Incoherent…

Incoherent…

in•co•her•ent (ĭnˌkō-hîrˈənt)

  • adj.
    Lacking cohesion, connection, or harmony; not coherent: incoherent fragments of a story.
  • adj.
    Unable to think or express one’s thoughts in a clear or orderly manner: incoherent with grief.

(Courtesy of Wordnik.)

It’s the only word that adequately describes Trump’s behavior last night. I’m not the only one using it, either.

Incoherent.

Salon.com: Trump’s incoherent greatest hits: His stream-of-nonsense debate style is tough to combat When Trump wasn’t name-calling during the GOP debates, his rhetoric was nonsensical — but difficult to rebut VIDEO

the quint: Presidential Debate Exposes Trump as a Sexist & Incoherent Bigot

Vox.com: The first debate featured an unprepared man repeatedly shouting over a highly prepared woman

This quote, from FastCompany.com is particularly telling:

After the debate, in the media spin room, Trump sought to explain some of his incoherent answers by claiming that his debate microphone was “defective” and wondering if it was “on purpose.”

Conspiracy theory? Yeah, sure, Mr. Trump. We believe you. It must be someone else’s fault that you didn’t do your homework.

Ugh!

And then there’s the misogyny on parade, the refusal to acknowledge that video SHOWS him saying things, that Twitter comments HE MADE are out there.

It’s like he thinks he can just erase the past and it will never have happened. Fortunately for us, at the moment, that only happens in books.

Here’s just some of the many debate analysis sites from last night’s event:

The New York Times: First Clinton and Trump Debate: Analysis

The Hill: Pundits react: Clinton won first debate

NBC News: Decision 2016: The Presidential Debates

USA Today: Clinton got interrupted how many times? Debate night by the numbers

New York Times: By the Numbers: Butting In, and Going On, Trump Dominates

But here’s the real kicker:

NY Magazine: Hillary Clinton Won the First Debate. What If That Doesn’t Move the Polls?

That’s right. What if it doesn’t matter HOW incoherent Donald Trump is in debates? What if the people who won’t vote for Clinton because of all the lies, all the smoke and mirrors from the Right, all the absolute bullshit that Clinton conspiracy theorists have put out as truth for so very long win the game by installing this hot mess of a candidate?

This is the guy the Right wants to put in the Oval Office.

This guy.

This bully, who thinks he can get away with rewriting history with impunity.

Sure, they’ll have to live with themselves if that happens, and maybe they can justify away the reality and truth the way they did in 2000, but they will be lying to themselves.

I mean, what’s one more lie among friends, really?

In the age of post-truth journalism, we can only hope the loudest mouth isn’t the one who wins.

If this is the primary focus for the coming year, we’re doomed…

If this is the primary focus for the coming year, we’re doomed…

I’m watching the Democratic Debate tonight on ABC. It’s not just me, I hope. Who’s wondering why the focus is so sharp on Daesh. No matter what the candidates have to say, they’re dragged back to talking about Assad and war.

Does this sound familiar to you? No??

Really.

I wonder why that is.

Isn’t it interesting that as much as Bernie Sanders wants to talk about income inequality, about endemic racism, about gun control, about infrastructure, about the things we MUST concentrate on to survive, we have to spend HALF of the debate on foreign policy, most notably endless war in the middle east. They’re FINALLY addressing the domestic issues in the second hour.

Maybe it’s just me, but I find this format immensely frustrating.

I see too many parallels in the extreme focus on threats that we created by our own actions, without accepting any sort of responsibility or admitting our role, that’s just crazy.

I want to know what we’re going to do here. I want to know why we haven’t been talking about these things that matter to us every day, like the cost of groceries.

Domestic policy should have been the first thing out of the gate. We need to focus our attention here, balancing education, infrastructure, making things better for everyone, not just the rich. And we need to ditch endemic racism, enforce equality, make sure that freedom isn’t compromised out of a misguided sense of fear and paranoia.

I want to hear that they’re going to ditch the Patriot Act and Citizens United, and close the tax loopholes and pipeline that ships our money out of the country.

As long as we keep the spotlight on war, as long as we continue to fight the war without dealing with the home issues, as long as we keep producing wounded warriors instead of jobs, this isn’t going to change.

No matter how loudly the media focuses on the issues off-continent, we need to look within. We can’t break the cycle if we don’t stop these wolves from forcing the focus elsewhere.

If we can’t fix our own home, the terrorists win.

Election 2012: Presidential Debate Number Two and the return of President Obama

Election 2012: Presidential Debate Number Two and the return of President Obama

Unlike the first Presidential debate on October 3, last night’s event was a hands-down smack-down. And unlike the world four years ago, it was wholly possible to follow the minds of friends and the press as they called each candidate out in real time. With the added bonus of fact-checking at the fingertips of savvy and skilled Google-searching and an understanding of the issues at hand, it was possible to track each assertion and cry “Foul” out loud, not just to the television or radio, but to willing listeners tuned in to Facebook, Twitter and elsewhere.

The results: Some of the fastest super-debate connections to reality, at least insofar as we can know it outside the Oval Office.

I hesitate to use the term non-partisan because everyone has an agenda, so I will present the following as a series of what I consider to be reliable sources for gaining insight into the various issues raised last night and how each candidate handled them.

There were only two candidates on view, but one other was involved in a public act of civil disobedience that should be noted here. Dr. Jill Stein and Gary Johnson have both achieved enough ballot placements that they should have been allowed into the debate process, if only to provide a clearer picture of the options available on November 6.

At some future point, I will address the question of our two-party system and what it would take to change our government to a coalition-style more similar to today’s structure in the UK and elsewhere. At the moment, I want to stick to what we saw last night.

FactCheck.org is my first best source for confirming the positions declared and how they relate to the truth. Overall, both candidates made some assertions that have been proved to be either half-truths or misstatements, but the overwhelming majority of false or misleading claims came from Gov. Romney. His often bullying behavior and condescending attitude took away a lot of what I think he hoped to accomplish last night. Several times he was called out, once by moderator Candy Crawley herself, for these misstatements.

Politifact.com calls it their Truth-o-meter, and covers both candidates’ claims with facts that check out from True to Pants on Fire.

Far more liberal-leaning ThinkProgress blogged live with fact-checking links and media through the debate.

But that’s not all. With the speed of lightning, these articles appeared in various places on the Internet, calling out Romney’s game plans (and Obama’s, where necessary).

Slate.com: Five Bad Ideas in Tonight’s Debate and Acts of Terror—or an Error? Republicans twist themselves in knots over the meaning of the word “terror”—and miss the point call out both candidates, but more notably Romney, for failing to talk about the issues raised in the questions they were asked.

NPR: How Obama Got His Groove Back, And Other Debate Takeaways takes the issues and clarifies what did (and did not) happen during last night’s debate.

Huffington Post: Mitt Romney Tax Plan Math Doesn’t Add Up addresses the numbers from several sources, for comparison.

Then there’s the question of how each candidate came off from a personal level. I can take comfort in knowing I’m not the only woman who was offended by Romney’s unbelievable claim that he was presented with “binders full of women” from whom he could choose for his cabinet. Frankly, it’s a wonder he found one he considered suitable for the job. You would think he could have found more if he’d really wanted. Even the Guardian UK noticed how this sounded. Considering Romney’s stellar performance when he visited the UK earlier this year, it’s no surprise they noticed.

In fact, this speaks volumes about the problem with electing Romney to the most visible office in the US. His claims regarding China aren’t just seated in a “say it now, take it back later” method of mendacity. He really seems to believe nobody is listening to him outside of the voters who might (or might not) put him in office. Claiming it’s the administration’s fault that we’re in so deep to China ignores his own role as a job creator in that country. Sensata Technologies is Bain-owned and is destroying an Illinois town right now with a move that is simply reprehensible in today’s awful job market.

Romney’s claim that he led a bi-partisan government in Massachusetts is also patently false. Even the few things he seems to have done right he disavowed last night (particularly with regard to coal and gun control).

Of all these things, Rachel Maddow has it right with this clip from September 26th. Check out Romney’s YouTube channel and you’ll find all the videos Maddow highlights.

I know there aren’t very many Romney supporters reading my posts. I’ve taken it for granted that for the most part I’m preaching to a choir that, also for the most part will either ignore me or forward the things I’ve posted.

I can only hope that if you are still considering voting for Romney, for whatever reason, you will see that the foundation of Romney’s claim that he will find 12,000,000 jobs is falsely based on reports that simply don’t hold up.

The payoff quote: “Greg Sargent added, “Let’s recap what Kessler has discovered here. The plan that is central to Romney’s candidacy on the most important issue of this election — jobs — is a complete sham. This is every bit as bad — or worse — than Romney’s claim to have created 100,000 jobs at Bain, or his vow to cut spending by eliminating whole agencies without saying which ones, or his refusal to say how he’ll pay for his tax cuts.””You still have a little under three weeks to do the research and see what Romney claims are the reports that back his numbers up. Listen closely to all the things he DOESN’T say when you watch the final debate, or if you’ll read the transcript from last night. There are far too many unknowns for us to live with a George W. Bush clone for four years.I have little hope that the House and Senate balance will tip enough to repair the damage of the last four years, but I can say this: Whatever obstructions the GOP have put in the way of progress are still better than anything this vulture capitalist will do to us if he gets into power.

Look up Bainport and see what I mean.

VP Debate Transcript (October 11, 2012), courtesy of debates.org

VP Debate Transcript (October 11, 2012), courtesy of debates.org

VP Debate Transcript (October 11, 2012), courtesy debates.org

So here we are, less than 24 hours post-debate, and the news is making the rounds. Who won for style, who for substance, who for veracity of claims. The proof is in the words used, not necessarily how they were said and what reactions they caused.

When I launched this blog, it was in reaction to the volume and quality of the conversations I’ve had regarding the current state of our union, and what the candidates intend to do about it. I’m not looking for conspiracy theories, but they are dropping in my lap as I try to sort out truth from deception and attempt to make what I consider to be the best choice for the next four years.

In response to a FB friend’s comments about the sometimes condescending attitude of VP Biden towards Sen. Ryan, I discovered I was sharing, again, articles I had shared at least once on FB. I read a lot of the articles that have been written over the last four years. I’ve found that, by and large, FactCheck.org is a reliable source for reality versus fiction that is often passed off as truth by some news organizations. Here are today’s features from last night’s debate:

 

Trying to distinguish fact from blatant propaganda isn’t as easy as it ought to be, especially with members of the press serving more as mouthpieces for corporate and political greed and less as the objective sources they should be. Fortunately, not every source is as biased as some, but when it comes to checking the facts, I will believe what can be proven.

I’m a born skeptic. If I can’t find a basis in reality, I choose instead to disbelieve. I have every reason to think that some members of the GOP (most notably identified as Tea Party or Libertarian) have worked extra hard to make it possible for our economy to gain ground. This perpetual shooting ourselves in the foot can be traced back (if one cares to) as far back as Reaganomics. The culture has existed, to varying degrees, for at least 30 years, but has gained a recent toehold through emboldened fanatics who have attained office through the force of unenforceable promises and fear-mongering.

These top five articles go a very long way toward expressing my concerns about the looming political crisis. Those who are seeing this on FB for the first time might have missed them in the onslaught of my own personal war on stupidity and fear, so I’m not particularly sorry to be posting them again for future reference. As it is, I expect to slow down (somewhat) on the number and variety of posts each day, just to try and stem the constant flow. Not everyone has the time to sort and sift through the volumes of material these days. That’s why I’m here to call out the articles I find that have value for the discussion. 

Your mileage may vary (as always).

Back again later with more as I have the time. We are at 15 days and counting until early voting begins in Maryland, and another 10 days until Election Day. If you’re still undecided you still have time to consider your choices carefully. Even if you’ve made up your mind, read through these items. You might find you’re surprised by what you learn.

I totally didn’t need that….

I totally didn’t need that….

How hard is it, really, to say the word “nu-CLEAR?”

And would someone please explain to me what drilling for oil in Alaska has to do with bankruptcy? Or global warming?

I just looked up the McCain VP candidate, Sarah Palin. Birthday? February 11, 1964

That makes me roughly three months and a week older than the potential VP of this country.

That’s not supposed to happen for … well, shoot. I *am* old, but *she* isn’t even a Baby Boomer.

What was he thinking???

And what scares me more: If he uses this sort of judgment for picking a VP, what will he do to our country? It’s darn hard to have a misstep if you don’t actually answer the questions. It’s Dan Quayle all over again. Best start repeating it now, just in case you’re confused about who you might be voting for here. Now imagine President Palin dealing with the next Great Depression… Talk about depressing!

Comments:

BJ:
I should have counted how many times we said, “is she answering the question?” or “um she used that to answer the last question, which, really didn’t answer the question.”

SC:
She is actually worse than Dan Quayle – she is actually going further than Ronald Reagan, who was the 1st politician I noticed who did that trick: she came right out & said she wasn’t going to be answering the questions.

That’s your plan? Get him?

That’s your plan? Get him?

Right.

Maybe it’s just me, but don’t you think the timing of the “candidates MUST rush back to WASHINGTON to help FIX THIS PROBLEM” crap is a little awkwardly timed?

Debates, you say? We don’t need no stinkin’ debates.

The Economy is going to FAIL!!! Don’t you realize what this means????

Yes. Actually I do. It means all the deregulation you “conservative” bastards have pushed for decades has come back to slap you silly and the very LAST thing you want to do is admit fault and re-establish the regulations Reagan washed away to fix the problem. Nope. Better to treat our economy like Chrysler and bail out instead of fixing the problem. [People are conveniently forgetting who the VP was then, though I haven’t. Maybe this is another Bush family mistake, coming home to roost.]

See, this is what I hear when I hear the term “Bail out” – It’s rare that you can save a ship by bailing it out. Usually it sinks anyway, just a little slower than might otherwise have happened. We’re not talking about sump pumps – no, we’re talking about all hands grab a bucket and toss the water over the side. And while you’re spending all that energy bailing the ship out, you’re using up whatever reserves you might have had for staying afloat once the boat sinks.

I am writing to my senators and reps just to be sure they understand how ultimately stupid I think this path of Dubbya’s is, but I already live in a Blue state. I worry about the rest of you.

Election day is coming. Looks a lot like Judgment Day to me.

Theme: Elation by Kaira.