Octopus Overlords

Rip wrote:

Grifman wrote:That's the real scary thing about Trump's candidacy.

On Tuesday afternoon, Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump) tweeted "Should I do the #GOPdebate?" with a Twitter poll and a link to an Instagram video of himself complaining about Kelly of Fox News, which is owned by Twenty-First Century Fox Inc (FOXA.O). She is expected to moderate the Thursday debate. "Megyn Kelly's really biased against me," Trump said in the video. "She knows that, I know that, everybody knows that. Do you really think she can be fair at a debate?" That same video garnered more than 190,000 views on Facebook in roughly an hour. The poll, which was embedded in Trump's tweet, showed a near-split between respondents who felt he should attend the debate (52 percent) and those who felt he should skip it (48 percent). Overall, the poll had received more than 11,000 responses in the first two hours after it went live.

Fox News appeared unfazed by Trump's comments. “We learned from a secret back channel that the Ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly when they meet with him if he becomes president," a spokesperson for Fox News said. "A nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the Cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings.”

But what does seem slightly more plausible is that he would try to use the specter of his absence — and the presumptive ratings drop that would follow — to pressure Fox News into replacing Kelly. We're talking about an ultimatum: Trump on the stage or Kelly at the desk. Your choice, Roger Ailes.
...
Well, Ailes has news for Trump. If it comes down to a choice between Trump or Kelly, he'll pick Kelly.

"Megyn Kelly is an excellent journalist, and the entire network stands behind her," Ailes said in a statement to The Fix. "She will absolutely be on the debate stage on Thursday night."
...
It's pretty clear what Trump is doing here: He's whining about Kelly now so that if she gets the better of him Thursday night, he'll have a built-in excuse. He'll be able to say, 'See, I knew I wouldn't get a fair shake. What did you expect?'

And The Fix's Chris Cillizza shared a little secret before the last GOP debate a couple of weeks ago: Trump isn't a great debater. Well, here's another little secret: He knows it.

Trump isn't terrible in debates, but he's not as good as he is on the stump, and he's not as good as top rival Ted Cruz. Though he declares himself the winner of every debate, his poll numbers tend to dip after these rhetorical clashes.

With less than a week remaining before the Iowa caucuses, Trump is giving himself cover by crying foul before Thursday's debate even begins. Unfortunately for him, Fox News won't be replacing his least-favorite referee.

Isgrimnur wrote:WaPo

But what does seem slightly more plausible is that he would try to use the specter of his absence — and the presumptive ratings drop that would follow — to pressure Fox News into replacing Kelly. We're talking about an ultimatum: Trump on the stage or Kelly at the desk. Your choice, Roger Ailes.
...
Well, Ailes has news for Trump. If it comes down to a choice between Trump or Kelly, he'll pick Kelly.

...

Isgrimnur wrote:Trump is out of the debate.

Isgrimnur wrote:Trump is out of the debate.

Captain Caveman wrote:Pure showmanship. Trump dominates headlines for a couple more days heading into the Iowa caucus, and the mutual shit-talking between him and Fox builds drama and hype heading into the debate. I wouldn't be surprised if some concession is made at the last moment-- maybe just an apology from Fox for the goading press release-- and Trump agrees to participate in the debate after all. End result, huge ratings and Trump takes credit.

In other words, this might just be most certainly is the political equivalent of wrestlers talking trash in advance of Wrestlemania, and just as genuine. Politics as money-making reality TV.

Rip wrote:No worries that the meme will take off, if it was going to, it already would have.

Holman wrote:

Rip wrote:No worries that the meme will take off, if it was going to, it already would have.

Not so sure. Last time he growled at her. This time he slunk away.

Rip wrote:Just for you guys.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/v ... rally.html

tgb wrote:

Rip wrote:Just for you guys.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/v ... rally.html

Other than physically, how does she differ from your average Trump supporter?

“I don’t know what games Roger Ailes is playing,” an enraged Donald Trump said at a Tuesday night press conference announcing his planned boycott of this week’s upcoming Fox News republican presidential debate after the power cable news boss signed-off on a snarky press release mocking Trump’s complaints.
...
“Who would ever say something so nasty and dumb?” Trump asked on Tuesday, dumbfounded that the network that had once hosted him for weekly “Fox & Friends” segments had finally turned to releasing a press statement joking that “a nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the Cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to” meet with Putin and the Ayatollah as president.

Well, according to both Sherman’s reporting and reporting by CNN’s Brian Stelter, Ailes did indeed approve of the network’s diss. In fact, Ailes has cooled off his past relationship with Trump so much that Sherman reports “last night, Ailes directed Sean Hannity to cancel Trump’s [scheduled] interview.”
...
While many on Fox have done their best to circle the wagon in defense of Megyn Kelly (it’s Trump’s sexist reaction to her first debate question that set this whole feud off), at least one prominent Fox News anchor is defying the boss’ orders to keep an open line to Trump.
...
From Sherman:

In a further challenge to Ailes’s power, Bill O’Reilly is scheduled to host Trump [Wednesday night]. Last night, Ailes directed Sean Hannity to cancel Trump’s interview. O’Reilly’s refusal to abide by a ban adds a new dynamic to the clash of egos. For O’Reilly, this is an opportunity to take back star power from Kelly. Sources say O’Reilly feels he made Kelly’s career by promoting her on his show, and he’s been furious that Kelly surpassed him in the ratings.

Isgrimnur wrote:Salon

“I don’t know what games Roger Ailes is playing,” an enraged Donald Trump said at a Tuesday night press conference announcing his planned boycott of this week’s upcoming Fox News republican presidential debate after the power cable news boss signed-off on a snarky press release mocking Trump’s complaints.
...
“Who would ever say something so nasty and dumb?” Trump asked on Tuesday, dumbfounded that the network that had once hosted him for weekly “Fox & Friends” segments had finally turned to releasing a press statement joking that “a nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the Cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to” meet with Putin and the Ayatollah as president.

