The 1st Debate


IMO most people who are not members of the "elites" will see her performance as excessively robotic and programmed.  The constant wide eyed Kewpie doll smiling , eye rolling,  sneering, etc. was quite annoying.  It brought to mind Al Gore's behavior in 2000.

OTOH his inability to sustain a performance over 90 minutes is a turn off for those who think the president ought to work 18 hours a day for four years.   I don't share that view.  A person who works that much soon suffers from exhaustion that affects judgement.

IMO the polls will give her a rather uneven bounce for a few days and then return to a very close race.  pl

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

252 Responses to The 1st Debate

  1. kooshy says:

    Colonel, IMO there was nothing, zero to learn from this first debate, the line of issues and questioning , and the moderator
    amazingly knew what not to ask, IMO, questions, and the moderator were not unbiased. Obama’ birth certificate after 8 years, is not going to help solving anybody’ problem in this nation, except Hillary’.

  2. plantman says:

    I watched the debate with 5 other white, moderately-successful people (4 women which is Hillary’s demographic)
    Everyone thought Trump won on trade, but that the second half of the debate went to Hillary for “looking and sounding presidential”.
    Trump’s attack on Rosie O Donnell and his flagging attention-span appear to be a real handicap.
    There was no clear winner and certainly no TKO.

  3. notlurking says:


  4. John Minnerath says:

    “wide eyed Kewpie doll smiling , eye rolling, sneering, etc. was quite annoying”
    To say the least, she makes my skin crawl.
    The heavy pro Clinton bias from the moderator was also not unexpected.

  5. Edward Amame says:

    My concern was that the press would do to her what they did to Gore in 2000 — turn a win into abject failure. That’s not gonna happen to Clinton after last night.
    The race will still remain close though. Partisans saw what they wanted to see.

  6. LeaNder says:

    wide eyed Kewpie doll smiling , eye rolling, sneering
    Ok, was noted over here too, I had only the American original during the debate on TV.
    But may I ask something, I know it is absolutely irrelevant but on my mind nevertheless, maybe Tyler is around?
    I cannot recall having ever before come across someone that draws this type of audible breath while talking. What is that? It irritates me somehow. Sometimes its more frequent, close to every 10 seconds, sometimes its less.

  7. mike allen says:

    He certainly ran out of gas all the while trying to convince us that she was the one who had no stamina.
    I did not see any sneering by either one of them. She did try to use humor like a kindly grandmother towards an unruly toddler. An act of course, but an effective one.

  8. Degringolade says:

    I had to turn it off after around 30 minutes.
    Vapid and devoid of any substance, moderated by a fool.
    My truthful impression, both are just plain batshit crazy.

  9. Margaret Steinfels says:

    You’re referring to Trump? If so, let me add that I wanted to hand him a kleenex to blow his nose and stop the sniffling. Didn’t he have a handkerchief in his pocket?
    Col. Lang, if I may, the Kewpie doll remark…..unworthy.

  10. jonst says:

    Pray tell, who in “the press” would “do to her what they did Gore”? They did not like Gore. Had it out for him. You think THIS press core is going after Hillary?!!? Amazing. Where are they? On PBS? MSNBC? CNN? The Times? The Post? Hell, not even Fox, accept for Hannity. CBS? ABC? NBC? Come on man….

  11. Peter says:

    Trump was pressed for specifics on his economic plan, to which he argued that we should lower the corporate tax rate to 15% and renegotiate NAFTA. That’s pretty darn specific if you ask me. Most business owners I know think a plan like that is a fantastic idea.
    That was about the only thing of substance I heard. Hillary was of course allowed to skate by with vague assertions of “investing in education” with no real way to articulate how that would actually improve the economy. Holt had a difficult time trying to hid his bias.

  12. jonst says:

    It was a sorry spectacle from my perspective. But her job was to knock him out. Or, provoke him to knock himself out. He was not knocked out.

  13. tilde says:

    Debate goes to Clinton, simply because Trump couldn’t focus enough to put together any kind of detailed criticism on the many openings Clinton left him. I agree that her fake smile was very annoying. Agree that the moderator was leaning toward Clinton, but it was for things Trump deserved to be called out on. It would’ve been nice to see Clinton similarly challenged on things like Libya and the Clinton foundation, the way Trump had to eat his words on the birthers. Both are unelectable. They’re very lucky Stein and Johnson were kept out.

  14. ked says:

    Trump running out of gas… flailing then deflation. Focus during unrelenting crisis overwhelms him (his mode is to yell at underlings and walk away – if he were prez, that’s what we’d all hope-for). Forget his tax returns, drug testing may be more in order. As to Hillary… she was predictable, as ever.

  15. Stuart Wood says:

    The first debate summed up in poetry:
    JABBERTRUMPY (Apologies to Lewis Carroll)
    Beware the JabberTrump, my girl!
    The names that bite, the lies that catch!
    Beware the Cuckoo Birds, and shun
    The frumious Right-Wing Batch!
    She took her Factual Sword to mind
    Long time the Orange foe she sought
    So rested she by the Tumtum tree,
    And stood awhile in thought.
    And, as in uffish thought she stood,
    The JabberTrump, with eyes of flame,
    Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
    And Tweeted as it came!
    One, two! One, two! And through and through
    The Factual Blade went snicker-snack!
    She left it dead, and with its head
    It went galumphing back.
    And, hast thou slain the JabberTrump?
    Come to my arms, my beamish girl!
    O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
    She smiled, as did the world.

  16. Richard Sale says:

    My first impression startled me. I realized that Trump was the smarter of the two. Hillary by nature, gets snide right away. Saying that Trump’s companies suffered bankruptcy six times was a deliberate lie.
    both lied constantly.
    Lester didn’t ask a lot of questions about both that he should have.

  17. Eric Newhill says:

    Clinton botoxed, made-up and drugged-up to just the right levels that she almost appeared healthy and on the ball. Her stage crew and physician(s) were the big winners last night.
    To bad we didn’t get to hear them debate the real issues of the day. I blame the moderated for the juvenile level to which the debate rapidly sank. Hillary was by far the worst in that regard.
    My theory is that Trump let her get all the personal attacks over and done with and showed he could exercise restraint. Next debate he will eviscerate her.

  18. ISL says:

    Dear Colonel,
    As is clear even from the few comments above, those solidly in either camp were unlikely to change for which the debate had nothing. Its the undecided that matter. And as Donald Trump has very well shown, facts and policy have nothing to do with this campaign.
    Trump had to appear presidential and not raving. On that he succeeded. He lost focus, which is not typical Trump, and could be a plus (more human) or a minus (how can you negotiate if you lose focus?).
    Hillary needed to convince why she is trustworthy and appear healthy – I might have missed it, but did not see her address the trust topic, and proving you are healthy is exceedingly difficult (its a negative), but she looked wooden to my eye. In any case, humans are very good at spotting poor health in people, but its at the unconscious level (except for trained professionals), and if her schedule remains light on campaign and heavy on fund raising in the next week, then a medically-facilitated 90 minutes seems most likely (and will lose her the election).
    My debate score for the election is Trump succeeded at surpassing the very low bar that Hillary set for him, while Hillary did not move her bars (health and trust).

  19. morongobill says:

    They both earned a second shot next week.

  20. ex-PFC Chuck says:

    The most succinct analysis I’ve seen was in a retweet that came into my Twitter feed shortly after the end of the debate. It was originally posted by a young woman (a guess based on the name and thumbnail photo) whom I know nothing about named Maddie Stone: “The only winner tonight was the Voyager probe, which is speeding from the earth at 17 kilometers/second.”
    For an analysis of why Clinton and Trump, like their establishment political confreres in the rest of the industrialized world, are utterly unable to cope with the challenges facing us I suggest a blog post entitled “Why There Is a Trump.” The author, Raul Ilargi Meijer, is the co-host of the blog Automatic Earth which focuses mainly on political-economy issues. The post was written a few hours before the debate.

  21. Origin says:

    Trump’ performance was startling to me in its ineptitude. I expected better.
    Starting sometime after the first third of the debate, Trumps demeanor began to change. He drank more and more water. He looked all around. He more and more responded reflexively to Hillary’s fly bait.
    At this exact point in the debate, I noticed a distinct change in Trump’s demeanor when he answered this question from Hillary.
    CLINTON: And maybe because you haven’t paid any federal income tax for a lot of years. (APPLAUSE)
    And the other thing I think is important…
    TRUMP: It would be squandered, too, believe me.
    It was at that point, I think, Trump realized he had really screwed up with a devastating admission that over the years, he has paid little, if any, federal taxes and thinks that those who do, like me, are stupid and he knew he had insulted a hoard of people.
    It was the declinsion of the sentence that hit me, it was the “would be” which I interpreded as a “If I had paid any taxes, my taxes would [have been] squandered.”
    The bait caught him with a bald admission that the reason that he does release his returns is that he does not pay taxes and he is afraid that if his base learns that fact, it would hurt his chances.
    From that point in the debate, Trump’s demeanor became more and more familiar to me.
    I have been a trial lawyer for over 40 years and have watched many, many people perform in the courtroom, a context quite similar to a debate. As the minutes passed, Trumps body language became more and more familiar and it became increasingly evident that Trump had succumbed to the controlling emotion every good trial lawyer tries to instill in the opponent and avoid himself–fear.
    The fundamental takeaway from the debate was that the bully Trump can easily be frightened with simple fly-bait.
    From the end of the first third of the debate, Clinton had him where she wanted him; Trump stopped thinking clearly and was responding emotionally from his overwhelming feeling of fear and inadequacy.
    Clinton scared the shit out of Trump. From the moment of the “It would be squandered, too, believe me” reflexive response, HE KNEW she had bested him and he was rattled.
    By the end of the debate as Clinton methodically stoked his fear, Trump showed himself to be the cowardly bully he really is.
    Trump is not brave enough or emotionally smart enought to be President.

  22. kooshy says:

    AED, truly IMO, I don’t think this buffoon, deserve to be the president of this country, OTOH, considering the only other choice, is a proven borgist warmonger, who, as she claims, will want to impose her way of life on everybody else, if necessary, by starting new and more disastrous wars. So be it, I rather take unknown surprises by an untested buffoon, then a proven borgist warmonger.

  23. Nancy K says:

    Some have mentioned they did not like her Kewpie doll looks, I did not like his sniffing and grimacing faces. I found his train of consciousness or unconscious speech very inarticulate. I think he could have gone after her on more issues and just missed it. The commentator did question Trump more but Trump can be very evasive in his answers. Granted both my husband and I support Hillary however he did teach speech and debate at a high school and college level and he felt Hillary was far better. He thought Trump lacked basic debating skills and felt whoever is working with him is doing a poor job,that he missed many opportunities and he was too centered on himself and his business and his properties etc. During the first Obama Romney debate, he felt Romney was much better and won that debate, so he can look at it objectively.

  24. gowithit says:

    FiveThirtyEight expects a 2-4 % bounce for Clinton on this 1st “debate”, based on what has occurred in previous Prez “debates”. My take is that Clinton did not “win”, but Trump unraveled and allowed her to appear better. The polls seem to swing when one or the other have a “bad week”, rather than reflect any positive aspect in the candidates (there really has been no positives!). As this “debate” will be a negative for Trump, his poll numbers likely to go down–until, another likely negative on Clinton pops up!
    This is both an interesting and depressing Prez election!

  25. As far as I know, the only person to have got Trump right from the very beginning is Scott Adams. Here’s his take: “Clinton won the debate last night. And while she was doing it, Trump won the election. He had one thing to accomplish – being less scary – and he did it.”

  26. Stephanie says:

    Not only could he not sustain 90 minutes, he barely made it past the 20-minute line.
    Trump, with his lack of discipline and weak impulse control, was unable to refrain from constant interruptions. Clinton for her part wisely let Captain Queeg ramble on about the missing strawberries. He kept sniffling and reaching for water and was plainly rattled. However, this actually wasn’t a horrible performance by his standards. It was just that Clinton played him very, very well.
    After last night we can also add VAT to the list of things Trump does not understand.
    I don’t know what Trump’s advisers tell him at this point. More preparation might help a bit, but it’s hard when the candidate starts from such a low threshold – there’s only so much cramming can accomplish, even when the candidate accepts the cramming, which Trump is unlikely to do. On the other hand, the media will be looking for a Trump Bounces Back in Second Debate scenario. They can hope for that. Clinton heartened her supporters and Trump reaffirmed his unfitness, and I think that’s about it.

  27. gowithit says:

    Frank Luntz, Republican pollster, had focus group of 24 “undecided” Pennsylvanian voters. 5 swung to Clinton, none to Trump. His groups have hand held devices where participants can register + or – responses to debaters’ statements. Trump hit his deepest negative when he claimed he had “the best temperament”.
    Misleading title (“dominated”, give me a break!)for sure:

  28. TonyL says:

    “Partisans saw what they wanted to see”

  29. steve says:

    “OTOH his inability to sustain a performance over 90 minutes is a turn off for those who think the president ought to work 18 hours a day for four years. ”
    Not really following you here. Even if you think people should not work 18 hours a day, shouldn’t they be able to work for at least 1 1/2 hours? (I think 18 hours every day is rough, having done that when younger, but even now I still do some 18 hour days. I think people in well paid, high power jobs should be able to do that occasionally, understanding that you may need some recovery time.)

  30. BabelFish says:

    Would have been interesting if the prize at the end was county dogcatcher but couldn’t take much of the ‘I got the goods on you’ versus “Wink, wink, nudge, nudge’, with the presidency on the line.
    If your mind is already made up, then this is like people who watch NASCAR, hoping there will be a wreck. Will anyone hit the ‘I knew Jack Kennedy’ wall? Two more shows to go to find out!

