• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015 |OT2| Pls print

Status
Not open for further replies.
Moving him to Entertainment probably exposed him to more people who otherwise don't follow politics. :U

It was their master plan all along

Horrible liar that she is, at least Fiorina admitted her lie. Hopefully someone presses Rubio on his falsity outlined above.

Also, it's kind of amazing that Trump is taking his organising more seriously.
It feels kind of like he went into this for a laugh, but at some point he decided he has a real shot at this, and the campaign shifted into serious mode. Or as serious as Trump can be.

I'm fond of saying that Trump isn't an idiot, he's just good at playing one on TV. This seems to be entirely true at this point. Trump absolutely knows what he's doing and is more than competent enough to be a legitimate candidate here.
 

Tamanon

Banned
I'm still shocked Trump has any ground game. I thought he would just coast on his personality. That....alters my thoughts on this whole thing now. He might have a shot at the Primary, or at least knocking off some more establishment guys.
 

danm999

Member
Also, it's kind of amazing that Trump is taking his organising more seriously.
It feels kind of like he went into this for a laugh, but at some point he decided he has a real shot at this, and the campaign shifted into serious mode. Or as serious as Trump can be.

I'm increasingly thinking this. Savvy as he is, I think even he didn't realize how much his Mexico are sending bad people comments would resonate.

He likely knew it would go over well with the base, but it dominated the race on the Republican side and created this aura of invincibility around his campaign that has given him a pass to do all sorts of things typically thought of as no goes in politics (criticise veterans, hold GWB accountable for 9/11).
 
I'm still shocked Trump has any ground game. I thought he would just coast on his personality. That....alters my thoughts on this whole thing now. He might have a shot at the Primary, or at least knocking off some more establishment guys.

Not just "A" ground game.

Trump hired the guy who ran Santorum's surprisingly successful Iowa campaign to run his this time.

He's got a captain in every single one of iowa's 1800 precincts, is working on second and thirds, and has staff running around in iowa with cards explaining the caucus process for first time voters and instructing them on how to get involved.For comparison Jeb Bush has 100 people making phonecalls and no one at all going door to door.

This isn't just "a" ground game, this is one of the most put together plans I've ever seen- and he's funding just about all of this himself. He's barely raised anything from outside sources. (I think he was at 3 million, give or take).

if everyone else isn't extremely worried, they should be.
 

Tarkus

Member
Out of curiosity, how many former actors turned politicians became Republicans?


You have Jesse Ventura, Fred Thompson, Reagan, Ben Stein, etc.

Compared to Al Franken and Clay Aiken, lol
It's funny you mention Fred Thompson. He just died of lymphoma today at age 73.
 

zargle

Member
Horrible liar that she is, at least Fiorina admitted her lie. Hopefully someone presses Rubio on his falsity outlined above.

Also, it's kind of amazing that Trump is taking his organising more seriously.
It feels kind of like he went into this for a laugh, but at some point he decided he has a real shot at this, and the campaign shifted into serious mode. Or as serious as Trump can be.

A change of pace from when she has doubled down on some of her other whoppers.

I think the Trump organization efforts are at least in part because ego is a powerful driver and Trump has a big enough one. No one wants to get embarrassed if they can get to the actual voting part and he definitely wouldn't want to.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Robert Costa ‏@costareports 2m2 minutes ago
Per sources in room, there is little satisfaction over Priebus move on Spicer/Cairncross. They want power, not staffing shift...

Robert Costa ‏@costareports 2m2 minutes ago
Right now, as we speak, the campaigns are discussing *possibly* asking the RNC to *only* due logistics for debates- tickets, etc.

Robert Costa ‏@costareports 2m2 minutes ago
The divide isn't only about moderators and formats. It's fundamentally about who is in a position to lead those discussions: camps or RNC?

Robert Costa ‏@costareports 3m3 minutes ago
Another operative in room texts: "I'm pushing for RNC to lead [TV talks]," but says several others want camps to negotiate w/ networks

Robert Costa ‏@costareports 47s48 seconds ago
Per more sources in room, the group has decided to lay off Fox, put them in sep category as the camps move fwd. Kasich team pushed for this.

Robert Costa ‏@costareports 3m3 minutes ago
In essence, there is fury about press but camps here are deciding to treat Fox differently moving fwd. More scrutiny for other outlets.

Robert Costa ‏@costareports 1m1 minute ago
"People are afraid to make Roger mad." Quote of the night, via text, from a source participating in the mtg.

Robert Costa ‏@costareports 25s25 seconds ago
What the GOP camps want: opening and closing remarks of at least 30 secs each, 2 hours max in length for debates

Robert Costa ‏@costareports 1m1 minute ago
NEWS: the group has agreed informally to what they want to see in future formats, per sources in room... "Format talk done," one texts

Robert Costa ‏@costareports 1m1 minute ago
"Going surprisingly well" per another source there

Robert Costa ‏@costareports 1m1 minute ago
Where things stand: lots of agreement, but no formal consensus on many topics. Moving together but not yet ready for "list of demands"

Robert Costa ‏@costareports 2m2 minutes ago
What's being discussed now: CNN. The Fox Biz debate was briefly discussed, focus is on CNN, the next one post FBN. Concerns being aired...

Robert Costa ‏@costareports 9s10 seconds ago
What I keep hearing from all sides here: tonight, at its core, is about whether the campaigns will take control of network negotiations

Robert Costa ‏@costareports 1m1 minute ago
One other agreement so far, per sources: campaigns get approval of TV graphics on screen during debate (this was a Bush camp concern)

Robert Costa ‏@costareports 2m2 minutes ago
Undercard players saying they want on main stage...

Robert Costa ‏@costareports 3m3 minutes ago
NEW: uneasiness late in meeting as the undercard players speak up... media bashing led to happy hour, now talks more tense

will update my post as his feed continues.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Not just "A" ground game.

Trump hired the guy who ran Santorum's surprisingly successful Iowa campaign to run his this time.

He's got a captain in every single one of iowa's 1800 precincts, is working on second and thirds, and has staff running around in iowa with cards explaining the caucus process for first time voters and instructing them on how to get involved.For comparison Jeb Bush has 100 people making phonecalls and no one at all going door to door.

This isn't just "a" ground game, this is one of the most put together plans I've ever seen- and he's funding just about all of this himself. He's barely raised anything from outside sources. (I think he was at 3 million, give or take).

if everyone else isn't extremely worried, they should be.

Keep in mind that this isn't something that pops up overnight, he's been building this for a couple months now. Ever since the first debate I reckon, the signs of this have been there so if the other campaigns or the establishment are shocked by this then they haven't been paying close enough attention.
 
Keep in mind that this isn't something that pops up overnight, he's been building this for a couple months now. Ever since the first debate I reckon, the signs of this have been there so if the other campaigns or the establishment are shocked by this then they haven't been paying close enough attention.

*I'm* surprised by this , but then again I'm not running for office or doing opposition research. I haven't seen anything that says the other campaigns are doing anything similar anywhere- Rubio is explicitly NOT making these investments in fact.

so either they knew about it and didn't think it was relevant (which is stupid) or didn't know at all and got blindsided, which is worse.
 
Speaking as someone in the pharmaceutical industry, I can assure you that you have absolutely no idea WTF you're going on about. The FDA's relationship with every facility is ridiculously adversarial, they are merciless in their biannual investigations.

I must thank you for allerting me to another highly questionable nomination by President Obama; Dr. Robert Califf for the position of Commissioner of the FDA (currently deputy commissioner), on which Bernie Sanders said:

Bernie Sanders said:
We need a new leader at the FDA who is prepared to stand up to the pharmaceutical companies and work to substantially lower drug prices. Unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion that Dr. Califf is not that person

According to the International Business Times article, "Califf criticized the regulation of the pharmaceutical industry as a hindrance to medical innovation and research" and the New York Times stated "Dr. Califf ran a multimillion-dollar clinical research center at Duke University that received more than 60 percent of its funding from industry" and the article went on to say:

He has written scientific papers with pharmaceutical company researchers, and his financial disclosure form last year listed seven drug companies and a device maker that paid him for consulting and six others that partly supported his university salary, including Merck, Novartis and Eli Lilly. A conflict-of-interest section at the end of an article he wrote in the European Heart Journal last year declared financial support from more than 20 companies

I'm sorry, but I'm in no way satisfied that Dr. Califf will, first and foremost, have the best interests of the American people at heart, and not industry in general, and this is just the tip of the FDA iceberg, as I could probably quote 101 other examples and don't even get me started on Monsanto.

We need, truly independent, well funded regulatory agencies, which primarily serve the American people and not the industries they are supposed to be regulating. Assuming corporations payed their fair share of corporation tax, then it's in everybody's interest for regulations to be applied firmly, but ideally without an undue burden on industry.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
At this point, are there any gaffers who still think !Jeb! gonna get the nom?

tumblr_mbhsyqwFg11ror6v2.gif
 
If your litmus test for appointments is going to be a lack of any association or collaboration with any related industry ever, then you're going to have a relatively poor pool of qualified candidates.

A large University-based clinical research centre conducting clinical trials for pharmaceutical companies is not some sort of shocking revelation.

This is reminding me of the guy who wanted to bar any elected official from any work in "business" for a ten year period post-office.
 

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
Trump has been drawing some huge crowds recently, too. To his credit, he has hired a competent staff.
Well, to be honest, this is one thing I think business people usually do Better than politicians. Obama excluded, can you think of a good staff for any candidate in the last few years? Didn't Hilary's campaign basically completely ignore caucuses eight years ago?

Trump will have a good staff if he were elected. I mean, if you were into conservative stuff.

I have no idea why he's building a field op. Not going to bring the apprentice back!!!!
 

ivysaur12

Banned
If your litmus test for appointments is going to be a lack of any association or collaboration with any related industry ever, then you're going to have a relatively poor pool of qualified candidates.

A large University-based clinical research centre conducting clinical trials for pharmaceutical companies is not some sort of shocking revelation.

This is reminding me of the guy who wanted to bar any elected official from any work in "business" for a ten year period post-office.

I remember that guy! That was stupid!
 

Mario

Sidhe / PikPok
Last Week Tonight doesn't have guests, per se. He'll get someone to come in to be part of a bit. Like tap dancing Steve Buscemi, or Martin Sheen narrating a fake end of the world film. So /if/ the LWT crew contacted Trump's people, it would have been for a bit, not an interview.

Er, they totally have guests with interviews. It just isn't something they do every episode.

Example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZdH94R6XwQ
 

pigeon

Banned
Daniel B·;183798149 said:
We need, truly independent, well funded regulatory agencies, which primarily serve the American people and not the industries they are supposed to be regulating. Assuming corporations payed their fair share of corporation tax, then it's in everybody's interest for regulations to be applied firmly, but ideally without an undue burden on industry.

Sure.

Where do you get the people with the professional knowledge necessary to run these regulatory agencies?

If you want the FDA to regulate pharmaceutical development, for example, it needs a collection of experts on pharmaceutical development. Where do you expect these people to come from? In general, the professional places to work on pharmaceutical development are all in the pharmaceutical industry, hence the term. And, of course, these companies are the companies who invest in education for people to learn how to do pharmaceutical development, because they want new employees.

So, I mean, how are you going to find these magical people who have learned all about making medicines while avoiding all the infrastructure designed to teach you about making medicines because that infrastructure was funded by people who want to make money making medicines?
 

danm999

Member
What's to stop the networks from saying get bent if they are as stupid as Carson's idea.

I suppose the risk is that candidates pull out or threaten to do all their debates with Fox News or something?

What I'm interested in is who wants what. Trump and Carson seem to want to shut things down because they're the leading candidates and really have nothing to gain from another 8 or 9 debates or whatever it is while the Graham campaign seems to want two debates split randomly so maybe their guy is on stage with a frontrunner or something.

Maybe we'll get competing debates or some nonsense.
 

Makai

Member
I suppose the risk is that candidates pull out or threaten to do all their debates with Fox News or something?

What I'm interested in is who wants what. Trump and Carson seem to want to shut things down because they're the leading candidates and really have nothing to gain from another 8 or 9 debates or whatever it is while the Graham campaign seems to want two debates split randomly so maybe their guy is on stage with a frontrunner or something.

Maybe we'll get competing debates or some nonsense.
I'm pretty sure Trump and Carson are just going to have joint press conferences hosted by Animal Planet going forward.
 

User 406

Banned
Saw this interesting confession from the NeoGAF Anonymous Confessions 2015 thread:

hello. I have been stanning on gaf for a presidential candidate that as of october 2015 looks like is not making the general election. At first I only did it to humor myself, but as time went on I kept doing it out of some twisted sense of duty and I now find myself inside a hole too deep to back out. also I am a couple of inches shorter than the male average height and women taller than me give me inferiority boners.

It's okay, you can let go now. Unless you're holding onto a tall lady, in which case hold tight.
 

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
My brain was baffled while talking to one of my only conservative friends last night. He didn't watch the debate, so couldn't comment on specifics, but he refused to buy the notion that CNBC is generally "right-leaning". Somehow in his head, and seemingly with no influence from the debate itself, it's laughably absurd to think CNBC leans to the right. I can't even begin to figure out how you come to that conclusion.
 

Makai

Member
My brain was baffled while talking to one of my only conservative friends last night. He didn't watch the debate, so couldn't comment on specifics, but he refused to buy the notion that CNBC is generally "right-leaning". Somehow in his head, and seemingly with no influence from the debate itself, it's laughably absurd to think CNBC leans to the right. I can't even begin to figure out how you come to that conclusion.
Maybe he doesn't know it's a business network and is focusing on its association with NBC
 

Mario

Sidhe / PikPok
I stand corrected. You're right, he has done interviews before.

Which brings us back to the original question: who is lying, Trump or Oliver?

For that question, if I had to guess based on presented character and track record alone, Trump is lying.

But I'm going to assume this was probably more a case of being mistaken on Trump's part. For example, Last Week Tonight may have reached out to Trump's team for a comment/clarification on something, which they often do, and that ended up on "they wanted us to come on their show" by the time it got to him personally. Or something.
 

Teggy

Member
For that question, if I had to guess based on presented character and track record alone, Trump is lying.

But I'm going to assume this was probably more a case of being mistaken on Trump's part. For example, Last Week Tonight may have reached out to Trump's team for a comment/clarification on something, which they often do, and that ended up on "they wanted us to come on their show" by the time it got to him personally. Or something.

Trump's complete lack of proof and standard "no you" insult response leads me to believe he's lying but it remains to be seen. I certainly wouldn't mind this starting a Trump-Oliver feud, because I have no doubt Oliver will make him look like fool.
 

User 406

Banned
I think Slime had the right of it:

Trump is probably responding to this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/john-...racy-looks-like-a-4-year-olds-birthday-party/

Trump throws a tantrum whenever someone wounds his pride. He gets his followers riled up as a coping mechanism.

That video is from Oct. 30, Trump's tweet is from Oct. 31. Wouldn't be the first time Trump saw someone speaking negatively about him and turned around and claimed that the "loser" attempted to get something from Trump that he turned down first.
 

danm999

Member
I think Slime had the right of it:



That video is from Oct. 30, Trump's tweet is from Oct. 31. Wouldn't be the first time Trump saw someone speaking negatively about him and turned around and claimed that the "loser" attempted to get something from Trump that he turned down first.

He did the same thing with Frank Luntz IIRC.
 

danm999

Member
For that question, if I had to guess based on presented character and track record alone, Trump is lying.

But I'm going to assume this was probably more a case of being mistaken on Trump's part. For example, Last Week Tonight may have reached out to Trump's team for a comment/clarification on something, which they often do, and that ended up on "they wanted us to come on their show" by the time it got to him personally. Or something.

I think you are right. Oliver has been pretty open in his contempt for Trump.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom