried that any of my fellow citizens could rationalize or justify supporting him. Argh.
1
I am glad that people are taking Trump's language in this last debate seriously. There is nothing amusing or funny about his suggestion that he may reject our democratic process and disrupt the transition of power. Trump has debased our election process throughout his candidacy. He has shown contempt for minorities, women, Muslims, immigrants and American voters. Wed. night he went a step farther, and showed his utter contempt and disregard for our democracy. This vile demagogue cannot become President. I believe American voters understand that and will send a powerful message to him on Nov. 8.
2
In spite of what appears to be almost unanimous critisim of his views by the Times
and those who've submitted comments to today's articles, polls still suggest that approximately 40% of registered voters continue to support him. If he loses, as many strongly suggest, what do these 40 percenters do about it? One supporter tweeted this morning the she'd use the second amendment to remedy the situation, reminding us ot a Trump suggestion made weeks ago.
While the candidate may disappear from the front page above the fold, many in his base may not.
and those who've submitted comments to today's articles, polls still suggest that approximately 40% of registered voters continue to support him. If he loses, as many strongly suggest, what do these 40 percenters do about it? One supporter tweeted this morning the she'd use the second amendment to remedy the situation, reminding us ot a Trump suggestion made weeks ago.
While the candidate may disappear from the front page above the fold, many in his base may not.
Given Trump's infantile, narcissistic, terrifying, thug-like behavior in this campaign, it feels unreasonable to criticize Hillary for having a "leadership deficit" because she is not "persuasive" enough in regards to Trump. Trying to persuade Trump of how our country might best be run for our common good is as absurd as trying to cogently persuade a callow grade school bully of the same.
1
Nasty women, unite!
1
Donald Trump's inability to master tactics and strategies is in and of itself enough to make him unfit to be President of the USA.
2
Regarding Arthur Brooks' piece:
Given Trump's infantile, narcissistic, terrifying, thug-like behavior in this campaign, it feels unreasonable to criticize Hillary for having a "leadership deficit" because she is not "persuasive" enough in regards to Trump. Trying to persuade Trump of how our country might best be run for our common good is as ludicrous as trying to persuade a callow grade school bully of the same.
Given Trump's infantile, narcissistic, terrifying, thug-like behavior in this campaign, it feels unreasonable to criticize Hillary for having a "leadership deficit" because she is not "persuasive" enough in regards to Trump. Trying to persuade Trump of how our country might best be run for our common good is as ludicrous as trying to persuade a callow grade school bully of the same.
2
Yes, his remark is reprehensible, but we can't forget the Al Gore and W election.
With all of the'hanging chads' in Florida Mr. Gore did contest the results and there was speculation that we might not have a conclusion before Inauguration Day. Mr. Gore was perfectly within his rights to have questioned the vote.
As far as the democracy of our Constitution, Mr. Trump will uphold it. He will protect our Second Ammendment and appoint Supreme Court Justices that will not rewrite our Constitution.
I've not been a fan of Mr. Trumps until I heard him say that tonight. That, along with his beliefs of caring for our Veterans instead of illegal immigrants.
(Rhetorical: We baby boomers have worked all of our lives and have paid into Social Security and Medicare since our first paychecks. Where did the money go? It's not an entitlement, we paid for it.)
With all of the'hanging chads' in Florida Mr. Gore did contest the results and there was speculation that we might not have a conclusion before Inauguration Day. Mr. Gore was perfectly within his rights to have questioned the vote.
As far as the democracy of our Constitution, Mr. Trump will uphold it. He will protect our Second Ammendment and appoint Supreme Court Justices that will not rewrite our Constitution.
I've not been a fan of Mr. Trumps until I heard him say that tonight. That, along with his beliefs of caring for our Veterans instead of illegal immigrants.
(Rhetorical: We baby boomers have worked all of our lives and have paid into Social Security and Medicare since our first paychecks. Where did the money go? It's not an entitlement, we paid for it.)
For the social security program, yes people who worked paid into it but after a few years, the amount you paid into it will be gone and you will receive payments that come from others and from interest. When someone lives a long time, that's the way the math works.
Dear Arthur, please tell your Republican colleagues in Congress about choosing collaboration over contempt.
3
To Maureen Doud: No HRC was not talking about entitlements when The Donald called her "a nasty woman." She had just needled him about that he'd have to pay higher taxes, unless he figured out a way not to.
Generally, he needed to change the narrative and draw undecided voters (if a sufficient number exist, which is dubious) to him. Failure on that score.
How can any self respecting Republican go for The Donald on any score from bad mouthing the US consistently, to adulation of Putin because he says nice things about him! to...ah the list is too long.
I guess the only way he'll concede the election is if it is a blow out against him even in the Red States. But it doesn't matter whether he does concede or not. The Secretaries of State (mainly Republican) in the various states will certify the electors, based on the results in their various states, who in due course will meet and vote for the first woman president of the uS. Let's hope she gets a Democratic Senate and House. The last 6 years have shown that with the current Republican Party, divided government is not a protection but a menace and sure prescription for statis. Let one party have it all. If we don't like the results, vote the bums out. And you know what, I believe Mitch McConnell agrees. So all the real Republicans should hold their noses if necessary and elect HRC and a Democratic Congress.
Generally, he needed to change the narrative and draw undecided voters (if a sufficient number exist, which is dubious) to him. Failure on that score.
How can any self respecting Republican go for The Donald on any score from bad mouthing the US consistently, to adulation of Putin because he says nice things about him! to...ah the list is too long.
I guess the only way he'll concede the election is if it is a blow out against him even in the Red States. But it doesn't matter whether he does concede or not. The Secretaries of State (mainly Republican) in the various states will certify the electors, based on the results in their various states, who in due course will meet and vote for the first woman president of the uS. Let's hope she gets a Democratic Senate and House. The last 6 years have shown that with the current Republican Party, divided government is not a protection but a menace and sure prescription for statis. Let one party have it all. If we don't like the results, vote the bums out. And you know what, I believe Mitch McConnell agrees. So all the real Republicans should hold their noses if necessary and elect HRC and a Democratic Congress.
1
He sank. He didn't sunk, as your editorial put it. But he aptly illustrates how low linguistic standards can go when the prose of the pros is sinking.
1
~~~
"Keynesian thinking" does certainly says to spend money in slumps. It also says to pay down the debt in good times via revenues i.e., taxes
When is the latter going to take place? (n.b., The debt not the deficit)
And how much debt is too much debt for Dr. K.?
I consider myself a Keynesian.
One of his biggest fears was to go into an economic crisis with too much debt not paid off from the last crisis.
Nowhere does he state to continually spend money without cutting debt between economic slumps.
"Keynesian thinking" does certainly says to spend money in slumps. It also says to pay down the debt in good times via revenues i.e., taxes
When is the latter going to take place? (n.b., The debt not the deficit)
And how much debt is too much debt for Dr. K.?
I consider myself a Keynesian.
One of his biggest fears was to go into an economic crisis with too much debt not paid off from the last crisis.
Nowhere does he state to continually spend money without cutting debt between economic slumps.
1
The numbers speak. Ten seconds after the debate ended, the pundits had declared Clinton the
winner and Trump was dumped. The reasons were endless and most centered around Trump and his
outrageous personality, I noticed an unusual characteristic - when he heard something that he
disagreed with, his eyes became slits. Oh well, back to reality and Nov.8.
winner and Trump was dumped. The reasons were endless and most centered around Trump and his
outrageous personality, I noticed an unusual characteristic - when he heard something that he
disagreed with, his eyes became slits. Oh well, back to reality and Nov.8.
1
Thank you Arthur C. Brooks! That is the best assessment I have read in quite a while.
Sadly, this man has zero idea how his government works. Does he even comprehend what our Three Branches of Government are and what they do? More sad than this is, most of his ardent supporters have no idea either.
3
Maureen, love your commentary. Wish I could put my thoughts in words like you...thank you.
I would like to share two comments regarding your collection of responses to the final presidential debate. 1) Kevin Baker made an important point that has been largely overlooked in election coverage: where is the discussion of climate change?
2) Trump is a disgrace, but the exclusive focus on Trump is also shameful. I share your outrage, but Hillary Clinton deserves equal air time.
2) Trump is a disgrace, but the exclusive focus on Trump is also shameful. I share your outrage, but Hillary Clinton deserves equal air time.
This was definitely a third strike. I didn't see any of the qualities, not one, I'd expect to see in someone running a mid-sized company much less a 15 trillion dollar country armed to the teeth with doomsday weapons. No, I don't think so. This is one for the history books; the chapter where a narcissistic teenage bully grown old, but manages to grab the controls and with a rowdy band of miscreants nearly run the ship of state aground. Kind of a modern day Millard Fillmore but not so clever. Nearing the end of this bad movie I thought, "never was quiet so blessed".
Oh my, Mr. Brooks. The politics of contempt, really?
One candidate spent the last 3 decades building a solid record of public service and spoke in complete sentences through 3 harrowing debates. She was professional, prepared, prepped and resilient in the face of an ugly onslaught of vituperative, repetitive lying from her opponent.
Then there was that other guy you seem to think belonged on the same stage. Some special snowflake real estate goon from Queens who blew through the money he inherited before blowing through the money he borrowed and never payed back. Never payed his personal income taxes, either.
One of these candidates is contemptible by any standard of a democratic republic, of any nation of laws before men.
One candidate spent the last 3 decades building a solid record of public service and spoke in complete sentences through 3 harrowing debates. She was professional, prepared, prepped and resilient in the face of an ugly onslaught of vituperative, repetitive lying from her opponent.
Then there was that other guy you seem to think belonged on the same stage. Some special snowflake real estate goon from Queens who blew through the money he inherited before blowing through the money he borrowed and never payed back. Never payed his personal income taxes, either.
One of these candidates is contemptible by any standard of a democratic republic, of any nation of laws before men.
1
"Special snowflake"—brilliant!
Which debate was Brooks watching? Talk about false equivalency. This piece is the definition.
I think that I could faint; when was the last time Dowd deftly presented the scene and the characters without snark? She couldn't help portraying Trump better than he looked or sounded, but she did illustrate how trapped he was by himself.
"All hat, no cattle?" More like no hat, no cattle. He wouldn't want to muss his hair, and all that remains is a pile of bovine scatology.
1
That pic. Reminds me of some rich jerk in the high school locker room in 1975 who thinks he is the bees knees cuz his dad is a big shot. ... So he is therefore , somebody. A loser. Toxic. Money talks though, how loud do you let it?
1
The Trumpeter really blew it tonight. Why bother voting in a democracy if the loser will decide after the election whether he/she will accept the results or not? A non-Fox News moderator (a non-Chris Matthews) would have crucified any presidential candidate who stated that 20 days before the election. Only in Las Vegas could a casino mogul be appreciated where the owner of Encore can display a $28 million glass Mickey Mouse at the front door of one of his casinos while a fifth of young children go hungry in America each night. A pox on the Trumpeter and his fellow life's losers.
1
Odd observation. ..no wedding ring on Trump's hand.
Much admiration for Maureen's eloquent commentary and written piece within hours of the debate.
Beautiful writing and insight. Thank you so much.
Beautiful writing and insight. Thank you so much.
When Trump made the "wait and see" statement about not accepting the will of the electorate, Clinton, adept in knowledge of Constitutional law, let Trump torpedo his own ship. But had she stated that he should resign his campaign based on his disrespect for the most fundamental and sacred concepts of American democracy, she could have blown him blown him out of the water and demonstrated the boldness and daring that is found in the examples of Douglas Mac Arthur and George Patton that Trump keeps bringing up.
Instead she let the moderator bring up this most sacred of traditions. A lost opportunity for a knock out punch. Yes, she expressed shock, but only one sentence would have done the trick. Instead she went into rhetorical mode to fill up her minute, and that is one of the reasons people distrust politicians.
