A Nation Led By Warmongers- Will We Now Prove It (Again)After The Iran Missile 'Show' Attack?

"Why of course the people don’t want war...But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they’re being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.”   -   Nazi leader  Hermann Goering, Nuremberg, 1946

"I just want to say this very clearly. A war with Iran is madness, and a disaster in the making. Do not believe anyone who tells you otherwise."  -  -Chris Hayes, last night, signing off on 'All In'

"The idea that- regardless of what we have in casualties, we must respond, is absurd.   We cannot allow the idea to spread that the president of the United States can will nilly drag this country into this type of quagmire again.

Every single Democratic presidential candidate should come out tonight and say no war with Iran. Every single member of the Democratic caucus in the House and the Senate should be baking the bills by Tim Kaine, Bernie Sanders and Mo Kanna in the House - and stopping the legal auspices for this war'  -Sam Seder, media specialist on 'All In' last night.

"I think it's very important for the American people to step up and say there should be no war with Iran.  There is a possibility of de-escalation but it requires sane voices and cool heads - certainly from Democrats in congress- who do not want to put service men and women in harm's way and to jeopardize the safety o the American people." - Former Maryland Rep. Donna Edwards, last night on 'All In'.

"All you're hearing is the most extreme voices on either side, like the U.S. defense secretary saying he will be happy not to start a war but to finish a war. Then Iran's regime leaders saying they're going to target Israel and Dubai. Then the U.S. president says he will respond disproportionately. So you can see how these countries are not communicating at all. 

All of this is born out of the U.S. dumping the Iran nuclear agreement, which allowed communication between the two countries. That level of commuication now just doesn't exist when you need it the most."  -Journalist Cal Perry last night on MSNBC, reporting from Qatar

"We did not need to be here tonight if Donald Trump had not torn up the Iran nuclear deal. While the deal was in place Iran wasn't launching rockets at U.S. bases, wasn't launching its nuclear program, wasn't attacking shipping in the Gulf. All upended once we pulled out of the deal, so it was a huge error to do it and why we're in the mess we are in - which is a huge crisis of Donald Trump's making. 

At the end of the day the only way to escape a cycle of escalation is to have a channel to properly assess what the other side's intentions are. Just getting whipped up into a frenzy and saying 'they hit us now we have to hit them' is how we end up in a war nobody really wanted..."   -  Jake Sullivan, former national security assistant to VP Joe Biden, last night, on 'All In'.

"This has been wrought by the judgment of a president who was very clear over the course of his tenure that he knows more than all the generals. We have seen the diplomatic corps of the United States utterly gutted. We have policy made by tweet, by watching Fox and Friends.  There is no indication other than in a fantasy land universe that this is the moment we will see judiciousness on the part of the president of the United States. 

The chance that the United Stated will allow a missile attack to go unanswered is very low. .. so now we stand at a most dangerous hour, and this could very quickly become a wider regional war.  So we stand at the most dangerous moment in the Middle East that we have lived in for our lifetimes.."  -  Steve Schmidt, former Republican campaign adviser (to Sen. John McCain), last night on 'All In'


While  the Klingon motto has always been that "revenge is a dish best served cold" ,   Iran  didn't really have quite that luxury after Trump  assassinated Qassem Suleimani in a reckless drone strike mere days ago.  So now, from the news last night, we know it  has launched more than a dozen missiles at U.S. military sites in Iraq in retaliation for the killing last week of its top general, also a popular figure.  But no one was killed, by most recent reports - so it was more a 'display' aggression - to show the Iranian people that the assassination of one of the country's most popular figures would not go unpunished. Hence, the ball is in the U.S. court as to whether we march to full scale war or not. (Current NY Times reporting as I write this is that Trump has 'backed away from further military conflict' -  but we all know Dotard  Donnie has changed his febrile mind on a dime in the past.)
.
The question on everyone's mind is how will the U.S. respond?  Violently,  in disproportionate aggression, given we have a belligerent madman at the helm - and under political pressure from the specter of an impeachment trial ?  Or  smartly backing off with the realization that further escalation is not in this nation's interest, or the region's or the world's? (And after all, Dotard committed the initial true escalation by assassinating a high-ranking foreign official. Definitely NOT a proportional response to a few protests at the U.S. Embassy.)

