General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events Topic
Topic: Melania Trump is "one in a trillion"
Page: 1 of 2
mail
greencat
7/19/2016 3:13 PM
No, I'm not lusting after the Transylvanian vampiress aka trophy wife #3 of the presumptive loser in the 2016 election.

By now you have heard THIS -

The Likelihood That Melania Trump Accidentally Copied Michelle Obama Is “Less Than 1 in a Trillion”
https://www.washingtonian.com/2016/07/19/we-ran-melania-t... /
mail
person
bobcatsquared
7/19/2016 4:11 PM
Nice, greencat. You just started a multi-page thread where Monroe and rpbobcat go back and forth daily between now and November. And the odds of one changing the voting pattern of the other is also rated at "one in a trillion" if not lower.
Last Edited: 7/19/2016 4:11:46 PM by bobcatsquared
mail
person
Monroe Slavin
7/20/2016 2:37 AM
bobcatsquared wrote:expand_more
Nice, greencat. You just started a multi-page thread where Monroe and rpbobcat go back and forth daily between now and November. And the odds of one changing the voting pattern of the other is also rated at "one in a trillion" if not lower.
Thank you for adding nothing.
As usual.


If rp and I have a little sharp-edged fun, is that ruining your life?
mail
greencat
7/21/2016 2:13 PM
That's what these sports forums are for... killing a few minutes to argue some random thing or another while waiting to get back to real business in our life.

By the way, since the Cruz thing last night... HRC's odds of getting elected went up 3% (PredictWise). This is the OPPOSITE of a convention bounce for trump and will hurt their other candidates down ballot.

You want to see a positive convention bounce. See what happens next week. It won't be Chotchkie (sp?) from "Happy Days" on opening night. Just people such as Bernie Sanders and Michelle Obama. When next week is over, the comparison between the two conventions will be like unto comparing ice cream to horse feces. HRC will take a double digit lead in the polls and never look back.
mail
person
rpbobcat
7/21/2016 3:13 PM
Both parties have speakers that play to their bases.
For Republicans,especially conservatives,you couldn't do better then the Lone Survivor and Rudy Giuliani.

Pence's comment that he's a Christian,Conservative and Republican,in that order, also plays well to the conservative base.

With the rash of police murders the past few weeks,I don't know how well Micheal Brown's mother will be received by the general public when she speaks at the Democratic Convention.

As I also said on another thread,lets see if the media is as "picky" with the Democrats' speeches and comments as they were this week with the Republicans.
Last Edited: 7/21/2016 3:19:39 PM by rpbobcat
mail
person
Monroe Slavin
7/21/2016 10:51 PM
Both conventions are/will be boring, irrelevant pandering to the already converted.

Trump's a masterful extemporaneous speaker. Verrrrrry average when delivering a script.


A vote for Trump could be worth it just to see him make those weird, smug faces.
mail
person
Monroe Slavin
7/22/2016 3:46 AM
From the people who brought you Dan Quayle, Sarah Palin, and Bush II....
mail
person
Monroe Slavin
7/22/2016 8:57 PM
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
From the people who brought you Dan Quayle, Sarah Palin, and Bush II....
mail
greencat
7/25/2016 2:06 PM
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
From the people who brought you Dan Quayle, Sarah Palin, and Bush II....
This worse... this is **Trump - Putin 2016**

Paul Manafort, Donald Trump’s top adviser, and his ties to pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine:
http://www.politifact.com/global-news/article/2016/may/02... /
mail
person
rpbobcat
7/25/2016 2:27 PM
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
Both conventions are/will be boring, irrelevant pandering to the already converted.

Trump's a masterful extemporaneous speaker. Verrrrrry average when delivering a script.


A vote for Trump could be worth it just to see him make those weird, smug faces.
With all that happened over the weekend with the DNC email scandal,including the demonstrations yesterday and today,I don't think the Democratic Convention is going to be boring.

What remains to be seen is what Wikileaks dumps next.
mail
person
Monroe Slavin
7/26/2016 3:12 AM
Events at and surrounding both conventions likely to be forgotten a few days after the Dems are done.

A whole whole lot of media hubbubbub with very little meaningful content or impact.
mail
person
rpbobcat
7/26/2016 8:49 AM
There's an interesting "blurb" in today's paper about the Democratic Convention.

In the run up to the Republican Convention there were all kinds of stories both in print and on line about the number of Republicans who were skipping the convention.

According to this article,a number of high profile Democrats,including those in tight races in the fall,Al Gore and others are skipping their convention.

Amazing how that isn't getting the same degree of publicity.
mail
greencat
7/26/2016 1:20 PM
Gore has been somewhat of a recluse the last few years... he didn't attend the 2012 convention either.

However... he did tweet yesterday that the presumed nominee, Hillary Clinton would be getting his vote.

LINK: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/al-gore-is-skipping-the-democ... /
mail
person
Monroe Slavin
8/7/2016 5:08 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
There's an interesting "blurb" in today's paper about the Democratic Convention.

In the run up to the Republican Convention there were all kinds of stories both in print and on line about the number of Republicans who were skipping the convention.

According to this article,a number of high profile Democrats,including those in tight races in the fall,Al Gore and others are skipping their convention.

Amazing how that isn't getting the same degree of publicity.

#whatever
mail
DelBobcat
8/12/2016 1:31 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
There's an interesting "blurb" in today's paper about the Democratic Convention.

In the run up to the Republican Convention there were all kinds of stories both in print and on line about the number of Republicans who were skipping the convention.

According to this article,a number of high profile Democrats,including those in tight races in the fall,Al Gore and others are skipping their convention.