Instead she let the moderator bring up this most sacred of traditions. A lost opportunity for a knock out punch. Yes, she expressed shock, but only one sentence would have done the trick. Instead she went into rhetorical mode to fill up her minute, and that is one of the reasons people distrust politicians.
''Such a nasty woman" was Trump's Ralph Kramden moment. With his 1950's Queens accent, it resembled Ralph lashing out at his mother in law for interfering with his bowling night. Not Presidential.
1
It was another unfortunate debate. Trump was petulant as ever, even as he was trying hard to keep his cool. Hillary did land a few good jabs in, long overdue. But if you were looking for vision and leadership, I know, this was not the place for it.
BTW, Maureen, Trump seems to be saying, "Big League" and not "Bigly" as you keep suggesting. Did anyone else hear "Bigly" too?
BTW, Maureen, Trump seems to be saying, "Big League" and not "Bigly" as you keep suggesting. Did anyone else hear "Bigly" too?
I love bigly! We thought he said it twice. Only after the debate was I disappointed to learn (I think from Gail Collins) that he may have actually said 'big league', which is a favorite of his, along with the other overused superlatives that turn up in nearly every sentence: huge, the most..., greatest, unbelievable, tremendous, incredible....yawn...
Still love bigly. I think its an improvement.
Still love bigly. I think its an improvement.
Wrong. HRC has a track record of bi partisan work in the Senate and in other roles. She is supported by many people who have crossed party lines. The fact that she is not trying to "reason" with Mr Trump and his core supporters is that this tactic does not work with them, and she is clear-headed enough to recognise this.
Her worthy opponent, on the other hand, is behaving like a Gremlin who has drunk too much water, even within his own party.
The catchword of this election has been "false equivalencies", and I am horrified to see that the author of this piece is sticking with that, even in the face of the most deplorable statements and behaviour by Mr Trump. There is no equivalent.
Her worthy opponent, on the other hand, is behaving like a Gremlin who has drunk too much water, even within his own party.
The catchword of this election has been "false equivalencies", and I am horrified to see that the author of this piece is sticking with that, even in the face of the most deplorable statements and behaviour by Mr Trump. There is no equivalent.
5
Yes, but wasn't the question about entitlements? SSA and CBO both predict that the Social Security Trust Fund will run out in the 2020s. Keynesian economics have nothing to do with it; the next president will need to prepare for a budget crunch that may require increasing revenue/cutting spending in the kind of "Grand Bargain" Wallace outlined.
Sorry I missed it - sort of - until I read about his statement about "bad hombres" - then I knew I'd made the right decision for me. As Trump himself might say, "So sad. So sad."
Mr. Brooks, I have previously believed you to be a man of honor and fairness. This article refutes that view. The absurd false equivalency in this article makes you look like you're a Fox stooge. If you cannot admit at this late stage that Trump's "plan" is a disaster, and that his performance was an embarassment to the Party of Bigots, then I wonder what you were watchhing.
3
Donald is a criminal looking for a jail cell. Walking dead like an emasculated zombie. Our worst citizen waiting to be symbolically deported from our Great America. The weight of his guilt has brought him to us much as a criminal turns himself in out of pure paranoia that everyone knows their obvious crimes.
Egged on, egg-actly.
2
Why did Hillary not push back on Wallace's line about Social Security being an entitlement program?
Social Security is not an entitlement- it is an insurance program and does not contribute one red cent to the deficit or the debt. The biggest threat to Social Security is the ongoing determination by Republicans and Conservative Democrats to means test it, privatize it or cut it until it no longer serves it's purpose.
Social Security is not an entitlement- it is an insurance program and does not contribute one red cent to the deficit or the debt. The biggest threat to Social Security is the ongoing determination by Republicans and Conservative Democrats to means test it, privatize it or cut it until it no longer serves it's purpose.
18
What happens if we can't meet those obligations? Wouldn't we have to borrow or raise payroll taxes?
Donald Trump said in the debate that his nominees for the Supreme Court will “interpret the Constitution the way the founders wanted it interpreted.”
My questions would be this: How would the founders deal with the internet? Would they give an opinion on the behaviour of Mr. Trump during the debates? In the matter of his behaviour they would likely be silent though they might give an opinion when they were with their families.
My questions would be this: How would the founders deal with the internet? Would they give an opinion on the behaviour of Mr. Trump during the debates? In the matter of his behaviour they would likely be silent though they might give an opinion when they were with their families.
Regarding Mr. Brooks's comments: "Mrs. Clinton reminded us why she is distrusted, with unconvincing answers about her ethics. Almost unfathomably, Trump even refused to say he would concede the election if he loses."
First of all, what is "unfathomable" about Trump's comments? Is anything "unfathomable" any more in his alternate reality campaign? It's just yet another outrageous stance, another outrageous lie -- this time, that the election is rigged.
And about Clinton -- honestly Mr. Brooks: You've been part of the propaganda machine for three decades that has tried in vain to discredit her, despite the army of rational voices who have debunked all of the accusations one by one. Is there really anything she could say that would convince you?
First of all, what is "unfathomable" about Trump's comments? Is anything "unfathomable" any more in his alternate reality campaign? It's just yet another outrageous stance, another outrageous lie -- this time, that the election is rigged.
And about Clinton -- honestly Mr. Brooks: You've been part of the propaganda machine for three decades that has tried in vain to discredit her, despite the army of rational voices who have debunked all of the accusations one by one. Is there really anything she could say that would convince you?
For the past few weeks I have had a growing fear that for the first time in our history the transfer of power might not be peaceful (yes, Lincoln's election precipitated the Civil War, but even then his opponents accepted his Presidency). If that happens it will be frightening and profoundly damaging. It took hundreds of years for peaceful transfers to become embedded in Western cultures. It could be undone all too quickly. Yet that is exactly the kind of violence Trump is fomenting.
A footnote for Prof. Krugman, with whom I completely agree on the substance. I hope you acknowledge that Chris Wallace is sincerely (if mistakenly) concerned about the size of the national debt. You and other progressive economists regularly assert (with no evidence) that public deficit-bashing is actually motivated by a desire to reduce federal spending, especially on "entitlements." In so doing, you fail to recognize that ordinary educated people (here I include Mr. Wallace) sincerely assume that a huge national debt must be a very bad thing, and that it will be a terrible burden on our children (especially since so much of it is held by foreign countries). You don't have to seek hidden motivations for these expressions of concern. Sure, a lot of these folks would like to reduce entitlements, but that doesn't mean they are insincere in expressing alarm about deficits and the national debt. Virtually every non-economist assumes that deficits and the debt are huge problems, so that group includes many people who do NOT want to reduce entitlements. This is important because none of you has done a good job disabusing well-meaning non-economists of their misunderstandings about national finances and how different they are from family finances.
This from editorial board member Anna North:
"No matter what happens on Nov. 8, Mr. Trump has already won in one way: He’s made a gigantic mess, and somebody else has to clean it up."
This is the story of Trump's life. That is how he has run his businesses, full speed ahead and hope, pray, for the best. That's how he ran the casinos in Atlantic City into the ground and then handed the mess off to others. His methods of endless bragging and wildly inflated numbers his businesses were projected to produce, like the Plaza Hotel and Trump Airlines, made him successful in the same way a tightrope walker lives from day to day: luck and a strange set of skills that come into play as disaster moves closer and closer to him. This would be no way to run a country.
"No matter what happens on Nov. 8, Mr. Trump has already won in one way: He’s made a gigantic mess, and somebody else has to clean it up."
This is the story of Trump's life. That is how he has run his businesses, full speed ahead and hope, pray, for the best. That's how he ran the casinos in Atlantic City into the ground and then handed the mess off to others. His methods of endless bragging and wildly inflated numbers his businesses were projected to produce, like the Plaza Hotel and Trump Airlines, made him successful in the same way a tightrope walker lives from day to day: luck and a strange set of skills that come into play as disaster moves closer and closer to him. This would be no way to run a country.
Wallace bad on the economy? He works for FOX, what do you expect.
1
Surely Arthur Brooks did not expect that either candidate could persuade the other of anything. On other occasions, each candidate has insulted one group of people or another; Mrs. Clinton with her talk of "deplorables," Mr. Trump with a string of insults to Latinos, African Americans, POW's, Muslims, women, and on and on. At this debate, I heard Mrs. Clinton trying to reach out to everyone. Mr. Trump continued as before, demonizing undocumented immigrants, refugees, and diplomats, and impugning the abilities of the intelligence community. (My apologies to any groups I left out.)
Mr. Brooks calls it "almost unfathomable" that Mr. Trump refused to commit to accepting the results of the election. Maybe not so unfathomable after all; that is what most of the Republican caucus in the Senate and the House have been doing for nearly eight years over two presidential elections. Food for thought when we consider "the kind of leaders we reward going forward."
Mr. Brooks calls it "almost unfathomable" that Mr. Trump refused to commit to accepting the results of the election. Maybe not so unfathomable after all; that is what most of the Republican caucus in the Senate and the House have been doing for nearly eight years over two presidential elections. Food for thought when we consider "the kind of leaders we reward going forward."
1
Hillary should have corrected Wallace about the nature of the debt issue, but she did well.
Arthur Brooks has to be kidding, no? To even put the sorts of attacks that Clinton made into the same general category as Trump's is just foolish. What is she supposed to do? It is outright disingenuous to assume some sort of parity of insults here. Trump is clearly, and has been all along, the instigator. Seriously, what the heck else is she supposed to do?
Oh, I forgot, since she's the woman she has to be the perfect person. That is, she has to occupy an impossible standpoint.
I wish the times would get rid of this guy.
Oh, I forgot, since she's the woman she has to be the perfect person. That is, she has to occupy an impossible standpoint.
I wish the times would get rid of this guy.
We now know Melania was not dissemblng when she said she has two boys in her home, a son and a husband. Trump presented like a petulant middle schooler - Unpresidential.
Thanks to Mr. Brooks for this: no exhortation to great things (forget the hollow "make America great again" rant) ("again??"); no moon shot; not reinvigorating of the national spirit. Just a slog on to the next four years.
Surely Mr. Trump is a contemptible carnie who is as we writhe about tonight is plotting ways to make money on this. But Ms. Clinton -- the haves and the have-nots of America, the ones who do make this a great country -- deserve to have leaders with energy and vision. Embrace us and let's go for it.
Surely Mr. Trump is a contemptible carnie who is as we writhe about tonight is plotting ways to make money on this. But Ms. Clinton -- the haves and the have-nots of America, the ones who do make this a great country -- deserve to have leaders with energy and vision. Embrace us and let's go for it.
Hillary et al. We'll take a 2 Trillion $ Stimulus package called "The American 401k Reparations Package "courtesy of the newly minted billionaires from Wall Street and their financial institutions who profited during the banking meltdown and bailout of 2008 and thereafter.
Secretary Clinton did a fine job of allowing Trump to continue to show himself for what he is. As a Republican whose support for her has been tepid, at best, I've grown comfortable with my vote for her and think it important for all thinking Americans--even conservatives and liberals who aren't inclined to support her--to do what we can to rebuke this insidious, maladjusted, bigoted movement that Trump is encouraging. I wasn't impressed with her pivot on the wikileaks disclosures and thinks she should take responsibility head-on while also exposing the nexus with Russia, but she's otherwise done a good job throughout all three debates and generally during the campaign.
As a military officer I have been quite surprised by the support a democratic candidate is attracting among others in the military--especially officers. Trump is simply not qualified. I've already mailed-in my absentee ballot, so I suppose there's no good reason to continue following this sideshow election, but I probably will just the same.
As a military officer I have been quite surprised by the support a democratic candidate is attracting among others in the military--especially officers. Trump is simply not qualified. I've already mailed-in my absentee ballot, so I suppose there's no good reason to continue following this sideshow election, but I probably will just the same.
