Trump TV

[toucana]

For those who may have missed it, here is a link to a sample of the new 'Trump TV' service broadcasting (via Facebook) from Trump Tower, followed by an MSNBC panel discussion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm3cvC_THP4

Those who have had previous experience of watching the programming output of other state-run TV broadcasting services from the DPRK or the PRC may already have some idea of what to expect.

The principal anchor is the former CNN presenter Kayleigh McEnany who has also been newly recruited as the official spokesperson for the RNC.

In line with the best traditions of the North Korean broadcasting service, she sits bolt upright at a desk and speaks to the camera as if hypnotised by the effort of following an auto-cue script written in Martian.

The soporific cadences of her bulletins speak of the 'Real News' which is apparently entirely dependent on the great foresight and genius of the wise supreme leader who is paying for it all.

Enjoy.

[jocular]

Trump's greatest weapon may be the power to bore us with his grotesqueness.

[someguy1]

[attachment=0]
The soporific cadences of her bulletins speak of the 'Real News' which is apparently entirely dependent on the great foresight and genius of the wise supreme leader who is paying for it all.

Do you think the Democrats have any culpability for rigging their primaries to nominate such a poor candidate as Hillary? What are they doing to win next time? Oh right. "A better deal." Good luck with that.

[toucana]

someguy1 wrote:

Do you think the Democrats have any culpability for rigging their primaries to nominate such a poor candidate as Hillary? What are they doing to win next time?

Hillary Clinton did win. She won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes. Donald Trump is a minority president, but one who was awarded 304 electoral college votes as opposed to the 227 awarded to Hillary Clinton, even though she had decisively won the plebiscite.

By contrast, when JFK won the popular vote in the 1960 US presidential election which he did by the narrowest imaginable margin of just 112,817 votes, he gained 303 electoral college votes as opposed to Nixon's 219, even though Nixon carried substantially more states (26 as opposed to Kennedy's 22).

Would you like some banana with that republic ?

[someguy1]

someguy1
Hillary Clinton did win.

Are you being serious or just trolling? That's like saying your football team beat mine because even though my team scored more points, your team has more cheerleaders.

in fact Hillary's campaign made terrible tactical errors. They deliberately campaigned to run up the popular vote in states they knew they'd win; and didn't bother to campaign in Wisconsin at all, and failed to devote sufficient resources to Michigan and Pennsylvania. After the election it came out that Bill Clinton had forcefully urged Hillary's team to spend more time in the rust belt and Robby Mook reportedly laughed at him. Bubba's the sharpest politician of our lifetimes and Hillary's team simply ignored his advice. If they'd paid attention they'd have won.

I get that you don't like Trump. I'm asking you if you hold the Democrats responsible for running such a weak candidate and a poor campaign that they managed to lose an election they easily could have won.

Do you think the Democrats have any responsibility for their loss? It's a simple question. If the Dems can't figure it out, they'll keep losing till they do. Just like a sports team that loses a big game. They need to figure out what their own weaknesses were so they can fix those aspects of their game for next time. If they just blame it on the refs and say they won because they have more cheerleaders, they'll never be able to improve.

Surely even a partisan can step back and see that the Dems made many deep tactical and strategic errors.

[toucana]

I notice that you didn't dispute any of my figures.

Hillary Clinton won the plebiscite. In practically any other democracy in the world (leaving aside Russia and Venezuela for the moment), a candidate who wins either a majority or a plurality of the popular vote is generally judged to have won an election.

USA however does things in a rather more eccentric and unpredictable manner. The president is not appointed by the popular vote, but by a whimsical electoral college whose members can in theory appoint whoever they like, irrespective of how the plebiscite went.

I'm not American, and I don't live in the USA, so I don't have the partisan sympathies you keep trying to attribute to me. I dislike Trump not because he is a Republican (he was actually a Democrat for many years) but because he appears to be a liar, a fraudster, and a vile example of a demagogue.

On current form Trump is almost certain to be impeached and removed from office within a year. His own VP and other figures within the GOP are already positioning themselves for leadership bids in 2020 now matter what they chose to say or deny atm.

[someguy1]

I notice that you didn't dispute any of my figures.