Amazing how that isn't getting the same degree of publicity.
If it didn't get publicity, how did you learn about it? You said yourself it was in the paper. I also saw it on CNN, and read about it in the NY Times and Washington Post. Nobody skipping the convention was repudiating the nominee though, big difference.

But I always think it's so weird when people say "I read _______ in the news, why isn't the media talking about it?" The only way you know about it is because the media is talking about it.
mail
person
rpbobcat
8/12/2016 3:13 PM
DelBobcat wrote:expand_more
There's an interesting "blurb" in today's paper about the Democratic Convention.

In the run up to the Republican Convention there were all kinds of stories both in print and on line about the number of Republicans who were skipping the convention.

According to this article,a number of high profile Democrats,including those in tight races in the fall,Al Gore and others are skipping their convention.

Amazing how that isn't getting the same degree of publicity.
If it didn't get publicity, how did you learn about it? You said yourself it was in the paper. I also saw it on CNN, and read about it in the NY Times and Washington Post. Nobody skipping the convention was repudiating the nominee though, big difference.

But I always think it's so weird when people say "I read _______ in the news, why isn't the media talking about it?" The only way you know about it is because the media is talking about it.
I never said that Democrats skipping their convention didn't get publicity.

I said it didn't get the same degree of publicity that was used for Republicans skipping their convention.

It also didn't get the same "treatment" i.e. "Breaking News such and such not attending Republican Convention".

When it came to the Democrats it was barely a speed bump in their coverage.
Last Edited: 8/12/2016 3:25:38 PM by rpbobcat
mail
person
Monroe Slavin
8/13/2016 3:28 PM
You want the news coverage to reflect your reality, what you think is important.

We all do that to some extent.

But a good argument, a sensible argument, can be made that we get what people as a whole are really interested in.



And what's in the wind is no particular interest in Clinton's problems and great astonishment at the Repub nominee.




Deal with it.




#beentellinyaformonths
mail
person
Terry Lee
8/13/2016 3:41 PM
Last Edited: 8/13/2016 3:42:30 PM by Terry Lee
mail
person
rpbobcat
8/13/2016 8:00 PM
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
You want the news coverage to reflect your reality, what you think is important.

We all do that to some extent.

But a good argument, a sensible argument, can be made that we get what people as a whole are really interested in.



And what's in the wind is no particular interest in Clinton's problems and great astonishment at the Repub nominee.




Deal with it.


#beentellinyaformonths
Of course there's no possibility of the media,including the Clinton News Network, wanting to do everything they can to try and influence another election by skewing what is reported and how ?

There didn't seem to be much coverage for Mrs.Clinton when she said she "short circuited" on the email scandal.

Same thing, haven't seen any coverage on the major networks about some of the physical problems Secret Service Agents have said she has.

There's also nothing to see in the emails that were released this week showing the cozy relationship between the Clinton Foundation and the State department she was heading.

Guess there was no media bias when Dan Rather used fabricated memos to try and bring down President Bush.

How many of the "Talking Heads" including George Stephanopoulos worked for Democratic Administrations in one way or another ? I'm sure they're objective.

Maybe you don't believe in media bias, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
Last Edited: 8/13/2016 8:01:16 PM by rpbobcat
mail
person
mid70sbobcat
8/13/2016 8:44 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
You want the news coverage to reflect your reality, what you think is important.

We all do that to some extent.

But a good argument, a sensible argument, can be made that we get what people as a whole are really interested in.



And what's in the wind is no particular interest in Clinton's problems and great astonishment at the Repub nominee.




Deal with it.


#beentellinyaformonths
Of course there's no possibility of the media,including the Clinton News Network, wanting to do everything they can to try and influence another election by skewing what is reported and how ?

There didn't seem to be much coverage for Mrs.Clinton when she said she "short circuited" on the email scandal.

Same thing, haven't seen any coverage on the major networks about some of the physical problems Secret Service Agents have said she has.

There's also nothing to see in the emails that were released this week showing the cozy relationship between the Clinton Foundation and the State department she was heading.

Guess there was no media bias when Dan Rather used fabricated memos to try and bring down President Bush.

How many of the "Talking Heads" including George Stephanopoulos worked for Democratic Administrations in one way or another ? I'm sure they're objective.

Maybe you don't believe in media bias, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
Then too we have "Clinton has not held a press conference since Dec. 4, 2015, in Fort Dodge, Iowa". And that's how long ago ...

I guess if you refuse to hold press conferences you can hide from any controversy and questions that would make you squirm. But I'm sure Monroe has an answer for that.
Last Edited: 8/13/2016 8:45:01 PM by mid70sbobcat
mail
person
Monroe Slavin
8/14/2016 3:01 PM
Whatever.

You believe entirely what you want to despite evidence to the contrary. Note your self-check in that you complain of the media not covering things which were carried in the media, which you likely picked up from the media.

Nothing wrong with believing what you want so long as you leaven it with a bit of reasonable reality.

If Clinton wins, will you even admit that?
mail
person
rpbobcat
8/15/2016 7:37 AM
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
Whatever.

You believe entirely what you want to despite evidence to the contrary. Note your self-check in that you complain of the media not covering things which were carried in the media, which you likely picked up from the media.

Nothing wrong with believing what you want so long as you leaven it with a bit of reasonable reality.

If Clinton wins, will you even admit that?
If you want to criticize what I post,at least do it accurately.
I never said that the items in my post weren't covered,I said the issue was how they were covered.

Also,if someone other the Mrs. Clinton wins,will you ?
mail
person
Monroe Slavin
8/15/2016 9:23 PM
mail
person
Monroe Slavin
8/19/2016 2:23 PM
Trump trying to bring black voters in. Not sure if that's a winning strategy to when the person in the White House is a black person of the other party, the first black president ever.
Showing Messages: 1 - 25 of 43
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)