Clinton-Trump: 9/26 Debate

[Benko]

When your priorities are e.g. transsexual rights and black lives matter you are likely to get what you deserve from the voters.

oh and from that article:
"I am firmly convinced that Trump would be an epically disastrous President, whereas Clinton will be somewhere between pretty bad and pretty good depending on circumstances"

Whatever you think of Trump, anyone who thinks Clinton based on her track record might be pretty good... deserves a job at the NY Times.

[MachineGhost]

So much ridiculous hyberbole from the lamestream media that it has to be on its last legs. What channel and time is the debate tonight?

Donald Trump may or may not fix his campaign, and Hillary Clinton may or may not become the first female president. But something else happening before our eyes is almost as important: the complete collapse of American journalism as we know it.

The frenzy to bury Trump is not limited to the Clinton campaign and the Obama White House. They are working hand in hand with what was considered the cream of the nation’s news organizations.

The shameful display of naked partisanship by the elite media is unlike anything seen in modern America.

The largest broadcast networks — CBS, NBC and ABC — and major newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post have jettisoned all pretense of fair play. Their fierce determination to keep Trump out of the Oval Office has no precedent.

Indeed, no foreign enemy, no terror group, no native criminal gang suffers the daily beating that Trump does. The mad mullahs of Iran, who call America the Great Satan and vow to wipe Israel off the map, are treated gently by comparison.

By torching its remaining credibility in service of Clinton, the mainstream media’s reputations will likely never recover, nor will the standards. No future producer, editor, reporter or anchor can be expected to meet a test of fairness when that standard has been trashed in such willful and blatant fashion.

Liberal bias in journalism is often baked into the cake. The traditional ethos of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable leads to demands that government solve every problem. Favoring big government, then, becomes routine among most journalists, especially young ones.

I know because I was one of them. I started at the Times while the Vietnam War and civil rights movement raged, and was full of certainty about right and wrong.

My editors were, too, though in a different way. Our boss of bosses, the legendary Abe Rosenthal, knew his reporters leaned left, so he leaned right to “keep the paper straight.”

That meant the Times, except for the opinion pages, was scrubbed free of reporters’ political views, an edict that was enforced by giving the opinion and news operations separate editors. The church-and-state structure was one reason the Times was considered the flagship of journalism.

Those days are gone. The Times now is so out of the closet as a Clinton shill that it is giving itself permission to violate any semblance of evenhandedness in its news pages as well as its opinion pages.

A recent article by its media reporter, Jim Rutenberg, whom I know and like, began this way: “If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?”

Whoa, Nellie. The clear assumption is that many reporters see Trump that way, and it is note­worthy that no similar question is raised about Clinton, whose scandals are deserving only of “scrutiny.” Rutenberg approvingly cites a leftist journalist who calls one candidate “normal” and the other ­“abnormal.”

Clinton is hardly “normal” to the 68 percent of Americans who find her dishonest and untrustworthy, though apparently not a single one of those people writes for the Times. Statistically, that makes the Times “abnormal.”

Also, you don’t need to be a ­detective to hear echoes in that first paragraph of Clinton speeches and ads, including those featured prominently on the Times’ website. In effect, the paper has seamlessly ­adopted Clinton’s view as its own, then tries to justify its coverage.

It’s an impossible task, and Rutenberg fails because he must. Any reporter who agrees with Clinton about Trump has no business covering either candidate.

It’s pure bias, which the Times fancies itself an expert in detecting in others, but is blissfully tolerant of in itself. And with the top political editor quoted in the story as ­approving the one-sided coverage as necessary and deserving, the prejudice is now official policy.

It’s a historic mistake and a complete break with the paper’s own traditions. Instead of dropping its standards, the Times should bend over backwards to enforce them, even while acknowledging that Trump is a rare breed. That’s the whole point of standards — they are designed to guide decisions not just in easy cases, but in all cases, to preserve trust.

The Times, of course, is not alone in becoming unhinged over Trump, but that’s also the point. It used to be unique because of its adherence to fairness.

