Turkey fans BOO during pre-match minute's silence for the victims of Paris attacks an

[Unregistered]

Trump has never been in a one on one debate. Ever. Much less with a woman with decades of experience of this type. It will be a very sober setting in which he won't be able to play to the live audience and she won't get drawn into ridiculous juvenile name-calling stuff. Believe me.

It will be substance vs. emptiness. Trump will be epically embarrassed in front of the world.

[Unregistered]

Moderator: Mr. Trump, you have repeatedly called Secretary Clinton crooked and corrupt based on financial disclosures and tax returns of Secretary and President Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. Yet you have failed to release any of your own or your foundations tax returns and financial disclosures. Will you, right now, promise that you will release full and complete copies of your and your foundations tax returns for the last three years no later than 48 hours from now?

Mr. Trump: ?????????

Here's the thing - Trump hires tax professionals to prepare his returns. There is likely nothing overtly criminal in them. But, my guess is that he has done lots of the same stuff he has complained about during the campaign. He also has likely taken some very aggressive positions in anticipation of having to offer something in compromise on audit. His mistake was to not file a return that could survive a public review without killing his campaign.

[Unregistered]

“And she’ll be talking with a man who is obviously not good when women are arguing with him. Just the fact that she’s standing there, as a woman, will be disconcerting. She should have fun!”

Quoting an article written by a former speechwriter for Jimmy Carter in The Atlantic Monthly without attribution? No bias there right? I actually read the article and the writer openly admitted his disdain for Trump. He also offered multiple reasons Trump may prove to be a real handful. Including his tendency toward simple language, catch phrases and above all his TV experience. Hillary will try to appeal to her base, but she already has those folks. Trump will appeal to everyone else who can't stand either of them. Crazy as it is, he will be more likable. She also underestimates how her dishonesty will make most undecideds question everything she says. Let the games begin

[Unregistered]

Moderator: Mr. Trump, you have repeatedly called Secretary Clinton crooked and corrupt based on financial disclosures and tax returns of Secretary and President Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. Yet you have failed to release any of your own or your foundations tax returns and financial disclosures. Will you, right now, promise that you will release full and complete copies of your and your foundations tax returns for the last three years no later than 48 hours from now?

Mr. Trump: ?????????

Here's the thing - Trump hires tax professionals to prepare his returns. There is likely nothing overtly criminal in them. But, my guess is that he has done lots of the same stuff he has complained about during the campaign. He also has likely taken some very aggressive positions in anticipation of having to offer something in compromise on audit. His mistake was to not file a return that could survive a public review without killing his campaign.

Or he may make his return public on the eve of the debate? He tends toward the dramatic. And it would leave her flat footed with little time to prepare.

He will then go after her on her Wall St. Friends, her foundation and her pay to play schemes. He will quote all of the Democrats who have argued that her foundation is improper and should be shut down. She has lived a very public life. He has been a private businessman. He has more ammo and will use every bullet.

[Unregistered]

Or he may make his return public on the eve of the debate? He tends toward the dramatic. And it would leave her flat footed with little time to prepare.

He will then go after her on her Wall St. Friends, her foundation and her pay to play schemes. He will quote all of the Democrats who have argued that her foundation is improper and should be shut down. She has lived a very public life. He has been a private businessman. He has more ammo and will use every bullet.

He cannot do any of that until he releases the tax returns. Incidentally, everyone thinks the Clinton Fiundation is doing very good work around the world - including Trump and his campaign manager. It does good work plain and simple.

[Unregistered]

"Donald Trump was made to look bad by one interviewer with the time, preparation, and guts to pursue a line of questioning, and by two women who discussed right in front of him the ugly things he has said.

If he shows up for this fall’s debates, he’ll encounter moderators with a lot of time to explore issues, and a woman with decades of onstage toughness behind her."

[Unregistered]

"Donald Trump was made to look bad by one interviewer with the time, preparation, and guts to pursue a line of questioning, and by two women who discussed right in front of him the ugly things he has said.

If he shows up for this fall’s debates, he’ll encounter moderators with a lot of time to explore issues, and a woman with decades of onstage toughness behind her."

Again this is lifted directly from the Atlantic Monthly article. Basically admitting that the moderators are in the tank. The woman he is facing also has enormous ethics and honesty questions. Her onstage toughness was certainly absent when she couldn't leave the 9/11 memorial under her own power.

[Unregistered]

"In many ways the performances of Donald Trump remind me of male chimpanzees and their dominance rituals,” Jane Goodall, the anthropologist, told me shortly before Trump won the GOP nomination. “In order to impress rivals, males seeking to rise in the dominance hierarchy perform spectacular displays: stamping, slapping the ground, dragging branches, throwing rocks. The more vigorous and imaginative the display, the faster the individual is likely to rise in the hierarchy, and the longer he is likely to maintain that position.”

In her book My Life With the Chimpanzees, Goodall told the story of “Mike,” a chimp who maintained his dominance by kicking a series of kerosene cans ahead of him as he moved down a road, creating confusion and noise that made his rivals flee and cower. She told me she would be thinking of Mike as she watched the upcoming debates."

[Unregistered]

"In many ways the performances of Donald Trump remind me of male chimpanzees and their dominance rituals,” Jane Goodall, the anthropologist, told me shortly before Trump won the GOP nomination. “In order to impress rivals, males seeking to rise in the dominance hierarchy perform spectacular displays: stamping, slapping the ground, dragging branches, throwing rocks. The more vigorous and imaginative the display, the faster the individual is likely to rise in the hierarchy, and the longer he is likely to maintain that position.”

In her book My Life With the Chimpanzees, Goodall told the story of “Mike,” a chimp who maintained his dominance by kicking a series of kerosene cans ahead of him as he moved down a road, creating confusion and noise that made his rivals flee and cower. She told me she would be thinking of Mike as she watched the upcoming debates."

Cujo, just go ahead and post the Atlantic Monthly article! Again lifted directly. Again the writer was a Carter speechwriter. He openly admitted in same article his disdain for Trump.

[Unregistered]

On the Democrats’ side, neither Clinton nor Bernie Sanders made a significant misstep, in word or bearing, through the debates. I asked former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, who was onstage with Clinton and Sanders for the first five encounters, whether he’d seen Clinton make any significant mistakes. “No,” he said. “Dammit!” To round things out, when I asked O’Malley how he would be preparing to debate Trump if he’d won the nomination, he said, “I’d start by thinking of him as a monkey with a machine gun.”

[Unregistered]

On the Democrats’ side, neither Clinton nor Bernie Sanders made a significant misstep, in word or bearing, through the debates. I asked former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, who was onstage with Clinton and Sanders for the first five encounters, whether he’d seen Clinton make any significant mistakes. “No,” he said. “Dammit!” To round things out, when I asked O’Malley how he would be preparing to debate Trump if he’d won the nomination, he said, “I’d start by thinking of him as a monkey with a machine gun.”

The source for this propaganda......biased vomit.

James Fallows
JAMES FALLOWS is a national correspondent for The Atlantic and has written for the magazine since the late 1970s. He has reported extensively from outside the United States and once worked as President Carter's chief speechwriter. His latest book is China Airborne.

Fallows, a former speechwriter for Democratic President Jimmy Carter, has identified himself as a Democrat[9] and has been described by Politico and The Hill, among other publications, as a liberal.[10][11] According to journalist Howard Fineman, Fallows also wrote policy memos to Democratic President Bill Clinton.[12] An article in The Futurist, a publication of the World Future Society, identifies Fallows as a radical centrist.[13]

[Unregistered]

The most famous story about modern presidential campaigning now has a quaint old-world tone. It’s about the showdown between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy in the first debate of their 1960 campaign, which was also the very first nationally televised general-election debate in the United States.

The story is that Kennedy looked great, which is true, and Nixon looked terrible, which is also true—and that this visual difference had an unexpected electoral effect. As Theodore H. White described it in his hugely influential book The Making of the President 1960, which has set the model for campaign coverage ever since, “sample surveys” after the debate found that people who had only heard Kennedy and Nixon talking, over the radio, thought that the debate had been a tie. But those who saw the two men on television were much more likely to think that Kennedy—handsome, tanned, non-sweaty, poised—had won.

Historians who have followed up on this story haven’t found data to back up White’s sight-versus-sound discovery. But from a modern perspective, the only surprising thing about his findings is that they came as a surprise. Today’s electorate has decades of televised politics behind it, from which one assumption is that of course images, and their emotional power, usually matter more than words and whatever logic they might try to convey.

