Interruptions, accusations, chaos: Trump trolled the debate stage

The Critique

Perspective

Interruptions, accusations, chaos: Trump trolled the debate stage

September 29, 2020 at 11:53 p.m. EDT

BIDEN DEFAULT DEBATE APPEARANCE

                                     TRUMP AT HIS CALMEST

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and President Trump argued against each other in a tense debate on Sept. 29. (Blair Guild/The Washington Post)
September 29, 2020 at 11:53 p.m. EDT
Add to list

Donald Trump came to heckle. He came to interrupt and to pontificate and to flail his arms, batting away questions and facts in a chaotic fury. He was a boor and a troll, holding up his stubby mitts in an angry pantomime as he tried to halt the words coming from former vice president Joe Biden’s mouth. Trump seemed to believe that with a single rude hand gesture, one that he regularly uses to assert his dominance, he could hold back the truth so he could be free to spin and hype and vent.

It was an exhausting mess that spun beyond moderator Chris Wallace’s control and outside the bounds of anything that could reasonably be called a debate. It was a 90-minute display of a president’s testosterone-fueled, unmanaged rage and insecurity.

First Trump-Biden meeting marked by constant interruptions by Trump

Biden came to debate, God bless him. Trump arrived seemingly hopped up on grievance and indignation, determined to just bellow his way through the evening without ever having to answer a question or speak with clarity and sincerity to the home audience. He raised issues with Biden about his son Hunter’s foreign business dealings and then refused to let his political rival answer. He yammered about fake news and Hillary Clinton. He talked over both Biden and Wallace. He talked so much that it became impossible to even understand what he was talking about. He talked ceaselessly, and yet he said very little. He talked so much it was as though he was trying to pummel the viewer into submission with his words.

President Trump came to heckle, not debate.
President Trump came to heckle, not debate. (Julio Cortez/AP)

“Will you shut up, man?” Biden said in a moment of dismay and exasperation. It was a plea that surely channeled the desires of a significant percentage of the viewing audience.

ADVERTISING

It was awful. It was miserable. And one wished desperately that there were commercials during the grotesque spectacle if only to give someone a chance to throw cold water on the president. But there were no breaks. It was an endless display, and it was frustrating to hear Wallace calling the president “sir” as he pleaded with him to adhere to the rules to which he had agreed. Sir. Trump did not deserve that nicety because he did not come to the debate bearing the mantle of the presidency. He came with the demeanor of a thug.

Surely no one thought the evening would be dignified and civil. That’s not the way in which Trump gins up ratings and attracts attention. Bellicosity is his rule. But Tuesday evening, Trump was exquisitely inexhaustible. He stepped to his lectern with a scowl and a jutting jaw. Biden walked out with an expression of geniality. Because of coronavirus precautions, the audience was limited to only about 80 people sitting socially distanced in wooden chairs.

It was a rare sight to see the entire Trump clan wearing masks as they entered the Samson Pavilion, which is owned by Case Western Reserve University and the Cleveland Clinic. They removed them upon sitting. Jill Biden wore a mask as well. She left hers on as she took her seat in the audience. The stage was set with the trappings of democracy. The carpet was blue with a ring of white stars. A large eagle with a banner reading “The Union and the Constitution Forever” was draped overhead.

In many ways, the setting was one that should have inspired a sense of calm and a more conversational tone. There was even a certain sobriety to the location, which at one point had temporarily been turned into a covid-19 hospital. There was no need to yell with such a small audience. There were no bursts of applause, laughter or cheers to fuel a candidate’s energy. One might have thought it was the perfect occasion for a reasonable back-and-forth.

Joe Biden came to debate.
Joe Biden came to debate. (Matthew Hatcher/Bloomberg)

Even the lack of the usual greeting, an opening handshake, was a reminder that these are trying times. Human connections, at their most fundamental level, have been frayed. One might have thought that these would have served as reminders or encouragement to speak seriously, to speak compassionately.

Jimmy Carter dismisses Donald Trump’s wall lies with short and sweet statement

Walter Einenkel  Daily Kos StaffMonday January 07, 2019 · 4:12 PM EST Recommend 363  Share 5594 Tweet268 Comments 268 new

Carter_Trump_Two.jpg

 RSSPUBLISHED TO

Donald Trump has cornered himself by insisting that the wall he promised his base—the one that Mexico was going to pay for—must be paid for… by his base. Because Trump is an insane liar person, he’s doing what he always does: spouting insanely dumb and easily verifiable lies. A couple of days ago he made the statement, “This should have been done by all of the presidents that preceded me, and they all know it Some of them have told me that we should have done it.” Really? Really. For real? Yes. That’s what he said. Former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush quickly told people that no, no, they did not tell Trump anything regarding an expensive and pointless wall on our southern border. A short while ago, President Jimmy Carter made a statement going one further.

The Carter Center@CarterCenter

.

President Carter has been an honest critic of Trump’s garbage fire corruption circus show, and probably still cannot believe he has to answer questions about possibly agreeing with him on anything. Traditional news outlets are considering whether or not to air Trump’s immigration windbag of lies Monday night. The rest of us have yet to hear a single truth come out of this dirtbag’s mouth.

Bolton says U.S. to follow ‘Libya model’ on North Korea Not exactly the best message to send to Kim Jong Un.

Screenshot, Face the Nation
SCREENSHOT, FACE THE NATION

 

John Bolton said Sunday that the United States will follow the “Libya model” as it prepares for talks on denuclearizing North Korea.

That will probably be less than reassuring to Pyongyang’s leader Kim Jong Un, who likely is only too aware that Washington launched a military operation that led to the overthrow of the North African nation’s president, Moammar Gadhafi, in 2011.

“I think we’re looking at the Libya model of 2003, 2004,” Bolton, President Donald Trump’s national security adviser, said on CBS’s Face the Nation program.

“We’re also looking at what North Korea itself has committed to previously and most importantly, I think, going back over a quarter of a century to the 1992 joint North-South denuclearization agreement where North Korea committed to give up nuclear weapons and committed to give up uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing,” Bolton said.

He made similar comments on Fox News Sunday.

Watch:

Bolton was referring to Gadhafi’s promise in 2003 to give in to Western demands and abandon his pursuit of nuclear weapons.

What he failed to mention was that Gadhafi’s concessions did not prevent the United States and NATO from invading the country in 2011, ultimately resulting in the leader’s death at the hands of NATO-backed rebels.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is likely keenly aware of the meaning behind such comparisons. That may be why Kim told South Korean president Moon Jae-in during their meeting earlier this weekend that he would abandon the country’s nuclear aspirations if the United States promised not to invade the country, as The New York Times reported on Sunday.

“[T]hink of message this sends to Kim Jong-un: US ended up attacking Libya leading to Qaddafi’s slaying!” Shibley Telhami, professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland Department, said on Twitter.

Shibley Telhami@ShibleyTelhami

Bolton says on @FaceTheNation “we are looking at the Libya model” for nuclear disarmament for North Korea. Libya had a very rudimentary program (little leverage). More relevant, think of message this sends to Kim Jong-un: US ended up attacking Libya leading to Qaddafi’s slaying!

Other experts agree. Speaking to CNBC last July, Guo Yu, principal Asia analyst at global risk consultancy firm Verisk Maplecroft, said Kim is “watching what’s been happening in the Middle East, and the external military interventions — mostly led by the U.S. — which are interested in regime change and just reinforce the mindset for pursuing independent credible nuclear deterrence.”

Oh wow: Court strikes down North Carolina’s GOP-drawn Congressional map as partisan gerrymander

In a massive victory for Democrats, a federal court hearing a challenge to North Carolina’s Republican-drawn congressional map struck it down on Tuesday evening as a partisan gerrymander designed to benefit the GOP in violation of the constitution. The ramifications of this ruling are enormous: If current district lines are replaced with a nonpartisan map, Democrats could gain anywhere from two to five seats, according to an analysis by Stephen Wolf, as shown at the top of this post.