The jury is still out as we await what many of us fear will be yet another precipitous and disproportionate response which will lead to the worst conflict since Vietnam.  So as we teeter on the cusp of yet another unnecessary war - which will likely make 'Nam look like a walk in the park-  it is instructive to examine how we mutated into a nation that seems to want to start wars more than pursue diplomacy.  

JFK noted in his Pax Americana speech at American University in June, 1963,  that we don't have the money or the resources to pursue endless conflicts.  Given the exploding deficits of this country right now (with military spending annually consuming 55 cents of every dollar of the national budget) , it's high time the U.S. cease pursuing ruinous policies of "Pax Americana" - in trying to force its will on other nations at the point of weapons of war.

How did the American war state get going? How did we reach a state of almost perma-war, with one conflict succeeding another in rapid succession? It helps to gain a historical perspective. If one looks back at the document track, one can pretty well discern that the incentive to meddle in other nations’ affairs – as part of U.S. foreign policy – probably commenced with The National Security Council (NSC) Directive ‘NSC 10/2’ on June 18, 1948. A key element therein warned that all activities to be conducted against “hostile” foreign states – on in support of “friendly” ones, were to be executed so that “no U.S. Government responsibility would be evident to any unauthorized persons.” The provision also had to be included that if such activities were discovered “the U.S. Government can plausibly disclaim any responsibility for them.”

Ratcheting up the effect, and consolidating the impetus to Empire- building was the document NSC-68, prepared by Paul Nitze of The National Security Council – completed by 1950. The document essentially contained the blueprint for unending strife and undeclared wars, all of which would be invoked on the basis of a zero tolerance threshold for foreigners’ misbehavior. The putative basis? To enable U.S. agitation, overthrow (or assassination) of democratically-elected leaders, and large and small occupations (ranging from the few thousand troops in the Dominican Republic in 1965, to more than 200,000 in Iraq by 2006.) The motivating force of the document was clear in this regard:“a defeat of free institutions anywhere is a defeat everywhere”.

In other words, a warmonger's wet dream. Any place for which the U.S. even remotely construed a “defeat of free institutions” gave it license to intervene at will. This critical aspect is described thusly by Morris Berman[1]:

“Nitze emphasized the importance of perception, arguing that how we were seen was as crucial as how militarily secure we actually were. This rapidly expanded the number of interests deemed relevant to national security”.

In other words, it provided the formula for unending war, and the building of Empire. Gore Vidal pinpoints the emergence of the American Empire when he notes[2]:

“Since 1950 the United States has fought perhaps a hundred overt and covert wars. None was declared by the nominal representatives of the American people in Congress…they had meekly turned over to the executive their principal great power to wage war. That was the end of that Constitution”.


The key point to note here is not only did the U.S. invoke a specious doctrine[3] to entitle it to engage in warfare wherever it deemed the “need” (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada, Nicaragua, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.) but also to take out democratically elected leaders where and when they threatened U.S. corporate interests, such as Premier Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran (1953)- threatened U.S. Oil interests, Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala (1954)- threatened United Fruit Corp. by giving land to farmers, and Salvador Allende in Chile (1972)- strategic interests threatened.Even when specious doctrines weren't invoked, lies and deceptions often were in order to involve the U.S. in massive troop deployments and years of ruinous (to lives and treasure) military intrusions. For example, LBJ employed the ruse of the North Vietnamese firing on the Maddox and Turner Joy in international  waters in August, 1964 as the basis to ramp up the Vietnam War. Similarly, Bush and Cheney employed the ruse that Saddam had "WMD" to justify Operation "Iraqi Freedom" (a bogus name if ever there was one) and invade Iraq - which had not one damned thing to do with 9/11. (Though the numbskulls who watched FAUX News would argue with that!)

Meanwhile, at last count, the estimates (by the World Health Organization) of the total number of Iraqi civilians killed in the Iraq War, exceeds 600,000. And in Afghanistan we beold the ongoing  drain of the longest war on record, going on 19 years, to the tune of $3b a month.  The dead  have ranged from ordinary Afghans slain in misplaced gunfire on the streets of Kandahar to wedding parties obliterated by remote drones. As with Vietnam, when so many innocents were butchered (and others' saw crops destroyed by Agent Orange), this does not win hearts and minds. Rather, those hearts and minds side with the enemy when the mighty power isn’t around or bashing doors down and hurlng terrified occupants on the floor.

