Clinton and Trump's debate preparations are going exactly as you'd expect - Polidicks

[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-debate-prep-clintons-careful-case-vs-trumps-wrestlemania/2016/08/27/ce05291c-6bbb-11e6-99bf-f0cf3a6449a6_story.html[/url] [quote]Hillary Clinton is methodically preparing for the presidential debates as a veteran lawyer would approach her biggest trial. She pores over briefing books thick with policy arcana and opposition research. She internalizes tips from the most seasoned debate coaches in her party. And she rehearses, over and over again, to perfect the pacing and substance of her presentation. Donald Trump is taking a different approach. He summons his informal band of counselors — including former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, talk-radio host Laura Ingraham and ousted Fox News Channel chairman Roger Ailes — to his New Jersey golf course for Sunday chats. Over bacon cheeseburgers, hot dogs and glasses of Coca-Cola, they test out zingers and chew over ways to refine the Republican nominee’s pitch. Trump’s aides have put together briefing books, not that the candidate is devoting much time to reading them. Trump is not holding any mock debates, proudly boasting that a performer with his talents does not need that sort of prepping. Should Trump submit to traditional rehearsals, some associates are talking about casting Ingraham, an adversarial chronicler of Clinton scandals, to play the Democratic nominee. “Donald Trump is the unpredictable X-factor and Hillary Clinton is the scripted statist,” said Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s new campaign manager, in an interview. “I fully understand why Team Clinton feels the need to drown her in briefing books and Hollywood consulting.”[/quote]

Can't wait to see the debates hillary's gonna arrive 2 hours late and miss trump tanking his campaign even further :v:

I like winging debates and presentations. If you prepare too much and rehearse your points, you don't sound genuine when you present them. Even though you have a general idea of what will be asked during the debates, there will always be oddball questions or ones aimed directly at a specific candidate. There's not much you prepare for in this case. Both candidates have been spewing the same policies, goals, and attacks for over a year. I don't see what they could do to prepare that would make them perform better on the stage. [editline]27th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Mining Bill;50959202]Can't wait to see the debates hillary's gonna arrive 2 hours late and miss trump tanking his campaign even further :v:[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Bv8bbiC.png[/IMG]

It seems like American politics are all about showmanship.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50959296] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Bv8bbiC.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] That would rely on Hillary stooping to Trump's level of ad hominem in the first place

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50959296]I like winging debates and presentations. If you prepare too much and rehearse your points, you don't sound genuine when you present them.[/QUOTE] On the other hand, you do need to actually know some background material. Trump got stumped pretty hard by a question about the nuclear triad (I think at one of the Republican debates?). Assuming that the moderators will actually ask tough questions (and go after them for any dodges), he in particular needs to prepare just so he isn't forced to either ask for things to be explained to him, or make stuff up and look like an idiot. For example, since there's likely to be a question like "You've proposed pulling American troops out of allied countries if they don't pay enough into NATO. What countries specifically are you referring to?", it would be in Trump's interest at least to know which countries are and are not in NATO, which ones have American bases, and which ones spend the least on defense, so he doesn't say something stupid like Israel (not part of NATO) or France (NATO member but no US troops stationed there). Hillary, meanwhile, doesn't have anything to lose by drilling since I'm pretty sure she sounds fake and rehearsed no matter what. If she's going to suffer the downsides of it anyways, she may as well actually be fully prepared and practiced.

WashtingtonPost is really starting to show it's bias. The entire first section, consisting of the first three paragraphs, make a whole lot of claims without even a single citations or source. It reads more like a blog post than a news article. It's like they wrote an actual news article and then passed it to a Clinton staffer to finish it off with a zing-filled intro.

[QUOTE=DiscoMelon;50959356]That would rely on Hillary stooping to Trump's level of ad hominem in the first place[/QUOTE] [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmF2Yi4yuT4"]Apparently she already did[/URL], in this instance that is. I agree she's way less awful than him overall, but she's [I]by far[/I] not an actually good candidate.

I cant wait till the first debate its going to be an experience.

[QUOTE=DiscoMelon;50959356]That would rely on Hillary stooping to Trump's level of ad hominem in the first place[/QUOTE] You really doubt she would do that when most of her DNC campaigning could be summed up as, "Bernie where were you, and I is strong womyn :)"? I mean shit, ad hominems are part of the fun.

[QUOTE=gman003-main;50959376]On the other hand, you do need to actually know some background material. Trump got stumped pretty hard by a question about the nuclear triad (I think at one of the Republican debates?). Assuming that the moderators will actually ask tough questions (and go after them for any dodges), he in particular needs to prepare just so he isn't forced to either ask for things to be explained to him, or make stuff up and look like an idiot. For example, since there's likely to be a question like "You've proposed pulling American troops out of allied countries if they don't pay enough into NATO. What countries specifically are you referring to?", it would be in Trump's interest at least to know which countries are and are not in NATO, which ones have American bases, and which ones spend the least on defense, so he doesn't say something stupid like Israel (not part of NATO) or France (NATO member but no US troops stationed there). Hillary, meanwhile, doesn't have anything to lose by drilling since I'm pretty sure she sounds fake and rehearsed no matter what. If she's going to suffer the downsides of it anyways, she may as well actually be fully prepared and practiced.[/QUOTE] I agree with the Hillary part. Trump didn't know about the nuclear triad and it showed as well. A candidate should know a lot about the military but I can't blame him for not knowing since he never served or was put in charge of military budgets like Congressmen

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50959435]I agree with the Hillary part. Trump didn't know about the nuclear triad and it showed as well. A candidate should know a lot about the military but I can't blame him for not knowing since he never served or was put in charge of military budgets like Congressmen[/QUOTE] when a man is put in charge of weaponry that could destroy civilisation, he ought to know about this sort of thing. there's no excuse for his ignorance when he's running to become the president - one of the most powerful and responsible political offices on the planet

The debate will go with hillary basically reciting memorized lines written by a team of lawyers and other special interest groups, whilst trump just blabs incoherently

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50959435]I agree with the Hillary part. Trump didn't know about the nuclear triad and it showed as well. A candidate should know a lot about the military but I can't blame him for not knowing since he never served or was put in charge of military budgets like Congressmen[/QUOTE] Yeah, you can't blame him, nowhere in the law does it say that you need to actually know a thing or two about the military before running for the position of being Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces.

[QUOTE=da space core;50959538]The debate will go with hillary basically [b]reciting memorized lines written by a team of lawyers and other special interest groups,[/b] whilst trump just blabs incoherently[/QUOTE] Wow so just like every other presidential candidate in the last x amount of years?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50959530]when a man is put in charge of weaponry that could destroy civilisation, he ought to know about this sort of thing. there's no excuse for his ignorance when he's running to become the president - one of the most powerful and responsible political offices on the planet[/QUOTE] Agreed. I don't expect any potential president to know nuclear physics or the operational use of a nuclear missile, but they should at least have Wikipedia-level knowledge on nuclear politics. The fact that Trump is so clueless, but so willing to posture and commit to bad ideas, is an extremely scary thought when you remember that he's asking to be put in charge of 200 megatons of cumulative destructive power.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50959296]I like winging debates and presentations. If you prepare too much and rehearse your points, you don't sound genuine when you present them. Even though you have a general idea of what will be asked during the debates, there will always be oddball questions or ones aimed directly at a specific candidate. There's not much you prepare for in this case. Both candidates have been spewing the same policies, goals, and attacks for over a year. I don't see what they could do to prepare that would make them perform better on the stage. [editline]27th August 2016[/editline] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Bv8bbiC.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] Why are cuckolds cheering? How do you know they are cuckolds? What is the relevance of their cuckoldry? Who still goes to 4chan?

[QUOTE=gman003-main;50959376]For example, since there's likely to be a question like "You've proposed pulling American troops out of allied countries if they don't pay enough into NATO. What countries specifically are you referring to?", it would be in Trump's interest at least to know which countries are and are not in NATO, which ones have American bases, and which ones spend the least on defense, so he doesn't say something stupid like Israel (not part of NATO) or France (NATO member but no US troops stationed there).[/QUOTE] That seems like a very easy question to dodge. He could just say "Europe in general" and he'd be mostly correct. Honestly, Trump got away with some pretty terrible dodging in the primary debates. Unless the moderators are particularly vicious, a lot of voters (or at least Republican voters) are going to say that he won the debate, and he can walk away unscathed.

[QUOTE=smurfy;50959189][url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-debate-prep-clintons-careful-case-vs-trumps-wrestlemania/2016/08/27/ce05291c-6bbb-11e6-99bf-f0cf3a6449a6_story.html[/url][/QUOTE] trump gunna walk out like: [video=youtube;36pBCJaWPRU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36pBCJaWPRU[/video]

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50959296] cognitivedissonance.png[/QUOTE] This is Trump in a nutshell really; distract from the issue at hand and deliver a witty zinger while hoping enough people don't see through your act.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50959665]This is Trump in a nutshell really; distract from the issue at hand and deliver a witty zinger while hoping enough people don't see through your act.[/QUOTE] And it has worked in the debates so far. This is why I don't get how people can be so confident that Clinton will dominate Trump in the debates. It seems like it's mostly a matter of presentation rather than actual arguments.

[QUOTE=phaedon;50959703]And it has worked in the debates so far. This is why I don't get how people can be so confident that Clinton will dominate Trump in the debates. It seems like it's mostly a matter of presentation rather than actual arguments.[/QUOTE] That it's worked doesn't mean I can't point out how sad it is. I also never claimed that Clinton would "dominate" Trump in the debates.

[QUOTE=phaedon;50959703]And it has worked in the debates so far. This is why I don't get how people can be so confident that Clinton will dominate Trump in the debates. It seems like it's mostly a matter of presentation rather than actual arguments.[/QUOTE] Except the audience is silenced during general election debates, in order to keep them from interfering with the substance of the debate. One cannot play off the crowd in it. That image would actually be hilarious if it were to happen, since Trump would crack his dumb zinger, and then stand there awkwardly in dead silence as he realizes that the audience isn't allowed to make noise in the debate.

