The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: Wingnut on August 13, 2016, 03:03:58 am
-
Will Donald Trump try to weasel out of the presidential debates? On the one hand, he has verbally committed to three joint appearances with Hillary Clinton this fall. On the other, he seeks to renegotiate the terms under which the matches will take place. At some point, and soon, Trump will have to decide which matters more: having his conditions met, or stepping into the spotlight as a presidential debater before the largest audience of his career.
During the primary season Trump wielded substantial influence over how the Republican debates were staged, particularly after the kick-off event in Cleveland broke viewership records. Those 24 million people weren’t tuning in for Jeb Bush, a reality that handed Trump the leverage to make demands. Some of the demands were met—shorter program lengths, the inclusion of opening and closing statements, while others were ignored—like the suggestion that the networks contribute their debate profits to charity.
But enormous differences separate primary debates from general election debates, not the least of which is that primary debates fall under the guise of commercial programming, while general election debates are classic examples of public service TV. Trump got away with making demands during the primaries because the cable news networks that sponsored the debates needed his participation to boost ratings. General election match-ups do not include commercials, and haven’t since their inception in 1960. The ratings for presidential debates, huge as they are, cannot be monetized. Debates are pure civic virtue—that’s one of their attractions.
Over the past year the Commission on Presidential Debates has announced the dates, locations and formats of the 2016 general election debates. The Clinton campaign recently accepted these terms, without fanfare and without conditions. Trump, by contrast, is positioning himself as the programs’ would-be executive producer, the type who steps in at the last minute and starts making troublesome changes.
Specifically, Trump has complained about the scheduling of debates against NFL games, ignoring the fact that presidential debates routinely compete with professional sporting events. The commission’s carefully chosen dates were announced almost a year ago, and the host institutions—college campuses across the U.S.—have spent millions of dollars preparing around that calendar. Furthermore, in an age when viewers are adept at juggling multiple screens, such programming conflicts may be irrelevant.
Trump says he wants a voice in choosing debate moderators. In early rounds of presidential debates, from Kennedy-Nixon through the 1980s, this was standard practice. But over the past few cycles the debate commission has made a point of announcing the slate of moderators before the campaigns dive into the nitty-gritty of debate planning. Effectively this has cut candidates and handlers out of the process — that was the commission’s goal, and it’s a laudable one.
Because Trump sees himself as a television maestro, someone with fabulous ideas, we can expect him to weigh in on matters of format and production. Will he ask for a more self-serving structure than the one that’s being proposed? Under the current plan, two of the three debates involve several rounds of 15-minute open discussion periods — hardly Trump’s thing. It is conceivable that he may lobby for a repeat of the Sarah Palin format in her 2008 debate with Joe Biden: ultra-short response times that favor memorized sound bites over sustained arguments. Against Hillary Clinton, this may be Trump’s best hope.
More
http://time.com/4446776/donald-trump-debates/
-
By the end of September, Trump will be firmly 10 points down, and the debates will be the only thing he could count on to pull his butt out of the ditch.
He'll accept the terms without a whimper, OR he'll skip the debates.
In which case, he'll drop another three points.
-
A better question to ask is, can the Hildebeest participate in a live debate without a major circuit breaker tripping off in her head??
Seriously. Can she even stand up on her own for that length of time??
-
A better question to ask is, can the Hildebeest participate in a live debate without a major circuit breaker tripping off in her head??
Seriously. Can she even stand up on her own for that length of time??
She did very well against Bernie, in every debate.
Don't buy into Hannity's bullshit about Hillary being sick. It's a diversion from Trump's ineptitude.
-
"Will Donald Trump try to weasel out of the presidential debates?"
What a stupid question. I can't believe someone would even post this drivel.
He loves to debate. He thinks he is the best debater. And he has done extremely well in the primary debates. He is very much looking forward to ripping into Hillary directly. He has every right to determine and negotiate the rules under which he will debate.
-
A better question to ask is, can the Hildebeest participate in a live debate without a major circuit breaker tripping off in her head??
Seriously. Can she even stand up on her own for that length of time??
Vegas odds puts her at 70/30 and that is at a trump book.
-
He loves to debate. He thinks he is the best debater. And he has done extremely well in the primary debates. He is very much looking forward to ripping into Hillary directly. He has every right to determine and negotiate the rules under which he will debate.
He was a terrible debater, he brought it down to the gutter level and he even skipped one since he loves it so much.
-
He was a terrible debater, he brought it down to the gutter level and he even skipped one since he loves it so much.
Is that why he skipped it? Try again.
-
Is that why he skipped it? Try again.
It is a given We will concede that Trump is a masterbater.
-
It is a given We will concede that Trump is a masterbater.
And you?
-
At this point I believe he will debate. It will be the best platform to do as much damage, as quickly as possible to his campaign.
There will be more negative soundbites available to Hillary than she can use.
Hillary supporters will be in the audience goading him into predictable bouts of apoplectic frenzy.
It will not only be "must see TV" but it will also put the final few nails into the coffin of this sham campaign.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v165/crutch999/Trump%20Drrrrrrr_zpsynhk8bcp.jpg)
-
Will he weasel out? Of course; it's what The Donald does.
-
"Will Donald Trump try to weasel out of the presidential debates?"
What a stupid question. I can't believe someone would even post this drivel.
He loves to debate. He thinks he is the best debater. And he has done extremely well in the primary debates. He is very much looking forward to ripping into Hillary directly. He has every right to determine and negotiate the rules under which he will debate.
He ran from Ted Cruz's debate challenge because he knew Cruz would destroy him one-on-one. I expect he'll do the same again.
-
He ran from Ted Cruz's debate challenge because he knew Cruz would destroy him one-on-one. I expect he'll do the same again.
Trump was happy to debate when there were lots of candidates on stage where he could flip off a few insults and mindless answers to fill up 20 seconds at a time. When it got down to Trump Kasich and Cruz, Trump didn't want to debate anymore because he couldn't bait Cruz and Kasich with his childish behavior. He would have been forced to give actual serious answers to things and proved what a simpleton he really is.
In a debate with Clinton he won't be able to talk about his genitalia and get away with it. He'll be asked to explain his comments about wanting American citizens tried by military commissions and locked up at Guantanamo bay.
-
Exactly. Trump lost every single debate except one and that one he didn't win. He simply managed to not hurt himself. In one of the debates, his insanity became glaringly obvious to anyone with half a brain. The man is an embarrassment.
I think the only debate he didn't lose was the one where he didn't show up.
In the history of televised debates, there has never been a worse debater than Donald J. Trump.
And if and when he appears on the national stage in a debate, he will prove he is an ignorant, insane fool, and will lose.
Which, IMO, is his plan, since he's been in this for Hillary from Day 1.
-
"Will Donald Trump try to weasel out of the presidential debates?"
What a stupid question. I can't believe someone would even post this drivel.
He loves to debate. He thinks he is the best debater. And he has done extremely well in the primary debates. He is very much looking forward to ripping into Hillary directly. He has every right to determine and negotiate the rules under which he will debate.
LOL!! The only people who thought Trump did "well" in primary debates were those who answered those phony Drudge polls. He showed a profound ignorance and he will show even more ignorance if he has to give more than a one or two sentence response to a question without 16 other people on the stage.
As for negotiating the rules, no he doesn't get a say. The rules are the rules, nobody's objected since 1996, and he will accept the rules or not debate, which will sink him even further in the polls.
Trump is in serious trouble. Quibbling about debate rules and thundering over "rigged" results is just flop sweat from Big Orange.
-
LOL!! The only people who thought Trump did "well" in primary debates were those who answered those phony Drudge polls.
No kidding, He was at 80% no matter how many times I voted. :silly:
-
Exactly. Trump lost every single debate except one and that one he didn't win. He simply managed to not hurt himself. In one of the debates, his insanity became glaringly obvious to anyone with half a brain. The man is an embarrassment.
Yes, and I would say that the moment the fool bragged about the size of his genitals was the moment he should have been led offstage and barred from subsequent debates.
He was able to get away with his ineffectual flailing as long as he could stand amidst the camouflage of a line of candidates. But when it's down to one on one, Trump's ignorance will be on glaring display, and he knows that.
-
Trump was happy to debate when there were lots of candidates on stage where he could flip off a few insults and mindless answers to fill up 20 seconds at a time. When it got down to Trump Kasich and Cruz, Trump didn't want to debate anymore because he couldn't bait Cruz and Kasich with his childish behavior. He would have been forced to give actual serious answers to things and proved what a simpleton he really is.
In a debate with Clinton he won't be able to talk about his genitalia and get away with it. He'll be asked to explain his comments about wanting American citizens tried by military commissions and locked up at Guantanamo bay.
Omg, CC, I should have read this before I typed my previous post, LOL.
-
Omg, CC, I should have read this before I typed my previous post, LOL.
Actually, I enjoyed reading the same thought twice. ^-^
It's the absolute truth. Trump could just stick in a brain dead zinger once in a while, giving his fans the vapors, and never say a single thing of substance, simply because there were so many people on stage.
He doesn't have enough in his head to debate one-on-one for even a half hour let alone the entire time of the debate.
-
Actually, I enjoyed reading the same thought twice. ^-^
It's the absolute truth. Trump could just stick in a brain dead zinger once in a while, giving his fans the vapors, and never say a single thing of substance, simply because there were so many people on stage.
