Octopus Overlords

Defiant wrote:

El Guapo wrote:I guess I'm coming around to the view that the moderators shouldn't be saying "what you just said is incorrect" but they should follow-up on lies / non-answers. "E.g., you just said X, how do you reconcile that with you saying Y last week?"

Preferably with video of him saying Y. (IIRC, Megan Kelly did this in one of the debates?)

Yeah, although that's not going to be practical for the most part in response to a particular answer, since you can only have so many video clips queued up. That would be more useful as part of a question "e.g., at your recent press conference you said you ended the birther controversy in 2011, here's you questioning the birth certificate in 2015, how do you reconcile that?"

The problem with moving the fact checking to the post-debate analysis is that most people aren't going to stick around for that. They'll just assume that the things they heard that they liked were true, and anything they didn't like was a big fat lie.

Note that that goes for people of both political leanings. Only a small percentage of people of any ideology are going to pay attention to the deeper analysis.

YellowKing wrote:it opens a can of worms I don't think we want opened.

Standards have fallen so much, and this election cycle is so ridiculous, does it really matter at this point?

Opening a can of worms while standing neck deep in snakes. On the relative problems scale, it doesn't even register.

This was a ray of hope in an otherwise disgusting presidential race though.

As frustrating as it is, people have every right to vote uninformed. The media already has significant sway; I don't see any reason to purposefully introduce bias into what has historically been a neutral forum in order to protect ignorant people from themselves. (I use ignorant in terms of "lacking knowledge," not as in "stupid").

Put another way, would you want Rush Limbaugh moderating a debate and fact-checking Hillary?

YellowKing wrote:As frustrating as it is, people have every right to vote uninformed. The media already has significant sway; I don't see any reason to purposefully introduce bias into what has historically been a neutral forum in order to protect ignorant people from themselves. (I use ignorant in terms of "lacking knowledge," not as in "stupid").

Put another way, would you want Rush Limbaugh moderating a debate and fact-checking Hillary?

I get that, but when a fascist is on the verge of becoming president, this feels like worrying about the long-term practices of the fire department when your house is on fire.

YellowKing wrote:As frustrating as it is, people have every right to vote uninformed. The media already has significant sway; I don't see any reason to purposefully introduce bias into what has historically been a neutral forum in order to protect ignorant people from themselves. (I use ignorant in terms of "lacking knowledge," not as in "stupid").

Put another way, would you want Rush Limbaugh moderating a debate and fact-checking Hillary?

No, but I wouldn't freak out about, say, Shepard Smith, moderating a debate and fact-checking Hillary.

geezer wrote:

YellowKing wrote:As frustrating as it is, people have every right to vote uninformed. The media already has significant sway; I don't see any reason to purposefully introduce bias into what has historically been a neutral forum in order to protect ignorant people from themselves. (I use ignorant in terms of "lacking knowledge," not as in "stupid").

Put another way, would you want Rush Limbaugh moderating a debate and fact-checking Hillary?

No, but I wouldn't freak out about, say, Shepard Smith, moderating a debate and fact-checking Hillary.

I'd settle for the chiron running at the bottom of the screen to do an instant fact check and then have the network provide links to the source following the debate. That way, the moderator can play neutral.

Not sure if this belongs here or in another thread, but if this is true, then Trump will be losing his audit(s) in a big way:

Donald Trump’s charitable foundation has received approximately $2.3 million from companies that owed money to Trump or one of his businesses but were instructed to pay Trump’s tax-exempt foundation instead, according to people familiar with the transactions.

In cases where he diverted his own income to his foundation, tax experts said, Trump would still likely be required to pay taxes on the income...

...Then there were payments totaling nearly $1.9 million from a man in New York City who sells sought-after tickets and one-of-a-kind experiences to wealthy clients.

That man, Richard Ebers, bought goods and services — including tickets — from Trump or his businesses, according to two people familiar with the transactions, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the payments. They said that Ebers was instructed to pay the Donald J. Trump Foundation instead. Ebers did not respond to requests for comment.

