Trump Goes There

Note: this is another post on Trump, whom you guys know I don’t like. If you’re bored of him or bored of me talking about him, feel free not to read. I shouldn’t post and his keep his star ascendant but … if I could resist such things, I wouldn’t have to blog.

The first time I realized Donald Trump would probably make a bad presidential candidate was the 2011 White House Correspondents dinner. At the dinner, Seth Meyers and President Obama made numerous jokes at Trump’s expense. This is part of politics. Every politician gets mocked and derided. Good President even enjoy it. Ronald Reagan, while struggling with a speech, joked that Rich Little should finish it because “you do me better than I do me”. Bush the Elder though Dana Carvey’s imitation was hilarious and did an SNL bit with him. Clinton, Bush the Younger and Obama have always taken roastings with good humor (Obama’s followers, less so).

I don’t mean to overstate my case here, but it’s important to me that a President have a sense of humor about himself. The office is so powerful and the sycophancy surrounding it so thick, that it’s easy for Presidents to get a swollen head.

When Trump was being roasted, he didn’t crack a grin. The next day, he whined about it and guests said he was furious. This told me that he was not a man who should be President. It told me he was someone whose ego was both too bloated and too fragile to take a joke.

On Thursday, we had a debate. And the Fox News correspondents did their job. They asked tough questions of all the candidates, specifically homing in on their biggest weaknesses. Megyn Kelly pressed Marco Rubio on abortion law and Ben Carson on his lack of political experience. Baier pressed Bush on his family ties and Christy on New Jersey’s poor economy. Wallace pressed Cruz on his perceived divisiveness and Huckabee on his culture war constitutional amendments. It was a refreshing change from the “why are you so popular” questions that surround Clinton.

And, whether they know it or not, every candidate benefited. They were given a chance to address their biggest perceived weakness on a national stage. They were pressed to see if they would crack. The result will be a better and stronger GOP field.

None of the candidates complained.

Except one.

Donald Trump did not like being asked about his sexist and demeaning remarks to women. On Twitter, he called Megyn Kelly a “bimbo”. In an interview, he said that she was probably having her period. His hordes of followers have been bombarding her with attacks and signing petitions to get her fired.

First of all, Kelly was absolutely right to ask the question. This isn’t about “political correctness”. This is about practical politics. If Trump is the nominee, you know damned well his remarks about women are going to come up. Yeah, Democrats engage in sexism and harassment and even rape and get away with it. The rules aren’t the same for Republicans. No matter who the GOP candidate is, he’s going to be going into a headwind of accusations of sexism and misogyny. No matter who he is, he is going to face a large gender gap in voting (Republicans lost women by 11 points in 2012, although they closed the gap in 2014). The Republicans do not have the luxury of having a candidate who calls women “pigs” and “bimbos” (putting aside, for the moment, the questions this might raise about his character and judgement).

And no, I don’t care if it was Rosie O’Donnell (and it wasn’t just her). It’s still damaging to the Republican brand. A big reason the Republicans closed the gender gap between 2012 and 2014 (and won big in 2014) was because they stopped fellow Republicans from saying stupid shit about women.

But … even assuming Kelly’s question was unfair … Donald Trump wants to be President of the United States. Guess what? He’s going to get hostile and unfair questions. He’s going to face a hostile press. Is this how he’s going to handle it? And if he can’t take a tough question from Fox News, what the hell is he going to do when pushed by Vladimir Putin or Ali Khamenei?

Can you imagine Ronald Reagan calling people fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals? Can you imagine Reagan getting a tough or even unfair question from Helen Thomas and calling her a bimbo and saying she must be having her period?

I’ve always thought Trump was a poor candidate. His reaction to the debate tells me he’s a crybaby as well.

Comments are closed.

  1. repmom

    “All that and his polling has increased among Republicans voters”

    And that absolutely blows my mind.

    Great post, Hal. I agree with everything you said. There is nothing Presidential about this man. I can’t imagine how anyone could still support him after that debate.

    Yeah, I laughed at his Rosie comment. I found it amusing. I can’t stand the woman. But, I had the sense to know it was inappropriate for a man wanting to run our country. And his response to Kelly that night, and since, totally disrespectful.

    Spoiled, rich, arrogant brat, who cannot handle any criticism, and cares nothing about anything or anyone but himself.

    He reminded me that night of Clayton Williams, another embarrassment to my party, as well as my state.

    Thumb up 0

  2. CM

    Is the fact that he has such support, still, more embarrassing than the man himself? This is the slowest car wreck of all time.
    I’m picking he’ll be a third party spoiler.

    Thumb up 0

  3. AlexInCT

    Trump is a stalking horse for Hillary Clinton. His job is to make republicans look bad and to cause dissent. Anyone still missing that obvious connection or actually thinking Trump is any kind of conservative or republican, is a moron.

