2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Black Swan

Amazingfun wrote: »

As opposed to the geniuses like Obama and Hillary that read word for word from teleprompters?

Can you name one modern day Democrat or Republican president that has NEVER USED a teleprompter for presentations before large audiences since the teleprompter has become available? I use PowerPoint to facilitate communications with my audience, as well as to help those that are hearing impaired. Most business professionals I know do too, as well as professors and scientists giving lectures on highly conceptual topics.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

You really can't compare this to the Palin interviews. The whole problem with the Couric interview was because she failed to list the newspapers she reads. Come on... really?

Are you seriously saying that's the only place in the interview Palin slipped up? She was clueless from beginning to end, why are you defending her completely inept performance? The woman wasn't fit for the job, what's wrong with admitting that?

Amazingfun

Black Swan wrote: »

Can you name one modern day Democrat or Republican president that has NEVER USED a teleprompter for presentations before large audiences since the teleprompter has become available? I use PowerPoint to facilitate communications with my audience, as well as to help those that are hearing impaired. Most business professionals I know do too, as well as professors and scientists giving lectures on highly conceptual topics.

Trump seems to do just fine without one, no?

Anyways, it's amusing to see the Palin obsession from some here in November 2015.

Brian?

Amazingfun wrote: »

Trump seems to do just fine without one, no?

Anyways, it's amusing to see the Palin obsession from some here in November 2015.

Does he? Or does he babble incoherently while blowing a few right wing dog whistles? It's easy make a speech that's all sound bytes and free of any actual serious content.

Black Swan

Amazingfun wrote: »

Anyways, it's amusing to see the Palin obsession from some here in November 2015.

You appear very uninformed with the cliché "Palin obsession" comment. The original Republican candidate straw poll (now revised by its originators) that served to launch this thread 30 September 2014 included Sarah Palin as a prospective candidate for 2016 presidential elections. Although it's unlikely that she will be a late entry at this November 2015 date, she still could be drafted as a vice presidential running mate for the nominee selected by the GOP for November 2016 (as occurred with John McCain in August 2008). The same could be said for the many candidates now running for the GOP 2016 nomination; should they not be selected, they may then be considered as VP running mates. ALL of these potential 2016 VP candidates should be open to scrutiny based upon their past performances, including Sarah Palin.

Amazingfun

Brian? wrote: »

Does he? Or does he babble incoherently while blowing a few right wing dog whistles? It's easy make a speech that's all sound bytes and free of any actual serious content.

:pac: Now that's a serious-content filled post!

Brian?

Amazingfun wrote: »

:pac: Now that's a serious-content filled post!

The irony here is brilliant. Your contention is that Trump "does just fine" without a teleprompter, an empty assertion given his performances and you criticise me for lack of content.

Post up what you consider a good Trump speech and let's discuss.

Amazingfun

Brian? wrote: »

The irony here is brilliant. Your contention is that Trump "does just fine" without a teleprompter, an empty assertion given his performances and you criticise me for lack of content.

Post up what you consider a good Trump speech and let's discuss.

Nice try at changing the context of the teleprompter chat. It had zero to do with his content, or wether anyone "liked" him or not.

I was asked to name one Dem or Rep who doesn't use a teleprompter, and I did: the almighty Trump himself does not use them and in fact wants them banned for Presidential candidates

Overheal

Complains that people are still talking about Palin in 2015

Still talking about teleprompters in 2015

#Election2008pt2

If you can drum up a good conversation about birth certificates you'll get a free set of steak knives.

Wompa1

Overheal wrote: »

Complains that people are still talking about Palin in 2015

Still talking about teleprompters in 2015

#Election2008pt2

If you can drum up a good conversation about birth certificates you'll get a free set of steak knives.

I thought that was familiar wasn't that one of the jabs at Obama. That when his teleprompter fell over, he was lost.

Speaking of Obama. It's depressing to read comments on any political news reporter here. Obama is in his last year and people are still calling for him to be removed from office. I just can't get who would hate somebody that much...it must be a crappy life to be so obsessed about hating the leader of your own country. Why wouldn't they just move?

Overheal

I don't think the Bern has to use his teleprompter much as a side note: he's been arguing the same damn points for decades.

They didn't even impeach Nixon, and Bill Clinton came under a lot more political flak (which included subpoenas) and he was not impeached either. People are reaching a bit if they think anything Obama has done as POTUS warrants an impeachment debate.

Amazingfun

Overheal wrote: »

Complains that people are still talking about Palin in 2015

Still talking about teleprompters in 2015

#Election2008pt2

If you can drum up a good conversation about birth certificates you'll get a free set of steak knives.

Oh but I didn't "complain", I said it was amusing. Which it is.

Anyways: apparently the feelings are so fragile here I've received an infraction :pac: for merely laughing at a completely offtopic post from Brian.

I'll leave you to you're "safe-space", lol.

InTheTrees

Amazingfun wrote: »

I'll leave you to you're "safe-space", lol.

Its "your" not you're.

eire4

Overheal wrote: »

I don't think the Bern has to use his teleprompter much as a side note: he's been arguing the same damn points for decades.

They didn't even impeach Nixon, and Bill Clinton came under a lot more political flak (which included subpoenas) and he was not impeached either. People are reaching a bit if they think anything Obama has done as POTUS warrants an impeachment debate.

Lets be real a lot of the hate directed at Obama is bigotry because he is Black.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Are you seriously saying that's the only place in the interview Palin slipped up? She was clueless from beginning to end, why are you defending her completely inept performance? The woman wasn't fit for the job, what's wrong with admitting that?

Such as?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Such as?

Are you asking where she slipped up in the interview?

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Are you asking where she slipped up in the interview?

Yes, as your statement that she was clueless from beginning to the end of the interview seems to be just a general attack against her with no substance. If you would have noted her not answering what newspapers she read, I could somewhat see your point, but a non-answer does not mean automatically mean she was clueless.

Overheal

Amazingfun wrote: »

I'll leave you to you're "safe-space", lol.

This is possibly the most popular drive-by comment of the month; often used by drive-by commentators who jump into the debate late, lack any of the context, and in lieu of any substantive argument, or indeed any due consideration that the person that it is fired at might also consider the "safe space" debacle to be a sad exercise in completely misunderstanding the First Amendment or the Civil Rights Movement.

Bye though, hardly knew ye, etc.

Hande hoche!

Well Jindal is out of the race, Graham next?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/11/17/bobby-jindal-ends-presidential-campaign/75958074/

Overheal

Graham's out effectively. No support for him in SC, I will tell you that. Bernie is gaining traction. SC will be a swing state this cycle - potentially. Have not looked at any of the hard data/analytics.

banquo

You in SC Overheal?

Overheal

indubitably

alaimacerc

Wompa1 wrote: »

Speaking of Obama. It's depressing to read comments on any political news reporter here. Obama is in his last year and people are still calling for him to be removed from office. I just can't get who would hate somebody that much...it must be a crappy life to be so obsessed about hating the leader of your own country. Why wouldn't they just move?

I think it may just be a reflex at this point. Plus no use in getting out of the habit: might feel they "have" to move into "impeach (another) Clinton!" mode fairly soon.

ancapailldorcha

Amazingfun wrote: »

Oh but I didn't "complain", I said it was amusing. Which it is.

Anyways: apparently the feelings are so fragile here I've received an infraction :pac: for merely laughing at a completely offtopic post from Brian.

I'll leave you to you're "safe-space", lol.

Don't post in this thread again.

InTheTrees wrote: »

Its "your" not you're.

This adds nothing to the discussion. Please read the charter before posting again.

strelok

Wompa1 wrote: »

I thought that was familiar wasn't that one of the jabs at Obama. That when his teleprompter fell over, he was lost.

Speaking of Obama. It's depressing to read comments on any political news reporter here. Obama is in his last year and people are still calling for him to be removed from office. I just can't get who would hate somebody that much...it must be a crappy life to be so obsessed about hating the leader of your own country. Why wouldn't they just move?

were you born in 2008?

alaimacerc

Amerika wrote: »

Not one of the Democrats can even bring themselves to use the term “radical Islam”. How can we fight our enemies when we can’t even call them what they are?

By which you mean, call them what they aren't, but Republican talking heads insist they do in some sort of bizarre dysphemism treadmill. (Cf Pamela Geller's exercise in criticising Obama for using the term "ISIL"... having previously criticised not using the exact same term.)

What precisely is this descriptor -- that somehow it's a strategic necessity be used! -- supposed to mean? Is it talking about Wahabist (and other?) Islamic fundamentalism in doctrinal terms? In which case, presumably it includes Saudi Arabia, whom we should therefore be "fighting" at once? Does it mean armed militant non-state Muslim groups? Like the ones being armed by the West to fight against Assad? Some vaguely defined combination of the above? Or some entirely ad hoc snarl with no actual functional definition at all?

Also, radical feminism just phoned from the 70s, and says it wants its adjective back...

Amerika

alaimacerc wrote: »

By which you mean, call them what they aren't, but Republican talking heads insist they do in some sort of bizarre dysphemism treadmill. (Cf Pamela Geller's exercise in criticising Obama for using the term "ISIL"... having previously criticised not using the exact same term.)

What precisely is this descriptor -- that somehow it's a strategic necessity be used! -- supposed to mean? Is it talking about Wahabist (and other?) Islamic fundamentalism in doctrinal terms? In which case, presumably it includes Saudi Arabia, whom we should therefore be "fighting" at once? Does it mean armed militant non-state Muslim groups? Like the ones being armed by the West to fight against Assad? Some vaguely defined combination of the above? Or some entirely ad hoc snarl with no actual functional definition at all?

Also, radical feminism just phoned from the 70s, and says it wants its adjective back...

Jihad... A holy war undertaken as a sacred duty by Muslims.

I think we've all heard of this.

I’ve seen estimates that approximately 325,000 Muslims are at risk of becoming radicalized and dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization.

And I’ve not seen radical Christianity cutting the heads off of people. Have you?

Overheal

And I’ve not seen radical Christianity cutting the heads off of people. Have you?

Nah they use guns. Way more civilized.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik

Thargor

Amerika wrote: »

Jihad... A holy war undertaken as a sacred duty by Muslims.

I think we've all heard of this.

I’ve seen estimates that approximately 325,000 Muslims are at risk of becoming radicalized and dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization.

And I’ve not seen radical Christianity cutting the heads off of people. Have you?

I heard Tony Blair and George W had a good old pray to the Christian God on the floor of the Oval Office before the voices in their heads told them to create the current mess and its associated 6-7 figure civilian death toll, does that count?

Manach

Overheal wrote: »

Nah they use guns. Way more civilized.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik

So that was why he was endorsed by the Vatican and all the main stream Churches in that area. :rolleyes: