My photo blog is here. +++ Links to all the 60 some articles I cross-posted to Daily Kos with comments are here.
The more I think about it the more I think Hillary deliberately used the phrase “ asked of deplorables." It certainly isn't a cliche and deplorables wasn't even a dictionary word... but it is now!
Hopefully the Trump supporters who aren't deplorable (the word means deserving strong condemnation), that is those who only deserve mild to moderate condemnation, will think about how their breathrn in the basket are the racists, bigots, rampant xenophobe, misogynists, and birthers who consitute a sleezy and signficant number of Trump's most enthusiastic supporters.
The non-deplorables support Trump only because he is the Republican alternative to Hillary. These are the voters who know Hillary isn't the devil Trump says she is. They may find her personality off-putting. They may not agree with her on many issues. However, unlike the unhinged, angry, vindictive Trumm, they know she is level headed. They know she is VASTLY superior when it comes to having the knowledge relevant to being president --
Saturday, Sept. 10, 2016
Hillary’s basket of deplorables both true and helpful… to her….
Whether she used the phrase to assure her comments would get coverage or this happened by chance, it turned out to be good for her (at least on MSNBC - I don’t know how Fox is covering it)…
What she said is not only true, but well phrased and compelling. Her use of the word “deplorable" is appropriate. It means deserving strong condemnation. She could have said “despicable" and that would have been wrong. That means deserving hatred and contempt.
Clinton's campaign has hardly disguised its strategy of associating Trump with the far-right elements of his base and reminding voters of his most incendiary remarks, hoping to arrest any further improvement in his numbers.
“You know,” Clinton said at the LGBT event, “to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.”
“Right?” Clinton said as the crowd laughed and applauded.
“The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it,” Clinton continued. “And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric.”
The Democratic nominee then sought to draw a distinction between the two halves of the “basket."
“Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America. But the other basket,” she said, “are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change.” Complete Politico article.
Friday, Sept. 9, 2016
|Featuring “How I’d Run the Country (Beter.)” by Donald J. Trump, August, 2004|
Thursday, Sept. 8, 2016
Media must stop false equivalence and stop grading Trump on a curve.
This deserves a read:
It’s all about this:
A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors. The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: "If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal". d is not required to exist in both sets; only a passing similarity is required to cause this fallacy to be able to be used.
The following statements are examples of false equivalence:
- "They're both soft, cuddly pets. There's no difference between a cat and a dog."
- "We all bleed red. We're all no different from each other."False equivalence is occasionally claimed in politics, where one political party will accuse their opponents of having performed equally wrong actions. Commentators may also accuse journalists of false equivalence in their reporting of political controversies if the stories are perceived to assign equal blame to multiple parties. Wikipedia
This morning I was more than irritated by a piece in Daily Beast by Tim Mak and Nancy Youssef saying that both Hillary and Trump “self-destructed” in the C-i-C Forum last night. They wrote "In military terms, the first national security battle between Hillary Clintonand Donald Trump took the form of mutually assured destruction.”
I wrote “mutually assured destruction? Did they really reduce each other to nuclear waste? Give me a break!”
I could go on but if you want to “hear” me kvetch about Daily Beast and Politco and their unfair coverage stories you can read my earlier diary “Hillary might have stumbled, but Trump fell flat of his face.”
I am glad I am not the only one to note how the media grades Trump on a curve and Hillary on a straight scale.
Tomasky began his article with this:
I ended mine with this:
Between the introductory sentences they cover the “self-destruction” and as has been happening repeated prove that Trump is held to a far lower standard than Hillary.He is graded on a curve and merely getting a C is considered a stellar performance. Hillary is graded on a straight standard where in my opinion she got a solid B.If you don’t know the difference between curve grading and straight grading then you didn’t take a course like zoology from the likes of Prof. Braddock at Michigan State who used the later method (which convinced me I didn’t have the memory to go to medical school). Getting a C in that course took my studying so hard I thought my brain would explode.
