I don't expect Trump to come out guns blazing attacking HRC with reckless abandon. He'll simply be prepared on how to dismiss petty attacks quickly and turn it around by countering with hard "pot calling kettle black" psychology. For instance, if his past business actions are slammed he'll spend short remarks on it, sidestep, and smack back hard in a rebuttal on the Clinton Foundation. He's not going to bury himself just spewing nastiness and going rabid dog on her. He'll be prepped on how to attack when specific lines of attack are encountered. Trump may be obnoxious and unfiltered at times, but it amazes me how much people are underestimating his intelligence to make effective adjustments. HRC and hubby are a counterpuncher's dream. It's unnecessary to bully and spit disorganized venom when deflecting and laying out facts is all it takes.
I didn't have any trouble hearing or understanding Trump. If the mic was defective, it wasn't a major problem. And yes, the moderator was biased, as they typically are. Good Republican nominees have ways to deal with the bias or at least not feed into it by giving the moderator lots of material to exploit as Trump does. The moderator didn't make Trump say stupid things, act like a jackass, and sound ignorant on policy. That's all on Trump.
Why do you think people underestimate his intelligence to mage effective adjustments? Personally, I think it's more of a problem of pride and discipline than intelligence, but that's another matter.
Of course not. I was only addressing your remark that you could hear him fine on tv. The problem according to the Commission was in the venue That is all I addressed. I made no comment on his remarks.
Just turned on a late night gossipy show "Inside Weekend" on ABC as I was going through channels. Here's what went down the first few minutes... Pre-candidate Trump after a red carpet event being interviewed on location saying Kim Kardashian has gained a lil weight and shouldn't be wearing a size 2 anymore. Of course it was framed as fat shaming when he was talking about her pregnancy difference. Two former country club managers saying years ago Trump wanted to fire staff for not being pretty enough. The staff claims were settled with no admission of guilt which is common for getting rid of small lawsuits in big business. But of course they threw in the kicker that a manager said Trump hates ugly women. A preview of Alec Baldwin playing Trump on SNL Trump saying at a rally HRC had all those days off and couldn't even make it in the van. Supposedly making fun of her sickness when he was talking about stamina. Segment ends and on to Hollywood gossip, etc. No mention of HRC at all, just a big misleading segment of Trump supposedly bashing women. Bias? The mainstream media is flat out at war with Trump and bashes him relentlessly using any and all possible ammo they can get someone to claim, true or not. It's sickening how bad they've gotten trying to influence the election with zero consideration of perception. People should vote for Trump even if just to shut down the new propaganda powers of the media. If they pull this election out they'll feel boldly empowered and hell bent on expanding their brainwashing motives and agendas into other areas of our life. This isn't just Trump vs. Clinton...it's a battle for a return to common sense vs. living in a PC glass house society...a fight to defeat the biased media takeover vs. empowered propaganda media from here on. Electing HRC will have severe consequences on quality of everyday American life most people can't even fathom yet. Society and social justice warriors are going nuts these days and there's a chance to put them back in check with a new leader. Why anyone would vote to continue this nonsense is sad.
He dealt with it much better than Trump has. He was up against a much stronger opponent with less to challenge him on. Obama was a much more likable and motivating candidate than Hillary is, and the circumstances were much more favorable to him. Obamacare had passed but hadn't been implemented, so it wasn't known yet what a mess it would be. Bin laden had been killed, but it wasn't yet obvious that Libya, Syria, and ISIS were turning into disasters. The Iran deal hadn't happened yet for anyone to criticize. Benghazi had taken place, but it wasn't yet known that anyone lied about it. Furthermore, Obama didn't have Hillary's ethical baggage and public distrust. There was no emails issue, shady paid speeches to Goldman Sachs, no crooked foundations, no covering up for a spouse who bangs anything that walks, etc. If Romney was the nominee and ran the same campaign, Hillary would be losing decisively. If he ran but hadn't made the 47 percent comment, he'd be up 10 points.
MSM will either ignore this or make it seem like Trump 's fault I doubt anyone has ever seen the media ignore facts and openly campaign like they are now
Actually, that's common for settling most lawsuits. I've settled thousands of lawsuits, and never once was there an admission of guilt or liability. In fact the settlement agreements pretty much always say that liability has been and continues to be denied.
