Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on August 29, 2016, 02:12:05 PM
-
“Trump’s aides put together briefing books-not that candidate is devoting much time to reading them"
“Trump’s aides have put together briefing books, not that the candidate is devoting much time to reading them. Trump is not holding any mock debates, proudly boasting that a performer with his talents does not need that sort of prepping. Should Trump submit to traditional rehearsals, some associates are talking about casting Ingraham, an adversarial chronicler of Clinton scandals, to play the Democratic nominee.”
https://politicalwire.com/2016/08/27/two-different-approaches-to-debate-prep/
Trump's debate prep includes gatherings at N.J. golf club
TRENTON — How is Donald Trump preparing for his upcoming debate with Hillary Clinton?
Over soft drinks and burgers with some of his closest advisers at one of the private golf clubs he owns in New Jersey, according to a report by the Washington Post.
Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, and Clinton, his Democratic challenger, are apparently taking strikingly different approaches to prepping for the Sept. 26 debate — the first of three scheduled before the general election Nov 8.
Clinton, the former U.S. secretary of state, is going through thick books of policy and opposition research while working with debate coaches, the Post reported.
Trump, the celebrity businessman and former Atlantic City casino mogul, is more informal. He has no debate team, according to the newspaper.
Instead, he held a debate prep meeting two Sundays ago with confidants, family members, and friends at Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, according to the newspapers.
Attendees included Trump's new campaign manager, Kelly Conway; his new campaign CEO, Stephen Bannon; New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani; talk show host Laura Ingraham; former Fox New Chairman Roger Ailes; and daughter Ivanka Trump and husband, Jared Kushner, the real estate developer and member of a famed New Jersey political family, the report said, citing sources.
They dined on bacon cheeseburgers, hot dogs and glasses of Coca-Cola, while trying out zingers and discussing Trump's message, according to the report.
A second meeting at the club was scheduled for Sunday, the newspaper said.
-
Hillary has been up to some really bad things, so a highschool kid should be able to get up there and destroy her.
But the first debate is only a little more than three weeks away, and I can't wait. Trump had better be there.
-
Hillary has been up to some really bad things, so a highschool kid should be able to get up there and destroy her.
But the first debate is only a little more than three weeks away, and I can't wait. Trump had better be there.
i'm excited about them. But I do fear trump is looking for any reason to back out of them. Some last minute "I take such great offence to hilary, on the part of all african-americans, that i am boycotting the debate" or some nonsense about tv times and moderators.
his base will back him no matter what. "Yeah, you totally showed those biased moderators who was boss!"
Hilary was better than obama in the debates, leading him right into stepping in shit on meeting with world leaders. obama dreaded the 1-on-1s at the end. any debate will just be trump giving vague promises of greatness, and attacking hilary.
Hilary sat for 11 hours of benghazi attacks, and knows trump won his party by being a dick, and letting them sink to his level. If she can look tough but not get rattled, she will win easily.
OH - and trump supporters will say he won every debate, no matter how they go. And the debates will change nothing - same margin of victory as we see today in polls, 5-7 points.
-
i'm excited about them. But I do fear trump is looking for any reason to back out of them. Some last minute "I take such great offence to hilary, on the part of all african-americans, that i am boycotting the debate" or some nonsense about tv times and moderators.
his base will back him no matter what. "Yeah, you totally showed those biased moderators who was boss!"
Hilary was better than obama in the debates, leading him right into stepping in shit on meeting with world leaders. obama dreaded the 1-on-1s at the end. any debate will just be trump giving vague promises of greatness, and attacking hilary.
Hilary sat for 11 hours of benghazi attacks, and knows trump won his party by being a dick, and letting them sink to his level. If she can look tough but not get rattled, she will win easily.
OH - and trump supporters will say he won every debate, no matter how they go. And the debates will change nothing - same margin of victory as we see today in polls, 5-7 points.
If he finds any "reason" but his own unfortunate passing to miss that debate, then he's doing absolutely nothing but setting himself up to be Public Enemy Number One.
-
because all he has to do repeat his talking points and name-calling.
his fans will eat it up!
-
But where is Hillary? No one has seen her lately. Did she have a "health" relapse? Or did she go on a booze and drugs bender, with her lesbo "friends," to chill out for the debate?
-
But where is Hillary? No one has seen her lately. Did she have a "health" relapse? Or did she go on a booze and drugs bender, with her lesbo "friends," to chill out for the debate?
She has a debate team and they're prepping several hours per day. Role play and study and extreme depth of issues.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/30/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-debate.html?_r=0
I wonder if trump just plans to 'wing it' as president too? At what point does this motherfcker get serious about the job?
-
Something else about this, is that everything -- from the stacked audience, to the questions, to the pos moderators -- will be working against Trump. People have been carefully planning this since Trump became the main man. (Conspiring is the only true description for it, really, since it is opposite of what's right and what we deserve to expect in a system that's supposed to be fair.)
Yeah, Trump is a pita and he needs to do a better job showing people his heart is in it. But no one can deny the crooks are actively working against him, and will continue to work against him, and that we will see it more than ever in these "debates".
We all know it's true.
-
Hillary has a JD Degree from Yale and she was the first woman partner at Rose Law Firm. She also served as a congressional legal counsel among other assignments. Lawyers are well trained in the art of debate. Hillary has not formally practiced law since 2002 when she let her licence lapse.