He doesn't have enough in his head to debate one-on-one for even a half hour let alone the entire time of the debate.
That's true. If he does make it to the debates, I expect Clinton will cream him, and she isn't much of a debater to begin with.
-
That's true. If he does make it to the debates, I expect Clinton will cream him, and she isn't much of a debater to begin with.
She will. And she's one of the most distasteful, nastiest human beings on the face of the earth.
Just think of where we would be if the GOP had chosen a REAL nominee, and not this bone-headed charlatan! **nononono*
-
Will he weasel out? Of course; it's what The Donald does.
Trump is the Frank Burns of the GOP. Old ferret face!
-
She will. And she's one of the most distasteful, nastiest human beings on the face of the earth.
Just think of where we would be if the GOP had chosen a REAL nominee, and not this bone-headed charlatan! **nononono*
A debate champion with some actual policy chops and an awareness of the world around him would have been good.
-
Will Donald Trump try to weasel out of the presidential debates?
Is water wet?
Is a pig's but pork?
...
-
She did very well against Bernie, in every debate.
Don't buy into Hannity's bullshit about Hillary being sick. It's a diversion from Trump's ineptitude.
Take this to the bank: Hannity's BS is the last thing I would buy into. I base my comments on the fact that the speeches we do have video of show her seated in an easy chair onstage to deliver her remarks.
My point is that the Hildebeest is arrogant enough to believe she could waltz into the White House like FDR, using the press to ignore her obvious disability. Something is going on with her and nobody knows for sure just what it is. Until she releases her actual medical records, any opinion by a "doctor" who has never examined her is meaningless.
And a "debate" with Bernie Sanders in front of a friendly audience is one thing, a face to face all-out brawl with Donald Trump is quite another. Different stresses that she may well be incapable of controlling. What if she has another coughing fit live on stage?? What if she faints, or has some kind of seizure live and in color??
The Hildebeest has a lot more reasons to duck a debate than The Donald does. He's far quicker on his feet than she ever will be.
-
LOL!! The only people who thought Trump did "well" in primary debates were those who answered those phony Drudge polls. He showed a profound ignorance and he will show even more ignorance if he has to give more than a one or two sentence response to a question without 16 other people on the stage.
As for negotiating the rules, no he doesn't get a say. The rules are the rules, nobody's objected since 1996, and he will accept the rules or not debate, which will sink him even further in the polls.
Trump is in serious trouble. Quibbling about debate rules and thundering over "rigged" results is just flop sweat from Big Orange.
Yeah amazing how he won every debate and his negatives continued to skyrocket.
-
All of this hysteria and self-congratulation by the pro-Hillary posters is a little amusing to me, but it is all unnecessary. I think your 'Hillary for President' campaign is going just fine. No need to worry.
There is not a single pro Hillary poster on this board that I am aware of! Not a single one but they lie continues to be repeated regardless!
-
There is not a single pro Hillary poster on this board that I am aware of! Not a single one but they lie continues to be repeated regardless!
They have all been warned about this lie, and yet they keep repeating it.
So I'll repeat what you said louder....
THERE ARE NO PRO-HILLARY POSTERS ON THIS BOARD AND SAYING THERE ARE IS A DELIBERATE LIE.
-
Take this to the bank: Hannity's BS is the last thing I would buy into. I base my comments on the fact that the speeches we do have video of show her seated in an easy chair onstage to deliver her remarks.
My point is that the Hildebeest is arrogant enough to believe she could waltz into the White House like FDR, using the press to ignore her obvious disability. Something is going on with her and nobody knows for sure just what it is. Until she releases her actual medical records, any opinion by a "doctor" who has never examined her is meaningless.
And a "debate" with Bernie Sanders in front of a friendly audience is one thing, a face to face all-out brawl with Donald Trump is quite another. Different stresses that she may well be incapable of controlling. What if she has another coughing fit live on stage?? What if she faints, or has some kind of seizure live and in color??
The Hildebeest has a lot more reasons to duck a debate than The Donald does. He's far quicker on his feet than she ever will be.
Yeah. Quicker with lies and bullshit. Trump is IGNORANT!!! He doesn't have a context in which to place facts, so he quickly veers off into nonsense (like his complete unawareness that Russia was already in Ukraine).
Hillary is a policy wonk and will mop the floor with Trump and his advisors know it, thought I doubt he does.
A "brawl" is exactly what Hillary wants the debates to turn into. The more Trump is Trump, the more detrimental to him. She will look cool, he'll look crazy.
Cool beats crazy.
-
There is not a single pro Hillary poster on this board that I am aware of! Not a single one but they lie continues to be repeated regardless!
You have to question the intelligence of people who keep peddling that "Pro Hillary" and "Pro Democrat" crap election after election after election with zero results. Its just impotent ranting amidst personal failure.