  31. Alexandria says:

    HRC won on style points, but did not achieve the crushing victory that the MSNBC and CNN crowd crowned her with. Trump survived by winning the first couple of rounds and just staying in the ring with her, although faltering at the end. He did not help himself by raising the stamina issue when he was clearly on the ropes.
    Trump scored on the economy, trade, emails, rise of ISIS (“the JV team”,HRC’s bad judgment (although he needed to hit these topics harder), and the Federal Reserve’s creation of the current bond/stock bubble. It was interesting to see the MJ crowd criticizing Trump for attacking the sainted Yellen, all the while asserting that there was no bubble as demonstrated by our anemic 1-2% growth rate (huh?). Charles Krauthammer, who dislikes Trump intensely, opined that Trump had a decent debate although “losing” on technical debating points.
    Trump let Clinton off the hook on her Iraq war vote (fixated on proving he was always against, rather than emphasizing her ill-fated vote), Libya, Syria and lack of foreign policy achievements generally. He has a lot of room to do better in the next two debates, if he prepares, paces himself, hits his good issues hard [emails, Iraq vote, Libya, ISIS–the “JV” team and lack of judgment] and refuses to take the bait to litigate every item of abuse she hurls at him (his father’s loan, Rosie O’Donnell, Ms. Machado (“piggy”),etc. HRC has peaked and, although she might equal her performance in the next two fights, she will not be able to bring much new into the ring.

  32. Swami says:

    I don’t think any people who had already made up their minds would be persuaded to change sides. Undecideds, to the extent there really are undecideds, will lean Clinton. I expect polls to show a reversion to the mean–about a 4-6% lead for Clinton at the national levels. It’ll take about a week for changes (if any) to show up in the State polls.

  33. steve g says:

    To use a baseball analogy, “the tie goes to the runner” in this
    case The D. He came across the opposite from his MSM
    portrayal as a crazed sexist bigoted racist although you could
    tell the New Yawker was trying to break loose on occasion.
    The birther issuse was telling in that his mention of Sid
    Blumenthal,Hillary’s functionary, as the originator of the issue
    was completely ignored by every post op review. Larry Johnson
    at his site has given credence to this fact.
    CBS Morning News crawl had Hillary over an “agitated” Trump.
    Let the Borg spin machine continue.

  34. turcopolier says:

    Type A workaholic? pl

  35. turcopolier says:

    Margaret Steinfels
    I do not think women should be given a pass when they do something stupid. To do so would be patronizing. I agree with the commenter who said she looked almost as artificial as the figure in Lenin’s tomb. pl

  36. BabelFish says:

    Oh, and one more thing. Trump’s new nickname — Booger.

  37. Origin says:

    Here is my take on the debate:
    Starting sometime after the first third of the debate, Trumps demeanor began to change. He drank more and more water. He looked all around. He more and more responded reflexively to Hillary’s fly bait.
    At this exact point in the debate, I noticed a distinct change in Trump’s demeanor when he answered this question from Hillary.
    CLINTON: And maybe because you haven’t paid any federal income tax for a lot of years. (APPLAUSE)
    And the other thing I think is important…
    TRUMP: It would be squandered, too, believe me.
    It was at that point, I think, Trump realized he had really screwed up with a devastating admission that over the years, he has paid little, if any, federal taxes and thinks that those who do, like me, are stupid. He knew that he had let the truth out, he had insulted a hoard of people who do pay their taxes by calling them stupid.
    It was the declination of the sentence that hit me, it was the “would be” which I interpreted as a “If I had paid any taxes, my taxes would [have been] squandered.”
    The bait caught him with a bald admission that the reason that he does not pay taxes and that is the reason he has not released his returns.
    From that point in the debate, Trump’s demeanor seemed increasingly familiar to me. I have been a trial lawyer for over 40 years and have watched many people perform in the courtroom, a high-stakes venue not unlike a debate. As the minutes passed, Trumps body language became more and more agitated. I have seen similar body language many times in the court room.
    To me, it became increasingly evident that Trump had succumbed to the controlling emotion every good trial lawyer tries to instill in the opponent and avoid in himself–fear.
    In my view, the fundamental takeaway from the debate was that the Trump can be easily be frightened with simple fly-bait to the extent he stops thinking clearly. Throughout the debate from the end of the first third of it, Trump was responding from his overwhelming feeling of fear and inadequacy.
    Clinton scared the hell out of Trump. From the moment of the “It would be squandered, too, believe me” moment, by his reflexive response, he showed HE KNEW she had bested him and it rattled him.
    By the end of the debate, as Clinton methodically stoked his fear, Trump showed himself to be, the fearful bully he really is.
    Trump is not brave enough or emotionally smart enough to be President.

  38. Edward Amame says:

    Yes I think “this” press corpse is going after HRC. Just like they have for almost 25 years. Even in the NY Times where Hillary Hater-in-Chief Maureen Dowd still bloviates from the editorial page. Are you unfamiliar with the press corps’ “Clinton Rules?” Here they are, laid out by political reporter, Jonathan Allen:
    1) Everything, no matter how ludicrous-sounding, is worthy of a full investigation by federal agencies, Congress, the “vast right-wing conspiracy,” and mainstream media outlets.
    2) Every allegation, no matter how ludicrous, is believable until it can be proven completely and utterly false. And even then, it keeps a life of its own in the conservative media world.
    3) The media assumes that Clinton is acting in bad faith until there’s hard evidence otherwise.
    4) Everything is newsworthy because the Clintons are the equivalent of America’s royal family.
    5) Everything she does is fake and calculated for maximum political benefit.
    Allen says the Clinton rules come from reporters and editors wanting to score the biggest prize in contemporary journalism: the scoop that brings down Hillary Clinton and her family’s political empire.

  39. AK says:

    The one takeaway from last night – confirmation bias reigns supreme once again. From what I’ve gathered on other discussion fora that I’ve browsed, you saw whatever your heart desired to see. Or else you saw a sad spectacle where all were losers. As for this or subsequent debates swaying undecided voters, there aren’t that many left regardless of what polls indicate. More than any election I can recall, this one is driven by visceral negative reaction on both ends of the spectrum. And visceral disgust does not typically vacillate as a result of 90 mins. of cheap kabuki theater, especially this late in the game. Most “undecided voters” have made up their minds, and probably prefer to keep their opinions to themselves. Anecdotally, my sister’s best friend in Ohio (a Mexican-American woman, incidentally) recently told her, “Vote for Trump, Meredith. But don’t tell anyone or they’ll crucify you for it.” She’s hardly a “deplorable” either, as she runs a university library system. To the extent that there are undecided voters left, I believe they’ll largely choose apathy and defeat and likely stay home, which may or may not marginally benefit either candidate, depending on who says “F#@k It” in large enough numbers.

  40. Fred says:

    I would say that Mr. Trumps performance was, in a word: Deplorable.
    Hilary brought up employees not being paid. What a gift horse. Trump could have correctly pointed out that he has employed thousands of people in his corporations over many years. Hilary as Secretary of State hired and was responsible for only a handful of employees. Employees who are Not currently under federal indictment for obstruction of justice in the investigation of Hilary’s email server, including her Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills. He could then proceed along the lines of: “Why, my fellow Americans, does Hilary’s Chief of Staff need immunity from federal prosecution? Perhaps the press (point at Lester Holt) could do that thing called “investigative journalism”. Let me help them out. She and others – yes there are more – are not under indictment because they received immunity from prosecution. Why is it that federal government employees personally selected and supervised by my opponent, (point at Hilary) Secretary Clinton, need immunity from prosecution? (Point at the moderator while saying) Lester, you are a fine man and I hope that you and your colleagues in the press will investigate the facts of the matter and provide that information to the public – before the next debate. Perhaps you could also find out just what Hilary’s husband and the Attorney General of the United States discussed while they had that conversation on the tarmac in Phoenix. It’s looking a lot like something besides grandchildren and the weather were topics of discussion.”
    Yep, Deplorable. Fortunately for me I went to be early.

  41. Nancy K says:

    She was healthy and on the ball. It was Trump who appeared unhealthy and not really all with it. I doubt if he will eviscerate her the next debate. She will be ready. As for him showing he could exercise restraint, I think it was more a matter of him not being able to get it together. It should be interesting.

  42. The Beaver says:

    Hope i don’t get flamed for this – from someone who is out looking in since I am concerned about foreign policy:
    I blame the moderated for the juvenile level to which the debate rapidly sank.
    That’s the problem when you have a “reader of news” or weekday morning animator doing the job of a moderator. They are good only for townhall meetings where they become the facilitator but moderating debates – meh! Why don’t they hire “neutral” members from academia?

  43. MRW says:

    Nor does anyone seem to understand, nor is it reported, that it was his first wife Ivana who ran Trump casinos, not Trump himself. She was President and CEO. He won’t bash the mother of his kids, however. And the two recent bankruptcies in the 00s were companies in Trump name only. He didn’t run them. Trump made his money for years by licensing his name, his brand as its called today. He gave a talk to the graduating class at Wharton in 1984/85 about how he did it; friend of mine was in that class.

  44. Brunswick says:

    For those interested, a transcript of the debate is here:
    IMHO, Hillary “won” on all counts, except American’s feelings of anger and impotence, which Trump both displayed and put “voice” to.
    I used to be really worried about another Clinton Presidency, now not so much. The three main reason’s I’m less worried:
    – the Democratic Party Platform is more Bernie than Hillary, ( not that it matters much),
    – the viceral hatred of Clinton in the Republican Party is such that she won’t get much done due to The House and Senate’s obstructionism and probable constant attempts to impeach her,
    – I think her inclination to use US Military power, is going to get curbed as the Bush Blank Cheque AUMF is suddenly decided not to be “good” enough and the Senate suddenly remembers that War Powers reside in their “house”.
    Best US Election ever.

  45. Peter says:

    What indications are there that anything close to your third reason will come to fruition?

  46. Imagine says:

    Surprisingly, it was actually up to Hillary to show up, look Presidential, and prove that she doesn’t eat babies for breakfast. She succeeded in this surprisingly well. The fact that she’ll probably start a hot war with Russia is not on most people’s radar. She did not faint, contrary to some predictions, and she looked Presidential enough to carry the hoi polloi.
    Eyes are the window to the soul. Clinton’s wide eyes are annoying, but at least one can see them. Trump maintains the squinty-eyed Clint Eastwood look 24/7, you cannot see his eyes; and he kept ducking and shifting his head. Trump did not look trustworthy. Clinton looked only half untrustworthy.
    Trump did not answer most questions. He is a professional bull$hitter, fogging the issue with stream-of-consciousness jumps. This makes for outstanding emotional theater. In a 90-minute intellectual fact-based environment, his BS act was rendered threadbare. Even people who think with their emotions could start to see that he simply. Did. Not. answer. questions. Thus the unconscious zeitgeist nudges that “Trump didn’t show up and he didn’t last the distance”. This will be a serious wound that will move points.
    Trump will gain some points back in the next townhall meeting debate, where emotional connections and successful BS fog will play more.
    Trump’s tax reduction plan is actually quite smart and will play well amongst small business owners, a small group. Hillary turned it back on him by saying [incorrectly] that it would only advantage big business owners. The “Trumped-Up Trickle Down” has turned into a meme.
    Trump left me agape by admitting that he basically pays zero Federal income taxes, and that he’s proud of it. Millionaires get this (deductions are based on paying salaries for others’ jobs) but to the True Believers in the American heartland, not paying income taxes = cheating the life-blood of America. I’m predicting this one will move the needle, so Clinton will win by a whisker.
    Clinton gave a Mea Culpa for the emails. Of course it is not nearly enough. However, her machine will now successfully bury this issue through at least November. It will become an anchor that will come back to haunt her for a year after she becomes President (my head explodes), but I don’t see it taking her down. She’s a Clinton.
    Trump tried to nail Clinton on tiredness, which he changed to stamina. Clinton turned him back on his head with “Well, as soon as he travels to 112 countries and negotiates a peace deal, a ceasefire, a release of dissidents… or even spends 11 hours testifying in front of a congressional committee, he can talk to me about stamina.” This has become a meme. Memes decide contests.
    Trump tried to nail Clinton on staying in her room. Clinton responded that she actually prepared for the debate; and she also prepared for being president, and that’s a good thing. This has become another meme.
    Trump comes across as a one-note player, he is Dogbert’s “Angry Dog” who demands to be president (“That was too easy”). In Myers-Brigg, he is far-right Judgmental. He is ALWAYS scolding. This got old fast after 30 minutes; if he had substance and gravitas he would win faster, but after ducking point after point it gets exposed as bombast. A few people are waking up to the fact that having a president who is constantly angry at the world, who stiffs workmen, who advertises his own hotel during a nationwide debate, would grow tiresome. This will twitch the needle back towards Clinton.
    Clinton wins the meme wars. Clinton managed to keep Trump in attack-dog mode, through adequate preparation, and so ended up looking more Presidential. The number of people who absolutely hate Clinton has decreased just slightly, while the number of people who distrust Trump has increased just slightly. So at this point (first debate) I’m calling Clinton by a whisker.
    The fact that reporters had to ask, seriously, whether each candidate would respect the outcome of a democratic vote, saddens me. Are we Ukraine, that oligarchs use thugs to enforce power?