Trump has closed many high-end contracts, which require some debate skills in order to be successful. I'm not sure that his debate abilities are on par with Hillary's. He's exhibited throughout his campaign that he has very limited self-control and composure. Ultimately, this may hurt him in the debate process.
It will be interesting to see what format these three debates take. Often, there is little opportunity for digression or diversion in the debate process. Trump has relied on these tactics throughout his campaign.
-
Hillary has a JD Degree from Yale and she was the first woman partner at Rose Law Firm. She also served as a congressional legal counsel among other assignments. Lawyers are well trained in the art of debate. Hillary has not formally practiced law since 2002 when she let her licence lapse.
Trump has closed many high-end contracts, which require some debate skills in order to be successful. I'm not sure that his debate abilities are on par with Hillary's. He's exhibited throughout his campaign that he has very limited self-control and composure. Ultimately, this may hurt him in the debate process.
It will be interesting to see what format these three debates take. Often, there is little opportunity for digression or diversion in the debate process. Trump has relied on these tactics throughout his campaign.
Hillary failed the bar, was tossed off the Watergate committee for unethical behavior, and did nothing good as a lawyer but get involved in whitewater and other shady shit - remember the billing records fiasco?
Way to suck her vag bro - that fish must be quite gamy tasting
-
Hillary has a JD Degree from Yale and she was the first woman partner at Rose Law Firm. She also served as a congressional legal counsel among other assignments. Lawyers are well trained in the art of debate. Hillary has not formally practiced law since 2002 when she let her licence lapse.
Trump has closed many high-end contracts, which require some debate skills in order to be successful. I'm not sure that his debate abilities are on par with Hillary's. He's exhibited throughout his campaign that he has very limited self-control and composure. Ultimately, this may hurt him in the debate process.
It will be interesting to see what format these three debates take. Often, there is little opportunity for digression or diversion in the debate process. Trump has relied on these tactics throughout his campaign.
Where did she work after Bill Clinton was elected in 1992?
And she's not a good debater IMO. Liars struggle in those forums. She's not a good debater simply because she says something with conviction.
Same with Trump. He sucks. I think their debates are going to be a train wreck, with each side pounding their chests and proclaiming victory no matter how they perform.
-
Hillary failed the bar, was tossed off the Watergate committee for unethical behavior, and did nothing good as a lawyer but get involved in whitewater and other shady shit - remember the billing records fiasco?
Way to suck her vag bro - that fish must be quite gamy tasting
I could debate Hillary having failed the bar exam since she passed the Arkansas bar. She failed the D.C. bar exam. So, we both are correct.
Regardless of what Jerry Zeifman may have thought of Hillary and her work during the (watergate) investigation, he was not her supervisor, neither he nor anyone else fired her from her position on the Impeachment Inquiry staff (Zeifman in fact didn't have the power to fire her, even had he wanted to do so).
Your last sentence is trolling. It does not warrant a response. ::)
-
Where did she work after Bill Clinton was elected in 1992?
And she's not a good debater IMO. Liars struggle in those forums. She's not a good debater simply because she says something with conviction.
Same with Trump. He sucks. I think their debates are going to be a train wreck, with each side pounding their chests and proclaiming victory no matter how they perform.
After Bill Clinton was elected President, her primary responsibility was that of a First Lady. Do you know of any First Ladies working aside from volunteer work? When she was a Senator and as Secretary of State, she worked in the sense that those are paid positions.
It's to your credit that admit your post is only your opinion. The media and the public will determine who was victorious. Any chest pounding won't count for much. ;)
-
It's to your credit that admit your post is only your opinion. The media and the public will determine who was victorious. Any chest pounding won't count for much. ;)
The media and public always determine who wins and loses.
You said "Hillary has not formally practiced law since 2002 when she let her licence lapse." Where did she practice after her husband was elected president in 1992?
-
The media and public always determine who wins and loses.
You said "Hillary has not formally practiced law since 2002 when she let her licence lapse." Where did she practice after her husband was elected president in 1992?
You mean where did she work in the legal field after 2001 when President Clinton's term was completed? I have no idea if she worked between 2001 and 2002. Why is this important?
-
I could debate Hillary having failed the bar exam since she passed the Arkansas bar. She failed the D.C. bar exam. So, we both are correct.
Regardless of what Jerry Zeifman may have thought of Hillary and her work during the (watergate) investigation, he was not her supervisor, neither he nor anyone else fired her from her position on the Impeachment Inquiry staff (Zeifman in fact didn't have the power to fire her, even had he wanted to do so).
Your last sentence is trolling. It does not warrant a response. ::)
Yeah believe whatever that snopes tells you - uh huh. Zeifman had no reason to lie at all about Hillarys' misconduct. And how did the rose law firm billing records end up in the WH all those years later? Yeah - just a miracle. ::) ::)
-
You mean where did she work in the legal field after 2001 when President Clinton's term was completed? I have no idea if she worked between 2001 and 2002. Why is this important?
She was the do-nothing senator from NYS from 2000 remember? She carpetbagged her way into office here and didnt do a damn thing she promised to do.
-
You mean where did she work in the legal field after 2001 when President Clinton's term was completed? I have no idea if she worked between 2001 and 2002. Why is this important?
Because you gave the impression she was still working until 2002.