Trump’s grade, having given it due consideration, on the curve, is a D+. He earned the + for telling the truth once or twice, as Tomasky points out:
Actually I’m not being quite fair. Sometimes, very occasionally, he tells the truth as he sees it. And those turn out to be the most appalling moments of all. Like Trump’s defense of Vladimir Putin Wednesday night, citing the Russian strongman’s “82 percent approval rating” and saying: “The man has very strong control over a country. It’s a very different system and I don’t happen to like the system, but certainly in that system, he’s been a leader. Far more than our president has been a leader.”
Considering Hillary’s grade now, I would say that this straight scale B is not at all shabby because of how much time she had to spend on the emails. I didn’t see any way she could have parried those questions however since she knew this would come up she looses some points (from A+ to A-) for not having better responses. She also lost points for not making abundantly clear what she was talking about when she said she wouldn’t allow us to participate in ground war. She mentioned special forces, but the critics overlooked this. I wrote:
“Of course Hillary is aware that we have some 5,000 soldiers “on the ground;” but anyone with an open mind knows that when she talks about ground troops she means tens of thousands of troops, essentially sending a new army to assume a large role fighting on the ground. Her answer that she’d expect the Kurds and other countries to provide those boots on the ground makes this, or ought to, make this clear.”
Before anyone yells at me for being such a strict grader, I am using Prof. Braddocks scale. If my zoology professor was grading Trump, noting his multiple choice exams usually with five or more choices any number of which could be correct were always scored right minus wrong, he’d get a F.
If Hillary was graded on the same curve Trump was, and always is, Hillary would have gotten an A+++++++++.
Hillary may have failed to win the forum hands down, but come on Daily Beast, it was Trump who failed miserably.
This is from this morning’s Daily Beast:
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Self-Destruct at Commander-in-Chief Forum
On Wednesday night, the candidates were given a chance to show they had what it takes to be commander in chief. They took very different approaches to the challenge and both failed. Miserably.
I am trying to be objective as I think about last night’s TV forum. Not so The Daily Beast. They begin their article:
Mutually assured destruction? Did they really reduce each other to nuclear waste? Give me a break!
Then they go on to compare the two and conclude:
"It was a dumpster fire of an evening, for a dumpster fire of a campaign—the first time this election cycle where voters could see in stark contrast the two major choices for president, and both came up lacking. Two candidates took the stage, separately, to talk about why they were qualified to be commander in chief. Instead, both showed themselves to be terribly flawed candidates.”
"Clinton came off as a defensive and lawyerly—technical where unnecessary, vague where details were necessary, or simply utterly wrong. Trump, meanwhile, assumed the role of a huckster—a man who praised Vladimir Putin while insulting female combat troops, correcting a veteran with an incorrect figure about suicide, and suggesting the military needed to be purged of its generals and admirals.”
The criticism of Hilary says she “came off” as defensive and lawyerly… and it is a fair assessment to say this since she was being peppered by questions about the email, including one from a Trump supporting vet who aggressively and impolitely insulted her using a Trump attack line. Had she come across like Trump she would doubling down and attack back. We don’t want that in a commander-in-chief. She’s a lawyer. She was after all defending herself.
Then to say she was vague where details were necessary, in a half hour which was fast approaching a close because of the time spent on the emails, is unfair. She gave brief answers.
The final charge that she was “simply wrong” must be referencing the ground troops comment. Of course Hillary is aware that we have some 5,000 soldiers “on the ground;” but anyone with an open mind knows that when she talks about ground troops she means tens of thousands of troops, essentially sending a new army to assume a large role fighting on the group. Her answer that she’d expect the Kurds and other countries to provide those boots on the ground makes this, or ought to, make this clear.
Compare this with what Beast wrote about Trump:
"Trump, meanwhile, assumed the role of a huckster—a man who praised Vladimir Putin while insulting female combat troops, correcting a veteran with an incorrect figure about suicide, and suggesting the military needed to be purged of its generals and admirals.”
One word should sum up why Trump lost the evening and lost it big time, they said he assumed the role of a “huckster.”
He said our command corps of generals and admirals have been reduced to rubble, that CIA briefers supported his beliefs through their body language, implied that Putin would be able to flatter him into submission, that the US should have illegally (and impossibly) taken over the oil supply of a sovereign nation because “to the victor belongs the spoils.”
He lied again about whether he did or didn’t support the Iraq war.
Probably the craziest gibberish coming out of his mouth was his I have, no I don’t have, I’ll see what the generals say, then if I agree — response to questions about his secret plan to defeat ISIS.
Between the introductory sentences they cover the “self-destruction” and as has been happening repeated prove that Trump is held to a far lower standard than Hillary.
He is graded on a curve and merely getting a C is considered a stellar performance. Hillary is graded on a straight standard where in my opinion she got a solid B.
If you don’t know the difference between curve grading and straight grading then you didn’t take a course like zoology from the likes of Prof. Braddock at Michigan State who used the later method (which convinced me I didn’t have the memory to go to medical school). Getting a C in that course took my studying so hard I thought my brain would explode.
Weds., Sept. 7, 2016
He is one of the highest paid of Hillary’s top advisors. He has 60 experts working for him. He has a corner office at Hillary headquarters. Politico calls him Hillary’s “invisible guiding hand.” Do you know who he is? Click here.
Tuesday, Sept. 6, 2016
|I’m a Digby fan… so I’m putting this on before I even read it.|
the fact-checkers all find her to be more honest than virtually anyone in politics while Donald Trump, by contrast, lies more than he tells the truth.
Great captions department (from Vanity Fair on Trump’s hair)
Enquirer Enquirer tweetedTime The tabloid has also gone after Hillary Clinton, of course. A series of cover stories has alleged that Clinton is on her deathbed and is “engaging in a massive cover-up about her health.” The Enquirer claims she is suffering from strokes, brain cancer, depression, alcoholism, multiple sclerosis, endometriosis, and paranoia, among other dire conditions.
Meanwhile, Trump has been exclusively celebrated in the Enquirer’s pages. As talk of a Trump candidacy heated up last winter, the tabloid published an article headlined “Trump’s the One!” that reported him leading in the polls. In September, the Enquirer published a three-part series by Trump himself under the headline “The Man Behind the Legend!”
Trump’s scandal-filled personal life would be yuge! for the supermarket tabloid, but to the Enquirer, it seems, friendship is forever.
Monday, Sept. 5, 2016
A few more items and comments here.
How To Beat Donald Trump In A Debate
My answer: Less wonk, more spunk.
|The answer is here… what a story this is!|
How many times has Donald Trump disqualified himself from holding the most powerful job in the world? You be the judge.
It has been 13 months since Donald Trump announced his presidential bid and, in the same speech, called Mexican immigrants rapists. The ensuing drip feed of Trumpian absurdities and offenses has had a desensitizing effect. We know that Trump is a racist, a misogynist, an authoritarian, and a narcissist, but we’ve lost track of the many, many specific things he has said and done that disqualify him from the office he seeks.
So we have compiled a list of specific things that make Trump an unacceptable candidate for the presidency. Some are policy proposals that should be outside the bounds of debate, like punitive torture. Some are casual vulgarities, like his description of Rosie O’Donnell. You might not agree that each individual item on the list is disqualifying in isolation—you can vote those down, and vote up the ones you find especially egregious—but the list’s cumulative weight makes its own statement.
An experimental drug swept sticky plaques from the brains of a small number of people with Alzheimer’s disease over the course of a year. And preliminary results hint that this cleanup may have staved off mental decline.
News about the new drug, an antibody called aducanumab, led to excitement as it trickled out of recent scientific meetings. A paper published online August 31 in Nature offers a more comprehensive look at the drug’s effects.
“Overall, this is the best news that we’ve had in my 25 years doing Alzheimer’s clinical research,” study coauthor Stephen Salloway of Brown University said August 30 at a news briefing. “It brings new hope for patients and families most affected by the disease.” CONTINUED
Sunday, Sept. 4, 2016
Saturday, Sept. 3, 2013
Evening special: I’m in this photo montage seven times. Can you find me? (Slide left)
Scroll down for answer.
Ethicist calls Hillary pathetic 16 times, but also pulls a Benghazi quote out of context.
HuffPo and the f-word — add a few more F’s and it’s okay — and appropriate in this case.
Ailes went from being forced out at Fox News under a grotesque, career-ending scandal to ― hey, let me double-check this ... oh, yeah, here we go ― advising a presidential campaign.