But why be amazed that our representatives voted for this atrocity, any more than that they voted for the misguided Patriot Act (in 2002), or the Military Commissions Act in 2006 which repeals habeas corpus, or the 'National Defense Authorization Act'? Do freedoms, real ones, matter any more? How can they when the most despicable provisions of the Patriot Act – which had been due for expiry in February, 2010-   were re-approved by the cowed Senate? To remind readers, these provisions include allowances for “black bag” searches of one’s home and papers without any consent or knowledge- in total and direct violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. (But since 83% of the country can't name 6 of the Bill of Rights, maybe they don't even matter any more!)  I wasn't personally amazed given I'd already seen callow Dems - led by Sen. Tom Daschle-  rush to approve the bogus 'Iraq War Resolution' in 2002. Thus did congress again cede its war- making authority and give Bush Jr. full scope to start his own war- to follow up daddy's invasion in 1991.

The sad and inescapable fact is that we won't be able to stop either the warmongers or the excesses of the Military-Industrial Complex until and unless we cease to glorify war.  Yes, we know the "lizard brain" still dominates in most of humanity, but that doesn't mean we must give it license to govern and rule our lives - including allowing our whole domestic infrastructure to deteriorate to ruin, while we engage in ever more unprovoked wars.   Or the  current case  we have now - of one unfit to lead lunatic poseur  (Donald Trump) initiating war to distract the news cycle and American populace from  his own political peril. 

As former Lt. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson put it in the immediate wake of Suleimani's murder, when we needed a JFK at the helm we have instead a demented reprobate named Donald Trump.   Watch for this despicable  buffoon to get us deeper into a conflict that we don't need or want, all to appease his own pernicious and pathological ego. 

Update:  The Iranian regime has now admitted two of its surface-to -air  missiles struck a Ukrainian airline with the loss of 176 lives, nearly half of them Iranians.  This was after one of their missile batteries mistook the airliner for a U.S. cruise missile.  Let us note, however, Trump was ultimately to blame for this tragedy by initiating the strike on Suleimani based on LIES and no genuine intel that he was planning an attack on 4 U.S. Embassies. This was  admitted by defense secretary Mark Esper on Face the Nation Sunday.  Trump's reckless drone assassination then precipitated an outcry amongst the populace for revenge, which Iran sated with its missile barrage.  But had Trump not taken out the Quds Force leader no missile attack - a show attack- would have been needed.  The causal chain then traces directly back to Trump's lawless assassination drone strike as the trigger for the train of events that took down the airliner with all lives lost.   See :

Military Technology

Cartoon for January 15, 2020: Other Countries Using Drones to Kill Our President? That’ll Never Happen

----------------------------
[1] Morris Berman: 2006, Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire, W.W. Norton, page 118.

[2] Gore Vidal: 2002, Dreaming War: Blood for Oil and the Cheney-Bush Junta, Thunders Mouth, p. 124.

[3] Of course, the ignominious “Bush Doctrine” – crafted under the auspices of the 2002 National Security Strategy – was even more noisome and outrageous, allowing for pre-emptive war as it made Iraq the gold standard for precedence. See: Berman, op. cit., p. 203.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

See also:

Donald Trump | Iran

‘So Far, so Good!’: Trump Tweets out Baffling Message after Iranian Attack

And:

Ted Rall

Iran

Iran Is Not What You Think

And:

Iran

To Kill or Not to Kill — That Is the Debate, However Meaningless

And:

Iran

No to Disastrous War With Iran

Crave Unity If You Must - But Not At The Expense of Conscience and Moral Clarity

Look, I get the sentiments and angst of "middle of the road" voters like Elisa Parker, described in a Denver Post front page story as terrified at the nation's polarization and desperately searching for it to end.  But for god's sake, that doesn't mean - or shouldn't - sacrificing clarity and conscience at any cost - just to get peace. It can't or we are all for the high jump.