[QUOTE=DiscoMelon;50959356]That would rely on Hillary stooping to Trump's level of ad hominem in the first place[/QUOTE] Like every other politician that's run for federal office in this country in the past 20 or 30 years? [QUOTE=Dutch Flowers;50959355]It seems like American politics are all about showmanship.[/QUOTE] And you'd be pretty much spot on with that assumption. It's 75% showmanship, 10% hiding your corporate sponsors, and 15% straitfaced lying to the American public(The so-called 'campaign promises'). [editline]27th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Maegord;50959754]Except the audience is silenced during general election debates, in order to keep them from interfering with the substance of the debate. One cannot play off the crowd in it. That image would actually be hilarious if it were to happen, since Trump would crack his dumb zinger, and then stand there awkwardly in dead silence as he realizes that the audience isn't allowed to make noise in the debate.[/QUOTE] I'm going to laugh if they break the rule anyway.

[QUOTE=DiscoMelon;50959356]That would rely on Hillary stooping to Trump's level of ad hominem in the first place[/QUOTE] which she has been doing since the start of the elections [QUOTE=abcpea;50959611]Why are cuckolds cheering? How do you know they are cuckolds? What is the relevance of their cuckoldry? Who still goes to 4chan?[/QUOTE] clearly someone hasn't been following american/british politics at all for the past two years

[QUOTE=space1;50959898]clearly someone hasn't been following american politics at all for the past two years[/QUOTE] cuckoldry has nothing to do with politics besides its repeated use by a collection of white nationalists, fascists, and other assorted weirdoes as an epic meme on reddit and 4chan at most it's been vaguely at the fringes of the mainstream for a few weeks?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50959941]cuckoldry has nothing to do with politics besides its repeated use by a collection of white nationalists, fascists, and other assorted weirdoes as an epic meme on reddit and 4chan at most it's been vaguely at the fringes of the mainstream for a few weeks?[/QUOTE] you also don't know what you're talking about, it's mostly alt liberals/alt conservatives who use the term derogatorily towards dumb leftists and authoritarian right wingers who try to appease the "multicultural" people who support censorship of those who criticise islam/sjws/etc.

[QUOTE=space1;50959978]you also don't know what you're talking about, it's mostly alt liberals/alt conservatives who use the term derogatorily towards dumb leftists and authoritarian right wingers who try to appease the "multicultural" people who support censorship of those who criticise islam/sjws/etc.[/QUOTE] i'm not sure here exactly but you strike me as being somebody who's made frequent use of this term before. even then the use of cuck in this way is a really recent invention - i would not be surprised that he hadn't heard the term before because it was heavily restricted in use to a small demographic until recently - one mostly used to portray people who don't agree with them as those who allow black men to degrade their girlfriends and wives in front of them as a sexual fetish also this whole cuck meme bullshit is much just signalling by the alt-right so that they can warn people about certain (((individuals)))

You won't see Clinton fuck up a debate because she's practiced to handle a fuck up and to get back on her feet as quickly as possible, mean while Trump walks into anything without being prepared i honestly dont see why you lot think he's worthy presidential material, if a candidate can't even be prepared to go head to head with his opponent, how do you think he's going to go when there's a huge situation happening and there needs to be a split second decision. You need to understand the regions, zones, places that matter to the US the most so when something arises you can act on it fast and with minimal casualties, I don't see Trump opening up a CIA Factbook anytime to study the parts of the world where he'll be required to act on if something happened Another reason why I don't think anyone should trust Trump with the nuclear codes

Trump's in for a tough series of debates. He will get way less leniency to walk over people than in the primaries. There will be fewer interruptions. He'll get shut down if he goes off-topic and starts ranting and raving about "Crooked Hillary." Hillary's not gonna [I]demolish[/I] Trump, but Trump won't be able to rely so easily on his middle-school name-calling to demolish Hillary's reputation or "win" any new voters. The people who watch these debates don't want that. Hillary's a decently capable debater - in 2008, she was within 2 points of Obama even in late debates, and was demolishing him before then. And Obama's a fantastic public speaker - Hillary isn't. She's simply well-prepared, organized, and has distinct points and criticisms. Trump is none of those - his rallies are rambling criticisms that intersperse the occasional fact with literal made-up fiction. If he lies on public television and a moderator calls him out on that, or if there's any form of live fact-checking, he's way more fucked than he otherwise would be. These debates are most influential to undecided voters, not decided ones. If Trump tries to continue his off-putting rhetoric in the debates, he won't help himself at all. He doesn't need to appeal to the far-right anymore. If he tries, he'll do nothing but push away old, moderate, [I]voting[/I] Republicans who are looking for any excuse to not vote for Clinton and any justification to vote for Trump. He should be preparing to come off as a professional, well-mannered, respectable person with a distinct platform and distinct, focused defenses against Hillary's criticisms of his ideas. But he's not. That's a very bad sign for his campaign.