Trump's counteroffensive was ugly but IMO it was effective. The level of stress that he inflicted on the Ft. Brooklyn apparat was reflected in Little Donny Deutsch's hysterical performance at MJ today. After letting the man rave against Trump for a while Joe S. told him to "stop screaming." "Listen to me!" Listen to me!" Deutsch had yelled across the table. That must have been a deeply satisfying moment for the Trumpistas.
IMO the ruthless device of bringing forward three of Bill Clinton's women accusers to renew their calls for vengeance on the man from Hope worked very well. Juanita Brodderick's straightforward statement "Bill Clinton raped me and then Hillary threatened me ..." must have had SOME effect. With regard to Kathy Shelton who had been brutally raped by a man named Taylor when she was twelve, I don't see anything wrong with HC's conduct. She was Taylor's court appointed attorney and successfully got the scumbag's sentence reduced. It was her duty to do that. Enough said.
The GOPers who deserted Trump over Pussygate now face a moment of truth. Will most of them re-defect to his camp? I think they will and that will be a mistake because IMO he is still going to lose unless Assange has some really good stuff in reserve. You remember him - "Can't we just drone him!"
For me the most ominous thing about the present electoral disaster is the level of perfection achieved by Ft. Brooklyn in the process of the industrialization of the political process in the US. Their willingness to twist, distort and flat out lie in pursuit of the end that for them justifies all means is frightening. The technique employed by their allies in "fact checking" Trump's opinions as opposed to HC's declamations ( "I support the Second Amendment") is amusing by any standard but it works with the semi-sentient masses. The puny Trump wurlitzer playing on and on from the golden chambers in the Trump tower is not well enough organized to compare its steam calliope hooting to the Robby Mook symphony. Mook's people actively and largely successfully seek to create public opinion using implanted memes and constant repetition from their media allies. IMO the success of such PR techniques will mean the end of actual democracy in the US if it continues.
I await the condescension of those who will now write to counsel me as to the non-existence of democracy in the US and/or the holiness of HC's Methodist utopian revolution to come. pl
Laughing here, can Trump and Pence still get along, can Hillary and Bill still get along? What an election, I just wish Ron Paul was the current President, I doubt we'd be having these shenanigans now.
Posted by: Bill Wade | 10 October 2016 at 11:21 AM
Fully concur with the assessment of the debate, the large Hillary Wurlitzer and the likely election outcome. Hillary made it clear that she is prepared to ride a crest of anti-Putin, anti-Russia hysteria into office, and Trump's shining moment in the real-world fleeting moments of the "debate" was his refusal to jump on the anti-Russia bandwagon and his insistence that the priority is wiping out ISIS and the other jihadists, and that Russia and Assad are allies in that priority effort. Hillary's performance was worse than the first debate, for the reasons fully spelled out by Col. Lang, and Trump had only one direction to go, and that was upward, by better preparing to handle the range of questions. Clearly, the audience asked much more reality-oriented questions than the moderators in either of the first two debates. I am told that about 18 million undecided voters will determine the Electoral College outcome, and this is where the Hillary machine is far better organized, despite the fact that her message is profoundly flawed. The election day "ground game" is going to be decisive, unless, as Col. Lang notes, some bombshell tilts the public perception in the final days before Nov. 8. An all around shameful reflection of our sinking Republic.
Posted by: Harper | 10 October 2016 at 11:28 AM
"the most ominous thing about the present electoral disaster is the level of perfection achieved by Ft. Brooklyn in the process of the industrialization of the political process in the US."
Perfectly said, this must be billboarded at the entrance of next debate hall.
Posted by: kooshy | 10 October 2016 at 11:31 AM
I wonder what happens if DT abandons the Republican Party and continue running as independent, if still time permits. Would that throw the election to House? if nobody makes it to 270.
Posted by: kooshy | 10 October 2016 at 11:38 AM
Col.,
I think you’re probably correct. The linked article also has it right: “He endorsed one of the central arguments of Clinton’s bid for the White House -- and her campaign is guaranteed to exploit it. “She doesn’t quit. She doesn’t give up. She’s a fighter,”…”
She won’t quit on Open Borders. She won’t give up on supporting al-Nursa as the new “mujahadeen”. She’s a fighter for intervening in Syria and Ukraine even though it will mean war with the Russia. Those points won’t be brought up again nor her husband meeting with the AG while she was under investigation. The “vast right wing noise machine” that the Clintons complained about when they were in the White House the last time seems to have evolved into a bi-partisan establishment machine that is out to Tammany Hall the Republic.
Posted by: Fred | 10 October 2016 at 11:45 AM
HRC's continued insistence on a no-fly zone and special forces in Syria was troubling to say the least.