The record of presidential debates since 1960 generally conforms to White’s maxim. In only a minority of cases have politicians gained or lost ground based on what they said, rather than how they looked while saying it. Gerald Ford is the most obvious example. In his second debate against Jimmy Carter in 1976, when Ford was fighting to hold on to the presidency he had assumed after Richard Nixon resigned, Ford said that Eastern Europe was not under the Soviet Union’s domination. The questioner threw him a lifeline, with an incredulous “Did I hear that right??” follow-up. But Ford ignored the signal and gave a longer, more definitive statement of the same view. Despite his stumblebum image, Ford, a Yale Law School graduate, was no dummy, and what he meant made sense. He was trying to say that the indomitable spirit of the Poles could never be crushed, and that the United States would never concede the status of Eastern European countries like Poland as mere Soviet satellites. So through the rest of the debate, while on camera before tens of millions of viewers, Ford betrayed no awareness that anything had gone wrong. (I was on Carter’s campaign staff then, and was there.) It was only afterward that he learned this was a “gaffe,” one that would dog him for the rest of his campaign and even show up in his obituaries.

That was an exception. The rule is that the way candidates react, immediately and usually involuntarily, while caught by the camera, dominates impressions of who has “won” or “lost” an encounter. This is why the most accurate way to predict reaction to a debate is to watch it with the sound turned off.

[Unregistered]

When Lloyd Bentsen, as Michael Dukakis’s running mate in 1988, dressed down the undergrad-looking Dan Quayle with “You’re no Jack Kennedy!” in their vice-presidential debate, Quayle stood like a scolded child, which became a dominant image of him in the campaign. The Bush-Quayle ticket went on to win in a landslide, but the campaign lastingly damaged Quayle’s reputation. Eight years before that, when challenger Ronald Reagan brushed off incumbent President Jimmy Carter with “There you go again!,” the specific words didn’t matter as much as the picture of the easy, confident Reagan versus the purse-lipped, peeved-seeming Carter.


And on through the list of debate moments that were discussed at the time and remembered afterward. No one recalls what Al Gore said during his first debate against George W. Bush in 2000 (except perhaps that he would keep the Medicare and Social Security budgets in a “lockbox”); many people recall, and held against him, his ostentatious sighs. In the late summer of 2011, Governor Rick Perry of Texas led Mitt Romney and all other Republicans for the 2012 nomination. By late fall he had begun his descent, due largely to his brain-freeze moment in a debate when he was not able to name the third federal agency he wanted to eliminate. The problem wasn’t the momentary lapse, of the kind that can afflict anyone and is best laughed off. (A weary candidate Obama said near the end of the 2008 primary campaign that he had visited “all 57 states.”) Instead it was Perry’s own reaction; he looked and sounded like a man who was all too aware that he had just made an enormous mistake. In each of these cases, the anguish was compounded by the politician’s recognition that the slip confirmed a preexisting suspicion: for Quayle, that he was callow; for Perry, that he was slow-witted; for Gore, that he was a huffy teacher’s pet looking down on the slacker-student Bush.

[Unregistered]

On the Democrats’ side, neither Clinton nor Bernie Sanders made a significant misstep, in word or bearing, through the debates. I asked former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, who was onstage with Clinton and Sanders for the first five encounters, whether he’d seen Clinton make any significant mistakes. “No,” he said. “Dammit!” To round things out, when I asked O’Malley how he would be preparing to debate Trump if he’d won the nomination, he said, “I’d start by thinking of him as a monkey with a machine gun.”

That's racist!

[Unregistered]

"In many ways the performances of Donald Trump remind me of male chimpanzees and their dominance rituals,” Jane Goodall, the anthropologist, told me shortly before Trump won the GOP nomination. “In order to impress rivals, males seeking to rise in the dominance hierarchy perform spectacular displays: stamping, slapping the ground, dragging branches, throwing rocks. The more vigorous and imaginative the display, the faster the individual is likely to rise in the hierarchy, and the longer he is likely to maintain that position.”

In her book My Life With the Chimpanzees, Goodall told the story of “Mike,” a chimp who maintained his dominance by kicking a series of kerosene cans ahead of him as he moved down a road, creating confusion and noise that made his rivals flee and cower. She told me she would be thinking of Mike as she watched the upcoming debates."

Great observation! Let's hope this election shows that the planet of the apes was just a movie.