As bad as Trump is, there is worse, much worse, I will vote for Trump in spite of what he is, when Hillary is the other choice.
BTW, I am not sold on any candidate, I will vote for the lesser of the two weevils.
"There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
Why, his name came up more in the first 10 minutes than if he'd been there in person. Watch his numbers be up tomorrow. As to the debate it got furiously boring within 10 minutes so I changed the channel. Nothing new to hear.
I might have watched half an hour collectively. Like you say, same ol same ol. But I think Trump may have pood in his mess kit. Not sure, but Cruz wasn't exactly tat far back from him. And also, I don't think Donald thought this decision through. What he did was let all the candidates have time with the TV audience and I think a few of em might have gotten a boost without Trump there.. From what I saw, Carson, Paul and Rubio and especially Cruz may have made some important gains, which may have given them enough edge to hold on a while longer. But as I said, I didn't watch it that long. To me that little bit of a boost, if they indeed got one, may turn out to be very important in te scheme of things. It's kind of like it will be whoever is on top when it's primary time, and that's getting closer.
Daddy, what's an enabler?
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
Furthermore, accusing Fox of treating him unfairly is ludicrous. Fox has given him more air time than he deserves, and he's been challenged very little. Charles Krauthamer is one of the few people on Fox who calls him out for what he is, and he doesn't like that. Let the two debate each other and see how smart Trump is.
If Trump debated Krauthammer, Las Vegas would be giving 8 to 5 that Trump would call Krauthammer a cripple the first time he scored a point. :jester:
Why, his name came up more in the first 10 minutes than if he'd been there in person. Watch his numbers be up tomorrow. As to the debate it got furiously boring within 10 minutes so I changed the channel. Nothing new to hear.
Your perception differs from mine. I thought they got that subject over with in the first two minutes, and then moved on to the attacks on Cruz. I also thought Cruz welcomed those attacks, because as the front runner (due to Trumps absence), he was given enough time to properly refute or dilute them. Still, I thought that whatever gains Cruz might have made by sucking up Trump supporters were probably cancelled out by Rubio picking off some Cruz supporters. There was no clear winner, because Rubio was very good, Bush performed well, and Christie had one of his best debates. Carson was good, Rand Paul wasn't bad, and John Kasich didn't monologue too badly - well, at least we didn't have to listen to his "my father was a mail-man" story for the sixth time. I expect Rubio, Christie, and maybe Bush to gain a little - I just don't know at whose expense it will be.
It's all too confusing to figure anything out from polling - it's time to vote and see what happens.
There are several sources I've seen on FB that this debate was going to be a hit-job to discredit Trump by having a Muslim and an open borders activist ask questions to humiliate him. The GOP and Neocon establishment is desperate to get Trump out of the race, Murdoch is an open borders guy and Trump probably found out about it and decided "no thanks." I don't blame him a bit for his reaction. I will watch his Vets benefit instead. It's on CNN.
There were indeed questions from a muslim woman and an open-borders woman. However, I didn't see it as an attack on Trump, and I don't think that Fox was going after Trump by allowing them to ask the question. Like it or not, immigration and allowing muslims into the country will be important issues this upcoming election.
Perhaps the best line of the night was issued by Cruz. He said something to the effect that if the moderators didn't quit asking others to criticize him, he might get his feelings hurt and leave the stage.
Jerry
Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
I don't know if anyone else caught it, but for one question Fox showed a pie chart from Google that showed what those who participated in the poll most wanted repealed. The winner, by a huge margin, was obamacare. The second amendment garnered 2-3 per cent. What really surprised me, though, was that 9 per cent wanted to repeal the 1st amendment. That is scary.
Jerry
Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
Meygan Kelly called out Cruz and Rubio on immigration using what they said in the past and making them answer how they would handle it.
Should they act like Trump start calling her names now or continue to be real men?
Once more I have to say: Megyn Kelly was WRONG. As a moderator each individual should be asked the SAME question and given a certain amount of time to answer. When they stray off the subject the moderator gets them back on track.
That is what a moderator does at a debate.
Now I will add, in her other life on the news she can ask, request answers and quote whatever she desires on any subject to any individual.
I believe Mr Trump has acted like a "richard" on this subject, but also believe the media through the moderator is taking jabs.
It looks like we as a group of people have allowed the media to change how a debate is supposed to work.
Logistics cannot win a war, but its absence or inadequacy can cause defeat. FM100-5
A debate is whatever the participants agree to, in politics. It is a format that allows for whatever venues that the moderators make it, and when the participants feel it is unfair, they can point that out individually or as a group, as all the participants did on the MSNBC debate. The debaters typically give the question lip service and then talk about whatever they want to, for anther minute after the gong sounds. It is not necessarily fair to everyone, but the cream usually rises to the top, in the end.
Megan Kelly was tough on everybody, as were the other two. It was basically a job interview in which any subject that a participant has commented on can be brought up. They all handled it just fine, and nobody complained, except for the joke by Cruz that mocked Donald Trump. Trump is a wuss if he can't handle one hard question from a news commentator that was based on comments he actually made.
There were indeed questions from a muslim woman and an open-borders woman. However, I didn't see it as an attack on Trump, and I don't think that Fox was going after Trump by allowing them to ask the question. Like it or not, immigration and allowing muslims into the country will be important issues this upcoming election.
Perhaps the best line of the night was issued by Cruz. He said something to the effect that if the moderators didn't quit asking others to criticize him, he might get his feelings hurt and leave the stage.
Once more I have to say: Megyn Kelly was WRONG. As a moderator each individual should be asked the SAME question and given a certain amount of time to answer. When they stray off the subject the moderator gets them back on track.
That is what a moderator does at a debate.
Now I will add, in her other life on the news she can ask, request answers and quote whatever she desires on any subject to any individual.
I believe Mr Trump has acted like a "richard" on this subject, but also believe the media through the moderator is taking jabs.
It looks like we as a group of people have allowed the media to change how a debate is supposed to work.
Nope. These debates are to find out about the candidates. IF they have a similar background, pro/con on the same subject, then that can happen. In a one on one debate, you are correct. Question, answer, rebuttal.
How do you ask Rubio about calling women pigs and how he will defend that against the Dem if he gets the nomination? He isnt a child and that isnt his past. It is Trumps. The question was about his actions before that debate. His actions after and up to this one speak for themselves.
Cruz and he were asked about flopping positions on immigration, guess what? Christie wasnt. Why? Because Christy didnt change his vote in congress. Do you think he should have been asked about his vote in congress to be fair?
It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
No, I'm referring to what I saw and heard with my own eyes and ears. As I said, I don't think it was done as a jab to Trump, but it was certainly done.
Jerry
Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
The debate is now history. Trump scored at least two major victories Thursday - he raised $6 million for 22 veterans charities, and he received an apology from Roger Ailes. The point was made, Trump will brook no disrespect from the media. By costing Fox News millions of dollars in advertising revenue, and they know it, he has reshaped the status quo. Instead of cowering before the high winds of press criticism, Trump continues to dominate political airtime across the whole of broadcast and cable news, as Rush observed, he "controls the media when he's there, he controls it when he's not there, and he controls it when he's asleep." And in the process he is eviscerating a thoroughly corrupt and owned media (the RNC owns Fox and the DNC owns all the others) and slowing butchering the carcass of political correctness.
An interesting follow up - more than a few talking heads, network analysts and consultants declared to their collective chagrin that the real winner in Thursday's debate was ... despite creditable performances by Rubio, Cruz and Christie ... Donald Trump. I think that's a stretch, but we'll know a little better when the weekend poll results are revealed, and we'll know for sure after the caucusing on Monday. I don't think Trump will win Iowa, he doesn't have the ground game for that - he may not even come in second or third, but from New Hampshire on - watch out.
That he could organize and accomplish, in less than 48 hours, his veterans charity event, and attract an overflow crowd to a packed 775 seat Drake auditorium is a credit to Trump's ability to get things done, and in a hurry. Reporters on the scene noted that many attendees drove hundreds of miles from neighboring states just to be there.
T R U M P
Or, happily, any other Republican will do.
"T R U M P
Or, happily, any other Republican will do."
Do what exactly ? make me breakfast ?
Cock-a-Doodle-Doo any Trump will do ? :jester:
"There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
I've been checking on the net to see if FNC has issued a statement saying it apologized to Trump. I can't find one. I can find a statement issued by FNC that Trump demanded a $5 million donation to his favorite charities in order to get him to participate in last night's debate. FNC declined.
Even though the apology is being reported by a number of outlets, the only source is Trump himself. If FNC would say the same, I'd believe it.
I think Trump is as much a liar as a blowhard. Even if he gets the nomination, and is running against Hillary, I may just have to stay home and not vote.
Jerry
Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
If you stay home and do not vote, you are still voting by default, likely -against your best interests, Voting for solidly pro gun candidates is still one of the best ways to cast ones vote IMHO.
"There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
"T R U M P
Or, happily, any other Republican will do."
Do what exactly ? make me breakfast ?
Cock-a-Doodle-Doo any Trump will do ? :jester:[/QUOTE
I'm sure if you spent the night with any other Republican candidate, they'd be good enough to make you breakfast. It might not be as lavish as a Trump breakfast, but you won't go away hungry. As for cock-a-doodle-do, any Trump will do, that's between you and your therapist.
The debate is now history. Trump scored at least two major victories Thursday - he raised $6 million for 22 veterans charities, and he received an apology from Roger Ailes. The point was made, Trump will brook no disrespect from the media. By costing Fox News millions of dollars in advertising revenue, and they know it, he has reshaped the status quo. Instead of cowering before the high winds of press criticism, Trump continues to dominate political airtime across the whole of broadcast and cable news, as Rush observed, he "controls the media when he's there, he controls it when he's not there, and he controls it when he's asleep." And in the process he is eviscerating a thoroughly corrupt and owned media (the RNC owns Fox and the DNC owns all the others) and slowing butchering the carcass of political correctness.
An interesting follow up - more than a few talking heads, network analysts and consultants declared to their collective chagrin that the real winner in Thursday's debate was ... despite creditable performances by Rubio, Cruz and Christie ... Donald Trump. I think that's a stretch, but we'll know a little better when the weekend poll results are revealed, and we'll know for sure after the caucusing on Monday. I don't think Trump will win Iowa, he doesn't have the ground game for that - he may not even come in second or third, but from New Hampshire on - watch out.
That he could organize and accomplish, in less than 48 hours, his veterans charity event, and attract an overflow crowd to a packed 775 seat Drake auditorium is a credit to Trump's ability to get things done, and in a hurry. Reporters on the scene noted that many attendees drove hundreds of miles from neighboring states just to be there.
T R U M P
Or, happily, any other Republican will do.
Trump raising money for vets was nothing more than an opportunistic political move on his part. No different than a politician kissing babies for votes.
Trump raising money for vets was nothing more than an opportunistic political move on his part. No different than a politician kissing babies for votes.
It's very, very different when you hand needy veterans millions of dollars to cover stuff this gross and careless administration refuses to supply. And if doing that makes you look good, you deserve to look good for doing that. And yes, kissing babies is very opportunistic, especially when you realize only the baby is getting kissed, while you're getting...
Why, his name came up more in the first 10 minutes than if he'd been there in person. Watch his numbers be up tomorrow. As to the debate it got furiously boring within 10 minutes so I changed the channel. Nothing new to hear.
And this is why I like Trump on that stage. The Republican establishment is BORING old hat with predictable rhetoric. If Cruz or Rubio or anyone get the nomination...we're done. That's my 100% prediction. It's Bernie or Hillary in November.
Trump is a deal maker, a pragmatist. Cruz and Rubio are not. They are from an orthodoxy that is almost completely unelectable nowadays. You can't hold up a bible in every thought and espoused from the altar. Because voters like me don't care. At all.
Not because I hate religion, no, but bible thumping is not what we need. We need a cut-throat. He sounds like Obama? Who cares...he's a Republican Obama. I'm ok with that. We need a right aisle spinster and deal maker. We need a bulldozer in the whitehouse, not milk toast and prayer.
“There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
I don't approve of Cruz and Rubio pandering to evangelicals in Iowa...mainly because they will de-emphasize it when they go to New Hampshire, and crank it back up for South Carolina. Trump has knocked them off of their game to the extent that they feel they have to hard-sell themselves to single issue voters. Still, you have to judge all the candidates by the same standards, when it comes to pandering, and Trump is the master of it. His supporters seem to have no clue that he will change his tune on anything, according to the audience he is entertaining. He is like the ferry guy in "The Outlaw Josie Wales" - he will whistle Dixie till he gets to the middle of the river, then switch to the Battle Hymn of the Republic without missing a beat.
He is like the ferry guy in "The Outlaw Josie Wales" - he will whistle Dixie till he gets to the middle of the river, then switch to the Battle Hymn of the Republic without missing a beat.
And this is why I like Trump on that stage. The Republican establishment is BORING old hat with predictable rhetoric. If Cruz or Rubio or anyone get the nomination...we're done. That's my 100% prediction. It's Bernie or Hillary in November.
Trump is a deal maker, a pragmatist. Cruz and Rubio are not. They are from an orthodoxy that is almost completely unelectable nowadays. You can't hold up a bible in every thought and espoused from the altar. Because voters like me don't care. At all.
Not because I hate religion, no, but bible thumping is not what we need. We need a cut-throat. He sounds like Obama? Who cares...he's a Republican Obama. I'm ok with that. We need a right aisle spinster and deal maker. We need a bulldozer in the whitehouse, not milk toast and prayer.
And why are we done? Trump has never debated and spanked Feinstein in Senate hearings over gun control, ...Cruz has. The worse thing for this Nation in my opinion is some loose cannon like Trump setting the stage for ruin.
Not because I hate religion, no, but bible thumping is not what we need. We need a cut-throat. He sounds like Obama? Who cares...he's a Republican Obama. I'm ok with that.
Since when is he a republican Obama? He has been a hard core lefty dem for decades. At least Obama was honest about where he stood.
We need a right aisle spinster and deal maker.
So you were for Lindsey Graham?
Deal making is why we are as screwed up right now as we are. We dont need a deal maker that will make up the rules he is to follow as he goes along. We need someone who will stand up tp the libs and say "no" and be able to back it up with the constitution.
It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
Saying all candidates must be asked the same questions to be 'fair' is silly. We're debating the topic here aren't we? Should I ask Varmintmist why he supports Trump? Maybe asking horselips to support his stand against Trump would also be appropriate? No, it would be stupid, and a waste of time. As I said earlier, you can argue the appropriateness of Kelley's zeal, but not the question itself. The question was legitimate and will be asked again, by far less docile sources than a Fox News anchor.
"Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
George Carlin
Saying all candidates must be asked the same questions to be 'fair' is silly. We're debating the topic here aren't we? Should I ask Varmintmist why he supports Trump? Maybe asking horselips to support his stand against Trump would also be appropriate? No, it would be stupid, and a waste of time. As I said earlier, you can argue the appropriateness of Kelley's zeal, but not the question itself. The question was legitimate and will be asked again, by far less docile sources than a Fox News anchor.
Right. It was obvious that the Fox moderators asked specific questions that were tailored to bring each candidate's perceived weak spot out in the open. The idea should have been to confront those concerns head on, deal with them in a way that was favorable to themselves, and move on.
While I found Trump's war with Rosie O'Donnel very amusing because I despise the woman, it is all fun and games when Trump is a reality television star. When he is leader of the free world, it is a legitimate concern. I am personally not a fan of beauty pageants because it puts women out there as hunks of meat and exploits them. He has had mistresses, been married 3 times, publicly referred to women as pieces of ass, brags about the hot "cat" he gets, etc... That was not an issue that voters need to be concerned about with other candidates. Cruz was called out on his ability to get along with others, Rubio on his inexperience, etc. The focus was on electability. Fox did a good job asking the questions.