Her statement that she would appoint judges who would overturn Citizens United would be judicial activism at its worst and was pure mendacity on her part, as overturning that case might well put an end to her gravy train and her ongoing corruption and control of the political process in the United States. A constitutional amendment (or two) would be a constitutionally correct means of stemming the bleeding, imo.
Posted by: DC | 10 October 2016 at 11:53 AM
Mook's machine is not too good at influencing the bitter clinger/deplorable/alt right demographic. In fact, it seems to almost have an inverse effect on them.
I suspect that if Trump does not prevail in November, that he will begin to construct Trump News. That will give him a potentially profitable venue from which to continue to propagate his message to the irredeemable citizens of the country. I think he likes be a high profile fly in Mook's ointment. I do not think he will just go away.
We will learn in Nov just how big of a market there is for Trump.
Posted by: Eric Newhill | 10 October 2016 at 11:59 AM
Can't think of better example to validate Col. Lang's argument than Martha Raddatz referring to SAA's reduction of East Aleppo Jihadi-land as a "holocaust."
The comparison is obscene. I don't remember the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, disabled, and political dissenters who were sent to Hitler's gas chambers ever beheading children, refusing to let civilians leave their towns, or kidnapping and selling women in slave markets.
I hope I was not the only one offended by Raddatz's question.
Posted by: Matthew | 10 October 2016 at 12:01 PM
Mook's memes and constant repetition is what he adopted from the FoxNews/Limbaugh/MichaelSavage/GlenBeck mighty Wurlitzer that has been going on since the nineties and even the 1980s in the case of Limbaugh. It seemed to work with a significant portion of the population, even my cat lady neighbor. So why not fight back with the same tactic?
Robby Mook by the way is from Vermont. I wonder why he did not support Bernie instead of Hillary?
Posted by: mike allen | 10 October 2016 at 12:06 PM
At the risk of being labelled a "condescender" I will only reference Jimmy Carter's quote from 2013 that “America does not at the moment have a functioning democracy”
Posted by: BrotherJoe | 10 October 2016 at 12:07 PM
I fear a continuation of the DNC machine and HRC so greatly I see no option but to throw in with Trump.
A vote for anyone else amounts to a vote for HRC and grave danger for our Republic.
Posted by: John Minnerath | 10 October 2016 at 12:08 PM
Trump will win because all the economic data confirms this. The BREXIT brigade won because the people who could not give an f about the EU turned out to vote to give the establishment a kick between the legs. The "post Fordian" settlement is not working for them. Ian Duncan-Smith was right on the money when he observed that the inhabitants of the s'hole public housing projects in his constituency were doing something they had not done in years, turn out and vote. Unless Americans are stupid they will do the same and vote to topple the status quo. Trump could be a syphillitic warthog (who casually uses the n word according to the rumour mill on the next revelation) but as long as he is not representive of the prevailing economic order, the people who are being crushed by it will go out and vote for him.
Posted by: Jim jordan | 10 October 2016 at 12:10 PM
The problem is the proles just don't care enough to do anything about it. This is perhaps why Trump is seen as a protest vote against the reigning plutocracy. Trump, as reprehensible as he can be at times, is possibly the last hope for a peaceful change. I believe we can trust him to use whatever NSA collected dirt there is against anyone who opposes him should by some miracle he make it into the office. I believe he will lead Congress through coercion and threats. The same will be true for the courts and senior military.
I am leery about the actual process and believe it is already well rigged. There are now 2 confirmed reports of pre-filled out ballots for HRC in the 10,000 ranges in Virginia and Ohio. Assuming this is in fact part of a larger plan, plus the already established voting machine hacks, which are untraceable and unverifiable unless tested first with dummy ballots, then it is well rigged. It doesn't have to be much as the polls are more or less even. The election apparatus as you have described includes the MSM as well as the party machinery, and seems well aligned against Trump who represents a major change to their modus operandi and profiteering. Rarely have we seen the 0.1% so inflamed and it isn't just in the US but apparently worldwide. However, in the populations it is a different story. I have felt for quite a long time, and even more so since 2007, that the common man has been used and abused past the breaking point. But, just like as happened in 1929 they never revolted. But, a Clinton win just might be the necessary piece of straw. I suppose we'll just have to pop up some more popcorn and watch the show and see how it turns out. An awful lot is riding on this election and it extends far beyond the US borders.
Posted by: Old Microbiologist | 10 October 2016 at 12:11 PM
"Trump's counteroffensive was ugly but IMO it was effective."
I think it was. ... And that impression was surely enforced by responses to the last question.