MSM says Trump is both anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim in almost the same breath. Hard to be both, but I guess it is possible. Can you imagine the **** storm when he wins?
I'll readily admit that part of me wants him to win just because it would infuriate people like Nicolas Kristof of the New York Times, who has basically called for the media to openly take sides on the race and not to be fair.
The mainstream media has been hostile to conservatives probably for a century or more. This isn't new. They have taken it to a new and pretty disturbing level in this election, but it's not surprising at all. Our national media is very urban-centric. That means they are very globalist, very corporate, and think only stupid people are devoutly religious (unless of course, they're Muslims). In past elections, the GOP has nominated some social conservatives (which is enough by itself to get hostile media treatment), but they have mostly still been corporate and relatively globalist. Trump is nationalistic, is skeptical of some of the most established business interests, and actively courts religious conservatives. You could not ask for a more toxic combination for them. He friggin' nauseates them, and they hate his guts with a passion. Because they hate his guts, they're going to exploit every opportunity to make him look bad. Some of what they're doing is unfair, but unfortunately most of it is not. He is a colossal goldmine of opportunities, and most of the case against him simply comes from things he says with his own mouth. For a major party nominee, he's spectacularly ignorant on policy, but he's also a loudmouth who can't keep his mouth shut. As a result he repeatedly craps out idiotic and hyperbolic remarks on issues. In addition, he's very arrogant and accustomed to having his *** kissed most of the time, which means he doesn't react well when it's not kissed. So if Hillary or her buddies in the press say something ugly about him, instead of shrugging it off and going on with his life like most adults would, he goes apeshit like a spoiled 10-year-old who has never been spanked. Hence, the 3:00 a.m. Twitter tirades against Alicia Machado, the whining about negative ads in the debate, etc Finally, since he's a billionaire who has always been the boss, he has never had to worry about saying offensive things. He can make fun of people and treat them like trash, and there's nothing anybody can do, so there has never been a reason for him not to be rude and not to make racial, ethnic, and sexual comments. Sure enough, he's not good at avoiding making such comments, and of course, he has a history of making them in the past. All three of these problems make him an absurdly easy target. The media isn't fair to him, but even if they were trying to be fair, the guy's own words make it pretty easy to make him look like an unhinged, temperamental racist and sexist. I'm not sure what you expect them or Hillary to do.
Let's imagine an alternate universe for a moment in which the media was neutral and feverishly investigated and reported on actions of both candidates. HRC would be buried and left for dead in the polls by now. Not only have they refused to dig into, criticize, or fairly cover HRC, they've joined her defense and excused away every complication or corrupt action as "nothing to see here". Any person with a shred of objectivity and common sense can see the Clinton Foundation was a pay for play scam used to purchase favors and gov positions. It doesn't get anymore treasonous than selling American favor to foreign interests. Yet the media ignored it and swept it all under the rug in favor of tick tack attacks on the Trump Foundation. Flip the accusations and actions of the two candidates. If HRC was a Republican and did all she has...she wouldn't even be running now, she'd be on trial and headed to jail. The party would've replaced her due to overwhelming media attacks on multiple serious illegal actions that make Trump's harsh statements seem like child's play. Only those committed to helping Trump deny HRC ultimate power have a true grasp of how blatantly disgusting and biased the media has hijacked this election. If you don't want Trump or HRC anywhere near the office, it's easy to shrug off the barrage of attacks and even get a kick out of it. At the same time the severity is not fully understood until your side is receiving the massive brunt of it. HRC took millions from countries with horrible abuses of women, yet Trump is a woman basher for telling a beauty contestant she gained weight? Seriously, ask any pro model or cheerleader how often they are weighed and berated if checking in 5 pounds overweight. I've seen a Dallas Cowboys cheerleader episode with the head lady doing exactly that on camera. Their appearance is their f'n job.
I'm not going to imagine that, because I live in the real world. The media isn't fair to conservatives (or whatever we're calling Trump). That's reality, and it's counterproductive to pretend otherwise. The bias has long been and always will be the burden of any Republican nominee. The key for the nominee is to do what he can to mitigate their phony narratives. He does that by figuring out how to summarily shoot them down and quickly redirect his campaign to pushing its own message. Most of all, he doesn't give ammunition to the phony narratives. Trump does the complete opposite. First, his campaign doesn't have a coherent message. It has a scattered message driven by one guy's stream of consciousness. Second, when the media and Hillary attack him, he throws a fit and makes the story bigger than it would otherwise be - sorta like aftershocks following an earthquake. Finally, he does everything he can to reinforce the bad narratives by giving the media ammunition. I don't deny for a second that the media is especially harsh on Trump. It's the worst I've ever seen it. However, the answer isn't to bellyache about it. The answer is to do the best you can for the time being and most of all, not to be stupid in the future. What's happening in this race was EXTREMELY predictable. Anyone with half a brain could see it coming. The media's bias was known, as were Trump's deficiencies. The GOP nominated him anyway, and now we're facing the consequences of our party's idiocy. Maybe he'll shift the momentum, but considering how undisciplined his campaign has been, it's hard to imagine.
The mainstream media is definitely exhibiting a heavy liberal bias. Trump started his campaign by bashing them. Each event he gets cheers from the crowd at the expense of his beat writers. This started long before they turned against him (general election). If you call someone "scum of the earth" repeatedly, even calling out specific individuals by name, how do you expect to get fair treatment from them? Trump is like the restaurant patron that repeatedly berates the waitstaff only to be surprised when he finds snot in his food. Could it be possible that Trump has pushed the media to be more biased than usual? Why is anyone surprised that a bully isn't liked by his victims?
They wouldn't be fair to him either way, because I think the core of media bias is deeper than Trump. However, I do agree that his anti-media rants make the problem worse. Same thing happened to Newt Gingrich. You can take issue with the media, but you have to do it carefully and with clean hands. Frankly, your analogy about pissing off the wait staff is a good one. You can send your soup back, but the problem you're complaining about better be significant. Furthermore, unless you want someone's nutsack dipped in your new bowl of soup, the complaint better be courteous and discreet. Same groundrules apply to the media.
The leaked emails showing HRC's campaign discussing future article subjects with media outlets, being asked for approval, and directing their actions is pretty damn significant. Bernie was too much of a wuss to take her to task for cheating him blind. Even the DNC chair who was canned for bias was hired by HRC's campaign right after. After leaks showed their planned future attacks on Trump and his not wanting to suffer a similar cheated fate as Bernie, it's easy to understand why he raises holy hell about the biased media on a regular basis.
You don't think similar collusion exists between FoxNews and the RNC? It sucks that the media and Power brokers have paired up. Beitbart's CEO leading Trump's campaign? Roger Ailes joining Trump's team? Bernie never stood a chance against the power brokers. For the Dems, HRC could have received the nomination before a single vote was cast. Donald Trump used the mainstream media to his advantage to overcome the Republican power brokers. Now he's upset. Self-serving, no?
Yes, the complaint is significant, but you left out the part about being courteous, discreet, and having clean hands.
First question in the VP debate is what is your qualifications for POTUS if you had to assume the job. The very first thing Kaine talks about, and practically the only thing in his answer, for 3 mins is identity politics.
After watching this "conversation" I now understand how an 8 year old kid whose parents need to get a divorce must feel, hiding in the closet while they argue. So much interrupting, and disrespect, though I give Pence his props for not clobbering Kaine after the 38th interruption. I don't think Kaine added much to HRC's "likeability" score. But Pence shaking his head, with his sad smile face didn't do much for Trump either. It will be forgotten in 48 hours. The only possible impact, in my very humble opinion, is if, on the off chance, college age women watched and were freaked out by Pence's strong anti-abortion, have your baby and give it up for adoption comments. That message would send a few to HRC's side, but I don't think many watched. It was hard to sit through.
I suspect those women were already Hillary voters I turned it off. Tim Kaine came off as a total a-hole. You Dems really want that guy a heartbeat away from the Oval Office? Pence, on the other hand, seemed respectful and intelligent. Too bad he isn't at the top of his ticket.
