2020年9月29日 星期二

Cancel the Rest of the Debates

Chris Matthews at the presidential debate in Cleveland on Tuesday. Olivier Douliery-Pool/Getty Images

Donald Trump and Joe Biden met for their first presidential debate on Tuesday night. If you didn’t watch it, you could try to catch up by reading a transcript, but you’d be no more enlightened about what transpired at the end than you were at the beginning. The two hours were by turns unintelligible, crazy-making, and mind-numbingly dull. When the two candidates weren’t talking over each other and the moderator, Fox News’ Chris Wallace, they were disagreeing on basic facts or repeating things they’ve already said. Trump spent two hours lying, interrupting, being racist, and making snide asides. No surprises there.

The American public gained nothing from this degrading spectacle, which resembled a trashy shock-jock program more than a debate about policy and public service. There is no way to deliver anything remotely approaching an edifying debate with an incumbent like this. The remaining debates should be canceled.

Some may see value in a president used to being surrounded by sycophants being challenged for once. It’s true that Wallace occasionally corrected Trump’s lies and Biden repeatedly called him a liar. Wallace asked Trump, as forcefully as he could, to stick to the debate rules and stop yelling over Biden. Nevertheless, he persisted. The result was a cacophony of misinformation and men screaming at one another. I suppose that’s a fitting vibe for a Fox-hosted debate, but it’s awfully hard to absorb any of what’s being said with one’s vision clouded by adrenaline and a racing pulse throbbing in one’s ears.

Luckily, with the exception of a few uninterrupted moments of Biden explaining his climate plan, there was almost nothing of substance to glean from the event. There were virtually no agreed-upon facts from which to build policy solutions: Biden said violent crime has increased during the Trump administration; Trump said it’s gone down. Trump said nearly every governor has praised his COVID-19 response; Biden said they haven’t. Every time Biden spoke, Trump interjected with something insulting. Every time Trump spoke, Biden was forced to mutter, over and over again, “That’s not true.” When Biden attempted to explain his health care plan, Trump lured him off track, leading Biden to waste his time bragging about beating Bernie Sanders “by a lot.” People who actually care about the matter of governing a country learned little about how each candidate would do so. The debate ran on empty posturing. It was all for show.

There is no reason to expect a better result from the next two debates. No matter how stringent the rules or vigorous the moderators, these contests will always take place on the terms of the worst person on the stage. Trump’s verbal abuse steered the debate away from American lives and toward personal accusations. His aggressive machismo triggered Biden’s, leading the former vice president to repeatedly refer to Trump as “man,” as in “Will you shut up, man?” and “Keep yapping, man”—a resurrection of language from male-only spaces that feels like a solid step back on the road to progress in American politics.

The malicious stupidity of the Trump administration has poisoned the meat of these debates, too. Because the president has refused to publicly accept the basic science of the novel coronavirus, precious minutes were wasted debating the utility of facemasks. Even worse, the president’s taunting tenor and unwillingness to follow the most basic rules of the game demeaned everyone onstage, giving them all the gravity of bickering middle-schoolers. At the midpoint of the debate, Wallace and Trump spent several seconds arguing over whether Trump or Biden was interrupting the most. I wish I were joking.

At a moment when this country is teetering on the precipice of a total breakdown, with the economy in tatters, hundreds of thousands dead and dying from a disease the government has barely tried to contain, and democracy in mortal danger, Trump’s pettiness is a gratuitous slap in the face when we’re already getting beat up on the regular. This debate offered free airtime for Trump spew racist digs (he again called the coronavirus the “China plague”), foment distrust in voting systems (“They cheat,” he said of… some people?), and tell lies about what is happening in America today. Even if viewers don’t quite trust him, the lengthy battery of disagreements over matters of established fact may well leave them feeling exhausted, unsure of whether anyone knows the truth, or whether the truth even exists.

If there is someone out there who hasn’t heard enough about these two candidates yet, who isn’t quite sure whether the country would be best served by the current president ruling for another four years or Biden taking the wheel, I don’t know her. Neither do the pollsters, apparently. A CBS News survey that asked viewers which candidate won the debate found 48 percent on Biden’s side and 41 percent on Trump’s—a seven-point split, same as the national polling average before the debate. Approximately 40 percent of the American population cannot be dissuaded from supporting a racist charlatan who’s been credibly accused of sexual assault by more than a dozen women and is responsible for tens of thousands of American deaths. It has already been established, on every possible level, what a terrible president and person we’ve vested with the world’s most powerful position, and tonight’s debate, in which Trump merely repeated the same dog whistles and lies he’s yelled hundreds of times before, added no new information to that pile.

Tonight, Trump was no more or less abusive, no more or less truthful, and no more or less interested in governing than he was in the debates four years ago. The only difference is that now, we’re viewing the calamity from inside Donald Trump’s America, which we can see with our own eyes. What more is there to know?



from Slate Magazine https://ift.tt/30lU6iC
via IFTTT

Asked to Condemn White Supremacy, Trump Stalls and Tells the Proud Boys to “Stand Back and Stand By”

President Donald Trump in the presidential debate against Joe Biden on Tuesday in Cleveland, Ohio. Win McNamee/Getty Images

In a discussion about unrest in Portland, Oregon, in the first presidential debate on Tuesday, moderator Chris Wallace asked President Donald Trump directly whether he would condemn the white supremacists and related far-right groups who have been active there. Rather than jump on an easy opportunity to distance himself from the groups and meet a minimum anti-racism bar—earlier in the debate, Trump suggested racial sensitivity programs promote “reverse” racism—the president danced around the topic. He failed to condemn white supremacy as Biden and Wallace requested.

The exchange is worth reading closely:

Wallace: You have repeatedly criticized the vice president for not specifically calling out antifa and other extremist groups. Are you willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities, as we saw in Kenosha and as we’ve seen in Portland? 

Trump: Sure, I’m willing to do that. But—

Wallace: Are you prepared to specifically—?

Biden: Do it.

Trump: I would say almost everything I see is from the left wing, not from the right wing. 

Wallace: So what are you saying?

Trump: I’m willing to do anything. I want to see peace. 

Wallace: Well then do it, sir. 

Biden: Say it. Do it. Say it.

Trump: You want to call them—what do you want to call them? Give me a name. Give me a name.

Wallace: White supremacists and— 

Trump: Who would you like me to condemn?

Biden: Proud Boys.

Wallace: —and Proud Boys.

Biden: Proud Boys. 

Trump: Proud Boys, stand back and stand by. But I’ll tell you what, I’ll tell you what. Somebody’s got to do something about antifa and the left. Because this is not a right-wing problem. This is a left-wing problem.

For most viewers, the issue with this exchange would be Trump’s feet-dragging over the request to condemn violent white supremacists. But according to New York Times reporter Mike Baker, some of the people Trump was addressing came away with an entirely different understanding of the message, based on his words “stand by.”

“Stand by” may have been an accidental slip by the president. But given that so many of the conspiracy theorists who support Trump are already geared to find hidden messages in his statements, it’s not surprising that the president’s failure to unequivocally condemn white supremacists left room for those same white supremacists to grow even more confident of his support.



from Slate Magazine https://ift.tt/2HHI1xY
via IFTTT

What Twitter’s Smartest Liberals and Conservatives Are Saying About the First Presidential Debate

Subscribe to Continue Reading

You’ve run out of free articles. Join Slate Plus to continue reading, and you’ll get unlimited access to all our work—and support Slate’s independent journalism. You can cancel anytime.

Start Free Trial Now

Already a member? Sign in here.



from Slate Magazine https://ift.tt/349g0qx
via IFTTT

Hypothetically, What Drug Would Turn an Old Man Into a Debate Whiz?

artisteer/iStock/Getty Images Plus

On Sunday, President Donald Trump “strongly demanded” that his Democratic opponent, Joe Biden, be drug tested for Tuesday’s debate. Only drugs could explain why “Sleepy Joe Biden” sometimes wasn’t so sleepy at all, Trump alleged. If it initially sounded like the president may have been referring to another drug that was famously popular in his heyday in 1980s New York, a surrogate, Rudy Giuliani, clarified things on Fox & Friends this morning. He claimed that Biden “has dementia. There’s no doubt about it. I’ve talked to doctors”—and then added: “The president’s quite right to say maybe [Biden]’s taken Adderall.”

There’s no evidence to suggest Biden is actually on any drugs, legal or otherwise. But purely hypothetically: Would Adderall really do what Giuliani (and by implication, President Trump) claim? What kind of miracle drugs does Trump think Biden would need here? Slate spoke to Michael T. Swanoski, a professor at the University of Minnesota’s College of Pharmacy, to get into what is and isn’t scientifically possible. Our conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity.

How would a drug like Adderall affect someone’s debate performances?

Adderall is a stimulant that’s often prescribed for attention deficit disorder. So Adderall potentially could increase your attentiveness if you’re feeling drowsy or if you’re fatigued. But it doesn’t increase cognition per se. It doesn’t improve thinking, but it provides a boost similar to what you’d get from a cup of coffee—a little more pronounced, but not increasing cognition in any way. It wouldn’t have an effect on your acetylcholine, which is the chemical that’s connected with clear thoughts, thinking through a difficult task, and high-level thinking.

What other kind of drugs would take a person from sleepy to wide awake, so to speak?

There’s been a push in marketing nutritional supplements that are touted for improving brain health or memory. They make vague claims of brain enhancer or memory enhancer without really getting too specific, because they’re not allowed to make claims that they can’t back up. But there’ve certainly been cases of students using stimulants to help, maybe if they’ve got a big exam, to make them more alert potentially. People are purchasing these products with the hope that they’ll help them with giving them a competitive edge, perhaps in their job or whatever they need to think about.

Would those show up in a drug test?

Whether a nutritional supplement would show up in the urine is questionable. If you had amphetamine in your urine, that would show up.

Trump seems to be implying that there’s a drug that could magically make someone who was frail and confused into a brilliant debater. Is that possible?

Inherently your talents in debating are not going to suddenly be enhanced because you took a nutritional supplement or you took a prescription stimulant. The best they can do is maybe make you more alert. They’re not going to suddenly increase your intelligence. That’s just not possible.

Trump has been pretty vague, but on Fox News, Rudy Giuliani has gone so far as to say Biden has dementia. There’s a difference between normal cognitive decline and actual dementia, right?

There is a difference. As we age, our mental acuity or intelligence, they’re all still there. Forgetting someone’s name is not unusual, but if you forget where you live or where you’re going, it’s really a more pronounced loss of memory and cognitive function. With normal aging, there’s occasional short-term memory lapses here and there, but it’s not profound enough to really impact us. You look at like someone like Judge [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg, who was almost 90 years old. She was highly intellectual and exercised her brain, and maybe she had some symptoms of forgetting where she put her keys, but her high level of cognition was still intact. Not everybody who ages gets dementia.

Giuliani also said “the president’s quite right to say maybe [Biden has] taken Adderall,” implying it would be a treatment for his supposed “sleepiness.”

Dementia is not lack of energy; there’s damage going on in the brain. There’s neural damage that occurs that then impairs the function of these neural transmitters, these chemicals like acetylcholine, which is this chemical that’s really responsible in large part for our normal cognitive function. And so someone with dementia would not be treated with amphetamines to get them more alert. It wouldn’t increase their brain acuity at all. It would make them jittery, more confused, really, because they wouldn’t be able to think clearly. Drugs for dementia are primarily aimed at increasing levels of acetylcholine, like Donepezil, which is used for Alzheimer’s dementia.

So just to be clear, you’re saying that Adderall is not a treatment for dementia?

You are correct.



from Slate Magazine https://ift.tt/3jgBQij
via IFTTT

Drawing Districts

Listen & Subscribe

Choose your preferred player:

Get Your Slate Plus Feed

Episode Notes

On the Gist, using poker logic to analogize the upcoming presidential debates with Annie Duke. She is a former professional poker player, cognitive scientist and author of the forthcoming How to Decide: Simple Tools for Making Better Choices.

In the interview, Mike passes the baton to Annie Duke once more to dig into gerrymandering. Duke talks with Moon Duchin, a mathematician and professor at Tufts University, about her research into understanding how voting districts work. Through redistricting analysis at the Metric Geometry and Gerrymandering Group, an organization Duchin co-founded, she describes how in this democracy, fairness isn’t always as easy to find when you’re considering where people live and vote.

In the spiel, messing up several thousand absentee ballots was inevitable.

Email us at thegist@slate.com

Podcast production by Margaret Kelley and Jamila Bey.



from Slate Magazine https://ift.tt/30hWBCP
via IFTTT

NASA Centers Can't Be Bothered To Mention The Economic Report



from NASA Watch https://ift.tt/36hYiUA
via IFTTT

It’s Debate Time! What Are the Candidates Trying to Accomplish?

The stage in Cleveland where Tuesday’s debate will be held. Eric Baradat/AFP via Getty Images

The first presidential debate is Tuesday night in Cleveland, at 9 p.m. Eastern! We already know what the biggest takeaway from the evening will be: “Thank God, this means the election itself can’t be far off.” But there will also be other things to learn from it, as well. Below, the six biggest questions going in about the candidates’ strategies, ranked in completely subjective order of importance. Why six, and not five or ten? Because that’s how many I thought of this morning! Onward:

6. Will Trump self-destruct over the issue of his taxes? Moderator Chris Wallace is definitely going to ask Trump about the New York Times having obtained years of his tax returns, and about how they reported that he apparently cheats on his income taxes and has taken out a number of enormous loans that he has no obvious way to pay off. Wallace will enjoy doing this because, despite being an ideological conservative and Fox News host, he thinks Donald Trump is full of crap. As we will discuss more below, the idea that Donald Trump is a successful real-estate developer and master of economics is one that is very dearly held even by some voters who otherwise don’t like him, so this is in theory a line of questioning Trump should be able to deflect. But he really hates the New York Times and Chris Wallace, so it’s possible that he goes nuts and starts demonstrating all the things about himself that those voters don’t like—crudeness, impulsiveness, dishonesty. As I wrote Monday, Biden might also enjoy the opportunity to point out that the way Trump appears to handle his finances—ignoring problems until they become crises, then trying to weasel out of trouble by fudging the numbers—resembles the way he has handled the coronavirus, an issue on which the public does not trust the president.

5. Can Trump restrain himself from celebrating the imminent overturning of Roe v. Wade and the Affordable Care Act? Donald Trump loves to own the libs. It’s his primary passion! It’s why he’s so excited about appointing a sixth conservative judge to the Supreme Court to rule against Roe and the ACA despite the fact that he clearly doesn’t have any personal convictions about abortion and will suffer electorally if he’s blamed for the demise of insurance-market protections for individuals who have chronic medical conditions. Republican senators who are up for reelection are out in the field right now arguing that they don’t want to overturn Roe or eliminate pre-existing condition coverage despite years of evidence to the contrary. Will Trump do the same? (Prediction: He will try, but it won’t make sense.)

