Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Trump 's disaster in first presidential debate - Huffington Post

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump stumbled through the first presidential debate Monday night, losing his composure on multiple occasions, including during a heated exchange with Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton about previously saying she does not appear “presidential” ― remarks that many observers regarded as sexist. 
On numerous occasions, Trump interrupted and spoke over Clinton. Quite a few viewers found his behavior inappropriate, if a Twitter search of the terms “Trump mansplained” is any indication. 
However, the universe conspired against Trump by drawing even more attention to this behavior. Every time Trump lowered his head, one word was perfectly framed by his hair: “Men.”
The word came from the Declaration of Independence, which was printed on the backdrop of the debate stage at Hofstra University.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” it read. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men [Emphasis added], deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” 
Trump’s woes were compounded by his unfortunate position on the stage. Debates are carefully planned events ― affairs that are hashed out months in advance by the Commission on Presidential Debates, the Secret Service and the host university. However, as any good advance official on a campaign can tell you: It’s the problems you can’t anticipate that get you every time. 
Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Monday, September 26, 2016

Why Trump should not be president ? - New York Times

When Donald Trump began his improbable run for president 15 months ago, he offered his wealth and television celebrity as credentials, then slyly added a twist of fearmongering about Mexican “rapists” flooding across the Southern border.
From that moment of combustion, it became clear that Mr. Trump’s views were matters of dangerous impulse and cynical pandering rather than thoughtful politics. Yet he has attracted throngs of Americans who ascribe higher purpose to him than he has demonstrated in a freewheeling campaign marked by bursts of false and outrageous allegations, personal insults, xenophobic nationalism, unapologetic sexism and positions that shift according to his audience and his whims.
Now here stands Mr. Trump, feisty from his runaway Republican primary victories and ready for the first presidential debate, scheduled for Monday night, with Hillary Clinton. It is time for others who are still undecided, and perhaps hoping for some dramatic change in our politics and governance, to take a hard look and see Mr. Trump for who he is. They have an obligation to scrutinize his supposed virtues as a refreshing counterpolitician. Otherwise, they could face the consequences of handing the White House to a man far more consumed with himself than with the nation’s well-being.
Here’s how Mr. Trump is selling himself and why he can’t be believed.
executive magic to government?
Despite his towering properties, Mr. Trump has a record rife with bankruptcies and sketchy ventures like Trump University, which authorities are investigating after numerous complaints of fraud. His name has been chiseled off his failed casinos in Atlantic City.
Mr. Trump’s brazen refusal to disclose his tax returns — as Mrs. Clinton and other nominees for decades have done — should sharpen voter wariness of his business and charitable operations. Disclosure would undoubtedly raise numerous red flags; the public record already indicates that in at least some years he made full use of available loopholes and paid no taxes.
Mr. Trump has been opaque about his questionable global investments in Russia and elsewhere, which could present conflicts of interest as president, particularly if his business interests are left in the hands of his children, as he intends. Investigations have found self-dealing. He notably tapped $258,000 in donors’ money from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits involving his for-profit businesses, according to The Washington Post.
A straight talker who tells it like it is?
Mr. Trump, who has no experience in national security, declares that he has a plan to soundly defeat the Islamic State militants in Syria, but won’t reveal it, bobbing and weaving about whether he would commit ground troops. Voters cannot judge whether he has any idea what he’s talking about without an outline of his plan, yet Mr. Trump ludicrously insists he must not tip off the enemy.
Another of his cornerstone proposals — his campaign pledge of a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslim newcomers plus the deportation of 11 million undocumented immigrants across a border wall paid for by Mexico — has been subjected to endless qualifications as he zigs and zags in pursuit of middle-ground voters.
Whatever his gyrations, Mr. Trump always does make clear where his heart lies — with the anti-immigrant, nativist and racist signals that he scurrilously employed to build his base.
He used the shameful “birther” campaign against President Obama’s legitimacy as a wedge for his candidacy. But then he opportunistically denied his own record, trolling for undecided voters by conceding that Mr. Obama was a born American. In the process he tried to smear Mrs. Clinton as the instigator of the birther canard and then fled reporters’ questions.
