Donald Trump Is Right About Megyn Kelly

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/donald-trump-right-about-megyn-kelly-15692

Donald Trump Is Right About Megyn Kelly


Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has repeatedly said that Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly is overrated and treated him unfairly at the first GOP presidential debate last August. Yet with the exception of Trump’s most die-hard supporters, few on the right agree. This is a sign of Trump’s problems with women (73 percent of them currently have an unfavorable view of him), but it is also a symptom of the GOP’s wussiness to ask tough questions about a popular female anchor, as well as of its failure to challenge the insidiousness of the Left’s prevailing narrative about women.
At issue is conservatism’s decades-old battle against identity politics, in which hostility has been declared toward the grievance industry that gins up phony allegations of racial, ethnic or gender injustice.

On the Fox News Channel, Kelly has exhibited a penchant for kissing up to liberal women, fawning over their feminist agenda, berating conservative men and behaving unprofessionally toward guests. No prominent conservative has ever dared to question the perception that Kelly is an exemplary anchor, or to observe that she spends far too much time peddling a softer, kinder version of feminist dogma.

Trump is the only major national figure on the right who has challenged Kelly’s status as a demigod at Fox News. By declaring unabashedly that Kelly is not very good, Trump has—unwittingly—offered conservatives an opportunity to reflect on the grave disservice that a star on the only major conservative television network often does to conservatism.
As it turns out, Kelly’s not being nearly as good as everyone says is directly intertwined with her being not very conservative.
Long before Kelly paid any attention to Trump, she was busy badgering conservative men on Fox News. Most notable was an exchange with talk radio personality Mike Gallagher. On his show, he had referred to her maternity leave as a “racket,” griping that men do not get the same paid leave. His comments were in poor taste, but it was Kelly’s response that was far more shocking.
While berating Gallagher on her show, Kelly exclaimed, “The United States is the only country in the advanced world that doesn’t allow paid—doesn’t require paid maternity leave….If anything, the United States is in the dark ages when it comes to maternity leave!”
Well, that’s a great argument…if you believe in the virtue of state intervention in the economy. Conservatives do not, not because they do not value a mother bonding with her newborn, but because they prize private initiatives shaped by market forces, not big-government mandates on free enterprise. By a similar rationale, conservatives generally abhor raising the minimum wage, not because they are opposed to their fellow citizens earning more income, but because such government edicts are far more likely to hurt businesses and job growth.
For liberals, big government is their gospel, so they applauded Kelly’s performance. After all, a rising female star at the network founded to offer right-leaning folks fair and balanced news scolded a nationally syndicated, male, conservative radio host—using a liberal argument. Happily for them, Kelly’s exchange with Gallagher was not the only incident of its kind.


Facebook Chief Operating Officer and liberal author Sheryl Sandberg was so enamored that she cold-called Kelly to tell her, “I love you.” Kelly reciprocated by inviting Sandberg on Fox News for multiple feminist love fests. Each time, the two women engaged in lengthy grievance sessions about perceived injustices against women at home or in the workplace. Never mind that bossy women like Sandberg, who have no trouble telling other women what to do, have had nothing to say about why the Left regularly directs some of its most vitriolic and deranged attacks against pro-life, conservative women like former Alaska governor Sarah Palin.
Kelly does not limit her love for liberal women to Sandberg either. Florida congresswoman and Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz receives much adulation too. In one interview last April, Kelly went out of her way to butter up her liberal guest. “Thank you soooooo much for being here,” Kelly said, “It’s a pleasure to have you on The Kelly File.”
Compare that to the treatment Kelly accorded to Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) about a week before. During a moment of cross talk, Kelly yelled, “Let me make the comment! Excuse me, let me ask the question!”
It was an instance of great disrespect, but it is precisely the kind of behavior that wins Kelly fans on the Left. Feminists have long ago decreed that men and women are exactly the same, and in that paradigm, women haranguing men is a sign of strength and liberation. Kelly is their perfect poster child.
The question for conservatives is: how does that help your cause?
Unlike men who appear on Kelly’s show in the most solicitous fashion, Trump has refused to yield. He has said repeatedly and in different ways: “I have zero respect for Megyn Kelly. I don’t think she’s very good at what she does. I think she’s highly overrated.”
Many have been baffled by Trump’s persistent attacks on Kelly, but few conservatives have bothered to recognize the unfairness inherent in the question she posed to him at the first Republican presidential debate.

[Abbey Marie]

I lost all respect for Ms. Kelly at that first debate, and I wasn't a Trump supporter. Really can't even stand to watch her now. What the author seems to miss, though, is that Kelly is first and foremost, for Kelly. If she seemed to fawn over Wasserman-Schultz, it is because she was a good "get" for Fox. Not because Kelly's liberal, though she very well may be. She will do whatever she thinks will advance her career.

I also think that when she was given Hannity's prime time slot, it went to her head.

[Gunny]

Donald Trump Is Right About Megyn Kelly


Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has repeatedly said that Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly is overrated and treated him unfairly at the first GOP presidential debate last August. Yet with the exception of Trump’s most die-hard supporters, few on the right agree. This is a sign of Trump’s problems with women (73 percent of them currently have an unfavorable view of him), but it is also a symptom of the GOP’s wussiness to ask tough questions about a popular female anchor, as well as of its failure to challenge the insidiousness of the Left’s prevailing narrative about women.
At issue is conservatism’s decades-old battle against identity politics, in which hostility has been declared toward the grievance industry that gins up phony allegations of racial, ethnic or gender injustice.

On the Fox News Channel, Kelly has exhibited a penchant for kissing up to liberal women, fawning over their feminist agenda, berating conservative men and behaving unprofessionally toward guests. No prominent conservative has ever dared to question the perception that Kelly is an exemplary anchor, or to observe that she spends far too much time peddling a softer, kinder version of feminist dogma.

Trump is the only major national figure on the right who has challenged Kelly’s status as a demigod at Fox News. By declaring unabashedly that Kelly is not very good, Trump has—unwittingly—offered conservatives an opportunity to reflect on the grave disservice that a star on the only major conservative television network often does to conservatism.
As it turns out, Kelly’s not being nearly as good as everyone says is directly intertwined with her being not very conservative.
Long before Kelly paid any attention to Trump, she was busy badgering conservative men on Fox News. Most notable was an exchange with talk radio personality Mike Gallagher. On his show, he had referred to her maternity leave as a “racket,” griping that men do not get the same paid leave. His comments were in poor taste, but it was Kelly’s response that was far more shocking.
While berating Gallagher on her show, Kelly exclaimed, “The United States is the only country in the advanced world that doesn’t allow paid—doesn’t require paid maternity leave….If anything, the United States is in the dark ages when it comes to maternity leave!”
Well, that’s a great argument…if you believe in the virtue of state intervention in the economy. Conservatives do not, not because they do not value a mother bonding with her newborn, but because they prize private initiatives shaped by market forces, not big-government mandates on free enterprise. By a similar rationale, conservatives generally abhor raising the minimum wage, not because they are opposed to their fellow citizens earning more income, but because such government edicts are far more likely to hurt businesses and job growth.
For liberals, big government is their gospel, so they applauded Kelly’s performance. After all, a rising female star at the network founded to offer right-leaning folks fair and balanced news scolded a nationally syndicated, male, conservative radio host—using a liberal argument. Happily for them, Kelly’s exchange with Gallagher was not the only incident of its kind.


