Give Directly -
This charity helps with what the extremely poor need. Money.
|
Wednesday, 27 January 2016
quote [ “Let’s see how much money Fox is going to make on the debate without me,” he said at a news conference here.
Fox News said Mr. Trump’s refusal to debate his rivals was “near unprecedented.” ] Donald Trump refusing a chance for more publicity? Now I've seen everything.
Incidentally, something similar happened in Germany last weekend.
With our upcoming regional elections in Rhineland-Palatinate, the TV station SWR wanted to host a political debate starring the front runners of all parties with chances to get into the regional parliament. The current minister-president (head of government) of Rhineland-Palatinate, Malu Dreyer, refused to come to the debate if the candidate of extreme right-wing party AFD (think tea party sans religion and with even more conspiracy theory) would also be invited. Hearing this, SWR offered to host two debates - one with just the candidates for the parties currently in parliament, the second for parties trying to get in. However, hearing this, now the front runner for CDU, the largest opposition party in Rhineland-Palatinate, Julia Klöckner, refused to come to that debate, simply because she refused to let her political opponent have their way. Without her attendance, the political "debate" would have only features the two parties currently governing Rhineland-Palatinate, and thus, SWR cancelled the entire event, telling both sides to kindly reconsider. And people wonder why AFD looks reasonable in comparison.
|
Comments
 |
damnit said @ 7:52am GMT on 27th Jan
Trump has never done any actual debates. Why start now?
|
|
Taleweaver said @ 7:55am GMT on 27th Jan
It's on Fox News, and you call it an actual debate? Wow.
|
|
damnit said @ 8:05am GMT on 27th Jan
I guess you got me.
|
|
donnie said @ 10:40am GMT on 27th Jan
I don't see what Fox has to do with it. It's a US presidential race. That's a half-step up in intellectual density from "Ow! My Balls!", regardless of whose camera they flap their meat at.
|
|
Taleweaver said @ 11:35am GMT on 27th Jan
|
|
mechavolt said @ 12:09pm GMT on 27th Jan
I feel like Trump tried to call Fox's bluff. "Oh yeah? If Kelly's there, I won't be! See your ratings drop! You'll be begging me to come back!" Which, fairly enough, has worked in the previous debates. Except this time, instead of changing the temperature, Fox refused to capitulate. And Trump has to drop out of the debate, otherwise he looks like he was wrong and weak.
|
|
Kama-Kiri said @ 1:25pm GMT on 27th Jan
[Score:2]
He has calculated - correctly I'd wager - that a) people, especially republicans and *especially* his support base are getting bored with debates, and b) the only people most people bothered either way was to watch him, one way or the other, and c) as a debater he is at a disadvantage against Cruz, so once things start to get real with the primaries and all and everyone kinda sobers up the less times he debates the better off he'll be and finally d) he can kick up more publicity and generate more talk about himself by staying away than by participating.
Democrats really do underestimate how thoroughly he games this out, and how effective his asymmetrical campaign has been. |
|
mechavolt said @ 6:08pm GMT on 27th Jan
Definitely a possibility. I'm certain that Trump is a master manipulator, and that a lot of his "stupidity" is actually calculated for maximum effect. That said, his most common reaction to being called out on his bullshit is to double down and pretend he was always correct. I still think him skipping out on this debate is the latter rather than the former, but I guess we'll see after the debate.
|
|
Kama-Kiri said[1] @ 1:49am GMT on 28th Jan
Look, he would be a terrible president. He clearly has no interest in legislation or any of the mechanics of government, no interest in diplomacy or world affairs. He would fail at anything that required patience and subtlety to resolve instead of bombast and brinkmanship. (don't get me wrong, sometimes bombast is the right tool ... just, relatively rarely) He would embody the ignorance of a GW Bush unfettered from any sense of human decency or moral restraint.
But, his ability to dominate the news cycle, utterly and completely, throughout this entire campaign ... all while spending practically no money, remember, and with no help (active interference?) from GOP party machinery ... and convert that domination into such a commanding position in the polls that he can more or less tell Fox News to fuck off ... I find that both fascinating and incredibly impressive. Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump have some interesting commonalities and, together, represent a totally new, and potentially transformative kind of politics. "Internet populism" for lack of a better term, with all the risks and dangers that implies. |
|
mechavolt said @ 12:33pm GMT on 28th Jan
Also, I'm coming around to thinking that him backing out was intentional rather than out of shame. He's holding his own separate political event at the same time as the debates.
|
|
sanepride said @ 2:12pm GMT on 27th Jan
I dunno, big headlines screaming 'Trump boycotts debte' is pretty impressive publicity. By simply not showing up he's already dominating. It's not just about Fox and Megan Kelly, it's a calculated, perhaps even brilliant political maneuver.
|
|
Spyike said @ 9:52pm GMT on 27th Jan
[Score:1 laz0r]
Trump is ALL about publicity. I personally doubt he even wants to be president, really, but he's loving the attention (and speculation).
|
|
HoZay said @ 8:35pm GMT on 27th Jan
There's just nobody to root for in this conflict.
|
|
Tirade said @ 9:51pm GMT on 27th Jan
Awww, it's so adorable. He threw sand at a girl on the playground, now he's afraid to be around her because he thinks she might still be mad.
|
|
lilmookieesquire said @ 9:56pm GMT on 27th Jan
I fancy Trump took his ball and went home and told everyone he won. Seems like a wise move, he really has very little to gain from that debate. He's not a policy wonk.
|
|
HoZay said[2] @ 10:16pm GMT on 27th Jan
Which is to say, he doesn't know the answers to any of the questions. Only that doesn't seem to bother anyone. She asked him why he kept saying shitty things about women, he said she sucks as a reporter, now everybody's talking about a feud, and who's winning the feud, instead of asking him to answer the fucking question: why does he keep saying shitty things about women?
I watched Trump being interviewed on CNN. Talking about the middle east, half a dozen times he said he would "take their oil" - the interviewer never once said "how the fuck are you going to do that?" I am disappoint. |
|
ComposerNate said @ 10:42pm GMT on 3rd Feb
Proving to us he is bigger than Fox Republican Party in preparation for his independent run, that he may avoid getting the job while declaring himself winner because of fixed vote split with GOP. How could it work out better for his brand? Independent, clear favorite, no responsibility, lots of crazy air time buzz.
|
Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment,
then click the reply link on that comment instead]You must be logged in to comment on posts.
