Also, I love that you're not scrutinizing Trump's reasons for backing out. The man publicly stated that he didn't even know that there was a debate. He said no one told him. I mean... Want to maybe comment on a man running for president not even knowing when the debates are?
Trump's reason for backing out is that he had a prior engagement with AIPAC and he forgot about the debate. It's possible that he's just tired of the debates too. It doesn't appear that he has a staff around him or any handlers. So why is "I forgot and have a prior engagement" so unreasonable to you? Kasich's reason for backing out is because Trump won't be there including some of the possible reasons you've mentioned in addition to my own. I find Trump's explanation to be more reasonable than Kasich's in light of Kasich whining about not getting enough debate time.
Trump's reason for backing out is that he had a prior engagement with AIPAC and he forgot about the debate. It's possible that he's just tired of the debates too. It doesn't appear that he has a staff around him or any handlers. So why is "I forgot and have a prior engagement" so unreasonable to you?
... He's a candidate for the Republican primary, he seeks to become the President of the United States, and he doesn't even know when the debates are?
Also, "It doesn't appear that he has a staff around him or any handlers." Really? So it's just a one-man campaign, just Trump chugging away on his own with no campaign staff whatsoever? Are you freaking kidding me? This is how far your brain is willing to conjure up a scenario to avoid the idea that Trump is incompetent?
I find Trump's explanation to be more reasonable than Kasich's
I know you do. This is what people refer to as "mental gymnastics."
Kasich's reason for backing out is because Trump won't be there
And if Trump isn't going to be there, why should or would Kasich be there? Kasich is running against Trump. What would be the point of him showing up to a debate in which Trump isn't there? To attack Cruz? That just boosts Trump.
Trump's reason for backing out is that he had a prior engagement with AIPAC and he forgot about the debate. It's possible that he's just tired of the debates too. It doesn't appear that he has a staff around him or any handlers. So why is "I forgot and have a prior engagement" so unreasonable to you?
... He's a candidate for the Republican primary, he seeks to become the President of the United States, and he doesn't even know when the debates are?
Also, "It doesn't appear that he has a staff around him or any handlers." Really? So it's just a one-man campaign, just Trump chugging away on his own with no campaign staff whatsoever? Are you freaking kidding me? This is your brain's best attempt at spinning the situation to make it look understandable?
I find Trump's explanation to be more reasonable than Kasich's
I know you do. This is what people refer to as "mental gymnastics."
I see it as no different than the increasingly ridiculous reasons you gave for why John "I wish I had more debate time" skipped a debate.
No matter what I share, u sanctimoniously and/or dismissively oppose it. Understood. Gotcha. Noted.
Do you think I just flipped a coin and randomly decided to pick on you? I dismiss so much of what you have to say because your reasoning is so often faulty, inconsistent, misinformed, or nonexistent. And it doesn't have to be. It's not as if I don't tell you where the problems are. You have every opportunity to amend them. So all you're doing here is blaming me for your own mistakes. (Which I will grant is very Trumpian of you.)
The hypocrisy of your complaints about Trump's frequent rudeness towards the filthy rich and powerful...
I'm more concerned by Trump's frequent rudeness towards the dirt-poor and defenseless. When I call Latino immigrants criminals and rapists, when I object that homeless vets in New York are driving down property values, when I say that inner-city black youths have no spirit, then you may call me a hypocrite. In the meantime, you might want to take a look in the mirror.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I see it as no different than the increasingly ridiculous reasons you gave for why John "I wish I had more debate time" skipped a debate.
How about the fact that it's completely incorrect to assert that Trump has no campaign staffers?
So either Trump legitimately didn't know there was a debate, in which case he AND his campaign are completely incompetent, or he did know and is bull*****ting about his reasons for not showing up to the debate.
Neither of these are becoming of a presidential candidate.
Oh and further reinforcement that Kasich's beliefs can't stand on their own without being a foil to Trump...
Alternatively, maybe he sees no benefit in participating in a debate without Trump when Trump is his main opponent? Did you think of that? I mean, what would the most ideal situation for Trump be? Wouldn't it be to avoid as much scrutiny as possible and get Kasich and Cruz to attack each other instead of him? Why would anyone want to give him that?
The debates serve no purpose at this point. What possible question could you ask any of them that you didn't before? Primary voters know the candidates at this point. It makes even less sense for Trump because he is by far and away the front runner. He is just going to stand on stage and have two people roast him for the entire debate. Even if he trounces them he comes out behind. Skipping the debate is smart politics at this point. I get lots of posters here are hysterically opposed to Trump, but you can't possibly complain about him doing something intelligent.
He is just going to stand on stage and have two people roast him for the entire debate. You can't possibly complain about him doing something intelligent.
