Enoch

I've watched less mostly because having 2 kids in the house leaves me with a lot less free time than I had last season when there was only 1. (Also, I've become accustomed commercial-break-free entertainment, and the shame of watching young men ruin their mental and physical health for my entertainment is starting to get to me, at least in that I'm not especially eager to pass this particular hobby on to the boys.) ((Also, the Giants aren't looking good enough to get me all that excited about this season.))

That's odd, because I don't see anybody bringing up Strom Thurmond when they're talking about Trump's history on race issues. (Thurmond, by the way, was the other quite famous long-time Senator who supported the filibuster of Civil Rights legislation in the '60s. Unlike Byrd, he switched parties to the GOP in '64 over civil rights issues, and never renounced his previously-stated views.)

For those who need an antidote to that image:

Just out of curiousity, is there any kind of expiration date on the "But Robert Byrd was a Democrat!" false-equivalency BS that comes up every time somebody on the left calls out actual present-day racism? I mean, the guy's been dead for 6 years, and his public stance on race issues was pretty consistently inclusive over the final 25-ish years of his career. (He credited the tragic death of his grandson in '82 as causing a re-assessment of his values.) He spent the last few decades of his career (i.e., the entire time when Bill & Hillary would have known him) saying that joining the Klan was the biggest mistake he made in his life.

Or, you know, she might do a good job and earn more popularity. Really, the head of the FBI calling her extremely careless with classified information would've likely been near-fatal in a normal year. (I say "near fatal" mostly because of the degree to which the electoral college and demographic math favors the Democrats right now.) But, in 4 years, that'll be old news, and her competition will have a tough time convincing the voters that it's still an especially relevant factor to consider. That said, you're right about the problem before the GOP. Absent a very unlikely turnaround in the next few weeks, Trump won't be the 2020 nominee, but his supporters will still be around (egged on by what they see everyday on Trump TV). The party tried to do the whole "broaden its appeal in the face of demographic doom" thing first with W's efforts at "compassionate conservative" immigration reform, and second with their post-mortem studies after Romney's loss, but the base rebelled to prevent any of that from taking shape. "Rural white folks" is not a sufficient voter base for a national party, but it's going to take an unusually persuasive candidate to convince the rural white folks in the Trump camp right now that support for policies that can bring in a large-enough-to-win coalition is in their best interest.

Tom Cotton is already campaigning in Iowa. Well, technically, he spoke at a rally along with Mike Pence and Chuck Grassley, but it's no accident that he tagged along to that one rather than something in Ohio or wherever. (And, honestly, Pence is basically doing the same thing.)

Frankly, it looks to me like Trump knows he's done. He's laying the groundwork for a "the moderators are biased" whine, and otherwise hitting the Brietbart News Best Of to set up his post-campaign media network as the place to be for right-wing nuttery. Also, holy **** about a major-party candidate for the Presidency of the United States threatening to throw his opponent in jail if he wins. That is by far the most un-American thing I've heard come out of the mouth of an American politician. Some legitimately frightening authoritarianism.

I think we've entered the realm of the hilariously sad here. I mean, sure, if you're deeply immersed in right-wing media and have been hatin' on Hills for 30 years, this probably sounds like a good idea. But, you know, Trump already has those votes, and they aren't enough. This reminds me of when he mentioned Sid Blumenthal's name at the last debate, expecting that ordinary citizens would react like the folks who show up at his rallies do. Besides the whole "Bill isn't the one on the ballot" thing, has the stunningly obvious fact that spouses who have suffered through marital infidelity are sympathetic figures not occurred to them? Hillary's likeability polling has never been higher than it was while the whole Lewinsky thing was going on.

Well, sure, reality isn't always scripted for maximum entertainment. Anyhow, it is true that nobody should be shocked about this latest Trump video. (Well, except for the bit about furniture shopping as a tool of seduction. What the heck is up with that?!) It still hurts a lot because it takes away plausible deniability. Think of the GOP electorate. The electoral college deck is pretty heavily stacked against them. To have a prayer of getting the Presidency this year, they need strong turnout from 3 (broadly speaking) groups of people. First, the hard-core Deplorables. That's easy-- they'll show up if Trump is on the ballot, and they might even support down-ticket Republicans, so long as those folks are also on the Trump Train. Second, establishment-y types. Some of these are steadfast never-Trumps, but most of them (including Congressional leadership) are willing to hold their nose and vote for the guy because, more than anything else, they want a President who will sign the Slash Taxes, Gut the EPA, Punish Abortions, and Repeal Obamacare Act of 2017 that a Republican Congress will produce. Third are the folks who usually vote Republican for social-issues-based reasons, the largest faction of which are Evangelical Christians. In terms of actual votes, this is probably the biggest of the 3 groups. Many of these folks are cool with Trump, but there are also a lot who are deeply skeeved by what a sleazeball he appears to be. (Picture a stereotypical midwestern mom who drags her kids to Church every Sunday. Plutocrats who are on their 3rd wife, after having cheated on the first 2 (at least) aren't generally their favorite people.) Up until now, Republican politicians who were willing to look past his manifest unfitness for any public office (i.e., most of them) could feel reasonably safe supporting Trump. Sure, there was plenty of evidence that Trump has a personal history of treating women like crap, but they could plausibly say that they didn't think that was the "real" him, waving it off as a macho act for his TV persona. Plus, they knew that the cost of opposing him would be high in the event that he managed to win. Now, though, this video is pretty lethal to him among the "concerned mom" demographic. With the likely incoming hit to evangelical-type turnout, the establishment is now quite convinced that he can't win. Keep sticking with him, and they'll be questioned about his misogyny in every Town Hall meeting they have for the rest of their career, and the answers are not going to be as easy as they were without this in the public record. So feigning surprise and using this as a justification for withdrawing their support starts to look like a smarter long-term move.

You have to admit, though, that it does make perfect sense that the Putinistas would be doing everything they can to get the manifestly unprepared, intellectually and temperamentally unfit bad joke of a candidate who has publicly expressed doubts about NATO into the White House.

Bragging about how he gets away with sexual assault is a few steps beyond "something rude."

You're talking about a man who reads online sources by having an assistant print them out for him. Apart from Twitter, his understanding of "the cyber" is probably on-par with the typical 70-year-old. Acknowledged, he's a natural troll, and that worked for him in the GOP Primary. But I can't see that working quite as well at convincing undecided voters to back him in the general. Also, man, does he bite hard when folks troll him in the right way.

Still not as bad as what Hillary may have done. Negligent with national security info, possibly covering up the president's (her husband's) illegal behavior, blatantly lying about her health, etc. One has to ask why she wants to be president. Is it legacy? Ego? Does she feel she's owed this? Or does she really have the passion to change this country? I seriously doubt the latter. Need I point out the difference between "did" and "what right-wing media fantasizes that she may have done"? The "why try to become President" question is equally applicable to every candidate. If anything, it's a bigger question for the candidate who has never worked in public service before-- where's the evidence that Trump gives a **** about anything beyond his ego and wealth? Anyhow, Clinton's answered this one before pretty effectively: Aside, can you imagine how badly Trump would botch this question if he were asked? "Humility??! That's for losers! I'm a winner!" (Also, note that the next debate will feature the same "Town Hall" format as in the above clip. This... does not play to Donald's strengths, to say the least. Topics will be less predictable, favoring the candidate who prepares more rigorously, and the candidates will be judged heavily on their ability to empathize (or, at least, appear to empathize) with the ordinary citizens asking them questions.)

The latest in David Fahrenthold's continuing investigation into the supposedly-charitable "Trump Foundation". Previously, he's turned up the fact that Trump himself hasn't donated a dime since 2008, illegal self-dealing, an illegal political gift, and testimonial evidence that some donations were actually payments for services. This report adds that the "charity" hasn't completed the necessary certifications under NY law to solicit donations, despite having received over $4.3M from non-Trump donors. Notably, this certification requires an annual independent audit that would likely have turned up many of these other issues, and maybe more-- auditors get more access than journalists do.

Yeah, that bit was entertaining. Holt's question was "On nuclear weapons, President Obama reportedly considered changing the nation's longstanding policy on first use. Do you support the current policy?" Now, that's something of a "gotcha," as it was evident that Trump hadn't the first clue as to what the current policy is and why the Administration is considering changing it. But I think it's reasonable to inquire as to how seriously a candidate has studied and considered these issues-- particularly when that candidate is a reality TV host with no policy, diplomatic, or military experience. My favorite Trump word-vomit was his treatment of "the cyber."