Petulant, whiny, prone to proffering easily-disproved lies and projecting his own egregious and many faults onto others--and soon enough it will be made undeniable to even himself that he has become what he despises most-a LOSER.
It takes a lot of nerve and reveals an astounding lack of self-awareness for this poor little rich boy born with millions of Daddy's dollars in his pocket to claim the system is "rigged" against him.
The fact that Donald Trump has not gotten his well-deserved comeuppance before now just proves how the system is stacked in his favor. "When you're a star... you can do anything." Indeed.
It takes a lot of nerve and reveals an astounding lack of self-awareness for this poor little rich boy born with millions of Daddy's dollars in his pocket to claim the system is "rigged" against him.
The fact that Donald Trump has not gotten his well-deserved comeuppance before now just proves how the system is stacked in his favor. "When you're a star... you can do anything." Indeed.
2
Arthur Brooks writes that Trump's economic policies are boilerplate GOP. Lower taxes and spend more is official policy? I mean, sure, Bush did it, but that spending all went for war. Or was it to party donors? Same thing, right?
We saw nothing in the final debate that was not in evidence more than one year ago. Please let this be over.
I agree. I don't understand why many in the media appeared shocked when he refused to state he would abide by the result of election. He's been saying that the election will be "rigged " in speeches to his supporters for weeks.
Too often the press has treated him as if he were a normal candidate and permitted him to avoid answering questions or making unfounded assertions without holding him accountable.
Yes, please let this be over. My fear is that it won't "be over" after the election when, presumably, Trump is defeated.
Too often the press has treated him as if he were a normal candidate and permitted him to avoid answering questions or making unfounded assertions without holding him accountable.
Yes, please let this be over. My fear is that it won't "be over" after the election when, presumably, Trump is defeated.
The last hopeful Presidential candidate we had was Barack Obama, and look how your party treated him, Mr Brooks. Don't act as if the lack of hopefulness in American politics is unconnected to GOP antics over the last several election cycles.
RE Ms. Dowd's comment about the silence of the "sphinx," I believe I actually heard Malaria SING at one time. It went something like:
New York is where I'd rather stay.
I can't buy my furs and jewels on your White House pay.
I just adore a penthouse view.
Donald I love you but give me Fifth Avenue.
New York is where I'd rather stay.
I can't buy my furs and jewels on your White House pay.
I just adore a penthouse view.
Donald I love you but give me Fifth Avenue.
If we can't ensure a fair election I opt for keeping Obama and Michelle. Problem solved.
17
"...Donald Trump...claimed to be a great champion of judges who applied the Constitution literally as it was written. (Which, of course, would mean that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton could never have voted, never mind become president.)" I don't understand the last sentence in parentheses; is that intended to be ironic, or something that Trump has said? Clearly he claimed for years that Obama was not American born, but he claimed no such thing about Clinton.
1
Miriam, the constitution as written prevented women from voting or holding office; people of African descent were not humans, much less citizens. It's not nativity. It's gender and race.
As originally written, the Constitution made no provision for African-Americans or women being considered voting citizens, so that is what he's referring to.
The constitution as originally written did not guarantee that women or African-Americans could vote (that required the 15th and 19th amendments).
Trump doesn't know how our government works, and neither do his followers, and they don't care. I have a line for them: Love it or leave it.
26
Next election Dr. Krugman should moderate a debate. That would be pretty cool.
20
Further to Paul Krugman's point, the Obama stimulus package (along with the aggressive actions of the Fed) did succeed in turning around the economy. The economy was in free fall when Obama was sworn into office, with 800,000 jobs being lost each month. This was turned around very quickly once the stimulus programs were passed, and as a direct result of them.
What then changed, however, was a reversal of policy from stimulus to austerity. As was discussed in this blog post (https://aneconomicsense.org/2014/02/16/the-continued-fall-in-government-..., total government spending (whether federal alone, or counting federal, state, and local together) peaked in 2010 and then began to fall. And the fall was not simply in terms of share of GDP, but even in absolute real dollar terms. This was unprecedented in any earlier presidency. Indeed, the strongest growth in government spending, coming out of the 1982 recession, was under Reagan.
It was this move to austerity during Obama's tenure which held back the pace of recovery.
What then changed, however, was a reversal of policy from stimulus to austerity. As was discussed in this blog post (https://aneconomicsense.org/2014/02/16/the-continued-fall-in-government-..., total government spending (whether federal alone, or counting federal, state, and local together) peaked in 2010 and then began to fall. And the fall was not simply in terms of share of GDP, but even in absolute real dollar terms. This was unprecedented in any earlier presidency. Indeed, the strongest growth in government spending, coming out of the 1982 recession, was under Reagan.
It was this move to austerity during Obama's tenure which held back the pace of recovery.
12
After that debate, Arthur C. Clark points to why Hillary Clinton is distrusted? This man may be as delusional as The Donald. It's The Donald and The Arthur.
25
I enjoyed the column, but I have to disagree with the idea that "[n]o one in history has ever insulted another person into persuasion." The whole point of "negging" - a sleazy technique used by pick-up artists - is to insult and compliment women in the hopes that they will eventually seek the pick-up artist's approval. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the internet abounds with references to Trump using what appears to be negging techniques (e.g. http://reason.com/blog/2015/09/15/trump-as-political-pick-up-artist-the-do). One can also simply hear Trump refer to the United States as both a failing, violence-filled country of losers, but, also, the greatest country on Earth, particularly if it's smart enough to elect him and take him home. I do not see this technique used by Hillary Clinton, who instead rightly notes that America is an amazing country but has room to improve. One is the approach of a healthy relationship; the other is some dreary combination of negging and gas-lighting.
16
Arthur Brooks was not watching the same debate I was. He suggested that the debate devolved into a mud slinging debacle with neither candidate giving a positive vision of why they should be president. Come again? I think to most viewers it was clear which candidate had a very dark vision of where this country was headed, and which candidate had an optimistic take on why this country is already great , and can be even greater, if we pull together in Washington to actually pass some meaningful legislation that advances the well being of the 99%. On one side is an optimistic pragmatist with a demonstrated record of crossing the aisle to work with Republican in the Senate to actually get some bipartisan legislation passed. On the other side you have a severely narcissistic demagogue and would be fascist dictator. Thank god Hillary put Trump out of his misery tonight!
109
David, he can't. The so-called "American Enterprise Institute" is yet another right wing group that wants no taxes, no safeguards and so much more claptrap.
Arthur Brooks must have been watching the 'comics' while thuggish Trump would not allow for an adult conversation. All the while, Hillary had good points to make, unfortunately wasted on rigid ideological republican dalliances, deaf to reason and common sense. It never stops to amuse us that a given point of view can differ so much, depending on the 'glasses' you ware, on the prejudices you carry.
God help this country if he wins the election.
President Clinton, welcome to the White House! And very possibly a democratic Senate and House of Representatives. Job well done!
28
In a nutshell, Donald Trump is testosterone.
6
Wrong! Donald Trump is ignorance.
Chris Wallace can't hold a candle to his father. Donald Trump is a joke, and a sobering, scary, humiliating posit of what media, specifically TV media, has done to our collective entertaining feasting minds, and the political landscape.
16
Terrific column. Funny as heck. Good job!
1
As someone that is watching this election from another country, I believe there is such a negative discussion and focus on what is wrong. I believe you need to celebrate what you've done. Where you've come from.
Yes, there is room for growth. There is always room for growth. You never stop growing.
You need to recognize where you've come from. You're a powerful and collaborative nation, and you've done so much for this world. From someone that is your neighbor up North, please don't forget how far you've come.
I agree there are different political parties you each identify with. But in the end, you're working to a common goal. We've looked to you for guidance as we've grown, but we do not identify with hate and segregation.
You have displayed strength in times of need. You've come so far. You have advanced science, philosophy, literature, music, etc. Don't sell yourselves short. We are with you!
#americaisalreadygreat
Yes, there is room for growth. There is always room for growth. You never stop growing.
You need to recognize where you've come from. You're a powerful and collaborative nation, and you've done so much for this world. From someone that is your neighbor up North, please don't forget how far you've come.
I agree there are different political parties you each identify with. But in the end, you're working to a common goal. We've looked to you for guidance as we've grown, but we do not identify with hate and segregation.
You have displayed strength in times of need. You've come so far. You have advanced science, philosophy, literature, music, etc. Don't sell yourselves short. We are with you!
#americaisalreadygreat
38
Your comment is greatly appreciated, at least by me and I presume many others.
The "let's run down America" tone of Trump's campaign is based on trying to appeal to people who feel left out of the benefits of living in the United States and who are essentially blind to the nation's many accomplishments. Only a little more than 30% of Americans have ever traveled outside the country, so they don't have a direct impression of how we are regarded. They've never been to Paris or Istanbul and heard American music playing in many different places or seen American films treated as important cultural events. They've never seen people in far off places working on American designed computers, medical technology, communications systems and many other beneficial products born of America's restless inventiveness and paid for by the stream of investment capital that takes high risks. They just don't know.
This is the season of great discontent in America and the flames of that unhappy state are being fanned by Trump and his supporters. I agree: we live in a nation of great accomplishment based fundamentally on some of the highest ideals derived from civilization and long philosophical, more development. We will survive this and we will thrive.
The "let's run down America" tone of Trump's campaign is based on trying to appeal to people who feel left out of the benefits of living in the United States and who are essentially blind to the nation's many accomplishments. Only a little more than 30% of Americans have ever traveled outside the country, so they don't have a direct impression of how we are regarded. They've never been to Paris or Istanbul and heard American music playing in many different places or seen American films treated as important cultural events. They've never seen people in far off places working on American designed computers, medical technology, communications systems and many other beneficial products born of America's restless inventiveness and paid for by the stream of investment capital that takes high risks. They just don't know.
This is the season of great discontent in America and the flames of that unhappy state are being fanned by Trump and his supporters. I agree: we live in a nation of great accomplishment based fundamentally on some of the highest ideals derived from civilization and long philosophical, more development. We will survive this and we will thrive.
i disagree with J. Friedman's opinion that only a freely-given yes mean yes. Much of intimate relations is based on cues, feelings, thoughts, etc. I do think however that women (and men) who are touched against their will must provide an emphatic no. This is the reason I don't believe a nearly 40 y.o. woman allowed Trump to feel her up on an airplane and she never once said or shouted no. I also don't believe the People magazine writer who said Trump forcibly kissed her yet she said absolutely nothing to him about it. The six people who "corroborated" her story did not actually witness what happened between her and Trump so their testimony is useless. I am surprised the Times printed that nonsense as though it were compelling evidence that Trump had actually assaulted this woman.
1
Really, Lynn? Presumably you would have alerted the entire plane that the gentleman sitting next to you had just felt you up? Who would have been more embarrassed? I believe the woman did the right thing in asking for a seat change and not saying anything until the present day. The underlying misogyny of our culture is revealed in our general inability to believe women and the knowledge among women that this is so.
1
Classic example of blaming the victim
1
He is clearly on tape saying that his can't stop himself when he sees a beautiful women, he just starts kissing her...out of his mouth. Stop thinking that he is so honest and upstanding. He isn't.
1
Aren't you overstating this?
Debates make no difference in an election. They are entertainment. Nothing more. I prefer watching those videos on YouTube of baby goats hopping around. Then, take all the production money these debates sponge up and donate it to animal rescue groups.
Debates make no difference in an election. They are entertainment. Nothing more. I prefer watching those videos on YouTube of baby goats hopping around. Then, take all the production money these debates sponge up and donate it to animal rescue groups.
4
Not sure if you are aware of this but fighting climate change requires Congressional spending. Now where are they going to get the funds if all we are doing is paying entitlements and interest payments? Have we not seen wage inflation and can this be attributed running deficits at full employment?
Brooks, this is the worst false equivalence fallacy you've ever perpetrated ... and that's saying a lot.
