Jamok, do you really think the race is over? I recall the first debate between Obama and Romney where Mitt won, and then Barack turned it around in debate 2. Not that I'm saying a similar scenario is likely here, I'm just not quite as confident as you in the outcome. My fear is it's like Brexit where the "leave" voters turned out to be higher than polls suggested. Perhaps they were leaning that way but didn't want to appear dumb since all the "experts" were saying how foolish it would be to leave? However on election day, in a private booth, nobody looking over their shoulder... I see a similar scenario with Trump, and it runs on many of the same principles: immigrants bad and scary and NIMBY, "experts" have got us where we are now, etc. 

I don't particularly trust or like Hillary, but of the two candidates she's the only one qualified. In fact, I can't think of any time in history where there has been such a gulf between the candidates in terms of how qualified they are to do the job. Has there ever been?

Agree that there is a Grand Canyon of qualifications between Hillary and Trump.

I personally think that Reagan was much ahead of Carter as far as qualifications go, that, even though Carter was the incumbent.

I think we'll find out in the polls over the next 3-7 days. If she gets a few points or more, she is probably comfortably ahead going into next debate because of electroal college. If not, what can propel her if a performance like that doesn't? TBH, rest of country doesn't matter. It's about PA, OH, FL, and maybe 1 or 2 other states like CO and VA (NC?). Trump probably needs them all. If he only wins 2 or 3, only shot is if it is the high vote totals from the former groups of states but that may not even be enough. Being in OH, I think he could win it. I know more people voting for Trump: pissed off folks, not very politically smart usually (so buy into bites of BS), and maybe a bit mysoginistic too!

Jon,

I understand people being unhappy. What I don't understand is why they think Trump is the solution. Even if they say, "We need an outsider!" OK, fine, but surely not *any* outsider? How about Joe the Plumber? Simply being an outsider doesn't make a person qualified. I see footage of these types of people at the Trump rallies and I want to ask them why they think a guy who has spent his entire life doing nothing whatsoever for anyone but himself, and who has called people like that losers, and demonstrates no sign that he has a plan nor the temperament to see it through, is going to magically fix everything for them. I know at least one veteran supporting him too, despite Trump dodging military service, lying about his charitable donations to veteran charities, attacking McCain's service and attacking the family of a dead soldier, and his main reason was that he isn't Hillary. I find it baffling. Who knew Idiocracy was a documentary from the near future?

Jester,

For better or worse, I do believe that Hilary has a 'lock' on this. This will likely be long and rambling - I apologize in advance.

This is my reasoning and there's a lot of it: Just about everyone who is dislikes her is already  in that camp. Including me, as I'll be sitting out this election. Hilary is a narcissistic charcter disorder (e.g., "Coronate me, I deserve it") with a dollop of paranoia. I believe she is whip-smart. And, as you say, qualified - at least to keep the status quo going. But her 'weak' spot is of her own doing: e.g., Even the most freaking minor admission of having made a mistake, admitting a vulnerability - she is incapable of it - e.g., "I have pneumonia. I'm taking antibiotics for it. And feeling much better, thank you." How can someone so smart take such a dumb, shoot yourself in the foot stance that only embellishes her reputation for non-transparency and shadiness? I don't think she can help it. The narcissism plus paranoia (if I show any weakness, they'll tear me to shreds. All of my and Bill's problems come from a 'vast, right wind conspiracy.) Lady, just take a reasonable amount of realistic responsibility. David Brooks, probably the best-thinking Republican I've seen, summed it up this way: The reason people don't trust Hilary, is because Hilary doesn't trust them. Translated: She denies even the smallest of 'defects' - It makes her appear cold, and inhuman to a degree - the possibility that if he slips, and it's public knowledge, the public won't 'catch' (as in 'mosh pit') nor forgive her.

I think she did better in the debate, and I think that's probably attributable to that she must have a good staff, as they have a line on what turns people off. It's my speculation that they probably put her in front of a mirror for hours at a time, on many days, and taught her how to smile without looking smug. (That's narcissism in action.) She did pretty well on the smiling not looking smug or her usual 'bizarre' smile' where she looks like it was 'frozen' on her face, as if someone has just electrified a cattle prod that's up her butt. Or maybe her staff should get the credit. 