Since his campaign began, NBC News has tabulated that Mr. Trump has made 117 distinct policy shifts on 20 major issues, including three contradictory views on abortion in one eight-hour stretch. As reporters try to pin down his contradictions, Mr. Trump has mocked them at his rallies. He said he would “loosen” libel laws to make it easier to sue news organizations that displease him.
An expert negotiator who can fix government and overpower other world leaders?
His plan for cutting the national debt was far from a confidence builder: He said he might try to persuade creditors to accept less than the government owed. This fanciful notion, imported from Mr. Trump’s debt-steeped real estate world, would undermine faith in the government and the stability of global financial markets. His tax-cut plan has been no less alarming. It was initially estimated to cost $10 trillion in tax revenue, then, after revisions, maybe $3 trillion, by one adviser’s estimate. There is no credible indication of how this would be paid for — only assurances that those in the upper brackets will be favored.
If Mr. Trump were to become president, his open doubts about the value of NATO would present a major diplomatic and security challenge, as would his repeated denunciations of trade deals and relations with China. Mr. Trump promises to renegotiate the Iran nuclear control agreement, as if it were an air-rights deal on Broadway. Numerous experts on national defense and international affairs have recoiled at the thought of his commanding the nuclear arsenal. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell privately called Mr. Trump “an international pariah.” Mr. Trump has repeatedly denounced global warming as a “hoax,” although a golf course he owns in Ireland is citing global warming in seeking to build a protective wall against a rising sea.
In expressing admiration for the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, Mr. Trump implies acceptance of Mr. Putin’s dictatorial abuse of critics and dissenters, some of whom have turned up murdered, and Mr. Putin’s vicious crackdown on the press. Even worse was Mr. Trump’s urging Russia to meddle in the presidential campaign by hacking the email of former Secretary of State Clinton. Voters should consider what sort of deals Mr. Putin might obtain if Mr. Trump, his admirer, wins the White House.
A change agent for the nation and the world?
There can be little doubt of that. But voters should be asking themselves if Mr. Trump will deliver the kind of change they want. Starting a series of trade wars is a recipe for recession, not for new American jobs. Blowing a hole in the deficit by cutting taxes for the wealthy will not secure Americans’ financial future, and alienating our allies won’t protect our security. Mr. Trump has also said he will get rid of the new national health insurance system that millions now depend on, without saying how he would replace it.
The list goes on: He would scuttle the financial reforms and consumer protections born of the Great Recession. He would upend the Obama administration’s progress on the environment, vowing to “cancel the Paris climate agreement” on global warming. He would return to the use of waterboarding, a torture method, in violation of international treaty law. He has blithely called for reconsideration of Japan’s commitment not to develop nuclear weapons. He favors a national campaign of “stop and frisk” policing, which has been ruled unconstitutional. He has blessed the National Rifle Association’s ambition to arm citizens to engage in what he imagineswould be defensive “shootouts” with gunmen. He has so coarsened our politics that he remains a contender for the presidency despite musing about his opponent as a gunshot target.

Voters should also consider Mr. Trump’s silence about areas of national life that are crying out for constructive change: How would he change our schools for the better? How would he lift more Americans out of poverty? How would his condescending appeal to black voters — a cynical signal to white moderates concerned about his racist supporters — translate into credible White House initiatives to promote racial progress? How would his call to monitor and even close some mosques affect the nation’s life and global reputation? Would his Supreme Court nominees be zealous, self-certain extensions of himself? In all these areas, Mrs. Clinton has offered constructive proposals. He has offered bluster, or nothing. The most specific domestic policy he has put forward, on tax breaks for child care, would tilt toward the wealthy.
Voters attracted by the force of the Trump personality should pause and take note of the precise qualities he exudes as an audaciously different politician: bluster, savage mockery of those who challenge him, degrading comments about women, mendacity, crude generalizations about nations and religions. Our presidents are role models for generations of our children. Is this the example we want for them?
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

First presidential debate between Clinton & Trump - CNN

The first presidential candidates debate of  2012 averaged 67 million viewers. Experts believe the first debate this year will beat that number.

