presidential debates Debating the Debates: 2016 Presidential debates

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

These are both pretty generic party positions ... on the one hand "trust the science" and on the other hand, "we need more study."

What is crystal clear?  

I would guess she means that august scientific bodies funded by the state have spoken:  the earth is warming relatively quickly, due to historically-high CO2 in the atmosphere. Knock-on effects and regionally-intense effects are -- we are told -- observable in warming oceans, sea-level rise, shrinking ice sheets, glacial retreat, reduced snow coverage, declining Arctic sea ice, ocean acidification and increased extreme events.

These observables are of course, subject to doubt -- especially since there is a gulf break between Republicans and Democrats

Isn't that refreshing?   So much to investigate.  

 

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

These are both pretty generic party positions ... on the one hand "trust the science" and on the other hand, "we need more study."

What is crystal clear?  

I would guess she means that august scientific bodies funded by the state have spoken:  the earth is warming relatively quickly, due to historically-high CO2 in the atmosphere. Knock-on effects and regionally-intense effects are -- we are told -- observable in warming oceans, sea-level rise, shrinking ice sheets, glacial retreat, reduced snow coverage, declining Arctic sea ice, ocean acidification and increased extreme events.

These observables are of course, subject to doubt -- especially since there is a gulf break between Republicans and Democrats

Isn't that refreshing?   So much to investigate.  

We are currently in a mild interglacial  climatic period.  In fact  all of the major progress in civilization and technology has taken place in the last 10,000 years of so since the retreat of the glaciers.  There is no doubt we are in a warming period with some lapses (like the Little Ice Age of 1300 - 1750 c.e.).   The outstanding question is to what extent human activity has driven this trend.   The scientific quality of the currently accepted and promoted climate sensitivity models  is  questionable.   There is no doubt that the presence of CO2, methane and water vapor in the atmosphere has kept the average air temperature at 33 degrees  celsius above the black-body  equilibrium temperature. This is similar to the effect of a blanket your body heat under the covers on a chilly night.

 Any body that receives radiation will emit radiation until thermal equlibrium is established (the Stephan-Bolotzman law).  The various gases mentioned to absorb some of the IR  reflection from the surface and slow down the rate of re-radiating the electro-magnetic energy received as incoming solar radiation.  The earth receives about 1400 watts (joules per second)  from the sun.  The geothermal heat from the interior of the earth has a negligible effect on the above surface air temperature.  

It all comes down to our  understanding of the feedback (both positive and negative)  and the current models  are crude.  The problem is extremely difficult because of the complex processes of heat redistribution done by the atmosphere and the oceans and the effects of clouds.  Clouds an either block inbound radiation (producing a cooling effect,  similar to being in a shady spot during a bright hot day)  or they can re-radiate some of the outbound IR back down to the ground.  The full effect of clouds is not yet known.  People are working on it. 

The idea that the climate of the earth depends solely   on  the atmospheric CO2  which is in the concentration (currently) of 390 ppm  is  far fetched.  Unfortunately the issue which should be a study in thermodynamics has become politicized. 

[william.scherk]

45 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

[...] the climate of the earth depends solely [...]

With that in mind, I'd love to hear your critique of this TED talk ... 

I have added your comment to a placeholder at my blog, so this thread stays reasonably on topic.  As I understand it, you will not be observing the debates, and your vote is pledged.

Here's some of what we could hear at the debate, if  climate change questions are in the rigging. To the question “You think climate change is a real thing? Is there human-caused climate change?”

I think there’s a change in weather. I am not a great believer in man-made climate change. I’m not a great believer. There is certainly a change in weather that goes — if you look, they had global cooling in the 1920s and now they have global warming, although now they don’t know if they have global warming. They call it all sorts of different things; now they’re using “extreme weather” I guess more than any other phrase. I am not — I know it hurts me with this room, and I know it’s probably a killer with this room — but I am not a believer. Perhaps there’s a minor effect, but I’m not a big believer in man-made climate change.

To the question: “Don’t good businessmen hedge against risks, not ignore them?”