  47. turcopolier says:

    It seems a bad idea to me to disagree with someone’s view and then characterize the statement as “lying.” pl

  48. If I may….Can we agree on this: Women shouldn’t be given a pass on ideas, statements, performance, execution, etc. Stuff that counts.
    But…it seems to be a cultural factoid of U.S. media and politics that women have to show up in public with make-up perfect, hair done, clothes clean and pressed. And so Clinton did. She looked fine for a 68-year old.
    Let me contrast her mode and demeanor with her opponent who looked like an old hound dog with his puffy eye bags, pouty lips (though no drool), and baggy suit. I would never mention this except in contrast. She was obliged to look as good as she could. He was not.
    The day a woman candidate can walk up to the podium looking like Mr. Trump did last night will be aesthetically sad, but then we can judge candidates on their political smarts, or lack thereof.
    With pardon to our German friends, let me point out that Chancellor Angela Merkle is a fine representative of a culture where politics and media do not dictate what she wears and how she looks. Bravo!

  49. different clue says:

    The Beaver,
    The League of Women Voters used to sponsor and operate these debates. The Depublicratic Candidates resented being held to the standards that the League of Women Voters held them to. So they conspired with the Media Lords to “take the debates away from” the League of Women Voters, and give them to a “commission” co-created by the Depublicrats and the Media Lords.
    In today’s Internet Media world, the League of Women Voters could very well form a periodically-run You Tube Channel for sponsoring League of Women Voters debates and invite all relevant candidates to appear on them. If enough people watched them to shame and embarrass the Depublicrats and the Media Lords, perhaps they could be shamed into appearing on the LoWV You Tube Channel to appear on the revived LoWV debates.

  50. fasteddiez says:

    I think the Guru of FiveThirtyEight has been somewhat accurate in his predictions of past political jousts, but does not seem to be aware that Trump’s true followers care not a whit about his debate performance, nor his pronunciamentos during same.
    Perhaps the guru should factor in the huge numbers of irredeemable deplorables who voted, many for the first time, for the Trumpster. This with the fact that the numbers of primary voters for the Repubs vastly outnumbered that of the donkey worshipers. I am not against donkeys and mules BTW. Oh,and let us not forget the other basket of pitiable white serfs who barely get by in the new corporate world. A cohort which for whom Shrillary has not the slightest inclination to succor with actual legislation. Lastly, pity is the most surreptitious form of hate.

  51. ISL says:

    I revoked at video and could not figure out why she kept looking down with her eyes. Very strange. Coaching for TV says ALWAYS look at the camera – looking away makes one look shifty. Normally, she is good at looking at the camera.

  52. different clue says:

    I was at work during the debate itself. I have not yet watched any recorded footage after the fact. I did read the Naked Capitalism post and thread about it after my shift was done.
    The rough consensus at Naked Capitalism as of last night was: ” Hillary won the debate . . . gosh darn it.”

  53. Flüsterwitz says:

    Whistling in the dark, but any port in a storm.

  54. Brunswick says:

    >>The final numbers are still being tallied by Nielsen. But the debate averaged a total of 80.9 million viewers across 12 of the channels that carried it live.<<
    It doesn’t include PBS, CSPAN, live streaming on the web or Commercial venues.

  55. Jack says:

    I don’t think Hillary will get any bounce from last night’s debate.
    No one is going to remember what either candidate said. The partisans will score the debate for their candidate. The debate moderator made it rather unbalanced with questioning Trump’s tax returns, the birther issue and if he opposed the Iraq invasion. He of course didn’t bring up Clinton’s email or the funding of the Clinton Foundation or the consequences of her warmongering.
    Hillary the more experienced debater with all the practiced lines didn’t knock out Trump. While she took pot shots at him by labeling him racist and sexist, she couldn’t rattle him. Trump was restrained in the face of all the provocations by both Hillary and the moderator. And he noted that he could get equally personal but chose not too. Showing some magnanimity.
    Hillary’s whole pitch was I’ve been there and I know how it works and have well thought out policies. Trump’s frame of your experience has left a giant mess was well done. And he noted that we shouldn’t be the world’s policeman.Despite the MSM and hundreds of millions of dollars of Hillary ads claiming that he is crazy and scary, Trump looked quite reasonable. He allayed those concerns. He also worked NAFTA and TPP well for those in Ohio and the Rust Belt. He seemed to provide the visual of being fine in the Oval Office. IMO he provided those leaning towards him sufficient grounds to pull the lever for him.
    I believe the polls will show his continued momentum.

  56. Jack says:

    Yes indeed. Confirmation bias rules.

  57. ISL says:

    Did you really just argue that a republican congress will be a break on President HRC going to war to meet Israeli needs? That McCain will oppose her idea for a no fly zone in Syria?

  58. Freudenschade says:

    I will beat my hobby horse again: this debate and election is all about those who can be convinced away from their previous party affiliations — the college educated GOP “suburban moms.” With regard to those, this was akin to the Hamilton-Burr debate, with Trump playing the role of Hamilton.

  59. turcopolier says:

    Really? Kewpie Dolls have no gender. I am surprised that you would react with an air of wounded feminism. pl

  60. Brunswick says:

    There was a small, bipartizan movement questioning President Obama’s use of the 2001 AUMF to target ISIS in Syria, Lybia and Iraq.
    Given the amount and volume, ( cranked to 11) of CDS I am seeing on the Right, I believe that the Conservative Caucus will seize on the 2001 AUMF as another means to “block” Hillary. It’s probably the “best” tool in their tolbox, ( beat’s Bengazi).
    I also suspect, that if the Republican’s keep the House and Senate, you should get used to a 8 member Supreme Court over the next 4 years.

  61. MRW says:

    I agree, Peter.
    For anyone who cares about logical genesis of this line of thought, here is the 1946 article written by then Federal Reserve Chairman, Beardsley Ruml, reminding everyone just after the war that (1) taxes are not for revenue, (2) the economy must serve a “public purpose” [as opposed to Greenspan’s scam of ‘the market’, aka for the benefit of his banking buddies] and (3) corporate taxes are an “evil,” and he explains why.
    Taxes For Revenue Are Obsolete
    What Ruml was stating was an accounting truism once the domestic USD became “non-convertible” in 1933, once it was no longer convertible to gold. However, today millions upon millions of truly ignorant Americans still believe the fantasy that it should, and still cannot and refuse to wrap their heads around the concept (and benefit) of fiat currency and how it’s legally (and constitutionally) backed by the full faith and credit of the federal government, not something you need to dig out of the ground. And what that really means for the little guy, the average worker and retiree, and Americans businesses and households.
    FDR created the middle class from grasping it. Eisenhower built the interstate highway system from the knowledge. Kennedy the space program. Nixon, however, gave us the possibility of untold future domestic prosperity when he removed the country from paying international settlements in gold in 1971. We were finally completely off the gold standard, and our currency free-floating. Unfortunately, Nixon is only remembered for Watergate, his real genius forgotten, and those of us old enough to remember those shocking days are incapable of changing or reassessing our opinion of what he did then. Too bad Nixon wasn’t president in the day of the internet; hackers do today what physical bodies did then, and Hillary has got away with ethical breaches that overwhelm Nixon’s in breadth and consequence. But we yawn and accept it.

  62. MRW says:

    The League of Women Voters used to sponsor and operate these debates
    Good point. I’d forgotten all about that. And I think you’re dead right, DC, about how the media now controls the outcome. I doubt a youtube channel would work. Millions only have smartphones as their internet access; the unemployed aren’t paying for it or cable access, and many elderly voters in poorer communities would be left out.

  63. I agree with this assessment.

  64. Croesus says:

    I thought the kewpie doll remark brilliant. Most descriptive. Not having watched the debate, it told me that not much was said that made that much of a difference.
    The most significant point that was made by the event is that HRC was able to be sufficiently medicated to withstand the rigors of the event, which Trump, presumably running on his own steam, was not. In other words, Trump’s fade suggested the artificiality of Clinton’s perkiness. Wonder what she takes and is it available OTC.
    The post-event commentary (specifically, C Span Washington Journal) filled in the blanks: “Trump was a dud, Clinton was polished and professional.”
    In other words, Col. Lang’s prognostication was likely correct: short-term bounce for the Kewpie doll, then revert to status quo ante.

  65. Bobo says:

    Whatever your bias beforehand was the same afterwards. She won handily on points he won on heart as his is in it and hers is questionable. Whether Kewpie Doll, Waxed as Lenin’s Tomb or my “Miss Smarty Pants” she did not help herself. I guess her quote that has kept me thinking is “I think Implicit Bias is a problem for everyone……” when discussing Race and Police actions. Left me with the feeling she wants to change our subconscious state which goes back to the statement at her graduation that has been discussed on this site.
    Two more debates to go that will hopefully be better than this one. These moderators need to keep quiet and just raise cue cards.

  66. eakens says:

    Guess we have to add kewpie to the list of trigger words floating out there

  67. Edward Amame says:

    Richard Sale
    Trump declared bankruptcy 4 times in the 1990s (once in 1991 and 3 times in 1992), again in 2004 and again in 2009. For a total of 6 bankruptcies.

  68. Fred says:

    “Captain Queeg ramble on about the missing strawberries.”
    An interesting reference. I remember the JAG officer (played by José Ferrer) pointing out to the self-pitying lieutenants their complete failure as leaders during the entire period of their service up to and including the relief of Queeg during the typhoon. That description fits all of Hilary’s staff in allowing her to repeatedly circumvent basic security procedures and federal law regarding emails and telecommunications. Now they are all busy covering their collective asses with immunity deals. Of course Lester Holt and his peers won’t touch that story since it would end their media careers.

  69. Bill Wade says:

    I found it pretty boring, Lester Holt was soft on Clinton and she deftly received the brunt of “speaking time”. Clinton: 1, Trump: 0 but don’t see much change coming in the polling, I thinks most people have already made up their minds. Today was monumental for me, youngest daughter had her first baby at 12:34 AM, it’s been 18 years since I’ve had a grandchild, yippee!!!!

  70. SAC Brat says:

    Any chance the sound operator in the broadcast booth was told not to do any favors for Trump? Maybe play with a filter on the soundboard, or find the worst foam in the box for Trump’s microphone? Add a directional mike to the podium mike feed?

  71. Kooshy says:

    It seems that western MSM, is now reporting a some what significantly lower figure of total Syrian war casualties than what was reported up to that of a few weeks back, does anybody know why the figures or estimates have been coming down? I remember a casualty number of around $450k reported. But now NYT’ figure is 250k
    “If government forces and their allies capture the rebel-held eastern neighborhoods, it would be a turning point in the 5½-year-old civil war that has killed more than 250,000 people and displaced half of Syria’s population.
    Associated Press writers Albert Aji ”

  72. ISL says:

    reviewed the video, not revoked at video. Damn spell checker!

  73. kao_hsien_chih says:

    To be fair, I don’t think Trump’s looks went unnoticed either. The popular legend that grew up after the 1960 debates, after all, had to do with how JFK prepped with TV people to look great, while RMN did not (I’d been told by people who were physically there, at the debate, that this is not true, though.)
    If Trump got hurt less by looking unkempt, it’d be a matter of expectations that he built up, rather than male-female double standards. People who somehow built an image of themselves as not being perfectly made up, male or female, I imagine, can “get away with it,” while those who did not, cannot. I suppose, though there is a bit of double standard in that women have less chance to develop that image than men–but Trump and Clinton are far past that stage.

  74. Walker says:

    Trump didn’t rave? What about his suggestion that China “go into North Korea” to handle North Korea’s nuclear weapons? What about his total lack of an answer to Clinton’s criticism of his promise to “shoot out of the water” Iranians who make insulting gestures at our ships?
    He raved, all right.

  75. Edward Amame says:

    Not true.
    His various over-leveraged casinos competed with each other and could not survive the economic downturn in the early 1990s. There were 4 Trump bankruptcies in 1991/1992 as a result.
    In 2004, Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts filed for bankruptcy, and Trump was forced to step down as chief exec. The name of the company was then changed to Trump Entertainment Resorts and it filed for bankruptcy right after Trump resigned from the board in 2009.
    See here for in-depth report:

  76. Stephanie says:

    Margaret Steinfels,
    I had that thought during the primary season. If HRC had shown up to public events as Sanders did – rumpled, disheveled, with unkempt white hair flying in all directions – people probably would have wondered about her mental balance.

  77. mike allen says:

    I thought she looked good: healthy, genial and very courteous to her debate opponent.
    My neighbor the lady with 22 cats and almost as many Trump signs yelled at me over the fence this morning about the debate. She criticized Hillary’s dress, claimed her make-up was vulgar, and wondered why Hillary could not do her hair as nice as Donald Trump had his done. Says just the sight of Mrs Clinton makes her sick. Sad times!

  78. Only here where there is a strong streak of misogyny. It’s one thing to read it on a Tyler post, I was sorry to read it on one of yours.

  79. gowithit says:

    Trump had several opportunities to develop his points, but each time seemingly went into scattered, off topic, rants. For instance, when he had the opening to further drive in the “emails”, he only briefly replied, then dropped it to defend his business ego:
    HOLT: He also raised the issue of your e-mails. Do you want to respond to that?
    CLINTON: I do. You know, I made a mistake using a private e- mail.
    TRUMP: That’s for sure.
    CLINTON: And if I had to do it over again, I would, obviously, do it differently. But I’m not going to make any excuses. It was a mistake, and I take responsibility for that.
    HOLT: Mr. Trump?
    TRUMP: That was more than a mistake. That was done purposely. OK? That was not a mistake. That was done purposely. When you have your staff taking the Fifth Amendment, taking the Fifth so they’re not prosecuted, when you have the man that set up the illegal server taking the Fifth, I think it’s disgraceful. And believe me, this country thinks it’s — really thinks it’s disgraceful, also.
    ….. Trump then dropped the “email” controversy and went off replying to Clinton’s prior attack on his IRS filing (not being as rich as he claims, etc). That seemed to really get under his skin. Rather than remaining on the offense, he got defensive. He was ready for the bait! Whereas, Clinton kept his attack on her “emails” to a brief response.

  80. Laura says:

    Ked–you nailed it.