    Trump’s appeal, even with people like me that think he is a bufoon and shouldn’t be elected to dog catcher, is that he refuses to play by the PC rules, and that is a huge thing. There are a lot of us that are tired of the fact we can’t ever talk about the real issues because then the attack dogs in the LSM will shut you down by accusing you of having vile motives for bringing up the massive failure of the blue model.

    Anything that kills politcal correctness, IMO, is a good thing, so yeah, even this bufoon is a good thing in the long run if he manages to break this ludicrous hold on free speech that has undermined freedom in this country.

    Thumb up 0

  4. Section8

    in an interview, he said that she was probably having her period. 

    Ok Hal, where did he say anything about her menstrual cycle? If you actually listen to the audio he’s making his statement, paused, and said “wherever” after what could be more accurately interpreted as losing train of thought and moved on. YOU chose to fill in the blanks about “wherever” he was referring to so you could do your grandstanding routine. That’s the reality plain and simple. If there is some other comment he made you are referring to, please do share.

    As far as his comments, over all they are amateurish and childish, no argument there, but what’s even more disgusting is people who play the game of denouncing PC run amok only to engage in the very same behavior. A behavior of filling in blanks to fire on with a false narrative, just like you’re doing here.

    Calling her a bimbo is certainly amateurish, but is it all that inaccurate? After all, she was on Howard Stern talking about her tits. Why would any professional self-respecting woman be on his show talking about her tits and playing a game of who would you Fuck, Marry, Kill? Is that the kind of role model you want for your daughter? So if people are demanding she not be part of the debates next time, or fired altogether I say good. If they dig up dirt about her I say good. If they spin a non-issue into an issue I say good. It’s about time all people be held to the same standards regardless of how ridiculous these standards become. It should especially be applied the press and entertainment industry who are the gatekeepers of this nonsense and can blindside anyone and everyone at their choosing with impunity. If she wants to jump into the PC game, then she should absolutely have to stay in the game and live with the consequences.

    Do you think it will stop with Trump? It needs to end. It won’t end with stupid repetitive blog posts about how “if it were a Republican the press would…or if it were a Democrat the press wouldn’t…”, or wishy washy bullshit where filling in the blanks works ok this time because it’s a perfect grandstanding opportunity. People are getting sick of it. It’s a bigger world out there than your blogging talking points. People are getting “radical” and it’s about time. Common sense does not dictate free speech or discussion anymore. Hysteria rules with ever shifting goal posts about what is right or wrong for a given moment. It won’t stop if the solution, like the one you seem to propose, is for one side to be absolutely perfect, and should just limit themselves to bitching about the fact that the other side has to live up to zero standards.

    The comments about Rosie had nothing to do with anything regarding her female anatomy. The comment he made on the Apprentice, well the lady on there said she doesn’t even remember it and they were just having fun and to essentially get over it. Are you really OK that now the rules have shifted that any insult is sexist? Any comment is sexist? Overnight a new rule pops up. Well why did you join this blog then? Lee had no problem referring to Ann Coulter as Man Coulter, as well as other comments regarding various women he disagreed with. I’ll tell you why it didn’t keep you away, because BFD. It’s not sexist, nor were Trump’s comments in a feud with Rosie, and a handful of others he called a dog. And who the hell is going to be able to say and do all the “right” things everyday of their life? Name one person out there who is capable of that? Expecting that type of flawless existence is just way out in loony fantasy land, especially if there are ever changing definitions of what is ok and not ok.

    In the meantime, Clinton will move on, and I’m sure everything will be done so people forget her role in the “Bimbo Eruption” coined by her friend, criminal crony, and damage control expert Betsey Wright. Hillary, a wife and defender of a beloved president of the Left who didn’t just make an offhand joke on TV about getting someone on her knees, he actually did it. Then Hillary and team went on the attack to get the “bimbos”. Nah Trump called Rosie a name. He should be the one to be deported. We need Hillary so we can have divided government.

     

    Oh and stop invoking Reagan for Christ’s sake. If he were running today you and I both know you wouldn’t be voting for him, in fact you’d be blogging about how he can’t make the cut. Just like every other candidate.

    Thumb up 1

  5. repmom

    Ok, Section 8, I have always had the utmost respect for you as a commenter here, but seriously. Do you really deny that Trump was insinuating that in his comments about Meghan Kelly bleeding from…? You are correct. He did not say that. But I myself had no doubt what he was implying, no matter what he said in his own defense later. From the nose.. Right. Total bullshit, in my opinion. And to me, that is plain and simple.

    Thumb up 0

  6. richtaylor365

    Ok, Section 8, I have always had the utmost respect for you as a commenter here, but seriously.

    My sentiments exactly, your spin on the trump comment is kind of laughable. The pause was used in  a lame attempt to clean up a very crude remark, but why would he even go there?

     

    Calling her a bimbo is certainly amateurish, but is it all that inaccurate?

     

    I think so. I watch her show often and find her prepared, insightful, articulate and (ready for it?) fair, to all her guest, she even lets them talk (looking at you, Oreilly). And her question to Trump during the debate was absolutely fair game. And he was doing just fine with his answer of not being politically correct until he had to go and make it personal against Kelley. Did you think the inexperience question directed at Carson fair, the jobs issue with Christie, the Common Core question to Bush, or the NSA question aimed at Paul? Were these also over the top? Sheesh, if the donald can’t handle a little heat from Fox , how is he going to stand up to the likes of that little gollum Stephanopolous?

    After all, she was on Howard Stern talking about her tits.

    Tell me, if Stern asked her if she had any desire to murder her neighbor, would the headline be ,”Kelley talks about killing her neighbor on Stern”? I can’t believe how the right wing blogsphere has exploded over this horseshit. Stern being Stern, he asked her some rather embarrassing questions and she handled them gracefully and with ablomb. For those interested, here is the interview;

    But that did not stop some what I thought to be honest right wing blogs running with the nonsense (such as) and trying to get her fired from Fox, shame on them.

    I think many conservatives ( and you, apparently) have confused the messenger with the message. Yeah, people are fed up with crony capitalism, bought politicians, ever increasing government and government influence, Washington morass in general. Yes, it is refreshing to see someone who does not need to whore himself out to get money, who is not a politician (that is why I like Fiorina and Carson) and who irritates the press, but Trump, seriously? The guy is a pig with a hair trigger temper and no impulse control.  Our government consists of shared branches, checks and balances, our current guy thinks he is king and can do what he wants, not another one.

     

    Thumb up 0

  7. trade_pro

    For those of you who are bitching that Trump won’t make the pledge to not run in a third party….

    If he is the Republican candidate, are you prepared to make the pledge to vote for him no matter what?  I highly doubt there are many arms raised.

    As far as Megyn Kelly and Bret Baier, they came out of the box on the attack.  If you remember, the first question was the only question where arms were raised.  If they would have asked Trump specifically are you willing to pledge that you will not run as a 3rd party candidate, that is one thing.  However they didn’t, they tried to show him in a negative light versus the other candidates.  At no other time did they do that.  The closest they came was when they pitted Christie and Rand against each other on the privacy issue.  But notice, they didn’t take sides.  Big difference.

     

     

     

    Thumb up 1

  8. repmom

    trade pro – I just pray Trump is forced to run in a third party. Then I won’t have to make the decision of him or Hillary when I go to the poll to cast my vote. But should I have to make that decision, it will not be Hillary.

    Thumb up 0

  9. repmom

    I just heard Lindsey Graham on Fox News concerning voting for Donald Trump as the Republican nominee, and he said it for me.

    “…I’d hold my nose and vote”

    Thumb up 0

  10. Section8

    Do you really deny that Trump was insinuating that in his comments about Meghan Kelly bleeding from…?

    Hi, Repmom good to see you back again. As for your question, yes I do deny this. Here is my reasoning, and feel free to agree or disagree.

    First, while he has made comments about people’s appearances, including women, I haven’t really seen anything yet where he has said something specifically about women’s anatomy or biological functions in a degrading manner. Could they find something? Possibly, as I can pretty much guarantee nearly all guys have made some sort of comment at some point in their life that could be considered degrading. I’m sure nearly all women have about men as well.  So yes, he has picked selected targets and thrown out school yard level insults at them, men and women alike. Given that I’m sure the press is digging like crazy to find something, I see no real pattern where he degrades women in general or even in his specific one person attacks, unless we want to now say ANY comment directed at a woman is now sexist.

    Second, it seems strange he would include bleeding of the eyes as part of the effects of the menstrual cycle. I’m by no means a biologist, but I’m pretty sure it’s not one of the symptoms.

    Third, he also said Chris Wallace was bleeding from the eyes about a minute later in the interview.

    Fourth, he runs a large business and has many women in the upper levels in his company. If he had that much disrespect for women in general, I would imagine there would be a lots of people speaking out by now, or they would have in the past via lawsuits and such.

    As for the wherever part, I think he was doing his rambling and couldn’t come up with anything off the cuff, and that’s about it. As far as what the bleeding of the eyes meant, who the hell knows. I won’t argue it was just stupid and a waste of an opportunity to go after the media and their BS in a coherent way.

     Did you think the inexperience question directed at Carson fair, the jobs issue with Christie, the Common Core question to Bush, or the NSA question aimed at Paul? Were these also over the top? 

    I had no problem with those questions; they were all policy related. I had no issue with them drilling Trump when he claimed he had proof the Mexican government is deliberately sending people over, and to show that proof. That’s a great debate question.

    What’s not a great debate question is

     Hey we have some twitter comments from 10 years ago. You insulted a woman and therefore it’s automatically sexist. Men can be called fat pigs, but never a woman no matter what. Never, ever, ever. You made a joke on one of your shows which with no context behind it we can make it appear you were degrading, as we all know men and women never joke around about sex stuff. Nah we didn’t bother to ask the woman involved if she was offended, just presenting the comment itself can leave it to people’s imagination about how horrible it must have been for her. Anyhow, what does that say about your temperament Mr Trump (you sexist pig)? Anyhow, we’ll give you one minute to dodge our character assassination attempt. Good luck :)

    Tell me, if Stern asked her if she had any desire to murder her neighbor, would the headline be ,”Kelley talks about killing her neighbor on Stern”? 

    I don’t know, you tell me what the media would write. I’m guessing you’d hope it would be fair and within context of reason though correct?

    Stern being Stern

    Was she forced on to his show and “gracefully” handled the questions under duress? What’s graceful about going on a show with a guy whose nearly entire purpose is to talk about women’s anatomy, and much of it by all aspects would be considered degrading? Reality wise who gives a shit she was on there, I don’t, but in the PC game, F her and she should be scrutinized, and judged with the same ridiculous criteria.

     Our government consists of shared branches, checks and balances, our current guy thinks he is king and can do what he wants, not another one.

     

    This isn’t about defending Trump, it’s about saying it’s NOT OK for the PC blind side bullshit and filling in the blanks this time. You want to defend these tactics go ahead. It will simply continue and bring down people you will like. Might even be used on you eventually.

    BTW did anyone tell Erick Erickson to check his Twitter account before hopping on the grandstanding train? Yeah they’ve found all kinds of shit he’s posted. Good job Erick. Spin spin spin…

    Thumb up 0

  11. repmom

    Thanks, Section 8. I appreciate your respectful reply. I keep going over all this in my mind, trying to figure out what about Trump’s response bothered me the most, because I was somewhat interested in him before the debate, liked that he said what he thought.

    Even if he wasn’t referring to Kelly being in her period, which we will just have to agree to disagree on that. I think, I just feel that someone running for the highest position of our country should have responded differently, during the debate, and  afterward.

    Why make any personal comments about Kelly, including “bleeding from the eyes”? Why attack her personally?

    I am so not into PC, and I do think we have gone way overboard with it. But, it seems he didn’t like her question, and therefore felt the need to go after her personally. I just don’t like that. Thinned skinned, to me, as Hal said. You cannot be thin skinned if you are in politics.You have to be able to take the heat.

    Whether or not the man views women as sexual objects? When was the last time he fell in love and married a woman who wasn’t young with a perfect body? Does that make him bad presidential material? Maybe not, but it does make him seem superficial to me.

    In my opinion, he is no Ronald Reagan, or George Bush Sr, or George W. Bush. These are the type of men I want to see running my country.

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  12. richtaylor365

    As for the wherever part, I think he was doing his rambling and couldn’t come up with anything off the cuff, and that’s about it.

     

    OK, and you are free to give him the benefit of the doubt, but clearly when you say “and wherever”,  that means she is bleeding somewhere else, besides her eyes, and where else do women bleed? No ,”and wherever” was attached to Chris Wallace, either a colossal gaffe or crude, not worthy of a presidential candidate, remark.

    The question could have been handled so easily ,”Look, I’m not big on this whole PC nonsense and I like to kid around, sue me. But my record on women is clear, look at all the women I have promoted in my various companies, look at those I have hired, those whose counsel I value. Ask my wife my daughter, my record is clear on equal treatment of women”. He would have gotten a standing ovation. But no, he starts sniping at Kelly like somehow he is being treated unfairly, what a crybaby. Even in the Don Lemon interview, he continues the name calling and the insults. You would think that the guy leading in the polls would take the high road, not the donald.

    Was she forced on to his show and “gracefully” handled the questions under duress?

     

    Her show is still fairly new, she is trying to promote her show and get new viewers, what is wrong with that? Over course she knows Stern will be Stern and go places he shouldn’t, she keeps the responses short and non committal. Most of the interview had to do with Foxnews, Roger Ailes and how much money she made, but what made the headlines were her tits and her husband’s penis, real classy.

    And what do you think about the movement afoot to get her canned because of that one question? I thought only progressives were whinny bitches that wanted to silence anything they don’t agree with.

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  13. InsipiD

    (Sorry about the first post.  My dog trampled across the laptop, and it posted the partial when he did)

     

    There’s little doubt what Trump meant.  He’s a coarse and vulgar prick used to confusing wealth and class.  When you get down to it, the reason that he’s valuable in the race is that he will say a lot of things that someone who’s a bit more serious won’t, but he also is ready to go a bit to far.

    Thumb up 0

  14. trade_pro

    I think Trump in the mix moves the debate where it needs to be, Immigration, Jobs, The Economy, and Sovereignty.  I’m not saying that Trump should be the guy.  I agree that he is an egomaniac. Unfortunately, even with 17 main choices(32 with minor candidates), we only have one guy will the balls to stand up to the political circus. Granted he may be a clown in his own right but at least he’s not an establishment clown.  We have seen what comes of that with the last election.

