Donald Trump

Samaris

Billy86 wrote: »

Pretty ridiculous that FOX, of all networks, get to host the third debate. That could be... Interesting!

I must admit, I'm rather looking forward to the one that Anderson Cooper hosts. He has a reputation for being a tough questioner and also of being pretty politically neutral when he's interviewing.

Actually, reading about Anderson Cooper is interesting stuff. The man has had a hell of an odd life.

everlast75

it's been widely reported that Trump's campaign M.O. was to court controversy for the free publicity. it was worth an estimated 4 billion in free advertising. Trump admitted it in at least one interview.

however, now that the wheels are coming off the bus, it's the media's fault for reporting on everything he says.

classic stuff

Billy86

Samaris wrote: »

I must admit, I'm rather looking forward to the one that Anderson Cooper hosts. He has a reputation for being a tough questioner and also of being pretty politically neutral when he's interviewing.

Actually, reading about Anderson Cooper is interesting stuff. The man has had a hell of an odd life.

Very much so, he's one of the very few TV reporters who knows his stuff and will ask questions on top of having what the US deems most important of all in their TV reporters/journalists, which is having good looks. Then again, we probably can't say too much in that respect as the industry over here seems to have been moving in that same direction the last while, too.

Itssoeasy

Billy86 wrote: »

Pretty ridiculous that FOX, of all networks, get to host the third debate. That could be... Interesting!

Have they announced who is hosting the Fox News debate ? I fear that if the second debate goes as well for trump as the first one did the third one could be a mess.

osarusan

Itssoeasy wrote: »

What I find interesting is that Fox News (outside of that clown Sean hannity) isn't hitching their wagon to trump. I've seen a few of the presenters not exactly say he is perfect. It's interesting as normally Fox News drink the GOP cool aid willingly.

plenty of republicans are very suspicious of his republican credentials in the first place.

Historically a lot of what he has said has been more in line with Democrats than Republican positions, until he had a series of 'road to Damascus' u-turn moments when he became a Republican primary candidate.

everlast75

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Have they announced who is hosting the Fox News debate ? I fear that if the second debate goes as well for trump as the first one did the third one could be a mess.

Holt hosted the first, and he is a registered republican

Itssoeasy

everlast75 wrote: »

Holt hosted the first, and he is a registered republican

Oh. Well there goes my theory on that then.

B0jangles

Chris Wallace is the third debate moderator, he's a huge defender of Roger Ailes (recently fired from fox for decades of sexual harassment and who is now acting as advisor to his old friend Donald Trump). Wallace has also said that it is not up to the moderator to fact check the candidates.

So he's Trumps best chance of a not totally disastrous debate appearance.

Mike Litoris

Billy86 wrote: »

Then again, we probably can't say too much in that respect as the industry over here seems to have been moving in that same direction the last while, too.

It has a hell of a long way to go though. The build up to the debate was like nothing I've seen before, here or the UK, outside of us playing in the world cup!

I agree about Anderson Cooper to an extent. He's one of the few trustworthy voices. He's balanced and always gives weight to both sides but you can tell which way he leans.

everlast75

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Oh. Well there goes my theory on that then.

I get where you're coming from though.

The thing with Trump is that if you're a republican who likes everything that he says (eg Hannity) then you're okay.

If you are a republican who doesn't like him (eg Megan Kelly) then its because he's not a normal republican candidate/politician and you've a vendetta.

People who want to vote from Trump will do so regardless.

Newstalk interviewed a woman's republican group in one of the swing states.

Her perspective was quite the insight into Trump fans.

Q - what about the things Trump said about woman in general
Reply - well I've said nasty things about men.

Q - what about the latest controversy re calling the former Miss America Miss Piggy etc.
A - people are dying - there are more important things to be discussed.

She went on to say "its clear Donald loves america, loves the working class and its the main stream media's bias that's painting him in the wrong light".

Billy86

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Have they announced who is hosting the Fox News debate ? I fear that if the second debate goes as well for trump as the first one did the third one could be a mess.

It's Chris Wallace. Not too familiar with him, but he has had a very memorable run in with Bill Clinton before where he got the legs absolutely chopped out from under him (note to Trump fans: that does not literally mean that Bill Clinton arranged to have his legs cut off). That said, his calling the GOP primary debates 'an embarrassment' from a lack of substance might just give hope (video in link below).

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/02/chris-wallace-slams-gop-debate-it-was

First Up

B0jangles wrote: »

Chris Wallace is the third debate moderator, he's a huge defender of Roger Ailes (recently fired from fox for decades of sexual harassment and who is now acting as advisor to his old friend Donald Trump). Wallace has also said that it is not up to the moderator to fact check the candidates.

So he's Trumps best chance of a not totally disastrous debate appearance.