20
To suggest that Clinton was as negative as Trump is ridiculous Mr Brooks. I realize you're coming at this from the AEI so your response was probably prepared in advance. When the questions themselves are basically set up to be antagonistic, how is it possible for anyone to provide a positive picture, especially when your counterpart is Donald Trump?
19
Brooks can't help himself. After having demonized the Clintons for so long it's hard for him to distinguish that obsession from the psychopathic carnival barker tearing his party to shreds. Poor dear, it's rough. Real rough. Just rough. Like the sounds he makes when he's asking for an RNC dog biscuit. "Ruff! Ruff!" every night he falls to sleep and dreams of being a pet mascot for the Republican Party. "Ruff Ruff!" You can't expect him to recognize that dog whistles are not supposed to be acceptable background noise.
Oh, you know, just like Brooks said, you persuade them. Just like the GOP has been persuaded to re-write the Constitution and deny their role in advise and consent of nominees to the Supreme court. Such hypocrisy!
Right: "he is trying to delegitimize and poison a Hillary Clinton presidency before it even begins" Instead of trying to find new phrases to describe his bizarre, insulting performances, it is important that this message is hammered home. He does not respect the will of the people, and is as willing as any dictator to throw aside any decisions that make him uncomfortable. It's not a joke. He appears to lack any understanding of or respect for the framework which has held us together.
32
While the audience was distracted by Mrs Clinton taking down Donald, last night was actually an early salvo to Putin and the cast of dictators & autocrats. There will be a new sheriff in town and she wears a white pant suit
70
That color was an excellent choice, effectively casting her as the white knight vanquishing the force of evil in the black suit.
Brilliantly perceptive.
Presidential debates are diversionary improvisations in an election year. Spare change.
Could not agree more with Emily Bazelon. Hillary Clinton owned very clearly her stance on reproductive rights. Most thrilling moment in recent memory around this election - and the one that made me feel most decidedly with her.
49
Arthur, Are you really so blind? The man is complete menace. Do you really believe all the tripe you peddle about her? She's the best we have, and the most qualified. If you believe in the values of Lincoln, the choice is easy.
74
I heard Mrs. Clinton speak to "...Americans with optimism..." and she seemed to me to be quite "...happy [and] excited at the prospect of being elected president." Mrs. Clinton also was minimally critical of Mr. Trump, in the context of what we have now seen of him as a constant liar about his intent and business successes. Mrs. Clinton was focused, energetic, positive, and engaging. This was her best debate performance.
99
Why can't Brooks say that?
When in the last 40 years (excluding Kennedy/Nixon) has any debate made any difference in an election? This is designed as entertainment.
3
Clinton rightly pointed to irresponsible debt increase given tax cuts Trump promises. And Trump missed the opportunity to respond to Clinton on the question of how the financial crisis came to pass -- how she is and especially her husband are linked to the demise of regulatory heft on the federal side. How did such a large unregulated world of MBS and CDOs get created; the answer may begin a decade prior to the meltdown -- given agency by the previous Clinton administration.
1
The question was about Social Security and Medicare. Most people who have been following these issues already know what the options are on Social Security, which at least Clinton gave a partial answer. He I wanted to hear an answer on Medicare.
2
It's nice that Teresa Tritch at least watched the debate for something other than gotchas and sound bites. The Times should do more of that.
Brooks, you find it 'unfathomable'? It's utterly fathomable. I'd say you were being disingenuous, but of course it's much worse - just look at what Trump has turned you into.
33
Peak Both Siderism. Trump was responsible for the disrespectful tone of the debate. He was disrespectful to women, to Latinos, to African Americans, to Clinton herself and our democratic institutions. I didn't think it was possible for my opinion of him to go lower, but it did.
47
I strongly agree with Prof. Krugman on the deficit issue. I also object to another part of the Wallace's framing of the deficit. He did partially avoid the most egregious error in discussing the deficit when he described it as a proportion of the GDP instead of just rolling out a meaningless big scary number, but even that does not take into account the incredibly low interest rates that the deficit increase was financed under. For example, we all understand that when it comes to buying a house that the same income will buy a heck of a lot more house at 2% interest than it would at 6%.
21
Hillary was ferocious and firm on the issue of a women's right to choose. That should come as reassuring relief to those who live with that sick worry that a freshly enhanced right wing activist Supreme Court would make this constitutional right evaporate. Hillary stood very strong. Trump is a tool since he used to support choice. He is just about political expediency and his time is about out. He has spit in the face of all who offered him reasonable support and advice. Now all he is left with are his band of deplorables and the opportunistic Pence.
Good job tonight, Hillary.
Good job tonight, Hillary.
24
Women today have many ways to "choose" BEFORE another little life becomes involved. If you do not want to bear anything less than a perfect child, prevent pregnancy. Because America as a whole does not accept the wholesale killing of our "disabled" children. We are not all willing to eat our seed corn. The Boomer women need to grow up and learn to control their own bodies without the country legalizing the killing off another soul. Bob Keller is gone, Charlie too, but plenty of children have been born since then, putting his choice of his son's death to shame...
All so true and Pence is so opportunistic I am betting he will be the first to turn on trump, either before or immediately after the historic loss on Nov 8th.
I heard a completely different debate than Mr. Brooks. While Secretary Clinton wasn't pinpoint specific about her economic plans, Mr. Trump's words were complete nonsense. She actually has a plan, he has none.
26
If the "Obama stimulus" had a problem, it wasn't large enough because he was stymied by the Republicans. I guess Clinton won't go there because she hopes to be able to make deals with them.
6
More irony: Even though contestants on his shows, such as Miss Universe and the Apprentice, must accept the results of the TV contests, Trump refuses to say if he will honor the results of the election in the event he loses. He wants to judge others, but cannot accept being judged himself. A whiny bully!
18
Read WikiLeaks and what HRC did to Bernie's campaign. Bernie rolled over and accepted it; Donald won't. Cheaters never win, and in the end, Mrs. Clinton has something to teach the nation's schoolchildren about cheating... Don't let those ladyparts fool ya into letting your guard down!
WOW you nailed it. Rise this to the top of the list. Simple yet easy to understand. And not winning the Emmy's and his response to it last night is a GREAT example.
So funny that Arthur Brooks lamented the state of American politics, knowing the fact that people like him and conservatives in general were responsible for the rise of Trump.
46
Persuasion requires the existence of a mind open enough to receive logic, fact, and emotion. The Donald lacks this essential organ. Also, bullying, bombast, and contempt are guaranteed to close off rational response. Hillary demonstrates this.
3
From what I can see, men have been making messes and leaving them for the people to clean up. Yuuuge messes like financial meltdown, unnecessary war, toxic C suite culture, political insanity - all perpetrated primarily by men in power. Tonight HRC showed us what women might do better. Time to try a woman as POTUS and see her succeed without making a mess.
18
Nancy, HIllary Clinton was SOS who helped create the refugee crisis when she assassinated Libya's leaders. Read the WikiLeaks so that you all know what kind of president you are electing. "Don't Ask Don't Tell" has become the US press motto...
isn't this what so many people said about the election of Barack Obama?
When women were given the vote in 1919, it was supposed to fixup America of her illnesses and infuse us with the intelligence of women who had been long disenfranchised .
All we got was "Prohibition" and more Republican isolationism. The first female voters, so entranced and empowered voted for the same morons who sank the League of Nations. What makes Mrs Clinton so special that she'll will do a better job than any other President? It also needs to be remembered that despite the fact that both FDR and his wife had a sadly miserable marriage, and that despite the fact that he had several lovers on the side, that FDR and Mrs Roosevelt, together, were probably the best President we had in the 20th century. It aint sex that makes a good Chief Exec -there has to be something deep, down in the well to draw from. Whether HRC has any is still a question.
When women were given the vote in 1919, it was supposed to fixup America of her illnesses and infuse us with the intelligence of women who had been long disenfranchised .
All we got was "Prohibition" and more Republican isolationism. The first female voters, so entranced and empowered voted for the same morons who sank the League of Nations. What makes Mrs Clinton so special that she'll will do a better job than any other President? It also needs to be remembered that despite the fact that both FDR and his wife had a sadly miserable marriage, and that despite the fact that he had several lovers on the side, that FDR and Mrs Roosevelt, together, were probably the best President we had in the 20th century. It aint sex that makes a good Chief Exec -there has to be something deep, down in the well to draw from. Whether HRC has any is still a question.
Saying a woman is a "nasty woman" is not sexism. It may not be chivalrous but it is not sexist. If we women want to be equal to men and participate in politics (or business or anything else that men do), we have to be able to take (as well as dish out) the slings and arrows that come our way as a result of competition. Crying foul when a "bad hombre" says something negative about us means we want to remain on the pedestal and not be equal. We are either dainty ladies at a tea party or we are women who fully participate in a life that at times is not nice. Which is it? It can't be both.
8
We aren't fragile flowers, but the phrase does smell of sexism, and also is related to images of Hillary that were circulated by opponents painting her a a harridan. The Taming of the Shrew, as written by a South Park 4rth grader. The implication being if women show anger - or get loud - they are unfeminine - as defined by men. And Trump is the epitome, as heard in his words, of a man who figures he gets to determine female worth, and by sexist standards.
It also just sounds like the crude remarks of a not-too-bright bully with a severely limited vocabulary. Imagine if she had called him a "nasty man."
It also just sounds like the crude remarks of a not-too-bright bully with a severely limited vocabulary. Imagine if she had called him a "nasty man."
7
I agree that "nasty woman" is not sexism, as there have been many comments claiming Trump as a "nasty man."
However, it seems to be a rather childish , more like a taunt thrown in an argument on the grammar school recess playground.
One thing I've noticed in almost every Trump speech or comment. He seems to have a limited vocabulary, and what he does say is often repeated several times as if no one would understand it the first time.
I can think of a great number of excellent words with greater depth and erudition to use in place of a childish "nasty woman." IMO, Trump actually doesn't know those words.
However, it seems to be a rather childish , more like a taunt thrown in an argument on the grammar school recess playground.
One thing I've noticed in almost every Trump speech or comment. He seems to have a limited vocabulary, and what he does say is often repeated several times as if no one would understand it the first time.
I can think of a great number of excellent words with greater depth and erudition to use in place of a childish "nasty woman." IMO, Trump actually doesn't know those words.
In which Presidential debate did a candidate call another candidate the equivalent of a nasty man? Because I can't recall anything close to that.
By the way, the Russians will call him not "a puppet ", but "useful idiot". Check Wikipedia for the meaning.
5
Does this mean we'll be hearing Donald whine for the next four years? He has the ability to render adequate people (especially women), inadequate so he can feel adequate.
4
Did we watch the same debate? Hillary commanded this debate, making me and millions of other women insanely proud of her. It's over.
20
I am certainly no Trump supporter, but I disagree with Carol Giacomo about the importance of Vladimir Putin's role in the campaign: yes, it is regrettable and wrong that a foreign government has apparently hacked American citizens' email messages and is releasing them during this campaign season. But Clinton raised the issue of Putin in order to sidestep moderator Chris Wallace's question about Clinton's email messages. Wallace generally did a good job tonight, but he allowed Clinton to get away with not answering the question about her email messages. The content of Clinton's email messages has been embarrassing, although not awful enough to disqualify her from being president. But, frankly, I consider her decision to install her own private email server, so that she could delete messages without a trace, a disqualifier, irrespective of whether she exposed classified documents. Also, as for the leaked Clinton email messages, I believe that the New York Times, like all newspapers, has (rightly) reported on their content. So it seems to me that the Times is apparently quite willing to utilize information that Putin's regime has made available about the Clinton campaign. So, if Trump is benefiting from Putin's hackers, so are American newspapers.