And you're asking why the accuracy of your comments is important??
-
I haven't seen anything to say Hillary is good at debate (and these things aren't true debate, either, of course). And individuals get big-buck positions in law firms all the time due to nothing but their connections and political pull. I think Rubio may be another example of that.
And when someone has a record which includes support for things like NAFTA and TPP, it makes it very difficult for that person to throw a punch at someone else without taking an even-harder counterpunch every time.
In other words, she destroyed any strong ground she's ever had, if she's ever had any to begin with.
-
Because you gave the impression she was still working until 2002.
And you're asking why the accuracy of your comments is important??
"Hillary has not formally practiced law since 2002 when she let her licence lapse." Sorry, I see where you might draw the conclusion that she was a working lawyer until she let her license lapse.
Hillary is not a personal friend. I haven't followed her working career that closely. If she actually was employed while she was First Lady, I am not aware of it. It's unlikely though. I'm not sure it is required that one practice law in order to retain their license. They have to continue their education.
You might as Soulcrusher about this. I believe he's said he works in law.
-
"Hillary has not formally practiced law since 2002 when she let her licence lapse." Sorry, I see where you might draw the conclusion that she was a working lawyer until she let her license lapse.
Hillary is not a personal friend. I haven't followed her working career that closely. If she actually was employed while she was First Lady, I am not aware of it. It's unlikely though. I'm not sure it is required that one practice law in order to retain their license. They have to continue their education.
You might as Soulcrusher about this. I believe he's said he works in law.
No worries. Thanks for clarifying.
-
Maybe they had to keep her ass from "working" while Mr. Fake-O was in the WH, because "working" means "scamming" to the Clintons, meaning a constant threat of fallout.
-
I haven't seen anything to say Hillary is good at debate (and these things aren't true debate, either, of course). And individuals get big-buck positions in law firms all the time due to nothing but their connections and political pull. I think Rubio may be another example of that.
And when someone has a record which includes support for things like NAFTA and TPP, it makes it very difficult for that person to throw a punch at someone else without taking an even-harder counterpunch every time.
In other words, she destroyed any strong ground she's ever had, if she's ever had any to begin with.
The pundits are on both sides of the fence with regards to Hillary's proficiency at debate. Bernie Sanders had/has a lot of supporters. Unfortunately for him, Hillary beat him at debate.
Trial lawyers win cases based on their ability to convince a judge and Jury of someone's guilt or innocence. This seems like debate to me. "Shooting from the hip" is not a debate winning tactic.
-
Maybe they had to keep her ass from "working" while Mr. Fake-O was in the WH, because "working" means "scamming" to the Clintons, meaning a constant threat of fallout.
You do like state your opinions. Honestly, you cannot know what working means to the Clinton's unless they tell you.
Except that she did work during Obama's term. She was paid close to $200,000 as Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is appointed by the President of the United States and is confirmed by the United States Senate.
-
The pundits are on both sides of the fence with regards to Hillary's proficiency at debate. Bernie Sanders had/has a lot of supporters. Unfortunately for him, Hillary beat him at debate.
I wouldn't say that, at all. But then again I don't automatically take the word of the "experts" on TV who have an interest in Hillary's success.
No, Bernie held his own. He could have (and should have) went on a much stronger attack, but he didn't. Maybe if he'd had the goods with the DNC emails, earlier, he'd have taken a different approach.
Trial lawyers win cases based on their ability to convince a judge and Jury of someone's guilt or innocence. This seem like debate to me. "Shooting from the hip" is not a debate winning tactic.
That's great, but she's the one in desperate need of defense.
-
You do like state your opinions. Honestly, you cannot know what working means to the Clinton's unless they tell you.
Except that she did work during Obama's term. She was paid close to $200,000 as Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is appointed by the President of the United States and is confirmed by the United States Senate.
Let me ask you something, Prime.
When a Clinton works to promote an "agreement" that's set to be destructive to the common person, yet at the same time quite lucrative for small group of the wealthiest people on earth: Do you consider that honest work?
-
The media universally agreed Romney whooped Obama in debate #1 last time.
Trump supporters will just claim media bias if the general thought is that he lost.
She led Obama into traps in the debates, and he was a senator. Trump will be likable but will take some bonehead positions.
-
These things aren't real debate, anyway. The crooks want absolute and total control over the information, so they'll place some annoying little nancy bitch like the Vanderbilt son (can't remember name) and that person runs guard over everything to keep it very restricted. It's an outrage to call it debate, really.
-
I wouldn't say that, at all. But then again I don't automatically take the word of the "experts" on TV who have an interest in Hillary's success.
No, Bernie held his own. He could have (and should have) went on a much stronger attack, but he didn't. Maybe if he'd had the goods with the DNC emails, earlier, he'd have taken a different approach.
That's great, but she's the one in desperate need of defense.
No one should take what pundits/experts say as indisputably correct. Some may be influenced by their affinity to Trump while others by their interest in Clinton. This works both ways.
Bernie did capture a lot of support, just not enough to be nominated. There will surely be those who will write him in if their state voting laws allow for this.
I suppose it is possible to win the debate and still lose the nomination. Many people vote based on irrelevancies as opposed to qualifications.
Each candidate has issues to defend. Whether or not they get the opportunity to do that will depend on the rules of the debates.