I watched "The Circus Season" on Sky Atlantic last night which is a behind the scenes look at the whole election. It featured the first debate and was based on the Fox News (Megyn Kelly) coverage. They were pretty scathing about Trump's performance and his rather pathetic attempt afterwards to influence the commentators in the "Spin Room".

Of course Fox is blatantly partisan but even they are finding it hard to take Trump seriously. Wallace will be more sympathetic to Trump but it hardly matters - Trump is his own worst enemy and if Wallace encourages him to elaborate, he is liable to do anything. The Wallace line will be to pressurise Clinton and I assume she will be preparing for that.

Trump will prepare by looking at himself in the mirror.

Billy86

Mike Litoris wrote: »

It has a hell of a long way to go though. The build up to the debate was like nothing I've seen before, here or the UK, outside of us playing in the world cup!

It really was something else. I used to be a huge WWF fan when I was a kid in the 90s, and reminded me exactly of the build up they would do just before a title fight at Wrestlemania. That's not trying to be hyperbolic either, it's genuinely the closest comparison I could come up with.

everlast75

B0jangles wrote: »

Chris Wallace is the third debate moderator, he's a huge defender of Roger Ailes (recently fired from fox for decades of sexual harassment and who is now acting as advisor to his old friend Donald Trump). Wallace has also said that it is not up to the moderator to fact check the candidates.

So he's Trumps best chance of a not totally disastrous debate appearance.

This is one thing Hillary should do IMO. When she said in the last debate that Trump denied Global Warning, he said he did not and then she merely said again that he did. Instead, what she should have said was "well, in x/xx/xx, you tweeted... " and before your meeting in 2015, which was televised, you said "..."

Hit him with specifics and direct quotes. Show him to be a complete liar. But what's extremely important is to be 100% sure you are right. Being wrong once, even if the other 99 things you say are true, only gives him the opportunity to hone in on that one thing and constantly go on about it.

Billy86

First Up wrote: »

I watched "The Circus Season" on Sky Atlantic last night which is a behind the scenes look at the whole election. It featured the first debate and was based on the Fox News (Megyn Kelly) coverage. They were pretty scathing about Trump's performance and his rather pathetic attempt afterwards to influence the commentators in the "Spin Room".

Of course Fox is blatantly partisan but even they are finding it hard to take Trump seriously. Wallace will be more sympathetic to Trump but it hardly matters - Trump is his own worst enemy and if Wallace encourages him to elaborate, he is liable to do anything. The Wallace line will be to pressurise Clinton and I assume she will be preparing for that.

Trump will prepare by looking at himself in the mirror.

It will be interesting to see how two things develop at FOX...

1. Roger Ailes getting the boot for sexual harassment. There's a line of thought that while FOX was created to serve the GOP initially, they wound up creating a Frankenstein and the GOP wound up having to follow FOX's increasingly crazy narratives (see: Tea Party, Palin, the 100mn accusations against Obama, etc) as the channel's viewership numbers and devotion became so large. Murdoch likely doesn't have too much direct involvement at his age and with so many other commitments (phone tapping chief among them!), plus he's more of a pragmatist interested in accumulating wealth, influence and power than he is interested in pushing a particular agenda. Ailes on the other hand, by many accounts, is absolutely batsh*t insane and completely believed pretty much all of the conspiracy theory nonsense that network has been spewing out, and spewing out much harder since Obama took office.

In that sense it will be quite interesting to see how FOX move at this point - I wouldn't be shocked to see them move (even if only a small bit) closer to the center in the next few years, having seen how 'the race to the right' they've been promoting in the primaries has led to what at this point in time is looking most likely to be three very decisive losses in the presidential election.

...and/or...

2. Are they looking at the 'bigger picture'? Because whichever party wins this election is in my opinion going to lose and going to lose pretty badly in 2020.

Billy86

everlast75 wrote: »

This is one thing Hillary should do IMO. When she said in the last debate that Trump denied Global Warning, he said he did not and then she merely said again that he did. Instead, what she should have said was "well, in x/xx/xx, you tweeted... " and before your meeting in 2015, which was televised, you said "..."

"Wrong. Wrong. Wrong."

"No I didn't. I never said that"

Etc, etc... it's why there's no point in pursuing that angle too much to be honest. Just put it out there and since Trump knows it's true he'll just continue to hang himself. Much like the "that's smart", Alicia Machado and China/global warming denial, the truth will make it's way out not long after the debate is done, which will do continuous damage to him and will cause him to continue to implode for days on end, even after it's all said and done.

I would have agreed with you before the debate or immediately afterward, but that's proven to be the beauty of Trump as far as Clinton's campaign is concerned. You don't need to go for the kill with him, and you don't even need to give him enough rope to hang himself with. All you have to do is point to where the rope is and he'll sprint over as quick as possible and start adjusting a noose around his own neck. And the voters can see it.