1
It's nice that so many individuals think their judgement about the private server and its security risks is more thoughtful, grounded and professional than the FBI's, but once we stop accepting the work of authorized professionals as competent, we are left with mob rule—precisely what Drumpf is working up to. It's not a big leap from denying nearly a dozen investigations (at taxpayer cost) into Benghazi and the conclusions of a government agency about the use of an e-mail server to denying the results of an American election. Is that really where the US wants to go? Do we want a Putin wannabe running America?
I am OVER the emails...let's move forward! I doubt that she was thinking of deleting emails when she had the server installed. Even she could not have foreseen it! If she could have, she would have done it differently I am sure. MOVE ON!
Donald Trump denigrated all American women tonight with his "nasty woman" comment. We are half the voting public, lest he not forget.
8
Yes, Emily Bazelon! So proud of Hillary owning her feminism and standing up for reproductive rights.
8
Donald Trump is a despicable misogynist. This does not make Clinton a feminist.
A woman who has taken her husband's name and obliterated her own-- dropping Rodham for the expediency of running under the name of a man who won a presidential election, to me, is not a feminist.
The fact that she is upholding Roe vs. Wade, which is law, makes her reasonable and responsible. The groping, arrogant, geriatric frat boy as her opponent sets the bar very low for presenting one's self as a feminist. Clinton is a formidable politician, excellent Secretary of State and extremely qualified, but it takes a whole lot more to be a feminist. I'd love to see her develop into one.
A woman who has taken her husband's name and obliterated her own-- dropping Rodham for the expediency of running under the name of a man who won a presidential election, to me, is not a feminist.
The fact that she is upholding Roe vs. Wade, which is law, makes her reasonable and responsible. The groping, arrogant, geriatric frat boy as her opponent sets the bar very low for presenting one's self as a feminist. Clinton is a formidable politician, excellent Secretary of State and extremely qualified, but it takes a whole lot more to be a feminist. I'd love to see her develop into one.
Social Security is not an 'entitlement' and should not be referred to as such by NYT writers.
22
Anyone who has paid into the Social Security though her/his paycheck is entitled to receive payments.
Paula C from Montana: I totally agree! The debate moderator also referred to Social Security and Medicare as "entitlements." That is a very Republican way of framing the programs that make up our country's social safety net--as created by FDR and LBJ, Democrats both. Hillary wants to invest in these programs and expand them to offer more.
I agree. We pay out of our own pocket for social security so why do you all think it's an entitlement? It is not. The republicans have been trying to get their hands on it now for years so that they can pocket it and lose it.
"Mr. Trump has already won in one way: He’s made a gigantic mess, and somebody else has to clean it up."
How is making a gigantic mess a victory?
Is this literature? Not so much as anything Bob Dylan has written.
How is making a gigantic mess a victory?
Is this literature? Not so much as anything Bob Dylan has written.
1
"But at least we were entertained." Which is, of course, what the vast majority of media outlets prefer. Keep us gasping at Trump's petty foibles, all the while rubber stamping the Clinton coronation. The Donald will trash the entire, finely balanced (and supremely comfortable - for its denizens) Washington ecosystem. Go Donald!
2
Here's the connection, which is easy to explain:
1. Mr. Trump has said number of times that Mr. Putin is a great leader.
2. Mr. Putin has called Mr. Trump "a colorful person", which is the closest to a compliment you could get.
3. Gen. Flynn has been paid "so much" (his words!) for an interview by RT, and "had no problem sitting next to Putin" (his words) -- at the same time while Mr. Putin is bashing US and Obama. On the same table was also Jill Stein.
4. Both Gen. Flynn and Mrs. Stein repeat the Russian policy positions - on Syria, and on possible nuclear war.
5. Russian journalist Alexander Sotnik provides story, which is shivering: in one Moscow school kids age 9 were told that "if Hillary Clinton is elected President of the USA, then there will be a nuclear war, and all kids will die. The teacher also explained that the US created mosquitoes that infect children with cancer".
Do we need more evidence??
Isn't there a pattern, or is Mr. Trump following what Mr. Flynn is advising, and what is being spread as rumor and official propaganda in Russia?
1. Mr. Trump has said number of times that Mr. Putin is a great leader.
2. Mr. Putin has called Mr. Trump "a colorful person", which is the closest to a compliment you could get.
3. Gen. Flynn has been paid "so much" (his words!) for an interview by RT, and "had no problem sitting next to Putin" (his words) -- at the same time while Mr. Putin is bashing US and Obama. On the same table was also Jill Stein.
4. Both Gen. Flynn and Mrs. Stein repeat the Russian policy positions - on Syria, and on possible nuclear war.
5. Russian journalist Alexander Sotnik provides story, which is shivering: in one Moscow school kids age 9 were told that "if Hillary Clinton is elected President of the USA, then there will be a nuclear war, and all kids will die. The teacher also explained that the US created mosquitoes that infect children with cancer".
Do we need more evidence??
Isn't there a pattern, or is Mr. Trump following what Mr. Flynn is advising, and what is being spread as rumor and official propaganda in Russia?
6
Here is the summary: Hillary and Trump both had their most substantive debate performances, but Donald Trump refused to say he would accept the results of American democracy. This probably seals his fate with any remaining 'persuadable' voters.
How the GOP leadership responds to this declaration of hostility to our democratic system will be telling.
How the GOP leadership responds to this declaration of hostility to our democratic system will be telling.
7
Sorry Lex, if this was a substantive performance by Trump, what would a bar-room brawl look like? Calling his opponent a liar is not debating. Blaming her for things she obviously did not do is not debating (e.g., George W. Bush signed the Status of Forces Agreement that set the timetable for withdrawal of troops from Iraq.) Libya: Check the recent debate in the UK House of Commons during which the MPs blamed Cameron for going for regime change and then dropping the ball. Trump's refusal to say he'd accept the election outcome was all of a piece with his campaign record.
True, Anna. Trump has made a mess and somebody has to clean it up. But that happens when republicans are in any way able. They make a mess. They give away treasury surpluses as tax cuts for the rich, start wars that have no ends, kill regulation and implode the world economy. And more, much more. Now it's Trump's turn to make a republican mess. And again, as always, democrats will have to clean up after him. When will this dynamic become clear to the rump republicans? Or are they having too much nihilistic fun to care?
5
I certainly agree that Roe v. Wade should be upheld, and that Mrs. Clinton's likely picks for the U.S. Supreme Court are among the strongest reasons to vote for her. But I disagree with Emily Bazelon when she writes that Clinton has not soft-pedaled her support for Roe in this sense: I think that supporters of Roe should state plainly that they support a woman's right to have an abortion, and stop resorting to euphemisms about "personal and intimate decisions about healthcare." I wish that more feminists would talk plainly, honestly, and openly about abortion, instead of masking this issue.
18
Me. Trump just proved all of us that he doesn't know how to lose - he whines, he behaves as a sportsman, who's terrible at performance, but blames the referee, the weather, the fans. This is how the bully behaves at school, when confronted by someone, who's not afraid of him; I know that, I've been bullied myself, and when I'd stood up, the bullies always behaved like Mr. Truml.
7
All adults see a bully for what they are, and most adults realize confronting them usually takes them down. Too bad none of the 16 othernRepiblican clowns, the RNC and prominent HOPs could not see what was painfully obvious to all who were not blinded by ambition, and selfish opportunistic motives.
Lots of countries limit ELECTIVE abortion to the first trimester. Germany, Italy, India, etc.
But in America the hard question is never asked, is it OK to have a late abortion without an emergency?
To say, "We cannot second guess the "mother" and we must keep the government out of it" seems like a cop out.
There is the life of a child at stake and it seems to me the government's duty to protect that life UNLESS there is a verified emergency of some sort.
That does not apply to contraception or to day after pills. These SHOULD be up to the person concerned.
But if we are humane it should apply to all ELECTIVE late abortions once the fetus has developed enough to have a beating heart.
-----------------
The impression I got from the debate was that Hillary was well prepared and not sincere.
Trump was more sincere but was not as well prepared and he did seem to meet some hard questions with lies.
But in America the hard question is never asked, is it OK to have a late abortion without an emergency?
To say, "We cannot second guess the "mother" and we must keep the government out of it" seems like a cop out.
There is the life of a child at stake and it seems to me the government's duty to protect that life UNLESS there is a verified emergency of some sort.
That does not apply to contraception or to day after pills. These SHOULD be up to the person concerned.
But if we are humane it should apply to all ELECTIVE late abortions once the fetus has developed enough to have a beating heart.
-----------------
The impression I got from the debate was that Hillary was well prepared and not sincere.
Trump was more sincere but was not as well prepared and he did seem to meet some hard questions with lies.
"There is the life of a child at stake..."
Indeed. Your point would be much more valid if that concern for the life of the child didn't end the day he or she is born. Paid parental leave, subsidized child care, quality K-12 education, free or next-to-free college or trade school, a living wage for the parents, and most of all cradle to grave health care are all offered in places like Germany and Sweden. (I don't know about Italy or India.) If we care so much about the life of the child that we are going to require poor women to give birth after the first trimester, (wealthy and middle class women have always had access to abortions and always will, no matter what the law,) then we need to demonstrate that care after the child is born as well.
Indeed. Your point would be much more valid if that concern for the life of the child didn't end the day he or she is born. Paid parental leave, subsidized child care, quality K-12 education, free or next-to-free college or trade school, a living wage for the parents, and most of all cradle to grave health care are all offered in places like Germany and Sweden. (I don't know about Italy or India.) If we care so much about the life of the child that we are going to require poor women to give birth after the first trimester, (wealthy and middle class women have always had access to abortions and always will, no matter what the law,) then we need to demonstrate that care after the child is born as well.
When did being prepared become a bad thing? I think the President of the most powerful nation on earth should be EXPECTED to be prepared...that should be one of the minimum requirements we expect from the person making decisions as our Commander-in-Chief.
If I were going into surgery I would expect my doctor to be prepared. If I were going into court I would expect my lawyer to be prepared. If I were going into the classroom I would expect my teacher to be prepared. The motto of the Boy Scouts of America is "Be prepared." When people want a job done right by any other person they plan to hire, they darn well expect that person to be prepared to do the job they've been hired to do.
Why is it that when a powerful woman is prepared it is a deficit? How does being prepared make her insincere? Isn't it a whole lot more insincere to care so little about what you say that you go into a debate with no preparation whatsoever?
If I were going into surgery I would expect my doctor to be prepared. If I were going into court I would expect my lawyer to be prepared. If I were going into the classroom I would expect my teacher to be prepared. The motto of the Boy Scouts of America is "Be prepared." When people want a job done right by any other person they plan to hire, they darn well expect that person to be prepared to do the job they've been hired to do.
Why is it that when a powerful woman is prepared it is a deficit? How does being prepared make her insincere? Isn't it a whole lot more insincere to care so little about what you say that you go into a debate with no preparation whatsoever?
Evasive on abortion? He was evasive, meaning totally ignoring and not addressing every single question he was asked!
4
Yes, you're absolutely right that Trump, who cannot state any coherent ideas about his own policies, will work hard to try to convince people not to elect Hillary. Evidence from that came clearly in the closing minutes--Hillary said she hoped she had our trust and that we would elect her as President, and all Trump could do was point to her and say if we elect her, it is four more years of Obama. I, too, am relieved that these debates are over, and hope never to be listening to Trump's voice again for a 90-minute timespan.
38
It has been a long-standing, systematized strategy of the Republican Party to suppress the votes of any group of people unlikely to vote Republican, so naturally, Trump the narcissist projects this on the Democrats and his sycophants echo his charges.
8
So he won't accept the will of the voters? I hope this destroys both his candidacy and his business. We need a global boycott of everything TRUMP. I can afford to stay at his properties but wouldn't get caught dead there.
37
REPOST that everywhere! That should be the go forward battle cry!
Macy's sells Trump shirts and ties. I won't be buying them. They might as well throw them in the trash heap with their "Made in China" labels. I wouldn't take them if they were giving them away with $100 bills tucked into the front pocket.
