Posted on 07/29/2015 5:52:53 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
Donald Trump is still not participating in next Monday’s Voters First Presidential Forum in New Hampshire, but now he says it is because he thinks he is unlikely to get the New Hampshire Union Leader’s endorsement and, besides, he thinks there are too many candidates for one event.
Given a deadline of last Friday, Trump’s office had said he would not participate because of a Union Leader editorial critical of him for questioning U.S. Sen. John McCain’s Vietnam war record. At an Iowa event, Trump had disputed that McCain was a “war hero,” saying, “He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured.”
But Tuesday, in a letter to Union Leader Publisher Joseph W. McQuaid, Trump wrote: “...knowing you as I do, I feel it is unlikely I will be getting the endorsement from you and the Union Leader. I have made a great fortune based on instinct and that, unfortunately, is my view. Therefore, and for other reasons including the fact that I feel there are too many people onstage to have a proper forum, I will not be attending.”
(Excerpt) Read more at unionleader.com ...
...there's your 'independents'...
“It’s screw you if you don’t endorse me, which in the end is screwing the people of NH...”
No, it’s Trump saying screw you before the debate by not showing up, because the Union Leader would be saying screw you to The Donald after the debate, saying in their newspaper what a lousy debater he was, or worse, if he had shown up.
Plus he is building anticipation for the Fox debate where he will first appear, a few days later. And he can size up and see the techniques the other candidates use when debating, giving Trump ammunition to use when he does get on stage. Politically clever.
Oh please, it's a newspaper, and we all know their days are coming to an end. A debate with 16 people on stage is a farce.
[He’d better. Because he’s going to get his clock cleaned at the debate itself.]
Actually, how much time do 14 candidates have to express any viewpoint in 60 minutes? Anything they say against Trump can be refuted by him on his terms. 14 candidates have 10 minutes or less to sell themselves, not put Trump in the spotlight.
If Trump was in attendance the biased commentator would take up his time with overhashed questions about McCain, his comments on Mexicans, and his former wife.
TRUMP is wise not to attend this one.
By the way, I’m for TED CRUZ.
Name me one rule that he improperly manipulated?
That same format will happen at the debate on Fox. Trump will have a limited amount of time to speak, and he is incapable of focusing and communicating under those conditions. The sight of him running out of time half way to whatever point his trying to make, multiplied over and over again, will not help his candidacy at all.
The format is stupid as it is, actually I have never really been a fan of GOP Debates, only serves to provide fodder for the Democrats anyway.
While I’m itching to see the Donald in a presidential debate, I think he’s making the correct choice on this one.
Like him or hate him or don't care either way, Trump is the first series POTUS candidate since Ronald Reagan to by-pass the self-anointed gatekeepers of political though (a/k/a the main stream media),and take his campaign directly to the American people. If I'm in Trump's shoes. I avoid these types of rinky-dink forums until the GOP field is down to the final five.
[The sight of him running out of time half way to whatever point his trying to make...]
How do you know how TRUMP will do in a debate? I imagine he will observe how the candidates and moderators operate on this ‘trial run’ debate.
Bottom Line. TRUMP is a quick study.
By the way, I am a TED CRUZ supporter.
I fail to see the ethics issue.
In that event, Trump is your man.
Perhaps but the primary debates sharpen a candidate and prepare them for the final debates. With proper prep and discipline Trump would likely make an outstanding debater.
“manipulating bankruptcy rules. “
Proof please.
Loeb was one of a comparative handful of newspapermen in that era, who were true Conservatives--and, what is more, had the courage to stand up to those who were determined to "change" America, even on the issues that separated the men form the boys.
They aren't really debates in the normal sense anyway. Someone gets asked a question. They get a minute or so to regurgitate their canned answer. The other participants get a shorter period to give their stock response. And it's on to the next question. There is no give-and-take between opponents, and you could replace the whole thing with a reel of campaign commercials and the candidates would probably come off looking better.
Exactly. I think the whole thing is pointless, and Trump is wise to ignore it.
He doesn't have the temperment or the personality to acquire that kind of self-discipline in so short a period of time. You're asking him to change the habits of a lifetime. Look at any of his answers to any question. He goes off on half a dozen tangents and can't wrap any answer up in less than two or three minutes. He will not do well under the format planned.
Pretty much. One only need look at Silicon Valley and the number of serial entrepreneurs who have failed several times before hitting it big. People don’t know that Jules Verne for example, kept getting rejected by publishers for over 10 years before finally hitting it big. It’s not the failures in life that define us. It’s how we deal with failures and set backs.
Wouldn't he raise a firestorm if he openly said that? :-) :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.