Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump
[Note: I have yet to catch up on some of the last comments, but I’ve been working on this post for a while, and need to post it and get to other things just now.]
I have to say I was disappointed that there wasn't more coming from the Trump side to at the very least keep things interesting.
In giving credit where credit is due, Hillary went from looking/behaving totally vulnerable and defeated at the very beginning of the debate to then emerging as the obvious victor from about a quarter-in forward.
I see this was already touched on, but I agree that a visual analysis is necessary at this point. One is reminded of how Kennedy defeated Nixon in that famous 1960 televised debate for similar (visual) reasons, even though Kennedy (certainly in my opinion, and that of many of us here) had a great deal to offer in terms of intelligence and leadership qualities whereas Trump, quite obviously, has no such qualities. In any event, it was the strong, attractive "look" of Kennedy versus the tired seeming Nixon that is usually cited as the biggest reason for Kennedy's success in that debate.
Back to the present.. I agree that it’s fairly incredible, and yet, in retrospect, predictable that Hillary -- who seemed at death's door leading up to the debate -- seemed more and more healthy, vibrant, centered, and yes, haughty and even giddy once she turned the tables on Trump and had the upper hand. I'd have to do more of a visual analysis -- to see whether the camera angle changed -- but she seemed to be literally LARGER as the debate progressed. This may have been from the beginning, or it could be the camera angle was changed so that Hillary's camera angle was closer than that of Trump's. And so subliminally speaking she seemed to be dwarfing him.
Hillary was obviously well coached, and I can just hear her advisors telling her to just sit tight and Trump will lose the debate for her, which is exactly what happened. As soon as she had him on the defensive re: his taxes, etc., he became this narcissistic, petty, whining, inarticulate, frustrated, deflated clown cluelessly performing his own defeat. His brow was furrowed and red, and his whole image seemed rather wan somehow when compared with Hillary's bright red outfit and expertly applied makeup and golden hair. Yes, she was haughtily smiling, but with good reason. She knew the formula was working and that Trump was just flailing around -- period. I'm not getting into specific content, just the content of these images as they arose.
HOWEVER.. I do agree that the entire debate was heavily slanted towards Hillary.. (thus the closer camera angle).. and when Trump really had her on ONE VERY CRUCIAL ISSUE, the moderator dropped the whole thing.
Does anyone here remember what that was?
Why, it was Trump’s bringing up Janet Yellen, the head of the Federal Reserve, and her holding to the near zero interest rate, which is our nation's free give away to all the Wall Street Bankster frauds who are taking this risk free give away for their free wheeling speculation in the commodities markets. And of course all these financial bubbles are timed for imminent collapse with insiders making the killing while the rest of us pay for it in every conceivable way including huge government funded bailouts for the very criminals who perpetrate this fraud.
Trump, in his way, was pointing to the idea of imminent financial collapse, but he lacked the language for it -- or the opportunity to bring out this issue given how slanted the moderator was. Important to note, the entire U.S. economy is a Ponzi scheme based on debt. You cannot print your way out of a recession. And you cannot keep the interest rate at near zero forever. The feds know this. They are just holding off imminent collapse by doing so. And it seems painfully obvious that the only amenable solutions to this will not come from either party. I mean, can you imagine Trump or Hillary proposing some equitable sort of debt jubilee? Ain’t gonna happen. All the financial sector is doing is frantically seeking new last minute measures to stave off the collapse. IMF issued bonds I’ve heard is the latest frontier that some say will prolong the death throes.
To further the notion that no healthy remedies are likely to come from Trump, the following is KEY, and points to a division of power at the top that I learned about during the Bush 2 years:
angelburst29 said:
The surprises are starting before the debate.
Despite being snubbed by former US presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, Republican candidate Donald Trump has won support for his presidential run from a group of more than 50 members of both Bush administrations.
'Alumni' of US Bush Administrations Back Trump Hours Before Presidential Debate
https://sputniknews.com/us/20160927/1045727372/alumni-bush-administration-back-trump-debate.html
The endorsement was issued in a form of a letter just hours before Monday night’s televised debate between Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
We, the undersigned, citing the need for bold leadership, a strong national defense, sound economic policy and a Supreme Court committed to preserving the freedoms framed in the Constitution, launch this coalition of former Cabinet officials, presidential appointees and campaign alumni of the George H.W. and/or George W. Bush administrations," a letter released on Monday read.
The coalition includes former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former White House political director Matt Schlapp, former Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi, former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, former US Attorney General John Ashcroft, former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao and former Treasury Secretary John Snow.
The letter was signed, "Bush Alumni Coalition Supporting Donald J. Trump and Governor Mike Pence for President and Vice President."
The division of power I was mentioning is along these lines: it’s George H. W. Bush heading the old guard at the CIA, this includes the Bush’s long standing ties with the Clintons.
This old guard, which is more multilateral in its approach to foreign affairs, is up against the more aggressive Neo-Cons: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, etc.
I urge everyone to get hold of Webster Griffin Tarpley’s 9/11 Synthetic Terror, paying special attention to chapter IX that delineates the coup that happened on 9/11 in which George W. Bush is literally taken hostage by the Neo Cons and forced to do their bidding. In fact, according to Tarpley’s book there was an assassination attempt on George W. Bush the day before 9/11 which (as I recall) was intended as a threat. That is to say, if he didn’t comply with their agenda, he’d be killed and Cheney would take over. Ironically, Karl Rove (who “coached” George W. Bush for the presidency at the father’s behest) never trusted Dick Cheney who, if you recall, was Secretary of Defense under George H. W. Bush from 1989 – 1993. So, Cheney is a pivotal character in this. And "W" as president reluctantly acted on behalf of the Neo Cons since he literally had a gun to his head. (No wonder he's kept out of the public eye.)
Anyway, this power divide is very useful to keep track of, and now we know who is backing Trump: the Neo Cons.
.. with that in mind, they have some serious coaching to do if they’re gonna sic Trump on Hillary in the next two debates. The Neo Cons now can see what Trump is up against, and so maybe Trump will come back and hit ‘er with both barrels blazing. We’ll see. He'd have to get out of his own way though, which ain't gonna' be easy.
Of course, as others have said already, we all lose either way.
paired with this one 