Re: fiscal performance question. Clinton should have pointed out that the economy does better under Democratic Administrations. And maybe that a guy who's had six bankruptcies shouldn't be trusted with fiscal matters.
36
Trump was more awful than usual.
But I also have significant disagreements with Clinton. Those who received amnesty under Reagan subsequently brought in an average of 3 relatives apiece. If that pattern holds we're talking about another 33 million people beyond the original 11 million.
I disagree strongly with an automatic path to citizenship for those here illegally.
But I also have significant disagreements with Clinton. Those who received amnesty under Reagan subsequently brought in an average of 3 relatives apiece. If that pattern holds we're talking about another 33 million people beyond the original 11 million.
I disagree strongly with an automatic path to citizenship for those here illegally.
12
There is currently a net efflux of Mexicans, not an increasing number of undocumented immigrants to the US from Mexico.
12
Talking about people - lawful American residents and citizens - as "pieces" (as in "3 relatives apiece") - is exactly what makes Trump and his supporters "awful".
What is automatic? There is a normal naturalization process for those who can be accepted into it and most people say that those who have been citizens for life would be unable to pass the written knowledge test on basic information about this country, our Constitution and history. There is no reason to believe that process would be waived for a whole class of immigrants. If anything, there would be a step by step process.
The fundamental problem is how to deal with the existing situation without encouraging a whole new wave of the undocumented to come here. If 11 million immigrants were to be deported, it would be 4 million children, born here, would be taken to a foreign land and be told to cope with it. That's a lot of dislocation and underlying difficulty.
Immigration should be thought of and handled as a comprehensive problem that involves solutions to employment and other opportunities in the homelands of those who come here, particularly Mexico. It isn't just one problem, but a whole series of problems that have to be addressed to resolve this once and for all.
The fundamental problem is how to deal with the existing situation without encouraging a whole new wave of the undocumented to come here. If 11 million immigrants were to be deported, it would be 4 million children, born here, would be taken to a foreign land and be told to cope with it. That's a lot of dislocation and underlying difficulty.
Immigration should be thought of and handled as a comprehensive problem that involves solutions to employment and other opportunities in the homelands of those who come here, particularly Mexico. It isn't just one problem, but a whole series of problems that have to be addressed to resolve this once and for all.
1
In the view of this American expat, the candidates were themselves and there were no surprises in that.
What bothers me is Arthur Brooks, who heads that infamous American Enterprise Institute the output of which has been repeatedly been debunked by Krugman and others.
Brooks and his minions insult my intelligence repeatedly and here he has the nerve to criticize people who insult. Brooks should be embarrassed to show his face.
What bothers me is Arthur Brooks, who heads that infamous American Enterprise Institute the output of which has been repeatedly been debunked by Krugman and others.
Brooks and his minions insult my intelligence repeatedly and here he has the nerve to criticize people who insult. Brooks should be embarrassed to show his face.
122
As usual I agree with Paul Krugman's comment and analysis. The national debt is relatively unimportant but what is important is fiscal stimulus and president Obama's role in that in 2008 and later.
"The past eight years have actually been a huge experiment in macroeconomics. Saying that the Obama stimulus was followed by slow growth is a terrible argument: When you spend money to fight a terrible slump, weren’t any disappointments in performance arguably caused by whatever caused the slump, not by the rescue operation? But we have a lot of other evidence, all of which says that spending money in a slump helps the economy, and that the Obama stimulus was therefore the right thing to do." I will go with the Nobel Prize winning economist every time.
"The past eight years have actually been a huge experiment in macroeconomics. Saying that the Obama stimulus was followed by slow growth is a terrible argument: When you spend money to fight a terrible slump, weren’t any disappointments in performance arguably caused by whatever caused the slump, not by the rescue operation? But we have a lot of other evidence, all of which says that spending money in a slump helps the economy, and that the Obama stimulus was therefore the right thing to do." I will go with the Nobel Prize winning economist every time.
72
The problem being that the stimulus was never as big as planned (GOP resistance to cough up the money) and too small from the start.
If you can borrow money at almost 0% interest, it is sad that not more has been done. More people could have in the workforce. More people would have been consuming. More production would happen, more energy spent. Energy prices would be higher and alternative energy would be more competitive, the world cleaner. But, with the GOP, you won't go there, ever
If you can borrow money at almost 0% interest, it is sad that not more has been done. More people could have in the workforce. More people would have been consuming. More production would happen, more energy spent. Energy prices would be higher and alternative energy would be more competitive, the world cleaner. But, with the GOP, you won't go there, ever
Krugman's happens to be right about this. But this is in spite of, not because, he has a "Nobel Prize" in Economics. The Economics "Nobel" has nothing to do with the other prizes endowed by the inventor of dynamite. It is rather a wholly separate creation of a consortium of conservative Swedish bankers interested in giving the imprimatur of science to the their self-serving neoliberal ideology. While Krugman's postures as a critic of the worst neoliberals, he is very much a neoliberal himself, as evidenced in his loyalty to Clinton and hostility towards Bernie Sanders during the primaries.
Seems to me what Trump really exposes, in his thinking that the US system is like a business or a game show, is that the capitalist market system and democracy are not directly linked, and he continues to want to separate them: lower taxes, favour the wealthy, drive hard deals and make everyone else pay. Because "letting the markets rip" is precisely what undermines equality, justice and opportunity in the US and throughout the world. That's the systemic critique that 'liberal democracy' can't digest, or allow, or even understand.
54
He said "bad hambres," which might be funny coming from someone who actually speaks Spanish.
17
Make that "hombres." And adios to the Latino vote, Senor Trump.
There's nothing to laugh at. "He's a real nowhere man/sitting in his nowhere land/Isn't he a bit like you and me? (NOT!)
1
So here is my question: if Trump did not assault women, does that mean he is all talk and not action? If so, then that is how we must view all his rhetoric during the campaign , if not then he should be prosecuted.
56
YES, I understand the theoretical advantages to the Yes-Means-Yes standard, and think it is, for the most part, a fine idea when engaging in sexual intercourse. However, under Ms. Friedman's proposal:
does a wife have to ask her husband for verbal consent every time she kisses him?
does a woman have to ask for my consent if she kisses my cheek in greeting? or gives me a hug if I'm in a state of despair? what if i think the woman has more than plutonic feelings for me?
verbal consent for every action? for a kiss? then for a french kiss? then for "heavy petting" above the waist?, then below?, then for hands inside a shjrt? then for each item of clothing removed? then for..... there are 100 times during a consensual experience where verbal consent could be required.
Also, the fact that kissing without permission is now a form of sexual assault makes it clear that we need a much more expanded vocabulary around the topic. Because the "sexual assault" of trying to kiss someone without permission is not the same as the sexual assault committed by Brock Turner.
Finally, is there a negative aspect in making people feel violated when they otherwise wouldn't? Is there only one correct standard across all ages, areas, and cultures? Should the 20-30 somethings in the Baltimore clubs be forced to enact the same cultural standards re: courtship and appropriate behavior as the students at Wesleyan?
does a wife have to ask her husband for verbal consent every time she kisses him?
does a woman have to ask for my consent if she kisses my cheek in greeting? or gives me a hug if I'm in a state of despair? what if i think the woman has more than plutonic feelings for me?
verbal consent for every action? for a kiss? then for a french kiss? then for "heavy petting" above the waist?, then below?, then for hands inside a shjrt? then for each item of clothing removed? then for..... there are 100 times during a consensual experience where verbal consent could be required.
Also, the fact that kissing without permission is now a form of sexual assault makes it clear that we need a much more expanded vocabulary around the topic. Because the "sexual assault" of trying to kiss someone without permission is not the same as the sexual assault committed by Brock Turner.
Finally, is there a negative aspect in making people feel violated when they otherwise wouldn't? Is there only one correct standard across all ages, areas, and cultures? Should the 20-30 somethings in the Baltimore clubs be forced to enact the same cultural standards re: courtship and appropriate behavior as the students at Wesleyan?
4
Most people do understand where the boundary is between friendly affection and sexual assault, notwithstanding your efforts to make it seem confusing.
14
Trump was not on a date with any of these women. He allegedly assaulted them while in a professional setting; therefore, it was not consensual.
1
Plutonic?
1
Whoop dee do! It's over, all but the voting, Trump can go back to pushing conspiracy theories and urging his supporters to harm Clinton, and I don't just mean at the ballot box.
I thought she did her characteristic good job, particularly on the issues of abortion and the Supreme Court. She was also far superior on foreign policy. I don't think she lost any voters, and might have added a few with her sober reasoning and even-tempered tone.
The most upset she got was when the whole room gasped at Trump's assertion that he wouldn't accept the results of the election. I believe that was the coup de grace for any undecided voter still agonizing over their choice.
But what I really hope is that it gives Paul Ryan the courage to finally say, "Enough!" and give his members carte blanche to stop with the pretense of supporting a mad man who has proved, over and over, he lacks every single criterion for the presidency, from intellect and mastery of policy to temperament and judgment.
Good riddance, Donald. I'd love to think you'd exit the scene with your screaming darkness, but I suspect we won't be so lucky as you seek once again to profit from the misery of others.
I thought she did her characteristic good job, particularly on the issues of abortion and the Supreme Court. She was also far superior on foreign policy. I don't think she lost any voters, and might have added a few with her sober reasoning and even-tempered tone.
The most upset she got was when the whole room gasped at Trump's assertion that he wouldn't accept the results of the election. I believe that was the coup de grace for any undecided voter still agonizing over their choice.
But what I really hope is that it gives Paul Ryan the courage to finally say, "Enough!" and give his members carte blanche to stop with the pretense of supporting a mad man who has proved, over and over, he lacks every single criterion for the presidency, from intellect and mastery of policy to temperament and judgment.
Good riddance, Donald. I'd love to think you'd exit the scene with your screaming darkness, but I suspect we won't be so lucky as you seek once again to profit from the misery of others.
141
As usual, I agree with you, Christine. However, I believe "good riddance" is premature. I believe The Donald's intent is to set up his own media outlet to rival FOX and make his deplorable followers a Prime Time audience. His game is entertainment of the alt-right type: Undermining democracy.
Don't hold your breath with the Paul Ryan thing. He will most surely not rescind his endorsement.
Although I have disliked Mrs. Clinton during her entire political career, I must say that her debating skills are excellent.
That said, I have always respected Roe v Wade; I'm a 65 year old woman, why would I not?
At that time, abortions were mainly done during the first trimester.
Personally, I believe that abortion in the late stages of pregnancy is murder. And I'm a woman who choose to not be a parent.
Abortion is not birth control. If a pregnant women is murdered, there are, at least, two charges of homocide assessed.
Thank you.
That said, I have always respected Roe v Wade; I'm a 65 year old woman, why would I not?
At that time, abortions were mainly done during the first trimester.
Personally, I believe that abortion in the late stages of pregnancy is murder. And I'm a woman who choose to not be a parent.
Abortion is not birth control. If a pregnant women is murdered, there are, at least, two charges of homocide assessed.
Thank you.
I expect there will be questions about the heat in the stage area : was his podium rigged to make him sweat so
20
T Tritch says Trump's tax cuts on wealthy people would stimulate the economy in the short-run. I doubt it. As an economist, I can think of only one circumstance under which tax cuts on wealthy people would actually stimulate business investment: if there was a shortage of capital for businesses to obtain as equity capital, or to borrow. With the globalization of capital sources for business, that circumstance hasn't existed during the 36 years that Reagan first proposed this "Voodoo economics" as correctly identified by George H.W. Bush in 1980, and repeatedly debunked by economists since including Krugman. This absurd policy again shows that Trump is not only an incompetent candidate, but represents the GOP and its incompetent economic policies since 1980.
68
Why hasn't it been called by its true name? "Piddle Down Economics"
1
This is all behind me now, thank god! California has mail in voting, and I did so today. Have fun y'all, I'm watching the sunset.
37
Lucky you! I'll join you in a week!
3
Chinese women have no problem stiff arming an unwanted advance, or screaming when touched inappropriately, or turning their back on a forward acquaintance. What's with you girls in America?
3
We have no problem doing that either. But we -- and Chinese women -- shouldn't have to. You're blaming the victims instead of the assailants.
Thanks for the illuminating comment, Blake. Do you actually know any women (whether in China or the United States)?
2
I wonder if the groper in chief has ever had his itty bitty family jewels kicked by a woman who he was trying to molest.
1
I am sorry, but it has not been my lifelong habit to ask a woman if she wants to be kissed. In High School, at the end of a first date, I would lean in hopefully. My lips were met with lips, or with a cheek, or with complete evasion. Obviously the first made me happy, the second less so, the latter, not at all. But I never pushed the issue. I also never verbally asked for permission, which seems to me to be a complete repudiation of human spontaneity, indeed of humanity.
We need to understand that a lot of this interaction does not take place between men and women, but between boys and girls. Both should grow up in families and communities that teach them responsibility for their actions, and the difference between right and wrong.
Dan Kravitz
We need to understand that a lot of this interaction does not take place between men and women, but between boys and girls. Both should grow up in families and communities that teach them responsibility for their actions, and the difference between right and wrong.
Dan Kravitz
17
The genuinely spontaneous kiss need not be a casualty of legitimate concerns over issues of consent, Dan. Asking is a good way to be sure, but there are still nonverbal ways that consent can be freely given. There's a very good way to know when that has happened -- the recipient of the kiss doesn't call their friends and family in distress in the days and weeks after the fact as occurred with many of Trump's accusers. Contrary to your insinuations we are not talking here about miscues, situations in which the kisser mistakenly thinks a kiss is welcome when it isn't. We are talking about repeated aggressive assaults on women by a man who thinks he can just take what he wants. A miscue can lead to a deflection or a rebuff, which can be awkward, but if it ends with your unwanted tongue in her mouth you have crossed a different line and are engaged in an assault. The reason for the emphasis on verbal consent is that many people are apparently confused about where this line actually is, cross it and retrospectively convince themselves that it was just a miscue. Don't be that guy, Dan. Getting verbal consent needn't kill the mood and in any event is always sexier than leaning in and being dodged, and is even sexier still than an assault charge or a restraining order. If you've had a kiss rebuffed, that's a signal that you aren't as suave an interpreter of body language as you think and that maybe you should use your words.
I always try to skip the spin room. There are limits to what one's mind should bombarded with.
12
I really thought this was an Onion article.
9
The Trouble for Team trump bit seems like its misrepresenting what Conway said. Reading the paragraph on it, I got the impression that Conway was acknowledging that they were doing horribly and it was their own fault. That being an astonishing moment of self-awareness which I did not expect from the Trump campaign, I followed the link to see this great marvel in its full glory. I was, of course, disappointed. Conway appears instead to be arguing that the deck is stacked against Trump, but he and his team are the scrappy underdogs who are going beat Hillary in spite of her powerful allies. Unless I'm badly misreading the Times' paragraph on this subject, it seems like this was a very bad and misleading bit of journalism.
1
" failing to ask women whether they’d like to be kissed or groped before proceeding — isn’t sex. It’s a violation."
In that case lots of actors need to be in prison. For instance in Funny Face, Fred Astaire kisses Audrey Hepburn without asking for permission. "Why did you do that?" she asks. "Because you looked like you wanted to be kissed."
Should Fred Astaire have gone to prison?
I kissed my own wife without asking permission. Perhaps the "permission" consisted in the fact that she became my girl friend and eventually married me. But of course I did not know WHEN I kissed her that she would agree to be my girl friend. Perhaps she should have called the police?
Basically the author is creating a mine field for gender relations and anything which could be courtship could be interpreted as "violation".
It will not deter people like Trump who can always count on a good lawyer to get them out of a scrape. But anyone with less aggressiveness than Trump might decide to avoid women altogether.
In that case lots of actors need to be in prison. For instance in Funny Face, Fred Astaire kisses Audrey Hepburn without asking for permission. "Why did you do that?" she asks. "Because you looked like you wanted to be kissed."
Should Fred Astaire have gone to prison?
I kissed my own wife without asking permission. Perhaps the "permission" consisted in the fact that she became my girl friend and eventually married me. But of course I did not know WHEN I kissed her that she would agree to be my girl friend. Perhaps she should have called the police?
Basically the author is creating a mine field for gender relations and anything which could be courtship could be interpreted as "violation".
It will not deter people like Trump who can always count on a good lawyer to get them out of a scrape. But anyone with less aggressiveness than Trump might decide to avoid women altogether.
5
I thought back to the first time my husband kissed me, on our first date. He is very tall, and had to bend down like a giraffe in order to do so! He didn't ask me. Had he asked, of course I would have said "yes" but he could not have known that in advance.
I guess he's a brute and a rapist, and I'm a victim of abuse!
We've been married for almost 25 years.
I guess he's a brute and a rapist, and I'm a victim of abuse!
We've been married for almost 25 years.
10
Oh, please. This issue is about making unwanted sexual advances toward women with whom he did not have an established personal relationship. You cite movies (!?) and you admit a personal relationship with your wife (once girlfriend). How about if you leaned forward and kissed a beautiful woman on an elevator just because she was "like a magnet"? How would your behavior be judged?
6
Of course, the formal permission route to a physical relationship has the feel of a completely artificial scenario. This is a struggle to address a real problem, though: how does a person - usually a female person - establish a limit that is honored? Or stop a process which she feels has gone too far? The problem is that too many women ( and girls) have been attacked by men, young or old, who ignore any negative signals, the subtle or not so subtle, up to fending off with every ounce of strength.
With Trump -- the violations of body and trust he boasted of - and was accused of - were not the equivalent of a buss on the cheek, or flirting, but involved forcing unwanted touches - and on women with whom he had no prior relationship. The settings in which they occurred were often business related - the women not his dates - and his contact was simply wrong. He seems to lack any sense of the feelings or rights of others, which also is not normal for most men or women, who are constantly struggling to read one another's minds.
With Trump -- the violations of body and trust he boasted of - and was accused of - were not the equivalent of a buss on the cheek, or flirting, but involved forcing unwanted touches - and on women with whom he had no prior relationship. The settings in which they occurred were often business related - the women not his dates - and his contact was simply wrong. He seems to lack any sense of the feelings or rights of others, which also is not normal for most men or women, who are constantly struggling to read one another's minds.
2
Yes means yes is clearly the right moral answer.
But as legally implemented by Ms.Friedman and her allies it is discriminatory, hypocritical and deeply inhumane.
As legally implemented by the "yes means yes" movement:
-- only men have faced enforcement if they do not obtain a yes from their partners, not a single woman punished or expelled from school for failure to ask a man for consent;
-- a woman is later allowed to say her "yes" did not mean "yes" under a wide variety of circumstances, for example if she had a beer (being buzzed=being unable to consent), or if the man asked her twice before she said yes (yes means yes advocates call that as coercion);
-- the yes means yes standard is a presumption of guilt -- a man must prove that he received a yes, but because sexual encounters typically take place in private, it a legal burden that cannot be met unless the entire sexual encounter is video'd (which yes means yes activists are working hard to make illegal, so even such evidence would be inadmissible);
-- the claim that false sexual assault allegations are rare is clearly untrue -- the FBI and Scotland Yard both found that between 8% and 10% of rape allegations are absolutely, positively, provably false -- and that is just rape subject to a full criminal investigation.
Yes means yes is sex by "Simon Says" rules. As a legal standard it is a witch hunt against men.
But as legally implemented by Ms.Friedman and her allies it is discriminatory, hypocritical and deeply inhumane.
As legally implemented by the "yes means yes" movement:
-- only men have faced enforcement if they do not obtain a yes from their partners, not a single woman punished or expelled from school for failure to ask a man for consent;
-- a woman is later allowed to say her "yes" did not mean "yes" under a wide variety of circumstances, for example if she had a beer (being buzzed=being unable to consent), or if the man asked her twice before she said yes (yes means yes advocates call that as coercion);
-- the yes means yes standard is a presumption of guilt -- a man must prove that he received a yes, but because sexual encounters typically take place in private, it a legal burden that cannot be met unless the entire sexual encounter is video'd (which yes means yes activists are working hard to make illegal, so even such evidence would be inadmissible);
-- the claim that false sexual assault allegations are rare is clearly untrue -- the FBI and Scotland Yard both found that between 8% and 10% of rape allegations are absolutely, positively, provably false -- and that is just rape subject to a full criminal investigation.
Yes means yes is sex by "Simon Says" rules. As a legal standard it is a witch hunt against men.
6
If you read the accounts of the women upon whom Trump asserted his prerogatives, you don't see a situation in which a man has some existing personal relationship with a woman, and decides to try a kiss. You see a sexual assault. We don't need to decide right now just what the legal standard should be for considering a kiss an assault, because Trump also grabs women's breasts and genitals without asking permission -- not because he thinks they want it but because he thinks he cannot be stopped.
89
Is that really how the law is written -- that it's only enforceable against men?
2
Trump should face two questions -- his tax returns and any real evidence regarding widespread allegations of sexual abuse and predatory behavior. Hillary has been cleared of wrongdoing and the moderator would do well not to burden himself with the charge that he trying to create equivalency where there is none.
30
Unfortunately, no one will learn anything beyond the casinos tonight. Trump and Breitbart Bannon have assembled a star studded line up of "guests" to shake up Hillary. In true alt-right fashion they are digging in the sewer pit in hopes of bring shame and stumble upon Hillary. It's going to be ugly and no one will learn anything other than that Trump is full on alt-right scorched earth until Nov. 8th.
Las Vegas will have to wait if it wants to show America more.
Las Vegas will have to wait if it wants to show America more.
1
Glamorous? Las Vegas is a trashy dump. Perfect venue for tonight's debate.
3
The effect of post-debate spinning is yet another reason why voters should be required to receive some basic political/psychological education before being permitted to vote.
1
Maybe the same could be said for parenthood...
Yes it does. In fact, I'll not even watch the debate; just the spin and the media's reaction to it. That will be what we'll hear all week.
Everyone is wise to Kellyanne Con-artist and it's not working anymore.
2
one thing we truly deserve is anyone thinking rush hambough has any validity should turn off the lights. there is no one home and we could save the energy
2
The ''spin'' only works when the press ( just like moderators ) don't follow up.
Talking points that go unchallenged then take on the appearance of ''fact'' that carry on.
Talking points that go unchallenged then take on the appearance of ''fact'' that carry on.
1
Does post-debate spin work ?
Apparently -- for the spinners. It keeps them employed.
And, it also explains why most of them are against Trump. He spends so little, and makes these people feel stiffed.
Apparently -- for the spinners. It keeps them employed.
And, it also explains why most of them are against Trump. He spends so little, and makes these people feel stiffed.
1
Consent is never implied. If you don't understand that by now there's something wrong with you.
2
Actually the Buddha often said yes by staying silent.
If you are approaching a woman with clear intention to kiss her and she does not move away or turn her face then she is implicitly agreeing to the kiss.
There is something wrong with SOMEONE but it is not your reader.
If you are approaching a woman with clear intention to kiss her and she does not move away or turn her face then she is implicitly agreeing to the kiss.
There is something wrong with SOMEONE but it is not your reader.
2
OK, Chris. Then tell me how that works. When you meet a girl you like...go out on a date....and it's time to go home....you ask her explicitly if you can hold her hand or kiss her? do you whip out a document and a pen, so she can SIGN it and thereby protect you from future accusations?
What if the two of you consumed some alcohol? At what point is she too inebriated to even give consent -- written, verbal, implied? One drink? two drinks? ten drinks? What if it's a shared joint of marijuana and not alcohol? One puff? half a joint?
