How much of tomorrow's debate will you watch?

[AGBF]

Hillary Clinton as President is going to meet heads of state from countries that have a less then progressive view of women.

So if she is going to be uncomfortable with Trump standing behind her how is she going to not only hold her own with them but show a presence of strength as the leader of the US?

Secretary Clinton has already met with all the Heads of State in the world that she will ever have to meet as President because that is what the Secretary of State does. So you need not worry that about her having to do that in the future. She has already been tested. (Not to mention that she was First Lady for eight years and, therefore, hosted many state diners at The White House where she greeted Heads of State.) I am not at all worried about whether The Secretary can handle Trump or any other man. It is simply his bad behavior which I am mentioning. And I am mentioning it mainly because I think it reflects an instinctive impulse to stalk someone whom he wants to intimidate. I think it is just part of his being a bully and is probably unconscious.

Then imo all that talk is not helping her at all because it gave me pause as to whether or not she could handle herself.

I do not believe that "all that talk" was done by "The New York Times" to help Secretary Clinton. I believe that she does not really need any help right now. She is well on her way to becoming President. I believe that "the talk" was done to elucidate the dynamics at work on the debate stage as a man, who is a bully, "debated" a woman while attempting to dominate her physically and being in her space. She may have crossed into one side of the stage, but never did she get into Trump's space. It is one thing to go onto a half of a stage allocated to someone and another to get into someone's personal "space". (Personal space varies from culture to culture, but is always recognized within a culture.) Colloquially this is known as getting into someone's face.

AGBF

 

[ruby59]

Who said she was uncomfortable? Even if she was, as women we have to be okay with people trying to make us uncomfortable? It makes us weak?
_______________________________________________

As the first President of the US, imo, she cannot afford to show any weakness.

 

[CJ2008]

Yeah...she didn't flinch.

She can handle it.

It is one thing to go onto a half of a stage allocated to someone and another to get into someone's personal "space". (Personal space varies from culture to culture, but is always recognized within a culture.)AGBF

Right.

 

[sstephensid]

Who said she was uncomfortable? Even if she was, as women we have to be okay with people trying to make us uncomfortable? It makes us weak?
_______________________________________________

As the first President of the US, imo, she cannot afford to show any weakness.

Right.

Again, who said she was uncomfortable? Did she say that? Did she act it? Did she even acknowledge him lurking? Somehow him lurking (or so it is perceived by regular people on twitter, then the media) turns into a negative check in her box. Come on.

 

[ruby59]

Did she even acknowledge him lurking? Somehow him lurking (or so it is perceived by regular people on twitter, then the media) turns into a negative check in her box. Come on.
____________________________________

I would have liked her to come out and clarify it.

 

[AGBF]

Did she even acknowledge him lurking? Somehow him lurking (or so it is perceived by regular people on twitter, then the media) turns into a negative check in her box. Come on.
____________________________________

I would have liked her to come out and clarify it.

You may be confused. If when you say "her" you mean Secretary Clinton there is no reason for her to "clarify" anything because she didn't say anything. She didn't whine. She didn't complain. She didn't run to mommy. She's a very big girl.

The newspapers reported their views on what they saw.

AGBF

 

[ruby59]

Did she even acknowledge him lurking? Somehow him lurking (or so it is perceived by regular people on twitter, then the media) turns into a negative check in her box. Come on.
____________________________________

I would have liked her to come out and clarify it.

You may be confused. If when you say "her" you mean Secretary Clinton there is no reason for her to "clarify" anything because she didn't say anything. She didn't whine. She didn't complain. She didn't run to mommy. She's a very big girl.

The newspapers reported their views on what they saw.

AGBF

And if something is posted about you that is incorrect, you take a minute and make a statement correcting the misinformation.

 

[Ellen]

I have found it interesting that some women here have been hyper-aware of Trump looming over Hillary Clinton while others have been so sure that he did not that they chalk the charges of "looming" up to a media conspiracy. (By the way, as one of the people who felt the looming, I have never felt that Trump engaged in the behavior consciously. I felt that he was anxious and wanted to gain control, and did what came naturally to him.)

I wonder if it is our cultural and social backgrounds that make us perceive the situation so differently. I am assuming that we are all approaching this matter with good will.

Deb/AGBF

My dear friend (and you know I mean that sincerely Deb), am I to surmise that you do not actually believe journalists/the MSM ever spin stories/are guilty of propaganda? I hope I am misinterpreting what you said here, and that you do not believe that.

Why, one only need look as far as Wikipedia (which I hardly embrace as a seriously reliable source of all truth, but is sure to be accepted by the majority on this board) to find a lengthy list of propaganda terms/techniques, almost all of which I do believe most will quite readily be able to relate to, as we are subjected to these techniques on a constant basis by all MSM outlets.

Do you disagree?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques

 

[redwood66]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques

I found this very interesting. Thank you!

 

[VRBeauty]

Did she even acknowledge him lurking? Somehow him lurking (or so it is perceived by regular people on twitter, then the media) turns into a negative check in her box. Come on.
____________________________________

I would have liked her to come out and clarify it.

You may be confused. If when you say "her" you mean Secretary Clinton there is no reason for her to "clarify" anything because she didn't say anything. She didn't whine. She didn't complain. She didn't run to mommy. She's a very big girl.

The newspapers reported their views on what they saw.

AGBF

And if something is posted about you that is incorrect, you take a minute and make a statement correcting the misinformation.

Or you shrug it off and go on.

People surmise things and attribute feelings etc. about public figures all the time - and that's especially true in an election situation. If you take time to address every incorrect or false thing that's said about you, or everything observation you disagree with, then you start to let others shape your campaign and control your message. Donald Trump has a tendency to fall into that trap.

 

[ruby59]

r you shrug it off and go on.

People surmise things and attribute feelings etc. about public figures all the time - and that's especially true in an election situation. If you take time to address every incorrect or false thing that's said about you, or everything observation you disagree with, then you start to let others shape your campaign and control your message. Donald Trump has a tendency to fall into that trap.
________________________________________________

In this case you are talking about the first female President being intimidated by a man.

IMO, this is something I would take a minute to clarify.

 

[VRBeauty]

r you shrug it off and go on.

People surmise things and attribute feelings etc. about public figures all the time - and that's especially true in an election situation. If you take time to address every incorrect or false thing that's said about you, or everything observation you disagree with, then you start to let others shape your campaign and control your message. Donald Trump has a tendency to fall into that trap.
________________________________________________

In this case you are talking about the first female President being intimidated by a man.

IMO, this is something I would take a minute to clarify.

She did speak up - she spoke through her actions.

 

[Matata]

She did speak up - she spoke through her actions.

Which is a subtle and classy form of leadership lost on some.

 

[cmd2014]

I agree. I think she did deal with it when it happened. I also think she knows that actions speak louder than words. She noticed it (per an interview given on her plane immediately after the event), she dealt with it in the moment (by ignoring it and refusing to be intimidated by it), and I think she has taken the view that the footage speaks for itself and conveys all the messages needed about her and DT'S character. Just like she's been relatively silent about many of the other issues. She doesn't have to say it because it's obvious to anyone watching.

OTOH, the papers need to talk about it because 1) not eveyone saw the debate, and 2) many who did might not be well versed enough in gender politics to get it.

 

[AGBF]

I have found it interesting that some women here have been hyper-aware of Trump looming over Hillary Clinton while others have been so sure that he did not that they chalk the charges of "looming" up to a media conspiracy. (By the way, as one of the people who felt the looming, I have never felt that Trump engaged in the behavior consciously. I felt that he was anxious and wanted to gain control, and did what came naturally to him.)

I wonder if it is our cultural and social backgrounds that make us perceive the situation so differently. I am assuming that we are all approaching this matter with good will.

Deb/AGBF

My dear friend (and you know I mean that sincerely Deb), am I to surmise that you do not actually believe journalists/the MSM ever spin stories/are guilty of propaganda? I hope I am misinterpreting what you said here, and that you do not believe that.

Why, one only need look as far as Wikipedia (which I hardly embrace as a seriously reliable source of all truth, but is sure to be accepted by the majority on this board) to find a lengthy list of propaganda terms/techniques, almost all of which I do believe most will quite readily be able to relate to, as we are subjected to these techniques on a constant basis by all MSM outlets.

Do you disagree?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques

Dear Ellen-

Before I look up these propaganda techniques and research your posting (which you know I will do since I love and respect you), I have to say that I have been puzzled for a several days by the acronym: MSM. What on earth does it stand for? You must know by now that I am hopelessly old-fashioned and rely on books; print sources; and only serious on-line sources that also have print equivalents. I do not text or use Facebook and I do not know what things like "memes" are unless I learn their meaning here on Pricescope. So, please, do not try to confuse me. I will, now, research your posting. If my daughter interrupts, I will do so tomorrow.

Hugs as alwyas,
Deb

 

[VRBeauty]

Dear Deb:

Mainstream media.

 

[AGBF]

Ellen-

That Wikipedia site is just a list (a mish mash of psychological terms; grammatical terms; advertising jargon; and the kitchen sink) of ways to influence people's thinking. Every time anyone writes anything he is attempting to influence someone's thinking. I do not believe there is such a thing as total objectivity in writing. There may be people who believe that they are capable of objectivity or people who strive for objectivity, but I do not believe that there are any people who achieve objectivity.

On the other hand, not everyone tries deliberately to persuade people to believe something which he knows is not the truth. In my opinion propaganda would lie in this realm. It is one thing for a newspaper, magazine, or journal to have a bias; it is another for it deliberately to report a falsehood. In the case of the reporting of the story of Donald Trump being perceived as looming over Hillary Clinton, I find it hard to see how there could be "propaganda" by multiple newspapers. That would entail several newspapers colluding (when usually they compete) to tell a story they knew to be untrue. I, frankly, see no reason why the newspaper in which I read the story ("The New York Times") would bother to tell an untrue story like that. And, of course, the fact that I perceived Donald Trump as looming bolsters my point of view!

Now do I feel that "The New York Times" is objective? Of course not! No newspaper is. And some are less so than others, because (if you go back to my opening paragraph) some writers attempt to be objective, even though they cannot be. And I believe that writers at "The New York Times" try to be objective. However, given the qualities for which they are hired and the culture of the newspaper for which they work, they cannot be objective. In my opinion of course.I am also sure that some newspapers exist only to persuade people to hold certain points of view, without regard to the truth. Those newspapers would not be newspapers staffed with true journalists, however, since true, professional journalists abide by a code of ethics. I am sure that a newspaper put out by a white supremacy group in Idaho would not have a graduate of The Columbia School of Journalism on its staff, however, and its purpose might be more to persuade than to inform.

Deb

 

[LLJsmom]

From a tax accountant:

WHAT THE HECK IS HE TALKING ABOUT??!

"Her friends are taking big deductions on contributions to her." And he mentions Warren Buffet.

OMG. That is just the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Political contributions are NOT deductible. And Warren Buffet would have the biggest firms preparing his returns, and they would never take a deduction on political contributions.

And why is he talking about carried interest? OMG. That applies to such a tiny little group. OMG.

He never answers a question. Keeps talking about knowing her friends. OMG. He is just not showing any intelligence.

And again doesn't answer the question. What is he going to do about the humanitarian crisis in Syria?

I appreciated your expertise here, LLJsmom, because I had been unable to follow the talk about deductions on political contributions (had no idea whether they were deductible) and didn't even know what carried interest was (still don't).

I wanted to add to the thread, since you had brought in Trump's allusion to Warren Buffett, that he released his tax returns in response to Trump's allegations. It is not true that he took massive deductions as Trump alleged. I am providing a link to an article in "The New York Times" that shows what taxes he paid and how mush he gave to charity.

In 2015 he paid $1,845,557 in federal taxes. The charitable contributions that Mr. Buffett did deduct from his income make up just a tiny portion of the more than $2.85 billion he donated to charity last year, he said.

Link...http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/business/buffett-calls-trumps-bluff-and-releases-his-tax-return.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Deb/AGBF

Deb, It's a nerdy topic but at least I can understand it. I actually have no problem with people getting a deduction for losses as long as those are legitimate losses. It makes sense to me that losses should be allowed to be carried forward because the loss actually occurred. I am giving xxx the benefit of the doubt that his losses were legitimate. What makes me angry is that he is accusing people of untrue things. How dare he accuse Warren Buffet of taking deductions for political contributions. Anyone who has their taxes prepared by big name accounting firms wouldn't do that because the big firms would never allow that. And anyone who has any business sense would know that. So either xxx does know that and is just being belligerent and falsely accusing a completely innocent unrelated individual of wrong doing, and hoping that the rest of America is ignorant, or xxx is a complete idiot and does not know this rule, which he should know because I am sure that he has contributed to political interests and probably expected a deduction for it. I read the article you linked and Warren Buffet just disproved everything xxx said and proved how shady xxx is being for not releasing his taxes and how bogus his "being under audit" excuse is. What a loser. I do believe that if xxx is elected President, taxes may go down. But I'd rather pay more taxes than have that xxx as a President. The taxes I would save would not be worth it.

 

[AGBF]

From a tax accountant:

WHAT THE HECK IS HE TALKING ABOUT??!

"Her friends are taking big deductions on contributions to her." And he mentions Warren Buffet.

OMG. That is just the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Political contributions are NOT deductible. And Warren Buffet would have the biggest firms preparing his returns, and they would never take a deduction on political contributions.

And why is he talking about carried interest? OMG. That applies to such a tiny little group. OMG.

He never answers a question. Keeps talking about knowing her friends. OMG. He is just not showing any intelligence.

And again doesn't answer the question. What is he going to do about the humanitarian crisis in Syria?

I appreciated your expertise here, LLJsmom, because I had been unable to follow the talk about deductions on political contributions (had no idea whether they were deductible) and didn't even know what carried interest was (still don't).

I wanted to add to the thread, since you had brought in Trump's allusion to Warren Buffett, that he released his tax returns in response to Trump's allegations. It is not true that he took massive deductions as Trump alleged. I am providing a link to an article in "The New York Times" that shows what taxes he paid and how mush he gave to charity.

In 2015 he paid $1,845,557 in federal taxes. The charitable contributions that Mr. Buffett did deduct from his income make up just a tiny portion of the more than $2.85 billion he donated to charity last year, he said.

Link...http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/business/buffett-calls-trumps-bluff-and-releases-his-tax-return.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Deb/AGBF

Deb, It's a nerdy topic but at least I can understand it. I actually have no problem with people getting a deduction for losses as long as those are legitimate losses. It makes sense to me that losses should be allowed to be carried forward because the loss actually occurred. I am giving xxx the benefit of the doubt that his losses were legitimate. What makes me angry is that he is accusing people of untrue things. How dare he accuse Warren Buffet of taking deductions for political contributions. Anyone who has their taxes prepared by big name accounting firms wouldn't do that because the big firms would never allow that. And anyone who has any business sense would know that. So either xxx does know that and is just being belligerent and falsely accusing a completely innocent unrelated individual of wrong doing, and hoping that the rest of America is ignorant, or xxx is a complete idiot and does not know this rule, which he should know because I am sure that he has contributed to political interests and probably expected a deduction for it. I read the article you linked and Warren Buffet just disproved everything xxx said and proved how shady xxx is being for not releasing his taxes and how bogus his "being under audit" excuse is. What a loser. I do believe that if xxx is elected President, taxes may go down. But I'd rather pay more taxes than have that xxx as a President. The taxes I would save would not be worth it.

As I said above, I very much appreciate having had the benefit of your expertise in this thread, LLJsmom. I do not know if specialists like you know how much more than some of us you know. Things you may take for granted are rocket science to some of the rest of us. (To me taxes are totally incomprehensible.)

It was truly wonderful to have you contributing to this thread. It enriched it and gave it an entirely new dimension. We were not just babbling at each other about the same things as usual.

Deb

 

[caf]

On her plane, after the debate, when asked by reporters - she commented on him standing behind her. She said, me paraphrasing,that she felt him there but just went on talking to the townhall participants. She was pretty matter of fact about it. I thought she also decided to let his actions speak for themselves. My take.

 

[redwood66]

I am sure that a newspaper put out by a white supremacy group in Idaho would not have a graduate of The Columbia School of Journalism on its staff, however, and its purpose might be more to persuade than to inform.

Deb

Ugh it pains me that people will never get past Richard Butler. He is dead. The Aryan Nation is now in Pennsylvania and New York. We don't put up with that crap here and have worked hard to rid our beautiful state of this perpetuation. Please pass this along to the rest of the nation.

ETA - I don't relate the entire state of Kansas to the Westboro Baptist Church.

 

[Ellen]

Ellen-

That Wikipedia site is just a list (a mish mash of psychological terms; grammatical terms; advertising jargon; and the kitchen sink) of ways to influence people's thinking. Every time anyone writes anything he is attempting to influence someone's thinking. I do not believe there is such a thing as total objectivity in writing. There may be people who believe that they are capable of objectivity or people who strive for objectivity, but I do not believe that there are any people who achieve objectivity.

On the other hand, not everyone tries deliberately to persuade people to believe something which he knows is not the truth. In my opinion propaganda would lie in this realm. It is one thing for a newspaper, magazine, or journal to have a bias; it is another for it deliberately to report a falsehood. In the case of the reporting of the story of Donald Trump being perceived as looming over Hillary Clinton, I find it hard to see how there could be "propaganda" by multiple newspapers. That would entail several newspapers colluding (when usually they compete) to tell a story they knew to be untrue. I, frankly, see no reason why the newspaper in which I read the story ("The New York Times") would bother to tell an untrue story like that. And, of course, the fact that I perceived Donald Trump as looming bolsters my point of view!

Now do I feel that "The New York Times" is objective? Of course not! No newspaper is. And some are less so than others, because (if you go back to my opening paragraph) some writers attempt to be objective, even though they cannot be. And I believe that writers at "The New York Times" try to be objective. However, given the qualities for which they are hired and the culture of the newspaper for which they work, they cannot be objective. In my opinion of course.I am also sure that some newspapers exist only to persuade people to hold certain points of view, without regard to the truth. Those newspapers would not be newspapers staffed with true journalists, however, since true, professional journalists abide by a code of ethics. I am sure that a newspaper put out by a white supremacy group in Idaho would not have a graduate of The Columbia School of Journalism on its staff, however, and its purpose might be more to persuade than to inform.

Deb

My dear friend, do you know that most media outlets (not just newspapers, but broadcast, cable television, film, radio, newspaper, magazine, book publishing, music, video games, and various on line entities ) are basically owned by about 6 corporations? There is something to reasearch!

 

[AGBF]

I am sure that a newspaper put out by a white supremacy group in Idaho would not have a graduate of The Columbia School of Journalism on its staff, however, and its purpose might be more to persuade than to inform.

Ugh it pains me that people will never get past Richard Butler. He is dead. The Aryan Nation is now in Pennsylvania and New York. We don't put up with that crap here and have worked hard to rid our beautiful state of this perpetuation. Please pass this along to the rest of the nation.

Like the Muslim woman Donald Trump spoke with at the second presidential debate (he approached her with the message that Muslims must communicate about terrorists in their midst), I am not sure I can inform the rest of the nation about Idaho, redwood. I am not really in touch with everyone who has the ideas you dislike.

I am gratified that you bothered to read my rather lengthy and pedagogical posting , however. (Although perhaps you skimmed the boring, repetitive parts. I don't claim it was well-written.) I enjoy returning here and seeing a comment, no matter how much it differs with mine, that shows that someone has bothered to read and comprehend what I wrote. I appreciate your intellect.

Deb

 

[redwood66]

I am sure that a newspaper put out by a white supremacy group in Idaho would not have a graduate of The Columbia School of Journalism on its staff, however, and its purpose might be more to persuade than to inform.

Ugh it pains me that people will never get past Richard Butler. He is dead. The Aryan Nation is now in Pennsylvania and New York. We don't put up with that crap here and have worked hard to rid our beautiful state of this perpetuation. Please pass this along to the rest of the nation.

Like the Muslim woman Donald Trump spoke with at the second presidential debate (he approached her with the message that Muslims must communicate about terrorists in their midst), I am not sure I can inform the rest of the nation about Idaho, redwood. I am not really in touch with everyone who has the ideas you dislike.

I am gratified that you bothered to read my rather lengthy and pedagogical posting , however. (Although perhaps you skimmed the boring, repetitive parts. I don't claim it was well-written.) I enjoy returning here and seeing a comment, no matter how much it differs with mine, that shows that someone has bothered to read and comprehend what I wrote. I appreciate your intellect.

Deb

Well I did not make myself very clear and must have appeared rude though it was not meant to be.

First - I did not want to intrude on your discussion with Ellen. Though my views about media are similar to hers. I normally type your name if I am talking to you.

Second - My comment was not directed at you but for everyone. This stereotype of Idaho is incorrect and I wanted to pass that along.

Third - I am nothing like Trump and even you should know that.