Not a new thing. He's even in the Wikipedia article for apophasis:

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

This isn't strategy or lack of it. Trump is just a passive aggressive idiot, just thinking out loud about how he's sad and is justified to graduate from passive aggression to full on tantrum. He's not mulling the strategic implications, he's just on tilt.

She'll take a few subtle jabs at his marriages and affairs if he brings it up. Just enough to put him on tilt and gg debate 2.

Sent from my LG-K430 using Tapatalk

Not as confident as some of you. I agree Clinton isn't going to curl up in the fetal position and hide under the podium at Trump saying Bill is a rapist and she's his enabler like the childish fantasies of a Breitbart commenter. But in the glow of Trump clowning it up in the first debate I think we forget some of her retorts were tepid or needlessly removed her own agency.

So a bunch of times in the first debate Trump lies about this and that and Clinton starts referring people to her fact-checking team. You can see scenarios where Clinton is coached to be emotive but not too strident ('don't be bitchy!') with some retorts about how it was painful time in her life and she really grew in strength and faith or something. Then Trump goes back to it and she gets repetitive on the same line and starts making it sound like the whole thing was like a really good yoga class or something like that. At some point if Trump is really going HAM on this, the common sense response is to stand up for yourself and call him a philandering misogynist turd with no moral ground to comment on her marriage or her actions. Not clear if she's being coached up to always go high even if he goes low ala her consistent push to fact-checkers rather than to just say Trump is a clueless liar herself. I think she gets one go at the "it was a painful time, everyone here has struggled or known someone here who struggled in their marriage, I thought and I prayed and reflected deeply and made the best decisions for my family" or whatever the stock emotive, empathy building answer is. After that if Trump is still going back to the well on it, she has to refer back to her empathetic answer ("I've already said it was a very painful time for our family....") but then jab him where you fill in the standard attacks on Trump ("...but I just must say Donald, it's really ironic coming from you, considering <X, Y, Z>")

Yeah, I thought her referring people to her fact check site multiple times last debate was a bad look. Makes it look like she can't fact check him at all on the spot.

I think she shouldn't go low in response to trumps attacks next debate. I think she needs to own up to doing bad things in the past and lying to the public. I think she can turn some people if she admits she has done the American people wrong and that moving forward people can trust her(I think she would be lying, but some people might believe her)

Trumps really hurting himself by not doing that same thing. Owning up to mistakes and just trying to move on from them.(I don't think he is capable of adjusting that... Cause he thinks he has not been wrong ever)

drip

drip

Watching Trump in Manheim. He just freestyles his tweets and channels Granpa Simpson. Can't imagine there's a single cogent paragraph in any of it. Crowd is lapping it up though.

I learned that Hillary's probably not faithful to her husband ("I mean why would she be, hur, hur, hur") and that most inner cities are worse than warzones. He's extremely upset about his mic (pretty sure it was a conspiracy) and is desperate for people to oversee the local democratic process to look out for "you know what".

Rest of it is run of the mill wall building, crooked Hillary, huge tax deduction and a series of massive public works projects undertaken with the help of Pennsylvanian steel.

Best catchphrase:

"American hands will rebuild this nation and American energy will power it."

If he stuck to that I reckon he'd be onto a winner, but he doesn't, can't and won't.

Sure, I was being facetious. I imagine all of Trump's advisors were begging him not to bring up Bill, but Trump is ever just mashing buttons.

Hillary is probably going to have a canned response that's delivered poorly (remember her "Trumped-up trickle-down" zinger that bombed?), but this is like a hanging fastball right over the plate for her. As long as she doesn't follow Trump into the gutter with a crack about his exes, it's going to be easy for any pro to slap this one deep into left field. Plus, she'd had the whole weekend to rehearse.

He got embarrassed by a strong powerful women, his ego wont let him do that.

The anti-bill line will work for Trump's traditional voter base but I'm not convinced it will convince educated republicans and women to vote for him.

He got distracted/forgot or is saving it. The later seems to require more self-discipline than seems plausible.

I had the article yesterday but can't find it today but going after Bill's infidelities has already been tried. In Hillary's Senate race her opponent said Bill's infidelities was a national embarrassment and Hillary was involved in them. It spectacularly backfired with the focus groups showing it reversed of all the negative polling of Hillary with Democrat AND Republican women and some even saying she deserved the Senate seat as karma for putting up with Bill's dalliances.

I just don't get going after that when Trump himself technically cheated on his first wife. If pressed on that though he'll say but I wasn't running for President or for political office back then blah blah blah. Trump is the creepy old man buying drinks at the bar for any and every girl he can get his eyes on, think that gives him a right to put his hands on said girl then get offended when she won't go home with him. **** that guy.

He's just trying to embarrass her. If pressed he's just going to try to humiliate her some more. That's the whole strategy: if I embarrass her, she looks weak, I look strong, I win.

"Trolly has spent too much time in Washington, he's out of touch with American sports! Fast balls don't hang, and I have the best curveballs, everyone knows this."

Pretty spot-on debate parody by SNL.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nQGBZQrtT0

Yeah, I thought the SNL debate was great. Even had the Willy Wonka acrobatics that I think someone on 2+2 suggested a while ago.

I enjoyed Baldwin's Trump.

Here ya go

So annoying they block those to non-US people. Makes no sense. We get SNL.

Agree.

Sent from my LG-K430 using Tapatalk

Kate McKinnon is a treasure.

This goes to show how hard it is to write non-sense dialogue. Baldwin's dialogue was much more coherent than Trump's.

^^ Can I just point out that SNL totally stole my bit? Stop stealing my goofs, SNL!

Sorry for the slow response, I took the weekend off :P

I couldn't find a single page that I liked on this, but maybe a good place to start is with the psychological extension of the concept of naïve realism, the "human tendency to believe that we see the world around us objectively, and that people who disagree with us must be uninformed, irrational, or biased." Wiki provides some links to empirical evidence for this theory in social psychology, and I think it provides a meaningful way of understanding some of the data related to discrimination.

For example, why do whites and blacks have such different perceptions of police performance, or why is there such a large difference in perceptions about gender discrimination between men and women, or even between women who believe they have experienced discrimination and those who haven't? I think the most common conservative explanation for this sort of data is to assert that it's ideological: i.e that blacks believe in discrimination because of liberal bias, and women because of feminist bias. This speaks somewhat to the hypothesis of naive realism, i.e the tendency to attribute differences in perception to irrationality or bias, but there is also evidence against the ideological hypothesis, for example from this paper that investigates why less than 5% of discrimination lawsuits succeed:

The author's (2) connects back to the concept of naive realism, although (1) is also certainly important.

So that's an explanation from social psychology. Within sociology itself, feminist scholars developed their own theories related to differences in knowledge about structured inequalities, and how those differences are important to the social process of knowledge-creation, which are called Standpoint Theories, and they are also very interesting. But I think the explanation from social psychology might be easier to digest.