There is ONE side, one source, at fault and it is up to even the "moderates" to figure that out before election day next Tuesday. It is simply not good enough to wring hands and bleat repeatedly about being caught "between both extremes" while you shift from "liberal to conservative" media to find answers.  The answers are there, in front of citizens' eyes- they just have to look- and not very far.  Then the source of all our travails and political division exposed as Donald J. Trump, as former Republican strategist Steve Schmidt put it last night on 'All In':

"What Trump is doing is stoking and inciting for the purposes of political power the worst amongst us to take action in his name..... This man (Robert Bowers), a fanatic  was radicalized by FOX News, by talk radio and a right wing propaganda machine that is as sophisticated as it is deadly."

See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwxQYQB1zD0

I advise all readers to watch Schmidt's explanation of how and why Trump has waged a cold Civil War that has now become hot on the margins. And will get even hotter unless people come to their senses and put a check on his authoritarian narcissism.

We know, for example, that the White Nationalists marching last year in Charlottesville, e.g.

grew even more fond of Dotard after Trump said there were some “very fine people on both sides”.  They took that as a cue to get even bolder.   We also know that Robert Bowers believed the caravan was caused by Jews and supported by HIAS. That's when he then tweeted, "Screw your optics, I'm going in!"   Would he have been that energized if Trump hadn't been pounding the "caravan" as an existential threat at every damned rally he had? I say, doubtful. So it merely took his already virulent anti-Semitism in conjunction to what he interpreted - from Trump's rhetoric - to be an immediate threat, to act.

See e.g.

Trump's phony 'caravan' hysteria led to the Synagogue murders: Adam Serwer for The Atlantic

Trump is the source of our current tribalism and "cold Civil War" to use Steve Schmidt's term. Trump, aka Dotard, even had the shameless audacity to blame Jews for their slaughter by saying they ought to have had armed guards at the synagogue. The same idiocy he had proposed (with his crank NRA lackeys) for schools after the Parkland massacre.

According to Stanford Sociology professor Robb Willer, quoted in the Denver Post piece, "the violent tribalism currently so ingrained in American life will eventually right itself". However, this will not be until the public decides it's had enough and stops rewarding politicians who use incendiary language and demonize the other side."

Newsflash! That is exactly Donald Trump!  Don't use excuses to deflect by saying (as WSJ's Holman Jenkins often has ) that "it's just his style",  or as some media pundits insist "he likes to punch back". (Hey, let this mutt punch back at a tackling dummy or whatever.)

At least, let's call a spade a spade and outright just say he loves to foment hate. It's in his DNA.

As Prof. Willer explained:

"That is the question of our time. Are we going to continue the war or are we going to choose peace? We don't yet know what the answer to that will be because while a majority are fed up with the political divisions it does feel we're stuck here."

Well, we're stuck until the message to cease and desist is sent. That opportunity arrives next week and as former Republican commenter Max Boot put it, the only way to send a clear message is to vote Democratic because now that is the only way to put a check and balance on Trump - wich the GOP congress chooses not to do.

As reported in The Guardian, it is Trump who has fueled a climate of hatred in general and antisemitism in particular, with the GOP congress acting as his enabler, several experts warned on Monday. Trump's  tone has justifiably received renewed scrutiny after Saturday’s massacre of 11 worshippers at The Tree of Life Synagogue, the deadliest attack on Jewish people in American history.  David N Myers, a professor of Jewish history at the University of California, Los Angeles put it bluntly:

“He has dramatically elevated the level of rhetorical tension in ways that do not discourage people from acting out their terrifying views,"

Trump renewed the offensive on Monday with a tweet that warned of an “invasion” of immigrants, echoing the hate-filled writings of accused synagogue gunman Robert Bowers.

Trump wrote that “some very bad people” were mixed into the caravan of several thousand people, mainly from Honduras, currently travelling through Mexico. “This is an invasion of our Country and our Military is waiting for you!” Trump added.

Citing official sources, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Trump administration was preparing to send 5,000 more troops to the border to help with security, angering immigrants’ rights activists and others who say the move militarizes the issue unnecessarily for political gain ahead of crucial midterm elections next week.

But Trump’s choice of words also caused further outrage.

Again he tried to shift blame to the media on Monday, arguing that “fraudulent” reporting was contributing to anger in the country and - in yet more homage to Hitler - again declaring that the press was the “true Enemy of the People”.  Like a true fascist or proto-Nazi Trump has consistently  decried criticism of his corrosive rhetoric and fears over its consequences.  All of which are entirely valid, given only a confirmed tyrant would be at home with an obsequious press.

A survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found a majority (54%) of Americans feel Trump’s decisions and behavior have encouraged white supremacist groups, compared with 39% who say they had had no effect and 5% who say he has discouraged these groups.

Critics say he has a history of using Jewish stereotypes.

In 2015, he told the Republican Jewish Coalition “I’m a negotiator like you folks” but suggested they would not support him “because I don’t want your money”. The following year, he tweeted an image of Clinton set against a background of US currency with a six-pointed star (reminiscent of the star of David) and the words, “Most corrupt candidate ever!”  E.g.

His closing campaign ad further railed against “global special interests” and featured images of George Soros, a billionaire investor and philanthropist, and the Federal Reserve chairwoman, Janet Yellen, both of whom are Jewish. Let's not mince words here, though "the Donald" may have thought he was cleverly disguising his anti-Semitic hostility most of us saw right through it.

Subsequently, the Trump White House issued a statement to commemorate International Holocaust Remembrance Day that made no mention of Jews or antisemitism. Then the press secretary, Sean Spicer, was forced to apologize after asserting that Adolf Hitler, who gassed millions of Jews during the Holocaust, did not use chemical weapons.

Myers went on to say: “There is a toxic culture of vilification and demonization that has pervaded American political culture in recent years. Donald Trump did not invent that toxic culture but he has certainly stirred the pot considerably.”

As I've written about before, Trump has also made derogatory comments about women, Mexicans, Muslims and others. Myers added: “He’s an equal opportunity and equal opportunistic vilifier. My surmise is that he doesn’t dislike Jews more than other people but I am stupefied by his unwillingness to call it out when it occurs, especially given his own family background with his son-in-law and daughter.”

Want to sent a message to stop this insanity? Vote all Dem, down the ballot, next week on Tuesday. Dithering about and unable to decide so you plan to stay home? Then you award Trump and deliver a de facto vote for more polarization and hate speech - also the destruction of vital social insurance programs if the GOP retains the House as well as Senate.

Not bothered by Trump's rhetoric and like his economic moves  (tax cuts, dergulation etc.) instead?  Then you are merely an accomplice after the fact to enable his hate speech further, under the misguided belief the economy will keep working in your favor. 

Here's the single takeaway or bottom line in this pivotal election: We are in the midst of a moral crisis and the leader of the political coalition that controls all levers of  the federal government is continuing to stoke the fires of fear, resentment and hatred that have led us to this moment. If you seriously believe not voting Dem  -and hence putting a check on Trump - is not in your self interest, there is nothing more I can write or say. You clearly believe the nation's welfare is of lower priority. 'Nuff  said.

See also:

We Can't Deny the Connections Between the Pittsburgh Shooting Suspect's Apparent Motivation and Trump's Bigotry

Bill Maher Blows It On Political Strategy - Dems Must Avoid Saying Anything That Fires Up The Trumpie Base

Bill Maher, who admitted donating $1 million to the Dems for their push to take back the House,was in high rant mode last night on  HBO's  'Real Time'.  In his final segment of 'New Rules' he fairly blasted the Democrats for not going all out ripping Donnie T. (for Traitor) Trump a new one, e.g.

"Someone has to tell me why all the best voices speaking out against Republicans are Republicans, Nicole Wallace, Steve Schmidt, Rick Wilson, George Will, Brett Stephens, Joe Scarborough, Richard Painter, Michael Steele, Jennifer Rubin, Dave Jolly, Anna Navarro, Max Boot, David Frum"

They're the ones out there landing head punches, not any Democrat.  Even Trump's own people tear him down better than any Democrat. McMaster called him a 'dope', Mattis a 'fifth grader',  Steve Mnuchin 'Idiot', Reince Priebus, 'idiot'.  John Kelly 'fucking idiot', Rex Tillerson 'fucking moron'. Gary Cohn 'dumb as shit'"

And so on.

