It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Donald Trump Calls For No Debate Moderators

page: 7
29
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie



I'm not running for president. But that whiney little bully is.


There's a word for people who hold certain standards to others but not to themselves, but I cannot quite remember it.




posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



I think that's called a Trump Supporter.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie




I think that's called a Trump Supporter.


Nope, I found it. The proper term is hypocrite.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd




“I think, maybe, we should have no moderator,” Trump said on CNBC. “Let Hillary and I sit there and just debate. I think the system is being rigged so it’s going to be a very unfair debate. And I can see it happening right now. Everyone’s saying that [Lauer] was soft on Trump. Well now, the new person’s going to try and be really hard on Trump just to show the establishment what he can do. So, I think it’s very unfair what they’re doing. I think we should have a debate with no moderators, just Hillary and I sitting there talking.”


Here's my problem with Trump's call for no moderation. He thinks the debate will be "rigged" and the debate moderators will be harder on him than Matt Lauer was during the forum, because of recent criticism. Instead of being "presidential" about it and saying "Bring on the hard questions! I'm tough and can handle it!" he prefers to keep the bar low. He wants the easy questions that he can spin to flatter himself, and will cry foul if he gets a "hard ball" or "gotcha" question. Not very presidential in my opinion.


edit on 12-9-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
You might if you had some. Don't knock it until you try it.


Fame isn't all it's cracked up to be. I used to be pretty famous in some groups, because I was very, very good at playing certain video games competitively. Even wrote a book on one of them.

The problem with being famous is that you can't simply be yourself, even when you're not trying to you end up being the caricature your fame has created of you. That can make it very hard to simply unwind and be around others because people know you by what you're famous for rather than the complete person.

When it comes to money. Money makes life easier, no doubt. I grew up in a pretty wealthy family, not Trump money but 1% for certain (private schools, globe trotting, living in a mansion, etc). Which basically means that as a kid, I got to experience all the benefits of money but few of the drawbacks. By choice, I'll probably never be wealthy as an adult... but assuming the job market agrees, I should be pretty comfortable one day, though I'm currently about as poor as one can possibly be in the US so I've experienced both ends of it.

Money is only good to the point that it makes life easier. Once you accumulate money simply for the sake of accumulating money you've gone too far. Where that line is for each person is different, but when you cross it money ceases to make life easier and instead the chase for more money makes life harder.

The thing about money though, is people often use wealth as an authoritative statement that they've made better choices in life, and therefore they're making a better choice now, and that gives their words more credibility. That is a false assumption. Wealth just means you're paid better, but wages are largely a game and a person who makes less can be more knowledgeable on a subject than a person who makes more.

I don't want to get too philosophical here, other than to say I've had both wealth and fame to one extent or another. Neither are as magical as you're implying them to be.
edit on 12-9-2016 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: spiritualzombie




You think "no moderators" is a normal request for a debate?


Who's he requesting it from?


If he's not requesting it, he's proposing it. If he's proposing it he has a horrible idea that he's trying to convince everyone is good.

Either Trumps judgment is poor, or he's trying to soften the blow because he thinks he'll lose. Neither is good for him. Seriously, what good is supposed to come from the statement that he wants a debate without moderators? Does he understand what a debate it?



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
There's a word for people who hold certain standards to others but not to themselves, but I cannot quite remember it.


What's wrong with that? Isn't the entire concept of a leader, that you're picking someone whose better than you are? That would naturally imply higher standards.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You have provided one of the most convoluted and intellectually dishonest arguments I have ever seen.

You are arguing the difference between "trump calling for no moderators" or just stated that his opinion that he doesn't want moderators.

You are using semantics to avoid the issue...which is Trump is an idiot. You went so far to ask "who did Trump call"...as if Trump picked up the phone and actually called someone.

Here are the facts. Trump wants/suggested/called for/stated/implied/proposed/hinted at/advocated for a debate with no moderators.

Choose your synonym...Trump doesn't have to directly have said the words for me to say "Trump has suggested a debate with no moderators" or "Trump wants a debate with no moderators".

For your argument in this thread to be "Well Trump didn't exactly use your words, so your thread is baseless" is just complete intellectual dishonesty.


And good lord, I read further into the thread...and you are doing the exact same thing with Trump saying he met Putin.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Now, insiders are reporting that if Hillary steps aside at the last moment, Vice President Joe Biden would officially replace her on the top of the presidential ticket.

Read more: www.thepoliticalinsider.com...
Dumdum & Dumdum wow its time to go buy more ammo



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: madenusa
Now, insiders are reporting that if Hillary steps aside at the last moment, Vice President Joe Biden would officially replace her on the top of the presidential ticket.

Read more: www.thepoliticalinsider.com...
Dumdum & Dumdum wow its time to go buy more ammo

If Hillary were to drop out of the race Joe Biden wouldn't get the nomination Bernie Sanders would.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: madenusa
Now, insiders are reporting that if Hillary steps aside at the last moment, Vice President Joe Biden would officially replace her on the top of the presidential ticket.