Exactly how high? A debate topping the 100 million viewer mark is unlikely — but not inconceivable. 
Television networks stand to make millions of dollars from the ads that run before and after the debate. 
The ratings matter for political reasons as well: Any surprising victory or embarrassing performance by a candidate will be magnified by the sky-high audience size. 
That's why a guessing game about the ratings is running parallel to the speculation about what Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will say on Monday night. 
Television executives and campaign aides privately think that the total viewer number released by Nielsen will land somewhere between 80 and 100 million viewers. 
The most-viewed debate in American history, according to Nielsen, was the sole Ronald Reagan-Jimmy Carter debate in 1980. Almost 81 million viewers tuned in. 
three major broadcasters — ABC, NBC, and CBS. 
This year the debates will be on more than a dozen TV channels. The face-offs will also be live streamed all across the web in ways that weren't technically feasible just four years ago. Facebook and Twitter will carry the debates live right within their social networks. 
Traditional television remains dominant, however. During this election season's primary debates, more than 95% of the overall viewership happened via TV, with the remainder via streaming.
Nielsen's figures count viewers who watch at home with TV sets. Offices, bars, hotels and other out-of-home locations are not fully measured.
That's why the Super Bowl is always under-counted. This year Nielsen said 112 million Americans watched the big game, but the total audience was undoubtedly larger.
Monday's Super Bowl of Politics will be similar. Some groups are already planning viewing parties. 
Football is the debate's only serious competition for viewers on Monday night. ESPN is expecting that its "Monday Night Football" ratings will be below average due to the debate. 
Then again, some Americans are fatigued by the seemingly endless election and may seek out alternatives to the Clinton-Trump match-up.
about 240 million adults living in the country. Roughly 225 million are eligible to vote this year, according to the Pew Research Center. 
Each debate is normally watched live by just a fraction of the eligible voting population. But other Americans catch up later by watching news highlights and reading about the results, which is why the post-debate coverage is so important. 
The first Obama-McCain debate in 2008 had 52.4 million watching live. That turned out to be the lowest-rated of their three debates. 
But in 2012, the first Obama-Romney debate, with 67.2 million viewers, was the highest-rated of their three debates. 
The first debate was also the highest rated in 2000 and 2004. 
Nielsen will release TV ratings for Monday's match-up on Tuesday.
viewership data, but it won't be comparable to Nielsen's TV ratings for a variety of reasons. 
Bottom line: Americans have more ways to watch than ever before. Some of the methods won't be measured well. But industry veterans believe the TV ratings alone will top the past debates. 
Their reasons include the historic nature of both Clinton and Trump's candidacies; the viciousness of the campaign season; and the ratings records that were set during some of the primary debates. 
TV executives and political types have been debating the ratings possibilities in emails, calls and cocktail party conversations. 
As one top Hollywood executive put it: "This is the ultimate reality show." 
And Trump has a reputation as a ratings magnet -- something the candidate and his campaign aides are fond of pointing out. 
Then again, the ratings for the summer conventions, while respectable, were not through the roof. 
And prospective voters know they have two more chances to see the candidates together: At the follow-up debates on October 9 and October 19. 

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Sunday, September 25, 2016

Questions for Hillary Clinton & Donald Trump respectively - Guardian

For Donald Trump

How can you be trusted with the nuclear codes?
A symbolic question, but one that goes to the heart of concerns about Trump’s suitability for the job of commander-in-chief. He has made a number of erratic comments appearing to suggest a cavalier approach to nuclear proliferation; he has also threatened to undermine both Nato and a longstanding commitment to non-nuclear allies in Asia. Combining all this with a general belligerence that terrifies even generals, Trump has much to do to reassure voters he is not a dangerous loose canon.