Well I just think we have much bigger risks. I mean I think we have militarily tremendous risks. I think we’re in tremendous peril. I think our biggest form of climate change we should worry about is nuclear weapons. The biggest risk to the world, to me — I know President Obama thought it was climate change — to me the biggest risk is nuclear weapons. That’s — that is climate change. That is a disaster, and we don’t even know where the nuclear weapons are right now. We don’t know who has them. We don’t know who’s trying to get them. The biggest risk for this world and this country is nuclear weapons, the power of nuclear weapons.
 

[BaalChatzaf]

I thought it was a rather good talk. Right now our greatest deficiency in dealing with highly non-linear systems is mathematical.  We have a set of equations that will do a good job of both modelling and predicting  The Navier-Stokes equations.  Unfortunately  we do NOT have a good method of producing accurate numerical approximations at all scales.   There is currently a million dollar prize for coming up with a numerical approximation method that works at all scales of resolution.   So far the prize has not been claimed.  

Compared to what the boffins at  CERN do, climate prediction is orders of magnitude more complicated than doing the physics  of fields and particles. That is why the boffins at CERN can give you predictions good to twelve decimal places.  The current climate models are nowhere near so good.

[Peter]

“Cirque de Solei? No mon-sewer”, said John Wayne, in his best French accent.

But I like the idea of no moderator.  The candidates are sitting alone at a table, with one or two cameras on each person, and one or two cameras are positioned to show a panoramic view. An announcer sets the meeting up, lays out the agreed upon, ground rules and then the person who wants to begin, starts talking.

Only if the rules are broken, and Donald or Hillary appeal the rule breaking, can the moderator interrupt and then only as a high school debate coach might. Perhaps near the end they could answer questions, that are randomly selected from a box of questions . . . that each candidate’s staff were allowed to pick, just before the event, say, each staff member picks five questions, so there are only ten questions in the box and they will be answered if there is time.

Peter  

[KorbenDallas]

The first of the debates are a week away and Lester Holt from NBC will moderate.  Topics include “achieving prosperity,” “securing America" and “America’s direction."

Trump was interviewed by Bill O'Reilly about the upcoming debate:

 

[BaalChatzaf]

13 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

The first of the debates are a week away and Lester Holt from NBC will moderate.  Topics include “achieving prosperity,” “securing America" and “America’s direction."

Trump was interviewed by Bill O'Reilly about the upcoming debate:

 

I am not going to waste a single precious moment of my time  watching those "debates".   The last debates I would have attended if I could have,  was the Lincoln-Douglas debates

[Peter]

Lester Holt is a Progressive, Old Hickory supporter. Yet, he usually does the news in a straight-up fashion . . . . but NBC nightly news selects the stories to enhance the propaganda affect for Old Hickory Clinton. I will watch the debate just to see if he is blatantly biased or just a wittle bit biased in his treatment of The Big Guy. Or I may watch old Gilligan’s Island reruns, and just look at the highlights of the debate. I think John Stossel would be a good moderator or any true independent. Whoever it is, they should be held up to a higher standard, and I can only presume future President Trump has demanded unbiased moderation, while, wink, wink, Hillary has demanded the same in front of the cameras, but she will expect her propaganda machine to screech Sieg Heil at the appropriate times.

Peter

[KorbenDallas]

Ha!  Brant called it.  Krauthammer says to Hillary's 'Why aren't I fifty points ahead?!?', "It's like a Saturday Night Live parody:"

[KorbenDallas]

Here are a few online streams I found for tonight's debate:

Youtube Live currently has a few live streams offered by news networks and outlets.  Here is a direct link to the Foxnews Youtube live stream.

Facebook Live is streaming it with ABC, this is the link I found for it.

And Twitter's stream.

[william.scherk]

What is the verdict?

 

[Peter]

Clinton won more debate points but Trump may have rung more bells with those watching. We will need a few days for the poll changes to come in to see who really “won.” I see Rudy G. former NYC mayor said Trump should not do any more debates but he also spoke more positively about the Donald. In many ways, those who agreed with Trump’s positions and “forgive him his business trespasses” will think DJ won the debate and vice versa.

Peter

[william.scherk]

I finally got around to fixing on the first Presidential debate and the reactions, and Mr Trump's latino outreach. I looked for a steadiness and a depth of knowledge and a positive, intelligent delivery of intended messages.

To my eyes, Trump got off-track a third of the way in, took Clinton bait as intended, and ended up far too reactive and distracted by the Clinton ploys -- by the end he was tired, far from the issues and his hammer. It looks like he disdained preparation for the encounter, confident that he could wing it.  He had a strong beginning, but lost focus and let himself be played. 

Four days later and he was still arguing with Miss Piggy Universe and Lester Holt. His mic was rigged.  Hillary was wired. And the truth of the matter is that online 'polls' showing victory told Mr Trump what he wanted to hear. 

Having said all that, I am still somewhat puzzled at how debates in themselves 'throw' an election this way or that. In my mind it could be the "emergent story" of the debates that persuades, a kind of stiffening and settling-in of conventional wisdom. This can 'fix' or gel quickly. An example might be found here at OL, where notions that Clinton won the first round would be repelled by the quick-set story that Trump triumphed.

Here's some Sassy Trump to cleanse the palate.

-- the next Clinton-Trump encounter is a town-hall format, with questions coming from audience members and social media and curated sources. This allows a double audience and an interplay of personalities that the podium set-up does not. Mrs Clinton and Mr Trump will be able to engage directly with individuals of Joe Public. Clinton is said to be best in more intimate settings; Mr Trump also has a gentler side, alongside a very direct, sometimes electric manner of communicating to a crowd. Here's the format again:

The second presidential debate will take the form of a town meeting, in which half of the questions will be posed directly by citizen participants and the other half will be posed by the moderator based on topics of broad public interest as reflected in social media and other sources. The candidates will have two minutes to respond and there will be an additional minute for the moderator to facilitate further discussion. The town meeting participants will be uncommitted voters selected by the Gallup Organization. 

What will make the second Presidential debate more exciting for me than the first is that it is a re-match for Mr Trump -- I think he will be more 'charged' going in to the town meeting.  He could be bristling with preparation, strategy, zingers, comebacks, gotchas.  He should be better-prepared to persuade the home audience and the undecided individuals in the hall. 

I am expecting that there will be much hoopla during that event. The control-room will be selecting telling 'audience shots' in my expectations. This will be an 'instant reaction' more telling than crappy snap-button calculations or scrum or pundit tells.

_______________________________________________

And then the skirmish between governors Pence and Kaine.  I figure Pence won this encounter primarily for his steady demeanor, whereas Kaine lost due to an over-enthusiastic (manic?) emotional charge. Fact-checking aside, the win for Pence and the reasons for the win may make an impression on the preparation at Camp Trump for the town meeting set up for Sunday.  If Trump lost his first encounter with Clinton, he can take a page or two from Pence's sober and unruffled performance.

________________________________

From the VP debate conclave at the Ogre's Lair (538), a conclusory snippet from their live-blog:

 

Quote

 

MICAH COHEN 11:01 PM

That’s A Wrap

That’s it from us tonight, people. That was the only VP debate we’ll get this campaign, so if you really want to savor it, start at the bottom of this live blog and scroll up. You can also listen to our wrap-up podcast for more.

What will the main storyline be Wednesday about the VP debate? Well, I asked our live blog staff to fill-in the blank: The main story line about this debate tomorrow will be ____________.

Here are our predictions:

Nate: The conventional wisdom rapidly seems to be congealing around something like the following — which I pretty much agree with: 1. Pence “won” on style/points, whereas Kaine was annoying and interrupt-y at some moments and sounded canned at others, but 2. Pence was unable/unwilling to defend Trump and had a lot of incongruities and fact-checking problems, and that’ll make for a big debate about the debate tomorrow.

Clare: Pence playing “traditional Republican” and totally breaking with Trump on Russia.

Carl: Pence either denying Trump said things he did say, or brushing them aside as the words of a politician who isn’t “polished.”

Harry: Pence turns in a better performance than Trump.

Farai: That Kaine seems genuinely excited to be Clinton’s VP, though sometimes with over-exuberance and smugness; and Pence seems willing to patiently deal with an endless barrage of questions about whether he actually supports the positions of his nominee.