How a person handles awkward and difficult questions shows a lot about a person's character. Trump handled it like a child. He could have easily said that besides real estate, he is in show business and that acting a bit boorish creates some controversy/conflict and makes for more entertaining television like his silly wrestling stunts.
Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
Replies
BTW, I am not sold on any candidate, I will vote for the lesser of the two weevils.
I might have watched half an hour collectively. Like you say, same ol same ol. But I think Trump may have pood in his mess kit. Not sure, but Cruz wasn't exactly tat far back from him. And also, I don't think Donald thought this decision through. What he did was let all the candidates have time with the TV audience and I think a few of em might have gotten a boost without Trump there.. From what I saw, Carson, Paul and Rubio and especially Cruz may have made some important gains, which may have given them enough edge to hold on a while longer. But as I said, I didn't watch it that long. To me that little bit of a boost, if they indeed got one, may turn out to be very important in te scheme of things. It's kind of like it will be whoever is on top when it's primary time, and that's getting closer.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
If Trump debated Krauthammer, Las Vegas would be giving 8 to 5 that Trump would call Krauthammer a cripple the first time he scored a point. :jester:
Your perception differs from mine. I thought they got that subject over with in the first two minutes, and then moved on to the attacks on Cruz. I also thought Cruz welcomed those attacks, because as the front runner (due to Trumps absence), he was given enough time to properly refute or dilute them. Still, I thought that whatever gains Cruz might have made by sucking up Trump supporters were probably cancelled out by Rubio picking off some Cruz supporters. There was no clear winner, because Rubio was very good, Bush performed well, and Christie had one of his best debates. Carson was good, Rand Paul wasn't bad, and John Kasich didn't monologue too badly - well, at least we didn't have to listen to his "my father was a mail-man" story for the sixth time. I expect Rubio, Christie, and maybe Bush to gain a little - I just don't know at whose expense it will be.
It's all too confusing to figure anything out from polling - it's time to vote and see what happens.
Should they act like Trump start calling her names now or continue to be real men?
There were indeed questions from a muslim woman and an open-borders woman. However, I didn't see it as an attack on Trump, and I don't think that Fox was going after Trump by allowing them to ask the question. Like it or not, immigration and allowing muslims into the country will be important issues this upcoming election.
Perhaps the best line of the night was issued by Cruz. He said something to the effect that if the moderators didn't quit asking others to criticize him, he might get his feelings hurt and leave the stage.
Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
Once more I have to say: Megyn Kelly was WRONG. As a moderator each individual should be asked the SAME question and given a certain amount of time to answer. When they stray off the subject the moderator gets them back on track.
That is what a moderator does at a debate.
Now I will add, in her other life on the news she can ask, request answers and quote whatever she desires on any subject to any individual.
I believe Mr Trump has acted like a "richard" on this subject, but also believe the media through the moderator is taking jabs.
It looks like we as a group of people have allowed the media to change how a debate is supposed to work.
Megan Kelly was tough on everybody, as were the other two. It was basically a job interview in which any subject that a participant has commented on can be brought up. They all handled it just fine, and nobody complained, except for the joke by Cruz that mocked Donald Trump. Trump is a wuss if he can't handle one hard question from a news commentator that was based on comments he actually made.
I believe you are referring to this "Fox chose Muslim Bernie Sanders supporter to trip Trump"
http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/fox-chose-muslim-bernie-sanders-supporter-to-trip-trump/#AC03k3QDAwVx7CYu.99
Nope. These debates are to find out about the candidates. IF they have a similar background, pro/con on the same subject, then that can happen. In a one on one debate, you are correct. Question, answer, rebuttal.
How do you ask Rubio about calling women pigs and how he will defend that against the Dem if he gets the nomination? He isnt a child and that isnt his past. It is Trumps. The question was about his actions before that debate. His actions after and up to this one speak for themselves.
Cruz and he were asked about flopping positions on immigration, guess what? Christie wasnt. Why? Because Christy didnt change his vote in congress. Do you think he should have been asked about his vote in congress to be fair?
No, I'm referring to what I saw and heard with my own eyes and ears. As I said, I don't think it was done as a jab to Trump, but it was certainly done.
Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
An interesting follow up - more than a few talking heads, network analysts and consultants declared to their collective chagrin that the real winner in Thursday's debate was ... despite creditable performances by Rubio, Cruz and Christie ... Donald Trump. I think that's a stretch, but we'll know a little better when the weekend poll results are revealed, and we'll know for sure after the caucusing on Monday. I don't think Trump will win Iowa, he doesn't have the ground game for that - he may not even come in second or third, but from New Hampshire on - watch out.
That he could organize and accomplish, in less than 48 hours, his veterans charity event, and attract an overflow crowd to a packed 775 seat Drake auditorium is a credit to Trump's ability to get things done, and in a hurry. Reporters on the scene noted that many attendees drove hundreds of miles from neighboring states just to be there.
T R U M P
Or, happily, any other Republican will do.
Or, happily, any other Republican will do."
Do what exactly ? make me breakfast ?
Cock-a-Doodle-Doo any Trump will do ? :jester:
Even though the apology is being reported by a number of outlets, the only source is Trump himself. If FNC would say the same, I'd believe it.
I think Trump is as much a liar as a blowhard. Even if he gets the nomination, and is running against Hillary, I may just have to stay home and not vote.
Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
Trump raising money for vets was nothing more than an opportunistic political move on his part. No different than a politician kissing babies for votes.
It's very, very different when you hand needy veterans millions of dollars to cover stuff this gross and careless administration refuses to supply. And if doing that makes you look good, you deserve to look good for doing that. And yes, kissing babies is very opportunistic, especially when you realize only the baby is getting kissed, while you're getting...
And this is why I like Trump on that stage. The Republican establishment is BORING old hat with predictable rhetoric. If Cruz or Rubio or anyone get the nomination...we're done. That's my 100% prediction. It's Bernie or Hillary in November.
Trump is a deal maker, a pragmatist. Cruz and Rubio are not. They are from an orthodoxy that is almost completely unelectable nowadays. You can't hold up a bible in every thought and espoused from the altar. Because voters like me don't care. At all.
Not because I hate religion, no, but bible thumping is not what we need. We need a cut-throat. He sounds like Obama? Who cares...he's a Republican Obama. I'm ok with that. We need a right aisle spinster and deal maker. We need a bulldozer in the whitehouse, not milk toast and prayer.
Perfect analogy!!
And why are we done? Trump has never debated and spanked Feinstein in Senate hearings over gun control, ...Cruz has. The worse thing for this Nation in my opinion is some loose cannon like Trump setting the stage for ruin.
So you were for Lindsey Graham?
Deal making is why we are as screwed up right now as we are. We dont need a deal maker that will make up the rules he is to follow as he goes along. We need someone who will stand up tp the libs and say "no" and be able to back it up with the constitution.
George Carlin
While I found Trump's war with Rosie O'Donnel very amusing because I despise the woman, it is all fun and games when Trump is a reality television star. When he is leader of the free world, it is a legitimate concern. I am personally not a fan of beauty pageants because it puts women out there as hunks of meat and exploits them. He has had mistresses, been married 3 times, publicly referred to women as pieces of ass, brags about the hot "cat" he gets, etc... That was not an issue that voters need to be concerned about with other candidates. Cruz was called out on his ability to get along with others, Rubio on his inexperience, etc. The focus was on electability. Fox did a good job asking the questions.
How a person handles awkward and difficult questions shows a lot about a person's character. Trump handled it like a child. He could have easily said that besides real estate, he is in show business and that acting a bit boorish creates some controversy/conflict and makes for more entertaining television like his silly wrestling stunts.