I can see a transcript not representing how his interruptions came off. But I’m curious how any run down could characterise the debate that way. Both Clinton and Holt called trumps bullshit multiple times. Including a notable exchange where Holt repeatedly pointed out that Trump’s irs based excuse for not putting out his tax returns was flatly untrue, and Clinton’s attack on the subject lead to Trump tacitly admitting he doesn’t pay federal income tax.
The difficulty with Trump is he basically uses the gish gallop. He tosses out so many disconnected falsehoods and blatant evasions that it becomes difficult to redirect and undermine what he’s spitting. Try to debunk every falsehood, and call out every non-answer and you burn all your own time talking on his terms.
Clinton missed some big opportunities to hit back at him, and Holt could have done more. But she did an able job pointing out the biggest holes, letting him screw himself. And was able to spend most of her time actually talking about policy. Actually making a case for herself, rather than just pushing “Trump bad, me not Trump!”
Well, if we’re going to get into drastic oversimplifications of events in WW2, I can’t be bothered. Except to point out that “regularly got into conflict with his superiors and colleagues” also describes Patton who also had to be withdrawn on occasions.
Mary Archer described Jeffrey Archer - an earlier, British Trump-like character (who actually went to prison) as suffering from “serial narrative inaccuracy”. He’s worth looking up - the behaviour is very similar, though in a British context, e.g. his Whos Who entry said “Educated: Wellington and Cambridge.” That’s Wellington primary school in Somerset, and Cambridge College of Arts and Technology.
It’s quite common - Spike Milligan describes another one in his memoirs.
Jeffrey Archer actually spent three years at Brasenose College, Oxford. However, in order to gain admission to Oxford, he claimed to have a degree from a US institution that was actually a bodybuilding club
Have you noticed how he always keeps one hand on the lectern, as if to steady himself. It would be wrong to imply that he is unsteady on his feet, so I won’t.
Off Wikipedia, thanks for reminding me of just how funny this reads.
In 1963 Archer was offered a place at the Oxford University Department for Continuing Education to study for a Diploma of Education. The course was based in the Department, and Archer became a member of Brasenose College. There have been claims that Archer provided false evidence of his academic qualifications to Brasenose College: for instance, the apparent citing of an American institution which was actually a bodybuilding club, in gaining admission to the course.[3][14] It has also been alleged Archer provided false statements about three non-existent A-level passes and a U.S. university degree.[12] Although the Diploma course only lasted a year, Archer spent a total of three years at Oxford.[
Incidentally, I once heard an account by a retired director of Macmillan of how Archer’s books get written. Suffice it to say that he apparently comes up with the ideas. Comment from the lecture: “By the end of the process Lord Archer believes he himself has written every word.”
Of course not. The Telegraph is a deeply ethical organisation, and they have given space to the climate change denialist views of Lord Monckton and Delingpole, both of whom are well known for their total veracity.*
*From Wikipedia: “Monckton stated in interviews and on the web site of the Science and Public Policy institute that he was a Nobel Peace Prize laureate; he later stated that this had been a joke”
Its an established (bad) debating technique. Usually used by hucksters. And even experienced debaters and intelligent people often have problems defeating it.
Its less effective in something like a presidential debate. Since so much of its success is based on manipulating the rules of various scored debate formats. Basically load up on points by preventing the other guy from scoring any. And make sure only your side of things gets mentioned, make the other guy look like a negative nancy. And any debater who knows about the gallop, knows the general way to defeat it. Knock back the big lies without getting bogged down in the details, particularly any that let you lead into step two. Change the subject to what you need to talk about. Get things back on your terms.
Which is pretty much what Hillary did the whole time. Like I said her performance wasn’t always smooth, the middle section of the debate came off like a boring lecture, and some major honkers were missed by both Hillary and Holt. I’m curious how much of that was an overly cautious approach to Trumps verbal diarrhea.