  81. Laura says:

    Stuart Wood–Wow, thank you for this marvelous summation done with such wit and charm. I don’t even have to agree one way or the other to fully enjoy.

  82. Kerim says:

    Maybe, but Frau Merkel is still seriously challenged when it comes to elegance and feminity.

  83. turcopolier says:

    You wrong me. I literally stood at your side to defy the Bush/Cheney administration’s use of torture. You know that I am not easily intimidated and I will not be intimidated by you and your claque of HC loyalists. I have lived for 53 years with a talented and accomplished woman who never whined about male bias however obvious it may have been. Why this from you, an accomplished and successful woman? You call me a man prejudiced against women? How dare you? As I have said, I will not vote for nor support Trump financially. pl

  84. turcopolier says:

    The “drug testing” thing is mere insult. I am banning you from SST. That will apply to any others who follow your example pl

  85. ex-PFC Chuck says:

    I’ve got to agree with Margaret here, Col. If a woman, any woman, candidate showed up for a presidential debate looking as disheveled as Trump did that’s what the media would focus on, front and center.

  86. Anna says:

    I care not about their mannerism, but I do care about Mrs. Clinton’ bloody trail in Libya and Ukraine. She is a war criminal by a standard definition.
    Mrs. Clinton has been also very aggressive towards the whistle-blowers, and yet she was called by the FBI director ‘extremely careless’ for the ways she handled (divulged) a highly classified information; was not her carelessness bordering on a crime against the State?
    But the most impressive domestic process involving Mrs. Clinton was the “democracy on the march” at the Dems headquarters, where the Clinton’s subordinates were involved into rigging the primaries. The hand of Kremlin was to blame, of course, not the dealings of Mrs. Clinton who is the first choice of the US plutocracy:

  87. turcopolier says:

    ex PFC Chuck
    I don’t give a damn about that. A woman who wants to take the boys toys has to stand up straight and stop bullshitting us. I grew very weary of fast rising women in government who flashed some leg at me and then archly told me that I should stop looking so “butch.” pl

  88. Walker says:

    Clinton “received the brunt of ‘speaking time'”? Do you have a link for that?
    My impression was that Trump consistently exceeded the time he was given to speak. Towards the end of the debate I was checking my watch. Once he was given 10 seconds and spoke for a minute.

  89. Brunswick says:

    The “nudge, nudge, wink, wink” cynical political opposition to Presiden Bill Clinton and his policies, amongst Republicans, has over the years morphed into full on hatred and loathing for Hillary, amongst many Republican’s.
    There is a verbal Civil War between Trump Supporters and Hillary supporters, and I will be surprised if it remains verbal between now and the inaugeration.

  90. Intimidate you? Impossible. Would never think of it. Would never want to.
    The kewpie doll comparison took me aback. Peace.

  91. MRW says:

    Here’s another version that puts it at four:
    A Trip Down Donald Trump’s Bankruptcy Memory Lane Aug, 2016
    Donald Trump’s Casino Company Files Third Bankruptcy, May 2009
    My point was that his wife was running the casinos back then. President and CEO.

  92. Brunswick says:

    Unaware that elegance and femininity were traits you look for in a National Political Leader.

  93. Nick Smith says:

    Trump leaped into the Republican nomination because he saw a way to make money off the whole thing, pure and simple. If he could get the major networks to give him even a minor amount of airtime and play for his name, the whole thing will be many times more cost effective than whatever ad buys the Trump brand could do instead. Turns out the GOP rank and file were aching for a protest candidate and next thing you know he’s riding the lightning.
    Look at the nuts and bolts of the campaign, it’s a complete mess, he can barely keep staff, let alone field people all over the country, and that’s because his focus is not winning this election. His focus is on how he can monetize this whole farce in 2017 and beyond.
    He will make tens of millions off this, and be a media figure for years to come. Say whatever you will about him, but Don is playing with house money right now.

  94. gowithit says:

    Frank Luntz, Republican pollster, tweeted this after his focus group:
    “Hillary Clinton has learned how to bait Trump. He doesn’t know how to not take it.
    Her attacks work. His defenses don’t.”

  95. ISL says:

    I think your comment is important to address, because it is strong evidence of confirmation bias regarding a policy proposal, yet al the evidence says that the decision on this election will be fact and policy free.
    From the transcript:
    “At the same time, we have to be prepared. I can’t take anything off the table because you look at some of these countries, you look at North Korea, we’re doing nothing there. China should solve that problem for us. China should go into North Korea. China is totally powerful as it relates to North Korea.”
    There is no rave here – as I recall this was said with a neutral voice, which was my definition of rave, as in raving lunatic – which is the bar that the HRC campaign set for Trump, by describing him as such.
    The question is what is meant by “go into?”
    Who knows? he doesn’t explain and we do not know and cannot know what is in his mind (Deposition training 101).
    What do we know? His proposed policy is let China address it. And as a business man, he knows China would only do so if it was in China’s interest i.e., in the context of other (not specified) aspects.
    Point: The target is the undecideds and independent’s – not the partisan loyalists (for both candidates).
    So the message: Let china deal with it, not us. And the question is: Will independents view this as a rave, or as a reasonable negotiating point?
    To which I note, who cares? No one. No one will remember any of these details.
    What they will remember is how this made them feel
    So the real question for an analyst, is: To an independent, how does let China deal with it make them feel?

  96. Jack says:

    Reaction to the debate in our family.
    My wife, her sister and my brother. Self identify as liberal and traditionally vote Democrat. They thought Hillary was robotic and inauthentic. Confirmed their leaning against voting for her. Leaning towards Jill Stein.
    My brother’s wife and me lean libertarian and haven’t voted for the duopoly in over two decades. Both registered non-partisan. We were leaning Trump before debate. The debate did not change our opinion.
    My wife’s sisters husband and all the voting age kids. Traditionally politically apathetic. Now, more disgusted with US politics. Not voting for president.

  97. Tyler says:

    Well, the shrew and eunuch brigade is out in force. I’ve been busy, so sorry I arrived 77 comments late into this.
    My take is that Trump was holding back, and purposefully not trying to put this thing to bed. A lot of people on Hate Frog Internet are upset cause Trump didn’t verbally (or literally) give her the hammer and tongs treatment, and I noticed him not taking killshots that were wide open for him. For someone who has never had problems going for the throat before, I thought it was odd. Specifically Clinton Foundation donors, GS speeches, Benghazi, and a few other odds and ends. Yes, he was off his beat sometimes, but then again that’s Trump unscripted – you take the good with the bad. The same instinct that had him going off about his businesses is also what allowed him to checkmate Lester Holt when he tried to correct him about crime, Iraq, and the economy.
    Clinton’s first task was to get him to self destruct. He didn’t. He looked like a serious contender up there, and so she failed. Trump needed to hold his temper in. He succeeded. I can’t even give Clinton the tactical victory. He bled her like a winter pig over NAFTA, countered her “I have experience” with “It’s all BAD experience”, pointed out her twists and turns over TPP. Those are points that the Pravda Wing of the Dem Party, the MSM, doesn’t want to ask. Now they’re out there and we are not even in spin cycle, but they’re pretending they were never mentioned.
    Clinton’s second task was to look natural and healthy. Failure. She looked stilted with her Nicholson as the Joker impression, was blinking as if she was trying to send a morse code message (I K-I-L-L-E-D H-A-R-A-M-B-E), and sounded wooden. She sounded like she was reading off a teleprompter, with Lester setting her up on the tee shots (“Madame Secretary, tell me how much you love puppies, if you would?”). Stiff, plastic, uncanny valley. The Japanese have more human looking robots than Hillary.
    Does she sound like she cares? No. She talks about foreign governments and uses ultra specific anecdotes, but Trump thundered when he talked about the working class and regular people. People will notice that.

  98. Tyler says:

    I’m also glad Lester covered pressing topics such as “What did you REALLY say to Howard Stern in 2003?” when the woman who actually VOTED for the war was right there.
    Maybe Trump’s Playboy interview will be the next topic of discourse.

  99. Tyler says:

    Its the just the women with ugly personalities I don’t like. Anyone who knows me can tell you how much I absolutely love women.

  100. Tyler says:

    Brunswick is another of the Magical Thinking/Sympathetic Magic crowd here who is basically engaging in Rovian “Making our own reality” happy talk.

  101. Tyler says:

    you gotta stop doubling down on the fabulism.

  102. Anonymous says:

    If Hillary wants the Millenial vote she must exchange her embalmer for a piercer.
    I’m reminded that the billion dollar fashion industry exists because women are obssessed with the looks of other women and the gays make lots of money out of it. Should Hillary risk a less cartoonish look, the old ladies and the gays would roast her alive, not us. We men couldn’t care less. She is not a woman important to us, and those that are can wear anything and still look sublime. This talk about she couldn’t do this, couldn’t do that has nothing to do with us.
    The problem is, her natural looks would openly show that she is no longer healthy, and her unnatural looks must be excused by means of the misogyny card.

  103. Tyler says:

    With all those billions you’ve made in NYC real estate from your walled estate in 89% White/Asian Monmouth County, you come down here to critique Trump’s business acumen? I’m flattered.

  104. Cold War Zoomie says:

    Clinton did better than I expected, and Trump worse than I expected. He was really good the first 15 minutes hammering NAFTA, China, and the Rust Belt problems. And Clinton struggled badly to answer for her trade positions. I thought he was going to win overall but then Trump disintegrated.
    Clinton maintained a lukewarm level of competence – basically a bland, accomplished politician. I expected her to come across even more fake and rehearsed than she did. The moderator was biased against Trump, but that was not Trump’s biggest problem. He was incoherent during later gotchya questions. He knew those questions might come up but he obviously didn’t prepare for them enough.
    Yes, many people have already made up their minds, meaning the 3-4 percentage points of fence sitters who just started paying attention are the game changers. Trump voters still love him, and Clinton supporters haven’t budged. But I doubt Trump won many of the undecideds last night.
    I’m writing my own name in for Pres to see if I get published on my state’s certified election results website, showing I could’a been a contender! (name that movie!) Clinton will win my state easily, so it won’t matter.

  105. VietnamVet says:

    I think the automatic earth article is getting close to the truth. The end of growth and the failure to write off the huge burden of bad debt is an explanation for the rise of the alternative politicians like Donald Trump. But, I’d put it more simply. 90% of the West is being thrown under the bus. There isn’t the slightest concern if they are injured or die off. An example is the West’s arming of Jihadists in Syria at the bequest of Israel and Saudi Arabia. The influx of refugees and chaos spreading west is the direct result of that policy.
    I couldn’t watch the debate, but from the comments here, Donald Trump didn’t break out but was still standing at the end if limping. This is amazing in itself considering the vilification that the media has heaped on him. Americans will be voting for or against the establishment. If they don’t see the bus coming at them, they will vote for Hillary Clinton.

  106. mike allen says:

    You gotta stop using those ten dollar words with me. I’m not as smart as some here.
    PS – After the second debate I’ll give you an update of the cat lady’s ‘feelings’ about it.

  107. wisedupearly says:

    did HRC attract more undecided voters?
    not in my opinion
    but, she still fails to impress me.
    Can we write in Tulsi Gabbard?
    35 years younger
    ex-vet – Iraq
    youngest woman to become a state legislator
    entered the Senate in 2013
    ethnic enough? check and double check
    not prone to fainting

  108. steve says:

    In the past. My better half has worked hard to reform me.

  109. mike allen says:

    Zoomie –
    On The Waterfront! I never understood why it won so many Oscars.

  110. Brunswick says:

    Nice word salad,
    Three days to government shut down.
    Apparently sitting President’s arn’t allowed to nominate and have confirmed, SCOTUS Judges.

  111. Walker says:

    I interpreted his comment as meaning physical invasion because
    1) that’s the most straightforward interpretation of “go into” in that context of the military threat.
    2) other of his comments in the same debate had the same tenor, such as saying “we should have taken the oil” in Iraq. Not to mention previous remarks, such as stating he would “blow out of the water” Iranian sailors who made insulting gestures at American ships.
    I think that independents will recognize Trump’s general tone of bluster in the debate.

  112. Bill Wade says:

    Trump and Clinton visit a bakery together. Hil immediately pockets 2 pastries and brags to Trump how easy it is to take the commoner without getting caught. Trump tells the baker he’d like two pastries and will perform a magic trick in payment and the baker obliges, Trump downs them quickly. The baker puzzled asks about the magic trick Trump promised. Trump replies, “look in Hillary’s pocket”.

  113. mike allen says:

    It was a joke Colonel. That joke is all over the internet and twitter. It was based on Trump’s excessive sniffling like sometimes cocaine users reportedly do. Trump has told a lot worse jokes. If he can only dish it out but can’t take humor directed at him, then he should re-calibrate his sense of humor.
    I would for amnesty for both Ked and Tyler.

  114. Eric Newhill says:

    I agree with what you say. I was disappointed last night, but went back and watched when I got off work this afternoon and I now see it as you do.
    Most of the people commenting here either watched a different debate (the one they hallucinated in their own skewed minds) or they should also go back and re-watch objectively as I did. The second pass without the emotional edge really brings clarity (if one has the capacity for it).
    Trump held his own, mostly took the high road re; personal insults and cheap shots and showed both a passion and knowledge of facts and issues. I think he may have a cold or allergy. Hence the sniffles and puffy eyes. He didn’t act “crazy”; something that was a must for him.
    Clinton looked like a deranged old lady trying to be a cute smart little school girl with a psychotic fake smile, she took a lot of cheap shots, had little substance and much boiler plate leftist fluff. She was serving up a stew of empty lib-calories and petty meanness that only appeal to the aforementioned shrews, eunuchs, pipe dreamers and government dependents.
    Her fans will still be her fans. Trump’s fans still his. I’d wager that more undecided went over to Trump than not. Polls will stay as they were Monday morning, or, slight movement toward Trump.

