The First Presidential Debate – what the candidates weren’t asked #IssuesNotEgos

So we’ve finally seen the two candidates on the same stage at the same time – how did they get on?

It’s quite simple…Trump got in some shots and had his opponent under pressure in the early stages but Hillary came storming back, easily got under his skin and forced him into some ramblings which I doubt even he could translate into understandable English now.

But amid all the rhetoric and back-and-forth on tax returns, emails, calling women Miss Piggy and bringing up Bill’s affairs by saying you won’t bring them up, was there much actual talk about, oh I don’t know, what they’d do as President?

Sure, there was a bit about jobs, a bit about trade and a bit about secret plans to beat ISIS, but even then it was more about how bad the opponent was rather than what each candidate would do themselves.

Yet the American mainstream media lapped up the verbal mud wrestling and proceeded to make the focus of the post-game all about “who won”.

Thankfully we have the good folks at FAIR.org to give an alternative take in their piece “Lester Holt Asks Zero Questions About Poverty, Abortion, Climate Change” by Adam Johnson.

A week before the debate,Comcast-owned NBC announced the topics, and one could already tell we weren’t going to be in for a substantive evening: “Achieving prosperity,” “America’s direction” and “securing America.” This generic approach lead to a generic debate that focused mostly on horserace disputes and vague, open-ended questions about taxes and jobs.

What I find amusing is how Americans can be so bent out of shape about their media making it all about personalities when they have over 300 millions people, just two main parties (well actually there’s four but they keep the Greens and Libertarians away from these debates), and election campaigns that last well over a year.

Here in Ireland, with a humble 5 million people, we have an ever-growing amount of political parties and campaigns squeezed into just under a month, so while the “Yanks” have plenty of time to talk about issues and seem to choose not to, here our media has so little time all they get to focus on is what would the inevitable coalition look like after the unnecessarily over-complicated voting process is done.

Democratically held elections for government should be about issues not egos, but as a general public we seem content to have them portrayed like “reality” TV shows.

 

Advertisements

Trump’s Tirade of Two-faced Tactics

They say in sporting circles that attack is the best form of defence.  In politics, more often than not from the “right”, they tend to take it one step further…not only should you defend yourself by going on the attack, you should also do so by accusing your opponent of doing exactly what it is that you are known to do.  Donald Trump has been a master of this in his presidential campaign.

He attacks Hillary on her health…not only in recent days when she actually had some issues in that area, but also well before she was confirmed as the Democratic nominee, giving out about her arriving late on stage when debating Bernie Sanders.  Since then there have been a string of ridiculous conspiracy theories from the extreme right suggesting everything from using body doubles to actually having mental problems.

And all of this when Trump himself has only produced a medical report from a quack who offered this ridiculous claim:

If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency

Next up we have his childish name-calling…a supposedly serious candidate for President resorting to calling his opponent “Crooked Hillary” or “Hillary Rotten Clinton” in numerous speeches.

Well if she’s crooked, Donald, why don’t you show us your tax returns so we can be sure that you aren’t?

My personal favourite has been his attacks on the Clinton Foundation.   It ties in to the the “crooked” theme I know, but the persistent questions raised by Trump and his campaign which centred on the charitable organisation so much that you could only assume that the entity known as The Trump Foundation HAD to be beyond reproach.  Not the case at all.  In fact, if anything, the allegations on his side of the fence are far worse.

And they keep on coming.  The Clinton Foundation was accused of accepting charitable donations in return for access to Hillary as Secretary of State.  In Trump’s case, at first he was apparently using funds to help Republican politicians’ campaign in order to keep them sweet.

Now, Washington DC political blog the Hill suggests he was also using the charity money AGAINST people

While New York’s attorney general was investigating Trump University in 2014, Donald Trump’s foundation donated $100,000 to a conservative group that sued that same attorney general, according to a Yahoo News report Friday.
It all seems to lead to a simple Rule of Trump – if he accuses you of something, be sure and investigate him for that very same thing…you are bound to strike gold.

Looks like both US Presidential campaigns could be built on “shaky Foundations”

Here at FPP, as things stand right now, our plan is not only to vote for Hillary Clinton but also to keep the pressure on her to come good on hers and the DNC’s pledge to adopt at least some policies from the Progressive platform during her administration.

Or to put it another way, we fully acknowledge that whatever we may say against her opponent, she herself is by no means perfect and her biggest pressure points in this campaign have been the seemingly never-ending amount of State Department emails and the suspicions surrounding The Clinton Foundation.

Naturally Donald Trump has been at pains to attack these pressure points, though rarely by being too specific…either he resorts to name-calling like “Crooked Hillary” or “Hillary Rotten Clinton” or he makes vague references to her alleged “terrible crimes”.

Well on the subject of dodgy dealings by a foundation bearing a candidate’s name, it would appear that he has his own questions to answer, as Rachel Maddow reports in this video from her show, and also in this follow-up blog where Steve Benen notes that the matter has caught the attention of NYT, WaPo and HuffPo.

Trump has been quite candid in his explanations for why he made so many political contributions to so many candidates and office-holders. “I’ve given to everybody,” he boasted earlier this year. “When I want something I get it. When I call, they kiss my ass. “It’s true. They kiss my ass.”…
…So the question in the Bondi controversy is obvious: was his $25,000 contribution an investment to an official he “needed something from”?

What particularly catches our attention is the contribution in the video from the WaPo’s David Fahrenthold who says that Trump stopped giving his own money to charities, even his own, back in 2008, ironically when Barack Obama was elected.  Maybe he was too busy paying people to look into the President’s birth certificate?  And maybe it helps explain why he won’t show us his tax returns?

If ever a story invited the saying “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”…

Unbelievably, something about these Paul LePage stories stinks more than his racism

We have our “tin foil hats” on here at FPP big time.

Paul LePage is the governor of Maine, the state at the northeastern tip of the USA.  He is a Republican with a big capital R.  And he is also a racist with an even bigger capital R.  These things have been well known on a national level for a while.

But what has us scratching our heads is the fact that he seems to have “upped his game” in recent times, as the NY Times reports

Paul R. LePage, the Republican governor of Maine, faced a torrent of outrage and political pressure on Monday even from some members of his own party, after 48 hours last week in which he threatened a Democratic lawmaker in a profane voice mail message, made sweeping statements about race and ended the week by doubling down and seeming to endorse racial profiling to address the state’s drug crisis.

We won’t beat around the bush…we believe that this has something to do with the recent revamp by Donald Trump of his top advisers.

If there is one thing that Trump has done consistently, then it’s alienating immigrants and African Americans.  Now that the polls have the gap between himself and Hillary widening by the day, while he’ll hardly pick up too many votes on the “left” he surely now has to be mindful of those on the right who won’t be too keen on his reputation as a racist.

So what better way to deflect the attention of the media than to have a known bigoted politician like LePage ramp up the racist rhetoric?  Make sure he achieves  coast-to-coast recognition so that Trump looks moderate by comparison?

Why else would so many examples of his tirades come out over such a short period of time?

It’s not as though LePage had a hope in hell of being re-elected anyway.  So maybe the Trump campaign went to him and said “If you help us with this, we’ll look after you when you move out of the governor’s mansion”.  Perhaps create a new “Secretary of White Supremacy” post in the Trump administration?

Of course this is all pure speculation.  But while we’re not fans of any kind of racism, we could see a smattering of intelligence behind this plan if indeed it is the case.  Perhaps we’ll never know.

 

Funny signs alright…but just how far left of Trump are you guys really?

foxford-sign

Call me cynical all you want but I’m getting a distinct whiff of BS off of this story.

Apparently the people of Foxford, Co Mayo are very proud of their reaction to a pro-Trump “Make America Great Again” sign put up by “someone” in their town.

I’ll let Lovin.ie continue the reportage

Local Fine Gael councillor Neil Cruise said he received a barrage of complaints from the townspeople, who were furious about being associated with “such a horrible, dangerous, racist and bigoted election candidate”.

This reminds me of George Hook’s drivetime show on BlueshirtFM Newstalk where he’d have a weekly chat with American right wing shock jock radio host Michael Graham (the guy Michael D Higgins famously called a “wanker” before being elected President).  Basically, Graham would spout his hyberbolic crap in order to make George look liberal.  It didn’t work very well.

Anyway what has me arching my eyebrow here is that it’s a Fine Gael councillor that everyone turns to with regard to the sign.  Now let me be clear…I have nothing against Foxford, nor Mayo for that matter, great county, lovely people etc.  But let’s face it…they do have a tendency to elect a lot of FG councillors and TDs so it’s pretty clear what end of the political spectrum they tend to reside.

So I suppose what I’m saying is that I’m not so sure they can rule out absolutely everything on that list you see in the photo, though I’ll give them the wigs thing.

Finally, yes, I’ll say it….maybe the whole thing was a set-up by the councillor in question?  I have no proof whatsoever but you have to admit it would be worth investigating.