Yammer, Yammer, Yammer

Competitive talking is no way to engage in civil discourse.

   When someone believes he's always right, about everything, in every detail, all the time, the only way that person can deal with another is to keep talking longer, louder and typically to say less until the opponent gives up and walks away.
   That proves, at least to the yammerer, that he was right. Extend that practice to his supporters and you have a view of what's happening this year in the presidential campaign process.
   The surrogate supporters of GOP candidate Donald Trump are engaging in the same strategy that the candidate uses, continuing to prattle on about the designated talking points of the day regardless of what the question was, and interrupting the moderator or host as well as others on a talk show panel who may try to present an opposing view.
   This is not a civil discourse.
   It is a tactic used by those who are convinced they are always right in all things, and refuse to admit the possibility that they might be mistaken, much less acknowledge that there are other views that may have some legitimacy.
   Examples: Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, appearing on an interview by MSNBC's Chuck Todd. Or Trump economic advisor Steve Moore, appearing on the HBO program "Real Time," with host Bill Maher. Moore not only yammered on, but interrupted any attempt by others on the panel to get a word in edgewise. Eventually, this angered the host enough so that Maher pounded the desk and said, "Will you shut the f*** up!"
   Trump himself routinely yammers and interrupts, and during the Big Debate, media monitors counted more than 70 interruptions of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee.
   The standard Trump strategy seems to be that whenever someone calls him on an error or a falsehood, he doubles down on his allegation or comment, talking longer and louder, offering no evidence while saying even less.
   This is not a civil discourse, and no way to win a debate. It does, however, provide evidence that you are an insecure nuisance.
   And despite a wide variety of surveys conducted by independent, professional pollsters that Clinton won the debate encounter, Trump insists, "every online poll" shows him as winner of the first debate by the two candidates.
   Perhaps this is true of the "online polls" that Trump cites as proof of his winning performance. But online polls are easily stacked by a loyal cadre of partisan activists. It's similar to the Gold Rush era practice of "salting the mine" with small particles of the ore to facilitate sale of a worn-out mine.
   Trump is right about one thing, however, when he complains that "the system is rigged" to defeat his candidacy for the presidency. Yes, Donald, it is rigged, arranged in such a fashion to prevent demagogues and potential dictators from taking over.
   Those who remember elementary school history lessons about the U.S. Constitution know about the separation of powers for three separate but equal branches of government -- Congress, Judiciary, and Executive.
   Moreover, there is nothing in the Constitution that says members of the Electoral College must vote for any particular candidate. Winning the popular vote is no guarantee of winning through to the White House. That has already happened -- twice -- most recently when Al Gore lost his White House bid to George W. Bush, despite having a larger nationwide popular vote.
   Hillary Clinton may well have many personal flaws. (Doesn't everyone?) But given the choice between a candidate with 30 years experience in government or a bombastic buffoon facing allegations of fraud, stiffing small-business contractors and not paying them for work done, plus numerous other instances of unethical and immoral behavior, voters will decide.