You can watch the whole rant here.
 .New Rule: Scary Socialism | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO) - YouTube

All of this Anti- Trump lot have been spot on, skewering the slime- in- chief and also using cutting edge rhetoric to call attention to the ongoing GOP cowardice is bending over for Trump, enabling him.  But...they also have tons more credibility than any Dem trying to match their vehemence and put down power - precisely because they all hail from Republican tribal stock, and are also principled conservatives - as opposed to suck ups and submissives for the Trump cult.

Thus, they are the ones to go after Trump, not Dems, especially in any use of the I (for impeachment) word.   Hence, Bill's calling for the Democrats to be more outspoken is simply "poor politics" as Nancy Pelosi put it in a recent TIME magazine piece on her.  Why is it poor politics? I suggest anyone who needs to understand read Kimberley  Strassel's piece in the WSJ yesterday:

How Republicans Could Still Win - WSJ

Strassel's  optimal means to win?   Get the Trump idiot base all riled up to increase their yen to "protect their president".  Hence, using every tactic to try to invoke the specter of impeachment, or endless persecution  (and "unhinged rhetoric") by Dems - especially in the battlefield districts.  Or, in campaign ads, integrating any robust, anti-Trump rhetoric (pulled off the transom)  from assorted Dems that may appear threatening to the same base.

Smart guy that he is (certainly with close to a Mensa level I.Q.) Maher ought to know then the last thing Dems ought to do is play right into the Trumpie cult's hands. Do not deliver fodder for their upcoming campaigns, but instead keep a low profile and let the outspoken (and far more credible Reepo anti-Trumpers) do that for them.   After the House at least is taken back, there's time to be more outspoken - but even then the long game goal is to get rid of the Trump cabal entirely - i.e. in the 2020 general election.

For perspective, just imagine ANY Demo running for a House seat - especially in a battleground district - using just half the rhetoric most of Bill's cited critics have used.  They'd be inserted into GOP political ads in a heartbeat and it would be 'Katy, bar the door' when the election gets underway. (As guest Richard Clarke informed Maher, by one recent poll projection, the Ds get 206 seats, the Rs 205, and the others are "jump balls".   Point being this is not the time for complacency, or over-confidence by firing up the Trump base)

So hate to disagree, Bill, but this is the smart way to go,  though yes, it lacks the  appealing vitriol against Dotard we'd all like to see from the Ds.  But right now, with zero leverage or  political power, these are the cards they need to play.  Keep quiet on dissing Trump too much (or threatening indictment or impeachment) and let the Reepo critics or Never Trumpers do it for them.

Where I DO agree with Maher  is the need for more education about socialism, given the media and GOOPs appear determined to try to frighten Americans.  This is generally because our countrymen don't know enough, e.g.

Brane Space: Corporate Media Pushes Socialism Bogey To Scare ...

But we just need those socialists (self declared) running in given districts to make clear there are many U.S. programs that already can be considered under that umbrella, including Social Security and Medicare.  Oh - also the GOP defense spending bills - to make more F- 35s as a jobs program, and bailing out heartland farmers because of Trump's tariffs. In other words, give exact examples when the 'S' word comes up, to show there are already multifold forms of socialism in the country.

But going full tilt on Trump with super harsh rhetoric is not a political winner, at least not yet.  We have the proper voices doing their job on Donnie Dotard and the GOP, let them continue. 

Hillary At Hofstra Debate Shows Who Deserves To Be President

Trump is on the defensive after Hillary lands a potent blow to do with his tax issues.

Let us concede first that,  for the ardent Trumpie, his standard bearer did "amazing" at the first presidential debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, NY. He hoisted Hillary on her own petard. He "didn't skip a beat" and hauled her "over the coals"  for every and any bit of dissembling she's done in the past 30 years.  He even caught her out in a major whopper, as when she declined to admit she originally embraced the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal, and referred to it as the "gold standard".  But, one or two opportune jabs - usually attained by going over one's allotted time - do not a debate victory make. (Never mind those bogus online polls in which reddit users tried to spam the targets and distort the outcomes.)

Now let's transfer to the parallel universe in which reality rules over PR and propaganda. Where global warming is as real as a heart attack, and reason and disciplined rhetoric triumph over harangues, demagoguery and disdain for basic financial facts - such as that trickle down economics and tax cuts do not work, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/12/bushs-revenge-or-how-zombie-tax-cuts.html

In this parallel universe where objective perceptions trump Trump's insanity it was almost like seeing a mama alligator eat an impudent pup in the first presidential debate last night. Even long time Republican strategist Steve Schmidt noted how Trump had descended into "babbling and complete incoherence" by the end of the trade and tax segments.  Before that, Trump barely held his own - and he only managed that because the lackluster moderator (Lester Holt) allowed Trump to drone on and monopolize the time with no checks made. In the end it didn't matter, because all most of us heard was the Trumpsters's incessant sniff, sniff, sniffing.  At some point we wondered if he needed an O2 tank.

But certainly the sniffling display showed us he didn't merit being considered for President, even on the basis of stamina. If a guy has to sniff for oxygen (or maybe he had a cold, even worse) even 25 minutes into a 90 minute debate how the hell is he going to hold up in a 6 hour critical meeting with Vladimir Putin?  Will he tuck himself in bed and let Donald Jr. handle it? But beyond the sniffling, there was the spectacle of the guy devolving into bombastic replies that were more apropos of  a three year old pitching a tantrum than thoughtful responses in a presidential candidate.

By contrast, Hillary evinced confidence and appeared cool, calm and collected, Her answers were crisp-  mostly within the time (2 mins.) allocated - and showed a thorough grasp of the issues, whether on the economy, trade, taxes, national security or cybersecurity. She also easily rebuffed Trump's desperate attack lines, often themselves misplaced, distorted or outright lies (e.g. the one about Sidney Blumenthal having originated the birther bilge on Obama- and Trump himself being responsible for Obama producing his birth certificate )

Here, Lester Holt finally grew a pair and pointed out that Trump was blabbering about the birth certificate issue even five years after Trump claimed to have resolved it. Holt also went after Trump's rhetorical jugular when he insisted (on his "Law and Order" shtick) that 'Stop and Frisk' was just fine and a judge's original ruling was overturned. But Holt pointed out to Trump: "Stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York because it largely singled out black and Hispanic young people."

Trump insisted . "You're wrong, it went before a judge who was very against police and it was taken away from her."

But simple fact checking discloses he's a liar. In 2013 a district judge ruled it was unconstitutional saying 'stop and frisk' violated the 4th and 14th amendments, against unreasonable searches and equal protection, respectively.  Subsequently a higher court upheld that ruling, as noted last night by Justice Dept. specialist Pete Williams.

In the initial economics segment Trump reverted to his usual past talking points - heard in the Reepo debates- about monumental tax cuts. Of course, we've seen that one before - during Bush Junior's reign, which fueled a $3 trillion plus deficit we're still trying to manage. Hillary had the perfect phrase for this recycled trickle down malarkey:  trumped-up, trickle-down.

Regarding efforts to return jobs and prosperity Trump appealed to the old trope of cutting corporate taxes, and pushing the bunkum that the corporations are too impecunious (because of taxes) to create new  jobs. In fact, they have been sitting on more than $1.3 trillion and been using to do share  buybacks rather than invest in new plants or labor. Putting the country in further fiscal jeopardy by cutting corporate taxes will merely make matters worse.

What I loved most is seeing how Hillary got the Donald to lose his cool on multiple occasions, often leading to increased sniffling, interruptions and aimless demagoguing rather than debating. For example, at one point Hillary got a jab in noting how Trump declared climate change to be a "hoax". This elicited the instant Trump response: "I did not say that!"   (He did, in 2012.)  The idiot actually fired off a tweet to the effect that "the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese."

In fact, if this ignorant twit knew anything, he'd have known that the "concept" was actually proposed more than a century ago by Svante Arrhenius, see e.g.

http://warming.sdsu.edu/

But in any case, Trump was caught in another lie. Overall his lie ratio to Hillary's was something like 25:1, if anyone was actually counting.

