Trump blows off debate tune-up

[NavyCanDo]

A Bye week for my Seahawks, and the debate is on. Yea, nothing on TV this Sunday.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Both arguments are being made here, and clearly they are mutually exclusive.  However I'm not sure any given individual is making both arguments; some oppose Trump on one theory, others on the other.  While at most one theory can be true, the existence of both does not question the legitimacy of either.

Of course a given person who did make both arguments would be engaging in self-contradiction.

Agreed.  However, both arguments also exclude the possibility that he ends up anywhere in the middle, and both arguments are made as if their respective outcome is virtually certain to occur.  It is passing odd that opponents have latched with such certainty onto two opposite poles of who he really is, which speaks more of confirmation bias (I don't like him so he must be something really horrible) as opposed to a more balanced assessment.

I think that comes about because for many of us (including me) the best argument for voting for him is "well, I know what Hillary is like, so Trump's unpredictability is preferable."  But that results in Trump being a reasonable choice, so his unpredictability had to vanish into the certainty that he's either a latent demagogue absolutely devoted to acquiring absolute power, or someone who really doesn't care about power at all, but is just in the race for ego-gratification and to help his buddies, the Clintons.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

A Bye week for my Seahawks, and the debate is on. Yea, nothing on TV this Sunday.

Heh.  I didn't watch the first one, and I won't watch this one.  I haven't watched an entire general election Presidential debate since 1980.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Right.  Go completely crazy in front of 60 million Americans.   How badly do you want him to lose?

Is it really preferable to have him stand out there for 90 minutes giving bad answers?

[GrouchoTex]

I have no problem with the argument that Trump is unpredictable.  I have a problem with the argument that is clearly the next Hitler/Mussolini, or clearly only a stalking horse for Hillary.

Yet, Trump has made statements, and has shown actions (or inaction) that move the needle in both those directions.
When bad news has broken about Hillary, he has been slow to respond , if at all, sometimesgoing about things in a different direction, and taking the heat off of Hillary.
He claimed it was "boring" to go after Hillay, while going after those in his own "party".

While you have posted, correctly, on other threads, that lately the Totalitarian view point is displayed by the left, more than it has by the right, it is still out here on both side.
So we are talking matters of degree.

BLM, College safe spaces, violent disruption of political events, Occupy WS, all were from the left, this is true.

Trumps call for Stop-and-frisk, strengthening libel laws, inviting rally members to knock the hell out of people are smaller in scale, but are heading that way.
At best, Trump is going to continue with the current socialist style nanny state, where we are not capable of paying for maternity leave with out the governments help, as one example.

There are more examples, to be sure from both the left and the right, like making college free from the left.

So, to summarize:

Hillary is bad,certainly.
Trump is not so bad (maybe).

Heck of a spot we are in.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

So, to summarize:

Hillary is bad,certainly.
Trump is not so bad (maybe).

Heck of a spot we are in.

Yup.  No argument there.  Although I'd add a point someone else made in another thread:  the press will be fighting Trump tooth and nail throughout his Presidency if he wins, while they'd be providing a big tailwind for Hillary.  And the same with the courts to some extent.  Hillary would be backed by Obama's effect on the lower federal courts, and have at least a 5-4 majority favorably disposed to her.  Trump has no natural/partisan allies in the judiciary in general, or on the Supreme Court specifically.

So even if they have equally dangerous views, I don't think they will be equally able to implement them.

[Jazzhead]

I'm confused.  Is it:

1) Trump really has no interest in winning the election, and was just there to clear the road for Hillary before returning to his hedonistic, selfish ways, or;

2) Trump is the next Hitler, driven to acquire absolute personal control over the entire country, and to stamp out all opposition.

Because there are people here making both arguments against the guy, and they are polar opposites.

I tend to favor the view that Trump has run with the goal of becoming President; after all,  he's flirted with the idea for decades.   I think, like a good businessman, he's hedging his bets, seeking to monetize his run win or lose (e.g., his plans for Trump TV,  his unwillingness to spend much of his own money,  and his practice of loaning his own money so it can be paid back from dollars donated by supporters.) 