Since we had the peculiar debate about Trump's suit last time, or some type of "clothes make men" (Swizz novel)/tell us all we need to know about the man, I tried to pay attention to his suit. Thus: For whoever cares about the subject, my take.
Admittedly I have no idea about present US fashion standards: I am more generally not a fan of padded shoulders, or maybe too padded shoulders. Could be, this was not ideally on the front side. But from the back it looked fine.
Besides: Maybe, not sure how much you have to take the setting into consideration, light, cameras, other matters used. I would avoid material that reflects, giving the appearance of lots of synthetics added. But maybe that's the last fashion right now. Who knows. ;)
Posted by: LeaNder | 10 October 2016 at 12:19 PM
Sir
I'm having a hard time believing there are any undecided voters. There has been unusual interest in this election. I've noticed in my travels around the country for the past year exceptional interest. What I find interesting is the inability of the Borg Queen and her Ft. Brooklyn wurlitzer to totally put away The Donald. Considering that the entire MSM is a campaign arm and the establishment of both parties as well as the majority of the big money is backing her and the perception that has been sold is that The Donald is an unhinged crazy loon who is a racist and misogynist, how come the Borg Queen is not running the table with double digit leads in the polls in all the battleground states? If the polls are reasonably accurate, then there's something odd that Trump is so competitive. Why?
This election is for all intents and purposes just a coronation of the Borg Queen. So, if Trump pull this off however improbably, then it's a veritable earthquake and the Borg will go into an epic meltdown.
Posted by: Jack | 10 October 2016 at 12:21 PM
I'm curious how many people here are going to deny HRC wants a hot war with Russia.
Pussygate was an overblown hysteria created by the media. Trump's coarseness was already factored in. Pearl clutchers were never going to have his back anyway. No movement in polls. If anything, more people were annoyed with the hypocrisy.
The RNC betrayal makes Pussygate worth it. He is under no compulsion to make nice with the GOPe anymore. I hope he proscribed the whole lot.
Posted by: Tyler | 10 October 2016 at 12:22 PM
All Trump needs to win is to get people who otherwise don't vote to come out. Judging by the primary he did that. Layer on top of that the fact that the polls are constantly changing methodology, and that there are relative to past elections, minimal bumper stickers/yard signs for Hillary. I think he will win.
Posted by: eakens | 10 October 2016 at 12:26 PM
Will the US make war with Russia before, or after the election if Trump is elected? If Clinton is elected, will they wait until January to make war, or will they jump right in?
I continue to pray for a nuclear exchange free 2016.
Posted by: Daniel Nicolas | 10 October 2016 at 12:48 PM
@Tyler - "I'm curious how many people here are going to deny HRC wants a hot war with Russia."
The question that should be asked is how many people here are going to deny that John McCain, Bob Graham, and Mike Pence want a hot war with Russia.
Posted by: mike allen | 10 October 2016 at 12:48 PM
Mike,
Former Senator Graham of Florida wants a war with Russia? That's a new one. The last I knew he was against Saudi Arabia for backing the 9-11 terrorists and not for intervening in Syria. The last press piece I saw was from September (see below) Do you have some reference to your allegation?
http://www.fox13news.com/news/politics/208489010-story
Posted by: Fred | 10 October 2016 at 12:55 PM
Mike,
They're not running for President, and after Juan McAmnesty's shameful betrayal he has even less inclination to listen to anything that fool says.
Your attempt to misdirect and obscure the fact HRC wants a hot war with Russia is noted though.
Posted by: Tyler | 10 October 2016 at 01:01 PM
John
I'm with you. The Borg Queen guarantees escalation with Russia. That is really the only existential threat we face. I'll take racist misogynist any day to a proven warmonger with a track record of poor judgment.
Posted by: Jack | 10 October 2016 at 01:04 PM
Mike
No one. The only candidate with a proven track record of warmongering and bad judgment on national security matters is the Borg Queen. McCain and Graham will support all her military escalations with glee. Pence would too if he were in Congress. Right now if elected he'll have no real power. Trump seems to get that conflict with Russia is not in our interests.
Posted by: Jack | 10 October 2016 at 01:09 PM
Yahoo was told to read through ALL its emails for the NSA + FBI. The gov't is also using gag orders on its requests. NSA also feeds its data uncombed to Israel. If a rabid fascist or a rabid Zionist were to come to power, the machinery is already in place for true police-state-level suppression.
Posted by: Imagine | 10 October 2016 at 01:15 PM
I am not of the "praying" kind but I wouldn't mind an extension to 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, etc...
Posted by: jld | 10 October 2016 at 01:16 PM