quote:

oddball
Get Off My Lawn

posted January 27, 2016 05:07 PM Hide Post
So far, what we know about the debate-

- Megan Kelly is moderating. She already has shown an obvious bias against him, even having Michael Moore on her show recently for moral support against Trump .

- there will be some YouTube people asking, questions. One is an illegal alien from Mexico, another is a muslim advocate with an anti-Trump agenda, comparing him to Hitler.

The "debates" have become completely entertainment, and a low, crass form of entertainment at that. All of the Republican candidates should refuse to participate. The office of the POTUS is too important to put debates in the hands of circus barkers. "Ladies and gentlemen! Watch the beautiful and spiteful blonde take on the ruffian woman-hater!! Step right up!"

There is no reason why the RNC should be in charge of these spectacles, no reason why they should be turned over to network and cable celebrity anchors (i.e. narcissist morons). Let the candidates find some serious minds. Catherine Herridge, for example. John Stossel. Thomas Sowell. Put together a agreed-upon panel, and hold a real debate about ideas, politics, issues. Yes, ratings will be lower. Less revenue from advertising. The commercialism of the "debates" will suffer a bit. But they will gain in substance and importance. And we might be pleasantly surprised by the numbers. Those of us on this forum are probably not alone in our disgust with the way the debates are handled.

the RNC has rules that Republicans who seek the Nomination must follow, and some of them forbid certain debates and certain formats and govern who can participate, IIRC.

Direct from the RNC website:

quote:

Any presidential candidate who participates in any debate that is not a Sanctioned Debate shall not be eligible to participate in any further Sanctioned Debates.

Ironically, Trump seems to be helping them achieve some of their goals (from US News):

quote:

Party leaders fear that a free-for-all in debate season would divide the party, prolong the nominating process, and probably result in a weakened nominee. GOP leaders want to avoid what happened to 2012 standard-bearer Mitt Romney, who was roughed up by his GOP opponents during a lengthy nominating process. This damaged him for the general election, which he lost to President Barack Obama.

quote:

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:

Trump will ignore because it's all he can do. He certainly won't accept that challenge and walk into the meat shredder a one on one debate against Cruz would surely be.

Against a real debater, in a real debate, the Donald would be crucified. Cruz would be better prepared and he is a skilled arguer. But no matter, Trump would declare victory anyway and tell us he was HUGE! You do have to admire his chutzpah.

One thing that bothers me is that we are making points about game theory and what will create the most advantage for a given candidate. I know that candidates will behave exactly in that way - they want to maximize their chances of winning. I am not a pie eyed optimist. But if any of that posturing gives voters any useful information, it will only be by accident. An actual debate on substance would be useful. I know the debates now aren't useful for that (and I don't watch them because they are the merest of political Kabuki theater), but a genuine debate could actually give us some insight.

But so-and-so won't do it, because it isn't to his advantage. Or so-and-so proposes it because it does provide some gamesmanship advantage.

quote:

Against a real debater, in a real debate, the Donald would be crucified.

Of course.

46and2
Oh stewardess,
I speak jive.
Picture of 46and2
posted January 27, 2016 05:56 PM Hide Post
the RNC has rules that Republicans who seek the Nomination must follow, and some of them forbid certain debates and certain formats and govern who can participate, IIRC.

Direct from the RNC website:

quote:
Any presidential candidate who participates in any debate that is not a Sanctioned Debate shall not be eligible to participate in any further Sanctioned Debates.


So, that's fine-- Trump does not participate in any further sanctioned debates. Without him, the debates are toast. He doesn't need them, and as he said today-- he's been in six already. Won them all. How many debates do we need?

And apparently hordes of Trump supporters (how do they know this?) tweeted Megyn "the C word" today. "Conceited"? "Calculating"? "Confused"?

http://www.mediaite.com/online...ly-the-c-word-today/

Megyn was supposed to be the golden girl for Fox, carrying them to unheard of ratings. Instead, she is Captain Smith, and Trump the iceberg.

The intersection of newscaster and celebrity is one riddled with fail. I want facts, not never-ending Op-Eds, much like I just want a hotdog when I go to a hotdog stand... the charisma of the hotdog vendor is irrelevant in the broader picture.

and even if we the audience look past the ladder climbing and me-me-me-ness of it all, *now*, during a Presidential election, is not the time for *you* who are not running, you Megans and Glens and Bills... you're the sideshow, not the main attraction, fools...

Tim Russert was no doubt a Democrat lib, but he was the last of the celebrity anchors who maintained a level of journalistic standards. He grilled everybody, R, D, I, left, right. Princess Megyn is symptomatic of what has happened to "the news."

And Fox News is like the Titanic. So far, all anybody has heard is a funny noise. And the band is playing on. The festivities seem to be continuing. But the ship is dead in the water.

A real debate would be boring.

quote:

But so-and-so won't do it, because it isn't to his advantage. Or so-and-so proposes it because it does provide some gamesmanship advantage.

I don't think that is fair at all to either candidate.

Trump won't do the Fox debate because they have moderators with prepared loaded questions, setting a trap for him. There is no way way can win or look good in that scenario. It's exactly like playing a basketball game against another team & hometown refs. It's not that's it's "not to his advantage", it's because "he's at a severe disadvantage before it even starts". If you can't win a battle, don't fight it.

Of course Cruz wants a 1-1 debate. He's losing, so he has much to gain. He is also a super smart & gifted debater, he can probably out debate anyone. it's not that it's "gamesmanship" as much as it's his strongest attribute.

What would be Super / Awesome would be a 2-2 debate. Trump/Cruz vs Clinton/Sanders.

quote:

Fox News is like the Titanic. So far, all anybody has heard is a funny noise. And the band is playing on. The festivities seem to be continuing. But the ship is dead in the water.

For a long time, there were 3 national networks. They spoon fed the news to us with a leftward bias for 50 years and there was nothing we could do about it. People considered whatever Walter Cronkite said to be fact.

Now, people have more choices. FOX is only one of them. FOX does show opinion from both the conservative and liberal viewpoints. Juan Williams and Geraldo and even Michael Moore appear on Fox. Would MSNBC or CNN do the equivalent? No.

If people perceive that Fox has become unfair, it will become irrelevant because people will stop watching. There are lots of choices, including radio and internet. I learn a lot right here on SIGforum.

quote:

k5blazer
Cogito Ergo Sum
posted January 27, 2016 06:58 PM Hide Post
A real debate would be boring.

And the debates would be much more entertaining if instead of blah blah blah the candidates had to mud wrestle one another! That would be so cool. Jeb! in a Speedo knee deep in muck locked up with Rubio....

I just watched Trump doing an interview with O'Reilly that he had already agreed to do before all the hoopla about his not doing the debate tomorrow.

I thought O'Reilly totally embarrassed himself spending most of the interview trying to hector Trump into doing the debate and when that failed, asking him to at least consider doing it.

Trump acquitted himself well and made O'Reilly look like a toady doing the bidding of his employer in an attempt to salvage debate ratings and advertising profits.

I was hoping, foolishly perhaps, that FOX would learn and adjust, that Megan could see beyond her own reflection and that of her self-indulgence indulging supporters, and for once rise up rather than sink down, but no, ultimately, they only care about dollars and ratings and celebrity, they - FOX News - are RINOs/supporters of ours truly in name only. Same goes for most every Pundit and Host and Personality, Palin, Dole, et al, included.

Almost no one in this whole process is acting honorably, or for the greater good, virtually no one is taking it as seriously as it is, and evidence that any of them "get it" is few and far between. I've said before, when Donald Trump is anywhere near our best hope, anywhere near what's considered "grounded" and "truly patriotic", the rest of them are pathetic facsimiles. And the true colors of most is showing. Buncha self-serving oxygen-wasters.

I do hate to see Cruz get pushed aside, as he most certainly is.honorable and patriotic, but no one is doing it to him, he's just not the most popular guy, and isn't the sort of motivator who can stand out in Trump's shadow, and has very polarizing viewpoints that are considered by too many to be less important than Trump's polarizing views that happen to mirror Cruz's, so he comes out on the losing end of perception, only partially deserved.

Ted Cruz is and will be the most unfortunate Collateral Damage in this election, and I hope Trump picks him up for AG or SCOTUS or he/Cruz chooses to keep doing his best to affect change in the Senate, but he's probably done, in terms of actual chances to win it all. It's all but impossible now, and if anything derails the Trump train it won't be Ted Cruz.

quote:

Originally posted by DrDan:

quote:

Originally posted by Bigboreshooter:

quote:

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:
Trump will ignore because it's all he can do. He certainly won't accept that challenge and walk into the meat shredder a one on one debate against Cruz would surely be.

Cruz hasn't laid a glove on him yet.

Cruz had Trump admit, in the last debate, that the only reason he started to attack Cruz was because he was losing in Iowa. Just as Cruz was moving in to feed, the moderators saved Trump.

When it comes to flinging monkey poo, no doubt Trump is the champ. Or should I say chimp. But, in a real debate without moderators protecting their ratings, Trump would be mush.

Trump has been protected by the number of debaters on the stage and the limited amount of time he is focused on and the shallow gotcha questions he is asked. Debates are important. Ask Romney.
So what's he going to do not show up at every other presidential debate?

When it gets to the one on ones and the time isn't diced up and only two debaters are in the arena Trump will shrink.
Answers like we are going to make such great deals, we are going to win so much, I'm going to get along with everybody, it's going to be great, we are going to build a wall, just aren't going to cut it.

The exposure will be harsh.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
I like Rand, a lot, much like Cruz, only for different reasons, and I do hope both keep doing what they're doing, because Presidential material or not, likely to ever win or not, they both are contributing to a better America in many meaningful ways. We need a couple of hundred more Rands and Teds, truth be known, yet we're also lucky to have just two.

Here! Here!!

I don't want or need a president who will willingly walk into gotcha games. Trump is setting his own conditions. I respect that.

Once, as a young lad, I was challenged to a fight through a fence. I hopped the fence and got my nose and glasses busted up. I didn't need to hop the fence to go home in fine style. Neither does Trump.

Dear Lord, he's a spoiled little rich boy who wants to manipulate the media. When the Left does it, we pitch a fit, but we are going to accept it when the Right fails at it?

Ratings lost or found, the media isn't at the beck and call of the Executive.

Well said, Para

Good God.

Wake. UP!!

News Flash for you- Donald J. Trump, the brash, arrogant, New York billionaire is our ONLY HOPE!!!!!!!!!!!

Open your eyes. Open your eyes. Put all this petty bullshit aside and wake the fuck up.

Do you guys bitching about Trump actually believe that all these members you see supporting Trump would have him as our choice, if we had a choice???????? Ted Freaking Cruz is too far right to win in a general election. Goddamn, people. Trump is it. Either that, or you can have an Obama clone.

Who started this thread? I did. What's the subject line of this thread, gents? Does that sound like a fan of Trump to you? Come on. Stop whining. Get past it and PITCH IN!!

quote:

Originally posted by Drifting Fate:
Dear Lord, he's a spoiled little rich boy who wants to manipulate the media. When the Left does it, we pitch a fit, but we are going to accept it when the Right fails at it?

Ratings lost or found, the media isn't at the beck and call of the Executive.

I see it a bit differently, I see the media as a function of control. They want power and they use their airtime to extort politely narratives out of candidates.

Trump is calling them out on t h eir lack of journalism, and saying what they are actually doing. Attempting to influence a political process for their own gain.