It's an exaggeration to say Trump wants to be the "next Hitler", but he sure does display fascist tendencies,  and is a master (like classic fascists) of exploiting the fears and prejudices of the volk and presenting himself as the only-hope strongman who can make the trains run on time.   Call him a demagogue, if you prefer.  But the clincher for me is the erratic nature of his personality.  He's got an ego like a blimp,  doesn't accept constructive criticism, exhibits traits of paranoia,  has a short-trigger temper and won't ever let bygones be bygones.   He's still obsessed about slights from eighties beauty queens, for crisssake.   His improvisational, mercurial nature may work in a jazz musician, but does it work for a Commander in Chief?   Or is he a mortal danger to our troops?   

This is a lesser of two evils election,  and we all need to decide who's worse.  Clinton's the devil we know,  Trump's the one we don't.   I don't like surprises;  to me,  Trump's personality renders him unfit for office and on that basis, he's worse than Clinton.   If it's Too Corrupt vs. Too Crazy,  then give me Too Corrupt with a GOP Congress to rein her in.   Too Crazy is, let's face it, simply Too Damn Dangerous.   

[Lisbon1939]

Trump has deluded himself into thinking he wiped the floor with Hillary when the exact opposite is true.

All the web polls had him winning. Why change anything?

[Machiavelli]

Two articles, same subject


Trump says town hall event has 'nothing to do' with debate prep -- and proves it

Jeremy Diamond and Maeve Reston
CNN
October 7, 2016

Donald Trump took the stage at a town hall here Thursday night and insisted the forum was not set up to help prepare him for Sunday's town hall-style debate against Hillary Clinton.
And after fielding a dozen softballs for just a half-hour from a hand-picked group of voters inside the small, sweltering wood-paneled room, it seemed Trump was right: the forum had "nothing to do" with the upcoming debate, despite Trump campaign sources telling CNN earlier Thursday that the evening's town hall event would serve as a practice run.

More


'This Isn't Practice': Trump Gets Softballs at Town Hall

Ali Vitali
NBC News
October 7, 2016

Donald Trump swears the small town hall his campaign held for him here wasn't debate prep. And after hearing the questions, maybe he was right.

After reports emerged that Thursday night's intimate town hall event was set up as a mock session before the second presidential debate on Sunday, the GOP nominee denied it.

"This isn't practice!" Trump said. "This has nothing to do with Sunday. We're just here because we just wanted to be here."

More

[HoustonSam]

Why would an omnicompetent, visionary genius, a jedi master of 9 dimensional ninja chess, who strides across the political landscape destroying old paradigms like the Neitzschean Overman, need practice?

[Night Hides Not]

Why would an omnicompetent, visionary genius, a jedi master of 9 dimensional ninja chess, who strides across the political landscape destroying old paradigms like the Neitzschean Overman, need practice?

Trump and Allen Iverson must be kindred spirits...

[libertybele]

I'm confused.  Is it:

1) Trump really has no interest in winning the election, and was just there to clear the road for Hillary before returning to his hedonistic, selfish ways, or;

2) Trump is the next Hitler, driven to acquire absolute personal control over the entire country, and to stamp out all opposition.

Because there are people here making both arguments against the guy, and they are polar opposites.

No need for confusion. Trump's objective is to derail the conservative movement, hijack the GOP and hand the White House to Hillary.  It is not that he desires to be or will be the next Hitler, only that he has very similar personality traits to that of Hitler; a narcissistic demagogue with psychopathic and sociopathic tendencies.

[geronl]

That's about it.   Still, I enjoy fantasizing -  about Trump totaling embarrassing himself this Sunday and then, pressured finally by the RNC,  stepping down in favor of Mike Pence.

It's probably too late to "step down" in some states. Plus what right does Pence have to be the replacement, he didn't win any primary votes.

[geronl]

Pence really showed his chops last week,  showed that he's the only honorable and competent one of the four. 

He lied very nicely

[corbe]

[geronl]

All the web polls had him winning. Why change anything?

 

[Wingnut]

He's toast!