From a piece at Counterpunch by Thomas Knapp:
Election 2016: Of Dog Legs and “Debates”
The Hofstra event and its followups won’t be debates. They’ll be combination beauty contests, “professional wrestling” matches, and campaign commercials. The only proposition either candidate will support will be “I should be president.” The closest thing to an argument either one will put forward will be “because I am not the other person on this stage.”
Yesterday I noticed a #Debate Side Effects thread at Twitter - my favourite entry:
"Yearning for Bernie"
Finding music appropriate to this evening's event - this ditty by Rush is a fairly good fit lyric-wise, though the melody wouldn't be an easy one to whistle on the way to work.
LYRICS to Farewell to Kings, written by Neil Elwood Peart, Gary Lee Weinrib, Alex Zivojinovich
When they turn the pages of history
When these days have passed long ago
Will they read of us with sadness
For the seeds that we let grow?
We turned our gaze
From the castles in the distance
Eyes cast down
On the path of least resistance
Cities full of hatred, fear and lies
Withered hearts and cruel, tormented eyes
Scheming demons dressed in kingly guise
Beating down the multitude and
Scoffing at the wise
The hypocrites are slandering
The sacred Halls of Truth
Ancient nobles showering
Their bitterness on youth
Can't we find the minds that made us strong?
Can't we learn to feel what's right
And what's wrong?
What's wrong?
Cities full of hatred, fear and lies
Withered hearts and cruel, tormented eyes
Scheming demons dressed in kingly guise
Beating down the multitude and
Scoffing at the wise
Can't we raise our eyes and make a start?
Can't we find the minds to lead us
Closer to the heart?
Here's one I could whistle - if I could whistle, that is:
Everybody's Talkin'
I've always liked this one, parts of which are certainly appropriate here: Dave Frishberg's Blizzard of Lies
.....We've got inflation licked I'll get right back to you
It's just a standard form tomorrow without fail
Pleased to meet you, thanks a lot, your check is in the mail
Marooned, marooned, marooned in a blizzard of lies
Marooned, marooned, marooned in a blizzard of lies
Your toes and knees aren't all you'll freeze
When you're in it up to your thighs
It looks like snow but you never know
When you're marooned in a blizzard of lies
You may have won a prize, won't wrinkle, shrink or peel
Your secret's safe with me, this is a real good deal
It's finger lickin' good, strictly by the book
What's fair is fair, I'll be right there, I am not a crook....
11 comments:
I think Hillary has the best astrology for this evening's political-pugilist event. Transiting Venus will be on her Sun providing a glow; t-Mercury sextile her Venus, but opposed her Moon (her natal Moon-Venus form a trine), which is supportive of a professional, non-emotional performance; t-Saturn sextile her Neptune and she'll come across as more sincere than usual.
Trump will have today's fabulous transit of Sun-Jupiter conjunction on his Neptune, which is perfect for inflation and hyperbole, but not for presentation of facts and figures; t-Mercury will square his Uranus and loosely T-square his Sun-Moon, and words will get in his way; t-Saturn is trine his Pluto, but square his Uranus, and he'll have a penchant for saying something his supporters like, but detractors won't; t-Mars is trine Mars and Asc, so his energy will be high and perhaps confrontational.
I'll add that the September 16th, lunar eclipse at 24* Virgo-Pisces formed a grand-square with Trump's natal Sun-Moon-Node opposition, also an eclipse, and its effects are still present, since we haven't had the next new Moon. The effect of this eclipse may be evident tonight. I've read that Trump did not want to put much effort into prepping other than reviewing Hillary's previous debates, to the chagrin of his management team. This eclipse grand-square could mean a major miscalculation by Trump thinking he is consciously and emotionally ready for this debate.
mike + (again) ~ Thank you for the debate astrology. What it hints at is what, in a saner world, would be the expected outcome: Hillary Clinton beating Donald Trump easily. "How could she not?" we'd ask, "She has masses of debate experience, years of experience in various areas of government, huge support from mainstream media, gangs of elite ass-licking celebrities fluffing her up" etc etc etc.
We are not, now, living in a sane world though - at least we haven't been for the last 18 months or so.
None of Donald Trump's shenanigans, so unbecoming of a would-be president - unbecoming of anyone running for any old public office in fact, has dimmed the enthusiasm of his supporters. While Clintonites will find her performance worth an A+ grade, Trump's supporters will feel the same about their guy - whatever style he assumes tonight, however trite, untrue, rude, or simply stoooopid his answers are.
I doubt these debates will change anybody's mind - it's too late for that. Even "undecideds" have really decided. I suspect they know full well what they'll be doing come 8 November, they simply decline to admit it (and who could blame them?)
mike ~ I've just watched this 17 min video discussion about he debate: Charles Pierce & Anne Marie Cox
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/videos/a48924/first-debate-live-discussion-ana-marie-cox-charles-pierce/
They conclude that best that's likely to happen, as to result of the debate, is a draw.
It's first time I've seen Pierce speaking - not quite as Irish-ish or deep-voiced as I'd expected! Ms Cox tends to speak too rapidly - I had trouble keeping up. Worth a look though.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/videos/a48924/first-debate-live-discussion-ana-marie-cox-charles-pierce/
The video is much the same as other pundits proffer, centered on Trump, and "the bar is set so low that Trump can't lose" sort...along with our new post-truth era...LOL. I guess it is questionable exactly when the post-truth era started...Bill Clinton's "a BJ isn't sex" comes to my mind. Trump does it better:
https://theintercept.com/2016/09/26/donald-trump-leads-the-war-on-truth-but-he-didnt-start-it/
Again, September 16th's eclipse should have had an effect on Trump, but his only "act" at that time was to call a special news conference over Obama's American birth, while not-so-covertly advertising his new DC hotel. The recent eclipse forming a grand-square to his natal eclipse pattern, plus the transits of tonight, could indicate he wows us in a new fashion, probably not good. One can only hope.
Re - The undecided you mention and in the GQ interview...there are many voters that really don't care for Trump, but would feel pain voting for Hillary as an anti-Trump measure...I am one. GQ's mention of taking a slug of vodka after every mention of Jill or Gary is fitting...I feel like I'd have to be medicated to vote for either of them, too.
An interesting-though-predictable Bernie postmortem redux:
https://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-thenation-interview/
mike (again) ~ I think that "slug of vodka for every mention of Stein or Johnson" remark - made by Charles Pierce in the Esquire interview, was preceded by a fairly muffled "if someone wishes to stay sober" - meaning that Stein or Johnson will NOT be mentioned at all - which I guess will be the case. Not sure if I'm reading your comment aright about that. :-)
Thanks for the Nation link - had seen extracts from it but not the whole.
I've followed much of what Mr Pierece has written on the election issue. At first he was mildly "for Bernie", but most of his commenters (now commentary has been moved to Facebook) are Clintonites and chide him whenever he dares to even mildly criticise Clinton. That pisses me off no end, so I'm not as keen a reader there as I once was.
People who wear blinkers to their candidate's faults and failings abd "baggage" as so many (mostly women) Clinton supporters do, are my chief irritant these days.
I've promised anyjazz I shall not become angry tonight - he says "life's too short" - indeed! I honestly will not feel anything but curiosity as to how 'twill go. I don't care about either candidate. My care and frustration about, and tears for Bernie have been shed. I remain indifferent. We shall get what we deserve - either way.
Presidential debates were held prior to 1960, but were not "official". Television made its way into most American homes and debates became integral with the presidential elections. The more honest and true debates were those from 1960 to 1984. The debates from 1988 onward have essentially been adverts and media events.
"The first general election presidential debate was held on September 26, 1960, between U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy, the Democratic nominee, and Vice President Richard Nixon, the Republican nominee, in Chicago at the studios of CBS's WBBM-TV."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates
"The League [of Women Voters] sponsored the United States presidential election debates in 1976, 1980 and 1984. On October 2, 1988, the LWV's 14 trustees voted unanimously to pull out of the debates, and on October 3 they issued a press release condemning the demands of the major candidates' campaigns. LWV President Nancy Neuman said that the debate format would 'perpetrate a fraud on the American voter' and that the organization did not intend to 'become an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.'"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Women_Voters
"The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) sponsors and produces debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and undertakes research and educational activities relating to the debates. The organization, which is a nonprofit corporation controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties, has run each of the presidential debates held since 1988. The Commission's debates are sponsored by private contributions from foundations and corporations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates
mike ~ My opinion of tonight's showing: It was all a bit of a yawn, to be honest. They both said stuff we've heard before over and over during the past 18 months. Trump was subdued, Clinton was her usual self. I guess Clinton won on points, but there was no big knockout blow, Trump got in a few good punches, and several of his points I, oddly, did agree with.
I was astounded by Trump's outright lies! I hadn't anticipated each and every response requiring a fact to be so egregiously altered and defended by him. Sure, I figured there would be some peppering with altered reality, but his fabrications portrayed a fictional person. Candidates from previous presidential elections were declared absolute losers of a debate, if they provided false information, and blurring the lines of truth wasn't acceptable, either. Trump's performance can only be described as theatrical, reading from his own script of histrionics. Subverting the truth in the primary debates and in personal interviews has become Trumps byline, but I thought he'd be more professional at this presidential debate.
There wasn't much substance to this debate, but I can't blame the candidates for the choice of questions posed to them. Much as Matt Lauer was criticized for his peculiar interview of the two candidates, Lester Holt wasn't much better, except that Holt was a moderator of this event.
Whether Hillary was her usual self or not, she was miles above Trump's usual self.
Twilight ~ I thought Patrick Martin's article, "Clinton-Trump debate: A degrading spectacle" on wsws.org did a solid job of summarizing last night's show:
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/09/27/deba-s27.html
I found it under Yves Smith's "Links" at Naked Capitalism. He called it an "excellent rant." It's a short, powerful piece.
LB ~ Yes, I found it this afternoon too! Very good indeed! I almost linked to it in fact.
Thanks for doing so. :-)
Post a Comment