Read more: www.thepoliticalinsider.com...
Dumdum & Dumdum wow its time to go buy more ammo

If Hillary were to drop out of the race Joe Biden wouldn't get the nomination Bernie Sanders would.


It should be Kaine.

The Democratic party approved his nomination to the VP spot and he accepted the position. Replacing Presidents is what the VP is for.
edit on 12-9-2016 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: spiritualzombie



I'm not running for president. But that whiney little bully is.


There's a word for people who hold certain standards to others but not to themselves, but I cannot quite remember it.


Here is the thing les..

I provided you with multiple quotes of Trump lying, including this one


originally posted by: Indigo5

“"I got to know him [Putin] very well because we were both on '60 Minutes,' we were stablemates, and we did very well that night,"



Where you had the opportunity to be honest, but instead chose to be dishonest...


originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: spiritualzombie


Directly and indirectly, by watching him on 60 minutes, having common interests in Miss Universe.


See...Trump very clearly said BECAUSE...That he got to know Putin BECAUSE they were both on 60 minutes .."we were stablemates"..inferring they shared a green-room while waiting to be interviewed.



You chose to claim that he meant he knew Putin because he WATCHED 60 minutes??????

Certainly the fact that he WATCHED 60 minutes would not be boast worthy during a broadcast GOP National Debate..

And you do understand the definition of "because" and causation in that context?

There is a word for someone that is intentionally dishonest while posing as objective....But I can't quite think of it..

Deplorable?
edit on 12-9-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-9-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You have provided one of the most convoluted and intellectually dishonest arguments I have ever seen.



You must not trade posts with him often...this is his B-game on that front.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Sure he lies, misspeaks, exaggerates, bends the truth, etc. You're right.

Then again, most human beings lie a couple times in even 10 minutes of conversation. I like knowing my candidates are mammal, preferably homo sapiens. I'd like to see any fact-checking googler speak as much as this man has without teleprompters and speech-writers and do as well as he has. He talks to so many people it's no wonder he makes mistakes, and meanwhile every human contact with some of these bloggers is probably memorable because it happens so seldom.

This particular lie, exaggeration, contradiction, is just too inconsequential to care about. He wasn't consistent enough on his speaking about Putin over nearly a decade of talking about Putin—sure. Whether anyone should care is another matter.

Deplorable? Pearl-clutching nonsense, though I love what you did there.


edit on 12-9-2016 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

I said the thread was baseless because it avoided Trump's arguments entirely, while focusing on 5 or six words of an offhand statement. You don't have to misrepresent my points as well as Trump's, but I understand why you might.

If hate Trump for lying too much, surely you'd take care of your own "intellectual dishonesty". None of the words you mentioned is a synonym for want. Horrendous. No wonder I have to challenge you guys on semantics.
edit on 12-9-2016 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5




See...Trump very clearly said BECAUSE...That he got to know Putin BECAUSE they were both on 60 minutes .."we were stablemates"..inferring they shared a green-room while waiting to be interviewed.


Stablemates means something else, I think, but I suppose I can see how someone would take it to mean people sharing a green room.



stablemate |ˈstābəlˌmāt|
noun
a horse, especially a racehorse, from the same establishment as another.
• a person or product from the same organization or background as another: it is a marketing challenge for Fiat and its stablemate, Alfa Romeo.


Oh sorry sorry. Just semantics again. We'll just take it to infer two people meeting in a green room.
edit on 12-9-2016 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 12:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: kruphix

I said the thread was baseless because it avoided Trump's arguments entirely, while focusing on 5 or six words of an offhand statement.


I don't believe you get to define what the OP gets to make their thread about. If they want to focus on one aspect of Trump's statement, that is their prerogative.

If you would like to focus on some other part of Trump's statement, feel free to create your own thread...but don't come into this thread and call it "baseless" because it isn't the part of the statement that YOU want to discuss.



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 12:59 AM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

You've attempted to tell me "want" is synonymous with other words it is not synonymous with in order to justify your own narrative, and then claimed it as fact.



Here are the facts. Trump wants/suggested/called for/stated/implied/proposed/hinted at/advocated for a debate with no moderators.

Choose your synonym...Trump doesn't have to directly have said the words for me to say "Trump has suggested a debate with no moderators" or "Trump wants a debate with no moderators".


Your facts are falsities, and so are your suggestions (or in your language, "wants) as to what I should and shouldn't do in a thread.



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 02:24 AM
link   
Trump - "I think maybe we should have no moderator"

Trump Supporter - "Trump isn't saying we shouldn't have a moderator"

Haha ok.



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 04:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

And he should also demand that the debate should be without in ear aids. Just a simple old style debate between two people.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join