Now its only standard is a double standard, one that it proudly ­confesses. Shame would be more appropriate.

http://nypost.com/2016/08/21/american-j ... -our-eyes/

[Reub]

It's on at 9 PM Eastern time. I believe that its on every channel.Ten points Trump should make, according to Dick Morris:

http://www.newsmax.com/DickMorris/Dick- ... id/750129/

1) That none of Hillary's name-calling is true. By his answers and demeanor show that he is not: sexist, racist, deplorable, reckless, unpredictable, buffoon, homophobe, Islamaphobe. Once he shows he is a reasonable person, all of Hillary's negative ads go away.

2) He needs to say that Hillary used a secret e-mail server to cover up the pay-for-play operations of the Clinton Foundation and Bill's speeches. He should demand that Hillary promise to close the Foundation if she is elected. It's not enough to leave Bill or Chelsea in charge. And she should also pledge that neither Bill nor Chelsea will take speaking fees while she is in office.

3) He should demand the release of the Charlotte videotape of the police shooting so we get the facts and can find out the truth of what happened. Until then, we must keep an open mind.

4) He should say that school choice is the civil rights issue of our time and that it is the only way to stop schools from reflecting the racial segregation and ghettoization of our communities.

5) He needs to say that New York City was hit by terrorists because they closed the Demographics Unit that monitored Muslims and Muslim neighborhoods. They gave the goal the night off and, after the unit stopped 20 separate plots since 9-11, it wasn't around to stop the 21st.

6) He must make explicit the correlation between stopping refugees from terrorist areas and preventing future attacks. He should blast Obama's announcement that he will admit 110,000 more refugees this year and say they could and probably will be seeded with enough terrorists to hold our nation on edge for years.

7) He needs to stress that ObamaCare is crashing of its own weight. Most of the newly insured people are coming in through Medicaid, basically welfare. He should urge ending the mandatory aspects of the program but keeping the provisions for portability and no termination or premium increases when you get sick. He should say Hillary will move to government run medicine which she has always really supported.

Hillary is getting all the Wall Street money; she and Bill reaped massive speaking fees and Foundation donations from banks right after Bill deregulated the banks and paved the way of the '07-'08 meltdown. He should pledge to reinstate Glass-Steagall.

9) Hillary should take and release an MRI exam. Risk of dementia in a president is not one the nation can afford.

10) Hillary will flip on TPP once elected and cannot be trusted to protect American jobs. Challenge her to say NAFTA has hurt America now that our trade deficit with Mexico increased from a surplus of 1.6 billion in 1993 (the year before NAFTA) to a deficit of $61 billion in 2015.

[MachineGhost]

I say draw.

Hillary sounded just like a politician: "We need to do this..." and "We need to do that..." Same ol' B.S.. WTF has she been doing for 30 years?

And who knows how much of the lamestream media B.S. she threw at Trump was actually true or not. The truth flew out the window a long time ago.

Trump could have attacked her qualifications more; I think she got off too easily while he would rant and she would then insinuate like he was crazy.

Like I said, she just needs to maintain her composure and peform akkido and she'll win. Trump's the crazy wild one.

To win, Trump needs to catch her with her pants down that she can't recover from. It has to peel off a significant chunk of Democrats. Not holding my breath if this debate was any indication.

The reality is 11 states are in play, five can go either way and six are strongly Democratic. Trump has to capture all five of the either ways and he will still be down 4 electoral votes. If he misses any of the five either ways, then he will need to win Pennsylvania (which is one of the strong six) to make up the difference.

Just can't see it.

[FarmerD]

Debate just over. I though Trump was unfocused and on the defensive for the most part. Of course the moderator kowtowed to Clinton by directing 3 tough questions to Trump that put him on the immediate defensive (his tax returns, the birther subject, and something about how great it is to have a woman nominee for president) and zero tough questions to Clinton. The mod could have tried to be even handed by asking about:

a. the Clinton Foundation influence peddling
b. Hillary's private email server email
c. Benghazi fiasco
d. Clinton's "deplorables" comment

just to name a few.