    I would go so far as to say that Trump being a viable candidate shows us just how broken our political system is.  Then again look at the Democrats clown car of candidates…a crook, a socialist and a pro-illegal lib.

    Thumb up 1

  15. Section8

    OK, and you are free to give him the benefit of the doubt, but clearly when you say “and wherever”,  that means she is bleeding somewhere else, besides her eyes, and where else do women bleed?

     

    Holy cow! WOMEN DO NOT BLEED FROM THEIR EYES IN THE FIRST PLACE.  They don’t do it while they are driving, they don’t do it when they are having dinner, and they don’t do it when they are having their period. Why the hell would he throw eyes in there in the first place if the intent was to say that she was menstruating? He came up with a stupid metaphor to describe her attacking him, i.e. blood coming out of her eyes, horns growing out of her head, whatever. Then carrying on he couldn’t think of anything else and moved on with wherever. Are you going to seriously tell me that you have never lost train of thought, or couldn’t find something clever to say in a conversation so you just closed out with some meaningless generalization such as “whatever” or “wherever”? Every statement you’ve made is executed with pure perfection? If you want to tell me that, then don’t bother, I won’t believe it for one second.

    No ,”and wherever” was attached to Chris Wallace, either a colossal gaffe or crude, not worthy of a presidential candidate, remark.

    Seriously? Of course it won’t be used. Why would you reuse generalized words you used to finish off a sentence you couldn’t think of any words for as a description in another sentence? Again, no one does that.

    The question could have been handled so easily ,”Look, I’m not big on this whole PC nonsense and I like to kid around, sue me.

     

    Exactly. He blew the opportunity to do this. I have no argument there. I noted that in the last post I made. There’s a big difference however between a weak and childish rant as a retort, and a sexist comment created by filling in the blanks with your own words.

    Her show is still fairly new, she is trying to promote her show and get new viewers, what is wrong with that?

     

    Mr richtaylor,

    You’re on record saying a woman who went on a sexist show, discussing her female body parts on the show was a good idea to help her boost her own ratings.

    What does that say about you as a man? What would you say to the mothers trying to raise their daughters with the message that they should never have to exploit themselves sexually to move ahead in this world?

    Most of the interview had to do with Foxnews, Roger Ailes and how much money she made, but what made the headlines were her tits and her husband’s penis, real classy.

    And so? It’s a politically correct world. The PC rules should apply to these people too, for the nth time now.

    And what do you think about the movement afoot to get her canned because of that one question? I thought only progressives were whinny bitches that wanted to silence anything they don’t agree with.

    And so? It’s a politically correct world, she’s not a role model for any young woman trying to move ahead. The PC rules should apply to these people too for the nth time + 1 now.

    Thumb up 0

  16. Section8

    Also what do you think about Erick Erickson’s tweets? Can’t shrug those off now since we’ve decided any insulting remarks against women are sexist, and twisting joking around (such as on the Apprentice) into a sexist statement is “good journalism”.

    Thumb up 0

  17. ilovecress

    I got the distinct impression that there was a concerted effort to get to Trump. His was the only question that essentially boiled down to “Why are you such a douchebag?”

    The problem is, they didn’t count on the fact that his particular brand of douchebaggery is appealing to people who are sick of the PC/Politics. I think it’s backfired massively.

     

    Thumb up 1

  18. richtaylor365

    Holy cow! WOMEN DO NOT BLEED FROM THEIR EYES IN THE FIRST PLACE

     

    Holy cow, you totally missed the point. First off describing someone as bleeding from the eyes is a common reference in describing one that is extremely upset or out of control. But putting that aside, eyes, ears, nose all irrelevant, the money quote was what followed , the “and wherever”. Your gymnastic display in defending (denying) something that is obvious to everyone but you, quite astonishing.

    Why the hell would he throw eyes in there in the first place if the intent was to say that she was menstruating?

    Another swing and a miss. His original intent was to ridicule Kelly saying she was livid, out of control and crazed, the “and wherever” then followed, because, well, he just can’t help himself.

    You’re on record saying a woman who went on a sexist show, discussing her female body parts on the show was a good idea to help her boost her own ratings.

     

    Not what I said. Nice straw man, though, you really went there, didn’t you?

    I found out yesterday that that Stern interview happened in 2010. Kelly was fairly new to Fox at that time. Many Fox personalities have been on Stern, who knows what the back story is on why she appeared in the first place. I think she handled the indelicate questions ( a very small portion of the interview) pretty well, but you choose to focus only on her tits, ummmm. And why is it, after all these years, this interview is important?

    What does that say about you as a man?

    I don’t know, what do you think it says about me as a man? 

    And so? It’s a politically correct world, she’s not a role model for any young woman trying to move ahead. 

    So let me get this straight, based on a 5 year old Stern interview where in one brief moment of levity she discussed her breast size, she should be fired from Fox?  Distinguished law career, reporter, anchor at Foxnews with her own show that is killing all competition, but one time she mentions her breast size and off with her head? Boy, you are tough, and perfect, I guess.