-
No one should take what pundits/experts say as indisputably correct. Some may be influenced by their affinity to Trump while others by their interest in Clinton. This works both ways.
Bernie did capture a lot of support, just not enough to be nominated. There will surely be those who will write him in if their state voting laws allow for this.
I suppose it is possible to win the debate and still lose the nomination. Many people vote based on irrelevancies as opposed to qualifications.
Each candidate has issues to defend. Whether or not they get the opportunity to do that will depend on the rules of the debates.
Yes. Think of all the dinks who've had their "minds" made up for Hillary from way back when. Years, now.
Bernie came out of nowhere, compared to that. To say nothing of the fact he was working against the DNC/Media partnership, with their stacked debate audiences and all the other dirty tricks they were pulling.
Nothing can take away from the fact Bernie had a message and Hillary doesn't... except "Stronger Together" which has yet to be explained, and will never be explained, because it's designed to be entirely non-committal.
-
Yes. Think of all the dinks who've had their "minds" made up for Hillary from way back when. Years, now.
Bernie came out of nowhere, compared to that. To say nothing of the fact he was working against the DNC/Media partnership, with their stacked debate audiences and all the other dirty tricks they were pulling.
Nothing can take away from the fact Bernie had a message and Hillary doesn't... except "Stronger Together" which has yet to be explained, and will never be explained, because it's designed to be entirely non-committal.
You'll get no argument from me regarding Sanders. He's definitely a remarkable guy who is committed to what he believes. It was particularly impressive when he took a longtime before giving his support to Clinton. It showed a lot of resolve. Imagine the pressure he was getting from the DNC, Obama and others to concede. At last, when he finally supported her, it was conditional and reserved.
-
You'll get no argument from me regarding Sanders. He's definitely a remarkable guy who is committed to what he believes. It was particularly impressive when he took a longtime before giving his support to Clinton. It showed a lot of resolve. Imagine the pressure he was getting from the DNC, Obama and others to concede. At last, when he finally supported her, it was conditional and reserved.
I can't understand why the related info about the DNC was released after that step had been taken by Bernie, and not before. If the idea of the release was to jab at Hillary, then why not use the chance it would impact his decision on the matter?
-
I can't understand why the related info about the DNC was released after that step had been taken by Bernie, and not before. If the idea of the release was to jab at Hillary, then why not use the chance it would impact his decision on the matter?
Repubs WANT to face hilary, who the dem base is not thrilled about.
They'd be 2008 exicted for bernie. They're not excited for hilary. Repubs didn't want to face liz warren or al gore or even bernie, anyone that really motivates the base. hilary just "took" the nomination for the most part, using rules and relationships with super delegates. She had it sewed up long before the primaries started.
-
I can't understand why the related info about the DNC was released after that step had been taken by Bernie, and not before. If the idea of the release was to jab at Hillary, then why not use the chance it would impact his decision on the matter?
Be patient please. I am an old man. It is not clear to me what you are saying here. What related information about the DNC are you talking about? Is it that Bernie Sanders actually supported Clinton long before he announced it publicly or that his support was conditional. Honestly, I am confused. Help me out.
-
Repubs WANT to face hilary, who the dem base is not thrilled about.
They'd be 2008 exicted for bernie. They're not excited for hilary. Repubs didn't want to face liz warren or al gore or even bernie, anyone that really motivates the base. hilary just "took" the nomination for the most part, using rules and relationships with super delegates. She had it sewed up long before the primaries started.
Gore really let everyone down in the past ("it's time for me to go away" or whatever crzy shit that was). He's not a fighter in the least imo. I hope he continues to stay out of politics.
-
Be patient please. I am an old man. It is not clear to me what you are saying here. What related information about the DNC are you talking about? Is it that Bernie Sanders actually supported Clinton long before he announced it publicly or that his support was conditional. Honestly, I am confused. Help me out.
He didn't need to endorse her. He could have sent everyone a message that she and her campaign go against what he's trying to say, and the DNC emails would actually make that case for him. The amazing thing is that he could do all that without saying a single word, in fact.
Everyone would know exactly where he's coming from.
-
He didn't need to endorse her. He could have sent everyone a message that she and her campaign go against what he's trying to say, and the DNC emails would actually make that case for him. The amazing thing is that he could do all that without saying a single word, in fact.
Everyone would know exactly where he's coming from.
Interesting take on this situation. Sanders' endorsement of Clinton was given with reservations, according to what I heard him say to the media. I grew to like Bernie Sanders in the primaries, Despite this, I realistically believe, he didn't stand a chance being elected President. Although, he had a big enough following to hurt Clinton's chances of winning over Trump when all was said and done. There is little doubt that he was pressured into the endorsement by the DNC. Had he not endorsed her, his political career would be fini. To succeed in politics today one must have their parties backing.
Anyway, that's my take on what happened and from where he was coming.
-
Gore really let everyone down in the past ("it's time for me to go away" or whatever crzy shit that was). He's not a fighter in the least imo. I hope he continues to stay out of politics.
there's a great interview where he bitches out Bush for letting 911 happen. He is PISSED. "I would have stopped it, I would not have ignored that memo..."
Gore would be 100x better than Hilary, and the dems argument of "global warming" from 10 years ago would be weak soup.
-
Interesting take on this situation. Sanders' endorsement of Clinton was given with reservations, according to what I heard him say to the media. I grew to like Bernie Sanders in the primaries, Despite this, I realistically believe, he didn't stand a chance being elected President. Although, he had a big enough following to hurt Clinton's chances of winning over Trump when all was said and done. There is little doubt that he was pressured into the endorsement by the DNC. Had he not endorsed her, his political career would be fini. To succeed in politics today one must have their parties backing.
Anyway, that's my take on what happened and from where he was coming.
You don't think he'd have stood a chance against Trump?
The rest I agree. That's why he went on to do just as he did, I suppose.
-
there's a great interview where he bitches out Bush for letting 911 happen. He is PISSED. "I would have stopped it, I would not have ignored that memo..."
Gore would be 100x better than Hilary, and the dems argument of "global warming" from 10 years ago would be weak soup.
Was just looking to see what campaigning Bernie's done for Hillary, and so far have only seen mention of once in NH.
-
You don't think he'd have stood a chance against Trump?
The rest I agree. That's why he went on to do just as he did, I suppose.
Right, I don't think he had a chance of this. If Sanders couldn't win the primary, what make you think he'd do well in the general?
-
Right, I don't think he had a chance of this. If Sanders couldn't win the primary, what make you think he'd do well in the general?
the system was rigged. Bernie had a 500 delegate deficit before it started. He won may states by a wide margin and walked away with the same # of delgates because of the way the state was gerrymandered/split up. Hilary and wasserman worked for 8 years to ensure hilary was given this nomination.
and every coin flip went her way. all the little things went her way.
-
the system was rigged. Bernie had a 500 delegate deficit before it started. He won may states by a wide margin and walked away with the same # of delgates because of the way the state was gerrymandered/split up. Hilary and wasserman worked for 8 years to ensure hilary was given this nomination.
and every coin flip went her way. all the little things went her way.
Whatever.
-
Right, I don't think he had a chance of this. If Sanders couldn't win the primary, what make you think he'd do well in the general?
You're saying Hillary will beat Trump, so Trump would beat Bernie? Not sure I follow.
-
You're saying Hillary will beat Trump, so Trump would beat Bernie? Not sure I follow.
It didn't happen, that's really what counts. As for who will beat who, we can only guess at this point since the horses are too far from the finish line.
-
at this point, i'd be shocked if the debates happened.
hilary is looking sick - i was the 1st getbigger to point this out, a year ago, and now others are on the train.
trump doesn't wanna spit policy, that's for sure. 90 seconds is a LONG time to bullshit when you do'nt control the subject and the moderators are looking for you to step in shit.
I think both of them just want the other to cancel ;) They'll both blame each other. Trump not preparing, hilary hiding... both just want to ride out their style til election day
-
It didn't happen, that's really what counts. As for who will beat who, we can only guess at this point since the horses are too far from the finish line.
Right. But by any stretch, the one doesn't automatically mean the other, as I'm sure you know.
-
at this point, i'd be shocked if the debates happened.
hilary is looking sick - i was the 1st getbigger to point this out, a year ago, and now others are on the train.
trump doesn't wanna spit policy, that's for sure. 90 seconds is a LONG time to bullshit when you do'nt control the subject and the moderators are looking for you to step in shit.
I think both of them just want the other to cancel ;) They'll both blame each other. Trump not preparing, hilary hiding... both just want to ride out their style til election day
Wow, it would really be something else if it was Hillary who punked out. But the sad fact is that her followers would do nothing but make excuses for her.
-
Wow, it would really be something else if it was Hillary who punked out. But the sad fact is that her followers would do nothing but make excuses for her.
Neither side wants to debate. Trump is the MOTHERFVCKING KING OF HYPE... and with a sick hilary on the ropes, and his gift of gab, and his amazing TV presence, you think he'd be hyping the debates as the showdown of the century.
HE IS NOT. We gotta ask ourselves, why is trump not screaming from the rooftops how excited he is to debate/call her out? Very few mentions.
I think they both have a solid chance (hilary's is better) to win the election. They both want to do what they're doing. Hilary looks feeble, and Trump looks incompetent, if they debate for 2 hours.
-
Neither side wants to debate. Trump is the MOTHERFVCKING KING OF HYPE... and with a sick hilary on the ropes, and his gift of gab, and his amazing TV presence, you think he'd be hyping the debates as the showdown of the century.
HE IS NOT. We gotta ask ourselves, why is trump not screaming from the rooftops how excited he is to debate/call her out? Very few mentions.
I think they both have a solid chance (hilary's is better) to win the election. They both want to do what they're doing. Hilary looks feeble, and Trump looks incompetent, if they debate for 2 hours.
Gonna be real "funny" to see these two, and exactly how they go at it in the "debates" if it does happen.
If it doesn't happen, it's just going to seem like such a rip-off. Not acceptable at all.
-
There are three scheduled (or four) so if they start playing games, and NONE happen...
Not cool.
-
Gonna be real "funny" to see these two, and exactly how they go at it in the "debates" if it does happen.
If it doesn't happen, it's just going to seem like such a rip-off. Not acceptable at all.
This debate? it'd be like watching two elderly disabled people of different languages trying to fck standing up in a shower.
-
This debate? it'd be like watching two elderly disabled people of different languages trying to fck standing up in a shower.