CLINTON FOUNDATION!

GreenGoo wrote:CLINTON FOUNDATION!

Is Canadian TV carrying the debate? I don't know why they would, but I'm curious.

geezer wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:CLINTON FOUNDATION!

Is Canadian TV carrying the debate? I don't know why they would, but I'm curious.

CBC News is covering it live.

Trump repeatedly solicits donations from Fox. Vicente Fox, that is.

Vicente Fox, the former president of Mexico, received a plaintive fundraising request this weekend. "You are our country's only hope," read the email, which urged him to make "a generous contribution."

The sender? Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

It was the second missive that Fox received to his personal email address this month seeking donations for the Trump campaign, according to a spokesman for the former president. On Sept. 9, Fox got a message from Trump that concluded, "I know you won't let me down friend."

This is puzzling for a number of reasons.

The first: Fox is no friend of Trump. In fact, he may be his most vocal foreign critic, having accused the real estate developer of being a "false prophet" and compared him to dictators. "Campaigning in Mexico?" Fox mocked Trump on Twitter after getting the first request for financial support. "Running out of money and friends?"

But secondly, and even more importantly: It is illegal for an American candidate to solicit funds from foreign nationals. The law was brought to the attention of the Trump campaign back in June, when reports surfaced that lawmakers in Scotland, England, Iceland, Australia and other countries were getting a barrage of fundraising emails from the Trump campaign. Two campaign finance watchdog groups, Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center, filed complaints in June with the Federal Election Commission.

I watched the first 30 minutes of Frontline last night. The episode was called "The Choice 2016". They claim that Trump made up his mind to run for President after he was roasted by Obama at the White House Correspondents' Dinner in 2011.

Obama's zingers:

“Now, I know that he’s taken some flak lately but no one is prouder to put this birth certificate matter to rest than The Donald. And that’s because he can finally get back to focusing on the issues that matter, like, did we fake the moon landing? What really happened in Roswell? And where are Biggie and Tupac? All kidding aside, we all know about your credentials, and your breadth of experience. For example, on a recent episode of Celebrity Apprentice, at the steakhouse, the men’s cooking team did not impress the men from Omaha Steaks. There was lots of blame to go around, but you, Mr. Trump, recognized that the real problem was a lack of leadership. Ultimately, you didn’t blame [rapper] Lil Jon or [singer] Meatloaf, you fired Gary Busey. These are the kinds of decisions that keep me up at night. Well handled, sir! Well handled.”

“Trump said he’s running as a Republican. Which is surprising: I just assumed he was running as a joke … Trump owns the Miss USA Pageant, which is great for Republicans because it will streamline the search for a vice president … [Trump has] said he’s got a great relationship with ‘the blacks.’ Unless the Blacks are a family of white people, I bet he’s mistaken.”

I wish Obama would not have roasted Donald Trump.

Me too.

Defiant wrote:

Excited has the wrong connotations, but technically I would say that I am excited. So excited that, at 44 years of age (you know you are getting older when you have to stop for a second to remember how old you are), I have finally been motivated to register to vote.

Yet another Republican newspaper backs Clinton.

“Since The Arizona Republic began publication in 1890, we have never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican for president. Never. This reflects a deep philosophical appreciation for conservative ideals and Republican principles. This year is different. The 2016 Republican candidate is not conservative and he is not qualified,” the editorial said.

I wonder how many Democratic leaning news outlets are jumping ship for Trump?

As socially licentious as the National Enquirer is, do they count?

In this stranger-than-fiction presidential race, Trump has been championed by a publication that has recently purported to “out“ a number of celebrities, discovered unsubstantiated cheating scandals, prematurely predicted the imminent deaths of Hillary Clinton, Angelina Jolie, Cher and Oprah Winfrey (just to name a few), claimed repeatedly that President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama were on the brink of divorce, that the Obama daughters were embroiled in a cocaine scandal, and accused comedian Bill Cosby of plotting the murder of his own son.

“Trump Must Be President,” blasts a headline from within the Enquirer’s pages, which includes a list of reasons why the real the estate mogul should be elected, including: “He will chase down illegal immigrants and toss out the criminals who came streaming through our open borders.” That particular statement is ironic, considering the fact that the Enquirer recently published a racially insensitive article about one of its reporters dressing as a “terrorist” and crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, in their estimation damning evidence of how porous it is.

This appears to be the first time The National Enquirer has ever endorsed a candidate for president. MSNBC reached out to the tabloid’s parent company for comment about why the Enquirer decided to take the plunge with this year’s contest but has not heard back at this time.

If they had a long history of endorsing candidates of a particular party, yes.

That is not the case with the National Enquirer though. As the article quoted notes, they've never endorsed a candidate before.

There's no mystery there. David Pecker, the CEO of the National Enquirer, is a long-time ally of Trump's. They go back farther than the current election season.

One point worth noting is that the Enquirer's days of flirting with real journalism are behind it. The reporters who broke the John Edwards story and a few others are long gone, bought away by online news outlets. They haven't been replaced with comparable talent, which is why the NE of the past few years has returned to looking like the Weekly World News (which Pecker also publishes).

I didn't know Pecker (he he - So I'm 12. Sue me) also published the WWN. How is it they never endorsed Bat Boy?

OTOH, it does explain this

To be fair, I've seen that alien before and his stories always seem to pan out.

Smutly wrote:They claim that Trump made up his mind to run for President after he was roasted by Obama at the White House Correspondents' Dinner in 2011.

Thanks, Obama!

Yeah, given a time machine, I bet Obama would skip over that part of the roast. In his defense, though, Trump had it coming, and the jokes were pretty funny.

I don't believe that theory. Someone posted an article around these here parts some time ago that put forth the theory that he decided to do it as a bargaining tactic in his negotiations with NBC over The Apprentice. Then was caught by surprise when his candidacy actually garnered some serious support.

He's petty, yes. But he's also a guy who wants to do as little as he can. Unfortunately, his ego won't let him drop out at this point.

I mean, ultimately who knows. Does Trump himself even understand why he does things?

Conservative pundits praise Trump for demonstrating pulse and rudimentary brain functions during debate.

Among the optimists was conservative columnist Holman Jenkins, who registered his approval with the candidate’s ability to clear two impressive hurdles: make it through the debate without literally dying, and display the ability to make at least one planned action. “He is not a lifelong politician like Mrs. Clinton and it showed,” writes Jenkins. “But he survived on stage. Notice, he also apparently made a strategic decision not to raise Bill Clinton’s infidelities and stuck to it.” Jenkins is at least conceding implicitly that the debate would be considered a loss for Trump if he had keeled over dead. But to pat him on the head for having made a “strategic decision” — i.e., a decision — not to attack Hillary Clinton for her husband’s infidelity and then follow it is setting the bar very low. The ability to follow through on a decision is a developmental step in children that ranks just above object permanence. (Perhaps Jenkins would be impressed if Clinton left during a break and Trump noticed she was gone.) The triumph of Trump planning not to bring up the affairs, and then managing not to, is also mitigated by the fact that he immediately expressed his regret for it afterward.

El Guapo wrote:Conservative pundits praise Trump for demonstrating [..] rudimentary brain functions during debate.

Can that be fact checked, please?

El Guapo wrote:Conservative pundits praise Trump for demonstrating pulse and rudimentary brain functions during debate.