4. Can Trump find an equilibrium point of racism that is racist enough to win back some older whites but not so racist that it turns off younger whites? Biden has been expanding his lead in the Midwest swing states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—and getting close enough in Iowa and Ohio that Trump should be nervous—by doing very well with non-white voters, well with white college graduates, and what you might call “good enough to win” with whites who didn’t graduate from college. The most obvious way Trump could reverse this trend is to raise race-adjacent concerns about increasing crime rates in major cities without doing so in a way that is openly insulting to Black Americans and/or seems likely to incite further violence. (Prediction: Whatever he may say about race and/or crime will not even attempt this feat of calibration.)

3. Can Biden seduce Florida Man? If Biden wins Florida, it’s almost certain he’ll win the electoral college. But his lead there has gotten narrower amid weak polling numbers with Latinos. A recent New York Times op-ed, citing research by its authors, argued that a populist “regular people vs. the wealthy elite” message—rather than anything that specifically addresses Latino identity—would be Biden’s best strategy for winning over those voters. Such a message could also be a signal to progressive Democrats that Biden remembers they exist. There isn’t much evidence that Biden needs to motivate that latter set of voters to turn out for him—the incumbent administration’s racist assault on democratic values has motivated them pretty well—but, you know, it would be a polite thing to do.

2. Can Trump attack Biden in a way that is legible to anyone outside the Fox News Cinematic Universe? Joe Biden is not exceedingly well-liked overall—about 45 percent of the public has an unfavorable view of him. But in Our Polarized Times, that’s a number that he can live—and win a presidential election—with. Thus far in the race, Trump’s efforts to drag Biden down to a Hillary Clinton level of equally polarized public distaste have been unsuccessful. Whether that is because of sexism, Clinton’s record as a public figure, the media smartening up after getting played by Trump in 2016, voters realizing that Trump’s flaws have more serious consequences than those of “normal” politicians, or all of the above … that will be something for everyone to study in detail if Biden wins.

But what’s clear right now is that Trump’s negative campaigning—oriented around esoteric accusations that Biden has to take performance-enhancing drugs to appear in public, that he’s a puppet of an influence campaign somehow simultaneously waged by the radical anarchist left AND the bureaucratic Deep State, and that his son Hunter is corrupt—hasn’t taken off with anyone besides the Fox News viewers who’ve already been conditioned to believe in these things. Polls say there are areas in which Trump could attack Biden that might be fruitful: While it might not be commonly held that the Democratic candidate is blasting big rails of Adderall in order to cover up his dementia, there are concerns over whether he has lost a step mentally, and a slight majority of the public persists in the belief, despite the last 30 years of evidence to the contrary, that Republican presidents like Trump are better for the economy than Democrats. A Trump who is sharp, focused, and more conversant than Biden about details related to employment and growth might win back some of the “I find him distasteful, but then again, the stock market” voters that he needs.

Biden, on the other hand, is the candidate more likely to espouse what is currently the majority position on what needs to be done to improve the economy, namely controlling the coronavirus. He also can and probably will point to what unemployment rates and retirement portfolios were like under the administration he recently served in, compared to what they are like now. Some upside for him, too, maybe.

1. Can Biden give America a glimpse of a blessed future in which a person doesn’t have to pay attention to what Donald Trump says? This is the flip side of #2. Trump wants to make Biden look bad. But Biden doesn’t need to convince a majority of voters that Trump is bad; he needs to give the people who already hold that position some reason to believe that he can reduce the epidemic national levels of chaos, “divisiveness,” and actual epidemics that they are exhausted from dealing with. Given what we saw at the Democratic National Convention, Biden’s approach to this is to look like he’s above it all—like he’s already president, basically, and his attention is on ending the pandemic, restarting the economy, and addressing racial issues in a way that resolves them rather than making them worse. During Democratic primary debates, though, he had a tendency to get frowny, flustered, and sometimes incoherent when criticized. Can he avoid being annoyed by one of the world’s most annoying people, instead projecting the serenity that a wide margin of Americans say they would like to be enjoying come January? The future depends on it.



from Slate Magazine https://ift.tt/33eBxPf
via IFTTT