Imo, IF they're working "together" (meaning Trump is sufficiently aware of the game, and intends to play it down to the conclusion the Clintons seek) then I'd bet we'll be able to detect it.
-
Imo, IF they're working "together" (meaning Trump is sufficiently aware of the game, and intends to play it down to the conclusion the Clintons seek) then I'd bet we'll be able to detect it.
they both lose value in a debate. Right now, trump's masses love him because he controls the conversation, repeating anti-mex catch phrases.
Once he has to fumble his way thru lessons we've learned from WWII or three specific ways he will maintain trade while initiating sanctions upon RUS or CHI, his simple talk just ain't gonna cut it anymore.
"Sir, please elaborate..."
"I'm tired of the media and their tricks..."
"Sir, what lessons did we learn"
"the world learned you can't mess with us..."
"Sir, what about china"
"China knows not to mess with me..."
At some point, people will realize, um, he doesn't actually know any specifics or have a grasp on history, does he? Reminds me of Tim Tebow... great leader, amazing willpower, terrific gifts... but just didn't have the acumen or manning-esque mental horsepower to read defenses.
-
they both lose value in a debate. Right now, trump's masses love him because he controls the conversation, repeating anti-mex catch phrases.
Once he has to fumble his way thru lessons we've learned from WWII or three specific ways he will maintain trade while initiating sanctions upon RUS or CHI, his simple talk just ain't gonna cut it anymore.
"Sir, please elaborate..."
"I'm tired of the media and their tricks..."
"Sir, what lessons did we learn"
"the world learned you can't mess with us..."
"Sir, what about china"
"China knows not to mess with me..."
At some point, people will realize, um, he doesn't actually know any specifics or have a grasp on history, does he? Reminds me of Tim Tebow... great leader, amazing willpower, terrific gifts... but just didn't have the acumen or manning-esque mental horsepower to read defenses.
I've been watching a lot of his longer interviews, and believe me he carries himself much better than in soundbites. And you can't deny Hillary is a fumbling drunken mess who can't keep track of her own bowels, apparently.
-
I've been watching a lot of his longer interviews, and believe me he carries himself much better than in soundbites. And you can't deny Hillary is a fumbling drunken mess who can't keep track of her own bowels, apparently.
Yes, I reckon she does shit herself weekly and pees daily. Those diaper dresses and the WND "cathater tube" are telling.
BUT
She walked obama into shit continually in debates despite the moderators being on his sack. This time, they'll be on her sack, giving her an advantage. And she has been sec of state. She was in the room when bin laden was killed. She has met dozens of leaders and negotiated many things. Her capability is proven, even if her credibility sucks.
Trump hasn't proven his capability - his one foreign trip to rub elbows with leaders resulted in a twitter war about lies. Remember Romney & obama (12 and 08) touring the world, meeting leaders in the leadup to the election? Was MEX the only one to invite trump? ;) Very telling...
-
Yes, I reckon she does shit herself weekly and pees daily. Those diaper dresses and the WND "cathater tube" are telling.
BUT
She walked obama into shit continually in debates despite the moderators being on his sack. This time, they'll be on her sack, giving her an advantage. And she has been sec of state. She was in the room when bin laden was killed. She has met dozens of leaders and negotiated many things. Her capability is proven, even if her credibility sucks.
Trump hasn't proven his capability - his one foreign trip to rub elbows with leaders resulted in a twitter war about lies. Remember Romney & obama (12 and 08) touring the world, meeting leaders in the leadup to the election? Was MEX the only one to invite trump? ;) Very telling...
Imo, all the cruds in all those past debates, can only be as good as the ground they're standing on. All crooks. Trump is coming from a little bit different place, though. But just a "little" different.
-
Wow, it would really be something else if it was Hillary who punked out. But the sad fact is that her followers would do nothing but make excuses for her.
You're talking about human nature. People often make excuses for someone or something they support. Trump's followers are doing the same for him.
-
they both lose value in a debate. Right now, trump's masses love him because he controls the conversation, repeating anti-mex catch phrases.
Once he has to fumble his way thru lessons we've learned from WWII or three specific ways he will maintain trade while initiating sanctions upon RUS or CHI, his simple talk just ain't gonna cut it anymore.
"Sir, please elaborate..."
"I'm tired of the media and their tricks..."
"Sir, what lessons did we learn"
"the world learned you can't mess with us..."
"Sir, what about china"
"China knows not to mess with me..."
At some point, people will realize, um, he doesn't actually know any specifics or have a grasp on history, does he? Reminds me of Tim Tebow... great leader, amazing willpower, terrific gifts... but just didn't have the acumen or manning-esque mental horsepower to read defenses.
Here is the lowdown as I see it. If HRC is elected there will be very little change. If Trump is elected, he will quickly find out that he cannot keep his campaign promises. Again, nothing much will change except the ride is bound to be bumpier. He might even be kicked out of the White House early in his Presidency. Either way we are all very likely in for a disappointment.
-
You're talking about human nature. People often make excuses for someone or something they support. Trump's followers are doing the same for him.
Missing a debate may be the biggest no-no of all, imo. Because the person doing it is cutting off communication with us, which is getting dangerously close in appearance to dropping out when it comes to the message it sends.
Trump did it, once, then made a point of saying he regretted the decision -- which says a lot, I'm sure, when you consider he'd probably prefer not to admit mistakes.