Of course not. Hillary won the popular vote. But that's not how the system works. And in fact her team pursued an idiotic strategy of running up the popular vote in states she was already going to win; and ignoring the states that were close. That was simply dumb politics.

Hillary Clinton won the plebiscite. In practically any other democracy in the world (leaving aside Russia and Venezuela for the moment), a candidate who wins either a majority or a plurality of the popular vote is generally judged to have won an election.

Yes but Hillary wasn't running for president of Germany or France. Every US politician and political operative knows that you need to win the electoral vote.

In any event, I don't recall hearing Democrats complain about the electoral college in 1992 when Bill Clinton was elected with only 43% of the popular vote. He did have a plurality. But now you're saying well, plurality counts and not majority. People who argue against the electoral college often don't think through all the details.

USA however does things in a rather more eccentric and unpredictable manner.

Under the US Constitution, the states are essentially independent of the federal government. [In practice the Feds exert control by withholding money. But in principle the states are independent, and the electoral vote is one manifestation of that fact]. It's not like other countries where the states are subordinate to the central government. In any event, whether one likes the system or not, you can't say the Democratic party wasn't aware of how it works. You're making an is/ought error. You're arguing about how things SHOULD be (in your opinion) while ignoring how they are. Which seems to be exactly what Hillary's incompetent campaign team did.

As far as being unpredictable, the same electoral system has been in effect for some 230 years or so. It's only the Democratic partisans who suddenly pretend to be shocked at how presidential elections work.

The president is not appointed by the popular vote, but by a whimsical electoral college whose members can in theory appoint whoever they like, irrespective of how the plebiscite went.

Yes, that is the system. This may be unknown or murky to people outside the US, but it's well known to politicians in the US and it's been this way for 230 years. I'm not debating whether things SHOULD be one way or another. But the system is what it is, it's been this way since 1787 I believe, and everyone involved in US politics knows how the game is played.

Why didn't Hillary set foot in Wisconsin during the general election? Was she ignorant of how the president is elected? Apparently so, since as I mentioned earlier, Bill Clinton BEGGED her staff to campaign in the rust belt states and was ignored.

I'm not American, and I don't live in the USA, so I don't have the partisan sympathies you keep trying to attribute to me. I dislike Trump not because he is a Republican (he was actually a Democrat for many years) but because he appears to be a liar, a fraudster, and a vile example of a demagogue.

But in this post I have not disagreed with you. I will STIPULATE for sake of discussion that Trump is a vile demagogue etc. But can you see that the Democrats ran a disastrous campaign and lost an election they should have won? Why is it you aren't willing to engage with this point?

On current form Trump is almost certain to be impeached and removed from office within a year. His own VP and other figures within the GOP are already positioning themselves for leadership bids in 2020 now matter what they chose to say or deny atm.

This is a different topic.

When your sports team loses, do you just blame the refs? Or do you say, "Well, we need more offense, or more defense, or better coaching, etc."

Are you capable at all of stepping back and seeing the mistakes the Dems made? When a candidate calls her opponent's SUPPORTERS a basket of deplorables, she may well be speaking the truth. But at the same time she's making a simply awful political mistake.

Are you simply not capable of seeing that the Dems made mistakes that contributed to their losing an election to the second most unpopular candidate in history?

[toucana]

This is a different topic.

Yup, my OP was a humour piece about 'Trump TV' and the general attributes of state-run and apparatchik controlled political broadcasting.

If you want to have a different discussion about the finer points of Democrat election campaign strategies, then you probably need to start your own thread.

American electioneering is rather like American football to the non-cognoscenti. As Democrat politician Eugene McCarthy once observed:

Being in politics is like being a football coach. You have to be smart enough to understand the game, and dumb enough to think it's important.
"Washington Post" (12 November 1967)

[BadgerJelly]

I wonder if it has simply come down to trying to win rather than trying to do something good for the people.

[zetreque]

someguy1
Hillary Clinton did win.