Not a big fan of Trump (glad he was asked those questions) but Hillary as usual gets a complete free pass from the media

[MachineGhost]

[MachineGhost]

Debate just over. I though Trump was unfocused and on the defensive for the most part. Of course the moderator kowtowed to Clinton by directing 3 tough questions to Trump that put him on the immediate defensive (his tax returns, the birther subject, and something about how great it is to have a woman nominee for president)

It was about her "looks" which he punted into "stamina". So basically, he's a tax dodger or uncharitable Scrooge, a racist and a triple misogynist (the Rosie O'Donnell comment) as for as insinuation from the liberal lamestream media goes. Slick Hilly at least recognized (like most people with a brain) that the racist birther crap was just him looking for a political angle to get traction into politics. Trump should have defended himself against the racist charge because that wasn't the point of his involvement in the birther movement (but maybe he didn't want it to then turn it into a xenophobic Muslim charge which would be harder to recover from). It's amazing how much political correctness still rules the roost depending on how the question is framed, the meme used and to whom it is put. Even the Trumpster can't escape it. Sad.

Like a self-absorbed careerist politician, Slick Hilly says all of the right things. Trump needs to hammer her "bad experience" qualifications over and over and stop being so defensive. Just can't see it happening now to give him a win. Overseas, he came off as a braggart businessman. He needs to walk the talk or craigr is gonna be crushed.

P.S. Doesn't look like he's getting the message: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

[dualstow]

I am not a fan of Hillary, but I think she came out looking way better than Donald did in round one.

Totally. He was like a child.

[MachineGhost]

I didn't see any of the debate myself.

Here's the 90 minutes condensed to 3 minutes: http://wapo.st/2dmPHWX

And here's a summary:

“He was exciting but embarrassingly undisciplined,” writes New York Post conservative columnist John Podhoretz. “He began with his strongest argument — that the political class represented by her has failed us and it’s time to look to a successful dealmaker for leadership — and kept to it pretty well for the first 20 minutes. Then due to the vanity and laziness that led him to think he could wing the most important 95 minutes of his life, he lost the thread of his argument, he lost control of his temper and he lost the perspective necessary to correct these mistakes as he went. By the end … Trump was reduced to a sputtering mess blathering about Rosie O’Donnell and about how he hasn’t yet said the mean things about Hillary that he is thinking.”

It's really too bad as I really like most of his policy positions over Slick Hilly. But no one is going to elect an asshat.

[Pointedstick]

Everybody saw what they wanted to see.

Clinton succeeded in reassuring her supporters that she is professional, well-educated, experienced, presidential, and healthy.

Trump succeeded in reassuring his supporters that he is a rich, brash, tough bully who doesn't take crap from anyone and punches back when provoked (this is a feature, not a bug).

The biggest story is how liberals and conservatives came to diverge so radically in what they're looking for.

[MachineGhost]

Everybody saw what they wanted to see.

Clinton succeeded in reassuring her supporters that she is professional, well-educated, experienced, presidential, and healthy.

Trump succeeded in reassuring his supporters that he is a rich, brash, tough bully who doesn't take crap from anyone and punches back when provoked (this is a feature, not a bug).

The biggest story is how liberals and conservatives came to diverge so radically in what they're looking for.

But they aren't important now. It's the undecided swing voters that these debates are for. And they overwhelmingly said they like Slick Hilly. Trump is done unless he pulls off his own personal White Swan event.

I wouldn't sell because if Trump pulls off a surprise win against all odds, you're gonna make way more than a measly 100%.

[dualstow]

Everybody saw what they wanted to see.

I do wonder if some potential Trump voters saw something significantly less than what the wanted.

[Reub]

Everybody saw what they wanted to see.

Clinton succeeded in reassuring her supporters that she is professional, well-educated, experienced, presidential, and healthy.

Trump succeeded in reassuring his supporters that he is a rich, brash, tough bully who doesn't take crap from anyone and punches back when provoked (this is a feature, not a bug).

The biggest story is how liberals and conservatives came to diverge so radically in what they're looking for.

Agree. This debate will not change anyone's mind. Although she may have won on debating style she still came off as smug and unlikeable. She can never be likable despite Holt's best biased attempts.

[Reub]

In debate, Clinton gets no follow-up questions, Trump gets 6


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/in-de ... le/2602939

[Reub]

Trump won by a landslide: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... slide.html

https://www.instagram.com/p/BK2RrsHjTDR/ Trump 67% Hillary 33% CNBC

[curlew]

I watched the debate for about 45 minutes which was about the limit of my pain tolerance for listening to any politician speak. I probably won't listen to the next two.

