# \*\*\*Join the SDMB panel of experts for live debate coverage - 9/26/2016\*\*\* **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 26, 2016, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/join-the-sdmb-panel-of-experts-for-live-debate-coverage-9-26-2016/766946 "2016-09-26T17:39:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 48
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/join-the-sdmb-panel-of-experts-for-live-debate-coverage-9-26-2016/766946/941 "2016-09-28T03:49:41Z")
> [@choie](#): > > BTW, whoever called the smile “bemused” – “Bemused” doesn’t mean what you think it does. It means confused. And while it would’ve been understandable to be all “What the fuck is this guy saying?” up there, Clinton never seemed anything but well aware of what was going on beside her: Trump’s credibility (such as it was) caving in like a rotting pumpkin. That was me. > [@](#): > > Full Definition of bemuse > > ``` > transitive verb > > 1 > : to make confused : puzzle, bewilder > > [...] > 3 > : to cause to have feelings of wry or tolerant amusement > > ``` > **[Definition of BEMUSE](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bemuse)** > > to make confused : puzzle, bewilder; to occupy the attention of : distract, absorb; to cause to have feelings of wry or tolerant amusement… See the full definition But I guess Merriam-Webster and I could have it wrong. ---
**Author:** ![skdo23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@skdo23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/skdo23)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/join-the-sdmb-panel-of-experts-for-live-debate-coverage-9-26-2016/766946/942 "2016-09-28T03:54:02Z")
Donald, go home and get your fuckin shinebox. ---
**Author:** ![Ukulele\_Ike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/df788c/32.png) [@Ukulele\_Ike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ukulele_Ike)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/join-the-sdmb-panel-of-experts-for-live-debate-coverage-9-26-2016/766946/943 "2016-09-28T04:08:40Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > That was me. > > [Bemuse Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bemuse) > > But I guess Merriam-Webster and I could have it wrong. Thank you for explaining “bemused.” I hate it when people use it incorrectly, and they almost always do. AND I used solar, wind, and geothermal together above because they all renewable energy sources AND they can be utilized by individuals, not doled out by a central utility monopoly at preconceived rates. But I assume you knew that, because you are not a moron. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/join-the-sdmb-panel-of-experts-for-live-debate-coverage-9-26-2016/766946/944 "2016-09-28T04:28:05Z")
> [@choie](#): > > Why… just look at any second of video where she’s shown smiling. _Smiling_, with malice aforethought, while a _man_ is speaking! What kind of uppity bitch thinks she can get away with that?! > > No, she never seemed smug to me. Just confident. Of course, confidence in a woman is misread as smug, because apparently we’re just supposed to smile sweetly when spoken to, and otherwise show sincere devotion and obedience toward our superiors. > > BTW, whoever called the smile “bemused” – “Bemused” doesn’t mean what you think it does. It means confused. And while it would’ve been understandable to be all “What the fuck is this guy saying?” up there, Clinton never seemed anything but well aware of what was going on beside her: Trump’s credibility (such as it was) caving in like a rotting pumpkin. Nicely said. I agree with this. What was she supposed to do _but_ smile? If she had kept a serious expression, then the pundits would have said she looked worried or lacked self-confidence. She _is_ a self-confident woman, and why should she not be? When you cut through all the bluster and the garbage, she really is extremely qualified for the job. She’s paid her dues, and while I don’t believe anyone is entitled to the presidency, she’s more than earned her shot. No one has worked harder. I was very glad to see her wearing her red suit. I actually relaxed when I saw that. She meant to project power, and she did. Plus I am of the opinion that red is a great color on her. Honestly, I think those who are saying Trump looked good in even the first 15-20 minutes of the debate are being generous. Even when he was supposedly doing well, he was already repeating himself, looking uncomfortable, making faces and had started with the sniffing. I knew she had him by the shorts within the first 10 minutes. You could almost hear him thinking, “How the fuck am I going to keep this up for the next 90 minutes??” It went about as well as I expected it could but was afraid it would not. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/join-the-sdmb-panel-of-experts-for-live-debate-coverage-9-26-2016/766946/945 "2016-09-28T04:58:08Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > That was me. > > [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bemuse](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bemuse) > > But I guess Merriam-Webster and I could have it wrong. I do think that M-W has it wrong, but only because I think meaning no.3 should be meaning no.1. When people are describing someone who is confused they usually use the term “confused”. When people are describing someone who is being caused to have feelings of wry or tolerant amusement, they use the term “bemused”. In other words, IME “bemused” is almost always used with meaning no.3 given by M-W. ---