  115. ked says:
    I am sorry you feel that way about my commentary. I have gone out of my way to NOT make ad hominum attacks & nasty references about those who post on SST over the years, even when I’m their target. And I thought trenchant comments concerning public / political figures was not out of bounds. { Recall our discussions of W as a Dry Drunk or Cheney’s transplant and the impact on his personality? } Especially if there may be a kernal of truth to them. Everyone seems to pile-on when it comes to Hillary’s health… what’s the big deal with raising questions about a guy who never sleeps, speaks eratically, and can’t concentrate?
    In any case, it was fun while it lasted, and I wish you nothing but an enjoyable life in the Virginia countryside.

  116. Tyler says:

    Remember how President Romney won the first debate?

  117. Tyler says:

    “She was healthy and on the ball”. Lmbo look I get we are all partisan here but come on.
    Pasting on your best Jack Nicholson smile and looking like you’re made of plastic ain’t exactly healthy.
    Let’s talk about NAFTA and TPP some more.

  118. Tyler says:

    The Beaver,
    “Neutrals from Academia”.
    You do realize that something like 93% of academia describes itself as “liberal to very liberal”?

  119. crf says:

    And of that, who had the guts to watch the whole thing? Eight million maybe?
    I couldn’t watch the whole thing, it was so awful.

  120. mike allen says:


  121. Tyler says:

    The ability to sit through a memorial service in 78 degree weather without needing full medical treatment is such a trait though.

  122. Excellent rendition of Alice in Wonderland, 2016 edition.

  123. rakesh wahi says:

    a year ago I thought that the most important issues facing us were war and privacy rights. I was taken aback by Clinton’s support of Iraq war and Libya. I thought Bernie was only marginally better and it appeared that Trump would really blow up the groupthink and usher in a new policy. I dont believe it any longer. I dont think he has any convictions – he is too lazy to put together a coherent policy himself so the choice is now between a GOP foreign policy or Clinton’s. I have no doubt that had Clinton actually been running policy Iraq would not have been such a clusterfuck , I dont think she would have left Libya on its own – she is too thorough to make mistakes of not working through a problem

  124. Phil Cattar says:

    Nancy K,You say whoever is working with him is doing a poor job.I do not believe the three best debate trainers in the world could have trained Trump for this debate.His habits and compulsions are just too ingrained.You cant make a race horse out of a Jackass……………He what he is at this point.I will vote for him.

  125. kooshy says:

    “They’re very lucky Stein and Johnson were kept out.”
    IMO it is not luck, is by design that they are locked out.

  126. Edward Amame says:

    So it’s all Ivana’s fault, right?

  127. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    KHC, his grooming would not have been a problem if he’d been more engaged, if he’d spoken in complete sentences, and if he’d not been so pouty. However, I fear that his sniffing portends more than a mere head cold.
    I decided way back in June to write-in Bernie Sanders, and my determination solidified after the CA Primary was prematurely ‘called for Clinton’ to give her the nomination on the very night before any of the 30-something Bernie supporters ever had a chance to cast a vote. Simply deplorable.
    Unfortunately — and maddeningly — as I watched the first Trump-Clinton debate, I found Trumps’ perpetual sniffing, pouting, and and lack of coherence was more alarming than I had expected.
    My ‘aha! moment’ came when someone on my Twitter feed retweeted a comment from Howard Dean:
    Both candidates need to submit to a mutually agreed upon third party for complete medical work-ups. If Howard Dean’s hunch is mistaken, then it should be easy and simple for Trump to have the suspicions put to rest by agreeing to a complete physical by a neutral third party. Hillary should submit to the same neutral party for a similar workup.
    This election just gets creepier and creepier.
    I sincerely hope that my intuition is wrong on this one.

  128. different clue says:

    There would still be millions who would be able to tune into and receive a LoWV You Tube Channel if someone would give it a try. Those millions would still have an effect on the State of the Nation’s State of Mind. If there are millions who are beyond physical reach due to poverty or physical isolation, do we deny something good to other millions who still can be physically and technologically reached?
    I am not technologically versed in what a smart phone can or cannot do. I still keep my copper landline phone. I may get a dumm phone some day for telephonic portability some day. But I have to wonder . . . if a smart phone is internet-connected, and the You Tube is reachable over the Internet, why wouldn’t an internet-connected smart phone be able to reach You Tube?

  129. different clue says:

    And yet, if enough people hate the Clintobamacrats deeply enough, or fear Clinton’s powerful kaganulandy desire to risk war with Russia over “Assad MUST go!” or “Kee-YIV” or some such thing, or reject TTP/TTIP/TISA/ISDS firmly enough; Trump will become President anyway.
    Not every vote for “not Trump” will go to Clinton.

  130. Sam Peralta says:

    Reading this thread it is clear AK is correct – “confirmation bias reigns supreme once again”.
    There’s also a lot of armchair quaterbacking of Trump’s performance. All he had to do was counter the perception that he is a madman. Hillary tried reinforcing the perception by attacking Trump on if he was trustworthy with the nuclear codes, and of course racism & sexism. Unfortunate, for her strategy, he actually sounded very rational on many policy questions.
    David Stockman quoting Trump from the debate last night:
    “……Typical politician. All talk, no action. Sounds good, doesn’t work. Never going to happen. Our country is suffering because people like Secretary Clinton have made such bad decisions in terms of our jobs and in terms of what’s going on.
    Now, look, we have the worst revival of an economy since the Great Depression. And believe me: We’re in a bubble right now. And the only thing that looks good is the stock market, but if you raise interest rates even a little bit, that’s going to come crashing down.
    We are in a big, fat, ugly bubble. And we better be awfully careful. And we have a Fed that’s doing political things. This Janet Yellen of the Fed. The Fed is doing political — by keeping the interest rates at this level. And believe me: The day Obama goes off, and he leaves, and goes out to the golf course for the rest of his life to play golf, when they raise interest rates, you’re going to see some very bad things happen, because the Fed is not doing their job.”

  131. jld says:

    “the scoop that brings down Hillary Clinton and her family’s political empire.”
    Sure, sure, the whole MSM is against the Clintons.
    I would advise you (as would Babak) against abuse of hard drugs, nasty surprises at the end…

  132. Peter Reichard says:

    From the one dimensional perspective of listening on the radio, thus missing the visual nuances I felt Clinton sounded more polished and professional. Trump started well, scored early points but by the end seemed a little flustered as she baited him with some limited success. Neither scored a knockout but overall I give the nod to Hilary.
    Trump however wins by not losing big. A wild guess is that ten percent of the electorate desperately want to vote against Clinton but fear Trump lacks the gravitas to be President and has a personality incompatible with that high office. Victory for him lies in assuaging those fears. He need not come across as more Presidential than Clinton just Presidential enough and he may have achieved that tonight.

  133. Will says:

    Agree w/ Scott Adams on this one. While Clinton was winning the debate on points, Trump won the election by presenting as a plausible president. I think the election is over. B/ there is contra indicators about that, one of which is the peso going up. Is the peso value a predictor of who wins the election?
    I think he got ISIS wrong. It wasn’t about no troops in Iraq due to lack of a SOFA (Gates thinks Obama could have gotten one if he had personally lobbied Maliki for it), it was the destabilization of Syria which started under Hillary’s watch. ISIS grew in the absence of Syrian government weakness in Eastern Syria. And then, it crossed over to Iraq. Flynn has probably told him all this stuff, b/ Trump may be constrained by Adelson and Netanyahu from telling the truth on that. Oh, where is the SOFA in Syria? Strange, that secular multi-confessional government has an ambassador in Washington (correction: US ordered closure of embassy in 2014) and is recognized by the UN. Yet, we have an undeclared war against it and we favor the takfiri jihadists.
    The most important thing about the debate is that Trump rejected Nuclear first strike. He may have prevented world war III with that one. The second important thing is he’s got a burn for the Persicos, not a good or wise position.

  134. LeaNder says:

    Margret, I am not sure if a handkerchief would work, it seems more a habit, some type of routine behavior.

  135. LeaNder says:

    Col. Lang, if I may, the Kewpie doll remark…..unworthy.
    It visualizes something, saving words. Strictly, I would assume too that her frequent smiles were part of a larger deliberate strategy.
    What’s her basic behavior? Does she smile often in similar contexts? Did she in her debates with Obama? Some people use open smiles naturally, it works like “voodoo”. She doesn’t seem to be a natural. Some people force themselves to smile, but do it badly. She did it well. But I assume too it was part of a larger trained strategy …

  136. LeaNder says:

    She did occasionally communicate via sneers, check the context of the big smiles. Usually slightly after, if I recall correctly.

  137. LeaNder says:

    Hmm, why am I not surprised you are doing your research?
    You’re sure you’ve got the right Edward Amame? Just asking, since I once witnessed a hunt for a “Sean McBride” first hand. Well that crowd had the benefit of additional IP addresses.
    Any evidence, in case it’s his real name, he uses his correct name? He doesn’t link to his real estate business after all. Does he? Or did he allude to his enterprise before?

  138. LeaNder says:

    Ok, sorry, didn’t get the joke. Who/what on earth could have inspired it.
    Hmm, I see. You may have loved Trump’s allusion to his hyper frequent IRS audits. Could there be certain rules following bankruptcies?

  139. turcopolier says:

    What a number of you did was to specifically state that Trump was “coked up” at the debate. You don’t know that at all. This is a propaganda meme being used by the Clinton campaign and I won’t have you spreading it on SST. BTW, I do not live in “the Virginia countryside.” I wish I did. I suppose the point of that description represents your vision of an isolated man living a bucolic fantasy. In fact I live in the Washington metro area in a neighborhood largely peopled by Democrats. pl

  140. turcopolier says:

    I would like you to start using quotation marks. In this case it is difficult to know what you are saying and what MS is saying. pl

  141. turcopolier says:

    I think that there is a qualitative difference between speculating about medical conditions and accusations of criminal drug use. pl

  142. turcopolier says:

    mike allen
    Would it be a “joke” if I spread a rumor that you are a cocaine user? I know you are an HC person but there are limits to behavior. I have taken ked off the blocked list to see how he behaves. pl

  143. LeaNder says:

    but the only thing he admitted to being high on was Donald Trump:
    The citation in relation to the argument gives us no valid proof. Tit for tats are always a bad idea. Beyond that, I find the associations pretty vague. More interesting really: the anonymous informer. …
    But if you watch it, I would support a temporary amnesty too. 😉

  144. LeaNder says:

    if I get this correctly: Trump will manage to both “republicate” matters, and this will make America great again?
    Hmmm? They still exert influence you think?

  145. LeaNder says:

    media now controls the outcome
    Since it wouldn’t be possible without media, how could that be otherwise? Maybe I don’t completely grasp yet the central aspects of the US media Borg or only within vague limits.
    Of course Hannity could have been the moderator. Who decides on where matters happen and who sends the moderator in charge? Do they all have their own staff involved in the more specific transmission of the debate, or is this done by the respective channel in charge?

  146. Fred says:

    “You cant make a race horse out of a Jackass…”
    What does it take to make an honest politician out of a pay-for-play crooked one?

  147. Fred says:

    “Apparently sitting President’s …” need to read the constitution that immigration lawyer Mr. Kahn held up during the Democratic convention. Then he would, as a lawyer who taught constitutional law, be reminded that the Senate is not obligated to confirm nominations.

  148. Fred says:

    I’m not to impressed with her skill at baiting a blowhard.I worry about the idiots she’ll appoint who think we need to bait Russia. Imagine if they acted the way her staff has in regards to her handling of classified information.

  149. LeaNder says:

    That’s a quite fascinating analysis by origin, dc. Don’t you think? … Now I understand why some defendants are not facing questions. I guess their lawyers occasionally curb their ambitions.* 😉
    But strictly his argument didn’t aim at the no doubt manipulative crowd, much less partisan’s will notice. Who wouldn’t like to escape taxes one way or another? But yes, you may be correct that ultimately the frustration of a necessary part of the voters that don’t like either choice, may lead them to third party candidates: As ultimate “decider” on matters at hand.
    * But origin don’t underestimate the effect of training.

  150. mike allen says:

    Colonel –
    Thank for taking him out of the woodshed. Like Tyler, Ked adds some spice to the comments. But I am sure Ked does not want nor need my support.
    Regarding Trump, I did not make up that joke, I only pointed out that it was an attempt at humor. Not being a cocaine user myself I did not even understand the joke until someone showed me a ‘Saturday Night Live’ skit of excessive sniffing by a comic pretending to be a druggie.
    And I am sure that in private that Trump would laugh about that cocaine joke himself while pretending outrage in public.

  151. shepherd says:

    It’s not a lie, but it is misleading. Bankruptcy in a real estate deal is a little different from personal bankruptcy. In some cases, it can be a tool that helps unlock value from an illiquid asset. Properties like his typically are set up as separate entities, or companies, if you will. Six did enter bankruptcy. That said, Trump had cash flow problems but equity in the properties. Bankruptcy was a way to transfer ownership stakes to creditors in exchange for more favorable terms–while keeping the properties running. It would not have been logical or in anyone’s interest to have the properties fail outright or for them to cease operations while negotiations went on.

  152. LeaNder says:

    Tyler, at one point in time I stumbled across a repentant lefty, on the surface, who still is quite active in “studying the network”. Or outing the profs you should consider with suspicion for your benefit.
    What would be the factual basis for your 93% percentage?

  153. Tyler says:

    Google “academia leans left”.

  154. Tyler says:

    I thought you were going to stop posting.