If she just sits tight, STFU for the most part, she's a shoe-in. Why? 1. Because Trump is an even *larger* (by far) narcissistic character disorder. I think Hilary's staff has sussed him out well. When you 'wound' him narcissistically, he often goes completely 'off the rails' and just *has* to go into a long, boring, who cares diatribe defending and (he hopes) negating the pride-wounding thing he's been accused of. Case in (many) points: When Hilary attacked his secretive non-release of his taxes, and accused him of being a tax cheat, he went into that defensive rant. What he should have done is 'counter punch' and stay on 'offense': Before he went out of control, he had said he'll release his taxes when she realeases all of the 33,000 emails that were on her server. I believe that if had followed that lead, and pursued it, he could've made her a bargain that she couldn't win: I'll release my taxes when you release the 33,000 emails you claimed contained no classified information, and wasn't hacked. And you release a transcipt of your talk at Goldman Sachs that netted you $225,000 for speaking for an hour or so. What made your time that valuable, eh? Have we got a deal? At that point, she's screwed - if she says 'yes' there's bound to be some really juicy bits that will become public and will be fodder with which to attack. If she says 'no' her reputation for hiding everything makes people worry even more.

Similarly, when she accused Trump of sexism, being disrespectful of women, calling them all kinds of degrading names, he screwed himself again - going on the defensive, denying such things happened. And again, he went 'off the rails' rather than being a good 'counter puncher.' I think he should've brought up the issue of Hilary's denigration of the women who alleged Bill with sexual predation as "Bimbo Eruptions" (well her staff coined that, but lie a bit, who cares? At the very least, she endorsed it.) And ask her to square that more recent statements that any woman who claims sexual abuse should be treated with the utmost respect and sincerity. Lady, your 'track record' is a problem - did you know that? Bingo.

Trump is not especially stupid. But like Hilary, he's his own biggest problem. When his fragile narcissistic image of himself gets 'wounded', he CAN'T HELP going into such a defensive rant, rather than doing the smart thing. And his problem with narcissism is a lot bigger than hers. Yeah, he does hold an advantage in terms of people expect him to lie and just give him a pass - the lies are so outrageous. Hilary is  held to a higher standard.

And, when Hilary talks about us being the 'clean energy superpower' of the century, why doesn't Trump again 'counter-punch' by highlighting that her 'solution' to the jobs lost for coal miners is 'retraining programs', and everyone knows that's an outright lie. Especially the coal miners themselves: Retraining someone who has no skills but mining coal for the past 35 years is not going to become a 'successful computer programmer'. And even if he could, will he be hired at an elevated salary, or the young kid who just got out of college? Lady, you've got no viable plan that will help the people you're kicking out of work. Gotcha.

And as the election moves closer, personally, it no longer seems like a really interesting sci-fi 'reality' show, and more worrisome. At least to me. Given Trump's penchant for out-of-control reactions, does one worry if Putin calls him a 'useless schmuck', and Trump has his finger on the nuclear trigger. Or make it a 'quiz' - which of the following people would you trust most with their finger on the nuclear trigger:

1. Moe

2. Larry

3. Curley

4. Trump

Maybe Trump beats Curley by a thin margin, but unless you like fireworks, you've gotta think about this one.

Lastly, and to kinda answer one of your questions: Yeah, there's an awful awful lot of anger out there about the 'status quo' politicians who promised the middle class relief and action in their interests, but instead 'threw them under the bus." And Hilary personifies that. And Trump is the beneficiary of that seething anger. And yeah, there's a strong element of 'wish fulfillment' - a simplification of a complex system, a promise made and believed that we can all live on 'Fantasy Island'. 

But I think the larger chance is that Trump will continue to self-destruct. Especially given that, if Hilary continues to 'have his number', as I believe she did last night, she knows how to make him go 'off script.'

The only disclaimer I make is this: If Julian Assange releases Clinton emails that shows she's been having a Lesbian sexual affair with Elizabeth Warren for years, that might be a problem. (Or maybe not - LGBT pride.) I have a hard time imagining similar scenarios that is going to derail her, as long as Trump doesn't learn to counter-punch, and she doesn't go back to acting like some 'anamatronic' character at Disneyworld. 

In any case, if Trump were to pull off the impossible and win, I'd suggest we all have our fingers on the portfolio 'sell' button, because the market opening the following day is going to look like 9/11 all over again. I apologize for the volume of words.