Among the optimists was conservative columnist Holman Jenkins, who registered his approval with the candidate’s ability to clear two impressive hurdles: make it through the debate without literally dying, and display the ability to make at least one planned action. “He is not a lifelong politician like Mrs. Clinton and it showed,” writes Jenkins. “But he survived on stage. Notice, he also apparently made a strategic decision not to raise Bill Clinton’s infidelities and stuck to it.” Jenkins is at least conceding implicitly that the debate would be considered a loss for Trump if he had keeled over dead. But to pat him on the head for having made a “strategic decision” — i.e., a decision — not to attack Hillary Clinton for her husband’s infidelity and then follow it is setting the bar very low. The ability to follow through on a decision is a developmental step in children that ranks just above object permanence. (Perhaps Jenkins would be impressed if Clinton left during a break and Trump noticed she was gone.) The triumph of Trump planning not to bring up the affairs, and then managing not to, is also mitigated by the fact that he immediately expressed his regret for it afterward.

Isn't pointing out during the debate that you didn't bring up the affairs, um... like bringing up the affairs?

It's like telling em2nought you're refraining from calling him a racist cocksplat.

Tomorrow's Newsweek cover story is an investigative piece showing that Trump's company violated the U.S. embargo against Cuba.

Honestly, I don't see how any remotely sane person with as many skeletons in his closet as Trump would ever risk running for public office.

gilraen wrote:Tomorrow's Newsweek cover story is an investigative piece showing that Trump's company violated the U.S. embargo against Cuba.

Honestly, I don't see how any remotely sane person with as many skeletons in his closet as Trump would ever risk running for public office.

That fits in with the theory that he never expected to get as far as he has.

It won't change squat for anyone already voting for him, he'll just claim it was good business and the same folks who bitch about Clinton being corrupt will eat it up. But hopefully it will ruffle some feathers with those who are on the fence.

Google is in on it.

Trump also introduced a new conspiracy theory to the campaign on Wednesday night when he accused Google of somehow colluding with Hillary Clinton’s campaign. “Google search engine was suppressing the bad news about Hillary Clinton,” the Republican told a cheering crowd of supporters in Waukesha, Wisconsin. Neither Google nor the Trump campaign responded to requests for comment on this accusation, which seems to stem from a report in Sputnik News, a Russian state propaganda outlet. The reference to Google did not appear to be ad libbed as it was in Trump’s prepared remarks.

It may not change much with most voters, but it may certainly have an effect on Cuban voters in Florida. They are generally super anti-Castro which is one reason (among other issues) they tend to vote Republican. If Florida is a toss-up state, which it currently is looking like, even a shift of a few thousand votes could be important.

El Guapo wrote:Google is in on it.

Trump also introduced a new conspiracy theory to the campaign on Wednesday night when he accused Google of somehow colluding with Hillary Clinton’s campaign. “Google search engine was suppressing the bad news about Hillary Clinton,” the Republican told a cheering crowd of supporters in Waukesha, Wisconsin. Neither Google nor the Trump campaign responded to requests for comment on this accusation, which seems to stem from a report in Sputnik News, a Russian state propaganda outlet. The reference to Google did not appear to be ad libbed as it was in Trump’s prepared remarks.

Which is why we need somebody good with the cyber and the tubes and that myspace thing all you kids seem to like.

What's the over/under that Drumpf's personal email ends in @aol.com?

Oops.

Over the years, Donald Trump has made it fairly clear what he thinks of women. Yet his campaign has tried to counter that narrative by insisting that he’s hired many women to run his businesses. Just after Monday’s debate, however, Trump’s own campaign manager — Kellyanne Conway — made what kiiiind of seems like a Freudian slip.

In a spin-room interview with Fox News, Conway said Trump “made it clear that he came ready to say some rough things if [Clinton] was going to challenge him about his abuse — about his record on women.”

There are rumors of another team shake-up based on Drumpf's poor performance Monday, so I suspect she's not going to last much longer. (Of course, none of it was his fault. The mess boys ate all the strawberries).

Also, allegedly, the kids are getting nervous that he's ruining the brand (and their legacy).

tgb wrote: What's the over/under that Drumpf's personal email ends in .aol.com?

Not with Barron in charge! That kid can spell "cat" with his blocks.