Auschwitz survivor Eva Schloss compares Trump to Hitler. The piece is actually about the importance of refugees. We now mourn the deaths of people who we could have saved. But then she made that comparison and who doesn't love the headline "Auschwitz Survivor Compares [pretty much anyone] to Hitler"?
He's throwing a hissy fit because he thinks, probably correctly, that Meghan Kelly has had an awful lot of time to think of ways to embarrass him on stage. He wants complete control of narrative related to him, and he won't get it.
Also, I find it ironically hilarious that anyone is demanding fairness from Fox News, particularly that barking lunatic.
I bet a dollar that Trump shows up to the debate anyways. He can't help himself.
Trump has already announced that he's hosting an event the same time as the debate so I doubt he'll show up.
Also, Fox News has already stated that they won't have an empty podium on stage, but I'm pretty sure the other candidates will find ways to bring up Trump's absence.
I think all these stunts are hurting him. Not that the people already supporting him care, but rather that potential supporters see petty rivalry like this and become less likely to support him in a general.
I mean, he's basically throwing a tantrum because Megyn Kelly was going to be asking him questions again. Not really the most presidential of displays.
When has Trump ever cared if what he did was a "presidential display?"
This is a pure power move on Trump's part plain and simple. Trump is betting that fewer people will watch the Fox debate without him there, and the media attention he'll get ( and is already getting) from skipping the debate and having his own event at the same time will eclipse Fox's debate.
Trump is trying to show that the media has no hold over him and that he's actually the one driving the media. They are beholden to him, not the other way around.
The crazy thing is... he may be right when it comes to Republican viewers. Anti-establishment voters are eating this shit up by the plateful. Here is Trump thumbing his nose to the media elites and political correctness. Everything else is lost in the haze of Trump's image as the Man Who Doesn't Care IF What He Says Upsets the Media Establishment! He's like a hero to these people.
I suppose that's right - an interesting stat from FiveThirtyEight the other day pointed out that Trump's been scoring the highest on 'electability' among Republican voters - even though that's not nearly true overall.
Following this carnival show on social media, I still can't work out how participants at the debate get audience cheers for talking about Christianity or mentioning Christian religious constructs (especially when the questions asked aren't of a religious nature).
At this point I'd rather like to watch Judge Judy run a debate than a journalist just to keep everyone on topic.
Do you guys interact with people who think these debates are helpful or relevant? Are they crazy or mislead?
I assume mislead like the Abbott voters in Australia who worked out how stupid their mistake was only after voting for the maniac or kept on trying to rationalise shitty choices until his own party kicked him out.
Politics goes from interesting to depressing pretty quickly in most countries.
Let's be real, Christian fundamentalists who assert their right to oppress others is a form of religious freedom were the basis of this country. I'd know, I'm from Massachusetts. If we were actually concerned about religious freedom, we'd have Roger Williams on the $100 bill. For about a century it was quite happily living in State governments. Remember, the First Amendment guarantees that the Federal Congress will not abridge religious freedom. It wasn't until relatively recently that the Supreme Court started interpreting religious freedom to apply within States as well as Federally. As we've chased policies like required Church enrollment and Protestantism as a prerequisite to public office from the State level, the issue has boiled up to the Feds. Simultaneously, immigrants became more diverse. Whereas in the 19th century the prominent immigrant groups were Germanic, Irish, and Italian, the 20th century saw an influx in East Asian and Arabic immigrants who aren't Christian, as well as Hispanics who tend to not be fundamentalists, even though they are Christians. These all came together to form a perception of persecution in fundamentalists. Most Christians find this absurd, but Fundamentalists are more likely to vote than moderate Christians, so their presence in the electorate is exaggerated compared to the fundamentalists.
Anyway, I'm not entirely sure what my point was when I started writing this, but I think it was that this reactionary phenomenon is the result of a decline in the power and presence of religion in the greater general public. I hope that's what I got across.
Following this carnival show on social media, I still can't work out how participants at the debate get audience cheers for talking about Christianity or mentioning Christian religious constructs (especially when the questions asked aren't of a religious nature).
Christianity is a part of the Republican Party platform.
In the first debate, Megyn Kelly asked the candidates how much of a role God played in their lives, or if they had spoken to God recently, etc. It's as much of a qualification as foreign policy experience.
Following this carnival show on social media, I still can't work out how participants at the debate get audience cheers for talking about Christianity or mentioning Christian religious constructs (especially when the questions asked aren't of a religious nature).
At this point I'd rather like to watch Judge Judy run a debate than a journalist just to keep everyone on topic.
Do you guys interact with people who think these debates are helpful or relevant? Are they crazy or mislead?
I assume mislead like the Abbott voters in Australia who worked out how stupid their mistake was only after voting for the maniac or kept on trying to rationalise shitty choices until his own party kicked him out.
Politics goes from interesting to depressing pretty quickly in most countries.
I watched a bit of the debate on FOX news last night, and it was just terrible. I don't understand what people watching are thinking? How can people clap so much at ignorance and hate?
Then I watched a bit of a Donald Trump talk this morning, for the first time I remember since he became a presidential candidate. And you know what? I totally understand his appeal. He's a natural on stage, and almost clinically presses al the right buttons. His braggadocio is quite amusing. Decoupling from his stances and rhetoric, of course.
I watched a bit of the debate on FOX news last night, and it was just terrible. I don't understand what people watching are thinking? How can people clap so much at ignorance and hate?
Basically what I did and agree with you. However crazy Trump is if for some weird reason you are limited to one party voting, Trump has the most compelling presence (even when he's not there).
Not sure what @Greg's point, my point was that Government should be secular to allow for non biased running of the country.
My point was that we've been moving towards a secular government pretty consistently for the entirety of our history and that in the modern political atmosphere "Christian" is often a euphemism to refer to white people without shattering the delusion that we live in a post-racial society and has little to nothing to do with faith.
I don't blame you for not getting that I had to re-read my post to figure out what I was saying.
Though it may have been smarter politics to do something about the problem before the campaign had to lose face by apologizing to their opposition for the actions of the people who support them, at least they're actually doing something about it - a lot of candidates would just let it sit, and say "Well, we're not responsible for these people, they support us, be we don't condone those actions."
That's interesting. I picked a few positions to represent various stances that Clinton agreed or disagreed with sanders on, and a few different comparisons - and found it takes record into account. So, say you answer 10 questions, and get an agree with Clinton on seven, you should get about 70%, right? But, if her record in the past indicates she disagreed on eight of those, it will lower the percentage you agree with her position to about 20-ish percent - despite the fact that you agree with her position now, and her positions from 5-10 years ago don't actually matter in regards to that.
Slick, clever, disingenuous and manipulative. Very pleasing!
Hard to tell. I know Hillary's platform better than sanders, so I'm just combing his platform and record to try and figure out what I can use to run the same test back.
Comments
Get it on Amazon. (Also check out the reviews.)
Also, I find it ironically hilarious that anyone is demanding fairness from Fox News, particularly that barking lunatic.
Also, Fox News has already stated that they won't have an empty podium on stage, but I'm pretty sure the other candidates will find ways to bring up Trump's absence.
This is a pure power move on Trump's part plain and simple. Trump is betting that fewer people will watch the Fox debate without him there, and the media attention he'll get ( and is already getting) from skipping the debate and having his own event at the same time will eclipse Fox's debate.
Trump is trying to show that the media has no hold over him and that he's actually the one driving the media. They are beholden to him, not the other way around.
The crazy thing is... he may be right when it comes to Republican viewers. Anti-establishment voters are eating this shit up by the plateful. Here is Trump thumbing his nose to the media elites and political correctness. Everything else is lost in the haze of Trump's image as the Man Who Doesn't Care IF What He Says Upsets the Media Establishment! He's like a hero to these people.
At this point I'd rather like to watch Judge Judy run a debate than a journalist just to keep everyone on topic.
Do you guys interact with people who think these debates are helpful or relevant?
Are they crazy or mislead?
I assume mislead like the Abbott voters in Australia who worked out how stupid their mistake was only after voting for the maniac or kept on trying to rationalise shitty choices until his own party kicked him out.
Politics goes from interesting to depressing pretty quickly in most countries.
Anyway, I'm not entirely sure what my point was when I started writing this, but I think it was that this reactionary phenomenon is the result of a decline in the power and presence of religion in the greater general public. I hope that's what I got across.
In the first debate, Megyn Kelly asked the candidates how much of a role God played in their lives, or if they had spoken to God recently, etc. It's as much of a qualification as foreign policy experience.
Then I watched a bit of a Donald Trump talk this morning, for the first time I remember since he became a presidential candidate. And you know what? I totally understand his appeal. He's a natural on stage, and almost clinically presses al the right buttons. His braggadocio is quite amusing. Decoupling from his stances and rhetoric, of course.
Not sure what @Greg's point, my point was that Government should be secular to allow for non biased running of the country.
I don't blame you for not getting that I had to re-read my post to figure out what I was saying.
Though it may have been smarter politics to do something about the problem before the campaign had to lose face by apologizing to their opposition for the actions of the people who support them, at least they're actually doing something about it - a lot of candidates would just let it sit, and say "Well, we're not responsible for these people, they support us, be we don't condone those actions."
Slick, clever, disingenuous and manipulative. Very pleasing!