Like someone said a few days back, it shows he is a liability to overreact (and be manipulated) by other heads of state needling him and he'd probably be found sucking their d*cks under the table if they mocked him for not being any good at giving head.

Christy42

Christy42 wrote: »

Shoot Hillary. Drone strike a terrorists kids.

And I am curious as to what you think he said.

"When you talk about the mental health problems, when people come back from war and combat, they see things that maybe a lot of the folks in this room have seen many times over,” he said.

“And you're strong and you can handle it, but a lot of people can't handle it.

"And they see horror stories, they see events that you couldn’t see in a movie — nobody would believe it."

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ct2yR4RUMAEEGqw.jpg


He goes on to describe them as great people. Read it all and let me know what you think.. I'm really interested in seeing if you're able to look at it objectively.


I have been ridiculed in this thread and have been called a Trump supporter because I hate the media coverage of this.. This is just another perfect example of fact vs. fiction and why I barely believe a negative word about him anymore until I fact-check it. Apparently, not believing that he said "veterans are weak" makes me a supporter.

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

"When you talk about the mental health problems, when people come back from war and combat, they see things that maybe a lot of the folks in this room have seen many times over,” he said.

“And you're strong and you can handle it, but a lot of people can't handle it.

"And they see horror stories, they see events that you couldn’t see in a movie — nobody would believe it."

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ct2yR4RUMAEEGqw.jpg


He goes on to describe them as great people. Read it all and let me know what you think.. I'm really interested in seeing if you're able to look at it objectively.

I agree tbh. I think it's poor phrasing on his part, but I don't think he was saying people with PTSD aren't strong.

But therein lies the problem. The man can't form coherent sentences. He can't stop himself from offending people by not thinking about what it is he wants to say.

Billy86

Penn wrote: »

I agree tbh. I think it's poor phrasing on his part, but I don't think he was saying people with PTSD aren't strong.

But therein lies the problem. The man can't form coherent sentences. He can't stop himself from offending people by not thinking about what it is he wants to say.

I would generally agree, it does seem a case of poor wording rather than a mean spirited jibe, but his remarks about John McCain and POWs not too long ago may be resonating still because a lot of veterans appear very annoyed by this.

He does speak at a 4th - 5th grade reading level after all, so it's hardly all that surprising. That's not a glib remark either, it's recorded. And just so we don't get the same old cries of media bias, here it is from one of his media noiseboxes (and endorsers) themselves, the New York Post - http://nypost.com/2016/03/17/donald-trump-speaks-at-a-fourth-grade-reading-level/

Here is a full list of prominent Republicans and Democrats in this election cycle, for anyone interested - http://thebertshow.com/at-what-grade-level-do-the-presidential-candidates-speak-to-the-masses/ . Sanders (D), Gilmore (R) and Huckabee (R) each had the highest at over grade 10, while Clinton came in at 7.1.

pumpkin4life

^ Funny enough, I stuck a couple of your posts into a readability grade box and they all came out 4th-5th grade.

I like the way that some people try and spin it as an intelligence insulting thing (only smart people use big words because I read Hamlet in college) when its anything but lol.

Billy86

pumpkin4life wrote: »

^ Funny enough, I stuck a couple of your posts into a readability grade box and they all came out 4th-5th grade.

Not sure what this ad hominem has to do with anything relating to the presidential race, but I would appreciate a link to some of these all the same.

I like the way the NYT try and spin it as an intelligence insulting thing (only smart people use big words because I read Hamlet in college) when its anything but lol.

Is this intentional irony on your part? :pac:

I linked to the New York Post, not the New York Times. The same New York Post that endorsed Trump ages ago and has made no secrets about being strongly behind his campaign, probably only second to Breitbart. That is why I specifically linked to that source, and that is why I already said I was specifically linking to that source in the post you cited.

Penn

Billy86 wrote: »

I would generally agree, it does seem a case of poor wording rather than a mean spirited jibe, but his remarks about John McCain and POWs not too long ago may be resonating still because a lot of veterans appear very annoyed by this.

Agreed, but that's another thing about Trump, he made a negative sweeping generalisation against all POWs just so he could throw a jab at John McCain, without thinking of what he was saying. His need to throw these jabs at people (no better case in point than bringing up Rosie O'Donnell during the debate) just comes across as incredibly petty and insecure, two qualities that are great in, well, no-one, but are not great qualities in a President.

Yet he can't stop himself from doing it. He doesn't seem to be even trying.

pumpkin4life

Billy86 wrote: »

Not sure what this ad hominem has to do with anything relating to the presidential race, but I would appreciate a link to some of these all the same.