Facebook Chief Operating Officer and liberal author Sheryl Sandberg was so enamored that she cold-called Kelly to tell her, “I love you.” Kelly reciprocated by inviting Sandberg on Fox News for multiple feminist love fests. Each time, the two women engaged in lengthy grievance sessions about perceived injustices against women at home or in the workplace. Never mind that bossy women like Sandberg, who have no trouble telling other women what to do, have had nothing to say about why the Left regularly directs some of its most vitriolic and deranged attacks against pro-life, conservative women like former Alaska governor Sarah Palin.
Kelly does not limit her love for liberal women to Sandberg either. Florida congresswoman and Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz receives much adulation too. In one interview last April, Kelly went out of her way to butter up her liberal guest. “Thank you soooooo much for being here,” Kelly said, “It’s a pleasure to have you on The Kelly File.”
Compare that to the treatment Kelly accorded to Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) about a week before. During a moment of cross talk, Kelly yelled, “Let me make the comment! Excuse me, let me ask the question!”
It was an instance of great disrespect, but it is precisely the kind of behavior that wins Kelly fans on the Left. Feminists have long ago decreed that men and women are exactly the same, and in that paradigm, women haranguing men is a sign of strength and liberation. Kelly is their perfect poster child.
The question for conservatives is: how does that help your cause?
Unlike men who appear on Kelly’s show in the most solicitous fashion, Trump has refused to yield. He has said repeatedly and in different ways: “I have zero respect for Megyn Kelly. I don’t think she’s very good at what she does. I think she’s highly overrated.”
Many have been baffled by Trump’s persistent attacks on Kelly, but few conservatives have bothered to recognize the unfairness inherent in the question she posed to him at the first Republican presidential debate.

Am I supposed to read all that crap?

I don't like Megyn Kelly. I don't like Fox's news people anymore than CNN's. She's a shrew. They seem to like to line up lawyers as being journalists; albeit, journalists have sunk to a way new low since I took it in school. Megyn Kelly's a bitch. Hannity's a fan boy. Greta couldn't ask a question that matters if you paid her to. O'Reilly's so full of himself it's pathetic. No one ever gets to finish a sentence with any of them. It's like trying to talk to my brother.

Her questions to him were not unfair. If you're the big mouth out front and running, put on your big boy panties and buck up. The whining has just given the MSM something else to run with that doesn't really matter. I'd be more offended by Chris Matthews setup questions.

[indago]

I lost all respect for Ms. Kelly at that first debate, and I wasn't a Trump supporter. Really can't even stand to watch her now. What the author seems to miss, though, is that Kelly is first and foremost, for Kelly. If she seemed to fawn over Wasserman-Schultz, it is because she was a good "get" for Fox. Not because Kelly's liberal, though she very well may be. She will do whatever she thinks will advance her career.

I also think that when she was given Hannity's prime time slot, it went to her head.

Yes, I can agree with that! One thing in her favor though: she moves the program right along. I don't like her style, and there were some who subbed for her that really do have style, she moves things right along.

[Gunny]

Yes, I can agree with that! One thing in her favor though: she moves the program right along. I don't like her style, and there were some who subbed for her that really do have style, she moves things right along.

They ALL "move things right along". They let their guests finish half-sentences that they talk over then -- oops, we're out of time.

[fj1200]

He has said repeatedly and in different ways: “I have zero respect for Megyn Kelly. I don’t think she’s very good at what she does. I think she’s highly overrated.”


She will do whatever she thinks will advance her career.

If all that is true then it sounds like she's overrated and not very good which sounds kind of like the donald. :poke:


Yes, I can agree with that! One thing in her favor though: she moves the program right along. I don't like her style, and there were some who subbed for her that really do have style, she moves things right along.

She just might be good at her job then. Gets interviews and moves things along.

[Kathianne]

I thought she was good at the debate, she did pose 'gotcha' type questions to the leaders at the time, including Trump. Of course he was the only one to go 'off.'

I think she's one of the few on FOX that hasn't given him more 'free airtime' than any of the other candidates and that started before the first debate.

Since then of course he hasn't even wanted to 'phone in' any interviews with her, the program still garners high ratings. Many other programs have since stopped taking his 'phone ins' since she has been pointing out that they wouldn't do the same with other candidates.

I don't think she's far right or far left, don't really know what she is. I like that in those covering politics.

[fj1200]

I thought she was good at the debate, she did pose 'gotcha' type questions to the leaders at the time, including Trump. Of course he was the only one to go 'off.'

I think she's one of the few on FOX that hasn't given him more 'free airtime' than any of the other candidates and that started before the first debate.

Since then of course he hasn't even wanted to 'phone in' any interviews with her, the program still garners high ratings. Many other programs have since stopped taking his 'phone ins' since she has been pointing out that they wouldn't do the same with other candidates.

I don't think she's far right or far left, don't really know what she is. I like that in those covering politics.

Sounds like she might be good at her job.

[Abbey Marie]

Sounds like she might be good at her job.

If her job is self-promotion at others' expense, she's great at it. She can take over for Maury at any time.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I lost all respect for Ms. Kelly at that first debate, and I wasn't a Trump supporter. Really can't even stand to watch her now. What the author seems to miss, though, is that Kelly is first and foremost, for Kelly. If she seemed to fawn over Wasserman-Schultz, it is because she was a good "get" for Fox. Not because Kelly's liberal, though she very well may be. She will do whatever she thinks will advance her career.

I also think that when she was given Hannity's prime time slot, it went to her head.
SHE BEZ A CERTIFIED bIatcccccccccccccccccccch..

A self-serving shrew that I wouldn't piss on, if she was on fire.
Maggots like her are a huge part of whats wrong with this nation, educated(liberal education) to be a damn fool and a bitccch IMHO.. --Tyr

[jimnyc]

I wonder why she didn't ask gotcha questions of other candidates? And yep, they DO have things to ask about. Personal questions. I guess some are worthy of putting their hands in the fire and answering things, and others aren't. Of course some will claim that it's not the same, or that folks don't have gotcha things to ask about, but I suppose a lot depends on who you support and your vantage point.