  155. Tyler says:

    You don’t have to wait when you’re inventing these anecdotes. Run your next rough draft by me now.

  156. turcopolier says:

    It is true that I have some background in literature and I do appreciate stream of consciousness writing but your comments recently have been incomprehensible to me. Sorry. pl

  157. LeaNder says:

    Except for the academic circles, Michael Brenner looked at recently?

  158. HDL says:

    The near-worthless insta-pols are in, the faithful having responded, and everyone is claiming victory. But the opinions that ‘really matter’ are being released by the MSM. I offer an example from today’s WAPO headlines and commentary:
    “Trump’s Night of Sniffles and Screwups”—Kathleen Parker
    “Trump is too much of a wacko bird to be an albatross”—Dana Milbank
    “Clinton reassures a fearful world”—David Ignatius
    “Donald Trump, Caught with his pants down”—Garrison Keiller
    “Out of his depth, Donald Trump clings to deception” — Michael Gerson
    “Clinton delivers a beat-down”—Eugene Robinson
    I didn’t bother providing links; the title tells the story.

  159. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Academics are not Leftists; they are too wimp-ish to thread on the footsteps of such men as Lenin and Stalin.
    Rather, they are whiners, unfortunately, like is said in Persian: “Complaining why the Sky is blue.”
    Or as is said in America: “They want to make bad luck illegal.”

  160. LeaNder says:

    Ok, admitting basic bias on this snippet:
    Who wouldn’t like to escape taxes one way or another?
    Employees seem to have less chances “to escape” in this context. Beyond, I do not know enough about the larger US context.

  161. HDL says:

    ‘Twas John Screamin Dean that tweeted the ‘joke’. Shame on him.

  162. turcopolier says:

    In business the goal is to legally pay as little tax as possible just as you try to reduce your other costs. pl

  163. rjj says:

    What’s wrong with you! Don’t you realize the term “cat lady” has greater umbrage potential than kewpie. It upsets me. Will proceed to outrage and have achieved high dudgeon by the promised update. Not for myself, you understand – I don’t particularly like cats, but on behalf of several past acquaintances who have kept multiple cats.

  164. mike allen says:

    You think I invented my neighbor? I will have to tell her that. She believes in the same theories you have of diazepam and the medical handler, great job of photo forensics you two did on that one (snark alert!). Hmmm? Maybe she got it from the same Drudge Report that you did, you think?
    Plus she has her own weird thinking that Hillary had Vince Foster, Vic Raisor, Jim McDougal, and Ron Brown whacked; swears up and down that Bernie is now on her hit list. Bernie is what, maybe five or six years older than her, so when the man passes away I am sure the cat lady is going to tell me “I told you so”. She claims Hillary provoked the terrorists to kill Ambassador Chris Stevens at Benghazi because he was going to drop the give the press the true dirt on her. She is convinced Hillary aided the Medellin drug cartel, coerced Monica and others to service Bill, had Web Hubbell father her daughter because Bill was impotent, plus Travelgate, and others ad infinitum.
    Those conspiracy theories were long before your time, but the scary thing to me is that many other Americans believe some of them also.

  165. Stephanie says:

    I read the book and was stage manager for the play (in school) before getting around to the movie, but I was also thinking of the scene where Greenwald is cross-examining Queeg. Queeg starts rambling defensively about the towline and the strawberries and the sailor’s untucked shirt, and Greenwald strolls back to the defense table, leans back, and just lets Queeg destroy himself. Trump didn’t destroy himself the other night but at times he was barely coherent. Clinton didn’t try to interrupt or press him too hard, she just pushed the buttons and watched him go off.
    I’m not sure I get your analogy in any case, though. Many of Clinton’s aides have been with her for the long haul and showed admirable loyalty to the boss despite some very trying times.

  166. MRW says:

    Howard Dean is a medical doctor. His “hunch” is medical malpractice. Cavalierly diagnosing sniffles on a broadcast debate as a coke user? He should apologize: to the Clinton campaign.
    Everyone in Manhattan knows that Trump has never had a cigarette, joint or otherwise, or alcoholic drink in his life. Not even one drop. I think he doesn’t drink coffee either. His beloved older brother died young of alcohol and drugs, early 20s, but before he died he had regularly begged and warned Donald throughout his teenage years never to touch them. This is an old story. Everyone knows it.* His kids talk about how Trump instilled the same thing in them from childhood, and none of them did.
    The Donald’s vice is Big Macs.
    * Just as everyone who knows Trump for the past 30 years in Manhattan knows that you would never hear a racial slur against blacks, or anything approximating it, which that Machado woman intimated Trump had yesterday in a post-debate interview. When asked what Trump said specifically, she said she would “prefer not to say” but that when Trump “was my boss” she heard them.
    About a month ago, Donny Deutsch on Morning Joe and a couple of other guests addressed the issue of accusations of racism towards blacks that Trump was getting. Deutsch said he’d known Trump a long time, and some of the other guests too and all of them–all declared Clinton supporters–talked among themselves. Deutsch said he’s been up in Trump’s office countless times. He asked the others Have you ever heard Trump when you were up in his office or at a party ever say a racist word? Deutsch said he’d recently asked people who’ve known Trump for ages too. All of them said “Never, not even a hint of it.”

  167. LeaNder says:

    Clinton looked (to my eyes) as if she was drugged, tired, sick, or generally unhealthy, even though she was mentally alert and spoke well. But her eyes were telling a different story.
    I guess I have to give him a comedian token. And now I read the rest.

  168. Buzz Meeks says:

    Kewpie remark very worthy with her oh so “cool” kid facial expressions and she certainly looked heavily medicated. As to Trump’s sniffing, I kept wondering how big was the rock of cocaine in his nostril. Otherwise the whole thing was a farce. Clinton has been extremely lucky in the lack of aggressiveness of both Sanders and Trump.

  169. mike allen says:

    RJJ –
    Sorry to offend you and or your past acquantances. I have nothing against well behaved cats. My wife and I used to have a barn cat and took good care of it. When our children were younger we always had both a dog and a cat as pets. My neighbor apparently does not believe in taking care of hers. Except for a few choice favorite allowed in her house, the remainder are feral or sem-feral. They crap in my rose bushes, are full of scars, scabs, ringworm and fleas. At least one per year gets trundled off by a coyote. And they have forced my SWSMB to shut down her bird feeder to stop the songbird bloodshed. I have reported her to the ASPCA, but got no joy from their .

  170. MRW says:

    You’re absolutely right, Patrick.
    September 15, 2015
    ‘Dilbert’ Creator Scott Adams Predicts Landslide Victory For President Donald Trump
    August 15, 2015
    Clown Genius

  171. Jack says:

    The pundits sure look like tilting at windmills.
    As I’ve said before if Trump wins it will be epic meltdown time. And all kinds of revisionist history will be written as all the beltway punditry claim no one could have seen it coming.
    As I read this doublethink, my inclination to vote for Trump rises.

  172. Jack says:

    Howard Dean of the scream fame is a cultural icon for many leftwing Democrat. He apparently tweeted the claim that teetotaler Trump was snorting coke, which the supporters of the Borg Queen latched on to as their boat has sprung a rather large leak. To me it shows desperation as they get an inkling that Les Déplorables are massing for the decisive battle on November 8th. And despite the big bucks from the billionaire club and Wall St mavens as well as the hundreds of millions of dollars of ads and the MSM including a debate moderator, the Trumpwagon is gaining.

  173. Fred says:

    It is the failure of Hilary’s subordinates to fulfill their duty (in their professional roles) to both her (and to us as citizens of the Republic) that is important. Hilary’s chief of staff received immunity from prosecution for possible criminal conduct (along with a number of others involved) in the email/server problems. It is not praiseworthy that they put loyalty to Hilary before service to the Republic.

  174. Fred says:

    They are quite brave enough to go after those without power – like college students.

  175. rjj says:

    Overhasty response to the upwinding of Tyler too often gives cause to regret. Moreover, when having an experience of the out of sorts (is that the correct English expression?) it is usually best to postpone one’s sharings of the thoughts.

  176. Sam Peralta says:

    The Hillbots will proclaim that the MSM is not biased!

  177. Will says:

    yep, there is that difference b/n tax avoidance and tax evasion. Also much better to liquidate a failing corporation then drag successful ones down w/ it.

  178. Babak Makkinejad says:

    and abuse the graduate students to boot…

  179. MRW says:

    Patrick, did you read this Scott Adams post published last Sunday? I agree with him.
    Why I Switched My Endorsement from Clinton to Trump

  180. Tyler says:

    There was no conspiracy about that. It was obviously a diazepam auto injector. As for the rest I guess you might want to ignore the trail of bodies with the Clintons, but reality doesn’t care about your feelings.
    I’ve never heard anything on the rest of it, but sounds like more projection.txt.
    It is pretty sad you have to invent a neighbor for you to strawman against to make yourself look like a big man on an internet forum, btw. A shameful display.

  181. LeaNder says:

    among us (in my case elder) females, shouldn’t we admit that we are not that fond of the exhibitionary canaries in the gold cage (chosen carefully, met many) next to that type of men?
    But seriously: “baggy suit”??? … My mother wanted me to become a fashion designer, maybe I have stopped to pay attention ages ago… Strictly I would assume, he can easily afford custom tailored suits. But I’ll watch that next time. “puffy eye bags, pouty lips”, not sure if that is how I watch people, no matter whom. But more generally, along with the sniffing, which caught my attention, yes, there is an accompanying slightly off (unfamiliar) rounding shape wise, pursing (for loss of a better way to put it) of the lips.

  182. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Came across a book first published in 1939: “The Federal Reserve System and How it Works” issued by the “Board of Governors”.
    Is it worth reading, is it accurate?
    Do you know?

  183. LeaNder says:

    oh dear. Stephanie, you mean the DNC and Debbie were simply paranoid and would have done better to simply sit it out after a close look at Bernie’s: “rumpled, disheveled, … unkempt white hair flying in all directions”?
    Now I wonder why I am not even distracted by Trump’s admittedly initially irritatingly odd hairstyle anymore. One can get used to matters. Should I somewhat adjust that superficial look?

  184. LeaNder says:

    As, I wrote, one can get used to matters. 😉

  185. LeaNder says:

    Tyler, how long do the ones addicted to your novel series have to wait for the next volume, or alternatively, will the election delay the next publication date for long? … See anecdotes, triggers stories, and I am seriously interested in the next adventure series, kind of miss the characters already.

  186. Jack says:

    The Borg Queen’s campaign have used surrogates like the Khans to paint Trump and his supporters as racist, sexist, xenophobic. During the debate she brought up Alicia Machado to label Trump sexist. Apparently there’s more to Ms. Machado.

  187. scott s. says:

    Historical note: The Chairman of the Federal Reserve (actually the Federal Reserve Board of Governors) from 1934 – 1948 was Marriner Eccles. Ruml was Chairman of the New York Bank.

  188. Nancy K says:

    Incoherent,sniffing, and tired looking ain’t exactly healthy either. The bags under his eyes were big enough for a few days of R and R and he looked like he needed some rest. And you are right at this point the majority of us are partisan.

  189. Nancy K says:

    If he were coked up he would have had a lot more energy. I think people are making innuendos because of the sniffing. I don’t like Trump but I believe him when he states he does not use drugs or alcohol.

  190. MRW says:

    Yeah, you’re absolutely right Scott. He was Chairman of the New York Federal Reserve, which wasn’t Fed headquarters then.

  191. Stephen Calhoun says:

    I wish someone would ask HRC if the bankers partly, and majorly, responsible for the housing crash should receive a day in court. I wish someone would ask Trump if fixing the rig system means making law that makes wealthy special interests less able to rig the system.
    The diversity of observations in this thread is fascinating.

  192. Stephen Calhoun says:

    “All he had to do was counter the perception that he is a madman.”
    So, somebody makes this the criteria for Trump, and he comes through. So what?
    The interest rate bubble theory Trump refers to was undermined the instant he said, “when they raise interest rates.”

  193. Buzz Meeks says:

    Sorry, I forgot to mention she has also been very lucky with the exclusion of Stein and Johnson from this dog and pony show.

  194. Larry Kart says:

    About a “woman who wants to take the boys toys,” I found this excerpt from a review of Hermione Lee’s biography of Virginia Woolf amusing and/or revealing, whichever direction one wants to take it:
    “‘Why,’ Virginia asks of her father [notable Victorian era literary figure Leslie Stephen], ‘had he no shame in thus indulging his rage before women?’ It is as if she and Vanessa [Woolf’s sister] were the mute observers of a ceremony which required them without implicating them, as if they were being asked simply to observe a parody or masquerade of masculinity running rampant – running away with itself. The worst excesses of the patriarchal ego (‘it’s the ego that erects itself like another part of the body I don’t care to name’) emerge from the dissolving, at times dissolute, boundaries of the male self.
    “If, as Lee suggests, Woolf’s analysis of patriarchy begins here, with the victimising relationship she watched between her father and Stella [Woolf’s half-sister] and, later on, with Vanessa, we should also note the element of failure written into the condition she so ruthlessly and brilliantly diagnosed: ‘We must compensate the man for the loss of his gun.’ In The Voyage Out, the writer Hewet says to Rachel Vinrace: ‘I believe we must have the same sort of power over you that we’re said to have over horses. They see us as three times as big as we are or they’d never obey us.’
    “This gives Woolf’s feminism at once its biting edge and its compassion, her view of men as ‘cripples in a cave’ buckling under the crushing weight of what is required of them; her picture of Hitler as no more or less than a terrifying void: ‘that ridiculous little man. Why ridiculous? Because none of it fits. Encloses no reality.’ Seen in this light, feminism, or at least Woolf’s feminism, is the answer not to unquestioning, unchallenged patriarchy, but to patriarchy as a form of lunacy, known only too well by the men who are meant to embody it: bravura on the verge of collapse.”
    P.S. I find Woolf’s fiction unreadable; her non-fiction seems to me much better, particularly her letters.