    Also what do you think about Erick Erickson’s tweets?

    Who the hell is Erik Erickson and what does he have to do with a presidential candidate refusing to install a governor for his big mouth?

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  19. Section8

    Holy cow, you totally missed the point. First off describing someone as bleeding from the eyes is a common reference in describing one that is extremely upset or out of control. But putting that aside, eyes, ears, nose all irrelevant, the money quote was what followed , the “and wherever”.

    Nose, ears are irrelevant? Why? Those are places “besides the eyes” (in a figurative sense and literal for the nose) that women can also bleed from, but of course those options don’t matter if we can just go straight to pussy so we can have a narrative to grandstand on.

    Your gymnastic display in defending (denying) something that is obvious to everyone but you, quite astonishing.

    Yeah I know I can jump on the bandwagon to be with the cool kids.

    His original intent was to ridicule Kelly saying she was livid, out of control and crazed, the “and wherever” then followed, because, well, he just can’t help himself.

    I agree with the first part. The “wherever” part what do you mean he can’t help himself? Where’s this mountain of evidence that he’s degraded women sexually? You care to provide any evidence? Has he made comments about appearances sure, but is that degrading women sexually, or just simply an insult that in this day and age of equality should be countered with who fucking cares if he said it? Let me know, and if so should this new definition apply to you too, and how will you reconcile some of your past comments here on this blog with this new definition?

    Not what I said. Nice straw man, though, you really went there, didn’t you?

    It’s factually accurate. I’m guessing you didn’t like the fact that it was worded to be an ad hominem attack, but that type of question is “good journalism”

    So let me get this straight, based on a 5 year old Stern interview where in one brief moment of levity she discussed her breast size, she should be fired from Fox?  Distinguished law career, reporter, anchor at Foxnews with her own show that is killing all competition, but one time she mentions her breast size and off with her head? Boy, you are tough, and perfect, I guess.

    My point still remains the same as it did the other 3 or 4 times that I’ve had to make it now. They’re all in this thread if you’re actually interested. If not that’s OK.

    Who the hell is Erik Erickson and what does he have to do with a presidential candidate refusing to install a governor for his big mouth?

    He’s the new definition of the term “fresh out of friends”. He runs the Red State blog, and just hosted a big conservative gathering with many of the GOP candidates attending. Trump did not go because Erick is the one who got this whole “wherever” thing all over the news to begin with, and disinvited Trump to the gathering. Well then  people started looking at Erick’s tweets. Now the right won’t back him since he decided to get on the PC high-horse, and the left are calling him a sexists hypocrite.

     

    Thumb up 0

  20. richtaylor365

    Nose, ears are irrelevant? Why?

    You still don’t get it, I give up. I’ll assume that is it obstinacy and not lack of intellectual capacity that you refuse to see the obvious.  Trump attempted to demean/insult Kelly, and then went someplace he should not have, typical Trump.

    but of course those options don’t matter if we can just go straight to pussy so we can have a narrative to grandstand on.

    Don’t blame me, blame your boy, he is the one that said it in an attempt to be cute. When he made the same comment about Wallace, sans the ,”and wherever”, I guess he wasn’t so playful, I wonder why.  But you keep turning yourself into pretzels in a lame attempt to say he really didn’t mean it.

    Where’s this mountain of evidence that he’s degraded women sexually?

    Whoa, who said anything about “degrading women sexually”, is that what you think this is all about, seriously? This is about Trump lacking any impulse control, saying the first thing that comes into his head without any “appropriateness”  filter, and going on the attack when a more nuanced approach would be more beneficial. And as for the mountain of evidence, this thread alone has provided that.

    t’s factually accurate.

    Nope, it was typical progressive misdirection, and a classic straw man. I never said she went on the show to discuss her tits in an attempt to draw more viewers, nor did I say that her intent on answering the few indelicate questions posed was to draw more viewers, but you went there anyway.

    My point still remains the same as it did the other 3 or 4 times that I’ve had to make it now.

    And still you can’t answer the question; do I need to pose it 3 or 4 more times? No forget it, you have chosen to align yourself with all those cry baby progressives that just can’t stand to hear a different point of view, or tolerate a different point of view, so what they don’t like they get rid of, just fire Kelly and be done with it.

    He’s the new definition of the term “fresh out of friends”.

    That’s all great, but the tweets of some blogger (especially one that I never heard of) are irrelevant to this thread, as the title indicates.

     

    OT, but the administrators need to do something about adding an “edit” button to comments. Section 8’s above comment was a jumbled mess, inverting quotes with original comments, bold here, italics there, quote bars all over the place. We need to make posting and editing easier for the readers.

    Thumb up 0

  21. Section8

    “Trump attempted to demean/insult Kelly, and then went someplace he should not have, typical Trump.”

    And he went some place he shouldn’t have being typical Trump, and this is typical Trump because of this reasoning below? I’m putting in bold (I hope).

    “This is about Trump lacking any impulse control, saying the first thing that comes into his head without any “appropriateness”  filter, and going on the attack when a more nuanced approach would be more beneficial. And as for the mountain of evidence, this thread alone has provided that.”

    So the mountain of evidence to support this claim of justifying what he meant to say is the claim itself? I call complete bullshit.

    “That’s all great, but the tweets of some blogger”

    Not just some blogger, but if you’d read entire paragraphs you’d find out. Might actually help to figure out the points I’ve been getting at too.

    As for the formatting, I’ve been copying and pasting comments from the page back in to the textbox and chose paste instead of paste as plain text. I think that’s the cause. My apologies.

    Thumb up 0

  22. Section8

    “I never said she went on the show to discuss her tits in an attempt to draw more viewers, nor did I say that her intent on answering the few indelicate questions posed was to draw more viewers, but you went there anyway.”

    The facts are all there, I just left a out a few other facts, took out the context of the situation, and there you have it. Ask Megyn Kelly for more info about how it works if you need it, such as the comment on Trump’s “sexist” behavior on the Apprentice. As for Rosie’s appearance, and the handful of other people who happened to be women he insulted in the past without any reference to their female body parts, who give a shit, but Hal and others refers to those insults as “sexist”.

    By that definition, you and Hal or both sexist. Would you like me to post the evidence?

     

    Thumb up 0

  23. richtaylor365

    So the mountain of evidence to support this claim of justifying what he meant to say is the claim itself? I call complete bullshit.

    Except that it is NOT “the claim itself” that I was referring to. Jesus, Section 8, you have gotten everything wrong you could possible get wrong. Here, let me help you;

     But no, he starts sniping at Kelly like somehow he is being treated unfairly, what a crybaby. Even in the Don Lemon interview, he continues the name calling and the insults.

    I even posted the video of the interview, have you seen it?

    Your reading comprehension skills in this thread blows. It was your claim that he “degraded women sexually”, not mine, I even devoted an entire paragraph to refuting that. My claim (which there is a mountain of evidence to support) was that he is utterly incapable of holding an unexpressed thought, has no impulse control, then after he steps in it he continues with the name calling and the insulting, hardly presidential.

    Not just some blogger, but if you’d read entire paragraphs you’d find out.

    I did read the paragraph, so what? What does this guys tweets have to do with Trump? Or are you really going to use the old progressive tactic of justifying bad behavior by comparing it to other bad behavior?

    I just left a out a few other facts, took out the context of the situation, and there you have it.

    Let me help you;

    I just left out the most important facts,  then took out of context  the real context of the situation, and there you have it”.

    Now it makes sense.

     

    By that definition, you and Hal or both sexist. Would you like me to post the evidence?

    Yes, please, but just stick with me and my comments, leave Hal out of this.

    Thumb up 0

  24. Hal_10000 *

    I’m not going to pore through the entire comments, because S8’s first comment is basically repeating everything Trump’s defenders have said on every conservative board.  This is a classic maneuver: imply something bad then act all innocent and pretend everyone else has the problem for going the interpretation you intended all along.  It’s amateurish and beneath any serious Presidential candidate.

    It’s become extra frustrating because Trump has thrown out at least one idea — selling insurance across state lines — that is a good one.  No one’s talking about that even though they absolutely should.

    Thumb up 1

  25. ilovecress

    So here’s a question – if he had said she was bleeding out of her vagina – who would have a problem with that, and who wouldn’t. And why why/not?

    Thumb up 0

  26. Section8

    “Except that it is NOT “the claim itself” that I was referring to. Jesus, Section 8, you have gotten everything wrong you could possible get wrong. Here, let me help you;”

    “But no, he starts sniping at Kelly like somehow he is being treated unfairly, what a crybaby. Even in the Don Lemon interview, he continues the name calling and the insults.”

    I have already said the rants themselves are childish and amateurish multiple times. So what are you looking to get out of me? Should I write HIS RETORTS WERE CHILDISH AND AMATEURISH IN ALL CAPS? Done.

    My issues with the whole thing from the beginning are as follows:

    1) I think Megyn’s wording of the question and how it was presented was crap. It was not worthy of a professional debate question. It was a Jerry Springer style presentation, and structured to imply guilt by leaving out context, and facts. That’s not something a person can respond to in one minute with a blindside attack. It’s the same demonstration I used with you, but I still don’t think you figured out or know what demonstration I’m even talking about

    2) While he most certainly could have handled it better the following day, putting words in his mouth to make a narrative is not acceptable simply because Trump is Trump, or the pathetically weak bullshit response Hal just provided in the comments

    3) Regarding his presidential worthiness, I don’t think his current behavior is a good thing. I also don’t think it’s a show stopper unless it continues, and when I say behavior I mean words and actions he actually did, within context, and not shit taken out of context or interpretations that are just flat out made up

    4) Regarding Megyn being fired, I DON’T CARE IF SHE WAS ON STERN. I DON’T CARE WHAT SHE TALKED ABOUT. IN THE REAL WORLD NONE OF THIS IS A PROBLEM TO ME. GOOD FOR HER. PERIOD. I’ve stated this already, but since we’re going to embrace the latest round of PC blindsiding, half truths, and ad hominem attacks presented in what was supposed to be a professional debate and call it “good journalism”, she needs to be held accountable for her past actions under the rules of PC. Unless these assholes have to start living under the same ridiculous criteria, the bullshit and half truth attacks brought on by the media elite will continue. So yes, it’s basically fighting progressive tactics with progressive tactics, and why not? They’re mopping the floor with our asses because we’re the George McFlys of the political world. Hillary is yet in another major scandal, and we’re in a frenzy about the future of the GOP over what the Donald said, and in some cases didn’t even say. RIDICULOUS. We are owned by the press and the left, we’re owned by having it drilled in our heads that any candidate we offer has to be absolutely flawless. The fact that we’re now convince of this line of warped logic is not unfairness by the left. It’s idiocy on the right.

    “Yes, please, but just stick with me and my comments, leave Hal out of this.”

    Hal’s a big boy and can defend himself.

    Here’s Trump’s timeline with Rosie, what he said, how he said it and in what context.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/politics/donald-trump-rosie-odonnell-feud/

    Here is Rich describing Rosie

    Regarding discussions about torture. Rich calls her disgusting, and just looking at her is torture.

    “Posting any article on Rosie with a picture attached promotes the very act that you are railing against. I don’t think I will be able to see for a week.”

    “Is it because she is a know nothing gasbag who touts the party line but is too lazy to get her facts straight, who’s narcissism has blinded her to the fact that she is a disgusting pile of goo, and whose mesainic delusions convince her she is the second coming of Oprah?”

    http://archives.right-thinking.com/index.php/weblog/comments/sympathy_for_the_devil1/

    Here’s Hal implying Rosie is so fat we could user her to deflect an asteroid.

    “And this is the best way to do deflect asteroids. Well, no, not really. The really best way would be to chuck Rosie O’Donnell at it. But some people would regard that as inhumane (to the asteroid)”

    http://right-thinking.com/tag/asteroid-mitigation-strategies/

     

     

    And this is the best way to do deflect asteroids. Well, no, not really. The really best way would be to chuck Rosie O’Donnell at it. But some people would regard that as inhumane (to the asteroid)

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  27. richtaylor365

    So what are you looking to get out of me?

    To debate honestly, e.g. not distorting my words, not erecting straw men willy nilly, not confusing facts with opinion, and not turning off your critical thinking switch. In most other posts you handle all of these with ease.

     I think Megyn’s wording of the question and how it was presented was crap.

     

    Maybe, but here is the deal, I want the candidates (all of them) to be asked tough uncomfortable questions from time to time just to see how they handle themselves off the cuff . I am reminded of the questions Sarah Palin was asked about her hunting, yeah, some would say these were crap questions irrelevant to necessary high office qualifications. I wanted to see how she handled herself when ruffled, when asked something she had not prepared for. Palin handled herself well, keeping it on topic and professional, Trump, not so much, whining about the question and how unfairly he was being treated.

     That’s not something a person can respond to in one minute with a blindside attack.

    We both agreed that the narrative I provided in an earlier comment would have sufficed nicely so your complaint is unfounded.

     putting words in his mouth to make a narrative is not acceptable simply because Trump is Trump

     

    But that is not what happened.

     I also don’t think it’s a show stopper unless it continues

    Neither do I.

     she needs to be held accountable for her past actions under the rules of PC. 

     

    You have said this a few times now, but what the hell does that even mean? Held accountable how exactly, and by who’s standards?  You need to flesh this out because you are coming across as parroting those whiny progressives who just can’t live in the same world as those that don’t think like they do and want counter argument providers silenced and fired. When I hear ,”held accountable”, my natural reaction is to push back. If you don’t like what someone says, either refute the point or if it is a radio/TV personality, don’t listen. But for crying out loud, don’t go all crybaby and want them fired.

     it’s basically fighting progressive tactics with progressive tactics, and why not?

    Sorry, I can’t go there, it is called “the kid’s table” for a reason.

    and we’re in a frenzy about the future of the GOP over what the Donald said

    Most conservatives can walk and chew gum at the same time, we get what Hillary is and what she stands for, and we (OK, I will speak for myself) are not “in a frenzy” just a bit amazed at those that will not admit the obvious. His ,”and wherever” was a gaffe, no doubt about it, but a relative minor event.

    Here is Rich describing Rosie

    Yep, I said those things, no doubt about it, but that was not your home work assignment, was it? You said you would post evidence that I was sexist, not evidence that I dislike Rosie, so please stick with what you said you would provide.

    Thumb up 0