-
I think, and this is only MY single opinion, that it is ridiculous to say that there are No Hillary supporters! Just by plain mathematical odds, there must be at least a few. But, nonetheless, what is the correct term for people who vote against one candidate, with full knowledge that the result will be the other candidate will win?
Just give me the term to use, and I will go with it. If you don't support Trump, Hillary wins. And that, I don't support either one doesn't work.
-
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/f6b55a_d738673db5564c4fb2b1de8777e13e77~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_243,h_423,al_c,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/f6b55a_d738673db5564c4fb2b1de8777e13e77~mv2.png) (https://static.wixstatic.com/media/f6b55a_566c8b8d6f3e409b80937936b9a0e745~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_243,h_421,al_c,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/f6b55a_566c8b8d6f3e409b80937936b9a0e745~mv2.png)
http://trumpcardcain.com/
-
I think, and this is only MY single opinion, that it is ridiculous to say that there are No Hillary supporters! Just by plain mathematical odds, there must be at least a few. But, nonetheless, what is the correct term for people who vote against one candidate, with full knowledge that the result will be the other candidate will win?
Just give me the term to use, and I will go with it. If you don't support Trump, Hillary wins. And that, I don't support either one doesn't work.
A total and complete logical fallacy! If enough people vote for neither Trump or Hillary neither will be sworn in as president on Jan. 20, 2017 ! THAT is a fact!
-
I think, and this is only MY single opinion, that it is ridiculous to say that there are No Hillary supporters! Just by plain mathematical odds, there must be at least a few. But, nonetheless, what is the correct term for people who vote against one candidate, with full knowledge that the result will be the other candidate will win?
Just give me the term to use, and I will go with it. If you don't support Trump, Hillary wins. And that, I don't support either one doesn't work.
I'll give you a term to use.
Principled, moral conservatives.
We don't want EITHER amoral, corrupt liberal in the WH.
But then, you knew that, didn't you, and keep repeating your false charge anyway.......
Disgusting.
-
Please stay on topic and stop the personal attacks...
-
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/f6b55a_d738673db5564c4fb2b1de8777e13e77~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_243,h_423,al_c,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/f6b55a_d738673db5564c4fb2b1de8777e13e77~mv2.png) (https://static.wixstatic.com/media/f6b55a_566c8b8d6f3e409b80937936b9a0e745~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_243,h_421,al_c,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/f6b55a_566c8b8d6f3e409b80937936b9a0e745~mv2.png)
http://trumpcardcain.com/
(http://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/08/Ttrump-v-Hillary-copy.jpg?w=768)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcUCLwWCihE&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcUCLwWCihE&feature=youtu.be
-
I think, and this is only MY single opinion, that it is ridiculous to say that there are No Hillary supporters! Just by plain mathematical odds, there must be at least a few. But, nonetheless, what is the correct term for people who vote against one candidate, with full knowledge that the result will be the other candidate will win?
Just give me the term to use, and I will go with it. If you don't support Trump, Hillary wins. And that, I don't support either one doesn't work.
@240B
This is what I don't understand, and maybe you can explain it to me.
After the convention, Trump supporters were crowing that #NeverTrump was dead, irrelevant. You all said that we were a small number and shrinking daily.
What changed?
If we're not that many, and if we couldn't even manage to get Cruz or Rubio to the nomination, how in the world can we keep Trump from the White House?
-
They have all been warned about this lie, and yet they keep repeating it.
So I'll repeat what you said louder....
THERE ARE NO PRO-HILLARY POSTERS ON THIS BOARD AND SAYING THERE ARE IS A DELIBERATE LIE.
They are only saying it because they know it gets under your skin. When the response becomes, "So what?" or "Who cares?" or "Okay"... then it gets under *THEIR* skin.
-
You are either obsessed with Hillary supporters, in which case I recommend you start posting at the Democrat Underground; or you are determined to smear those who refuse to vote for Trump with the "then you support Hilary" lie as a weapon of spite and retaliation. Either way, it is your own psychological problem. I'm sorry for you.
He is posting at the cousin site of the DUmp.
-
He was a terrible debater, he brought it down to the gutter level and he even skipped one since he loves it so much.
We know Trump was a ghastly debater but Trump thinks he won every debate. He did on the Drudge poll. Hahahaha.
-
"Breathe, Donald, breathe.
-
@240B
This is what I don't understand, and maybe you can explain it to me.
After the convention, Trump supporters were crowing that #NeverTrump was dead, irrelevant. You all said that we were a small number and shrinking daily.
What changed?
If we're not that many, and if we couldn't even manage to get Cruz or Rubio to the nomination, how in the world can we keep Trump from the White House?
Finally. A normal level-headed question/response.
#NeverTrump as established by the GOPe was severely damaged by the Trump nomination. I doubt there are many people who would debate this.
However, the Hillary campaign seeing this smoldering volcano of self righteous indignation, jumped right in to fill the gap. And now, whether they know it or not, many of the original NeverTrumps, who started with the goal of denying Trump the nomination, are acting as a part of the Hillary campaign.
NeverTrump, having failed at what they were formed to do, have been sucked into the Hillary campaign and are now working for her, in that they are working against Trump and for nobody at all. This obsessive campaigning against Trump can only, only, only result in bolstering the Hillary candidacy. Those who claim not to see this, are being dishonest with themselves and with us. IMO
As you have indicated, the NeverTrump 'movement' as it was at the outset (Kristol, et al) is more or less defunct, and will have little influence on the outcome. However, the NeverTrump diehards who have been conscripted into the Hillary campaign, may have a disproportional amount of influence by giving the apolitical masses the impression that not only the GOPe elites hate Trump (and they hate Cruz as well, btw), but that everyone hates Trump, including the very Republicans who nominated him. Which is what they want to do.
If the NeverTrump movement were what they say they are, they would have little influence. However, now that they have morphed over into a campaigning arm for the Clinton Presidency, now they, combined with the media and everything else, could leverage the outcome by a few percentage points. And that, would be enough to make President Hillary a reality.
I don't particularly care what they do. Everyone has their own perspective and interests. It is the dishonesty of the maneuver that irks me.
It is a pleasure to discuss this with you, CatherineofArago. I hope we will have an opportunity to speak again soon.
-
Finally. A normal level-headed question/response.
#NeverTrump as established by the GOPe was severely damaged by the Trump nomination. I doubt there are many people who would debate this.
However, the Hillary campaign seeing this smoldering volcano of self righteous indignation, jumped right in to fill the gap. And now, whether they know it or not, many of the original NeverTrumps, who started with the goal of denying Trump the nomination, are acting as a part of the Hillary campaign.
NeverTrump, having failed at what they were formed to do, have been sucked into the Hillary campaign and are now working for her, in that they are working against Trump and for nobody at all. This obsessive campaigning against Trump can only, only, only result in bolstering the Hillary candidacy. Those who claim not to see this, are being dishonest with themselves and with us. IMO
As you have indicated, the NeverTrump 'movement' as it was at the outset (Kristol, et al) is more or less defunct, and will have little influence on the outcome. However, the NeverTrump diehards who have been conscripted into the Hillary campaign, may have a disproportional amount of influence by giving the apolitical masses the impression that not only the GOPe elites hate Trump (and they hate Cruz as well, btw), but that everyone hates Trump, including the very Republicans who nominated him. Which is what they want to do.
If the NeverTrump movement were what they say they are, they would have little influence. However, now that they have morphed over into a campaigning arm for the Clinton Presidency, now they, combined with the media and everything else, could leverage the outcome by a few percentage points. And that, would be enough to make President Hillary a reality.
I don't particularly care what they do. Everyone has their own perspective and interests. It is the dishonesty of the maneuver that irks me.
It is a pleasure to discuss this with you, CatherineofArago. I hope we will have an opportunity to speak again soon.
Thank you 240B! Excellent! bold type mine. Very, very good.
-
Finally. A normal level-headed question/response.
#NeverTrump as established by the GOPe was severely damaged by the Trump nomination. I doubt there are many people who would debate this.
However, the Hillary campaign seeing this smoldering volcano of self righteous indignation, jumped right in to fill the gap. And now, whether they know it or not, many of the original NeverTrumps, who started with the goal of denying Trump the nomination, are acting as a part of the Hillary campaign.
NeverTrump, having failed at what they were formed to do, have been sucked into the Hillary campaign and are now working for her, in that they are working against Trump and for nobody at all. This obsessive campaigning against Trump can only, only, only result in bolstering the Hillary candidacy. Those who claim not to see this, are being dishonest with themselves and with us. IMO
As you have indicated, the NeverTrump 'movement' as it was at the outset (Kristol, et al) is more or less defunct, and will have little influence on the outcome. However, the NeverTrump diehards who have been conscripted into the Hillary campaign, may have a disproportional amount of influence by giving the apolitical masses the impression that not only the GOPe elites hate Trump (and they hate Cruz as well, btw), but that everyone hates Trump, including the very Republicans who nominated him. Which is what they want to do.
If the NeverTrump movement were what they say they are, they would have little influence. However, now that they have morphed over into a campaigning arm for the Clinton Presidency, now they, combined with the media and everything else, could leverage the outcome by a few percentage points. And that, would be enough to make President Hillary a reality.
I don't particularly care what they do. Everyone has their own perspective and interests. It is the dishonesty of the maneuver that irks me.
