Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

[Darat]

...snip...

No, it won't. It will force negotiations to move Cuban to a less conspicuous area of the debate audience, or not show up at all. You'll see.

As I posted last time you made this erroneous statement:

Yes, he did. His answer was also disingenuous. Everybody knows why Cuban is going to be in the front row. It's to try to get under Trump's skin, which strikes me as unbalancing the debate. Adding Gennifer Flowers to the mix evens the playing field.

Not according to the debate organisers http://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/20...cuban-will-not-sit-in-front-row-of-debate.cnn

 

[Ladewig]

If a woman is a mistress she's just a piece of ass. If she's a great piece of ass she might become a wife. I'm searching for an example ...

 

[Ladewig]

No it's not. First of all, Cuban is no great businessman himself. He's something of a clown.

If Cuban is such a know-nothing clown, then why did Trump not accept Cuban's offer of $10 million for a four-hour interview.

 

[sunmaster14]

As I posted last time you made this erroneous statement:

How do you know that those negotiations didn't happen prior to this decision, and that my prediction has come to pass?

 

[sunmaster14]

If Cuban is such a know-nothing clown, then why did Trump not accept Cuban's offer of $10 million for a four-hour interview.

Because, it is more likely to hurt Trump's chances of winning the election than help, and even a 1% difference in probability is worth orders of magnitude more than $10 million.

 

[Darat]

How do you know that those negotiations didn't happen prior to this decision, and that my prediction has come to pass?

I'm happy to be persuaded by your evidence.

 

[Ladewig]

Because, it is more likely to hurt Trump's chances of winning the election than help,

Yes. That's the part I am asking about. If Cuban is a know-nothing clown, then shouldn't Trump be able to run circles around him? Shouldn't it be a chance for Trump to show how well handles situations?

 

[sunmaster14]

Yes. That's the part I am asking about. If Cuban is a know-nothing clown, then shouldn't Trump be able to run circles around him? Shouldn't it be a chance for Trump to show how well handles situations?

Well, first of all, I didn't say Cuban was a know-nothing clown. I said he was a clown. My evidence is his behavior as the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, which has really been, well ..., clownish. Cuban is not stupid, but it's not necessary for an interviewer to be smart to give an interviewee a difficult time. You just have to have good questions, and these can be prepared by somebody else. In addition to being a naturally asymmetric situation (i.e. between interviewer and interviewee), it is asymmetric because Trump gains little from making Cuban look bad, but Hillary gains a lot from Trump looking bad. Cuban is not his opponent in the election; Hillary is.

 

[Ladewig]

Well, first of all, I didn't say Cuban was a know-nothing clown. I said he was a clown. My evidence is his behavior as the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, which has really been, well ..., clownish. Cuban is not stupid, but it's not necessary for an interviewer to be smart to give an interviewee a difficult time. You just have to have good questions, and these can be prepared by somebody else. In addition to being a naturally asymmetric situation (i.e. between interviewer and interviewee), it is asymmetric because Trump gains little from making Cuban look bad, but Hillary gains a lot from Trump looking bad. Cuban is not his opponent in the election; Hillary is.

Fair enough.

I added know-nothing because you implied he knew nothing about business.

 

[CapelDodger]

Just saw this bit of stupidity from Jr.

Eric Trump: Dad started with nothing

Washington (CNN) Eric Trump on Friday defended his father's self-made real estate mogul narrative, saying the Republican presidential nominee was the epitome of the American dream for having "gone from just about nothing" to become a successful real estate mogul in New York.
Link


​

Just about nothing. What a doosh.

I do believe he's Donald's son after all.

Is he gonna get a surprise when the will is read. Welcome to the American Dream, Eric. You'll be starting with almost nothing.

 

[CapelDodger]

Tell that to his blindly partisan supporters today and they will believe you.

Nice.

 

[CapelDodger]

Not sure about Paleo World, but it's quite a leap from "wry smile*" to "brilliant strategy".

Trump doesn't do strategy. He just has a mess of unrelated tactics.

 

[CapelDodger]

To all the Amercans casting their vote. I really have no horse in the race, but I would advice you to study the elections in India two years ago. Some of the strategies deployed then by the current party in power very strongly parallels the strategy deployed by the orange one's campaign team. There is also similarity in the empty bombast of their campaign platforms...build a temple, protect cows, nuke our neighbours, impose religious doctrine in schools, "development" (trans. enrich a couple of his benefactors), remove affirmative action, and more. Considering that a US based PR firm handled the current Prime Minister's campaign, this may not be surprising. However, the fact of the matter is that all is not currently well in India.

Thanks. I hadn't noticed that.

 

[ferd burfle]

Maybe so. I can't tell if your position is generated by a deeper perception of the situation or a wilder imagination.

Could you give just one (perhaps the most concrete) example of what you think Trump might do as president that would constitute his uniquely dangerous likelihood of damaging the country? (Please no Gish-list, just one so I know what you are predicting. An example of the type from the previous election might be, "Obama will confiscate our guns.")

"Tough guy" Trump overreacts to Russian jets buzzing US naval vessels; is that far-fetched?

 

[Fast Eddie B]

"Tough guy" Trump overreacts to Russian jets buzzing US naval vessels; is that far-fetched?

Or, "weak guy" Obama underreacts to Russian jets buzzing US naval vessels, emboldening them and leading to more and more examples until one day things escalate into a confrontation; is that far-fetched?


edited to add: In no way meant as support for Trump. Just pointing out that not doing anything about incidents or failing to follow through on threats (Red line in Syria, for instance) may carry risks of their own.

 

[newyorkguy]

There have been so many experienced and knowledgeable people -- including many Republicans (Robert Gates comes to mind) -- that have said Trump is unfit to be President, inexperienced and reckless enough to the point of being dangerous. It's mind-boggling to me that anyone would require a poster on an Internet message board "giving an example" in order to make up their mind about him.

I saw a story on the Internet titled:

Would Donald Trump start World War 3 by accident or on purpose?

I can't think of any other presidential candidate ever for whom a story like that would be written.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Maybe someone like a Colin Powell would be a good fit for Trump's side.

Powell has privately called Trump a "national disgrace".

 

[logger]

There have been so many experienced and knowledgeable people -- including many Republicans (Robert Gates comes to mind) -- that have said Trump is unfit to be President, inexperienced and reckless enough to the point of being dangerous. It's mind-boggling to me that anyone would require a poster on an Internet message board "giving an example" in order to make up their mind about him.

I saw a story on the Internet titled:


I can't think of any other presidential candidate ever for whom a story like that would be written.

You just don't get the establishment do you?

Your side picked the establishment candidate, its no surprise both sides of the isle back her. Plenty of people who are great republicans are backing Trump. Did you not notice them? Never mind I forgot about your narrative.

 

[logger]

Powell has privately called Trump a "national disgrace".

And Powell is a fake, a phony and a fraud. Liberals can have the back stabbing bastard.

 

[logger]

Comes back to an ugly truth at the heart of some republicans if a woman is a wife she is defined by what her husband does and does not do.

No, you're playing on stereotypes again.

When the wife is an accomplice, that's when she also gets the blame. Its clear the two have been working this for a long time, but they sure have a lot of leftists fooled.