**Author:** ![choie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/choie/32/7829_2.png) [@choie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/choie)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/join-the-sdmb-panel-of-experts-for-live-debate-coverage-9-26-2016/766946/946 "2016-09-28T05:26:31Z")
**Ukelele Uke** , don’t thank him for giving you bad info! Definition number #3 only exists because sadly people have been, well, _bemused_ by the word for so long that M-W has given in to the tide of ignorance. See also _infer_ and _nonplussed_. Note that even M-W has it only as the final alternative, indicating that the first two definitions are preferred. (I mean hell, if you want to say “amused,” we have a word for that too. It’s called “amused.”) But hey, knock yourselves out and use “bemused” to mean “amused” if you like; go on and call me pedantic. But words are my career and I will not go gentle into the good night of sloppy English. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/join-the-sdmb-panel-of-experts-for-live-debate-coverage-9-26-2016/766946/947 "2016-09-28T05:39:36Z")
Is there a word for maintaining [a polite grin while being mansplained to](http://theslot.jezebel.com/hillary-clinton-has-mastered-the-woman-listening-face-1787117269?utm_campaign=socialflow_jezebel_facebook&utm_source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow)? Maybe “Hillarying”? > [@choie](#): > > (I mean hell, if you want to say “amused,” we have a word for that too. It’s called “amused.”) If you want to say, more clearly and specifically, “_wryly or tolerantl_y amused”, we have a word for that too: _Bemused_. > [@](#): > > But hey, knock yourselves out and use “bemused” to mean “amused” if you like; go on and call me pedantic. Okay, you’re pedantic. And wrong. > [@](#): > > But words are my career and I will not go gentle into the good night of sloppy English. None of this “common usage” nonsense for _you_. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/join-the-sdmb-panel-of-experts-for-live-debate-coverage-9-26-2016/766946/948 "2016-09-28T08:35:00Z")
In this situation, I just write “she has been distracted by invisible muses,” for clarity. ---
**Author:** ![CairoCarol](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cairocarol/32/3825_2.png) [@CairoCarol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CairoCarol)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/join-the-sdmb-panel-of-experts-for-live-debate-coverage-9-26-2016/766946/949 "2016-09-28T09:48:44Z")
I found this interesting discussion of the phenomenon (the meaning of _bemused_ being assumed to be “detached amusement”) by the fine folks at the New York Times: [Bemused? Bewildering - The New York Times](http://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/bemused-bewildering/) However, I find myself, shall we say, puzzled by their conclusion. They wish to fight the trend of _bemused_ meaning “detached amusement,” because: > [@](#): > > Preserving the original sense of a word like “bemused” gives the careful writer an additional, precise tool. When its meaning starts to blur or merge with another word’s, the result, at least for a while, is confusion and a loss of variety. But in fact, defining _bemused_ as “detached amusement” gives us three useful words: _confused_, _bemused_, and _amused_ - all with distinct and useful meanings. Treating _bemused_ as a synonym for _confused_ leaves us with three words and only two states of mind. Where’s the advantage in that? ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/join-the-sdmb-panel-of-experts-for-live-debate-coverage-9-26-2016/766946/950 "2016-09-28T10:30:36Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Parental units folllow a lot of Hispanic media, and Jorge Ramos is still big. Suffice to say is that he also has been going on this theme in hispanic media before and after the debate: > > [http://www.thewrap.com/donald-trump-jorge-ramos-time-op-ed-presidential-election-judgement-day-coming/](http://www.thewrap.com/donald-trump-jorge-ramos-time-op-ed-presidential-election-judgement-day-coming/) > There was also El Trompo’s doubling down on insulting the former Miss Universe, Jorge Ramos interviewed her and that was also big on remindinding people what Trump will do, not only to Hispanics, but also to women. > > [https://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/09/27/former-miss-universe-alicia-machado-told-univision-may-trump-treated-her-terribly/213364](https://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/09/27/former-miss-universe-alicia-machado-told-univision-may-trump-treated-her-terribly/213364) I’ve already issued my judgment: I will never - EVER - vote for a republican in any office, for any reason as long as I live. EVER. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/join-the-sdmb-panel-of-experts-for-live-debate-coverage-9-26-2016/766946/951 "2016-09-28T13:10:21Z")
This “bemused” hijack is interesting but can we please get back on the main topic: is solar energy going to replace carbon fuels?? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Lowry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Sam\_Lowry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Lowry)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/join-the-sdmb-panel-of-experts-for-live-debate-coverage-9-26-2016/766946/952 "2016-09-28T14:16:30Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Yes. I enjoyed [John Podhoretz’s postmortem](http://nypost.com/2016/09/27/trumps-debate-incompetence-a-slap-in-the-face-to-his-supporters/) (he is a conservative, BTW, and no fan of Hillary). Especially loved his quip about “the vanity and laziness that led him to think he could wing the most important 95 minutes of his life”. Spot on. It’s funny how many people thought this was misdirection from the Trump camp–that he was probably secretly preparing like mad. I never thought so, because of that very vanity and laziness. [There’s an interesting article in the New York Times about his debate prep](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/us/politics/donald-trump-debate.html?