  195. mike allen says:

    So you believe in the trail of bodies also. Wow!!!!
    Sounds like you and the cat lady are in sync on that.

  196. turcopolier says:

    … who looked like an old hound dog with his puffy eye bags, pouty lips (though no drool), and baggy suit.” How sad that you would stoop to this. pl

  197. turcopolier says:

    mike allen
    Does the trail of bodies include Buddy, Bill’s dog. (humor) pl

  198. MRW says:

    Is it historically. But the way it was run then is not how it’s run now, Babak.
    This is the recent one. And it’s accurate.
    But one thing you have to keep in mind is the following cat’s cradle, or you’ll go insane. Let me help you. I’ve lost my hair over this stuff over the years; I don’t like obfuscation:
    Imagine a circle. Spilt it vertically. (It’s such a simple diagram, why not sketch it out on a 8 x 11 and fill it in with what I say. Trust me, it will make sense. You’ll see it.)
    The left side is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT sector and it’s agent: the US Treasury, and its banker: the Fed.
    The right side is the NON-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT sector: state and local govts, businesses (including commercial banks), households; and foreign govts, banks, and investors.
    The left side issues the US currency.
    The right side uses it, can’t issue. (Don’t you wish we could?) US banks issue credit-creation money when they create deposits from loans, but it **cannot** issue the US dollar, against the law.
    When you’re reading that manual, these people–the people who wrote it–slide back and forth between these two vertical worlds using the same words for activities on both sides when there is no equivalence. You need to understand the structure the way I’m showing you.
    A prime example is the word “debt.” Debt (aka Public Debt) on the left side is actually the creation of new USD in the real economy. No one has to pay it back. It’s brand-new dollars. Aka: “Base Money,” “High-Powered Money.” (A bunch of lazy economists who refuse to speak plain English talk in this career shorthand.) And it’s also the way the federal government provisions itself. When you read “Public debt” think “interest-free money” or ‘The People’s Equity’. It’s what we own as a nation, not what we owe.
    Debt on the right side is real motherf**king debt, the shit we all know: you gotta first produce collateral, pay interest, and pay it back on time. (These debts are always only in USD.)
    Now, get a second sheet of paper. Draw that same circle with the same dissecting vertical line. [Really, Babak, do this.] Split the left side horizontally and put Federal Government in the top half and Federal Reserve in the bottom half. On the right side, just write US Banks. Nothing else. Draw a double-arrow between the Federal Reserve quarter on the left and the US Banks half on the right to indicate things go back and forth. The US Federal Reserve also handles the national payment system in all its complexity via the Federal Reserve system, and that it what this second diagram shows.
    So the manual you are going to read is an amalgam of these two diagrams using language that is highly dependent on where the Federal Reserve is operating at any given point in time without giving you the key.
    By now most people are asleep, so if you’re not, You’ll probably get through it.

  199. turcopolier says:

    Larry Kart
    Just to be clear, I have no problem with the girls taking the boys’ toys so long as they play by the same rules and do not expect to be treated better than men treat each other in a necessarily tough world. In my experience most of the women I sought to advance in government turned against me and cited my lack of warmth, etc. pl

  200. Edward Amame says:

    I don’t come here for you, so flattering yourself isn’t necessary.

  201. Sam Peralta says:

    It’s not somebody. It’s Crooked Hillary’s campaign. They’ve spent millions of dollars in ads and they have their media wing the MSM constantly trying to shape perceptions that Trump is a crazy.
    There’s two big economic & financial points that Trump made in that little narrative. First, we have one of the worst economic recovery in the post-war era. Second, the Fed has inflated a financial asset bubble and now they’re trapped since when they raise rates the asset bubble will deflate. These are very cogent points. The Fed may not raise rates because they can’t considering what they have wrought and their priority as has been shown for some years are the financial speculators who are some of the biggest funders of Hillary’s campaign.
    The core message that Trump made is we have a financial house of cards instigated by the Fed who is now trapped. And all of the machinations of the Fed and the near doubling of the federal debt by Obama has given us the weakest economic recovery post-war. And the Deplorables are the ones paying the price.
    The MSM call him a clown when this guy gets the reality!! That’s why I am voting for him.

  202. Jack says:

    Guess who Paul Wolfowitz plans to vote for? Says it all!!

  203. different clue says:

    This “hunch” by Dr. Dean reminded me of that long-distance diagnosis on Terry Schiavo delivered by Senator Bill ” the Doctor” Frist. That’s some pretty low sinking on Dean’s part.

  204. Doug Colwell says:

    Mike, when Hillary said “We came, we saw, he died” followed by a giggle it does suggest at least the possibility that she might not have a problem with killing folks. Her record on Iraq, Libya, Honduras, and Syria speaks for itself. You don’t think there is a trail of bodies? Wow.

  205. elkern says:

    My favorite part was:
    “TRUMP: Well, I have much better judgment than she does. There’s no question about that. I also have a much better temperament than she has, you know?
    I have a much better — she spent — let me tell you — she spent hundreds of millions of dollars on an advertising — you know, they get Madison Avenue into a room, they put names — oh, temperament, let’s go after — I think my strongest asset, maybe by far, is my temperament. I have a winning temperament. I know how to win. She does not have a…”
    Until that point, the audience had pretty much kept quiet, but that brought the house down.
    The laughter reminded me of Ahmadinejad’s speech at the UN, when he claimed that “there are no gays in Iran”. Both were Emperor’s-new-clothes moments.
    Trump’s strongest asset in RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT is that he’s an outsider, not beholden to the usual suspects who pay for campaigns. His TEMPERAMENT works for making – and breaking – deals to make money & attract attention, but would be disastrous in the White House.
    Diplomacy – or Foreign Policy in general – requires a certain level of duplicity, but it also requires some willingness to keep one’s word (and actually abide by agreements). The same thing is true of the relationship between President and Congress. What we’ve all seen of him in this last year shows that he does not have the “temperament” for any serious long-term commitment or responsibility.

  206. mike allen says:

    Good catch Colonel. I’ll remind the cat lady that she forgot Buddy when I see her again. But she is not big on dogs, especially my dog who chases her precious pussycats out of my rosebushes. And she has been avoiding me – says my liberal bullheadedness is going to ruin the country. She will probably never forgive me if Hillary wins in November.

  207. kooshy says:

    Colonel is a business owner welcomes more taxes and regulations, he or she better look for a job, since such a person will not endure in business. well on second thought unless like Clintons you have your own non profit for profit business, with a good government based fundraising opportunity.

  208. Phil Cattar says:

    Fred,I do not believe it can be done.Science has not yet invented a personality transplant.Both of our major candidates have major flaws.Im going to vote for Trump………………..sometimes you have to buy the whole ball of wax.

  209. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Thanks, I will do as you suggested.
    I have the 1963 edition, before US went off the Gold Standard.

  210. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Also, please repots the URL – it is invalid.

  211. Ingolf says:

    “A prime example is the word “debt.” Debt (aka Public Debt) on the left side is actually the creation of new USD in the real economy. No one has to pay it back. It’s brand-new dollars. Aka: “Base Money,” “High-Powered Money.” (A bunch of lazy economists who refuse to speak plain English talk in this career shorthand.)”
    MRW, economists do use jargon unnecessarily but not in this case. “Base Money” has a very specific meaning, in part to avoid this sort of confusion.
    Base money (or high-powered money) is money created by the Fed when it purchases assets. It’s the only form of “money” that constitutes final, legal settlement and is made up of currency (actual folding stuff) and bank reserves held by banks at the Fed. Other things we regard as money, like bank deposits, are at bottom just claims to base money. Banks therefore settle up between themselves (after netting out debits and credits where possible) via the Fed, with individual banks’ accounts with the Fed debited or credited accordingly. Overall, however, the level of bank reserves stays the same; only the Fed can change them via net purchases or sales of assets.
    “Public debt” also has a specific meaning. Just because it’s issued by the government doesn’t mean it’s money, “base” or otherwise. It’s debt, with interest and principal repayable just as it is for private debt on the “right side” of your circle.
    The US government has to issue debt since, under current law, it’s not allowed to “spend money into existence” directly. Instead, its spending and receipts (taxes etc) mostly go through its account with the Fed (called the General Account), which must always be in credit. The Treasury and Fed therefore cooperate in issuing fresh debt when required to replace maturing debt or fund current funding requirements.

  212. herb says:

    The worst comment in the entire debate belonged to Donald Trump, and nobody has even mentioned it. It was in regard to the Iran nuclear deal:
    “He [Bibi] is not a happy camper.”
    That is the criteria? We are supposed to care how Bibi feels? What was Trump’s alternative? War with Iran? Let Bibi bomb them? Then he interjected that blowing up their ships for “taunting” us would not be an act of war.
    I don’t expect this debate to have any long term effect either way absent other related events.

  213. Sam Peralta says:

    “What we’ve all seen of him in this last year shows that he does not have the “temperament” for any serious long-term commitment or responsibility.”
    That is an observation you are making. I and others see just the opposite and like his winning temperament!
    What we’ve all seen is a businessman candidate defeat 16 politicians in the GOP establishment who had the best campaign teams money could buy as well as big money from wealthy donors. Winning the GOP nomination with more votes than Romney did in 2012. Now he’s running a close race with the Borg Queen who has the support of the establishment of both parties, who has already spent hundreds of millions in attack ads against him and the MSM including the debate moderator working for her campaign. Yes, that’s the winning temperament that some of us like. And its that kinda winning that some of us will hopefully celebrate on November 8th.

  214. LeaNder says:

    no doubt manipulative crowd
    well that’s not quite what I wanted, but it’s not so bad either.
    The easily manipulated (was, where I was heading, but why not:) and in return manipulative crowd?

  215. LeaNder says:

    MRW, concerning 2, With my transparent nitwit status on deep economics. I would basically prefer a tax on speculations to an Estate Tax too. Tax already paid, I understand that argument.
    Now Dilbert may have made his money in the former realm initially, not sure, didn’t take a closer look, you think he’d accept that shift to that different type of looting the hard-working citizen?

  216. MRW says:

    Use this one instead: The Federal Open Market Committee, for example, would be how the Fed interacts with the economy (usually via US banks) to control the interest rate—one of its mandates–aka the Fed Funds Rate (FFR), also aka the “overnight interest rate.”
    Let me know if it doesn’t work.
    Babak, the best book imo, is Frank N Newman’s Freedom From National Debt. It’s 87 pages. Published in 2013. Newman was Deputy Secretary of the US Treasury, and before that Chairman/CEO of major banks in the 1980s. He was the first non-Chinese that China hired to save one of its failing banks in 2008/2009. The book describes how the US Treasury works with the Fed and the economy. I’ve recommended it to others–usually the ones who think I’m nutz and don’t know what I’m talking about, who think we should balance the federal budget/get rid of the deficit–and a few have bought it. When I ask if they read it, they say Yes, took me a couple of hours. A couple of hours??? Babak, it took me three months! It is one of those books, for me, where after you read a paragraph you go off and talk to yourself for a day, or learn some aspect of accounting that you never knew about before. He explains the logic of the US Treasury and the Fed, as byzantine as it is admittedly. Anyway, I recommend it. Highly.

  217. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Thank you.

  218. MRW says:

    No, you don’t understand base money or high-powered money. I don’t care how various ‘investor’ sites describe it.
    The Fed does not create base money when it purchases assets BECAUSE THOSE ASSETS ALREADY EXIST ON THE OPEN MARKET, and buying them removes them from the real economy. They have already been accounted for. The Federal Reserve is only allowed to purchase treasury securities on the open market, which have previously been purchased by individuals, businesses, trusts, US banks, state & local govts, or foreign banks, govts, and investors. People, banks, or businesses who want to sell them. This is not the creation of new money, Base money, into the economy.
    Only the US Treasury and Congress can do that. (The Federal Reserve may handle it for the US Treasury, and does when the US Treasury on the authority of Congress marks up the amount of congressionally authorized spending in the US Treasury’s General Account via keystrokes, but it cannot create it willy-nilly.)
    When the Federal Reserve purchases assets, like treasury securities, it is removing that interest income from the real economy. The Fed now owns the treasury security. It will be receiving the interest income in future, not members of the private or foreign sector. Every year the Federal Reserve returns that interest income to the US Treasury (after expenses paid). This ‘destroys’ those USD.
    Banks create credit creation money. (So do you when you use your credit card.) Commercial banks create deposits ”out of thin air” when they give you a loan. These deposits are liabilities for the banks, and assets for the depositors. They all net to zero overall. Only the federal government, the state, can create (new) net financial assets for the private sector.
    The specific definition of base money (high-powered money) = Reserve balances + vault cash + cash in circulation. All of that comes from the federal government (Congress and the US Treasury) spending them into existence in the first place.

  219. MRW says:

    The Fed purchases and sells treasury securities on the open market from willing sellers to maintain the interest rate. That’s all.

  220. MRW says:

    “Public debt” also has a specific meaning. Just because it’s issued by the government doesn’t mean it’s money, “base” or otherwise. It’s debt, with interest and principal repayable just as it is for private debt on the “right side” of your circle.
    Completely false.
    Take a look at this two-page bank statement for the US Treasury for fiscal year 2015. The actual goddam figures. Look at Table III-A Public Debt Transactions.
    It’s right there in black and white. In 2015, the US Treasury created $60.7 trillion in 2015. It redeemed $60.4 trillion. No interest required. No paybacks. No taxpayer or children or grandchildren involved. The remainder of the issuance, the $326.5 billion, was left in the The People’s bank accounts for their benefit and use.