It's not intelligence, so much as cowardice. Yes, its calculated, he knows that its going to be harder to fend off 2 people instead of 11 because the attacks will be sharper and honed in. It's a risk to his candidacy because he isn't actually a man of substance. He sells flim flam. Trump's desire to not argue for himself is because he knows he's going to lose. This is weakness.
You know it wouldn't matter who he is, he would get roasted for the entire debate. Also we have had 12 debates, 12 of them. There is no question you can possibly ask him that hasn't already been asked. People know who trump is, some love him, some hate him, some could be convinced to vote for him.
Also we have had 12 debates, 12 of them. There is no question you can possibly ask him that hasn't already been asked.
While I acknowledge that this is Trump's justification for skipping the debate and so you are obligated to repeat the talking point, do you really think that the space of all possible questions could be exhausted in a couple dozen hours most of which were wasted in posturing?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The debates have more purpose now than at any other point in the primary. The first round of debates had 17 candidates. Now we're down to three candidates. Therefore, increased scrutiny upon each is vitally necessary.
You know it wouldn't matter who he is, he would get roasted for the entire debate.
He's TRUMP. What, so now it's a problem that he's the center of attention?
There is no question you can possibly ask him that hasn't already been asked.
This is almost as ridiculous as claiming that Trump has no campaign staffers.
Honestly, what are you all unwilling to say to defend this guy? If Trump came out and said he was a Russian spy, would you be posting about how his presidency would lead to favorable US-Russia relations? What is the limit here?
Honestly, what are you all unwilling to say to defend this guy? If Trump came out and said he was a Russian spy, would you be posting about how his presidency would lead to favorable US-Russia relations? What is the limit here?
"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters."
Also we have had 12 debates, 12 of them. There is no question you can possibly ask him that hasn't already been asked.
While I acknowledge that this is Trump's justification for skipping the debate and so you are obligated to repeat the talking point, do you really think that the space of all possible questions could be exhausted in a couple dozen hours most of which were wasted in posturing?
Trump does interviews constantly. He takes tough questions constantly. The guy does all the morning shows and all the evening shows at least once a week. He has answered more questions than any 3 of the candidates combined. I get a lot of people are not satisfied with the answers, but he is hardly camera shy. For reference hillary clinton has not done an interview in 100 days.
Trump does interviews constantly. He takes tough questions constantly.
He dismisses questions, dodges questions, and gives inconsistent and/or incorrect answers to questions constantly.
Writ simply: If Trump actually believed he'd stand to gain from this debate, would he have shown up to it? Answer: of course he would.
So why hasn't he? Well, maybe it's because he forgot, and because he doesn't actually employ any campaign staffers apparently, there was no one to remind him of the debates, and really, how can a presidential candidate be expected to keep track of these things?
But probably it's because he recognizes that these debates will not help him, especially since the last two didn't.
You're saying that there's nothing that would change things about any more debates. This is, of course, completely wrong. Plenty has changed since the debates started, and I'm not just talking about Trump's answers to the same questions. I'm talking about the Republican presidential field. We started out with 17 candidates, now we're down to 3. And with Rubio out, Kasich having proven himself as the sole remaining "establishment" candidate and as a candidate who can beat Trump, and Cruz having proven himself to be quite capable of obstructing his chances toward getting the 1,237 delegates, Trump's got a problem.
So it's pretty obvious why he doesn't want to enter the line of fire now.
Trump is a level above the rest in this category. Its one thing to dodge or misdirect in a debate (which Trump does slightly more than others) but few manage to do it so much in a one on one interview.
Trump is a level above the rest in this category. Its one thing to dodge or misdirect in a debate (which Trump does slightly more than others) but few manage to do it so much in a one on one interview.
Again all you said is they are all apples. He isn't going to be detailed plan guy. If you want a 20 minute answer on minutiae of the iran saudi relationship pick a random senator.
Is that the campaign Trump is running on now? "I'm no different than any politician"?
Tipsy, I would like your response to my previous question: what is your limit? What are you not willing to say to defend Trump? Is your support unconditional, or if it has limits, what are they?
Understatement of the year. His entire plan seems to be "I will get great deals. People love me. I'm a winner. I want America to be great again". Repeat ad naseum and you've basically covered all of Trump's policy positions.
Is that the campaign Trump is running on now? "I'm no different than any politician"?
Tipsy, I would like your response to my previous question: what is your limit? What are you not willing to say to defend Trump? Is your support unconditional, or if it has limits, what are they?
You are begging the question. That doesn't deserve an honest response. You are assuming Trump has done something so wrong in this context that he needs to defended.
So I watched a full trump campaign speech (hour.5) and I found it a bit unsettling. Mostly because Trump does come off very persuasive to his supporters. Even just watching him I could see why he was winning over people of a certain mindset. He was still outright lying or talking about things he didn't have a full understanding of. I got to it through Serial and a Bergdahl link.
