- EphBlog - http://ephblog.com -

Debate Rap

Surely all Ephs can agree that tonight’s debate should be a rap battle?! Take it away Oren Cass ’05:

Trump: It was the best of times when we were strong, now it’s the worst
Elites detest America, put D.C. donors first T
hey grease each other’s wheels, spinning globalist ideals
Let’s get back to winning like I do in all my deals

Ah, just look how Clinton panders
Abandoning all standards just to outflank Bernie Sanders
That man had no immigration plan and still La Raza panned hers
Now a promise to ignore the law is all she really stands for

Clinton: Not true.

Trump: Ooh, it’s much too late to pivot
If someone comes illegally why should we forgive it?
The president must take care to provide for law and order
Your job as top cop don’t stop on arrival at the border

Real Americans are sick of all your tricks
We want unity but you play identity politics
I’ll deport, build the wall, track down visa overstays
And once they back down on my crackdown, Mexico pays!

Stand with me in the land of the free
Pray to god we never see Hillary’s amnesty
Her plan to hand out healthcare led a White House to despair
Imagine what gon’ happen when illegals get welfare

Clinton: Donald, you did well in your primary fight
But the general electorate ain’t the alt-right
Race-baiting for your base is rating poorly in the polls
You gotta be swing-stating, not elating Russian trolls
Immigration is what built this nation

If we embrace every race we create a safe space
Show the world a better face You’re a disgrace
You hate on those who immigrate
Seeking freedom, ‘stead you’d lead ’em

Back to some poor, war-torn place
Why this panic, about anyone Hispanic?
Your own forefathers ain’t from this side of the Atlan’ic
“I’ll deport, build the wall,” yeah keep ranting
We know whose really doing all of Mar-e-Lago’s planting

Oh, and speaking of skin color, Mr. Super Self-Important
Your spray-tan’s too orange, no one cares you went to Wharton
You think you impress with your asinine demands I think you’re just compensating for your tiny hands

Will Donald Trump really install a tall border wall or
Is it just an empty promise his supporters all fall for
Reporters say “Deport or stay?” Why won’t he clarify?
Can’t you see, the plan’s only amnesty and e-verify!
To make our country great again let’s not kick out Latinos
Just anyone so dumb he loses money on casinos

Genius! Longtime readers will recall that Cass was a rap battle genius at Williams more than a decade ago.

Got an opinion on the debate? Tell us below.

Facebooktwitter
Comments Disabled (Open | Close)

Comments Disabled To "Debate Rap"

#1 Comment By frank uible On September 26, 2016 @ 9:16 pm

Roll over, Duke. This ain’t music. It’s doggerel – bad doggerel.

#2 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On September 27, 2016 @ 12:30 am

It seems to me that Oren Cass ’05 forgot to do a rap for the third participant in the debate, Lester Holt. Holt was fighting for team Hillary nearly the whole evening. He called on the Republicans in the audience to be quiet, but never did so when Hillary supporters broke the rules. He “fact-checked” Trump at least five times, but never bothered to confront Hillary’s lies. As a display of true creativity, I’d like to read the Lester Holt rap too. Here’s some ammunition, http://heatst.com/politics/lester-holt-the-third-debater/

#3 Comment By EphAlum On September 27, 2016 @ 1:04 am

Hahaha. Winners don’t wine about the moderators. Trump lied blatantly and repeatedly throughout the debate. A truly fair moderator would have fact checked him about 50 more times. And even that would not have been enough. When one debater is almost entirely truthful and the other essentially lies — and obviously so — about every single answer, well, what do you expect? Here’s one of many blatant Trump lies GOP-member moderator Holt let slide:

https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/780577643456565248

#4 Comment By PTC On September 27, 2016 @ 7:24 am

Trump lost. Not sure if that will move the polls or stop what appeared to be his momentum.

#5 Comment By ephalum On September 27, 2016 @ 12:33 pm

He’s had some momentum of late, no doubt, but it seems to have been arrested by his birther interview and I think now will reverse itself post-debate, as his post-debate comments have been nearly as disastrous as the debate itself (fat-shaming a beauty contest contestant and bitching about his microphone is the best he can do? Really?). This race has really been remarkably stable. It’s vascillated between Trump and Hillary tied (at his very pinnacle) and Hillary up 9-10 (at her very pinnacle). The middle ground seems to be Hillary up around 4-5, which is where I think things will end up barring something really extraordinary happening in the next month (a lower marging than I originally thought, but Hillary really had an awful three week stretch in late August and early September that set her back a bit).

Leading into the debate, even after a fairly strong stretch for Trump, Hillary was up 2.4 in the RCP average. It’s clear she dominated the debate, and there were a LOT more undecided voters than usual heading into that debate. And viewership was enormous. All good things for Hillary. She’s also about to really kick her campaign into high gear over the next two weeks — Hillary and her most prominent surrogates will be blanketing

If that swings momentum even a few points more towards Hillary over the next week, which I hope/think it will, and if she is back up to the seeming-equilibrium aggregate 5 point lead a month before the election (and even a few extra points would solidify her lead in critical swing states like Florida, Colorado and PA — VA and NH already appear locked down — and push her into the lead in others like North Carolina, Nevada and Ohio), she is very well positioned. But of course, there is a long way to go and two more debates still to come.

#6 Comment By 89’er On September 27, 2016 @ 12:44 pm

I thought the Donald was particularly persuasive in his comments about the Cyber.

Glad that the threat of 400 lb couch bound hackers is now at long last being discussed.

His unwillingness to acknowledge the clear consensus of the international and US intelligence communities that Russia was behind the hacks coupled with his ignorance of Russian military action in Crimea and adjacent areas of Ukraine tells the story of someone unwilling or unable to grasp facts and acknowledge reality.

I am also glad he spent more time on rosie odonnell than he did on education, climate change and his Syria policy.

The man is truly qualified – for what I do not know.

#7 Comment By ephalum On September 27, 2016 @ 1:51 pm

89’er, Jerry Springer has the answer:

Hillary Clinton belongs in the White House. Donald Trump belongs on my show.

#8 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On September 27, 2016 @ 3:54 pm

Wow! I don’t think Hillary won at all. All Trump needed to do was keep his temper and not embarrass himself. Nobody expected him to be a better student/scholar than Hillary.

She didn’t have an appropriate response to the temperament issue either. Behind-the-scenes reports from Secret Service agents and others indicates that she is abusive to others and tends to fly into unaccountable rages.

When Trump started poking at that issue, Hillary reacted with a weird wiggly motion which made her look bizarre. Check out the video below:

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/09/27/hillary-clinton-debate-reaction-cam/

I don’t think she has the right stuff when it comes to protecting us from domestic or international threats.

#9 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On September 27, 2016 @ 4:06 pm

I forgot to mention that Trump was clearly the winner in nearly all the snap polls taken after the debate.

As a Daily Mail article indicates, “The Drudge Report’s poll showed Trump fared better with 81.5 per cent of the vote to Clinton’s 18.5 while others, including Time, CBS New York and the Washington Times, also saw Trump win the vote.”

See, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3809204/Most-snap-polls-Trump-winning-debate-landslide.html

All I can think of to explain this is difference in opinion that the pundit class is scoring the debate as if what mattered was whether or not a presidential candidate is a good debater. That’s silly. You don’t win wars by out-debating the enemy.

I think the snap polls show that most of us saw the debate as a success for Trump because he had the chance to show that he is a good, kind person who has what it takes to protect our nation. That is, after all, what was at stake last night.

#10 Comment By Dick Swart ’56 On September 27, 2016 @ 4:12 pm

@ Drew PhD

“I think the snap polls show that most of us saw the debate as a success for Trump because he had the chance to show that he is a good, kind person who has what it takes to protect our nation. That is, after all, what was at stake last night.”

Where are your standards, Doctor Drew?

#11 Comment By ephalum On September 27, 2016 @ 5:01 pm

Hillary not only won, she dominated, as every SCIENTIFIC poll concluded, not just every pundits. Here’s what a conservative capable of actual indepedent thought published in a right wing paper about Trump’s total collapse last night:

http://nypost.com/2016/09/27/trumps-debate-incompetence-a-slap-in-the-face-to-his-supporters/

The polls you cite are as valuable as me taking a poll of my living room or frankly my rear end – they are Internet polls in which anyone can vote, as many times as they want. Yes, Trump won 80 percent on a poll on Drudge — a website that caters ENTIRELY TO PEOPLE ALREADY VOTING FOR TRUMP. I don’t need to explain to anyone here why such polls are meaningless, because unlike you, other people here are not total and complete idiots who are utterly unqualified to ever opine about any such matter. Needless to say, Hillary won every single meaningful poll taken post-debate (including winning CNN’s poll by 40 points — remember, Romney won the same poll by 40 after the first debate last year, and yes, Romney won that debate, and I said so at the time — Trump could call Hillary a c**t on live televsion and you would still claim he won the debate and proved what a charming person he is, which is why your opinion in less then worthless).

Hillary won including even the poll that Trump’s campaign sit Breitbart itself commissioned!!! She crushed him and embarassed him, and that is the reason why he and Giuliani have spent all day whining about microphones and moderators. Winners don’t whine, they gloat. You really think Trump’s top surrogate would suggest that he has WON the debate while at the same time saying Trump should avoid all future debates? STOP READING BREITBART AND STOP POSTING LINKS TO BREITBART HERE. No one here gives a damn what fiction Trump’s campaign (which Breibart is a branch of, that is not controversial in any way) spins. It’s like me posting a link about how Chelsea Clinton says Hillary won. Which is actually a MORE credible and objective source than Breitbart. You are simply not qualified to opine on these matters because you regurgitate whatever garbage you hear from Trump and are wholly incapable of independent thought or actual analysis. You are welcome for the free education, yet again.

Apparently Drew thinks a “good, kind person” goes around fat-shaming women, scamming single moms and the elderly (and bragging about it), racially discriminating against his tenants, spending five years pushing a racist lie about the President, cheating small business owners (and bragging about it!), repeatedly insulting war heroes and people with disabilities, attacking Latinos and other minorities, claiming that no woman can ever look Presidential, attacking the appearance of his political opponents’ wives in puerile fashion, and serially cheating on his multiple wives, and bragging about that too. Sounds like an awesome guy to me!

Can we please bring Ken Thomas back? He may have been just as nuts as Drew, but at least he OCCASIONALLY offered something worthwhile in his comments.

#12 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On September 27, 2016 @ 5:41 pm

– ephalum

I’ve decided that your inappropriate verbal abuse is an indicator of a larger emotional disorder.

It is not normal to call people names on this site. You certainly don’t see that sort of abusive behavior among emotionally mature participants including me, David or Dick Swart.

Unfortunately, if you cannot follow conventional standards of behavior here, you are most likely also verbally abusive elsewhere too, particularly to those closest to you.

Folks like you are accurately described in this Psychology Today article looking at those who practice verbal abuse.

See, https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-mysteries-love/201503/15-kinds-verbal-abuse

What is sad about you is that you are actually harming yourself, even isolating yourself with your dysfunctional behavior.

#13 Comment By 89’er On September 28, 2016 @ 2:57 am

From Slate:

The Arizona Republic newspaper has never, in its 126-year history, endorsed a Democrat for president—until Tuesday. The staunchly conservative editorial board of the reliably red state daily stressed its “deep philosophical appreciation for conservative ideals and Republican principles” before it noted “this year is different” and declared its support for Hillary Clinton for president. “The 2016 Republican candidate is not conservative and he is not qualified,” the endorsement reads. “That’s why, for the first time in our history, the Arizona Republic will support a Democrat for president.”

The endorsement, while not a full-throated backing of Clinton’s left-leaning policy prescriptions for the country, does not read as a reluctant or half-hearted declaration of support. The editorial board eviscerated Trump, much the same way the Union-Leader and some mainstream Republicans have criticized his bigoted run for the presidency as showing “a stunning lack of human decency, empathy and respect” and for being “beneath our national dignity” before cataloguing its unprecedented support for Clinton. The thrust of the editorial board’s support is based on Clinton’s character, decency, temperment, and experience.

“The challenges the United States faces domestically and internationally demand a steady hand, a cool head and the ability to think carefully before acting. Hillary Clinton understands this. Donald Trump does not. Clinton has the temperament and experience to be president. Donald Trump does not. Clinton knows how to compromise and to lead with intelligence, decorum and perspective. She has a record of public service as First Lady, senator and secretary of state. She has withstood decades of scrutiny so intense it would wither most politicians. The vehemence of some of the anti-Clinton attacks strains credulity…

“In a nation with an increasingly diverse population, Trump offers a recipe for permanent civil discord. In a global economy, he offers protectionism and a false promise to bring back jobs that no longer exist. America needs to look ahead and build a new era of prosperity for the working class. This is Hillary Clinton’s opportunity. She can reach out to those who feel left behind. She can make it clear that America sees them and will address their concerns. She can move us beyond rancor and incivility. The Arizona Republic endorses Hillary Clinton for president.”

#14 Comment By EphAlum On September 28, 2016 @ 10:03 am

It’s kind of amazing that John can be wrong so consistently without ever reevaluating his faulty world view. Must be fun living in a state of purposeful self delusion. Hillary crushed Trump in the debate and the REAL polls are unanimous on that front:

https://twitter.com/numbersmuncher/status/781117724701392896

#15 Comment By ephalum On September 28, 2016 @ 12:00 pm

And the first post-debate general election poll is out — in the Morning Consult poll, Clinton is +4, vs. -1 in a poll taken immediately prior to the debate. And boom goes the dynamite!

#16 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On September 28, 2016 @ 1:24 pm

As an conservative ex-college professor, I’m especially sensitive to media bias. Analysts are pulling apart the last debate and uncovering the remarkable lengths that Lester Holt went to sabotage Trump.

For example, Holt interrupted Trump at least 41 times, but Hillary only 7.

What was most remarkable to me, however, was the degree to which Holt failed to go after Hillary’s repeated lies about her private server or about her deleted e-mails or about her failure to protect her people in Benghazi. Holt disgraced himself.

#17 Comment By ephalum On September 28, 2016 @ 1:43 pm

So, you finally admit Trump lost, and I guess finally are ready to acknowledge that the snap polls you cited are b.s. (something even Fox News instructed its employees to admit). Now, as always, you are looking for someone or something to blame. That is your M.O., we get it.

If one candidate consistently talks over the other candidate when it is not his turn to speak (only Trump did) and consistently talks over the moderator (only Trump did) then of COURSE any neutral moderator will have to interrupt him more. The same bias which led you to think Trump won a debate in which he was resoundingly crushed has led you to level specious claims of bias against an impartial moderator who is, in fact, a registered Republican. If anything, Holt let Trump off easy because he didn’t challenge his repeated lies. I mean, who else but Trump can get away with saying “I never claimed that Global Warming was a hoax invented by the Chinese” when he has tweeted that exact sentiment? A biased moderator would have hammered him for that, and his 60 plus other lies during the debate.

This is why you support Trump — you are two peas in a pod. Never, not once, have you ever taken personal responsibility for any failure in your own life. You are simply incapable of that sort of introspection. Nor has Trump — it’s always about pointing the finger at someone else, usually, minorities. You two are a match made in heaven. Trump lost because he didn’t prepare, because his answers were so inarticulate and rambling to be nonsencial, because he lied, repeatedly, about his past statements — all of which anyone can easily see on Twitter or on video, because he knows less than an average college student about civics, and because he is a nasty, arrogant jerk who decided for some reason to end the debate by attacking a woman’s weight gain. End of story.

#18 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On September 28, 2016 @ 2:15 pm

– ephalum

How old are you?

#19 Comment By ephalum On September 28, 2016 @ 2:34 pm

Call Sean Hannity. He’ll tell you!

#20 Comment By ephalum On September 28, 2016 @ 2:57 pm

I really need to stop wasting my time with Trump supporters online. Whatever the outcome of the election, it is just so depressing and dispirting that this is where we are at as a nation, where so many millions and millions of people are supporting a man like this. And literally every single one I’ve ever argued with (and I’m not talking about people who are reluctantly supporting him for Supreme Court appointments, etc., I’m saying the actual fans) is just shockingly ignorant, shockingly nasty, or usually a combination of both. I have plenty of great discourse with very conservative friends — heck, half my law school was conservative. But this election has brought an entirely different type of person to the surface — the Obama is a secret Muslim who hates America crowd who be a wide margin are the majority of Trump supporters. They are immune to reasoning. They are immune to facts. They are filled with hatred. They know next to nothing about civic affairs and the constitution, and sneer deridingly at anyone who actually bothers to, for example, read up on issues as an elitist. You can show them a video of Trump saying something they claim he never said, and they still won’t admit to it — I’ve had this exact experience. It truly is a waste of time, and I’ve wasted too many prescious hours already rebutting people like John Drew who simply don’t care about facts.

David, this blog was once a great place for a wide variety of Ephs to engage in discourse. Two people — from opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, with wildly divergent but equally unhinged agendas — totally destroyed that with their continuous trolling. You should have booted both a LONG time ago. And of course, inevitably, they got into crazy elongated totally incoherent arguments with one another, which just made things worse. One has either been banned or just chooses not to visit anymore. The other continues to spread his general stupidity and bizarre form of poison, ruining basically every discussion on his blog, and let’s face it, he’s a deeply disturbed human being whose issues I would not even dare to try to comprehend. I keep saying I’m done, but this time I mean it. It’s just a waste of time attempting to engage with people who really have no interest in listening to what anyone else has to say, but just want to repeat their own talking points, even when totally debunked, ad infinitum. If you want this blog to be a place where interesting arguments occur, there is a solution. Until then, good luck.

#21 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On September 28, 2016 @ 6:48 pm

The latest UPI/CVoter poll, conducted after Monday’s event, shows Hillary with only the slightest improvement in her polling numbers, an increase of 0.41%.

See, http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/09/28/UPICVoter-Hillary-Clinton-regains-slight-lead-in-first-post-debate-poll/8801475069632/

Note: The UPI/CVoter online tracking poll surveys about 200 people each day, leading to a sample size of roughly 1,400 people during any seven-day span.