  221. Jack says:

    The best comments were also made by Trump. No first use of nukes and we will not be the world’s policeman. We have seen that the Borg Queen has a track record in office of being an Israeli Firster. It’s Obummer that’s handing over $38 billion of arms to Bibi.

  222. MRW says:

    When a monetarily sovereign economy (with a floating exchange rate) is in the tank and you want to spur growth, you don’t remove more money from the people’s pockets. You don’t punish your citizens for your government mistake of refusing to do corrective fiscal policy. This ridiculous idea that monetarily sovereign states need to earn revenue at the federal level the way their own provinces, states, and local governments do is like thinking the sun revolves around the earth. It’s antediluvian.
    Monetarily sovereign states–which Germany isn’t, not since it adopted the Euro–don’t need the money, they don’t need the revenue. Monetarily sovereign states are the monopoly creators of their national unit of account, like the British Pound, CAN$, Yen, AUD$, USD. These countries make the damn stuff. They don’t have to tax people to “get money,” to get their own money.
    Taxes are used to establish the legal need for the currency, cool or rev up the national economy, AND they are used as social engineering tactics. Eg: cigarette tax, etc. So the govt would use a tax on speculations if it wanted to cool or reduce those operations. If that’s what the state economists determine is in the national interest.

  223. Tyler says:

    Which books did you read?

  224. Tyler says:

    I must have missed the part where the Senate is obligated to confirm.

  225. Tyler says:

    Hillary didn’t cackle about the rape/torture/murder of Qaddafi? There aren’t questions to be asked about why people keep on turning up dead around the Clintons?
    Okay then.

  226. Castellio says:

    This is an interesting topic that needs to be understood as clearly as possible. Thank you for taking the time and being willing to engage.

  227. Ingolf says:

    It’s not a matter of how “various ‘investor’ sites” describe it. It’s how it’s described and defined by the industry generally.
    Here’s the Fed, for example at their website: “The monetary base is defined as the sum of currency in circulation and reserve balances (deposits held by banks and other depository institutions in their accounts at the Federal Reserve).
    Those reserve balances come into being (and disappear) through Fed buying and selling of securities. That isn’t changed by the fact that it only buys securities from the market as opposed to directly from the government.
    As I mentioned above, under present laws the Treasury is obliged to keep its General Account on the plus side, so it doesn’t actually spend money into existence. To the extent it’s running a deficit, therefore, it has to issue new net debt, which is for the most part done through the Fed.
    Anyway, we’ve been through these things in various ways a few times before, MRW (links below in case anyone is interested), so except for responding to your following two comments, I think I’ll bow out.

  228. Ingolf says:

    It used to do exactly that. Post crisis, not so much. That worked when excess reserves were very small, it doesn’t when they’re $2.6 trillion. Now, the Fed pays interest on excess reserves (IOER) and engages in open market operations mainly for other reasons (i.e. QE).

  229. Ingolf says:

    Look at page 1 (Table II). Under withdrawals, there’s a line titled “Interest on Treasury Securities” which in that year totalled $233 billion interest paid. As for “no paybacks”, not at all. That’s what the $60.4 trillion* of redemptions represents; paying back maturing issues.
    You’re obviously free to use your own terminology, like “The People’s Bank” etc. Trouble is, it complicates things for anybody reading your comments, particularly if they’re unfamiliar with these matters. To the extent that you disagree with the standard take (which I also do in certain respects), I don’t quite see why those differences can’t be explained using the generally accepted terminology.
    * As you no doubt know, the gross numbers are greatly exaggerated because roughly 88% of the flows relate to intra-government issues and redemptions which it seems are rolled daily.

  230. mike allen says:

    …cackle?… You can do better than that Tyler. You are a writer and a good one from what I have seen of the scifi story you posted here last month. Are you in print? I am more of a history buff and an occasional spy novel rather than fantasy/scifi but would buy your book just to brag to friends that I have corresponded with the author.

  231. MRW says:

    Under withdrawals, there’s a line titled “Interest on Treasury Securities” which in that year totalled $233 billion interest paid.
    You know how that’s done? At the end of every August, the US Treasury asks the fed how much interest it will owe on all outstanding treasury securities for the coming year, which starts on Oct 1.
    So last year it was 233$B.
    The US Treasury creates treasury securities in that amount and sells them at auction. No taxpayer. No children or grandchildren involved.

  232. MRW says:

    You’re obviously free to use your own terminology, like “The People’s Bank” etc.
    OK. But it wasn’t “The People’s bank,” it was “The People’s bank accounts.” In other words, the bank accounts in the private sector. It’s the Debt held by the public.
    How about I tell you what Debt held by the public is? It’s the National Debt. It’s what the American people own, not owe. The only reason we believe that ‘debt’ shit is because realtor Seymour Durst, who was as stupid about the National Debt as he was about parenting, put up a Debt Clock billboard in Manhattan, said each American owed it, and everyone fell for it.

  233. MRW says:

    Thanks, Castellio. But I was a “we borrow from China person” in 2009, and believed that the deficit was killing America, that Krugman and Friedman were geniuses, yada-yada-yada. Then I got an inkling I might be wrong. It’s been seven years digging into this. And dig, I’ve done. I am a honey badger when I want to know something, especially when I think I’ve been lied to, it’s congenital, I’m relentless. I sincerely can’t help myself. Because it pisses me off that I’ve been so stupid to swallow the koolaid and wasn’t paying attention. I feel like I’m standing on quicksand, it’s visceral.
    I need to know how things work. It’s why I love military clarity from guys who can walk their talk. Bada-bing. Bada-bang. There was a great guy by the name of David Hackworth, a military guy, and I formed a friendship with him during the Kosovo War when he was being persecuting (imo) by the media for his position on Clinton’s Kosovo War. No one criticizing him was fit to polish his boots. Christ, he was plain-speaking, and funny, jezuss.
    I have Fed spokesmen I can call and email, and US Treasury officials in DC and TX who will take the time to answer my questions (they prefer email, they like a public record trail.:-)) They will send me copies of obscure US statutory law that I know nothing about that designate what they are, or are not, allowed to do. And correct my terminology and my understanding. The political govt appointees at the top of the Fed are largely useless. It’s the real worker bees, the career economists, in the bowel of the Fed and US Treasury who really know what they are talking about, and getting to them takes work and time; they’re circumspect. The CBO? Not so much, buncha’ ignorant pussies who haven’t done the basic investigative work, imo, uneducated in how these transactions really work; and they’re political. Congress believes the CBO, unfortunately.

  234. LeaNder says:

    First, thanks shepherd, many things are misleading or meaningful only within limits. …
    Would you save me the time to dig through this:
    Since when is personal bankruptcy versus business bankruptcy possible in the States?
    It’s easy to realize that real estate is historically considered the most solid type of possession. … But why do you juxtapose it to personal bankruptcy. Only since it’s the issue here?
    Properties like his typically are set up as separate entities, or companies, if you will.
    Over here I warned my mother against investing in the energy market, since it had the same type of basic ‘safety umbrella’ setup. These matters are pretty transparent over here, if you realize.

  235. LeaNder says:

    You don’t punish your citizens for your government mistake of refusing to do corrective fiscal policy.
    I agree on that. … And it sure looks as if we were punished collectively post 2008.
    What I don’t understand is, this passage:
    This ridiculous idea that monetarily sovereign states need to earn revenue at the federal level the way their own provinces, states, and local governments do is like thinking the sun revolves around the earth. It’s antediluvian.
    I’ll leave out comments on antediluvian, not that I don’t get the idea, but how else would they finance the federal level in a federal republic? I don’t know about the direct versus indirect taxes and were they go admittedly. Is this what you have in mind, or something completely different.
    Let me know if I completely misunderstand.

  236. LeaNder says:

    both, not the collection though. Which may be necessary to know for closer study, as I understand some type of precursor. Or bait, if you like.
    Admittedly, I read them the other way round. 2 first, then 1. Thus a quite good strategy would be to suggest to me that I read volume 2 again now with 1 in mind. Instead of reminding me of not quite kept promises, or as I understood it as offer. 😉

  237. LeaNder says:

    MRW, I’ll save a link.
    In which way would I be misguided, if I would assume that there is another basic balance in the FED’s “creationary” abilities, before the two sides you suggest enter the scene?
    In a nutshell: Before the FED passes on the money to banks, aren’t there some type of creditors involved before the money is passed on to the average citizen or the ones that cannot create, if I understand you correctly, to their “straight heart’s desire”?

  238. LeaNder says:

    thanks, Ingolf, what I assumed.

  239. LeaNder says:

    “Only here where there is a strong streak of misogyny”
    Margret, if that was the case or if the place about that, I wouldn’t be around here. You have to avoid the baits occasionally, but that’s about it.

  240. LeaNder says:

    I would confirm, you either have solid experience, a good intuition or good female advisers in the creation of your female characters. Nothing to complain about. At least in that context. Other matters, I might be a bit of a dinosaur on. Although, I am not quite sure how to fit the new generation FOSsil, Paris, into that prejudice. … Never mind evolutionary psychology, admittedly I don’t care about it very much, doesn’t work completely. 😉

  241. gowithit says:

    Post “debate” Trump continues to play a loosing, reactive, thin skin response. His
    “Ms Universe sex tape” and “Billgate” sexual tirades are taking him away from Clinton’s weak areas (foreign policy/war, emails) Might be tasty food for his faithful to chew on, but not for the “undecided” he needs to pull in. If he continues this line of “we have SEX, here folks” into the next “debate”, Clinton will surely counter/bait with his 97 times of taking the “5th” regarding adultery charges in his divorce case! Trump’s castle has a lot of glass to throw stuff back into!

  242. Edward Amame says:

    Not “the whole MSM.” Just most, according to the political who fessed up.

  243. Touche!  It is especially unfair to hound dogs.

  244. MRW says:

    but how else would they finance the federal level in a federal republic?
    Well, in your country you rely upon taxes and excise tariffs, etc. to finance the republic at the federal level. Because the Federal Republic of Germany does not, and cannot, physically create the Euro. Your government has to earn it.
    We in the US don’t have that problem. The United States of America creates the US Dollar (USD)…at the federal level. It issues its own currency. It is the monopoly issuer of the USD globally; no one else but the US federal government can issue a USD legally. Anyone BUT the US govt creating a USD is counterfeiting. In the US, newly minted USDs are physical cash and treasury securities (they’re cash equivalents).
    Therefore, the USA–the federal government–can pay for anything denominated in its own currency. Our 50 states and local govts can’t do that, however. They are like Germany, they have to earn revenue to pay their way.
    Does this make sense?

  245. MRW says:

    It is very important that a country maintain control over its own currency. All the countries that adopted the Euro gave up that freedom in 2000. You are lucky that you live in the one EU-Euro-adopting country that is at the top of the heap, or you would be suffering like the Greeks, Spaniards, and Italians, etc.
    The reason this is so, LeaNder, is because there is no federal government of Europe. The EU just has a central bank, with no oversight. The EU is a collection of nation states with a common currency, but that’s it: it is not like the USA. We are the UNITED States of America. The USA is 50 states under a federal government that has control over its central bank. Our federal government dictates what it will spend its money on, and provides it via congressionally-approved ’spending’. Actually , it’s ‘buying’ not spending–provisioning itself–but that’s another story. Our federal government, via Congress, can tell the central bank to go to hell if it wants, and our federal government can order the central bank to issue a trillion USD to every citizen in the country if it were so inclined. Not that it would, the inflation would be through the roof.
    There was absolutely no reason for Greece and Spain, Italy and Portugal, not to mention Ireland, to have suffered as they did after 2008. None. But you have a bunch of unelected technocrats at the ECB with ideas of their own and cockamamie economic ideas about debt-to-GDP dispersing the Euros. The ECB sold those countries down the river, bankrupted their youth, destroyed retirements, caused suicides and pain. There was no over-riding “federal government’ to control them and slap them around. But it is doubtful that all the nation states in the EU would ever unite the way the 50 states united under a federal USA. So you are left with the mess that you’ve got over there. Which I see is rapidly coming apart. The only entity that can save Deutsche Bank is the ECB. Let’s see if they do it.
    If Germany were ever to return to the Deutschmark, your federal government could return the social services you’ve lost since 2000 with no cost to its citizens because its ability to create Deutschmarks would be limitless.

  246. LeaNder says:

    MRW: How’s David Hackworth related to the FED? He surely may be related to the somewhat mysterious death of Admiral Boorda?
    Are you suggesting he was in contact with Fed spokesman and people at the US Treasury, or you are?
    But Freedom from National Debts by Frank N. Newman may be interesting. I read a little Keynes by now, referring to Ruki the Drunken Master:

  247. LeaNder says:

    Interesting comment, good comment really, I decided to not comment on: “Trumped-Up Trickle Down”, might have taken me too far. But yes, maybe I would have responded differently after reading your comment. Unprepared? How could you be prepared for such a question, considering his ideas about taxes sound about right to you? …
    “Clinton gave a Mea Culpa for the emails.”
    Concerning this. What would the polls show and/or how would the average citizen decide on the publication of “private emails”? Would they be able to get the idea out of their minds: “gosh it could be my own?”. Are they aware that in their case it wouldn’t matter much, except for specific interested parties maybe? …

  248. turcopolier says:

    IMO Judge Learned Hand was correct. citizens of the US have no duty to make the US Treasury happy. Trump seems not to have broken the law and so he has no reason to apologize for the tax returns. pl

  249. turcopolier says:

    “the somewhat mysterious death of Admiral Boorda” Boorda shot himself in shame over a trivial matter involving some obscure navy regulation about medals. what is mysterious about that? You don’t understand his motivation? pl

Comments are closed.