What if she consents verbally and then the next day, frostily texts you and tells you that -- looking back on the evening -- you used your personality and mojo and influence to MAKE HER kiss you, and therefore, you have violated her.
Are you guilty? Will you present yourself at the city jail, for immediate punishment?
What if the two of you consumed some alcohol? At what point is she too inebriated to even give consent -- written, verbal, implied? One drink? two drinks? ten drinks? What if it's a shared joint of marijuana and not alcohol? One puff? half a joint?
What if she consents verbally and then the next day, frostily texts you and tells you that -- looking back on the evening -- you used your personality and mojo and influence to MAKE HER kiss you, and therefore, you have violated her.
Are you guilty? Will you present yourself at the city jail, for immediate punishment?
3
Re: Cosent debate
I think Trump should acknowledge the problem of sexual abuse in our country. He can say he came from the showbiz world where such things are seen differently. (Maybe that is what Ted Cruz meant by New York City values.) He should say he is now in the real world and will use his experience to promote awareness and solve this problem.
I think Trump should acknowledge the problem of sexual abuse in our country. He can say he came from the showbiz world where such things are seen differently. (Maybe that is what Ted Cruz meant by New York City values.) He should say he is now in the real world and will use his experience to promote awareness and solve this problem.
1
"He should say he is now in the real world"
Was he EVER in the real world?
Hillary is a very weak candidate and Trump could have won.
But he preferred to win the race to the bottom and he won THAT race.
Was he EVER in the real world?
Hillary is a very weak candidate and Trump could have won.
But he preferred to win the race to the bottom and he won THAT race.
1
Vegas represents everything that is wrong with America and humanity. Build an unsustainable city in the middle of a flipping desert. The population exploded and no one knows when lake Meade will become too low to sustain it all. Do we ever think about our future, ever? . But all the conservatives care about is abortion abortion abortion.
13
I honestly do not think that conservatives built Las Vegas, nor that the millions who vacation or party there are overwhelmingly conservative.
2
Does anyone else see the possibility that Trump, with nothing to lose, will behave in an even more erratic fashion than he has at the previous debates? I don't think Trump could look much worse but we might find out just how low low really is for Trump.
4
I don't think that all thoughtful people agree with the "yes means yes" standard of consent. Lots of people have consensual sex without talking. Yes means yes is a nice fairytale for the simple minded. A more appropriate standard is that sex is okay with consent that is freely and voluntarily given. You don't have to go: "may I have sex with you now?" and wait for him/her to say "yes."
9
Well then how about no means no if you can't seem to understand the yes means yes.
Jacelyn Friedman (this op ed) writes: "Failing to ask women if they'd like to be kissed or groped isn't sex--it's violation".
Setting aside the question of whether there is ever a place for a spontaneous kiss, I am having difficulty imagining a man (any man) asking "May I [blush] . . . grope you now?", and even more difficulty imagining a woman (any woman) replying: "Yes! Grope me!"
Setting aside the question of whether there is ever a place for a spontaneous kiss, I am having difficulty imagining a man (any man) asking "May I [blush] . . . grope you now?", and even more difficulty imagining a woman (any woman) replying: "Yes! Grope me!"
8
Because that is simply NOT how normal human beings -- male, female, straight, gay -- court one another. They do not ask elaborate questions, and refrain from touching like they were in straight jackets. They do not get signed consent forms.
It is worth noting that most "consent" anyhow would be non-verbal -- a smile, a touch, a woman who leans her face up to a man's to be kissed -- and how would you EVER prove that in a court of law (or the court of public opinion)....a year, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years after the fact?
Did you smile and encourage the touch or kiss? or back away in horror? did you fight the guy off (even if you were weaker, you could put up a fuss) -- or call for help? or did you go along with it, because you liked it, or hoped a rich guy would do you favors -- or if you kissed the head of the pageant, you might win? or at least come in 2nd or 3rd? or get money or favors? Or be the new Mrs. Trump No. 4?
It is worth noting that most "consent" anyhow would be non-verbal -- a smile, a touch, a woman who leans her face up to a man's to be kissed -- and how would you EVER prove that in a court of law (or the court of public opinion)....a year, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years after the fact?
Did you smile and encourage the touch or kiss? or back away in horror? did you fight the guy off (even if you were weaker, you could put up a fuss) -- or call for help? or did you go along with it, because you liked it, or hoped a rich guy would do you favors -- or if you kissed the head of the pageant, you might win? or at least come in 2nd or 3rd? or get money or favors? Or be the new Mrs. Trump No. 4?
2
Not to be rude, but we all know that many women are for sale, by choice, to the highest bidder. Otherwise, the term 'sugar daddy' would not exist.
That is not to say that any of Trumps victims are like that. But, not all women are virtuous.
'I'm just saying...'
That is not to say that any of Trumps victims are like that. But, not all women are virtuous.
'I'm just saying...'
The second paragraph, which quotes Trump's campaign manager, is rather disingenuous through selective quoting. That said, at least the full context of her remark is given in the included link.
1
In a nutshell, Donald Trump is testosterone.
ONE nutshell?
8
Vegas glamorous? Really? In that case, Donny is distinguished, discerning, diplomatic.
What nonsense, best ignored.
What nonsense, best ignored.
4
A taco truck 'wall' in Vegas for the Presidential 'debate'...perfect!
12
Las Vegas is glamorous? By whose definition?
3
In Quick Response, De Blasio Calls Fatal Shooting of Mentally Ill Woman ‘Unacceptable’
By ELI ROSENBERG and ASHLEY SOUTHALL OCT. 19, 2016
It was an extra-judicial execution.
But since most Americans support such execution, there is nothing De Blasio, or any other mayor, can do about it.
Most Americans simply believe that it is acceptable for police officers to claim "self-defense."
By ELI ROSENBERG and ASHLEY SOUTHALL OCT. 19, 2016
It was an extra-judicial execution.
But since most Americans support such execution, there is nothing De Blasio, or any other mayor, can do about it.
Most Americans simply believe that it is acceptable for police officers to claim "self-defense."
3
There are two issues not dealt with here: 1) how are reporters/talking heads/commentators influenced by the spin doctors employed by the candidates in the immediate aftermath of the debate. If reporters couldn't be spun there wouldn't be spin doctors. 2) Why even have someone try to tell me who "won" the debate? There's no objective score or measure to determine who won, so it's a dubious concept at best. And, I can tell for myself.
14
Allowing anyone to tell you "who won" means you are incapable of interpreting these events for yourself. That's pretty much how Trump got ANY supporters. Lazy people, who are angry about who knows what, and want someone else to "do something about it."
5
Can we get rid of all pundits?
9
I think post-debate spin and its effectiveness is skewed in THIS election cycle due to the dominant presence of Donald Trump. His history weighs the discussion. He has played to the cameras unlike any other candidate due to his television stints. On the other hand, he had/has no debate experience whatsoever due to his lack of public office history. Combine these two factors with how Trump the candidate prepared for the debates (few if any facts and rely on my awesomeness) and he was a looming figure in both debates. From sniffles and anger on the split screen in #1 to actual looming and stalking in #2, Trump took the visual stage. He dominated but to his detriment.
5
We drove through Las Vegas once (Nevada is otherwise a beautiful state) but we didn't stop.
Why would ANYONE stop in such a place?
Why would ANYONE stop in such a place?
10
For gas. Or to see Celine Dion.
2
Yeah, I guess you are right. Nobody ever gambles, or drinks or parties.
Makes you wonder why the place even exists.
Makes you wonder why the place even exists.
4
Don't hate, appreciate. The Mob Museum is interesting, Big Elvis is pretty good and the contents of the now-closed Liberace Museum were a sight to behold.
1
Though you've mentioned that the response of those who only watched debate & no followup were indistinguishable- that wouldn't necessarily seem to mean that they didn't think one person was more persuasive. Please clarify.
1
We have a large medical meeting in LV - this meeting takes place in LV once every 5 years. We call LV the cigarette - always stay in a no S hotel.
New Orleans is our favorite meeting site - in 4 years!
New Orleans is our favorite meeting site - in 4 years!
2
The fact that Donald Trump is a Presidential candidate is proof-positive that spin works, but it's his own personal spin that sustains him, as opposed to network spin.
Trump has no business being a Presidential contender, but his personal spin gave him the Republican nomination.
But the Republican Party nomination is one thing - predicated on duping America's most famously impressionable, cognitively dissonant and deplorable citizens into flushing their votes down a demagogic toilet - while the general election is an altogether different animal than the Grand Old Poverty nomination.
Americans in general are more reasonable and reality-based than members of the Republican Party.
There's no spinning away the obvious fact that when you see Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton next to each other on the same stage, Hillary Clinton comes off as qualified, coherent, knowledgeable, reasonable and Presidential ....and Donald Trump comes off as angry, unstudied, temperamental, unqualified and a threat to national stability.
Fox can put all the lipstick it wants on its Naked Emperor Trump.
Most people see a national and international security threat when they see Donald Trump on a Presidential debate stage.
Heckuva job, GOP.
Trump has no business being a Presidential contender, but his personal spin gave him the Republican nomination.
But the Republican Party nomination is one thing - predicated on duping America's most famously impressionable, cognitively dissonant and deplorable citizens into flushing their votes down a demagogic toilet - while the general election is an altogether different animal than the Grand Old Poverty nomination.
Americans in general are more reasonable and reality-based than members of the Republican Party.
There's no spinning away the obvious fact that when you see Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton next to each other on the same stage, Hillary Clinton comes off as qualified, coherent, knowledgeable, reasonable and Presidential ....and Donald Trump comes off as angry, unstudied, temperamental, unqualified and a threat to national stability.
Fox can put all the lipstick it wants on its Naked Emperor Trump.
Most people see a national and international security threat when they see Donald Trump on a Presidential debate stage.
Heckuva job, GOP.
62
Sorry, your analysis is not clear. E.g., ""Those who watched the post-debate show on MSNBC viewed Hillary Clinton as more persuasive, more presidential and more likely to care about them than those who watched the post-debate show on Fox News. " And then, " Yet the effects of watching post-debate coverage did not disappear altogether: Even days later, Republicans who’d watched MSNBC’s post-debate coverage were still exceptionally favorable toward Mrs. Clinton." Ahhh, the consensus just after and later was that Hillary won, so what's your point?
The media did not seriously cover Trump from day one. They presented him uncritically as a unique personality, an upstart, and outsider. This slant shaped public opinion. While those of us from New York knew better, the rest of the country had no idea about Trump other than as a TV personality. His candidacy was fueled by free media coverage. Trump is loonier than Carson by a mile. Had the media done its job, Trump wouldn't be the candidate.
6
I expect Mr. Trump to wave three words "quid pro quo" repeatedly in the air like a bloody shirt, as if these words magically condemn Sec. Clinton to prison. He'll use the three words with a sneer, much as "Benghazi" is used by some, without ever explaining or understanding that not only is there nothing inherently criminal in quid pro quo, some might call it the "Art of the Deal." Anyway - in the Wikileaks nonstory he'll be referencing, it was NOT proposed by Sec. Clinton or her campaign and it was never followed up. Do such facts matter? What do you think? If he says "quid pro quo" fewer than six times, I don't know Donald. It reminds me of the antics of Joseph McCarthy and McCarthy's consigliere, Roy Cohn, who happens to have been Donald Trump's mentor. Roy: the self-hating gay Jewish disbarred ethically bereft loser who left behind this foul stench. What quid did we ever do to deserve such a quo?
5
Perhaps last night was the last straw. Yes, we finally have devolved to the five year old boy in a sandbox with his ludicrous comment, in front of a national audience: 'No puppet, I'm not a puppet, YOU'RE the puppet.' Neener neener.
We have only one more rung on the ladder to fall... Perhaps next week Donald will tell an adoring crowd of thousands: 'he who smelled it dealt it.'