Wednesday, September 28, 2016

The Only Part of Last Night's Debate You Need to See



     I don't usually share the works of other writers here. But since today's post is an expansion of yesterday's, and since I have a paternal interest in this young writer out of California, I thought, for those who had enough of Nixon, I'd post this analysis of Monday's debate taken from the Claremont Independent, written by Ross Steinberg, junior at Pomona College.

     Yesterday’s debate featured exactly the Trumpian performance we’ve come to expect: the Donald’s signature one-two punch of incoherence and lies, paired with enough bizarre non sequiturs—“I have a son who’s 10, he’s so good with computers,” anyone?—so as to border on the surreal.
     With such a ‘bigly’ amount of sheer ineptitude, however, genuinely important debate moments are being forgotten. It’s easy to miss the insanity buried amidst the absurd, the moments such as when Trump accused Clinton of fighting for her entire 68 years of life against an organization started in 2004. But one of Trump’s less provocative monologues contains the most substantive policy revelation of the debate. It is a microcosm of the debate as a whole; if you don’t have the time to watch the full debate, all you need to do to understand Round One of Trump v. Clinton is to read this three-paragraph transcript of the Republican nominee’s response to the following question from moderator Lester Holt: “On nuclear weapons, President Obama reportedly considered changing the nation’s longstanding policy on first use. Do you support the current policy?”


To continue reading, click here.

12 comments:

  1. Yes, it is easy to miss those nuances during the debate. He is an empty canister, knowledge wise. Young Mr. Steinberg is spot on, with a writing style similar to his dad. Mr. S, you must be very proud of him and maybe he's following in your footsteps.

    As mentioned before, there is no way that Trump wrote his own research papers in college. It be interesting to note what grade he got in a Speech/ Communications class. He couldn't have a stand in there.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The apple didn't fall far from the tree! Congratulations, Neil! And congratulations, Ross!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gee, it's almost as though Trump doesn't know what he's talking about.

    I predict that if by some hideous catastrophe he does become president, the people who deal directly with him, and their underlings, will spend much of their time in the baffling and nerve-wracking effort to figure out what the hell he said and what he meant.

    Bitter Scribe

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gee, it's almost as though Trump doesn't know what he's talking about.

    I predict that if by some hideous catastrophe he does become president, the people who deal directly with him, and their underlings, will spend much of their time in the baffling and nerve-wracking effort to figure out what the hell he said and what he meant.

    Bitter Scribe

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nice job Ross. I have a feeling the next couple of debates will be even crazier. Is it even possible for an interpreter to convert Trump's gibberish into something a foreigner could understand?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Agreed about apple/tree. Ross's write-up is spot on, and his "turns of phrase" are wonderful.

    With my own observation (and listening to talking heads), I'd totally missed this huuge policy pronouncement.

    Lots of other instances of ramblings, incoherence, etc. I also love that Donald never fails to get in a mention--with any City, State or Country-- that "I have property there"!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I particularly like "political mood du jour".

      Delete
  7. Great article! Like father like son.

    Linda Barnes

    ReplyDelete
  8. Trump motto:

    "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit!"

    Something he has in abundance.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Trump showed how lacking in knowledge he is when he dissed the BUFFS, meaning the B-52.
    BUFF stands for "Big Ugly Flying Fucker" or if you're a prude, Big Ugly Flying Fellow.
    The Air Force expects to continue using them for at least 20 more years, as they have proved to be unbelievably versatile, unlike it's expensive as hell replacement, the B-1B or the B-2.
    The B-52 can also fly up to 50,000 feet, far above most aircraft.

    ReplyDelete