It is a pleasure to discuss this with you, CatherineofArago. I hope we will have an opportunity to speak again soon.
:beer:
-
Finally. A normal level-headed question/response.
#NeverTrump as established by the GOPe was severely damaged by the Trump nomination. I doubt there are many people who would debate this.
However, the Hillary campaign seeing this smoldering volcano of self righteous indignation, jumped right in to fill the gap. And now, whether they know it or not, many of the original NeverTrumps, who started with the goal of denying Trump the nomination, are acting as a part of the Hillary campaign.
NeverTrump, having failed at what they were formed to do, have been sucked into the Hillary campaign and are now working for her, in that they are working against Trump and for nobody at all. This obsessive campaigning against Trump can only, only, only result in bolstering the Hillary candidacy. Those who claim not to see this, are being dishonest with themselves and with us. IMO
As you have indicated, the NeverTrump 'movement' as it was at the outset (Kristol, et al) is more or less defunct, and will have little influence on the outcome. However, the NeverTrump diehards who have been conscripted into the Hillary campaign, may have a disproportional amount of influence by giving the apolitical masses the impression that not only the GOPe elites hate Trump (and they hate Cruz as well, btw), but that everyone hates Trump, including the very Republicans who nominated him. Which is what they want to do.
If the NeverTrump movement were what they say they are, they would have little influence. However, now that they have morphed over into a campaigning arm for the Clinton Presidency, now they, combined with the media and everything else, could leverage the outcome by a few percentage points. And that, would be enough to make President Hillary a reality.
I don't particularly care what they do. Everyone has their own perspective and interests. It is the dishonesty of the maneuver that irks me.
It is a pleasure to discuss this with you, CatherineofArago. I hope we will have an opportunity to speak again soon.
And yet here you are, talking about #NeverTrump. There is nothing dishonest about not voting for either of two despicable candidates.
If you favor Trump, then by all means, elect him. I will have no hand in electing either one because I will vote for neither Hillary nor Trump.
-
There is nothing dishonest about not voting for either of two despicable candidates.
If you favor Trump, then by all means, elect him. I will have no hand in electing either one because I will vote for neither Hillary nor Trump.
Then why do you take it so personal? What is that that drives you so emotionally that you always have to make some comment or many more comments bashing Trump and Trump supporters? Curious minds want to know.
-
Then why do you take it so personal? What is that that drives you so emotionally that you always have to make some comment or many more comments bashing Trump and Trump supporters? Curious minds want to know.
I think Trump is dangerous to the country, much more dangerous than Hillary.
We've had terrible presidents before.
We've never had crazy.
-
Will Donald Trump try to weasel out of the presidential debates? On the one hand, he has verbally committed to three joint appearances with Hillary Clinton this fall. On the other, he seeks to renegotiate the terms under which the matches will take place. At some point, and soon, Trump will have to decide which matters more: having his conditions met, or stepping into the spotlight as a presidential debater before the largest audience of his career.
During the primary season Trump wielded substantial influence over how the Republican debates were staged, particularly after the kick-off event in Cleveland broke viewership records. Those 24 million people weren’t tuning in for Jeb Bush, a reality that handed Trump the leverage to make demands. Some of the demands were met—shorter program lengths, the inclusion of opening and closing statements, while others were ignored—like the suggestion that the networks contribute their debate profits to charity.
But enormous differences separate primary debates from general election debates, not the least of which is that primary debates fall under the guise of commercial programming, while general election debates are classic examples of public service TV. Trump got away with making demands during the primaries because the cable news networks that sponsored the debates needed his participation to boost ratings. General election match-ups do not include commercials, and haven’t since their inception in 1960. The ratings for presidential debates, huge as they are, cannot be monetized. Debates are pure civic virtue—that’s one of their attractions.
Over the past year the Commission on Presidential Debates has announced the dates, locations and formats of the 2016 general election debates. The Clinton campaign recently accepted these terms, without fanfare and without conditions. Trump, by contrast, is positioning himself as the programs’ would-be executive producer, the type who steps in at the last minute and starts making troublesome changes.
Specifically, Trump has complained about the scheduling of debates against NFL games, ignoring the fact that presidential debates routinely compete with professional sporting events. The commission’s carefully chosen dates were announced almost a year ago, and the host institutions—college campuses across the U.S.—have spent millions of dollars preparing around that calendar. Furthermore, in an age when viewers are adept at juggling multiple screens, such programming conflicts may be irrelevant.
Trump says he wants a voice in choosing debate moderators. In early rounds of presidential debates, from Kennedy-Nixon through the 1980s, this was standard practice. But over the past few cycles the debate commission has made a point of announcing the slate of moderators before the campaigns dive into the nitty-gritty of debate planning. Effectively this has cut candidates and handlers out of the process — that was the commission’s goal, and it’s a laudable one.