[PixieStix]

I lost all respect for Ms. Kelly at that first debate, and I wasn't a Trump supporter. Really can't even stand to watch her now. What the author seems to miss, though, is that Kelly is first and foremost, for Kelly. If she seemed to fawn over Wasserman-Schultz, it is because she was a good "get" for Fox. Not because Kelly's liberal, though she very well may be. She will do whatever she thinks will advance her career.

I also think that when she was given Hannity's prime time slot, it went to her head.

I stopped watching her after she got the Hannity slot. She is a major bitch. I agree with you 100%. I am pretty sure a lot of people change the channel at 9PM

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I thought she was good at the debate, she did pose 'gotcha' type questions to the leaders at the time, including Trump. Of course he was the only one to go 'off.'

I think she's one of the few on FOX that hasn't given him more 'free airtime' than any of the other candidates and that started before the first debate.

Since then of course he hasn't even wanted to 'phone in' any interviews with her, the program still garners high ratings. Many other programs have since stopped taking his 'phone ins' since she has been pointing out that they wouldn't do the same with other candidates.

I don't think she's far right or far left, don't really know what she is. I like that in those covering politics.

Actually-no...
The only true "gotcha question" was the one that she shot at Trump.-Tyr

[Gunny]

I wonder why she didn't ask gotcha questions of other candidates? And yep, they DO have things to ask about. Personal questions. I guess some are worthy of putting their hands in the fire and answering things, and others aren't. Of course some will claim that it's not the same, or that folks don't have gotcha things to ask about, but I suppose a lot depends on who you support and your vantage point.

What's to wonder about? You got the big mouth, the attention and the lead ... who the Hell else is there to go after? Ben Carson who comes up with a completely logical but sublime statement? Rick Perry who turned our economy into one that supercedes the economy of this nation? Nah. They're boring. Let's get Mr "reality" show and his flapjack running. He gets ratings.

And just to be clear, I'm not hating the player. I'm hating the game and the way it's played.

[crin63]

I didn't much care for Megyn Kelly before the primaries started. Was her opening question to Trump fair? Maybe, maybe not but she cracked the armor to begin exposing his temperament. Was it right or wrong? It's politics and he was asking to be the leader of the free world so any question is frankly okay. No matter how gotcha it seemed at the time. Trump was actually tied for 2nd in my picks at that time.

Do I think Megyn Kelly is self-serving? Well of course she is, it's a competitive market. Stay on top, stay relevant or fade away.

Whether she was right or wrong I actually think we owe her a thank you for cracking the armor. She reminded us how easily he gets obsessed with individuals as a result. We found out that he has a twitter mouth that he just cannot control as a result. We found out that he can be the biggest whiny crybaby ever running for POTUS when things don't go his way as a result.

[Gunny]

I didn't much care for Megyn Kelly before the primaries started. Was her opening question to Trump fair? Maybe, maybe not but she cracked the armor to begin exposing his temperament. Was it right or wrong? It's politics and he was asking to be the leader of the free world so any question is frankly okay. No matter how gotcha it seemed at the time. Trump was actually tied for 2nd in my picks at that time.

Do I think Megyn Kelly is self-serving? Well of course she is, it's a competitive market. Stay on top, stay relevant or fade away.

Whether she was right or wrong I actually think we owe her a thank you for cracking the armor. She reminded us how easily he gets obsessed with individuals as a result. We found out that he has a twitter mouth that he just cannot control as a result. We found out that he can be the biggest whiny crybaby ever running for POTUS when things don't go his way as a result.

I couldn't have said that better if I tried. You definitely hit the nail on the head. :clap:

[Abbey Marie]

I didn't much care for Megyn Kelly before the primaries started. Was her opening question to Trump fair? Maybe, maybe not but she cracked the armor to begin exposing his temperament. Was it right or wrong? It's politics and he was asking to be the leader of the free world so any question is frankly okay. No matter how gotcha it seemed at the time. Trump was actually tied for 2nd in my picks at that time.

Do I think Megyn Kelly is self-serving? Well of course she is, it's a competitive market. Stay on top, stay relevant or fade away.

Whether she was right or wrong I actually think we owe her a thank you for cracking the armor. She reminded us how easily he gets obsessed with individuals as a result. We found out that he has a twitter mouth that he just cannot control as a result. We found out that he can be the biggest whiny crybaby ever running for POTUS when things don't go his way as a result.


For someone sick to death of liberal moderators setting up Republican candidates for many years, I had hoped we would at least get a fair shake from Fox. Ms. Kelly shot that all to hell from the first question. And all to promote herself. Dirty stuff, that. She can have at it in an interview, but she should have shown some decorum at a debate. As for cracking Trump's image, he clearly would have done that himself pretty quickly.

[Gunny]

For or someone sick to death of liberal moderators setting up Republican candidates for many years, I had hoped we would at least get a fair shake from Fox. Ms. Kelly shot that all to hell from the first question. And all to promote herself. Dirty stuff, that. She can have at it in an interview, but she should have shown some decorum at a debate. As for cracking Trump's image, he clearly would have done that himself pretty quickly.

Megyn Kelly is one issue. I can't stand her. But whining like a baby because you're "the man to beat" and someone comes after you is another. When I'm manning and leading the line, I EXPECT to get shot at first. Simple tactic. I'm the leader. You take the leader out. And there ain't no cryin' in baseball.

[jimnyc]

What's to wonder about? You got the big mouth, the attention and the lead ... who the Hell else is there to go after? Ben Carson who comes up with a completely logical but sublime statement? Rick Perry who turned our economy into one that supercedes the economy of this nation? Nah. They're boring. Let's get Mr "reality" show and his flapjack running. He gets ratings.

And just to be clear, I'm not hating the player. I'm hating the game and the way it's played.

How about asking Ted Cruz about the endless lies and flip flops attributed to him over the years?

Nah, those things wouldn't be important to voters. :rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

Whether she was right or wrong I actually think we owe her a thank you for cracking the armor.

In fairness, what about Cruz, and the lies that have covered his career? Wouldn't cracking that armor be semi-important as well?

[jimnyc]

Lies? Not important!! And I can post many of these, but my prediction is that some couldn't care less about his long history of lying and flip flops - only Trump's matter. :rolleyes:

-----

 Ted Cruz’s Biggest Liability Is Probably His Constant Lying

 Politicians lie. It’s almost non-controversial; elected officials are advocates who want to show themselves and their causes in the best possible light. Nobody tells the whole truth.

Senator Ted Cruz wants you to think he is different: the video he released Monday morning ahead of his presidential campaign announcement was titled “Time for truth.” Those were also the first words he spoke at Liberty University after making his official announcement.

If Cruz is different, however, it’s because of how boldly he claims things that aren’t even remotely true. His vacations from reality take on a gleeful exuberance, like a college freshman on his first trip to Daytona.