I lost my job and was forced into early retirement on the last day of July this year due to offshoring to India. My impression was that Donald Trump had some real passion when he talked about this issue. Hillary only gave it lip service.

My impression is that I don't really know if Donald Trump is going to do anything about this problem or whether his plan will actually work or not but if Hillary cared anything about it, she didn't show it.

[MachineGhost]

Why wasn't this a topic of debate conversation? The ship is sinking while the Neros fiddle!!!

Dallas’s police and firefighters are quitting in droves, wagering that financial-market losses are about to render their promised pensions too good to be true.

With the city considering benefit cuts to help close a retirement-fund shortfall that grew by $1.2 billion last year, more than 200 workers have decided to retire or leave, about double the normal rate, said Mayor Pro Tem Erik Wilson, who sits on the Dallas Police and Fire Pension System’s board. That’s threatening to put further pressure on the fund as benefits come due, including lump-sum payouts to older employees who’ve been drawing a paycheck while earning a guaranteed 8 percent return on their pensions.

“I’ve had 40 to 50 officers in my office this week asking what they should do,” said James Parnell, 52, secretary-treasurer of the Dallas Police Association and 25-year veteran. “They’re very nervous about what is going to happen, they’re fearing a run on the money.”

Turmoil in world stock markets and near record-low bond yields are taking a toll on pensions for cities like Dallas, which count on annual investment returns of more than 7 percent to cover promised benefits. In the year through June, U.S. state and local-government plans posted the smallest gains since 2009, leaving them with almost $2 trillion less than they will eventually need, according to data from the Wilshire Trust Universe Comparison Service and the Federal Reserve.

The squeeze on Dallas’s fund is even more acute because of a decision to divert money from stocks and bonds into Hawaiian villas, Uruguayan timber and undeveloped land in Arizona, among other non-traditional investments. The strategy, put in place under prior managers, backfired. The fund lost 12.6 percent in 2015 and 0.7 percent over the past three years.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... ts-pension

[MachineGhost]

Also, thought this was pretty accurate about the debate:



It really irked me in bed last night that Trump didn't hammer Slick Hilly on Three Strikes, No Student Loan Discharging and Repeal of Glass-Steagall. All of which she and her white trash husband are directly co-responsible for during the 90's... and for the resulting current problems that she promised to voters during the debate to "fix". Trump blew a huge opportunity there because of his self-absorbed narcissim.

I'm really afraid at this point that Trump's ego is so huge and large he lacks the serious capacity for any self-reflection and self-improvement on how to be prepared and do better in any endeavor. I just don't know how this joker got anywhere in business life. If he is as really as wise as he claims, he delegates and gets himself out of the fucking way. Unfortunately, that doesn't apply in running for President.

So in the end, Desert was right.

[Xan]

Why wasn't this a topic of debate conversation? The ship is sinking while the Neros fiddle!!!

Dallas’s police and firefighters are quitting in droves, wagering that financial-market losses are about to render their promised pensions too good to be true.

With the city considering benefit cuts to help close a retirement-fund shortfall that grew by $1.2 billion last year, more than 200 workers have decided to retire or leave, about double the normal rate, said Mayor Pro Tem Erik Wilson, who sits on the Dallas Police and Fire Pension System’s board. That’s threatening to put further pressure on the fund as benefits come due, including lump-sum payouts to older employees who’ve been drawing a paycheck while earning a guaranteed 8 percent return on their pensions.

“I’ve had 40 to 50 officers in my office this week asking what they should do,” said James Parnell, 52, secretary-treasurer of the Dallas Police Association and 25-year veteran. “They’re very nervous about what is going to happen, they’re fearing a run on the money.”

Turmoil in world stock markets and near record-low bond yields are taking a toll on pensions for cities like Dallas, which count on annual investment returns of more than 7 percent to cover promised benefits. In the year through June, U.S. state and local-government plans posted the smallest gains since 2009, leaving them with almost $2 trillion less than they will eventually need, according to data from the Wilshire Trust Universe Comparison Service and the Federal Reserve.