Are you being serious or just trolling? That's like saying your football team beat mine because even though my team scored more points, your team has more cheerleaders.

in fact Hillary's campaign made terrible tactical errors. They deliberately campaigned to run up the popular vote in states they knew they'd win; and didn't bother to campaign in Wisconsin at all, and failed to devote sufficient resources to Michigan and Pennsylvania. After the election it came out that Bill Clinton had forcefully urged Hillary's team to spend more time in the rust belt and Robby Mook reportedly laughed at him. Bubba's the sharpest politician of our lifetimes and Hillary's team simply ignored his advice. If they'd paid attention they'd have won.

I get that you don't like Trump. I'm asking you if you hold the Democrats responsible for running such a weak candidate and a poor campaign that they managed to lose an election they easily could have won.

Do you think the Democrats have any responsibility for their loss? It's a simple question. If the Dems can't figure it out, they'll keep losing till they do. Just like a sports team that loses a big game. They need to figure out what their own weaknesses were so they can fix those aspects of their game for next time. If they just blame it on the refs and say they won because they have more cheerleaders, they'll never be able to improve.

Surely even a partisan can step back and see that the Dems made many deep tactical and strategic errors.

Are you yourself being serious or just tolling? Like, are you really going to try to make a whole conversation over the semantics of "win" and sidestep the point made?

Trump won electoral college, Clinton won majority. Simple. Done.

[zetreque]

as for chumpTV, I will not even give them a single second of tuning in. Wasted enough of my life on this garbage of a administration to be told more lies. And, I can already predict someone saying the predictable "well what about the lies of clinton, obama etc." If that's what people want to think, they can go down that backward path of living in the past without seeing the horrific present.

As far as I am concerned even mentioning ChumpTV will give them more views and ad revenue to brag about.

[SciameriKen]

[attachment=0]
The soporific cadences of her bulletins speak of the 'Real News' which is apparently entirely dependent on the great foresight and genius of the wise supreme leader who is paying for it all.

Do you think the Democrats have any culpability for rigging their primaries to nominate such a poor candidate as Hillary? What are they doing to win next time? Oh right. "A better deal." Good luck with that.

Although I am with you that we should all be discussing the shortcomings of President Sanders right now had it not been for all the DNC stonewalling - I don't think its a topic that stands on its own very well as one is either in one camp or the other on this question and likely won't change -- plus its off topic to what I think is a pretty interesting topic - that there is a station called Trump TV -- how is that not Trump, or someone very closely linked to Trump, profiting off of his name and his role as president?? Is there News with the station as well?? Not a fan of this whole situation

[jocular]

Trump won electoral college, Clinton won majority. Simple. Done.

Those of us who despise Trump (quite a few I would say) are happy to go along with this. The Dems are on record before the election as saying they would accept any win in the electoral college as "rules are rules"

Also no one has claimed (as far as I know that votes were tampered with.

However the continual bringing up of "Hilary's emails" before the election was , I feel anti democratic as you had to believe the campaign was being organized by people (inc Trump?) who knew full well it was a false accusation.

For that reason I do not feel the Trump victory was fair ,even though it may not have broken any particular rule in that particular case (crimes against decency were just par for the course in that election possibly on both sides but I can't say that for sure about the Dem's campaign)

It is probably an academic point but we don't need to make ourselves stupid just so as to deprive the Trump supporters of one of their few legitimate debating points.

[someguy1]

However the continual bringing up of "Hilary's emails" before the election was , I feel anti democratic as you had to believe the campaign was being organized by people (inc Trump?) who knew full well it was a false accusation.

Comey outlined a strong criminal case against her before saying he would not prosecute.

[Myon]

I am from Germany and I'm just wondering ... how would the world react if our next chancellor won the election by promising to make Germany great again?

[jocular]

I am from Germany and I'm just wondering ... how would the world react if our next chancellor won the election by promising to make Germany great again?

Thanks ,as per my post#2 we have been innoculated against his the grotesqueness of his many utterances by their frequency .

Mind you Obama also was happy to play to American "exceptionalism" (did he really believe that?)

[SciameriKen]

I am from Germany and I'm just wondering ... how would the world react if our next chancellor won the election by promising to make Germany great again?

Greetings Myon - welcome to the forum!

I would say given Germany's past attempts at doing just that that we might be a bit more concerned than if Sweden's leader came out and said "Lets make Sweden great again", but your point is taken :). However, I believe all countries should strive to optimize quality of life of their citizens.