Well, according to both Sherman’s reporting and reporting by CNN’s Brian Stelter, Ailes did indeed approve of the network’s diss. In fact, Ailes has cooled off his past relationship with Trump so much that Sherman reports “last night, Ailes directed Sean Hannity to cancel Trump’s [scheduled] interview.”
...
While many on Fox have done their best to circle the wagon in defense of Megyn Kelly (it’s Trump’s sexist reaction to her first debate question that set this whole feud off), at least one prominent Fox News anchor is defying the boss’ orders to keep an open line to Trump.
...
From Sherman:

In a further challenge to Ailes’s power, Bill O’Reilly is scheduled to host Trump [Wednesday night]. Last night, Ailes directed Sean Hannity to cancel Trump’s interview. O’Reilly’s refusal to abide by a ban adds a new dynamic to the clash of egos. For O’Reilly, this is an opportunity to take back star power from Kelly. Sources say O’Reilly feels he made Kelly’s career by promoting her on his show, and he’s been furious that Kelly surpassed him in the ratings.

Kraken wrote:Debates are Trump's weakest vehicle because his bombast is ill-suited to a structured Q&A format. Appearing in this one would not have improved his standing and might have harmed it. It's axiomatic that debates favor challengers anyway. With Trump's commanding lead, this is a smart move for him.

Holman wrote:So now Trump has announced his own counter-event running simultaneous with the debate. He's inviting all of the networks to cover it, and presumably it won't be just a stump speech. I doubt the TV will be able to look away.

Not content with running against the other candidates, Trump is now running against the RNC. It sounds an awful lot like someone preparing for an independent candidacy if the nomination somehow doesn't satisfy him.

tjg_marantz wrote:I heard somewhere that if that happens and no one gets 50% then it goes to VPs and if they can't settle it there, then it goes to Congress or something like that and they can pick whoever? Something like that. It gets convoluted.

Newcastle wrote:

Kraken wrote:Debates are Trump's weakest vehicle because his bombast is ill-suited to a structured Q&A format. Appearing in this one would not have improved his standing and might have harmed it. It's axiomatic that debates favor challengers anyway. With Trump's commanding lead, this is a smart move for him.

I absolutely agree with this. I haven't looked at the latest polls from Iowa, but I know Trump is dominating them. There's no reason for him to participate this close to the caucuses. Its got more potential to do him harm than good. He's already way ahead of everyone, why lower himself to their level? Why give the other challengers a chance to get a one up on him at his expense? Why give them an opportunity to hit him with a zinger that he cant counter? This is a cunningly good move. Now the reasoning, ie Kelly, seems petulant and childish.

I kind of hope that the debate is more substantial without his insults and sound bites.

Grifman wrote:Trump scares me. Not because he's Trump, but because of what his popularity says about the American people, or at least a large segment of them. Not to Godwinize the thread, but now I see how a Hitler like authoritarian figure could come to power in the US.

People are angry because the government doesn't seem to be working for them and I get that. Trump channels that anger, he's angry, they like that. Hitler was also an angry man who promised to make the ineffective govt of Germany work again for the people.

People don't pay any attention to what he says, and if it is outrageous, they excuse it because he's just not being "politically correct", or well, he doesn't really mean it, he's just saying it for effect. Well, I despise political correctness and the left's thought police, but Trump isn't politically incorrect, what he says if far beyond that. He has publicly put down or mocked Latinos, women, the disabled and Muslims. Hitler attacked the Communists and Jews and other minorities, and nobody thought he's really do what he said or hinted he would. He would moderate when he actually got power, they thought.

Trump says he wants to make America great again. Well, Hitler promised the same thing, Germany need to force other nations to respect it, and it needed to take its rightful place in Europe. How is Trump's message any different?

Trump has a clear authoritarian streak. You see that in his ego-centric talk about how "I will do this, and I will do that". He has praised Russia's Putin, who has been recently revealed, probably ordered the poisoning of a dissident leader in London. Even more bewilderingly, he has said positive things about North's Korea's brutal dictator. How does he get away with that? If any other American leader had praised Kim Jung-un, they'd be ridiculed and raked over the coals. But no, people don't care because they're angry and Trump is angry.

Now, I'm not saying Trump is another Hitler, not by any means close. But it is interesting and sad, how closely his political campaign is similar. I think it shows that a large segment of Americans are willing to forget and compromise this country's fundamental principles if they can find someone who can channel their anger and frustration. That's the real scary thing about Trump's candidacy.

Pyperkub wrote:
This is the end game of the ploy the GOP has been running for decades tho. Cruz is actually scarier.

YellowKing wrote:This is definitely shaping up to be the weirdest election since Ross Perot ran in '92.

Unfortunately, I don't see how the US political process comes out of this looking in any way, shape, or form even remotely competent. No matter who wins, there's nobody up there that can heal the rancor and division that has seized the country for more than a decade. In fact, it's probably the opposite - whoever wins will probably be so polarizing they wind up throwing even more fuel on the fire.

Isgrimnur wrote:Maybe Fox should put up a podium with a cardboard cutout of Trump for the others to talk to.

Defiant wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:Maybe Fox should put up a podium with a cardboard cutout of Trump for the others to talk to.

FTFY

Edit: Then again, that would probably just increase his popularity.

"Politics is supposed to be boring," said Eakins, who will turn 18 by primary day. "So when three 18-year-old kids are driving out 30 minutes to go to a Trump rally, I mean -- that's a movement."