The squeeze on Dallas’s fund is even more acute because of a decision to divert money from stocks and bonds into Hawaiian villas, Uruguayan timber and undeveloped land in Arizona, among other non-traditional investments. The strategy, put in place under prior managers, backfired. The fund lost 12.6 percent in 2015 and 0.7 percent over the past three years.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... ts-pension

Guaranteed eight percent return?? Who was the moron who promised that?!

[Pointedstick]

Assumed rates of return of 8% and above are common in government pension fund projections everywhere. It wasn't unreasonable in the 80s and 90s, but nobody updated the methodology in the 2000s, and the whole house of cards is starting to come down.

[Reub]

Assumed rates of return of 8% and above are common in government pension fund projections everywhere. It wasn't unreasonable in the 80s and 90s, but nobody updated the methodology in the 2000s, and the whole house of cards is starting to come down.

Teachers in New York get that same guaranteed return. It has to be a house of cards,

[MachineGhost]

In a nutshell, Hillary’s tax plan involves raising taxes on the nation’s wealthiest citizens. She wants to use the increased revenues to expand assistance to poor Americans and raise average incomes. For investors, Clinton’s tax plan also aims to prioritize long-term growth over short-term returns.

In general, Hillary is all about the “Buffett Rule.” She wants the wealthy to pay a proportional share of the nation’s taxes - never less than lower-income people. This would be accomplished through a minimum 30% tax rate on Americans with annual incomes above $1 million.

Clinton also wants to raise the estate tax and revise retirement plan tax policies in order to discourage tax sheltering through these vehicles.

From an investor’s perspective, Clinton’s plan is concerning. She wants to replace current short-term and long-term capital gains rates with a series of six rates. For securities held less than one year, the rate would shoot up to 43.94%. Then it would decrease for each year of holding, down to 23.8% after six years.

The idea is to shift the financial sector’s focus toward yearly returns and long-term growth. In this regard, Hillary is aligned with many CEOs and capital managers, including Larry Fink of BlackRock Capital (NYSE: BLK).

Fink and Clinton feel that the market is too focused on quarterly earnings and short-term returns. Their argument is that this creates excessive volatility and doesn’t incentivize long-term profitability.

Clinton’s tax plans could cause some dramatic changes to financial markets. If they come to pass, they’d cause volatility for stock and actively managed fund markets. Conversely, the policies could actually be quite beneficial for ETF and passively managed fund markets.

http://www.investmentu.com/article/deta ... -investors

[curlew]

From an investor’s perspective, Clinton’s plan is concerning. She wants to replace current short-term and long-term capital gains rates with a series of six rates. For securities held less than one year, the rate would shoot up to 43.94%. Then it would decrease for each year of holding, down to 23.8% after six years.

I wasn't sure I was going to actually go to the polls and vote this year but after reading that I think I will definitely be going to cast an anti-Hillary vote for Trump.

For a senior citizen depending on capital gains for some revenue that's a whopping tax increase. Did she also plan on eliminating the zero% rate for those making under 70K or are all seniors going to have to start forking over their savings for her government programs?

As long as Republicans retain control of at least one branch of congress I can't see her plan ever being implemented. Things get really dangerous when you have a presidential election that also sweeps one party into control of the whole government allowing the candidate to do the things they are saying (see Obama and Bush).

[Pointedstick]

Nothing she says matters. Her policy ideas are simply free-emoting with lots of numbers. They convey her general approach but the details are meaningless because congress will block or butcher anything the president proposes. Even if the Democrats win the Senate (unlikely), Republicans will retain control of the house.

Same for Trump.

[MachineGhost]

Nothing she says matters. Her policy ideas are simply free-emoting with lots of numbers. They convey her general approach but the details are meaningless because congress will block or butcher anything the president proposes. Even if the Democrats win the Senate (unlikely), Republicans will retain control of the house.

Same for Trump.

Actually, Democrats are projected to maintain the Senate but they'll still be out of the House. Whoops, it looks like Republicans have control of the Senate, they just don't have a majority in the Senate. So the Republicans are projected to lose both in the Senate. I'm confused, the bloody Republicans actually control BOTH houses of Congress but can't get anything done? WTF! Am I missing something here???

Man, after eight years all we really got out of OBAMA! of any significance was the Save our JOBS Act. But that was the government getting out of the way after 80 years, not actively doing something.

Disgusted.