At least in that case, the reason Carter didn’t show up was over an argument as to whether Anderson should be there. (Back then you didn’t have the Committee for Presidential Debates as a quasi-official ruling body no one really wants to cross.) And in fact it was the last debate, with just Carter and Reagan, that absolutely killed him; the Reagan-Anderson debate hurt no one but Anderson.
In the case of 2016 Debate 3, neither candidate has any plausible reason to refuse to show up, and refusing to do so would be dreadful for them.
The second debate, I’m convinced, shows Trump at his calmest, most in-control, and most erudite. He’s expressed relief that he doesn’t have to campaign that way any more. At the third, I expect him to talk over everyone else and largely ignore the moderators except to insult them. I expect the main effect of the debate to be a re-examination of presidential debate rules to prevent such a performance in the future.
My mom is a narcissist, and I also had one at my workplace. I’ve realised what is their - and Trumps - secret weapon.
It is their expectation, even after doing the most abnormal things, to still be treated normally afterwards. Let that sink in for a minute. The expectation, that is so strong, we - subconsciously - go along with their expectation of how we will behave.
Normal people, KNOW when they’ve behaved outrageously. And they behave in such a way that tells us, subconsciously, they expect our ire, our scorn, our disgust. And we feel free to act accordingly.
Teflon Don is teflon because he genuinely expects people to like and believe him. When he says “believe me” it is a command, said with the force of his own conviction. And people comply.
What case would Trump have for libel? I don’t think the paper said that he did “touch the women inappropriately” (as CNN put it) - just that the women said that he did. Assuming they did, in fact, say that, there’s no lie, and therefore it’s not libel.
Defamation of character, maybe, but (a) that would be against the women making the accusations, not the paper printing them, and (b) we have already seen what the NYT thinks of Trump’s character.
The first I heard that people on the left were trying to think of strategies for Clinton to miss the third debate was on Rush Limbaugh’s program. I heard it driving home from work and, as per my usual, I responded to the radio, “bull-fucking-shit, Rush, you fat pile of piles.” And now I see it’s being discussed in this very thread. My crest; it has fallen.
But of course Clinton should attend the debate. And I think she shouldn’t even acknowledge Trump’s presence. Don’t shake his hand, don’t nod toward him, don’t utter his name. Answer every question from the moderator as though it were an interview at Camp David and if Trump starts to interrupt, let him and let the moderators shut him down and pick it back up where she left off.
Can you imagine the level ire we’d see out of Trump if he were ignored? Did you see Fatal Attraction? *I won’t be ignored, Dan! *Multiply that by Trump.
Repeating a libel is libel. You can’t get away with saying “I’m just quoting what HE said!”
Libel is a form of defamation. Both the newspapers and the person who is being quoted can be accused of it.
(No one has brought this up yet but it always is, so I’ll just get it out of the way. Libel is public defamation in permanent form—published, recorded, broadcast, etc. Slander is private defamation in ephemeral form—whispers behind closed doors.)
There’s got to be a limit somewhere though, doesn’t there? CNN is reporting that the NYT published an article that 2 women claim to have been assaulted by Trump - is CNN possibly guilty of libel? I just said that CNN is reporting that the NYT published the article - am I possibly guilty of libel?
Regarding a public figure, as long as you can reasonably believe the allegations, actually, you can get away with that.
In this particular case, the NYTimes talked with the accusers and several people close to each accuser to verify that the accuser hasn’t just started talking about the story in the last couple of days. Furthermore, Trump is on tape stating that he commits assault in the same essential manner as that described by the accusers. “Reckless disregard for the truth” would be a hard sell.
As is very well known, the standard for libel in the United States regarding public figures is a very difficult thing to prove.
For Trump to succeed in a lawsuit, he must basically prove that the New York Times knew that they were publishing a lie for the purpose of causing Trump harm. Let’s get real: this is never going to be proven.
Ah. Pretty soon, his toadies will be saying, “He meant look at her story! See, he even said, ‘look at her words’. He was totally totally not taking about her appearance! Nope. It’s only the real misogynists like Hillary Clinton who think that!!”
I haven’t seen this reason-for-Clinton-to-show seconded yet, and it’s worth highlighting.
(It must be stressful for the true-believer Trumpsters to watch Clinton being so calm and so conversant with the facts; in their heads they must be trying to see, instead, the demon they’ve been assured that she is, but she doesn’t make those mental gymnastics easy.)
While true, this issue is beside the point I was making. Repeating a libel is libel, regardless of whether the plaintiff is a public figure or not. It’s a separate issue that in the case of a public figure, this is likely not libel in the first place.