Because Trump sees himself as a television maestro, someone with fabulous ideas, we can expect him to weigh in on matters of format and production. Will he ask for a more self-serving structure than the one that’s being proposed? Under the current plan, two of the three debates involve several rounds of 15-minute open discussion periods — hardly Trump’s thing. It is conceivable that he may lobby for a repeat of the Sarah Palin format in her 2008 debate with Joe Biden: ultra-short response times that favor memorized sound bites over sustained arguments. Against Hillary Clinton, this may be Trump’s best hope.
More
http://time.com/4446776/donald-trump-debates/
I think Trump will drum up some lame excuse to not debate Hillary at the last minute. And why should he even bother with debates? I mean....it's not like he's actually trying to win or anything.
http://www.redstate.com/joesquire/2016/08/13/maybe-donald-trump-wont-debate/
-
At this point I believe he will debate. It will be the best platform to do as much damage, as quickly as possible to his campaign.
I was about to observe the same thing myself.
-
I think Trump is dangerous to the country, much more dangerous than Hillary.
We've had terrible presidents before.
We've never had crazy.
We have also never had two candidates running against each other (supposedly) that are as corrupt as Hillary and Donald. Obama brought America many "firsts". This is just one more.
-
They are only saying it because they know it gets under your skin. When the response becomes, "So what?" or "Who cares?" or "Okay"... then it gets under *THEIR* skin.
I suppose you're right.
Lies like theirs will fade away if no one bothers getting mad that they're lying.....
Besides, I've noticed that the Mods come running if anyone responds to their taunts (which of course is why they taunt). If I had kept responding to the lies, I would have been the one who got in trouble, and that, of course, is part of the Trump lovers' goal.
I'm going to be more circumspect about recognizing deceitful trolling and try ignoring it.
Wish me luck. TRUTH matters to me, and I react badly when I see it trumpled.......
-
Finally. A normal level-headed question/response.
#NeverTrump as established by the GOPe was severely damaged by the Trump nomination. I doubt there are many people who would debate this.
Well, I don't consider myself part of a movement. If I were the last person who wouldn't vote for Trump, I would be fine with it. I consider it a personal, moral decision which affects both me and my country.
But the GOPe didn't establish #NeverTrump. It began when Erick Erickson and a group of concerned conservatives met in March at the Army and Navy Club for a discussion on whether Donald could be stopped. Shortly after that, Erickson began selling "#NeverTrump" bumperstickers on his site, The Resurgent.
However, the Hillary campaign seeing this smoldering volcano of self righteous indignation, jumped right in to fill the gap. And now, whether they know it or not, many of the original NeverTrumps, who started with the goal of denying Trump the nomination, are acting as a part of the Hillary campaign.
But see, accusations of self-righteousness usually come from someone whose conscience is being needled.
Naturally Hillary jumped in to fill the gap. Why wouldn't she? When the GOP nominated Trump, it ceded the moral high ground.
NeverTrump, having failed at what they were formed to do, have been sucked into the Hillary campaign and are now working for her, in that they are working against Trump and for nobody at all. This obsessive campaigning against Trump can only, only, only result in bolstering the Hillary candidacy. Those who claim not to see this, are being dishonest with themselves and with us. IMO
No, I'm sorry, that's just silly, and completely wrong. Erick Erickson and Ben Shapiro put out as much if not more #NeverHillary material as they do #NeverTrump. If a conservative decides to vote for Hillary instead of Trump, I don't understand it, because they're both cut from the same liberal cloth.
Why do you call it obsessive, though? We're in the last three months of a campaign and Trump's mouth is all over the place. Do you expect conservatives to ignore him when he makes a fool of himself?
Nothing we do can affect this election. The #NeverTrumpers and the Trump fans are both largely preaching to the choir. Your problem, as a Trump supporter, is the general electorate. Most people just don't like him. His numbers haven't improved and in fact have dropped. He isn't making an effort to appeal to anyone outside of his core fanbase.
Let me amend that---your problem is the general electorate, AND Trump himself. Maybe instead of trying to convince us to support him you should be directing your efforts toward convincing him to act like a halfway normal human being.
As you have indicated, the NeverTrump 'movement' as it was at the outset (Kristol, et al) is more or less defunct, and will have little influence on the outcome. However, the NeverTrump diehards who have been conscripted into the Hillary campaign, may have a disproportional amount of influence by giving the apolitical masses the impression that not only the GOPe elites hate Trump (and they hate Cruz as well, btw), but that everyone hates Trump, including the very Republicans who nominated him. Which is what they want to do.