#22 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On September 28, 2016 @ 7:07 pm

It is worth noting that Trump has also increased his lead following the debate in the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times “Daybreak” poll.

See, http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/

Right now, the mainstream media is functioning like an arm of the Democrat party. I think it is wise to discount it’s take on Trump’s debate performance.

If Trump’s performance was as bad as our elites pretend it was, then I think we would see Hillary way up in the polls by now.

#23 Comment By 89’er On September 28, 2016 @ 10:06 pm

JCD –

I will make you a wager:

If your premise – Trump getting a positive bump in the polls from the debate proves true – I will donate $100 to the non-partisan cause of your choice (excluding the Donald J Trump Foundation).

If your premise – Trump getting a positive bump in the polls proves to be garbage, you will never post at Ephblog again.

We can use the 538 trends from the day of the debate (mon) to 5 days post debate (Sat) as the measure of poll movement.

What say you?

’89 er

#24 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On September 28, 2016 @ 10:21 pm

– 89’er

You’re reading a lot into my comments.

I would think, by now, you realize that I mean what I write. Nothing more, nothing less. I learned that from a really great political scientist, E. E. Schattschneider.

So far, I think Ann Coulter — one of my former students — has done the best job of anyone out there of accurately describing how I felt about the debate.

See, http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/28/how-to-avoid-immigration-terrorism-and-healthcare-for-90-minutes/

I would argue, however, that Trump won by scoring the most points on the topics that were of greatest interest to the white working class in the swing states: jobs, trade agreements, law and order.

I certainly don’t think it is smart to completely disregard all the instant polls that Trump won after the debate. Obviously, a ton of highly motivated people think he did just fine.

#25 Comment By Williams Alum On September 28, 2016 @ 11:07 pm

JCD –
You didn’t respond to his wager.

WA

#26 Comment By Dick Swart ’56 On September 28, 2016 @ 11:38 pm

David,

Some thoughts:

The definition of troll:

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

wikipedia

Now with regard to John Drew:

1. I have no problem at all with what he does in his business life. He is an expert in grant writing. He shares this knowledge as a product with those to whom grants are of importance. Are most of his clients small? Yes. Does this make them unimportant? No! In fact, they need the advice that they cannot afford to have on staff. This is an important and needed product. Indeed needed and depended on by many small organizations here in the Hood River Gorge.

2. He is taking art lessons. Close readers of this blog will know that I started art lessons at age 813/4. I consider this to be commendable and indicative of a healthy interest in life and interests beyond work

3. He takes vacations with his wife and this is a good thing.

All-in-all, a pretty normal guy earning a living in a responsible and needed way and enjoying some of the leisure that comes with age.

However, looking at the definition of troll REGARDLESS OF SUBJECT. He does seem to fill the bill.

And John’s connection to Williams is rather passing and in that in the dim past for a short time.

Most of readers and participants are alumni, and some are students, or current faculty. A few may be parents. And at least one, PTC, not a graduate of the school but with closer and longer-standing relationships with the college and the town than certainly me and many others!

I suggest to you that John’s rights to free speech have many other places for a hearing of his views. Indeed, he is quite active on a number of other outlets where he is not a troll.

Please consider the request to have John been banned from Ephblog as any other troll or spammer would be. This can be done a priori as comments are made and need not be an issue on the blog itself.

Sincerely,

Dick Swart

#27 Comment By frank uible On September 29, 2016 @ 6:30 am

Dick, you’re getting windy in your old age.

#28 Comment By Dick Swart ’56 On September 29, 2016 @ 10:03 am

Frank, in this set of comments, I am succinct!

#29 Comment By 89’er On September 29, 2016 @ 3:17 pm

JCD –

You engage in the worst kind of hackery.

You cherry pick facts and then ignore inconvenient data or evidence.

You spout shoddy online poll results like the best campaign operative and then try and pass them off as scientific with your doctorate.

Of course, any “social scientist” not engaged in hackery – in fact any lay person with a passing understanding of statistics – understands these online poll results are garbage.

When challenged to stand behind your statements, you dodge and weave and change the subject or introduce irrelevant information.

Simply stated, you degrade the quality of this forum in almost every instance.

If there was any valid insight in your commentary I would feel differently. But your contributions to discussion of the election and polling have been – perhaps without exception – unadulterated garbage.

So, lets put this to the test. Can we have nominations for the JCD comment on the election and polling results that provide insight (into the state of the election not the state of JCDs psyche) and valid analysis? Please include the comment and why you think it is the exception to the garbage standard that I allege.

No self-nominations please.

89’er