Trump went on to claim he "believes in all forms of energy" - which means the most CO2 generating fossil fuels including coal, shale oil and tar sands crap. All of which also implies he cannot take seriously their proven impacts on global warming.

What I hated the most was a (mostly) meek moderator (Lester Holt) who repeatedly let this bombastic clown talk over his time limit and interrupt his opponent.  I could maybe tolerate Holt overlooking Trump's parade of lies and exaggerations (which later fact checkers would expose), but when he permitted Trump to exceed his two minute limit for about the tenth time, I got fed up. As wifey asked: "What is wrong with Hillary? Why doesn't she interrupt him?" I had to point out she was probably drilled in proper debate decorum and told not to be so boorish. But as we know, Trump, on the other hand,  makes up his own rules as he goes along. Of course, this appeals to his "basket of deplorables".

One woman in a focus group this a.m. on CBS, asked what advice she would have given Trump last night, offered:

"I'd have told him to answer the question asked, then STOP talking!"

Bingo! She summarized Trump's primary debate defect in one sentence. The boor's predilection to talk over one's debate opponent as well as the moderator. As CBS political guru Bob Schieffer put it: "A debate with the worst decorum I've ever seen."  (Thanks to Trump).

The most amusing part was to do with Trump's taxes and him trying to compare his not releasing his tax returns with Clinton not releasing her emails. In fact, that's a false equivalence. Hillary's emails have already been litigated, both by the Justice department (FBI) and by the media. On the other hand, Trump has kept his tax matters a virtual state secret so we don't even know who he is beholden to, or if he even paid any taxes at all. When Mr. Holt asked him why he would not release his tax returns, as other presidential candidates have done for four decades. “I don’t mind releasing — I’m under a routine audit,”

Hillary correctly pointed out this is total balderdash as the IRS has made it patently clear a person  undergoing audit is perfectly free to release his or her tax returns. So, that was an invalid excuse, and we must wonder what nefarious aspects Trump is trying to hide. More worrisome, what mass of information might he keep from us if President? A nuclear deal with North Korea?  Maybe giving them lower yield nukes (which might fit on rocket warheads) if they turn in higher yield ones?

Who the hell knows? This is a character who - by his current refusal to disclose - would offer the only reply as "Trust me".  As Hillary put it:  "It must be something really important, even terrible, that he’s trying to hide. If he were to get near the White House,” she continued, “what would be those conflicts? Who does he owe money to?”

When Trump criticized Hillary for using a private email server, Hillary didn't hem and haw this time, but came out directly and admitted: “I made a mistake using a private email,”

Almost every media observer and commentator in the days leading up to last night all agreed Trump had one major task: to persuade uncommitted voters that he had the competence and temperament to be commander in chief. Most everyone also agreed that was a relatively low bar for a traditional nominee to pass, but a critical one for Trump given his history of making inflammatory and insulting remarks to almost every demographic group. Alas, for Trump groupies he failed to even meet that low standard last night.

Best debate moment? When Trump brought up Hillary's stamina and she retorted: "When you travel to 112 countries and sit through a House committee for eleven hours then you can talk to me about stamina."

Don't let the spinners blind you: in a crucial venue to decide the next President, Hillary Clinton made a superior case, even with her foibles. She was well prepared, had the majority of facts at her command, while Trump was grossly unprepared - opting for rambling repeats of his earlier Reepo rhetoric. Worse, he was easily rattled - often losing his train of thought -  making one fear what would happen in a ferocious encounter with Putin or the Philippines' Duterte (a Trump mirror image).  Hillary isn't perfect by any means, but anyone who watched last night's debate and doesn't believe she's better prepared to be President than Donald Trump either needs a brain transplant, or a psychological exam.

In the choice offered in this election, she clearly trumps Trump. The rest of the world and most rational people know it. We can only hope there are enough sensible voters left in the U.S. to ensure this clown doesn't emerge a commander -in -chief.

See also:
http://www.salon.com/2016/09/27/hillary-dominates-and-donald-trump-gave-the-worst-debate-performance-of-any-candidate-ever/

And:

http://www.salon.com/2016/09/27/the-most-abnormal-event-ive-ever-witnessed-in-a-wild-battle-between-hillary-clinton-and-donald-trump-lester-holt-was-the-big-loser/