No one's been "conscripted into the Hillary campaign." Like I said, if the odd conservative here or there votes for her, I think it's a mistake and I would never do it, but in the end, there's nothing we can do about it. We should have run a better candidate. We ought to be running away with this election, and the fact that we aren't is because people wouldn't listen to reason. They insisted on nominating that amoral, miserably ignorant clown.
The guilt lies with them, and no one else. You don't nominate a lifelong liberal, expect conservatives to support him, and then get upset when we won't.
You're right that the GOP establishment hates Cruz, but they hate him for the right reasons. They dislike Trump because he's a joke and he makes their party a laughingstock. They know that, on the slim chance he gets in, he'll schmooze right along with them; he's a lifelong establishment insider himself.
Everyone pretty much does dislike Trump; they don't need to be convinced. The polls are pretty clear.
If the NeverTrump movement were what they say they are, they would have little influence. However, now that they have morphed over into a campaigning arm for the Clinton Presidency, now they, combined with the media and everything else, could leverage the outcome by a few percentage points. And that, would be enough to make President Hillary a reality.
I don't particularly care what they do. Everyone has their own perspective and interests. It is the dishonesty of the maneuver that irks me.
Well, I've addressed that, so I won't again, but if Trump is going to win, he's going to need a lot more than just a few percentage points. Right now it's looking like he's going to get run over.
It is a pleasure to discuss this with you, CatherineofArago. I hope we will have an opportunity to speak again soon.
Well, I thank you for the kind words, although I don't know if you still feel that way, lol.
-
But the GOPe didn't establish #NeverTrump. It began when Erick Erickson and a group of concerned conservatives met in March at the Army and Navy Club for a discussion on whether Donald could be stopped. Shortly after that, Erickson began selling "#NeverTrump" bumperstickers on his site, The Resurgent.
Even Erikson will admit that it was something that was organically growing among the people on twitter that he adopted. Guys like Bill Kristol came along even later. I've been #NeverTrump for better than 30 years despite not uttering those exact words till about 8 or 9 months ago.
Claiming it was driven by the GOPe is pure Alinskyite crap like Nancy Pelosi saying the Koch Bros are behind the tea party.
The fact is that you could remove every so called "establishment" type from #NeverTrump and it wouldn't make a dent.
@CatherineofAragon
-
Well, I thank you for the kind words, although I don't know if you still feel that way, lol.
No, come on. It is nothing like that at all. This is all friendly. Nothing personal.
I cannot add much to what you have explained. I will attempt to clarify a little of what I am referring to. When I read headlines that banner things like,
70 top Republicans call on the RNC to dump Trump
50 Top GOP National Security Officials Sign Letter Opposing Trump
this is a far cry from the 'live-and-let-live' policy that the NeverTrump people claim to support and live by. If anyone, no matter who it is does not want to vote for Trump, then simply do not vote for him. Period. But don't campaign against him. If it truly doesn't matter, then why not root for your own side?
When you go out of your way to generate negative headlines against the nominee of your own party, then that is a completely different stance than one of principled abstinence.
If a person represents himself as a Republican and speaks to the press in a negative way against Trump, that will be blasted across the country as "Republican [whatever title, Senator, Congressman, etc.] opposes Trump". They have to know that. And if they know it, they are doing it intentionally. And if they are doing it intentionally, then they are helping Hillary. This is something rarely if ever seen on the Democrat side. (they may be power mad, delusional, and dangerous, but they are not fools)
There are only two sides to a coin. The coin will land on either heads or tails. Wishing for the one in a million shot that the coin may land on its side is unrealistic and naive.
And naivete is an issue. A person may generate as much NeverHillary material as NeverTrump material, but the way America is today, the NeverTrump material will get twice as much coverage and emphasis, especially if it is generated by a Republican. That is what I meant by saying they are being conscripted without even knowing it. They think they are being fair and responsible. But regardless of what their motives are, the Hillary campaign with use every word they say with glee, while simultaneously burying the NeverHillary stuff. Liberals have no sense of honor, and they never play by any rules. They do whatever it takes to win.
Republicans may be taking a considered principled stance. The Leftists don't care. They LOVE it. They are all about winning at any cost. And they will use whatever the Republicans give them in any way they can to 'win', and take over America. That is no joke.
From my perspective, if Donald Trump is as much a Liberal as Hillary, if there is no difference between them, if you really truly believe that, then God help us all.
I do not believe that Hillary and Trump are the same at all. If that makes me wrong, then so be it. I stand before you wrong. In this case the Trump Devil I don't really know, absolutely must be better than the Clinton Devil that stands before me now, bold, cackling, and flipping her middle finger up at God and America. I have a calling, a duty, and a responsibility. Unlike some other fortunate ones, I bear the burden of standing up and stopping her. There is no way possible for me to sit this one out, for whatever reason I may want to. I have to do the right thing, even if it seems wrong to many of those around me.