Ben: Whatever Trump tweets later tonight. Or says tomorrow. Or whatever David A. Fahrenthold reports in The Washington Post tomorrow. Point being, I’d be surprised if anything from tonight lasts much beyond one news cycle. To the extent people DO talk about the debate, I suspect there will be two storylines: Kaine’s interruptions, and Pence’s reluctance to defend Trump’s more controversial statements.

Anna: Democrats will talk about Pence saying “whipping out that Mexican thing again”; Republicans will talk about Kaine’s interruptions. And then we won’t hear much about it after that, until Pence runs for office again.

 

 

Edited October 5, 2016 by william.scherk
Punctuation.

[BaalChatzaf]

Trump knows  the real-estate game.  He builds hotels and casinos on the Boardwalk.  He plays a real life version of Parker Brother's   Monopoly (tm)

However he is devoid of wisdom,  sophistication,  sense of history,  grasp of governance.  He  is a concrete bound (to use the Randian term)  lunkhead.  His effective IQ is somewhere in the vicinity of his blood temperature.  But that is all right.   Being bright or brilliant is not a legal requirement for the office of President of the United States.  

[tmj]

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." I.M.

This first debate(?) left me wanting to slap both of  the candidates. Trump on the back of the head little league fashion like when the play was at first, not third, which you missed. And Hillary to wipe that smug grin off her face, on principle( the principle being she's Hillary and all she entails and if Bill can't do it somebody should.).

"I understand perfectly , Sec Clinton , why you do not understand my tax  position. It is the result of building things and the business of building and selling things, and not the result of taking money for having  political power and governmental office for which you are well acquainted, totally understandable, uuge difference."

[Jonathan]

3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I finally got around to fixing on the first Presidential debate and the reactions, and Mr Trump's latino outreach. I looked for a steadiness and a depth of knowledge and a positive, intelligent delivery of intended messages.

To my eyes, Trump got off-track a third of the way in, took Clinton bait as intended, and ended up far too reactive and distracted by the Clinton ploys -- by the end he was tired, far from the issues and his hammer. It looks like he disdained preparation for the encounter, confident that he could wing it.  He had a strong beginning, but lost focus and let himself be played. 

Four days later and he was still arguing with Miss Piggy Universe and Lester Holt. His mic was rigged.  Hillary was wired. And the truth of the matter is that online 'polls' showing victory told Mr Trump what he wanted to hear. 

Trump's problem is that he made the serious mistake of showing compassion and generosity to Hillary. Doing so signaled weakness, and she and her crew have pounced on it.

In the debate, she had brought up Trump's alleged horrific treatment of all women (his negative statements about a couple of specific women), and, like McCain and Romney before him in regard to other issues, Trump decided to take the hit and be nice and pleasant and "presidential," rather than hitting her back as hard as he could with her husband's treatment of women, and, more importantly, with her own treatment of her husband's victims ("bimbo eruptions," "narcissistic loony toons," "vast right-wing conspiracy," etc.).

The debate was the time for Trump to do that, and to do it aggressively and succinctly. "Terminate with extreme prejudice." The time NOT to do it was the entire week following the debate, drawing it out and misfiring at targets other than Hillary.

He has also missed similar opportunities. He hasn't corrected Hillary and her crew's assertions that he called all Mexicans rapists and murderers, or that economic freedom is a "risky scheme," or that low taxes on the rich caused the economic collapse that poor Obama inherited (rather than that the collapse was caused by government policies which both mandated and incentivized that institutions give loans to those who could not afford them), and that "trickle down" doesn't work. The left hits all of these points very hard, and over and over again, just like they hit the Trump-hates-women theme. And there is no immediate, deadly, substantive response from Trump and co. If they have any substantive responses to offer to those points, they've been bungling them, as Trump did with the Miss Piggy thing.

Pence missed many such opportunities last night.

The Trump team is off their game. They've got to get back to being on offense, immediately, and to showing no sympathy. Pull no punches, take no prisoners.

J

[Brant Gaede]

On 9/14/2016 at 11:19 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

 

We are currently in a mild interglacial  climatic period.  In fact  all of the major progress in civilization and technology has taken place in the last 10,000 years of so since the retreat of the glaciers.  There is no doubt we are in a warming period with some lapses (like the Little Ice Age of 1300 - 1750 c.e.).   The outstanding question is to what extent human activity has driven this trend.   The scientific quality of the currently accepted and promoted climate sensitivity models  is  questionable.   There is no doubt that the presence of CO2, methane and water vapor in the atmosphere has kept the average air temperature at 33 degrees  celsius above the black-body  equilibrium temperature. This is similar to the effect of a blanket your body heat under the covers on a chilly night.

 Any body that receives radiation will emit radiation until thermal equlibrium is established (the Stephan-Bolotzman law).  The various gases mentioned to absorb some of the IR  reflection from the surface and slow down the rate of re-radiating the electro-magnetic energy received as incoming solar radiation.  The earth receives about 1400 watts (joules per second)  from the sun.  The geothermal heat from the interior of the earth has a negligible effect on the above surface air temperature.  

It all comes down to our  understanding of the feedback (both positive and negative)  and the current models  are crude.  The problem is extremely difficult because of the complex processes of heat redistribution done by the atmosphere and the oceans and the effects of clouds.  Clouds an either block inbound radiation (producing a cooling effect,  similar to being in a shady spot during a bright hot day)  or they can re-radiate some of the outbound IR back down to the ground.  The full effect of clouds is not yet known.  People are working on it. 

The idea that the climate of the earth depends solely   on  the atmospheric CO2  which is in the concentration (currently) of 390 ppm  is  far fetched.  Unfortunately the issue which should be a study in thermodynamics has become politicized. 

Water vapor?

You're saying water vapor is preventing another ice age?

The Earth is--what--3/4ths water on the surface?

Comparatively CO2 and methane are next to nothing.

Vaping didn't prevent the Little Ice Age or the age of the glaciers.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

4 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Water vapor?

You're saying water vapor is preventing another ice age?

The Earth is--what--3/4ths water on the surface?

Comparatively CO2 and methane are next to nothing.

Vaping didn't prevent the Little Ice Age or the age of the glaciers.

--Brant

Water vapor,  a gas,  retards the radiation of heat somewhat, as does CO2 and NH4. The amounts of water vapor (a gas) in the atmospher is surprisingly small. N2 and O2  together account for 99 percent of the atmosphere.  The rest is water vapor, and the so-called green house gasses.    It is these trace gasses that keep the earth about 33 degrees Celsius  warmer than  an atmosphere without them.  The black body temperature of the earth would be 33 degrees cooler without these gasses.   Think of these trace gasses as a blanket we sleep under  so as not to become chilled. 

CO2,  NH4 and H2O (g)   absorb radiation in the infra-red frequencies  They radiate about half the heat  the absorb out into  space and radiate some of the rest back to the ground.  This has the effect of keeping the Earth slightly warmer than its black-body equilibrium temperature   They slow down the rate at which heat (infra red)  is radiated back out into space.   If the earth's atmosphere where 96 percent CO2 (like Venus)  we would be much hotter than we are). But CO2 concentration in our atmosphere is about 380 ppm  compared to 960,000 ppm on Venus. 

[Brant Gaede]

22 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Water vapor,  a gas,  retards the radiation of heat somewhat, as does CO2 and NH4. The amounts of water vapor (a gas) in the atmospher is surprisingly small. N2 and O2  together account for 99 percent of the atmosphere.  The rest is water vapor, and the so-called green house gasses.    It is these trace gasses that keep the earth about 33 degrees Celsius  warmer than  an atmosphere without them.  The black body temperature of the earth would be 33 degrees cooler without these gasses.   Think of these trace gasses as a blanket we sleep under  so as not to become chilled. 

CO2,  NH4 and H2O (g)   absorb radiation in the infra-red frequencies  They radiate about half the heat  the absorb out into  space and radiate some of the rest back to the ground.  This has the effect of keeping the Earth slightly warmer than its black-body equilibrium temperature   They slow down the rate at which heat (infra red)  is radiated back out into space.   If the earth's atmosphere where 96 percent CO2 (like Venus)  we would be much hotter than we are). But CO2 concentration in our atmosphere is about 380 ppm  compared to 960,000 ppm on Venus. 