Here are the things that I found most unsettling:
1. His outright dismissal of the press. He often talked about how awful they were and how they shouldn't be listened to, literally right to their faces. A part of me wonders what would have happened if the press had denied him coverage. Was this a failure of our system, that the focus was on entertainment and not value?
2. He did often advocate violence.
3. He was lying openly about immigrants and implying that Muslims were terrorists. He would return to this point over and over again. Talking about how scary it was. Saying "lots of people, who knows how many, but lots, probably more than we know" are dying. He implied that people who happened to carry a cell phone with them as they ran from syria were somehow not actually in trouble because they owned a cell phone. Then he implied they all had isis flags on those cell phones and that they were all young and dangerous men. Having seen footage of people escaping Syria, I know this is all wrong, but people who don't pay attention and only get news from trump, eh.
4. He constantly called on people to believe him. Often by saying "Believe me." This would usually happen after he'd fudged some numbers or said he didn't know the whole story. But it usually came after he'd denigrated some group or some person. But, it was a steady enforcer. It wasn't "Look into this" its here's the information, believe me. Never a why. Just: Aren't these people dangerous? This is scary! We're going to beat them though. Because I'm great and I'm smart and when we put smart people in charge we'll be great. We'll start winning. That's essentially his whole argument, and then you rotate the fear piece into the fear slot. Not much substance.
5. Even though he implies the media is an awful set of organizations, throughout the rest of his speech he picks and chooses stories that he likes. For instance, he loves polls that that say he's doing better than others. And he'll mention random stories as being how he heard about something awful. And sometimes he'll say "I don't know if this is true, but ... tells story ... isn't that scary? ... talks about scary and why we're losing ... Believe in me. Just believe me."
6. He talks about how much he hates politicians and how everyone else as failed. He claims that he'd rather be doing anything else. But, at the end of the day he can't abandon us. He makes it sound like he's saving us that he's doing this for us. For people who have a world view that unites with his, this sounds wonderful. To the rest of us, its a bit scary. The weird bit is that he just trots out a lot of political plans we've already heard. Sometimes he puts the trump touch on it. Building a wall like the "great wall of china" to secure the border, but largely their trumped up (!) republican talking points.
And this is pretty much it. Throughout the speech he makes fun of people who don't disagree with him. He talks about how smart he is. He talks about how scary the world is. And he says "I'm going make it better." It's like the mom kissing the kid on the knee and saying, "now doesn't that feel better?" For trumps' supporters it does. Because they are actually scared of all those things. He fans the flames of their fear, but then he makes all better by kissing the boo-boos and saying "we're going to make it better. Just vote for me." And its working for a lot of people.
But, if you know anything about the stuff he's talking about. If you talk to real people on the ground who make decisions today. If you figure out why things are the way they are and take as wide a view of the world as possible, it all sounds like a bucket of **** because you know the truth about a lot of this stuff and you aren't scared on a visceral level by it. Sure, terrorists are scary. Sure, we don't want stuff to get blown up. But a lot of us have the capacity to understand, that's a relatively small thing and doesn't have much of a chance of happening. For those of us who don't, Trump is a drug that makes them feel what their feeling stronger and then he gives them a way to deal with that fear.
So, this is why he's successful right now. Its not because he'd be a good leader, its because he's a good rabblerouser. He knows how to talk to masses of ill informed people and sell them a long con.
If the press denies people coverage they are not the press. They are commentators at that point which is not news job. They have covered what he said. People draw their own conclusions. If they refused to cover him it would be them jutting into the election. That is the last thing the news should do.
The premise does not actually have to be stated, it can be implied.
No, begging the question is if I accused you of being a witch, you said, "No, I'm not a witch," and I said, "AHA! He is a witch, because if he were a witch, that's exactly what a witch would say!"
This is an example of begging the question. What my post contained was instead a question: at what point does your support for Trump end?
Once again: is your support for Trump unconditional?
The premise does not actually have to be stated, it can be implied.
No, begging the question is if I accused you of being a witch, you said, "No, I'm not a witch," and I said, "AHA! He is a witch, because if he were a witch, that's exactly what a witch would say!"
This is an example of begging the question. What my post contained was a question: at what point does your support for Trump end?
Once again: is your support for Trump unconditional?
It trump went down to the border and shot a man trying to cross it would you still support him?
I am for putting the military along the border so if someone is going to get away, shooting them works in my book. Obviously that is illegal now but it shouldn't be.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Trump's reason for backing out is that he had a prior engagement with AIPAC and he forgot about the debate. It's possible that he's just tired of the debates too. It doesn't appear that he has a staff around him or any handlers. So why is "I forgot and have a prior engagement" so unreasonable to you? Kasich's reason for backing out is because Trump won't be there including some of the possible reasons you've mentioned in addition to my own. I find Trump's explanation to be more reasonable than Kasich's in light of Kasich whining about not getting enough debate time.
Also, "It doesn't appear that he has a staff around him or any handlers." Really? So it's just a one-man campaign, just Trump chugging away on his own with no campaign staff whatsoever? Are you freaking kidding me? This is how far your brain is willing to conjure up a scenario to avoid the idea that Trump is incompetent?
I know you do. This is what people refer to as "mental gymnastics."
And if Trump isn't going to be there, why should or would Kasich be there? Kasich is running against Trump. What would be the point of him showing up to a debate in which Trump isn't there? To attack Cruz? That just boosts Trump.
I see it as no different than the increasingly ridiculous reasons you gave for why John "I wish I had more debate time" skipped a debate.
Oh and further reinforcement that Kasich's beliefs can't stand on their own without being a foil to Trump...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aviksaroy/2016/03/17/john-kasich-bailed-out-of-the-utah-gop-debate-because-he-was-afraid-of-ted-cruz-not-donald-trump/#6115eb9450c3
Sure, but misspelling a word just as you lecture me that "precision matters" is beyond funny.
I'm more concerned by Trump's frequent rudeness towards the dirt-poor and defenseless. When I call Latino immigrants criminals and rapists, when I object that homeless vets in New York are driving down property values, when I say that inner-city black youths have no spirit, then you may call me a hypocrite. In the meantime, you might want to take a look in the mirror.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So either Trump legitimately didn't know there was a debate, in which case he AND his campaign are completely incompetent, or he did know and is bull*****ting about his reasons for not showing up to the debate.
Neither of these are becoming of a presidential candidate.
Alternatively, maybe he sees no benefit in participating in a debate without Trump when Trump is his main opponent? Did you think of that? I mean, what would the most ideal situation for Trump be? Wouldn't it be to avoid as much scrutiny as possible and get Kasich and Cruz to attack each other instead of him? Why would anyone want to give him that?
You know it wouldn't matter who he is, he would get roasted for the entire debate. Also we have had 12 debates, 12 of them. There is no question you can possibly ask him that hasn't already been asked. People know who trump is, some love him, some hate him, some could be convinced to vote for him.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
He's TRUMP. What, so now it's a problem that he's the center of attention?
This is almost as ridiculous as claiming that Trump has no campaign staffers.
Honestly, what are you all unwilling to say to defend this guy? If Trump came out and said he was a Russian spy, would you be posting about how his presidency would lead to favorable US-Russia relations? What is the limit here?
"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters."
Trump does interviews constantly. He takes tough questions constantly. The guy does all the morning shows and all the evening shows at least once a week. He has answered more questions than any 3 of the candidates combined. I get a lot of people are not satisfied with the answers, but he is hardly camera shy. For reference hillary clinton has not done an interview in 100 days.
Writ simply: If Trump actually believed he'd stand to gain from this debate, would he have shown up to it? Answer: of course he would.
So why hasn't he? Well, maybe it's because he forgot, and because he doesn't actually employ any campaign staffers apparently, there was no one to remind him of the debates, and really, how can a presidential candidate be expected to keep track of these things?
But probably it's because he recognizes that these debates will not help him, especially since the last two didn't.
You're saying that there's nothing that would change things about any more debates. This is, of course, completely wrong. Plenty has changed since the debates started, and I'm not just talking about Trump's answers to the same questions. I'm talking about the Republican presidential field. We started out with 17 candidates, now we're down to 3. And with Rubio out, Kasich having proven himself as the sole remaining "establishment" candidate and as a candidate who can beat Trump, and Cruz having proven himself to be quite capable of obstructing his chances toward getting the 1,237 delegates, Trump's got a problem.
So it's pretty obvious why he doesn't want to enter the line of fire now.
Is that really any different than any politician?
Again all you said is they are all apples. He isn't going to be detailed plan guy. If you want a 20 minute answer on minutiae of the iran saudi relationship pick a random senator.
Tipsy, I would like your response to my previous question: what is your limit? What are you not willing to say to defend Trump? Is your support unconditional, or if it has limits, what are they?
You are begging the question. That doesn't deserve an honest response. You are assuming Trump has done something so wrong in this context that he needs to defended.
Because all the other guys have plans that don't help me.
If the press denies people coverage they are not the press. They are commentators at that point which is not news job. They have covered what he said. People draw their own conclusions. If they refused to cover him it would be them jutting into the election. That is the last thing the news should do.
Asking for the limits of your Trump support doesn't deserve a response?
Ok, just answer me this: is your support for Trump unconditional? Would you support Trump no matter what?
The premise does not actually have to be stated, it can be implied.
This is an example of begging the question. What my post contained was instead a question: at what point does your support for Trump end?
Once again: is your support for Trump unconditional?
That is quite frankly none of your business.
I am for putting the military along the border so if someone is going to get away, shooting them works in my book. Obviously that is illegal now but it shouldn't be.