Is this intentional irony on your part? :pac:

I linked to the New York Post, not the New York Times. The same New York Post that endorsed Trump ages ago and has made no secrets about being strongly behind his campaign, probably only second to Breitbart. That is why I specifically linked to that source, and that is why I already said I was specifically linking to that source in the post you cited.

I've written academic papers man. When you're explaining a topic, you want to keep the words and language as simple as possible. If Trump is talking at a 4th grade level or you are, then it's a very useful skill to have.

It's not an ad hominum at all. I find it bizarre that a lot of people try to use it/take it as an insult. Whether it is because they associate intelligence with big words or what I'm not sure, but what the hey.

That was a typo btw, meant NYP not NYT.

Billy86

pumpkin4life wrote: »

I've written academic papers man. When you're explaining a topic, you want to keep the words and language as simple as possible. If Trump is talking at a 4th grade level or you are, then it's a very useful skill to have.

We have yet to see Trump show any capability to go up and beyond this when and where required though, and that is the real worry.

It's not an ad hominum at all. I find it bizarre that a lot of people try to use it/take it as an insult. Whether it is they associate intelligence with big words or what I'm not sure, but what the hey.

It was certainly an odd comment if not an ad hominem, but either way let's forget it. I would still like the links to these readability grade boxes. Not so much related to this, but it would make an interesting resource generally.

That was a typo btw, meant NYP not NYT.

It wasn't a typo, hence your going and correcting it to 'some people' and not 'NYP'. Because what you said is not at all applicable to the NYP.

ohnonotgmail

pumpkin4life wrote: »

I've written academic papers man. When you're explaining a topic, you want to keep the words and language as simple as possible. If Trump is talking at a 4th grade level or you are, then it's a very useful skill to have.

It's not an ad hominum at all. I find it bizarre that a lot of people try to use it/take it as an insult. Whether it is because they associate intelligence with big words or what I'm not sure, but what the hey.

That was a typo btw, meant NYP not NYT.

There is a difference between being able to explain something at a 4th grade level and only being able to speak at a 4th grade level.

ETA: You speak at the level of the audience. if that is 4th grade then that is what you speak at. if that is 10th grade then that is what you speak at.

pumpkin4life

Billy86 wrote: »

We have yet to see Trump show any capability to go up and beyond this when and where required though, and that is the real worry.

It was certainly an odd comment if not an ad hominem, but either way let's forget it. I would still like the links to these readability grade boxes. Not so much related to this, but it would make an interesting resource generally.


It wasn't a typo, hence your going and correcting it to 'some people' and not 'NYP'. Because what you said is not at all applicable to the NYP.

No, it was a typo at the start, then I decided to turn it into a general comment so that you might understand.

Penn

Penn wrote: »

I agree tbh. I think it's poor phrasing on his part, but I don't think he was saying people with PTSD aren't strong.

But therein lies the problem. The man can't form coherent sentences. He can't stop himself from offending people by not thinking about what it is he wants to say.

It starts at the 55 second mark.. Poor wording if you really look into it but I highly doubt any of the veterans sitting there would have noticed it. He's speaking solemnly and with respect more than anything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTo-HtOFtvA

Now, Trump does loads of this sort of stuff and is therefore always at risk of sounding like an idiot.. But don't you think that if this just another egregious example of him being taken out of context, that maybe it has happened many times before? That's why I always check and nine times out of ten, it's been completely misrepresented.

Hillary hasn't had a single press conference in 2016 or has put herself in front of a camera where she doesn't know what will be asked. She has avoided sounding like an idiot, simply by avoiding random questions.

When I fact-check Hillary, it always gets worse and worse because the media downplays her scandals. When I fact-check Trump, it has usually been overblown 90% of the time.



As usual, someone will reply to this comment and call me a supporter which will discredit my entire post.. By doing that, a lot of posters here will think that I'm a liar. Because of that, they'll think Trump actually said "vets with PTSD are weak" and that will predictably change by the end of the week to "Trump said people with mental health problems are weak".
And because they think I'm a liar, my claim about press conferences will be deemed to be either a lie or unimportant as they only hear that stat from "Trump supporters".

osarusan

Billy86 wrote: »

It was certainly an odd comment if not an ad hominem, but either way let's forget it. I would still like the links to these readability grade boxes. Not so much related to this, but it would make an interesting resource generally.

The Flesch-Kincaid is one of the most commonly-used readability tests.

http://www.readabilityformulas.com/free-readability-formula-tests.php

Bear in mind it's for evaluating the readability of written text, rather than evaluating spoken text, which is obviously more immediate and therefore more fragmented and less cohesive.

First Up

pumpkin4life wrote:

No, it was a typo at the start, then I decided to turn it into a general comment so that you might understand.

I'd hate to have to decipher your academic papers (man)

pumpkin4life

First Up wrote: »

I'd hate to have to decipher your academic papers (man)

The passion aggression is strong with this one.