_r=0), and how Trump seemed unwilling to do much: > [@](#): > > Mr. Trump’s debate preparation was unconventional. Aides have introduced a podium and encouraged him to participate in mock debates, but he has not embraced them, focusing mostly on conversations and discussions with advisers. > > \ > > There were early efforts to run a more standard form of general election debate-prep camp, led by Roger Ailes, the ousted Fox News chief, at Mr. Trump’s golf course in Bedminster, N.J. But Mr. Trump found it hard to focus during those meetings, according to multiple people briefed on the process who requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. That left Mr. Ailes, who at the time was deeply distracted by his removal from Fox and the news media reports surrounding it, discussing his own problems as well as recounting political war stories, according to two people present for the sessions. > > \ > > The team had primed Mr. Trump to look for roughly a dozen key phrases and expressions Mrs. Clinton uses when she is uncertain or uncomfortable, but he did not seem to pay attention during the practice sessions, one aide said, and failed to home in on her vulnerabilities during the debate. With the next debate being a Town Hall format, maybe Trump will be able to handle that better. But I could still imagine some questions throwing him off. And even if he takes debate prep somewhat seriously, he’s not going to want to take all of his time doing that instead of having rallies and interviews on Fox News, since that’s much easier and more fun for him. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/join-the-sdmb-panel-of-experts-for-live-debate-coverage-9-26-2016/766946/953 "2016-09-28T14:18:48Z")
Sniffles. Sniffles are making more of a dent in Trump’s debate than what was said. “He’s on coke.” “I had a defective mic.” “Was it intentional?” Fast forward 2018 “I didn’t mean to push the button, it was defective.” “Only the losers died in the nuclear exchange, the losers, lots of losers, they died, believe me, they were losers.” ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/join-the-sdmb-panel-of-experts-for-live-debate-coverage-9-26-2016/766946/954 "2016-09-28T15:08:55Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > I’ve already issued my judgment: I will never - EVER - vote for a republican in any office, for any reason as long as I live. > > EVER. I don’t know how old you are but you’re rather dramatically underestimating the likelihood of party realignment. It is wholly possible than in 20 years, the GOP will be the party of decency and sanity. It can happen that fast. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/join-the-sdmb-panel-of-experts-for-live-debate-coverage-9-26-2016/766946/955 "2016-09-28T18:29:50Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > I don’t know how old you are but you’re rather dramatically underestimating the likelihood of party realignment. > > It is wholly possible than in 20 years, the GOP will be the party of decency and sanity. It can happen that fast. I’ve been waiting almost 60 years, and it hasn’t happened yet. I too have never and will never vote for a Republican. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/join-the-sdmb-panel-of-experts-for-live-debate-coverage-9-26-2016/766946/956 "2016-09-28T18:36:53Z")
I have a rough definition for an “honest conservative”, being someone who accepts the need for change and supports it, but counsels caution and prudence. And so long as I can trust them for that, I can argue with them in good faith. If I see such a man, it is possible I would vote for him. Alas. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/join-the-sdmb-panel-of-experts-for-live-debate-coverage-9-26-2016/766946/957 "2016-09-28T18:40:19Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > I don’t know how old you are but you’re rather dramatically underestimating the likelihood of party realignment. > > It is wholly possible than in 20 years, the GOP will be the party of decency and sanity. It can happen that fast. Perhaps. Prior to the Civil Rights Act, Republicans were as good or better than Democrats on race issues. Then the Southern Strategy and all the old racist Democrats switched uniforms. But there are some things that seem quite stable, Republicans have been the party of business since forever and Democrats the party of labor since forever. I don’t really see that changing in the immediate future. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/join-the-sdmb-panel-of-experts-for-live-debate-coverage-9-26-2016/766946/958 "2016-09-28T18:48:20Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I have a rough definition for an “honest conservative”, being someone who accepts the need for change and supports it, but counsels caution and prudence. And so long as I can trust them for that, I can argue with them in good faith. > > If I see such a man, it is possible I would vote for him. Alas. I suspect that you voted for such a man twice in the last 8 years. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/join-the-sdmb-panel-of-experts-for-live-debate-coverage-9-26-2016/766946/959 "2016-09-28T18:51:16Z")
If he were the Republican candidate? I would exercise my royal perogative as Queen of Romania and name him the Duke of URL. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/join-the-sdmb-panel-of-experts-for-live-debate-coverage-9-26-2016/766946/960 "2016-09-28T19:03:10Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I have a rough definition for an “honest conservative”, being someone who accepts the need for change and supports it, but counsels caution and prudence. And so long as I can trust them for that, I can argue with them in good faith. I’m waiting for one who talks about taxing and spending as if those numbers are related to each other in some way. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/join-the-sdmb-panel-of-experts-for-live-debate-coverage-9-26-2016/766946.md?page=47) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/join-the-sdmb-panel-of-experts-for-live-debate-coverage-9-26-2016/766946.md?page=49)