 

 

 

Is this the smug smile you are talking about?  LOL

LTC,

Actually the photo you posted is what she can manage to dredge up in 'amused mode'. I've seen some 'perfect' lulus on the web of that smug upturn of her lips and the steely self-important gaze. But as always, this board will not let me cut and paste.

Maybe Trump could also lighten up , and learn to be jocular: What does Bill say to Hilary after having sex? "I'll be home in about a half hour, honey." I don't know if I can imagine the total meltdown it would cause if he told that joke at his debate podium.  But it sure would be entertaining. 

I have never liked Trump, he is unstable, IMO.  He is also very erratic; conflict is his thing, he thrives on it, with everyone and everything.  Almost seems as if is incapable of living a normal life unless he is embroiled in some fight with someone, be it for sport or business.  

I certainly cannot imagine him making the big decisions a President has to, with such an erratic personality.

As if we all needed more convincing that Trump's character is deeply flawed, we now have to listen to his rants and raves about how he is the ultimate macho.  So he says this was an old tape, 11 years or so old, never mind that he was some 59 years old.  He now says it was all talk, yeah, right.  This is who he was and still is. Even for a teenager this would be totally inappropriate.

I too think of the incredible arrogance he demonstrates by having decided to run for the Presidency.  Boy! Is he delusional!

Yeah, I predicted to my friends several months ago that Hilary was a lock to win. I knew at some point Trump would come apart at the seams, and be his own worst enemy, just as Hilary is her own worst, but several magnitudes lower. I'm not a Trump fan but......I felt frustrated that Trump had *so* many opportunites to trash Hilary last night, and he just could not get specific. Among them:

Hilary got paid $225k for an hour of talking to Goldman. What did she give in return? She says nothing of importance. Well, then let her release the transcripts - what is there to hide? (There's an internal Clinton staff memo that was leaked, pointing out where she was vulnerable. Is purported to have said that she told the banks that they'd 'lead' the way to economic recovery. Disregarding that the banks created that economic disaster.)

Yes, Trump had women there that Bill had sexually harrassed or bullied. What did he not call Hilary to account for her claim that all women who come forward with complaints should be respected and supported. When Bill couldn't keep his pants zipped, she called such women "Bimbo eruptions" and Monica Lewinsky a "narcissistic loony toon'. If Trump's tapes go back 10+ years, ok, why aren't events that are a bit older not fair game? He had to perfect opportunity to shame her with 1. How can you say you're respectful of such women when you publicly slandered them? 2. (I like this one) - Of the (3? 4?) women here tonight, have you ever apologized to them for publicly trashing them? Why not? Are they not worthy of such an apology and respect? Or do you still believe that they are lying 'bimbos'? I think that was the best and most powerful way to box Hilary in, as I can't think of a really good answer, had that accusation been made in that fashion.)

Benghazi -  There is a video clip of Hilary, widely available where she is crowing about getting rid of Quaddafi in Libya. She's getting made up for an interview. She says about him, "We came. We saw. He died." And laughs at her own joke. Hilary *was* the one who sold Obama on the idea of American military intervention in Libya, relying on the idea of an 'Arab spring' as the outcome. A serious misreading of the consequences. The chaos and murder that goes on daily in Libya was the real result. Just as getting rid of Saddam ane expecting the Iraqi people to love and help us was a bad joke. He could've countered and trashed her for where that huge amount of experience in foreign affairs has led to. Foreign affairs (which she claims she was deeply involved in) is the weakest part of Obama's and her legacy.

He also had a clear opening that he kind of fumbled: He could've been a ton clearer on his claims about Hilary's responsibility in the death of the US ambassador in Bengazi and some of his staff. Zinger to Hilary: You're up at 3 a.m. sending out tweets against me. The pleas for security help from the Ambassador came in about 3 am. Nothing was done, no useful reply was made, no help came in response. You were 'asleep on the job', literally, as Americans were being murdered.  (It's an unfair claim, but nobody is much into telling the truth in this drama.)

Instead of going on the offensive, just as he usually does, he goes into a defensive rant about things like paying taxes. I cannot believe how many opportunities there are to really wound Hilary, but he's very, very bad at telling coherent stories, and citing a logical train of relevant specifics,  that I think would really make people's mistrust of Hilary even greater.

Instead of offering a coherent narrative, he lapses into 'Believe me, believe me......(fill in the blank with some unsupported generalization.)

It's Hilary in a cake walk. Trump as president would be a grotesque disaster. But I loathe Hilary. I will probably sit this one out.  I would vote for Gary Johnson, but his demonstrable complete lack of foreign affairs is worrisome. He probably thinks the capital of China is China Town.

Forgive me for another long rant. But my frustration with Trump is so great. Hilary will win regardless, but I believe she should be rightly humiliated for being two faced. (Oh, wait, she's simply following in the footsteps of Lincoln, she says. Now there's a ridiculous rationale.)

I recall when I wrote an earlier rant, Jon said that he really has some concerns about how strong Trump is supported in Ohio. I do wonder what's going on out there, and if Hilary's lead in the polls gets wider after that debate.

 

She might win by a landslide, but she will have the stigma of having run against an inept.  I think she will be capable (although not much will change), but his opposition will use that to diminish her or to argue that despite the landslide, people were really voting against Trump, mot her.

I do hope she carries through on the infrastructure spending, specially if done with repatriation of corporate cash stashed overseas.  Elimination of carried interest. Not sure about pardoning school debt.

lt cap,

I agree. Although I wonder how she's going to pay for the infrastructure re-build. Pat line "tax the rich" is something every Dem usually says, and it never happens. The thing I'd like most to see is to get corporate money out of politics. It'll never happen, but I'd like the question to be posed to her, what is her plan to address this, specifically, given that she's got tens of millions from Super-Pacs. And money is considered a form of 'free speech.'  I'm sure she'd weasel her way out of it by changing the subject, or mouthing nonsense. But I'd like to see it done publicly. 

Agree regarding the big money in politics.  The Supreme Court did not do us a favor with its veredict re "Citizens United".  The problem as I see it is that it will take the Fox (Congress and Senate) to undo. Good luck with that, comes to mind.

I posted a link to an interesting idea for how to pay for Infrastructure spending.  Corporations complain that jobs are going unfilled because they cannot find the right people to fill them.  As I understand it these are jobs that do not require college degrees (still blue collar work if you will), I would like to see the new President incentivize Corporate America to hire and train people for these jobs.  I believe Germany has this type of on the job vocational training.  It is why they have a lower unemployment rate.  For us, these folks that are not skilled for today's jobs are essentially a structural problem, as lost generation even?  Even if they eventually get hired to do some menial jobs, they will require social programs to make ends meet, i.e still a drag on the economy and system.

 

"Jon said that he really has some concerns about how strong Trump is supported in Ohio. I do wonder what's going on out there, and if Hilary's lead in the polls gets wider after that debate."

A week ago he was polling +2-5% on Ohio, but polls released late last week show him down 2-4%, and thats before both the tape and 2nd debate. He was worse last night than previous debate. Maybe that style appeals to his base, but he came across as unkowledgable, vindictive, creepy, and mean.  It was just plain weird. Nothing about him or his answers looked or sounded presidential. he was snarky and I beleive was ready to "take his ball home" if only it was his ball. His threat to jail his opponent was unprecedented and further proof he is a bit unhinged, perhaps a madman. I get how you feel about Hillary and I agree to a decent extent, just that she is so many magnitudes off from being him, it's scary.

Jamok,

Those are all very good points he could have hit her with. Although,I'm glad he didn't, or didn't think of it more likely, because it would have been yet more time not talking about issues or solutions. It's almost comical watching how she plays him. He's so easily goaded and he never lets anything go, ever. Like in that last debate, mentioning Rosie O' Donnell, why? And again this time, waffling on about the background to the birther thing, with a lot of hearsay and peoples names nobody watching knows or cares. It sounds pathetic. And he spends so much time trashing a former Miss Universe, while fighting claims that he's sexist! There's also the no-shame audacity to flat out lie over and over to everyone. "He said to check our her sex tape." Trump: "No, I didn't". That is literally what he tweeted, days ago. I shudder to think about how Putin will play him, if he does win. And we still don't know about his financial ties to Russia.

I don't think the, "You'd be in jail", got enough discussion. I heard people whooping and hollering at that, the deplorables I assume. But it's really, really scary. Here's a guy who has spoken in favor of multiple dictators, now telling the entire country in a debate he apparently prepared for that he'd ORDER the AG to investigate a rival, and that he'd jail a political rival. This is dictator, banana republic stuff. He also has claimed repeatedly that an election he doesn't win must have been fixed, as well as asking Russia to hack Hillary. Now I know there are people who don't like Hillary, but you have to vote. You cannot afford to sit back and hope the surprise Brexit result doesn't repeat here. He is too dangerous. There is too much at stake. People fought a long time to get the right to vote. You should use it. Voting for the less bad is still a vote for the best available.