Cruz told a CPAC crowd, for example, that Democrats issued an ominous threat to the Catholic Church: “Change your religious beliefs or we’ll use our power in the federal government to shut down your charities and your hospitals.” Politifact naturally deemed this “both incorrect and ridiculous.”

A quick survey of some other Cruz gems:

Cruz said ISIS is “right now crucifying Christians in Iraq, literally nailing Christians to trees.” It wasn’t, and Cruz wasn’t able to offer any evidence.
Cruz described a “strong bipartisan majority” in the House that voted to repeal Obamacare. Two Democrats joined the Republicans.
He bluntly claimed that “the jurisdictions with the strictest gun control laws, almost without exception … have the highest crime rates and the highest murder rates.” This is not true.
In recent weeks, Cruz has been using some variation of this line: “There are 110,000 agents at the IRS. We need to put a padlock on that building and take every one of those 110,000 agents and put them on our southern border.” The IRS doesn’t have 110,000 employees, let alone agents. (There are 14,000).

This may read as an oppo-dump of misstatements from a guy who’s now running for president. But anyone who has followed Cruz’s career knows it’s the tip of the iceberg—he frequently just seems to be free-associating conservative grievances with “facts” pulled from nowhere.

In some ways this is a huge asset for Cruz: he is clearly trying to establish himself as not only the most right-wing presidential candidate, but the truth-teller who isn’t afraid to say what conservatives know to be right. (They got that e-mail forward about it, after all!)

Combined with his aggressive play for evangelical voters, in this way Cruz is not unlike the Michele Bachmann of years past—except with a much better political resume and a bigger bankroll.

http://www.thenation.com/article/ted-cruzs-trouble-truth-his-biggest-liability/

[Black Diamond]

Lies? Not important!! And I can post many of these, but my prediction is that some couldn't care less about his long history of lying and flip flops - only Trump's matter. :rolleyes:

-----

 Ted Cruz’s Biggest Liability Is Probably His Constant Lying

 Politicians lie. It’s almost non-controversial; elected officials are advocates who want to show themselves and their causes in the best possible light. Nobody tells the whole truth.

Senator Ted Cruz wants you to think he is different: the video he released Monday morning ahead of his presidential campaign announcement was titled “Time for truth.” Those were also the first words he spoke at Liberty University after making his official announcement.

If Cruz is different, however, it’s because of how boldly he claims things that aren’t even remotely true. His vacations from reality take on a gleeful exuberance, like a college freshman on his first trip to Daytona.

Cruz told a CPAC crowd, for example, that Democrats issued an ominous threat to the Catholic Church: “Change your religious beliefs or we’ll use our power in the federal government to shut down your charities and your hospitals.” Politifact naturally deemed this “both incorrect and ridiculous.”

A quick survey of some other Cruz gems:

Cruz said ISIS is “right now crucifying Christians in Iraq, literally nailing Christians to trees.” It wasn’t, and Cruz wasn’t able to offer any evidence.
Cruz described a “strong bipartisan majority” in the House that voted to repeal Obamacare. Two Democrats joined the Republicans.
He bluntly claimed that “the jurisdictions with the strictest gun control laws, almost without exception … have the highest crime rates and the highest murder rates.” This is not true.
In recent weeks, Cruz has been using some variation of this line: “There are 110,000 agents at the IRS. We need to put a padlock on that building and take every one of those 110,000 agents and put them on our southern border.” The IRS doesn’t have 110,000 employees, let alone agents. (There are 14,000).

This may read as an oppo-dump of misstatements from a guy who’s now running for president. But anyone who has followed Cruz’s career knows it’s the tip of the iceberg—he frequently just seems to be free-associating conservative grievances with “facts” pulled from nowhere.

In some ways this is a huge asset for Cruz: he is clearly trying to establish himself as not only the most right-wing presidential candidate, but the truth-teller who isn’t afraid to say what conservatives know to be right. (They got that e-mail forward about it, after all!)

Combined with his aggressive play for evangelical voters, in this way Cruz is not unlike the Michele Bachmann of years past—except with a much better political resume and a bigger bankroll.

http://www.thenation.com/article/ted-cruzs-trouble-truth-his-biggest-liability/
Lyin Ted is a slimeball. It's written all over his face and I can't stand to listen to him.

[jimnyc]

Lyin Ted is a slimeball. It's written all over his face and I can't stand to listen to him.

I wouldn't worry too much about that. He won't be in office next year either. He's already been eliminated, it's just that some of his followers and some elites just don't know it yet. They may try and push Trump out the door, but don't seem to comprehend that they are pushing Cruz out then as well, in addition to ANY candidate they push forward.

Perhaps some will go with the flow. But every Trump supporter I know, depending on how things play out, plan on staying home or following Trump if he goes independent. And even if he makes say like only 20 states as Tailfins states, or however many states - millions of folks staying home in that many states, or voting Trump, will assure a loss for the "chosen one".

[Black Diamond]

I wouldn't worry too much about that. He won't be in office next year either. He's already been eliminated, it's just that some of his followers and some elites just don't know it yet. They may try and push Trump out the door, but don't seem to comprehend that they are pushing Cruz out then as well, in addition to ANY candidate they push forward.

Perhaps some will go with the flow. But every Trump supporter I know, depending on how things play out, plan on staying home or following Trump if he goes independent. And even if he makes say like only 20 states as Tailfins states, or however many states - millions of folks staying home in that many states, or voting Trump, will assure a loss for the "chosen one".
What I fear even more, which newt says is impossible, is Romney or Ryan " stealing " the nomination...

[Abbey Marie]

I wouldn't worry too much about that. He won't be in office next year either. He's already been eliminated, it's just that some of his followers and some elites just don't know it yet. They may try and push Trump out the door, but don't seem to comprehend that they are pushing Cruz out then as well, in addition to ANY candidate they push forward.

Perhaps some will go with the flow. But every Trump supporter I know, depending on how things play out, plan on staying home or following Trump if he goes independent. And even if he makes say like only 20 states as Tailfins states, or however many states - millions of folks staying home in that many states, or voting Trump, will assure a loss for the "chosen one".

Makes me all the more sad about some of the quality candidates who were running that we could have had. And now faced with the likelihood of 8 more Dem years under Hillary, I will say this to the end: Rubio could have beaten Hillary.

[jimnyc]

What I fear even more, which newt says is impossible, is Romney or Ryan " stealing " the nomination...

It's quite possible. But then the majority of Trump supporters will rightfully follow him or stay home. They can steal, play the rules, eat one of their own, claim they vote and not us - or however one wants to call it. Bottom line though - they cannot control who we vote for in November and can't force us to even vote. Their nomination shenanigans will directly lead to placing Hillary in office. And if they continue with the games and eating one of their own, then they deserve it, and then I hope the republican party completely implodes to start again another day.

[jimnyc]

Makes me all the more sad about some of the quality candidates who were running that we could have had. And now faced with the likelihood of 8 more Dem years under Hillary, I will say this to the end: Rubio could have beaten Hillary.

It's possible, and they say that Kasich can beat her as well. I don't think we would ever know 100% for sure though unless there were head/head matchups.

It was the people voting in the primaries that mostly dictated who dropped and who didn't. But apparently what the people have been voting for thus far means very, very little anyway.

[Abbey Marie]

It's possible, and they say that Kasich can beat her as well. I don't think we would ever know 100% for sure though unless there were head/head matchups.

It was the people voting in the primaries that mostly dictated who dropped and who didn't. But apparently what the people have been voting for thus far means very, very little anyway.


I didn't like Kasich from the beginning. Now he has gotten on my very last nerve.

[Black Diamond]

Trump or Cruz could still win the whole thing. Dukakis led by 18 points in August. Carter led Reagan by 25 in March.

[Black Diamond]

I didn't like Kasich from the beginning. Now he has gotten on my very last nerve.

He wants to steal it in Cleveland. He's on par with Romney in that regard.

[Abbey Marie]

Trump or Cruz could still win the whole thing. Dukakis led by 18 points in August. Carter led Reagan by 25 in March.

Maybe if sHrillary is indicted.

[Black Diamond]

Maybe if sHrillary is indicted.

There are many things that can happen. I am wondering if I should stoop to Hillary's June 2008 level.

[jimnyc]

He wants to steal it in Cleveland. He's on par with Romney in that regard.

Not stealing. Not eating one of their own. Not ignoring the people. None of that. All within the "rules" some say.

I would LOVE to have seen this with any of the other candidates. And how those folks feel then.

But we will ALL be feeling the effects of all of this come November. :(

[jimnyc]

Maybe if sHrillary is indicted.

The elites and such STILL want to deny and push someone away, and work with another candidate to ensure such a person doesn't get a fair shot. And if that's the case, even Hillary getting indicted won't likely matter. If done before the convention, they stick in Sanders, and the millions of lost votes give it to him as well. I truly believe the GOP loses millions and millions of votes should they play things fast and loose.

[Black Diamond]

Not stealing. Not eating one of their own. Not ignoring the people. None of that. All within the "rules" some say.

I would LOVE to have seen this with any of the other candidates. And how those folks feel then.

But we will ALL be feeling the effects of all of this come November. :(
I call it "legally stealing"

[jimnyc]

I call it "legally stealing"

Perhaps more fair.

And I could get on board if it were just another candidate working on his own, winning the delegates on the ground and that's about it. But we all know the RNC is involved. Other party elites are involved. Other candidates are/were involved. Whether legal or not, they screwed him. As a result, they screwed me.

[Black Diamond]

Perhaps more fair.

And I could get on board if it were just another candidate working on his own, winning the delegates on the ground and that's about it. But we all know the RNC is involved. Other party elites are involved. Other candidates are/were involved. Whether legal or not, they screwed him. As a result, they screwed me.
You've got to wonder. Does Cruz really believe the RNC will let HIM be nominated?

[Black Diamond]

Maybe if sHrillary is indicted.

Indicted or not, she is an ugly person. Look who has beaten her 7/8 times. She exudes ugliness.

[Gunny]

How about asking Ted Cruz about the endless lies and flip flops attributed to him over the years?

Nah, those things wouldn't be important to voters. :rolleyes:

What is it with you thinking I'm some Cruz fanboy? Not even close. You keep coming back at me with this Cruz shit when I already know he isn't going to win either. Yes, I would prefer him to Trump. I'd prefer my dumbass little brother kingshit wannabe to Trump. I quit paying attention when the people I considered actually qualified to be President dropped out in favor of the fanboy, rockstar no-nothing candidates.

I've written this off as a loss because it's a loss. I'm logical and pragmatic. The writing on the wall is pretty clear minus a miracle.

[jimnyc]

You've got to wonder. Does Cruz really believe the RNC will let HIM be nominated?

Perhaps they will let him? Who knows. But would be funny, watching folks like Tailfins, who are gleeful about the "rules" so that the RNC and Cruz can get the nod at the convention - only to find out he was SOL too! :laugh:

[jimnyc]

What is it with you thinking I'm some Cruz fanboy? Not even close. You keep coming back at me with this Cruz shit when I already know he isn't going to win either. Yes, I would prefer him to Trump. I'd prefer my dumbass little brother kingshit wannabe to Trump. I quit paying attention when the people I considered actually qualified to be President dropped out in favor of the fanboy, rockstar no-nothing candidates.

I've written this off as a loss because it's a loss. I'm logical and pragmatic. The writing on the wall is pretty clear minus a miracle.

And if the party, stuck together as a party, and worked with the person that the folks are voting for - I'll guarantee you that there would have been a MUCH better chance of getting the White House. I don't like a lot of the candidates, but I didn't threaten the party or vote as a result. Folks don't like Trump, then started with the vote stuff, and many to block him and go to the convention and work against him - and this result is MUCH worse than it needed to be. ANY of the gop candidates had a valid chance this year, IMO.

[Gunny]

And if the party, stuck together as a party, and worked with the person that the folks are voting for - I'll guarantee you that there would have been a MUCH better chance of getting the White House. I don't like a lot of the candidates, but I didn't threaten the party or vote as a result. Folks don't like Trump, then started with the vote stuff, and many to block him and go to the convention and work against him - and this result is MUCH worse than it needed to be. ANY of the gop candidates had a valid chance this year, IMO.

I don't disagree with that. In fact, I've said the same thing for years. You keep losing your focus with me. I don't like Trump. I'm not going to and you can't sell him to me. I WILL hold my nose and vote for whoever the GOP candidate is even if it's him. I am focused on the big picture of getting the Dems out and what's at stake if they win.

SO whoever you're mad at, get mad at THEM. I'm not a no show come election day. I WILL call it like I see it though.

[Black Diamond]

I don't disagree with that. In fact, I've said the same thing for years. You keep losing your focus with me. I don't like Trump. I'm not going to and you can't sell him to me. I WILL hold my nose and vote for whoever the GOP candidate is even if it's him. I am focused on the big picture of getting the Dems out and what's at stake if they win.

SO whoever you're mad at, get mad at THEM. I'm not a no show come election day. I WILL call it like I see it though.
I know you're boarding the Trump train in November. But Cruz is a slimeball POS. And somehow people think he is innocent because he's a "Christian". Maybe I have been screwed over one too many times by slimeball pseudo Christians. But I know one when I see one.

[aboutime]

Combine Lying with being a politician, and look at the results. The Supreme Court has ruled that politicians, and common people are permitted to LIE...per the 1st amendment.

As I have been saying since long before I came to DP. ALL POLITICIANS ARE LIARS.

