Trump says he will 'most likely' not take part in Fox debate
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
- Status
This is right on the money.
Now Trump just needs a few celebrities or some big endorsement in his Iowa event to completely steal the show.
Lmao
QuicheFontaine
Member
Haha, NOW it's getting interesting.
I sympathise with Trump entirely. The networks turned this whole debate thing into a yuuge money spinner. They started to see it as guaranteed ratings for them and so they booked way too many, way too long with way too many people on stage.
They should've thinned out the herd far more if they wanted the debates to go on and on like this. We can all read the polls, half the people up there have ZERO chance. If I was Trump, yes I'd be saying fuck sharing a platform with those no-hopers and lining the pockets of a network that hates me.
SoRuffShoNuff
Member
For everyone who thinks Trump is just a carnival barking buffoon I suggest you read the blog by the creator of Dilbert. He does a masterful job of breaking down why Trump is so powerful at pursuasion and how his campaign is one for the ages.
Blog.Dilbert.com
I really enjoy the posts titled Iowa Reframing and Trump's Dog Problem.
Blog.Dilbert.com
I really enjoy the posts titled Iowa Reframing and Trump's Dog Problem.
Why does everybody keep posting Scott Adams? Hold on, I gotta get Jim Davis' rebuttal.
Calamari41
41 > 38
He's made some very interesting observations, points, and predictions consistently since last summer. If he's somehow not qualified to give his opinion, then I fail to see how anybody posting in this thread is, either.
What? So I guess they get their ratings anyway.
He stopped being funny a few years ago but he's a smart guy and he makes some interesting point here. If you don't care what people think about the issue, why read about it on a message board at all?
Edit: aka what Calamari41 said
Future PhaZe
Member
over/under on number of times Trump, Ayatollah, and Putin are combined in a sentence during the debate - 5
Now Trump just needs a few celebrities or some big endorsement in his Iowa event to completely steal the show.
Tom Brady is on leave from work right now.
Is this real life?
gutter_trash
Banned
I hope Fox's ratings tank hard
but i thought republicans didn't really support trump and his policy proposals tho???
all according to keikaku
That blog is absolutely spot on. Easily the best explanation I have read for why Trump is doing so well.
lmao, Go Trump Train!!
Calamari41
41 > 38
This website seems to be taking things way out of context. I would recommend reading the actual blog posts if you're actually interested in what he has to say.
Joel Was Right
Member
I don't agree with this. Her pointed questions to an offensive candidate constrasted starkly to the game narrative of the evening. The far right didn't like it and the Fox viewers came to hate her for pointing out the outrageous comments their candidate made. It defies logic.
RustyNails
Member
Congrarulations Fox News, you played yourself.
Interfectum
Member
For asking him to discuss the horrible shit he's said in the past? They would ask that of any candidate. Imagine if Hillary said that shit about men... lol
DontBeThatGuy
Member
Cooper grilled Hillary harder than anything Trump has ever had to deal with, and right off the bat he went in on her, and yet Trump's ass stays insecure and whiny. This guy is way too thin-skinned to be a US president.
I have enjoyed reading his posts, and he makes some good points, but I still don't understand why Trump's "winning" antics continue to result in people wanting him to be president.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
It's looking like it, if he manages to get them to swap out the moderator of the debate, I can't see him not winning the nomination.
I don't see how these are being taken "way out of context" - they are full paragraphs from his blog that express complete trains of thought, simply pasted over Dilbert comics for the sake of accessibility and humor.
Could you explain to me what you mean by that?
fixedpoint
Member
It was practically the only actual question asked in the "debate". The rest of the "questions" in the "debate" were on par with spoon-fed baby food: sloppy, patronizing, leading and easy to digest.
I dunno, i think lying to the faces of family members whose relatives died and blaming a "movie" is much worse
fixedpoint
Member
Thanks, no Republican thread is complete without at least a little BENGHAZI.
Interfectum
Member
BoboBrazil
Member
A Trump event on CNN opposite of the Republican debate would be glorious.
vicissitudes
Banned
Republican Debate 7 thread: 71 posts
Trump says he will not participate in debate thread: 435 posts
Trump says he will not participate in debate thread: 435 posts
Bruce Springsteen
Member
This is all every new media is talking about: Trump trump trump
Genius
Genius
This is a non-sequitur, but a juicy one ripe for the picking so I will address it.
You do realize that prototypic terrorists have emotions and motivations, right? Questionable ones not based in reality, but still in simple terms they feel emotions such as anger and motivations such as wanting to fulfill the magic prophecy. They are still humans who respond to stimuli.
Religious fanatics with a history of committing atrocious violence being provoked by a video condemning that which they are fanatical sounds like a pretty plausible explanation in the absense of known organizational ties.
The semantic complaints come from attempts to explain that in the absense of confirmed knowledge it seemed likely that these terrorists were not actually afiliated with terrorist organizations but rather fanatical assholes who were incensed by criticism who went on to commit terrorism in retribution. Problem is that the prototypic image produced when you say "terrorist" is "al-queda member" and implies organizational affiliation contra to the denotation of committing acts of violence or intimidation with the goal of enacting political change. When trying to make this distinction people who don't understand linguistics got upset that it wasn't referred to as simply "RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM" (some of those people also want to additionally conflate Islam and terrorism even further, perhaps so no one realizes how close to Sharia law those people actually are, but that's another topic) and thus here we are.
Does that make things a bit more clear?
QuicheFontaine
Member
You can't argue with those numbers.
no one posts in the debate threads until it's time to make snarky remarks about terrible and/or vague policy proposal though (though no none will watch it so i guess this will hold true)
also now seems like the right time to mention this: did no one else notice ted cruz's "rick perry oops" moment when he was supposed to list off five government agencies he wants to close and he said department of commerce twice (and that he also said the department of energy too, of all things)????
EatinOlives
Member
His supporters worship the ground he walks on and declare a victory on every single decision he makes. Is there any particular reason why this would backfire on him?
He's won the candidacy, and nothing that happens between the caucuses and now will change that. Fox News are even bigger idiots than they usually are if they think it'll legitimately change anything.
He's won the candidacy, and nothing that happens between the caucuses and now will change that. Fox News are even bigger idiots than they usually are if they think it'll legitimately change anything.
BoboBrazil
Member
The candidates will go all in on Trump attacks without him there to defend himself.
Sectorseven
Member
Not necessarily. The lower polling candidates have more to gain by attacking Cruz instead, especially if they're hoping for a spot on Trump's ticket or cabinet.
vicissitudes
Banned
If they do that it only makes the other candidates look bad while strengthening Trump.
Just look at the last undercard debate.
Trumps opinion of Megyn Kelly is only partly to do with the debate. Her show is basically anti-Trump. Every night almost all of her guests criticize him. There is a consistent theme on her show. I'm not saying that she is wrong for doing this I'm just saying that she does not like him and her show is pretty much dedicated to tearing him down and promoting Jeb and then Rubio when Jeb faltered.
He responded to her in that debate more harshly than he has to other tough questions imo because her show up to that debate was calling him a joke candidate and a reality star.
On a side note it is interesting that Rand Paul's numbers went up when he skipped the FBN early debate.
Calamari41
41 > 38
Yeah, definitely. What I mean by that is that they are not, indeed, complete trains of thought. Taking two or three sentences out of multi paragraph posts is opportunistic. I don't always agree with the guy by any means, but judge him on his completed thought.
To use an example, the sentence about approaching the cop. The way it is presented in your link, you think his point is that cops must obey white males. The point he was making in his blog is that people have different perspectives based on their "privilege" in any given moment.
Anyway, my intent is not to get into the weeds and debate whether Scott Adams is correct on any number of points. My intent is to have people judge the guy on his entire thought process rather than reading a sentence here and there randomly taken out of much larger posts. I think that's a pretty good standard to set for oneself. Essentially: read the whole article.
RPGCrazied
Member
Yeah, he basically said he could murder people on the streets of new york and still have their loyalty. Trump supporters are some of the strangest human beings I've ever come across.
Just nuts.
EatinOlives
Member
It's such a bizarre idolatry. These people have long since stopped thinking for themselves.
Calamari41
41 > 38
It's basically a bunch of people laughing at Trump's marks, not realizing that they themselves are also marks.
- Status