Because POTUS is at any one time the most criticized person in the US:

I imagine Trump not being able to focus in the Oval office, desperately trying to defend himself and/or attacking others via the IRS, GA, DoJ, Military, CIA, NSA, Homeland Security, LOL.  He would be an unmitigated disaster.  He lacks the 20 inch Teflon coating that is a must for anyone who seeks that office.

Putin and other world leaders that oppose the US leadership would be able to play him like a violin, IMO

Trump is also the most self-serving person I've seen. That's the biggest thing I don't understand about his supporters. He clearly doesn't care about you, or people like you, and never has, his entire life. That's not going to change. And yet they think this selfish unqualified rich guy is going to solve all their problems? Crazy.

A nonpartisan analysis of the proposed tax plans show 1%'ers will save $215,000 a year under Trump, and pay an extra $117,000 under Clinton. Single parents will also be hit by the Trump plan. It will massively push up debt too, to be paid for "later" with "growth", a story we've heard before from more accomplished politicians than him. He also wants to do away with the estate tax, which is convenient given the size of his estate, and because he is almost certainly claiming massive tax breaks from property depreciation (even if those properties rise in value) which only gets paid when the property is sold, aka never in his case, or via the estate tax.

finance.yahoo.com/ne...8.html

You have to read this summary of the debate too. It's a modified transcript.

"Trump: And when I’m Führer, I’m hiring a special prosecutor to come after you."

zerohedge.com/ne...ummies

Jester,

The 'Fuhrer' line made me lol. I don't pretend to know why people support Trump - unless we really are a nation of idiots. But the real Fuhrer rose to power because Germany was an economic wasteland at the time. And, with his ultra-nationalism, which had a huge appeal in a country that felt it had been humiliated by the WWI victors, and then suffered tremenously by the Depression, one could say that what he was saying was "Let's make Germany great again." Unlike Trump, he really delivered on that promise, until he declared war on the rest of the world, which wasn't such a great idea after all.

I think there might be corollary there with Trump, perhaps with segments of society that are tired of politician's promises which disappear once they've got your vote. A game of 'three card Monte' in which you're never going to find the Queesn. Along with wishful/magical thinking that here's someone who can make simple sense of complex factors they can't comprehend, but they know they're tired of being rooked around. Plus, perhaps, this idea that since Trump isn't a 'politician', and does need to sell his soul to big money donors, that he  might really be 'a man of the people.'  An area where Hilary seems to be flat-out pandering, 'stronger together' really just means more three card Monte. I dunno. That's the best I can make of it.

(BTW, there's a really funny routine by Norm McDonald on Letterman, where he says, "You know, the more I learn about this Hitler guy, the more I don't care for him.")

In other news, I don't understand why on a day when the market is losing its shirt, CIEN is also losing its pants as well. Oil's good one day, a disaster the next. Three card Monte?

 

 

Jester,

Sorry - I didn't read your earlier post before I read your later one. You're right, of course - electing Trump would be an egregious disaster. Electing Hilary will be electing another pond-scum president, albeit with a ton of experience, and a much less virulent character disorder than Trump. (But then again, who doesn't?) 

But whether I vote or not, I promise you that Trump can't win. The Brexit vote was between 2 choices that were at least in the same Universe. Trump is from another dimension in his entirety, and will simply become more unglued by the very factors you cite, such as Hilary having his number and rattling his cage.  So today he lashes out at his own party. (Well, it's not really his, he is a usurper.)   I think the chances are great that he alienates all of his political sources of support before this is all over. (Christie, Guiliani, Pence have all made some reprimands - and these are his friends for chrisakes.)

America is a wacko country. Trump is a wacko man. But it's not a good enough fit to elect him. You are right - he is not a flexible enough to recognize his defects and reign them in. The more reactive he is, rather than giving thoughtful responses, the more political people he will alienate, until he's alone in his battle. He's not Hitler. More like an immature, belligerant Bozo the clown. Treat it as a form of entertainment. I promise you won't be sorry.

Even the news sources and sites that are for him are starting to publish negative stories. Not a good omen for him.

Another good one on T & H, this one to music:

youtube.com/wa...idUeLU

On the plus side, she probably doesn't need GS anymore if she is president.