Did you support US intervention in Iraq and Libya?
Trump has tried to have his cake and eat it on the subject of Middle East policy, attacking Clinton for backing regime change in Iraq and Libya while implying he was opposed to both wars at the time. But though this real estate investor’s foreign policy views were not then widely sought out, there is a plenty of evidence to suggest he kept any opposition very quiet. Asked if he backed the invasion of Iraq, he said: “I guess so.”
Why would Mexico pay for you to build a wall?
The flagship policy of building a physical wall on the southern border is frequently embellished with a boast that Trump would make sure Mexico paid for its construction. A recent meeting with the Mexican president, however, made clear that this is highly unlikely. Trump appeared to mislead supporters almost immediately afterward and continues to ignore evidence that Mexican net migration into the US has dropped to near zero in recent years. The mechanics of his deportation policy are even vaguer.


Is there anyone you regret offending?
An open question that could lead Trump into uncharted territory. For over a year, the Republican nominee has outraged Muslims, African Americans, women, Latinos and disabled people with a series of ever-more outrageous comments. Any attempt to hold him to account for offensive language was dismissed as mere political correctness. Attacking the family of a Muslim war hero after the Democratic convention finally seemed to damage Trump in the polls, though, and prompted a half-apology. Who else will he say sorry to?
What evidence do you have against climate change?
Like many Republicans, Trump has repeatedly suggested that action to prevent man-made climate change is unnecessary because he does not “believe” it is real. He is even threatening to pull the US out of the Paris climate accord. Yet in the face of overwhelming evidence from world scientists, surely the onus is now on skeptics to prove their claims with facts and numbers of their own. What proof does Trump have that climate change is a “hoax”?

Trump is doing well if…

… he can convince viewers at home that he is not crazy. This low bar for success is a big cause for concern among Democrats. Trump has come a long way despite erratic and unpleasant behaviour on a unprecedented scale in modern politics. If he can walk offstage with people thinking he is not quite as erratic rude as they thought, then it could make all the difference.
For Hillary Clinton :-
What single policy should your campaign be known for?
Advertisement
Harder than it sounds, or should be, this question gets at a weakness which many critics feels lies at the heart of the campaign. Instead of one signature issue, Clinton has dozens of detailed policies on a host of subjects. It may make her a great president one day, but for now voters struggle to understand what slogans such as “stronger together” mean in practice. If Clinton were forced to pick one concrete thing for viewers to remember her for, what would it be?
Do you believe in globalisation?
Over many years in public life, the former secretary of state has understandably embraced an evolving set of economic positions. But few have come further than Clinton on the subject of free trade deals and the damage they may or may not have done to American manufacturing. She says she opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership now proposed by Obama, but is it a principled opposition or a mere pragmatic response to Trump? Are there limits to the benefits of globalisation for US workers?
How would your counter-terrorism policy differ from Obama’s?



In the face of continued terrorist attacks, the issue of “defending America” will be top of Monday’s agenda. Yet Clinton risks being caught between defending the legacy of an Obama administration in which she served and acknowledging that not everything is working out well right now. How would she defeat Islamic State? Would she be more or less hawkish in Iraq and Afghanistan? If nothing changes, then Trump may be able to pin her to a range of foreign policy failures.
Why are you so secretive?
From emails to pneumonia, Clinton has repeatedly got herself into trouble by going out of her way to hide information from the public. The obvious question is: what does she have to hide? The usual explanation is that Clinton has been on the receiving end of so many smears over the years that she has learned to be cautious, but this should also teach her to be wary of cover-ups. Why should someone who ignores medical advice to rest, or legal advice to keep email on government servers, be trusted to take wise decisions in office?
How would you reduce income inequality?
Supporters would argue that Clinton has provided many answers to this question: from infrastructure spending and a jobs program to minimum wage increases and taxing the rich. Yet many still wonder if a campaign so heavily funded by America’s rich and powerful really understands or is committed to helping its middle class. Her answers may be more nuanced than Trump’s crude protectionism, but they need to cut through with voters if she is to blunt his appeal in the rust belt.

Clinton is doing well if…

… Americans finish the debate with a clearer sense of what she stands for. Increasingly, the campaign has become defined by what it stands against – principally Donald Trump. While this is highly effective at motivating Democrats, it remains to be seen if this is enough to win over independent voters. Clinton needs to show them, not tell them, that she is on their side.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)