You haven't compared water vapor to the trace gasses.

When you talk about 33 C degrees warmer I think you're referring to cloud cover.

I think your data comes from a book you suggested we read.

There is no good evidence AGW exists. AGW is what the "debate" is all about. All the other adduced data are smoke.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

You haven't compared water vapor to the trace gasses.

When you talk about 33 C degrees warmer I think you're referring to cloud cover.

I think your data comes from a book you suggested we read.

There is no good evidence AGW exists. AGW is what the "debate" is all about. All the other adduced data is smoke.

--Brant

It  blocks frequencies in the IR band in conjunction with CO2

Mars has no more water, but it has an atmosphere that  is 90 percent CO2.  And it gets cold on the dark side.  Very cold.

One of the reasons Earth is as warm as it is is because we have liquid water which can evaporate and produce water vapor which retards heat radiation somewhat.   Also we have kept our atmosphere which transfers heat from the equator to the poles  and from the sun side to the dark side.  Temperature variation on Mars  is hundred of degrees Celsius  between the sun side and the dark side.  There is no atmosphere or ocean  to convect the energy gathered on the sun side.

Please see  https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

PS:  I wish the climate mavens would stop referring to  their climate sensitivity models as "climate science".  The fact of the matter is the thermodynamic complexity of earth,  its  atmospheric and oceanic systems are to complex to be solved mathematically  so the climatologists are forced to approximate the climate by curve fitting  their models to the data and proxy data as best they can.   

Compare Kepler to Newton as an example.  Kepler concluded (correctly) the orbits of the planets are elliptical  (actually they are perturbations of ellipses) but he did not have a dynamic explanation.  Newton using Kepler's laws (which are empirically derived to come up with a dynamic force law).  That is what the climate modelers are doing.  Creating empirical approximations to climate and weather effects without fully solving the underlying dynamics.  In short they build models.  The models they build work at various scales  of resolution.  There are literally dozens of climate sensitivity models and the climate mavens take a weighted average of their outputs.  Like I said,  it is curve fitting to data,  not real thermodynamics. Unfortunately all the models "run hot" because they do not correctly take into consideration oceanic effects and the effects of cloud formation.  Right now we do not have good theories of cloud formation and our understanding of oceanic effects is crude.

Perhaps one day we will have real climate science.  That day is not today.....

 

[william.scherk]

23 hours ago, william.scherk said:

-- the next Clinton-Trump encounter is a town-hall format, with questions coming from audience members and social media and curated sources. This allows a double audience and an interplay of personalities that the podium set-up does not. 

The Trump campaign yesterday added a townhall-ish event to his schedule tonight -- it happens in seven hours or so.

According to a story at The Hill, "The event will [...] be conducted in a Q&A format similar to the upcoming presidential debate between Trump and Hillary Clinton on Sunday."

I'll be watching this as indicator of smart debate preparation.  I have only watched portions of Mr Trump's more-recent townhall-ish appearances from Sean Hannity's program, so I am no expert on how this format is exploitable by the candidate.

As I recall, the two I sampled were good television: the immigration-focused event had a large and enthusiastic crowd of partisans. Mr Trump got to shout and poll the audience and other fun stuff -- an interesting blend of rally stumping and interview. In the other video I sampled, focused on how Obama failed blacks, there was a smaller audience and the 'moderator' rarely took a question from actual 'Townspeople.'  So, it remains to be seen how Trump can persuade  Townspeople not yet on board (as the criteria state, "uncommitted" voters).

Same Hill story suggests Trump and Chris Christie are spending time together in prep, which is fun if true. Another story in the WSJ gives supposed insider news from the Prep Kitchen. At the very least, Mr Trump has likely reviewed video of the encounter at Hofstra.  A number of 'sources said' bumf is to be expected from Ye Eleetz, with the line being GOPer are 'very concerned' again. Very concerned at the post-debate deflation of Trump's polling numbers.

Concern: 

Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump by 6 points nationally among likely voters, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll released Wednesday.

Clinton has 42 percent support, with Trump at 36 percent, the poll found. Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson has 8 percent, and Green Party nominee Jill Stein has 2 percent.

In a head-to-head matchup, Clinton's lead expands to 7 points, 44 to 37 percent.

Jonathan, I like the idea of Trump himself taking the gloves off in a showdown with Clinton Inc. I'll keep my eyes open to Trump's facility in exploiting this more intimate format. 

Here's that couple of Town Hall simulacra.  I have to go search down some non-Hannitized encounters of this type.  I have high expectations of Trump dominating and winning this Sunday and the aftermath -- if he has taken in the wisdom of the sages, and if he is totally in control of himself and his message.

 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2016 by william.scherk

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Jonathan, I like the idea of Trump himself taking the gloves off in a showdown with Clinton Inc. I'll keep my eyes open to Trump's facility in exploiting this more intimate format. 

 

I would like to see the gloves come off, but that wouldn't be necessary. A gentler approach could also work, as long as Trump addresses and substantively replies to Hillary's assertions, rather than just letting them stand unchallenged as he did in the first debate.

Example of how I think it should be:

Hillary: "I'm proud of my husband's accomplishments as president, especially what he did for the economy. I will do the same."

Trump: "Your husband's accomplishments?!!! Don't you mean the accomplishments of the '94 Republican Revolution? Very strange, Hillary. Your husband only reluctantly went along with that Republican economic plan. He caved in to political pressure. And then when that Republican plan succeeded, he tried to take credit for it. The plan reduced taxes and the welfare rolls, which is the opposite of what you're campaigning on. Now you say you'll do the same as your husband? You'll compromise and abandon your plan to increase taxes and spending, and instead you'll lower taxes and reduce spending just as I plan to do? If so, why are you here? Why are you debating against my position while trying to give your husband credit for having enacted the same policies that I'm proposing? WTF?"

Having said the above, I doubt that it will happen. I think that Trump will disappoint. He's off his winning strategy, and I don't get the impression that he's going back to it.

J

[BaalChatzaf]

5 hours ago, Jonathan said:

I would like to see the gloves come off, but that wouldn't be necessary. A gentler approach could also work, as long as Trump addresses and substantively replies to Hillary's assertions, rather than just letting them stand unchallenged as he did in the first debate.

Example of how I think it should be:

Hillary: "I'm proud of my husband's accomplishments as president, especially what he did for the economy. I will do the same."

Trump: "Your husband's accomplishments?!!! Don't you mean the accomplishments of the '94 Republican Revolution? Very strange, Hillary. Your husband only reluctantly went along with that Republican economic plan. He caved in to political pressure. And then when that Republican plan succeeded, he tried to take credit for it. The plan reduced taxes and the welfare rolls, which is the opposite of what you're campaigning on. Now you say you'll do the same as your husband? You'll compromise and abandon your plan to increase taxes and spending, and instead you'll lower taxes and reduce spending just as I plan to do? If so, why are you here? Why are you debating against my position while trying to give your husband credit for having enacted the same policies that I'm proposing? WTF?"

Having said the above, I doubt that it will happen. I think that Trump will disappoint. He's off his winning strategy, and I don't get the impression that he's going back to it.

J

 The Donald is swimming in a different shark tank  than he was accustomed to when he was selling Hotels and Casinos on the Boardwalk.   Donald's game is playing real life Monopoly (tm).  The Washington scene is very different.  He is singularly unqualified for functioning in this milleu.   So if he wins  he will be a total misfit which will produce some interesting effects and side effects.  That is why I am voting for him.  If he wins he might just wreck the system.

[Jonathan]

2 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

So if he wins  he will be a total misfit which will produce some interesting effects and side effects.  That is why I am voting for him.  If he wins he might just wreck the system.

I agree that those are potential silver linings. Trump success at governing could be good, and Trump failure could also have some great benefits. The opposite is true of Hillary. There's not much potential for silver linings.

J

[Brant Gaede]

I agree that Trump will now have to fish or cut bait. The latter would be doing a Wendle Wilke of sorts.

--Bran

[BaalChatzaf]

44 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

I agree that Trump will now have to fish or cut bait. The latter would be doing a Wendle Wilke of sorts.

--Bran

What did Wendle Wilke do?