Biden Should Skip Debates: Why Would Any Sane Candidate Debate A Deranged Toddler?

"Donald today is much as he was at three years old: incapable of growing, learning or evolving, unable to regulate his emotions, moderate his responses - or take in and synthesize information."  -  Mary L. Trump, in 'Too Much And Never Enough',   p. 197.

"the fact that we have to make truth-telling an explicit condition is an incredibly sad statement about our time; normally such things are unspoken and understood. But if the past teaches us anything, Trump might very well lie and mislead for the entire debate, forcing Biden to have to spend a majority of his time correcting Trump before making his own points."   - Thomas Friedman,  NY Times, 'Biden Should Not Debate Trump Unless..."

"It's still just unbelievable this man is president of the United States.  It's just incompetence  across the board. He's an idiot. Some people try to create this idea that well, 'it's fourth dimensional chess, it's fifth dimensional chess' but they still haven't come to grips with the fact he's just a blithering idiot.  You can't even carry on a conversation about current events, and god forbid he is at the center of those events.   I don't honestly see how, if you are an American, you can say this country is in good hands with this person as president of the United States."  -  Stuart Stevens, long time Republican political consultant and author of 'It Was All A Lie- How The Republican Party Became Donald Trump'. on 'All In' last night,  regarding the (Jonathan Swan) Axios interview with Trump

The question of the moment in serious political circles is whether it makes sense for Democratic candidate Joe Biden to debate a 74 -year old deranged toddler named Trump.   So far a first debate is tentatively scheduled for September 29th but there is no reason why - given Trump's evident unhinged behavior- that Biden can't cancel.  I am forthwith for this option though with the provisos noted by NY Times Thomas Friedman:

1-  Trump must fully release all his tax files now being willfully concealed (Mainly 2016-2019).

2-  Presence of a real time fact checking team to hold Trump's dozens of expected lies to account.

3-No more federal agents to be dispatched to 'blue' state cities to cause more violent reactions

4-  NO more assaults on mail voting or mail ballots, including vile tweets, and no attempted lawsuits or executive orders. Oh, and no more attacks on the DACA kids.

5-  Immediate resumption of the 2020 census! (Trump ordered it shut down with a full month to spare, which would deliver more representation to Repukes than actually earned.)

The last three are my own additions.  Extreme? Off the wall? Hell no, not when you consider the Dotard  display of pettiness, ignorance, lies and bombast in that trainwreck of an Axios interview!  E.g.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/04/politics/fact-check-jonathan-swan-axios-hbo-interview-trump-coronavirus/index.html

So given Trump's Axios interview, from asserting the Covid plague that's already killed 158,000 Americans "is what it is", to not recalling the significance of  Rep. John Lewis, to earlier  taking the WH podium to claim an "attack" on Beirut (with NO evidence, period), any moron can see this asswipe is beneath debating.   As Janice said, "it would be like a grown man trying to debate a mentally disturbed 5 year old."

 But we give Trump an outside chance of having a debate by meeting the conditions set forth above. But if the Dotard cannot meet these conditions, then no debates.  Joe Biden is totally justified in saying 'Hell no!'  This despite the WSJ editorial ('Will Joe Biden Duck The Debate?', p. A13, Aug. 4) today, squawking:

"Mr. Biden portrays Mr. Trump as a bumbling incompetent, a racist and a liar. If he believes that he should be willing to repeat his accusations face to face."

Why?  Just because you demand it?  The fact is there would be no upside for Joe in facing a deranged baboon.  He's ahead in the polls now, and so why would anyone with a decided advantage willingly risk having a nice lead torpedoed by facing what former Emily's List strategist Jess McIntosh once called "a mad monkey with a gun."

In an appearance on 'All In' in 2016, Ms. McIntosh analogized what Hillary would face in a debate with Trump:

"It would kind of be like facing a mad monkey with a gun. And you just don't know what that monkey might do so there's no way to really prepare."

I see no reason that assessment would change now.  Indeed, given Trump's mental condition has further deteriorated, i.e.  he can't even distinguish reality from fantasy (as in embracing the daft 'cures' of a demon believing pediatrician)  there is nothing at all to be gained by citizens from witnessing such an event.  We know all that Trump will deliver is lies, and those mixed with bombast and name -calling, so what's the point? There is no educational aspect whatsoever.  As journalist Elizabeth Drew - a panelist in one 1976 debate- put it:

"The debates have never made sense as a test for presidential leadership."

This is because most have been decided by "snappy one liners" (zingers).   But there is no assurance we will get even those now with the likes of Trump ready to try to toss verbal fecal matter any which way he can.   SO no, it isn't so much a case of Biden "ducking" a debate, but rather avoiding stepping into a huge,stinking pile of horse manure.

Besides, we've already seen Trump fail the essential test for presidential leadership in his woeful and incompetent response to the pandemic. We don't need any more staged, artificial tests.  This is now Joe's election to lose, and if  he were daft enough to face the 'mad monkey with a gun', he might. Without at least imposing the conditions noted earlier!

Again, if you must have more proof this asshole is unqualified as a president, far less to engage in debate, check out the Jonathan Swan Axios interview link above.  It tells you all you need to know regarding why Biden shouldn't dignify this "mad monkey with a gun" via formal debate. The "gun" being his feral piehole,  from which he "spitballs" anything that pops into his empty, derelict head.  Biden doesn't need this and neither do Americans!

See Also:

Cody Fenwick

Donald Trump

‘You Can’t Do That!’: The Worst Part of Trump’s Disastrous Axios Interview

And:

Donald Trump

Trump's Base Loved That He Was a Liar and a Cheat — but Now It's Coming Back to Bite Them

by Amanda Marcotte | August 5, 2020 - 7:10am | permalink

— from Salon

And:

• Confused Trump can't understand how many Americans are dying of coronavirus in shocking interview 

And:

Donald Trump

Trump Is Getting Truly Desperate — and That Means He's Increasingly Dangerous

by Amanda Marcotte | August 4, 2020 - 7:57am | permalink

— from Salon

And:

Donald Trump

President Chaos

by Ted Glick | August 3, 2020 - 6:26am | permalink

If We're Depending On An Obtuse Breed Of Millennial Women To Flip The House in November, We Might As Well Pack It In

Millennial "genius" Rachel Funchess brushing her teeth with charcoal tooth powder (WSJ, Aug. 13). If we're depending on young Millennials like this to flip the GOP House in November, we're screwed.


It appears young Millennial women, the type who are least likely to vote in any election, are on to a new kick: brushing their teeth with charcoal powder to "enhance whiteness." As CBS co-anchor Bianna Golodryga said yesterday morning in a segment on the practice: "Well, the joke's on them".    Indeed it is. According to a consumer adviser from the American Dental Association, quoted yesterday in the Wall Street Journal's piece on the craze:

"It may whiten teeth in the short run, but will eventually wear into the dentin."  (The dentin is the next layer below the enamel)

Anyone for ghoulish vampire teeth?  Anyone?  Well, what about the even more ghoulish voting tendencies of the young and undone - who appear to have no remote clue? That is, no more clue about the impact of not voting on their civic health than using an abrasive,  like powdered charcoal,  has on their dental health.

According to a CBSNews -Refinery29 poll reported yesterday morning, a full 70 percent of young women (ca. Millennial age or 18 - 35) are "dissatisfied and angry about the Trump presidency".  Now, normally for such an outraged demographic the action would be clear: vote to get him out, ultimately. But also, in the meantime, check his power  by turning at least one house of congress over to the opposition party.

But what do we find instead from the same poll, when the women were asked if they will actually positively show up to vote? "Only 30 percent said they will definitely vote in November," In other words, though 70 percent are dissatisfied with the Trump presidency, 70 percent don't plan to do a damned thing about it.

Stunning, and as absolutely vacuous  and illogical as using charcoal powder to whiten teeth when it destroys them in the long term. (And believe me, you do not want high dental bills when you're on Medicare, given they're totally uncovered by Uncle Sam!)

As wifey put it when she happened to come in when the segment was on: "What are these young women, stupid?"

When CBS co host Alex Wagner asked the Refinery29 chief content officer Amy Emmerich:

"I don't like this statistic at all! Young women are the least likely to vote in November, Why is that?"

Emmerich replied:  "They are more invested in the experiential, activist movement where they can feel the change. They don't believe their vote matters."

Well, hey geniuses, tell that to the three states Trump won by a razor thin 77,000 votes. That is, barely enough to fill a proper NFL football stadium,  thereby taking the Electoral College margin and the presidency.

As Janice put it, when she heard that: "What do they have,  air for brains? Of course your vote won't matter if you don't get off your butt and actually exercise it."

Ms. Emmerich went on:

"They don't trust the process. They believe it's all about the politics and not about the policy."

Right. So you're going to fix the mal-designed process by not voting? Oh wait, you also believe you'll fix your teeth by using charcoal powder on them....right....

So, according to Emmerich:

"Why would you vote for something you really don't believe in, when you can get out on the street and feel the impact you make?"

Typical solipsism of the young and dumb.  They embrace the transient fresh air in the face and feel the throbbing pulse of activism while marching, hoisting banners and yelling - believing (wrongly) they are making a difference. But forget when the parade or march is over,  that's it. The gusto is gone and no permanent imprint is evident.

 It's a rush like swigging a high caffeine drink then it wanes.

At least the youngest citizens-  the Parkland kids - knew that voting was the core issue and ultimately without it, they'd never make  long term progress. This  was why when they organized their events in March and April they always included registering the attendant young people to VOTE. But these dumb women exposed in the survey think it's all over after you just show up to march. No way Ask David Hogg or Emma Gonzalez of Parkland.

As Bianna Golodryga - another co host put it: "And yet they're so invested in these policies, like health care."

Confirming this is another aspect of the poll of these young women, the issue priorities, showing the following as "very important":

- Healthcare   62 %'

- Civil Rights and equality  55 %

- Equal pay for women   54 %

- Crime and safety - 50 %

So it's incredible these young women believe they will get any of these without voting. Know why the elder population in this country gets more fiscal protection than the young? Because we come out and vote - every time!  70 percent of us vote in general elections, and almost as many in midterms. Because we know it's important. We vote to protect the programs we rely on,  whether Social Security or Medicare. And the Right's extremists know if they try to take those away they will have to face the blowback at the ballot box.

Co-host Vladimir Douthier then asked CBS election specialist Anthony Salvanto:

"What is it about these younger women that they choose not to vote? What reasons do they give?"

Salvanto replied:

"Well part of that is just that as you grow older you start to see how politics affects your life. Or, you put down roots, you buy a house, and have kids so you start to see how policies affect you. We also see that for the young women who are going to vote, the motivation is really high. Their enthusiasm is really high and they believe it matters who controls congress.  Whereas those who aren't going to vote say it doesn't matter who controls congress."

Which effect will be interesting to see when these indifferent youngsters need food stamps or help to pay off their college loans and can't get it because the Repukes in the House (and Senate) have insisted on 20 hours per week of work to get the food stamps, and raised the college loans to 7 percent.

Well, duh. Of course, it does. Something we've learned very painfully since the 2014 midterm election when barely a fraction of the young turned out.  And yet, fully 26 percent of the young women share the belief that party doesn't matter in terms of which controls congress. Clearly these fools haven't been paying attention the past 17 months. Or....maybe they've been too busy marching. Who knows?

But given 70 percent are dissatisfied and angry about the Trump presidency- according to the CBS poll- it beggars the imagination that such a large proportion of them would also not be aware of which party is protecting that presidency they're leery of. Hint- hint: It isn't the Democrats!  As one political specialist put it on 'All In' last night, regarding the GOP: "They are no longer even operating as conservatives. They are no longer a party of fiscal responsibility. They're not a party of family values. They're not a strong on national defense or free market party.  So they've become a party of identity politics and white grievance".

And as Sen. Bernie Sanders put it in a recent piece in The Nation: The GOP are essentially now a party of right wing extremists who primary goal is to protect Trump and advance a radical agenda, as well as line up with white nationalism. (Also evident in the degree to which they suppress the votes of minorities, e.g. African-Americans.)

Would any real red-blooded young female with a grain of common sense then fail to discern the difference between this party of white supremacist -backing, traitor -protecting degenerates and the Dems?  Evidently, the subset of nincompoops exposed in the CBSNews - Refinery 29 survey- who believe it doesn't matter which party controls congress-  meets that deplorable standard.

As Jess McIntosh bluntly put it on the same program:

"You cannot be for a few things, and not white supremacy, and still support the president and this administration."

Which, of course, also means you also can't blind your eyes to the GOP and how they've supported Trump, as well as their history of racism since the "Southern strategy" - after the Civil Rights movement - as McIntosh noted.  Hence, if you see no difference between the parties - as 26 percent of the young women do not - you must de facto be a supporter of racism, white supremacy. Either that, or you are abysmally ignorant and "likely stupid"  - to invoke Janice's parlance.  As stupid as those who brush their teeth with charcoal powder, I asked her. "Absolutely!"

Those 70 percent of young women positive they will not vote in November need to take a page from the Colorado student below - who despite being a recent HS grad - obviously is far wiser.

Trump Has "Zero Chance" Vs. Hillary In November? Think Again!

Two days ago I read a piece at salon.com  by Walker Bragman I thought I'd never see, ever:

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/29/a_liberal_case_for_donald_trump_the_lesser_of_two_evils_is_not_at_all_clear_in_2016/

That the "lesser of two evils" paradigm also dominating this election (at least for progressives) may not be an HRC choice at all, but a Trump choice was unthinkable back in February.Bragman actually went through point by point - including Supreme Court picks - showing why (especially if the Dems managed to snatch back the Senate) a Trump presidency might not be as apocalyptic as made out by many on the Left. That includes  scolds like Patton Oswalt, Bill Maher and George Takei - warning "do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, dumpkopfs!"

But is Hillary really that "good"? After her AIPAC speech and a recent NY Times write up on her war hawk nature, e.g.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html?_r=1

Many inquiring minds are wondering.

Probably most of Bragman's article would have been unthinkable even a few days before the New York Times posted its lengthy magazine article on Hillary's evolution as an unreconstructed war hawk - prepared to back Netanyahu to the hilt, as well as go after Iran or Russia. I read the piece too and it sent chills down my spine. I made the mistake of reading the Times' piece after re-reading the spell -binding 1959 novel of thermonuclear war, 'Alas, Babylon', by Pat Frank.  The scenes described of an accidental U.S. strike on Latakia - the Russian Naval base - could occur even today and ok, start the real thing - if cooler heads don't prevail.

Anyway, to counter a recurring anti-Russia U.S. narrative we recently beheld Trump saying we needed to work with Russia instead of making war on her, including setting up 'no fly' zones. He has a good point, but is that enough to throw caution to the winds and dispense with a lesser of two evils approach? I don't know.

But what ought to be alarming to many on the left, especially the pundit class,  is the many still dismissing Trump as a "clown". They might want to think again. People some months ago dismissed him as a Bozo but look where he is now. On the cusp of getting to the magic number of 1237 Reepo delegates. If one compares his odds at any Vegas' bookmaker's they are far more in his favor, than they are in Ted Cruz' (especially after Johnny Boehner dinged Cruz with the "Lucifer in the flesh" epithet - probably referencing that video where Cruz is reaching out to hug his daughter and the poor girl recoils in disgust.)

Former Loyola University PolySci and Philosophy lecturer Sean Illing in his own salon.com ;piece has been among the first to confess he was all wrong. As he writes:

"Pundits are paid to pretend they know things. But we have no special insight, no higher claims to truth. We’re wrong as much as we’re right, if not more so. Sometimes it’s clear what will happen, often it’s not. In the case of Trump, everyone – myself included – got it wrong.

When Trump descended preposterously from that escalator and announced he was running for president, we all giggled. Trump? President? Seriously? And yet all the polls suggested that he had real traction. But we assumed his star would fade. Then he started winning primaries – by massive margins. We downplayed it. Then he made one gaffe after another – insulting John McCain’s military service, hurling a menstruation jab at Megyn Kelly, calling Mexicans “rapists” and “criminals,” promising to ban all Muslims from entering the country. He even vicariously called Ted Cruz a “pussy.”

None of it mattered. Trump is now on track to receive the most primary votes in the history of the Republican Party. Let that sink in for a moment."

In fact, little of it has sunk in, as the political chattering class continues to give Trump no hope at all vs. Hillary. In only one memorable televised instance in the past two months did I see and hear a different take - from a Hillary female supporter (Jess McIntosh) from Emily's List. She told Chris Hayes on his 'All In' show that she viscerally feared a one on one debate between Hillary and Trump. In her own words, and I quote:

"It would kind of be like facing a mad monkey with a gun. And you just don't know what that monkey might do so there's no way to really prepare."

Indeed. But far more ominous is that if this election is close, it might be another GOP steal especially in states like Ohio using electronic voting machines. See e.g.:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/04/grim-news-fix-may-already-be-in-for.html

Greg Palast in an RT segment recently noted that the only reason Obama didn't lose the 2008 election is because his "numbers were way too big to enable a steal".  It may not be so this time, given Hillary's high negatives and also if she can't secure Bernie's people. Up to now, according to recent reports, she has indicated zero inclination to incorporate any of Sanders's' proposals into her platform. This is precisely the error that could conceivably render this general election close enough to steal. (Say by tossing OH to the  GOP by dumping a quarter million provisional ballots as in 2004)

Illing again:


"The political class is experiencing a collective cognitive dissonance: We just can’t quite believe this is happening. And yet it is happening – right now, in front of our faces. Barring something extraordinary, Trump will be the Republican nominee. Will he win the general election? Probably not. But he absolutely could win, and willing ourselves to ignorance won’t make it any less likely.
To read the latest “Insiders” report at Politico, however, is to discover how little pundits – on both sides – have learned. "

Will they learn enough before the November showdown? Who knows?  Who will be the most likely- Clinton or Trump -  to avoid a nuclear showdown with the Russians? That may be the true litmus test for determining the lesser of two evils.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/brian-cloughley/67070/is-washington-preparing-for-war-against-russia