Why is anybody surprised? Politicians only say what their followers want to hear.

WE THE PEOPLE ELECT THEM INTO OFFICE EVERY 2, 4, 6, AND 8 YEARS.

So..The only people to blame for the LIARS is.....'WE THE PEOPLE!"

Bottom line....No matter who anybody likes, hates, votes, or doesn't vote for.


A LIAR WILL BE ELECTED. And the last Liar in the White House will spend the rest of his life A LIAR.

[Black Diamond]

Combine Lying with being a politician, and look at the results. The Supreme Court has ruled that politicians, and common people are permitted to LIE...per the 1st amendment.

As I have been saying since long before I came to DP. ALL POLITICIANS ARE LIARS.

Why is anybody surprised? Politicians only say what their followers want to hear.

WE THE PEOPLE ELECT THEM INTO OFFICE EVERY 2, 4, 6, AND 8 YEARS.

So..The only people to blame for the LIARS is.....'WE THE PEOPLE!"

Bottom line....No matter who anybody likes, hates, votes, or doesn't vote for.


A LIAR WILL BE ELECTED. And the last Liar in the White House will spend the rest of his life A LIAR.

Liars always are. Carson was the only honest man running.

[Gunny]

I know you're boarding the Trump train in November. But Cruz is a slimeball POS. And somehow people think he is innocent because he's a "Christian". Maybe I have been screwed over one too many times by slimeball pseudo Christians. But I know one when I see one.

I really don't know a lot about Cruz. I was a Rick Perry and Carson fan with Fiorina coming in 3rd. I don't like Rubio. He's a wuss. To clarify, I want to get the Dems out. Period. I'll vote for Mickey fucking Mouse to make that happen.

[jimnyc]

Liars always are. Carson was the only honest man running.

I can go along with that. He may not have had everything that some folks are looking for, but what he did have was the honesty and decency, which of course made him solo in that department.

[Black Diamond]

I can go along with that. He may not have had everything that some folks are looking for, but what he did have was the honesty and decency, which of course made him solo in that department.

He wasnt my first choice tbh. This sounds bad but....There are other qualities...

[Gunny]

He wasnt my first choice tbh. This sounds bad but....There are other qualities...

Like being able to lead ants to a picnic.

[Black Diamond]

Like being able to lead ants to a picnic.

Heck my dad voted for Carson even though he has already suspended his campaign.

[Kathianne]

About those questions at first debate:

http://time.com/3988288/republican-debate-megyn-kelly/

We all know about Trump, it keeps reappearing in the news, but to recap some of the others:



...

That wasn’t Kelly’s only tough question of the debate.

She pressed Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker on his strict abortion stance: “Would you really let a mother die, rather than having an abortion?”


She questioned Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who justified expanding Medicaid in Ohio by arguing that he would be able to talk to St. Peter at the pearly gates about it. “Why should Republican voters, who generally want to shrink government, believe you won’t use your Saint Peter analogy to expand all government?” she asked. She also asked him, “If you had a son or daughter who was gay or lesbian, how would you explain to them your opposition to same sex marriage?”


And she asked former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush about saying that his brother’s decision to go into Iraq was a mistake: “To the families of those who died in that war… How do you look at them now and say your brother’s war was a mistake?”

[Black Diamond]

About those questions at first debate:

http://time.com/3988288/republican-debate-megyn-kelly/

We all know about Trump, it keeps reappearing in the news, but to recap some of the others:

Controversy sells.

~Donald J Trump.

[Kathianne]

Controversy sells.

~Donald J Trump.

Like I said earlier, he was the only one to 'go off' about the questions. Now people can hate Megyn all they want for the question or other things, but she didn't just focus on Trump nor did she keep going back to that question. He created the 'controversy' and has continued to do so.

It wasn't the question or answer that is likely part of his 'female results' now, but his own twitters and such.

[Black Diamond]

Like I said earlier, he was the only one to 'go off' about the questions. Now people can hate Megyn all they want for the question or other things, but she didn't just focus on Trump nor did she keep going back to that question. He created the 'controversy' and has continued to do so.

It wasn't the question or answer that is likely part of his 'female results' now, but his own twitters and such.
I am still waiting for him to go on her show.

[Gunny]

Like I said earlier, he was the only one to 'go off' about the questions. Now people can hate Megyn all they want for the question or other things, but she didn't just focus on Trump nor did she keep going back to that question. He created the 'controversy' and has continued to do so.

It wasn't the question or answer that is likely part of his 'female results' now, but his own twitters and such.

I don't think she focused solely on Trump. I just don't like her because she's her. Arrogant, bitchy and won't let anyone she doesn't like finish a sentence. I say the same about most of the Fox News people. Fox & Friends requires taking out brain cells to watch. Crap. Jimmy Dean was more interesting back in the 60s.

[Kathianne]

I am still waiting for him to go on her show.

I don't think he will, it would be demeaning.

[Black Diamond]

I don't think he will, it would be demeaning.

Ratings....

[Black Diamond]

Ratings....

I don't think he will either truth be told. I think he would have done so by now.

[crin63]

For someone sick to death of liberal moderators setting up Republican candidates for many years, I had hoped we would at least get a fair shake from Fox. Ms. Kelly shot that all to hell from the first question. And all to promote herself. Dirty stuff, that. She can have at it in an interview, but she should have shown some decorum at a debate. As for cracking Trump's image, he clearly would have done that himself pretty quickly.

Personally, I wanted the hardest questions possible thrown at these guys. Even the gotcha questions because that's what they're going to face in the general election. Sure, I would prefer they were policy questions but that's not what will happen in the general. So let's weed out the weak kneed. Although that probably helped Trump in the long run since he could not have answered policy questions at that time.

[Gunny]

I don't think he will either truth be told. I think he would have done so by now.

He's not going on her show. I just don't see that happening. Megyn Kelly likes to find the scab and pick at it. She'd be worse than Chris Matthews because she can actually think.

[crin63]

Lies? Not important!! And I can post many of these, but my prediction is that some couldn't care less about his long history of lying and flip flops - only Trump's matter. :rolleyes:

I'm not actually familiar with any of those so I can't speak to them.

I will say that it seems odd if they are factual that Mark Levin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh would all give Cruz such high marks for honesty and integrity without having called him out publicly. It also seems odd that Texan's would have voted for him like they did in the primary.

[Kathianne]

I'm not actually familiar with any of those so I can't speak to them.

I will say that it seems odd if they are factual that Mark Levin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh would all give Cruz such high marks for honesty and integrity without having called him out publicly. It also seems odd that Texan's would have voted for him like they did in the primary.

I'd say that happens when one believes that Cruz 'started with Trump's wife.' He didn't. Even Hannity and Trump have ceded this unforced error on Trump's part. Now he's saying, 'Although there's no proof, I think Cruz is acting with PAC's.' That doesn't wash.

There are though 35-40% of those that claim to be Republican that are going to go down that road-no matter what. That is fine, but unless something drastic changes, the numbers needed have to cross 50% and that's not counting that there are more Democrats.

[Gunny]

I'm not actually familiar with any of those so I can't speak to them.

I will say that it seems odd if they are factual that Mark Levin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh would all give Cruz such high marks for honesty and integrity without having called him out publicly. It also seems odd that Texan's would have voted for him like they did in the primary.

Try being a Texan and explaining that one.

[Gunny]

I'd say that happens when one believes that Cruz 'started with Trump's wife.' He didn't. Even Hannity and Trump have ceded this unforced error on Trump's part. Now he's saying, 'Although there's no proof, I think Cruz is acting with PAC's.' That doesn't wash.

There are though 35-40% of those that claim to be Republican that are going to go down that road-no matter what. That is fine, but unless something drastic changes, the numbers needed have to cross 50% and that's not counting that there are more Democrats.

Reagan was losing at this point. Too bad we don't have a Ronald Reagan. He unified the people and the party and presented one front. Ain't happening now. Trump has divided the party. You can add Cruz into that divisiveness. I'm STILL voting against the Hitlery machine. Those of you that think your principles are more important than the big picture need to get with the program.

[crin63]

Try being a Texan and explaining that one.

I'm the lien holder on a property in Texas. Does that get me an honorary Texan status or anything? :laugh:

[jimnyc]

I'm not actually familiar with any of those so I can't speak to them.

I will say that it seems odd if they are factual that Mark Levin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh would all give Cruz such high marks for honesty and integrity without having called him out publicly. It also seems odd that Texan's would have voted for him like they did in the primary.


I'd say that happens when one believes that Cruz 'started with Trump's wife.' He didn't. Even Hannity and Trump have ceded this unforced error on Trump's part. Now he's saying, 'Although there's no proof, I think Cruz is acting with PAC's.' That doesn't wash.

There are though 35-40% of those that claim to be Republican that are going to go down that road-no matter what. That is fine, but unless something drastic changes, the numbers needed have to cross 50% and that's not counting that there are more Democrats.

Um, no. It was about the same things I have posted many times, that YOU Kath haven't responded to. And now you'll pick out one thing I spoke on? And I DO believe he started with the wife crap. You can speak definitively if you like though. Saying it doesn't wash doesn't make it or you more correct.

-----

As for the lies I speak of, I even posted a few articles today if anyone searches by my name. One can also simply go to Google and search "List Ted Cruz lies" and then weed out the bad sites. It's not like I made it up, his reputation as a liar is well known.

[jimnyc]

Lies? Not important!! And I can post many of these, but my prediction is that some couldn't care less about his long history of lying and flip flops - only Trump's matter. :rolleyes:

-----

 Ted Cruz’s Biggest Liability Is Probably His Constant Lying

 Politicians lie. It’s almost non-controversial; elected officials are advocates who want to show themselves and their causes in the best possible light. Nobody tells the whole truth.

Senator Ted Cruz wants you to think he is different: the video he released Monday morning ahead of his presidential campaign announcement was titled “Time for truth.” Those were also the first words he spoke at Liberty University after making his official announcement.

If Cruz is different, however, it’s because of how boldly he claims things that aren’t even remotely true. His vacations from reality take on a gleeful exuberance, like a college freshman on his first trip to Daytona.

Cruz told a CPAC crowd, for example, that Democrats issued an ominous threat to the Catholic Church: “Change your religious beliefs or we’ll use our power in the federal government to shut down your charities and your hospitals.” Politifact naturally deemed this “both incorrect and ridiculous.”

A quick survey of some other Cruz gems:

Cruz said ISIS is “right now crucifying Christians in Iraq, literally nailing Christians to trees.” It wasn’t, and Cruz wasn’t able to offer any evidence.
Cruz described a “strong bipartisan majority” in the House that voted to repeal Obamacare. Two Democrats joined the Republicans.
He bluntly claimed that “the jurisdictions with the strictest gun control laws, almost without exception … have the highest crime rates and the highest murder rates.” This is not true.
In recent weeks, Cruz has been using some variation of this line: “There are 110,000 agents at the IRS. We need to put a padlock on that building and take every one of those 110,000 agents and put them on our southern border.” The IRS doesn’t have 110,000 employees, let alone agents. (There are 14,000).

This may read as an oppo-dump of misstatements from a guy who’s now running for president. But anyone who has followed Cruz’s career knows it’s the tip of the iceberg—he frequently just seems to be free-associating conservative grievances with “facts” pulled from nowhere.

In some ways this is a huge asset for Cruz: he is clearly trying to establish himself as not only the most right-wing presidential candidate, but the truth-teller who isn’t afraid to say what conservatives know to be right. (They got that e-mail forward about it, after all!)

Combined with his aggressive play for evangelical voters, in this way Cruz is not unlike the Michele Bachmann of years past—except with a much better political resume and a bigger bankroll.

http://www.thenation.com/article/ted-cruzs-trouble-truth-his-biggest-liability/

Interesting that things like this go ignored. And now let's wait on how long before the lies are diminished, or somehow not important suddenly. And this is just one tiny article, there are plenty more.

[Black Diamond]

Interesting that things like this go ignored. And now let's wait on how long before the lies are diminished, or somehow not important suddenly. And this is just one tiny article, there are plenty more.

You're just a trumpet.

[Black Diamond]

Interesting that things like this go ignored. And now let's wait on how long before the lies are diminished, or somehow not important suddenly. And this is just one tiny article, there are plenty more.

All minor details. Just get on board the anyone but Trump train. Willard will meet you at the end of the tracks.

[fj1200]

If her job is self-promotion at others' expense, she's great at it. She can take over for Maury at any time.

Everybody self promotes. Someone else's expense is an opinion. But the funny part is a "politician" being the one complaining about another's self promotion.

[Black Diamond]

Everybody self promotes. Someone else's expense is an opinion. But the funny part is a "politician" being the one complaining about another's self promotion.

Jerry springer was mayor of Cincinnati ....

[crin63]

Interesting that things like this go ignored. And now let's wait on how long before the lies are diminished, or somehow not important suddenly. And this is just one tiny article, there are plenty more.

I will try and look into them over the next week. I pulled up the link you referenced.

[Gunny]

Interesting that things like this go ignored. And now let's wait on how long before the lies are diminished, or somehow not important suddenly. And this is just one tiny article, there are plenty more.

I expect better of you than spreading rumors.

[PixieStix]

I didn't like Kasich from the beginning. Now he has gotten on my very last nerve.

I think he has lost his cotton pickin mind

[jimnyc]

I expect better of you than spreading rumors.

Those in that article aren't rumors. Nor are the others in the other articles I have posted, and others that I have read about. Pick out the things they say he lied about in that article. You saying they are the truth?

[PixieStix]

The article is absolute truth. Those of us who pay attention and are actually wanting facts, (not soundbites Propagated by the media). Do know that Cruz is a snake, and yes a liar.

[Gunny]

Those in that article aren't rumors. Nor are the others in the other articles I have posted, and others that I have read about. Pick out the things they say he lied about in that article. You saying they are the truth?


The article is absolute truth. Those of us who pay attention and are actually wanting facts, (not soundbites Propagated by the media). Do know that Cruz is a snake, and yes a liar.

Of course it is. Depending on whose side you're on. :rolleyes:

Those of us that pay attention to your supporting a guaranteed loser are paying just as much attention as you think you are.

[jimnyc]

Of course it is. Depending on whose side you're on. :rolleyes:

Those of us that pay attention to your supporting a guaranteed loser are paying just as much attention as you think you are.

Ok, here's your chance to prove me wrong in front of everyone. So let's see then, tell me which of these is "rumor" or which is true??

---

Cruz said ISIS is “right now crucifying Christians in Iraq, literally nailing Christians to trees.” It wasn’t, and Cruz wasn’t able to offer any evidence.

Cruz described a “strong bipartisan majority” in the House that voted to repeal Obamacare. Two Democrats joined the Republicans.

He bluntly claimed that “the jurisdictions with the strictest gun control laws, almost without exception … have the highest crime rates and the highest murder rates.” This is not true.

In recent weeks, Cruz has been using some variation of this line: “There are 110,000 agents at the IRS. We need to put a padlock on that building and take every one of those 110,000 agents and put them on our southern border.” The IRS doesn’t have 110,000 employees, let alone agents. (There are 14,000).

[PixieStix]

Of course it is. Depending on whose side you're on. :rolleyes:

Those of us that pay attention to your supporting a guaranteed loser are paying just as much attention as you think you are.

I'm on America's side. You forget that I am very smart :coffee: I am American first. And Trump loves this country enough to sacrifice his life as it was. I respect the hell out of that

[jimnyc]

I'm on America's side. You forget that I am very smart :coffee: I am American first. And Trump loves this country enough to sacrifice his life as it was. I respect the hell out of that

Worth billions. He can live anywhere and do anything he pleases. He can continue to be a businessman or he can sit on a hundred beaches. But he hands over the reigns to his kids and drops everything else, gives up the easy life, in order to run for office. I too respect that. If I had his money and his life, I don't think I would run.

[Gunny]

I'm on America's side. You forget that I am very smart :coffee: I am American first. And Trump loves this country enough to sacrifice his life as it was. I respect the hell out of that

No, I understand you are intelligent at certain things. None of which translates to smart. I think I got more time in service than you and I put this Nation and the Constitution first. Trump is no part of that. And what did he ever sacrifice? His bank account? BFD. I've done that more than twice AND lived in the sand. He lives in NYC in a penthouse.

So wrong answer. He hasn't done anything but learn how to spend money.

[PixieStix]

No, I understand you are intelligent at certain things. None of which translates to smart. I think I got more time in service than you and I put this Nation and the Constitution first. Trump is no part of that. And what did he ever sacrifice? His bank account? BFD. I've done that more than twice AND lived in the sand. He lives in NYC in a penthouse.

So wrong answer. He hasn't done anything but learn how to spend money.

I appreciate your service as well as all those who have served and will serve. You know that.

He made money and created jobs. He is a kind man and he loves this wonderful country that you and others served. I believe that if you actually talked with Trump or at the very least listen to what he has to say. I have no doubt you would support him and stop being so hateful toward him. He says many of the things that you always have.

I just don't understand your total unwillingness to give him a listen, you apparently base your ideas of him from media propaganda.

[Gunny]

I appreciate your service as well as all those who have served and will serve. You know that.

He made money and created jobs. He is a kind man and he loves this wonderful country that you and others served. I believe that if you actually talked with Trump or at the very least listen to what he has to say. I have no doubt you would support him and stop being so hateful toward him. He says many of the things that you always have.

I just don't understand your total unwillingness to give him a listen, you apparently base your ideas of him from media propaganda.

He needs to stick to his day job. Developer doesn't translate to President.

ANd don't assume what I think. I base my ideas from watching HIM, not the media. You know me better than that. He's as obvious as the moon. All he cares about is winning and it doesn't matter a whole lot to him what he's winning as long as it's bigger than what he did before.

And I DO listen. I' listened to idiots who thought they were great leaders for 21 years. I know who I will and won't follow.

[indago]

Lyin Ted is a slimeball. It's written all over his face and I can't stand to listen to him.

Or even look at him...

[indago]

No, I understand you are intelligent at certain things. None of which translates to smart. I think I got more time in service than you and I put this Nation and the Constitution first. Trump is no part of that. And what did he ever sacrifice? His bank account? BFD. I've done that more than twice AND lived in the sand. He lives in NYC in a penthouse.

So wrong answer. He hasn't done anything but learn how to spend money.

There's a lot of folks who lived better than you, and you don't hate all of them...

[Gunny]

There's a lot of folks who lived better than you, and you don't hate all of them...

I actually hate no one. Got that out of my system quite a few years ago. I don't hate Trump. I don't live in a black and white only world. I DO however know who I will and won't follow into combat. He ain't it. I understand why some people like him, but I'm looking beyond that. I don't care about winning a battle if I can't win the war. AS Johnson was one of the best Southern Generals in the CSA except he got caught up doing what Trump is ... fighting a battle instead of winning a war. Johnson got killed at Shiloh. The South had that battle won up to that point.

[namvet]

and now she considers taking a hike

Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly told Variety magazine that she hasn’t decided whether she will stay with the network after her contract expires. In the interview, published Tuesday, “The Kelly File” host spoke openly about her struggles with Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump.

“I don’t know what’s going to happen,” Kelly, who has been with Fox for 12 years, told Variety.

story (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/04/05/megyn-kelly-considers-leaving-fox-once-contract-expires-i-have-to-keep-my-options-open/)

[Black Diamond]

and now she considers taking a hike

Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly told Variety magazine that she hasn’t decided whether she will stay with the network after her contract expires. In the interview, published Tuesday, “The Kelly File” host spoke openly about her struggles with Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump.

“I don’t know what’s going to happen,” Kelly, who has been with Fox for 12 years, told Variety.

story (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/04/05/megyn-kelly-considers-leaving-fox-once-contract-expires-i-have-to-keep-my-options-open/)
Replace Joy Behar on the view?

[Gunny]

Replace Joy Behar on the view?

Replace "the View" with reruns of the Mary Tyler Moore show. Or Love Boat. Or Petticoat Junction. Or anything else that takes at least 1 brain cell to watch.