Anyhoo, not there's any need to FJM this clusterfuck, but a few points should be noted:
- Drumpf fails to specify what "declaring war" on ISIS would accomplish that is substantially different with what is going on now -- that is, daily bombing runs on their oil revenue, weapons and training to Iraqi Army and Kurdish forces, minimal involvement of American ground troops. This strategy is working -- half of ISIS' "caliphate" has already been reclaimed by Syria and Iraq, and the leaders of ISIS are reportedly preparing for their territorial demise; that is, losing conventionally occupied territory, which would necessitate a retrenching of their ongoing online conversion approach. In what way does "declaring war" handle this shift? Drumpf never says, obviously because he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about, but he's never pressed on it either.
- Drumpf's burbling response on his process for deciding on Pence as a running mate has to be read to be believed -- not that it's credible, but that reading it is the only way to understand that such a torrent of nonsense exists, was uttered aloud by a nominee for president. The exchange is a good way to see the workings of Drumpf's fevered brain. He needs to believe that he "had a lot of people that wanted" the job, that serious worthwhile contenders desired the position, as opposed to ass-lickers like Gingrich and Christie, neophytes like Joni Ernst and Bob Corker, hacks with baggage like Jeff, I say, Jeff Sessions. He also has this weird need to believe that he, Drumpf, is both an outsider and was once part of the much-derided "establishment," a sort of Schrodinger's candidate who is somehow in a state of quantum super-position. The truth is that Drumpf is actually neither an outsider nor an establishment figure -- he's a starfucker who rented politicians that he needed for this or that development grant or policy. But unlike, say, the Koch Brothers or George Soros, there was never any principle or ideology (even a warped one) underpinning Drumpf's engagement with the political process -- he was just buying favors for himself. Now the system is irredeemably corrupt and can only be rescued and reformed by him, because it is no longer useful to him.
- Again Drumpf's narcissistic personality comes through when asked why it's okay for Mike Pence to have voted for the Iraq War, but it's a fatal flaw of judgment and character for HFC. Drumpf cannot articulate his reasoning, but it's clear all the same -- because he said so. Simple as that. Top it off with the continued, unchallenged lie that Drumpf was always against the war (although it should be noted that whatever support he expressed early on was tepid at best), right from the vey start, and you get a clear idea of what governance under this mendacious dipshit would be like.
- Drumpf and Pence can hem and haw all they want about their differences on free trade agreements, but the fact is that they have been diametrically opposed on TPP all along. This is not a simple thing to reconcile, and Drumpf is not going to single-handedly "renegotiate" it. We're either in, or we're out, and quite frankly, I'm fine with staying out of the TPP and trying to get more American jobs back. But again, most of those jobs aren't coming back, and the ones that do won't come back just because King Shit of Turd Hill fucking decrees it so. This man is so vain and narcissistic, it's unbearable to read, much less watch or listen to. The fact that Drumpf literally says near the end of this travesty, "I think I'm much more humble than you would understand" simply underscores the absurdity of it all. I'm surprised he didn't simply declare himself the Most Humble Person Evar. "No one is more humble than me!", that sort of thing.
The rest of it consists of the usual stew of lies and foolishness from Drumpf's stump speeches, ramblings cobbled from the inside of a shithouse door. Reading the transcript of Drumpf, Pence, and Lesley Stahl talking over each other induces the exact same headache that watching it would have. But the goal of an interview, especially when conducted by a team that considers itself a journalistic flagship, is to elicit some new insight about the person being interviewed, and to challenge them seriously when there are untruths and inconsistencies in what they say, and what they've said in the past. I don't see how Lesley Stahl can honestly say (at least to herself) that she didn't fail utterly on both those counts, but it makes her no better or worse than any of the other MSM fools who refuse to cut through the bluster and bullshit. We need and deserve a better media.