That’s like ... fffffucked up, man! I think that maybe more people should talk about this? from Hey Does Anyone Find Roger Ailes’ Recent Career Trajectory Puzzling, Or Is It Just Me?
|Created by your snarky editor|
Friday Sept. 2, 2016
I want to follow up the wishful thinking piece with something about wishful Hillary thoughts. The first debate is Sept. 26 so I’m thinking about how she’s going to trounce Trump in the debate and get a three point post-debate bounce from 17 to the magic number of 20.
In order to write this I've had to ponder seriously what her best strategy for the debate will be. I’m leaning towards her winning without any deliberate attempt to prompt him into revealing that he doesn’t have the temperament to be president.
I think she should ignore whatever says in order to challenge her with lies and distortions and respond by saying that she respects the voters to decide what’s true and what isn’t.
Of course, this will force the post-debate commentators to do the work for the voters.
She should fully answer every question, a walk in the park for her, without ever veering into talking points or comparisons between her and Trump.
I believe she’s had professional voice coaching and will come off speaking “lowly and slowly,” choosing carefully when she is going to raise her voice ever so slightly without increasing the pitch, for emphasis.
She won’t show any anger, irritation, or frustration.
She’ll have a few prepared sound bite phrases sure to be replayed which will expose Trump for the scoundrel and liar, the xenophobe and hate monger that he is, but they will be so well crafted that Trump won’t even know why the audience is laughing.
Trump will speak as if there’s no microphone and he has to shout so the people in the rear seats can hear him. Hillary will have made the audience ignore the admonition to be silent because they can’t help laughing at a Hillary line. Trump doesn’t know how to be funny.
The more Trump comes across as out of control the more Hillary will come off as in control.
My wish is that by the time of the debate Hillary will already be 17 points ahead of Trump (as described below). The more behind Trump is the more desperation he will feel, although being as full-of himself as he is he may not consciously accept this. I expect his sycophantic advisors will tell him the polls are wrong. They’ll tell him he’s really ahead.
If as I predict Kellyanne Conway has already bailed as the last truth-to-power advisor, all that will be left will be bootlicking toadies. So he may very well go into the debate trying to believe he is ahead in the polls, but his denial (as a psychological defense) will have become tenuous and brittle in the face of the reality being reported extensively in the media.
While we’ll all be watching MSNBC dissect the debate immediately afterwards (easy for me since Oregon is three hours earlier) I expect Hillary will be exhausted and just go to sleep. Savvy politico that she is she’ll slip easily into dreamland knowing she exposed Trump for the poseur that he is.
Hillary will wake up in the morning with the New York Times, Washington Post, and maybe the New York Daily News just for their front page (I can’t wait to see that one) on her breakfast tray, along with a mimosa (fresh squeezed orange juice and Cristal of course). She'll tune into Morning Joe, and relax and revel in her landslide in the making.
Thursday, Sept. 1, 2016 Evening edition
Wishful thinking dept: Down 20 points Trump phones it in.
Florida billionaire Mike Fernandez spent $3 million boosting Jeb Bush in the GOP primaries and even gave $100,000 last year to America Rising, a Republican group committed to destroying Clinton.
But in the opinion section of Thursday's Miami Herald, Fernandez outlines what he frames as a patriotic and moral duty for all Republicans to abandon Trump and vote Clinton.
He even questions Trump's mental health.
"As a Republican who has contributed millions of dollars to the party’s causes, I ask: Why has our party not sought a psychological evaluation of its nominee?” from The HillTrump’s speech reminded me of one of Hitler’s most famous infamous speeches.
This isn’t really a diary in that I really don’t have much to say about the following beyond what I put in the title. It is a kind of follow-up to yesterday’s diary which began:President Enrique Peña Nieto likened Trump to Hitler..... hmmmm.... let's see, the ONLY problem Germany had when Hitler rose to power was their Jews. Every wrong in the typical non-Jewish German’s life should be blamed on the Jews. Hmmmm, the ONLY problem America has according to Trump is our undocumented Mexicans (and our Muslims and Syrian refuges).... what similarities?