sorta like leftfield6 ? :rolleyes:
i guess it could be cryptic on my end ?
then again , it could just be comprehension on reader’s end. ?
No, not in that post, but his unwillingness to clearly communicate in general is bothersome. I was really addressing him more in general than to that post specifically.
wow !! it’s amazing that you got all that stuff from his speech tonite. ?
Here’s the bit that stuck out to me from that article, GIGO -
Andrew Breitbart Reportedly Labeled Bannon The “Leni Riefenstahl Of The Tea Party Movement”
And the kicker - Breitbart thought that was a compliment!
And that’s before he found out that she made movies! 
Hey, Leni was a genius. Too bad about the whole Nazi thing, though.
Do you also think that we should take one speech as if it took place in a vacuum?
Ignoring what Trump is doing, in the open, but not his non specific words in a speech is foolish. Actions speak louder than words.
Unless he is specific about what he is apologizing for I and many others can assume about what he needs to do to back those “apologies”.
Or then we should realize that Trump did not really apologize for anything, as he usually points out later.
Yeah…he just thought Bannon had a great rack and looked good in gold lame.
broads. amiright?
they sure do.
that’d be Joe Biden ! :rolleyes:
Just like Donald!
BTW I did correct those words, your actions here only show that you are only willing to make others sound bad, but not to deal with what Trump is doing.
Joining guys like Joe Arpaio and remaining buddies with him and supporting each other is a very insulting act to many Hispanics and minorities.
Most of this was already known before Trump and Arpaio became joined to the hip:
Yeah, restore law and order with the help of a convicted racial profiler, a guy that was also convicted of contempt of court and also an abuser of the law. :rolleyes:
Progress being made.
Still two questions unanswered and I’ll only re-ask the last one:
If you believe that there will be a significant change based on the debate performance on what do you base that belief?
The Gallup link documented that debate performance has rarely fundamentally changed a presidential contest in the past. This article also discussed the typical lack of meaning impact, and even the exception proofs the rule: the one election that the debate may have played a role in was in a close election in which the small impact was therefore meaningful (and the percieved debate loser still had more votes).
Don’t get me wrong: I believe your position is defensible. For example, one can believe that public perception is all about exceeding expectations. There are low expectations for Trump and his performing adequately may be reassuring to some who want to vote against Clinton but have been too repulsed by Trump’s antics. One can argue that this election cycle is ahistoric, that never before have unfavorables been so high One can believe that Clinton will be very prepared, coming off presidential, while Trump will further cement his image as buffoon, leading to significant Clintonward impacts.
Personally I suspect that those who favor each candidate will believe their preferred candidate won and that the debate will have little impact. But we will see.
i didn’t hear any of this stuff above in Trump’s speech tonight.
so i can only comment on what i heard.
there is prolly an Arpaio thread here somewhere.
w/ people from that area that’d luv to discuss the sheriff / etc.
sure ain’t me.
Like I said, he spoke of regrets, I demand that he demonstrates what that means.
“Actions speak louder than words. We can apologize over and over, but if our actions don’t change…the words become meaningless.”
But Trump loves what he sees in Arpaio. Now that you know, do not allow Trump to make America to be a better enabler of people like Arpaio.
I feel like that article is kind of bogus. Okay, so it’s hard to find an election where you can definitively say that the debates absolutely swung the contest from one candidate to the other (although there are a few examples where Sides overly soft-pedals the impact IMO). But in what election can you say *any *single event was dispositive? I would argue that the debates have much more impact on the race than any other regularly scheduled 90 minute event that occurs every four years. That impact is unlikely to be enough to swing the race all by itself–unless it’s quite close.
But political scientists believe that’s true of campaigns in general! Running a top-notch campaign from gun to tape is only going to make the difference, compared to running a kind of crappy campaign (maybe a little more competent than Trump’s current one), in years when various other factors make it close. But you still want to try to run a really good campaign, because it might be close.
glad to see you admit your false premise. :rolleyes:
before you load all ya eggs into " gallup basket " … might wanna check their recent ranking amoungst all '16 potus pollsters.
bottom of barrel after '12 potus flop.
anyway… if Trump continues like he did tonite… may be much better off going into debate.
might be Hillary that needs debate win … not him !
make that " demand " to Trump campaign then. :rolleyes:
ain’t nothing i can do.
Ignoring the majority of your post, I will say I agree with this part: If Trump can maintain his Presidential Façade, and if the Trump Campaigners can themselves refrain from any overtly troglodytic, treasonous, or terroristic turmoil, he might be able to score a few points off an excessively even-handed moderator lobbing softballs at the recently-reformed recidivist.
However, the moment someone asks a question designed to get under his thin skin, he’ll blow it and embarrass his party even further. He can’t handle a few protestors in his carefully-controlled rallies, so what makes you think he’ll be able to handle questions from Democrats in an actual open forum, let alone whatever zingers Clinton will use in her responses?
Whining about how unfair life is doesn’t win points with the undecideds, sparky, it only makes you look like a spoiled brat.