The case could also give further ammunition to plaintiffs seeking to invalidate gerrymandered maps elsewhere on the same grounds. Republicans will inevitably appeal to the Supreme Court, which is adjudicating two other similar cases, so the outcome may yet change. It’s important to note that the Supreme Court has never before sustained a challenge to a map on the basis that it impermissibly benefits one political party over another, but it recently signaled a new openness toward doing so, so there’s a real chance this ruling could stand. And if new lines are put in place for this year’s midterm elections, that would go a long way toward helping Democrats win back the House.

Careful!: The GOP Establishment Now Faces Its Nightmare Scenario: Trump Versus Cruz

Is it maybe too early to start the victory war dance? It has never looked better for the Democrats but History has already thrown a number of spitballs into this election. Watch out!

  • from The Nation

The GOP Establishment Now Faces Its Nightmare Scenario: Trump Versus Cruz

Republican elites wanted an appealing alternative to Trump, But they now face the prospect of a race between an unsettling billionaire and a scary senator.

The only prospect more daunting to savvy Republicans than that of a November ticket headed by Donald Trump is that of a November ticket headed by Ted Cruz.

Every bit as extreme as Trump on the issues, equally combative and at least as ethically challenged, Cruz is Trump with an extra helping of meanness. So unappealing is the prospect of Cruz as the party’s nominee that there has long been a quiet consensus among Republican and Democratic strategists that the selection of the Texas senator as the party’s standard-bearer could lead to a Democratic landslide in the fall.

If Trump’s a bad dream, Cruz is a nightmare. As the Washington Post observedin January (when establishment Republicans in Iowa were scrambling to upend the senator as the front runner in that state’s caucus competition): “There’s an opportunism to Trump’s positions, of course, just as there is to Cruz’s softened position on ethanol. But Trump’s pliability is obvious; Cruz’s isn’t. For lobbyists and senators and members of the Republican National Committee, pliability is important.”

Since January, the threat posed by Trump has become increasingly unsettling to GOP leaders — and the great mass of Americans. And recent days has seen an aggressive effort to block the billionaire.

But the last thing that the Republican establishment wanted to come from a week of maneuvering to manage the Trump surge that was so amply illustrated on “Super Tuesday” was a Cruz surge on “Super Saturday.”

The hope was that political careerist Marco Rubio, the Florida senator who has never shown any penchant for saying “no” to campaign donors or corporate lobbyists, would somehow gain traction.

Unfortunately for the GOP insiders who cannot seem to catch a break this election year, “Super Saturday” was super for Ted Cruz.

The Texan swept the Kansas an Maine caucuses Saturday, and came within five points of beating Trump in the Kentucky caucuses and the Louisiana primary. Though Trump claimed it was a huge night for him, Cruz won more delegates on “Super Saturday” — taking 62 to 49 for the billionaire.

And what of Rubio? He finished a weak third in Kansas, Kentucky and Louisiana. And in Maine he was in fourth place, trailing behind the only serious (and thus most marginalized) candidate left in the Republican race: Ohio Governor John Kasich.

The nightmare scenario of a Trump-Cruz race is now looking more likely than ever.

Republican leaders have to be asking: How did the party of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower end up faced with the choice between a narcissistic billionaire who keeps saying awful things and a narcissistic senator who keeps doing awful things?

If the Republican elites who stopped listening long ago to their better angels really want an answer to that question, of course, they need only they look in the mirror.

‘The Rise of the American Taliban

 

EXETER, NH - FEBRUARY 04:  Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at the Exeter Town Hall on February 4, 2016 in Exeter, New Hampshire. Democratic and Republican Presidential candidates are stumping for votes throughout New Hampshire leading up to the Presidential Primary on February 9th.  (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

TRUMP DUSSELDORF

[REPORTED IN FOREIGN POLICY FEB 4, 2016]: I guess if Pakistan is bewildered by Trump and Putin is enthusiastic (perhaps not the endorsement that Trump needs) and his effigy is a hit in Dusseldorf,and he’s “Taken New Hampshire”, the dude is having a very good week… shiels/2/11/16

DISPATCH
‘The Rise of the American Taliban
Pakistan’s elite on the Trump phenomenon.
BY LAWRENCE PINTAK FEBRUARY 4, 2016
‘The Rise of the American Taliban’
KARACHI, Pakistan — In the strongholds of hard-line Pakistani Islamist thought, they are talking about Donald Trump and laughing. Then they shake their heads with concern. “He doesn’t belong in the White House, he belongs in a mental hospital,” 46-year-old Hafez Tahrir Ashrafi, a Muslim cleric who is head of the country’s Ulema Council, told me with a throaty roar. An obese man with a wild dark beard, Ashrafi is an advisor to the Pakistani government and a former jihadi who fought in Afghanistan as a youth — Pakistani media has quoted him endorsing suicide bombing against U.S. troops in Afghanistan. “We do not believe the Americans will elect a man like that with his very dirty statements,” Ashrafi continued. “But if that happens, then he creates the problem not for the Muslims, but for the Americans and for himself.”

Ashrafi is not alone in that view. Sen. Ted Cruz may have won Iowa, but it’s Trump who has Pakistan’s elite simultaneously amused and concerned.Sen. Ted Cruz may have won Iowa, but it’s Trump who has Pakistan’s elite simultaneously amused and concerned. Ten days of interviews in late January with a broad cross-section of Pakistani intelligentsia — Islamists, liberals, policymakers, and bloggers — can be summed up in a single sentence: Trump is a clown, but he is a dangerous clown who could cause long-term damage to U.S. relations with the Muslim world.

Pakistan’s relationship with the United States is complex. It has been a vital ally in the Afghan war, but its intelligence services have played both ends against the middle, supporting some extremists for its own geopolitical aims, while battling others. The country is in a virtual state of civil war and there are deep divisions between the civilians and military leadership. The army has been locked in a major offensive against militants in the tribal areas and a simultaneous operation to wrest back control of Karachi, the commercial capital, from militias and criminal gangs, and there are ongoing rebellions in several parts of the country. But Pakistan’s importance to U.S. foreign policy is seen in both its efforts to help broker a deal in Afghanistan and its efforts to mediate between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

And it’s that positive side that makes Trump’s campaign rhetoric so problematic. “When people who are not sophisticated hear his comments and see Americans voting for him, that translates into anti-U.S. sentiment,” says Dr. Ishrat Husain, a former central bank governor under the early 21st-century regime of Gen. Pervez Musharraf. “We can only hope he doesn’t get the nomination. That would be a disaster.”

But many Pakistanis who are “sophisticated” also question what Trump’s success so far says about the direction of American society. They fear they are getting a glimpse into the dark side of the American psyche — and seeing it reflected back in their own. More than 4,600 people died of violence in Pakistan in 2015, according to the country’s Centre for Research and Security Studies — which in itself is a sharp drop from the more than 7,600 people who died in 2014.

“We’re living in a world where we seem to be competing for the space from which you can preach or promote intolerance of the other,” says Zohra Yusuf, chairperson of the nonprofit Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, with exhaustion in her voice.

Inside the heavily fortified walls of the Lahore University of Management Sciences, some of the country’s best and brightest study business, computer science, and engineering, with images of careers in the United States dancing in their heads. “Social media is full of posts about Trump,” a graduate student, who asked not to give her name, told me when I asked if Pakistanis are paying attention to the campaign. “Positive or negative?” I teased, just to see the reaction. She and her friends erupted in laughter. “Negative, of course!”

In Pakistan these days, one hears much talk of visas denied and dreams quashed. The daughter of a close friend recently earned her medical degree. She just returned home to the city of Lahore after three months looking for opportunities in the United States where she had always dreamed of being a doctor. Now she is having second thoughts. An Australian or New Zealand accent may be in her future. “She just didn’t feel comfortable with all she was hearing and seeing on television,” my friend told me. “She felt like people were judging her wherever she went.”

Trump may be a fixture on the social media feeds of educated Pakistani youth, but he has been largely AWOL from the mainstream media. Ditto the primaries as a whole. “It barely comes up in our editorial meetings,” Fahd Husain, executive director of Express News TV, one of Pakistan’s dozens of often-sensational news channels, told me, sitting in his Lahore newsroom.