No polls worthy of the name have been conducted since the debate. And the various swing-voter focus groups are all lining up for Hills on this one. Nobody who is already in the tank for one of the two candidates is going to change their minds based on this, sure. But Trump's efforts here probably did more to alienate than appeal to the undecideds whose votes he's going to need. (Anyhow, what kind of idiot wants a President who talks like everyday peopletheir drunk uncle at Thanksgiving?)

No male candidate would get this type of criticism in this way ...." I dont like what she says because she is aesthetically displeasing to me " I'm sorry, didn't we spend a little under a decade comparing George Dubya Bush to a monkey and suggesting that's another tip-off he's just not that bright...? Um, no, we didn't? I mean, sure, political cartoonists and the like have always caricatured prominent politicians for laughs, in ways that play into their perceived weaknesses. But nobody was looking at W and saying out loud that "he's so unattractive, I can't bear to listen to him." Anyhow, Bruce missed the worst part of Gfted's post. It was the . So, not only is he judging a female candidate based on her appearance, while considering a male candidate's appearance (correctly) irrelevant to his qualifications, he is also demonstrating that, although he's aware of this judgmental double-standard, he doesn't care that he's perpetuating it. That's institutional sexism in a nutshell right there.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the double-standard! ('Cause, you know, the obese toupee'd septuagenarian who uses Cheeto dust as a skin-care treatment was lookin' hot!)

Your mistake is assuming that facts have any relevance at all to what comes out of Trump's mouth. He started out with a decent showing, but he used up his good material in 20 minutes, then fell back into to the shoot-from-the-hip style that worked for him in the Primaries. Which didn't go well-- he sounded unprepared for questions that he had to know were coming ("err, go ask Sean Hannity!"), Hills got under his skin (the condescending tone that GD noted was absolutely intentional), and his lack of basic policy knowledge was evident.

Over-regulation is mostly a red herring in the off-shoring argument. It can be a factor (mostly in heavily polluting industries that no American really wants to live near), but for most businesses it pales in comparison to the fact that Americans are expensive to employ. And no amount of tax reduction and deregulation is going to make American labor rates comparable to those in Bangladesh. Anyhow, the biggest driver in the loss of American manufacturing jobs isn't firms going overseas-- it's mechanization. American manufacturing output has actually been recovering in recent years, but it's doing so with the kind of factories that employ 5 engineers and lots of robots instead of 50 union workers on an assembly line.

That's an odd way to characterize an election where the Democrat is a low-charisma center-left technocrat with detailed policy proposals to back up every line of her rather tepid stump speeches, while the "republican" is an egomaniacal compulsive liar whose entire pitch is RAGE and FEAR that "only he" can address, using means that he won't or can't explain to the electorate. Bill passed unanimously in the Senate and by voice vote in the House. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-sept11-saudi-idUSKCN11F27R Ah, a voice vote. Bit misleading to call a voice vote unanimous. How does something this big even end up as a voice vote? I mean, this is a fairly massive change in international policy. Everyone knew it was going to pass, the reasons to support it are all gut-level nationalism, and the reasons to doubt it are all nuanced and difficult to explain in an election campaign. So the opponents chickened out and let it slide by, with the prominent exception of a President who (a) actually has to deal with its effects on international relations and (b) doesn't have to face the electorate again. We'll see if any of them grow a spine on the veto override vote. (Not likely.)

And when will you finish building the catapult?

For what it's worth, Uninsured Motorist coverage is usually a required component of auto policies. It varies by state, but it would surprise me if CA wasn't on the more prescriptive end of things, generally. So, you may be giving a little too much credit to your particular insurer. That said, I'm glad that you escaped unscathed.

What we learned about Prescott yesterday was that the game isn't too big for him, and that he has some athletic skills that transfer effectively to the pro game. We don't know where his ceiling is, but his floor appears to be at least NFL-backup-quality. NYG played the standard "inexperienced QB" defense for much of the first half-- they had their front-7 crash the run game and played their DBs to take away the deep ball. And Dak did OK-- he took what was given to him (underneath passing) to drive the field. The Cowboys faltered in the red zone because the D had less ground to cover, the WRs weren't winning their matchups on the outside, and Dak wasn't willing/able to thread the ball into tight spaces. (That one throw that Bryant couldn't come down with cleanly was a good one, though.) Also, after halftime, the Giants D got a little more aggressive, which helped prevent more of those long 1st-half drives. Pierre-Paul, Harrison, and Vernon made Doug Free and La'el Collins look particularly bad.