-
Here is the lowdown as I see it. If HRC is elected there will be very little change. If Trump is elected, he will quickly find out that he cannot keep his campaign promises. Again, nothing much will change except the ride is bound to be bumpier. He might even be kicked out of the White House early in his Presidency. Either way we are all very likely in for a disappointment.
agreed - very little changes with hilary in office.
Trump would just blame congress because he can't MAKE apple do this of Ford do that. Congress is the ultimate scapegoat for all the stuff he promised that kinda isn't within a president's power ;)
-
Here is the lowdown as I see it. If HRC is elected there will be very little change. If Trump is elected, he will quickly find out that he cannot keep his campaign promises. Again, nothing much will change except the ride is bound to be bumpier. He might even be kicked out of the White House early in his Presidency. Either way we are all very likely in for a disappointment.
What are some of the ways this could predictably happen? I've been meaning to think about things that could happen if he got in, with what we know about him.
-
Negative things, I mean. I have hope for him with positive things.
-
What are some of the ways this could predictably happen? I've been meaning to think about things that could happen if he got in, with what we know about him.
Not being an expert here, I'm going on my reasoning. Many of the republican party's leadership won't support him and we know the Democrats don't. He will be standing all alone spewing outrageous diatribe, perhaps even putting the U.S. at risk. I doubt he will be allowed to Tweet his way through the job of President. It's a not funny joke already. If he's as dangerous as he seems, there will be no choice but to impeach him. Imagine, he's battling with Enrique Peña Nieto on Twitter and Enrique Peña Nieto is responding. It's all about who will pay for "the wall." Can this be really happening? Does anyone actually believe a wall will be built? And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mexican-president-trump-border-wall_us_57c882ade4b078581f11fc13
-
Not being an expert here, I'm going on my reasoning. Many of the republican party's leadership won't support him and we know the Democrats don't. He will be standing all alone spewing outrageous diatribe, perhaps even putting the U.S. at risk. I doubt he will be allowed to Tweet his way through the job of President. It's a not funny joke already. If he's as dangerous as he seems, there will be no choice but to impeach him. Imagine, he's battling with Enrique Peña Nieto on Twitter and Enrique Peña Nieto is responding. It's all about who will pay for "the wall." Can this be really happening? Does anyone actually believe a wall will be built? And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mexican-president-trump-border-wall_us_57c882ade4b078581f11fc13
So perhaps making a public threat, for instance, that could lead to a terrible chain of events, say.
-
So perhaps making a public threat, for instance, that could lead to a terrible chain of events, say.
That would probably do it!
There is no perhaps about it. He's proven that he cannot restrain himself for more then a day. Leopards don't change their spots.
-
Btw, it looks possible that Trump is receiving false intel updates. Someone may have made a decision to go against an established procedure of some sort, and actually give false or incomplete info to him.
-
That would probably do it!
There is no perhaps about it. He's proven that he cannot restrain himself for more then a day. Leopards don't change their spots.
Funny thing is, the powers in that position have been made nearly limitless, so maybe that's why everyone is so upset. Their fault, but we're the ones to always pay the price.
I think any true outsider-type person would scare the hell out of these people.
-
Funny thing is, the powers in that position have been made nearly limitless, so maybe that's why everyone is so upset. Their fault, but we're the ones to always pay the price.
I think any true outsider-type person would scare the hell out of these people.
Here's a scary thought:
The President of the United States has numerous powers, including those explicitly granted by Article II of the United States Constitution, implied powers, powers granted by Acts of Congress, and the influence and soft power that comes from being President of the United States of America.
The Constitution explicitly assigns to the president the power to sign or veto legislation, command the armed forces, ask for the written opinion of his Cabinet, convene or adjourn Congress, grant reprieves and pardons, and receive ambassadors. The president may make treaties which need to be ratified by two thirds of the Senate. The president may also appoint Article III judges and some officers with advice and consent of the Senate ( consent being by simple majority) and if there is a Senate recess, he may make temporary appointments.
-
Here's a scary thought:
The President of the United States has numerous powers, including those explicitly granted by Article II of the United States Constitution, implied powers, powers granted by Acts of Congress, and the influence and soft power that comes from being President of the United States of America.
The Constitution explicitly assigns to the president the power to sign or veto legislation, command the armed forces, ask for the written opinion of his Cabinet, convene or adjourn Congress, grant reprieves and pardons, and receive ambassadors. The president may make treaties which need to be ratified by two thirds of the Senate. The president may also appoint Article III judges and some officers with advice and consent of the Senate ( consent being by simple majority) and if there is a Senate recess, he may make temporary appointments.
I believe the post-911 powers are pretty much as any king would have it.
-
Trump asked a foreign government to interfere with a U.S. Election to benefit him politically.
Repeat that over and over.
-
Trump asked a foreign government to interfere with a U.S. Election to benefit him politically.
Repeat that over and over.
I haven't followed this one. What do they have on him?
-
I haven't followed this one. What do they have on him?
Here ya go. NY Times article
-
Here ya go. NY Times article
Oh, that one? No, I don't see that it's what some say. Not at all.
Trump has every reason to believe Russia is doing the same thing we are when it comes to data stealing. After all, they can claim the exact same reason: their own security.
And if they were to inform everyone of wrongdoing on Hillary's part, they'd actually be doing us a favor.
So I don't see a problem.
-
Oh, that one? No, I don't see that it's what some say. Not at all.
Trump has every reason to believe Russia is doing the same thing we are when it comes to data stealing. After all, they can claim the exact same reason: their own security.
And if they were to inform everyone of wrongdoing on Hillary's part, they'd actually be doing us a favor.
So I don't see a problem.
Frankly, I'd rather not owe Putin a favor.
-
frankly, i'd rather foreign govts don't interfere with our elections.
Russia times contributor Assange, hiding in russia, has promised 2 more big items, the first one 3 days before the debate, and the other an october surprise right before the elections.
he's a russian national now, already telling us he plans to time his espionage releases so that he can help influence the outcome of a US election. And, the man he's helping happens to be the one who just changed GOP policy to let Russia invade Ukraine. That's quid pro quo, stocked with espionage from our biggest global threat.
-
Frankly, I'd rather not owe Putin a favor.
That's because you want Hillary at any cost.
-
That's because you want Hillary at any cost.
You a getting silly now. What's voting for HRC got to do with not wanting to owe Putin favors?
-
You a getting silly now. What's voting for HRC got to do with not wanting to owe Putin favors?
Seems there's nothing imaginable that could stop you from backing Hillary, that's all. Sounds like a dangerous stand.
-
You a getting silly now. What's voting for HRC got to do with not wanting to owe Putin favors?
hilary/obama are very much anti-Putin. They cawk block him expanding russian power.
Trump is the opposite. They praise each other. Trump pretended to know him, even though they hadn't met. "We did 60 minutes together, I know him well" was the quote, and they were just on the same show, never met, never filmed together.
trump forced the RNC to change ONE policy position before the convention - let russia move into ukraine. That's HUGE. Complete OPPOSITE of what reagan or any other president has done.
On the favor thing - trump asked Russia to release hilary's emails, said they'd get favorable coverage if they did. That's a quid pro quo public offer/request.
-
Seems there's nothing imaginable that could stop you from backing Hillary, that's all. Sounds like a dangerous stand.
Realistically, we the voters are left with only two candidates to pick from. As I see it, if I must choose between HRC or Trump, it is going to be HRC that gets my vote. No matter how corrupt she might be, she's not as insane as Trump. We can survive Clinton. I seriously doubt the same is true for Trump. He is a totally scary dude. Ultimately, you are right except the real danger is with Trump and not HRC.
-
Realistically, we the voters are left with only two candidates to pick from. As I see it, if I must choose between HRC or Trump, it is going to be HRC that get my vote. No matter how corrupt she might be, she's not as insane as Trump. We can survive Clinton. I seriously doubt the same is true for Trump. He is a totally scary dude. Ultimately, you are right except the real danger is with Trump and not HRC.
It's a longshot either way imo.
You made a very good point a few days back, when you mentioned the possibilty of a threat being used as an excuse for someone -- anyone, possibly even Americans -- to act on it in a way that's not good.
And with the way the media portrays Trump as someone NOT to be taken seriously, it would make it very easy for members of government to treat him as though he's not "really" a figure of authority. To think Harry Reid had the nerve to advise against providing Trump with factual information in intel briefings, is a sign.
But I would still take Trump over Hillary, because at least with him there's a glimmer of hope. Last 16 years we have had W and Obama, and we simply can't take any more of the same. Something must break that grip.
-
Obviously a fake, but it's funny anyway....unless of course your name happens to be Donald Trump.
-
Once he has to fumble his way thru lessons we've learned from WWII or three specific ways he will maintain trade while initiating sanctions upon RUS or CHI, his simple talk just ain't gonna cut it anymore.
"Sir, please elaborate..."
"I'm tired of the media and their tricks..."
"Sir, what lessons did we learn"
"the world learned you can't mess with us..."
"Sir, what about china"
"China knows not to mess with me..."
At some point, people will realize, um, he doesn't actually know any specifics or have a grasp on history, does he? Reminds me of Tim Tebow... great leader, amazing willpower, terrific gifts... but just didn't have the acumen or manning-esque mental horsepower to read defenses.
Tonight we saw it. Trump doesn't have answers to complex questions. That's what it all comes down to.
"Yes Donald, I spend time preparing. I prepare to be the PRESIDENT!" :-X
-
Tonight we saw it. Trump doesn't have answers to complex questions. That's what it all comes down to.
"Yes Donald, I spend time preparing. I prepare to be the PRESIDENT!" :-X
Hilary's answers were all canned political pap.
-
If you want to focus on substance (from just last night), Hillary is spewing the same nonsense that has been in place for the past 8 years. If you want to keep going down the path we are headed, by all means, vote for her. If you want to pay more in taxes, vote for her. If you want this PC culture to keep being shoved down your throat, then vote for her. If you want the TPP to pass, vote for her. If you want more businesses to leave the country, vote for her. If you want higher energy costs and the elimination of fossil fuels (which could make the U.S. a lot of money), then vote for her. If you want more racial tension/crime in this country, vote for her.
Liberals love to say how sophisticated their candidate seems to be compared to the dumb republican. This is nothing new. Could Trump have done better, HELL YES! Did he do terrible, and make a huge mistake? Not at all, and that's what Hillary needed to happen to make a momentum shift.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CtXMWoIUEAAQMrj.jpg:large)