At the Karachi headquarters of Geo TV, one of the country’s largest networks, I heard much the same. Geo has aired most of the GOP and Democratic debates with Urdu translations, but the broadcasts have elicited relatively little comment. “People are more concentrated on what’s happening in Pakistan,” says Azhar Abbas, Geo’s news chief. Not surprising given that the nation is still reeling from the deaths of more than 20 people, most of them students, in a January attack on a university — just the most egregious recent example of the daily carnage. “Now we will not kill the soldier in his cantonment, the lawyer in the court, or the politician in parliament, but in the places where they are prepared, the schools, the universities, the colleges that lay their foundation,” a Pakistani Taliban leader warned after the attack.

Badr Alam, the self-effacing editor of The Herald, an English-language newsweekly, sheepishly notes that another reason for the lack of coverage of Trump — and the campaign in general — is that many Pakistanis, including editors, simply don’t understand the U.S. primary system. “In the media I think there will be 10-15 people who would really know how the election happens.”

But Hameed Haroon, Pakistan’s most influential publisher — and Badr’s boss — says there is also a conscious decision on the part of some editors not to stir the international relations pot. The Pakistani media does not normally hesitate to publish anti-American rants, but Haroon, whose family owns the Dawn media group, says those opinions are usually tied to specific U.S. policy actions and include “a retreat mechanism,” by which he means that when policies or policymakers change, the framing of the United States in the media changes.

Trump, says Haroon, endangers that fail-safe “retreat mechanism” in U.S.-Pakistani relations. “It’s not a conscious censorship as such, [but] to enshrine Trump as an example of how bad America is would open up darker perspectives and dis-balance the possibility of any positive perception of America in this region,” he told me.

Not everyone is so grim. “The Europeans have become more tolerant [toward Islam], but tolerance can be condescending,” says Muneer Kamal, chairman of both the Karachi Stock Exchange and the National Bank of Pakistan, who thinks Trump is an aberration. “The Americans have moved to a completely different place — acceptance” of Muslims.

Still, Trump and Hillary Clinton are upending Pakistan’s policy worldview about relations with Washington: Since Dwight D. Eisenhower, according to the well-worn trope, Democrats tilt toward India, Republicans tilt toward Pakistan (and more problematically, Pakistani military dictatorships). Clinton may be a Democrat, but she’s a proven commodity — someone Islamabad can deal with. The battle of inflammatory soundbites on the Republican side has Pakistani heads spinning.The battle of inflammatory soundbites on the Republican side has Pakistani heads spinning. “This time around,” according to retired Ambassador Ali Sarwar Naqvi, head of the Center for International Strategic Studies think tank, which is close to Pakistan’s military and political leadership, “we can’t make sense of the Republican party.”

“You need a dose of Hillary to clean out a dose of Trump,” says Dawn’s Haroon. But he and others worry that isn’t enough, that something more fundamental is taking place in American society that will reshape U.S. foreign policy.

There’s that theme again: the dark side. Economist Kaiser Bengali, an advisor to the governor of the province of Baluchistan, calls it “the rise of the American Taliban,” which he says began in the Reagan administration and is now hitting critical mass with the Trumpites. “This is against the democratic values,” warns Dr. Farid Ahmed Piracha, number two in Jamaat-e-Islami, Pakistan’s largest Islamist group. “If there is such mindset, then there will be more difficulties for the United States and more terrorism.”

But let’s not be misled. As every foreign correspondent knows, there is one ultimate go-to source for the real ground truth in every country: the taxi driver.

Heading through the deserted, early morning streets toward the airport in the military capital Rawalpindi, fending off hawkers and beggars at each red light, my hotel driver Syed and I talked U.S. politics. On the other side of the world, Iowans were donning boots and parkas as they headed toward — well, wherever it is Iowans go in that bizarre quadrennial ritual.

“How many days lasts American election?” asked Syed.

“Ten months,” I replied, wondering how I was going to explain this.

There was a long, pregnant pause.

“Hillary is a nice lady,” he said.

And we drove on.

Image Credit: Joe

%d bloggers like this: