Debate prep


You, the viewer, need a few things to be ready.

You did order your manual in advance, right?

dynamoe

dynamoe

Got your bingo card?

Your bucket?

barfbuddy

Anesthetics?

alcohol-on-shelves

Man, this is the day I wish I owned a liquor store.

Comments

  1. slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) says

    [liquor store mention inspired this:] Using that BINGO card as drinking game cues would be ~upsetting. Keep it to check marks as BINGO.
    PZ’s earlier tweeted (rhetorical)question about filling in the entire BINGO card made me think there should be a special BINGO^2 [ie: bingo squared] prize for filling in the entire grid fully.
    I bet it will happen. Given how Drumph repeats repeats repeats, louder and louder, with each a different set of emphasized syllables.

  2. davidnangle says

    Remember a Nerf weapon with lots of ammunition. Televisions are expensive, and it might be difficult to resist throwing things at them.

  3. says

    WaPo editorial – “It’s beyond debate that Donald Trump is unfit to be president”:

    DEMOCRAT HILLARY CLINTON and Republican Donald Trump will debate on national television for the first time Monday night, and the stakes could not be higher. The presidency and, by extension, the country’s future — maybe the world’s — could hinge on what they say and how they say it.

    Or so we have been told — in breathless pre-event speculation about everything from whether the moderator, NBC’s Lester Holt, will intervene to correct a candidate who strays from the truth, to whether one candidate or the other will be able to goad his or her opponent into a campaign-altering gaffe before an audience expected to reach 100 million.

    Permit us to dissent from this conventional wisdom, vigorously. Yes, Monday night’s clash, and two additional debates to follow, will add drama to the election, and a bit more data to the massive pile of it already available to voters. In a fundamental sense, however, there is nothing much at stake, or shouldn’t be, because there is not much more to learn: Mr. Trump has amply demonstrated his unworthiness to occupy the Oval Office. It’s beyond his capacity in the upcoming 90-minute question-and-answer sessions to reverse or even substantially modify that conclusion.

    Suppose Mr. Trump keeps a cool head, conducts a respectful discussion with Ms. Clinton and Mr. Holt and even manages to avoid saying anything inflammatory or blatantly false. In other words, suppose he manages to conduct himself “presidentially” for an hour and a half. That could not undo the many, many instances, over more than a year — longer if you start with the launch of his “birther” campaign in 2011 — in which he has insulted, acted out, lied and countenanced violence beyond even some of the most rough-and-tumble precedents of modern American politics. Suppose, further, that he were to soften or even repudiate some of his most odious policy pronouncements; that, say, he opposes rather than supports the aggressive torture of terrorism suspects. That would be a backhanded form of progress, to be sure. But voters would still be left guessing as to which of his inconsistent statements they could trust.

    In short, the challenge for Monday’s audience is to avoid the trap of thinking of this debate as yet another opportunity for “the real Trump” — or even a “new Trump” — to emerge, either stylistically or substantively. It’s way too late for that….

  4. robro says

    Just like the upcoming MLB playoffs, I’ll not be watching. I’m sure I’ll hear enough about it tomorrow. I’m also sure someone will be declared the “winner” although there is no format for determining a winner other than the whimsy of the media. I’m confident that Clinton will need to do amazingly well to be judged the winner, whereas #TheConMan will be held to a lower standard. I will attribute it to her strong character that she doesn’t smack him for attempting to embarrass her by “not inviting” Jennifer Flowers.

    I see the bingo card left off emails. I would be surprised if this doesn’t come up because her emails haven’t been reported on, pundited about, and investigated to death enough. To extrapolate from Gertrude Stein, if there’s no there there, why go there. But I guess Republicans and TV news mavens love their hobbyhorses and you will be forced to hear Clinton address this “serious” concern yet again.

  5. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    The Redhead is prepping for the debate by finding alternative programming so she won’t upset her dinner.

  6. slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) says

    Oliver did a stellar pre-debate preparation last night. Minutely detailing all the scandals Clinton has been involved in, noting there are yukky aspects, no denying it. She is not spotless, BUT… ,shield your eyes when looking in Drumph direction.
    The yukkiness of Drumph is overwhelming, where ‘yuck’ is flipped into “the nicest thing to say about him”.
    I really hope that all the training she’s been undertaking, with psychologists (*wink*), gives her a good presence onstage tonite.[sic]
    Presence decides debates more than verbal interaction etc. (ie. how Dick lost to JFK)

  7. quotetheunquote says

    Latest poll numbers (whatever they mean) are not good – just not good at all. I’m reminded very strongly of Rob Ford’s election as mayor of Toronto (we didn’t think that was possible either). Only this is, or course, much, much worse… at least the City of Toronto doesn’t have a budget for ICBMs.

    I won’t watch… I couldn’t stand it.

  8. microraptor says

    I got The Hunt on Blue Ray a few weeks ago. I think I’ll watch that instead the debate. I’m more likely to learn something and, his aquatic ape nonsense notwithstanding, Sir David Attenborough’s voice doesn’t make me want to hurl or throw things at the TV.

  9. jamiejag says

    I don’t get that AD&D manual mockup… trump is [a] Pegasus battling a dragon representing Nazis, the NRA, racism, bigotry and Obama haters? I don’t think so. Those positions are all proudly supported by him and his basket cases.

  10. Howard Bannister says

    @jamiejag

    Nononono. They aren’t doing battle.

    Those are his fellow travelers. All flying in the same direction as him. All under the same flag.

  11. jamiejag says

    @Howard Bannister

    Doesn’t look like that to me. Maybe if they were all wearing the same drumpf hats and sporting the same rump stickers…

    No. That picture is definitely showing two opposing factions fighting against, not with.

  12. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    jamiejag#11

    No. That picture is definitely showing two opposing factions fighting against, not with.

    I see the alt-right dragon flying in lockstep with the Trump supporters, ergo the dragon is part of the monsters/trolls.
    I don’t see any democrats or democratic themes in the picture, so there is no fighting.

  13. jamiejag says

    @Nerd of Redhead#12

    I’m pretty sure the pegasus getting a snootful of dragonfire would disagree with you.

    I’m assuming the intention was to depict what you’re all saying. What I’m saying is that it fails miserably to communicate that message. I’m pretty sure that the monster manual does not put pegasi and red dragons on the same team.

  14. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I’m pretty sure the pegasus getting a snootful of dragonfire would disagree with you.

    Let’s see, the dragon, while belching sideways, also belches down below the pegasus next to it, and the pegasus lower right to the one with Trump sticker is further away from the dragon, to the right of one with Trump sticker. That might be hard to discern due to perspective. It is not in the line of fire.

  15. Rich Woods says

    Anesthetics?

    And you had to show a picture from a Scottish off-licence. Still, at least there’s a vague connection with Trump getting it wrong when he turned up on his golf course the day after the EU referendum and praised Scotland for voting to leave. He didn’t make many friends that day.

  16. rietpluim says

    @Salty Current #3

    Suppose Mr. Trump keeps a cool head, conducts a respectful discussion with Ms. Clinton and Mr. Holt and even manages to avoid saying anything inflammatory or blatantly false. In other words, suppose he manages to conduct himself “presidentially” for an hour and a half. That could not undo the many, many instances, over more than a year — longer if you start with the launch of his “birther” campaign in 2011 — in which he has insulted, acted out, lied and countenanced violence beyond even some of the most rough-and-tumble precedents of modern American politics. Suppose, further, that he were to soften or even repudiate some of his most odious policy pronouncements; that, say, he opposes rather than supports the aggressive torture of terrorism suspects. That would be a backhanded form of progress, to be sure. But voters would still be left guessing as to which of his inconsistent statements they could trust.

    Sorry but I don’t think it works that way. Many people have a very selective memory, and some people on the fence only need one excuse to think “See? He can be presidential” and then vote for him.

  17. Siobhan says

    I thought it was more or less established that the alarmingly high support base Trump has are exactly the sorts of people who would be persuaded by performance rather than policy. So, yeah, I think rietplum has a point.

  18. ebotebo says

    I may well have to consume the last couple of drams of the Laphroaig I got for X-mas of ’14 and to see if I’m able to scratch up a little bit of Ganja to make the evening enjoyable if I do decide to watch that evil prick lie some more.

  19. rpjohnston says

    I have yet to find a good definitive source for Benghazi and I can’t figure out how to google it without getting breitbart and even wackier sites. Since Benghazi still won’t die I’d like to know, does anyone know somewhere I can get the full (or at least abridged but accurate) story?

  20. jamiejag says

    @Nerd of Redhead#15

    Yeah? No. You’re completely making that up.

    Imagine (or look up) the original cover without the supposedly stinging embellishments. It’s obviously a picture of a dragon battling a flock (herd? whatever) of pegasi. If you’re implying now that they’re working together you’re going to have to come up with a better explanation than “due to perspective.”

  21. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Imagine (or look up) the original cover without the supposedly stinging embellishments. It’s obviously a picture of a dragon battling a flock (herd? whatever) of pegasi. If you’re implying now that they’re working together you’re going to have to come up with a better explanation than “due to perspective.”

    I’m waiting for your conclusive evidence to support your claim.
    By the way, the Redhead’s degree is in art education, and I have read some of her books, and know how perspective is done. The problem is that the artist wanted a full white pegasus to our lower right of the Trump pegasus (meaning toward the observer and away from the dragon), and crowded the perspective, allowing for the possible interpretation of that pegusus being closer to the dragon, which is your interpretation. Not atypical of such covers, as they aren’t full paintings with sufficient space to avoid misinterpretation.

  22. Anri says

    Matrim @ 23:

    I think you’re over analyzing the image a bit.

    Not really.
    Per that edition of the Monster Manual, (I just checked to make sure I was right) Pegasi are chaotic good, Red Dragons are chaotic evil. “Of all evil dragons, this sort is the worst, save for Tiamat herself.”
    They are natural enemies (to the extent that heavily magical creatures can be said to be natural *anything*) , and they’re fighting.

    The MM cover art is far from terrific, but the reworking of it really doesn’t make any sense, given what’s being portrayed.

  23. says

    I just said on the other thread:

    Trump’s already told multiple lies (the usual) in his first answers. He’s also behaving strangely towards Clinton and sniffing a lot.

    …Already it’s just blather, and it’s just getting started.

  24. wzrd1 says

    I successfully evaded the whole thing.
    Anesthetics, hydrocodone (I was out running medical appointments throughout the morning) and I work night shift.
    So, a few early afternoon drinks, a pain tablet when the spasms started, then it was off to bed.

    Somehow, I doubt that I missed much that wouldn’t have been good fertilizer once composted. After all, Trump was speaking for part of the time.

  25. slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) says

    I printed LSSC (Late Show Steven Colbert) BINGO card, thinking it was the same as the OP, but sadly mistaken. It was more jokes that jabs.
    Reviewing the OP’s I see a possible few check marks. Did anybody actually play TrumpLiesBINGO? Did any get a full line checked off?
    Your dollar is waiting *hint* *hint*.

    Interesting “drinking game” would have been a swig each time Trump ‘heckled’ during Clinton’s, and even Holt’s, time to speak.
    Would have led to full intoxication. oops.
    – maybe swig for each lie he spoke… even worse. woopze.

  26. deannajoylyons says

    I delivered pizza Monday night, and we were surprisingly slammed. For about 90 minutes. I guess some people still had appetites.