This Trump-Megyn Kelly thang

[Abbey Marie]

I contend that some of us appear to be split on Megyn Kelly's performance, based on our liking or lack thereof for The Donald. I know that many of you will disagree with me, and will say that your feelings about her or him have absolutely nothing to do with the other.

But I see it this way: Those who like Trump, are very critical of her, due to her perceived unfair treatment of Trump. Those who do not like him, think she did a good and fair job. Not just with him, but overall.

I think they should each be evaluated separately, not in relation to the other at all.

At the risk of ticking off everyone, here's my summary of the issue:
1. Trump has said some things that do not sit well with me or many women
2. Trump has some serious inconsistencies in his policies
3. Megyn Kelly appeared rather unprofessional, especially with Trump, but not just with him
4. Therefore, I am not sold on either of them
5. Next debate I'd like to see less "gotcha', less of a circus atmosphere, and more elucidation of plans to fix this country

Let's stop evaluating these two based on our feelings about the other, and look at them for who they are and how they behaved.

Ok, let's hear how wrong I am! :cool:

[Drummond]

I contend that some of us appear to be split on Megyn Kelly's performance, based on our liking or lack thereof for The Donald. I know that many of you will disagree with me, and will say that your feelings about her or him have absolutely nothing to do with the other.

But I see it this way: Those who like Trump, are very critical of her, due to her perceived unfair treatment of Trump. Those who do not like him, think she did a good and fair job. Not just with him, but overall.

I think they should each be evaluated separately, not in relation to the other at all.

At the risk of ticking off everyone, here's my summary of the issue:
1. Trump has said some things that do not sit well with me or many women
2. Trump has some serious inconsistencies in his policies
3. Megyn Kelly appeared rather unprofessional, especially with Trump, but not just with him
4. Therefore, I am not sold on either of them
5. Next debate I'd like to see less "gotcha', less of a circus atmosphere, and more elucidation of plans to fix this country

Let's stop evaluating these two based on our feelings about the other, and look at them for who they are and how they behaved.

Ok, let's hear how wrong I am! :cool:

Kelly acted as an attack-dog. And her top target was Trump.

She could have asked him a question to do with policy. Something relevant to a future President ?? Instead, she launched an attack on him, a highly unprofessional one, designed to demean his standing with many of those who'd otherwise consider voting for him, one that was personalised.

Your point #5 is very much to the point of what should have happened, and what would've constituted a 'fair and balanced' debate. Megyn Kelly had no interest in any of that, however.

Needless to say, the Left media are having fun .. including, of course, the BBC, who have so far failed to air ANY of the debate themselves (.. we just have to take their word as to what's true, and 'matters'). They'll play an Obama interview four times in a single day. Or a Michelle Obama speech, and schedule it for airing no less than six times in a single week. NOTHING from the debate we're discussing, however, since concentrating on the Kelly issue and only relaying what they want people to concentrate on, is all that matters, to them and the agenda they prefer.

LATE EDIT: I thought I'd check the BBC's iPlayer ... an online video clip-player that plays selected programmes so that British viewers can catch up on shows they've missed (UK residents can use it, but non-UK residents can't). Sure enough ... NOTHING on the debate. However, 'strangely', the Michelle Obama speech is there, just waiting for playback .....

[Jeff]

Here is another side of the poor picked on Megyn, seems she had no problem talking about her breast her husbands penis and even having sex with her husband during her pregnancy. She appeared on Howard Sterns in 2010, My guess is she really needed some ratings back then and needed to get her name known. Now 5 years later what Trump said to her is wrong, first off as I had seen Jim post the saying Trump used is a fairly normal thing, but should it really of bothered this woman after she told the world how she had sex in her 3rd trimester of pregnancy, or discussed what her breast where called, yes they where killer B's until she got pregnant than they where swimming C's :boobies: don't get me wrong I don't believe she did anything wrong, other than maybe whore herself out to get fame ( some say what she did the other night was nothing more than looking for her own show )

Know I admit I listened to Howard back in the day because he cracked me up and because of the antics he played with pretty woman such as Megyn, but I don't believe we should be now looking at this as the poor virgin was attacked by the big bad wolf, she attacked and he answered, and he did so in his style, like it or not that is his way, but after reading about her past people need to forget the poor woman thing.


Megyn Kelly may have suggested that she was turned off by Donald Trump’s sexist remarks, but that didn’t stop her from rollicking with Howard Stern, discussing her breasts and her husband's penis size and engaging in some graphic sex talk.

Stern has been accused of being tough on women, such as in 2013 when he called "Girls" actress Lena Dunham "a little fat girl who kinda looks like Jonah Hill, and she keeps taking her clothes off, and it kind of feels like rape." He also is known for having women remove all their clothing during his radio broadcasts while he ogles and describes them.


http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/megyn-kelly-howard-stern-sex-talk-donald-trump/2015/08/09/id/669255/?ns_mail_uid=65343364&ns_mail_job=1631180_08102015&s=al&dkt_nbr=wctdpxr5

[gabosaurus]

Should we discuss The Donald's habit of accumulating and discarding trophy wives?

[Noir]

Kelly acted as an attack-dog. And her top target was Trump.

She could have asked him a question to do with policy. Something relevant to a future President ?? Instead, she launched an attack on him, a highly unprofessional one, designed to demean his standing with many of those who'd otherwise consider voting for him, one that was personalised.

I think whether or not someone is a misogynist is relevant to them being a president. If you don't think so, that's your call.



Needless to say, the Left media are having fun .. including, of course, the BBC, who have so far failed to air ANY of the debate themselves (.. we just have to take their word as to what's true, and 'matters'). They'll play an Obama interview four times in a single day. Or a Michelle Obama speech, and schedule it for airing no less than six times in a single week. NOTHING from the debate we're discussing, however, since concentrating on the Kelly issue and only relaying what they want people to concentrate on, is all that matters, to them and the agenda they prefer.

LATE EDIT: I thought I'd check the BBC's iPlayer ... an online video clip-player that plays selected programmes so that British viewers can catch up on shows they've missed (UK residents can use it, but non-UK residents can't). Sure enough ... NOTHING on the debate. However, 'strangely', the Michelle Obama speech is there, just waiting for playback .....

Is the debate available on ITV or Sky players for watching?

[DLT]

I contend that some of us appear to be split on Megyn Kelly's performance, based on our liking or lack thereof for The Donald. I know that many of you will disagree with me, and will say that your feelings about her or him have absolutely nothing to do with the other.

But I see it this way: Those who like Trump, are very critical of her, due to her perceived unfair treatment of Trump. Those who do not like him, think she did a good and fair job. Not just with him, but overall.

I think they should each be evaluated separately, not in relation to the other at all.

At the risk of ticking off everyone, here's my summary of the issue:
1. Trump has said some things that do not sit well with me or many women
2. Trump has some serious inconsistencies in his policies
3. Megyn Kelly appeared rather unprofessional, especially with Trump, but not just with him
4. Therefore, I am not sold on either of them
5. Next debate I'd like to see less "gotcha', less of a circus atmosphere, and more elucidation of plans to fix this country

Let's stop evaluating these two based on our feelings about the other, and look at them for who they are and how they behaved.

Ok, let's hear how wrong I am! :cool:

I don't like Trump, but now I don't like Kelly either. She was out of line with that political correctness, leftie-hag-like question. She asked the question to bait Trump into acting like an ass. It worked. Trump was then out of line with his "blood" comment.

Bottom line....Fox News is apparently in the bag for that @sswipe Jeb Bush. Fox News is dead to me, if that proves to be true.

[Kathianne]

I contend that some of us appear to be split on Megyn Kelly's performance, based on our liking or lack thereof for The Donald. I know that many of you will disagree with me, and will say that your feelings about her or him have absolutely nothing to do with the other.

But I see it this way: Those who like Trump, are very critical of her, due to her perceived unfair treatment of Trump. Those who do not like him, think she did a good and fair job. Not just with him, but overall.

I think they should each be evaluated separately, not in relation to the other at all.

At the risk of ticking off everyone, here's my summary of the issue:
1. Trump has said some things that do not sit well with me or many women
2. Trump has some serious inconsistencies in his policies
3. Megyn Kelly appeared rather unprofessional, especially with Trump, but not just with him
4. Therefore, I am not sold on either of them
5. Next debate I'd like to see less "gotcha', less of a circus atmosphere, and more elucidation of plans to fix this country

Let's stop evaluating these two based on our feelings about the other, and look at them for who they are and how they behaved.

Ok, let's hear how wrong I am! :cool:

Well said. I was far too into this to relate to others calmly. You nailed it!

[jimnyc]

In addition to those who voice support for trump, and those who voice their displeasure... there's not a lot of talk about the other candidates. Par for the course, primaries and elections turn into events to see who can do more damage to the other guy - as opposed to what the candidates can do for us and our country.

[Kathianne]

In addition to those who voice support for trump, and those who voice their displeasure... there's not a lot of talk about the other candidates. Par for the course, primaries and elections turn into events to see who can do more damage to the other guy - as opposed to what the candidates can do for us and our country.
Oh, I think you'll find Sassy, I, Perianne have all posted about others. No one cares to respond but us to each other. No, it's not all been on Fiorina either.

[jimnyc]

Oh, I think you'll find Sassy, I, Perianne have all posted about others. No one cares to respond but us to each other. No, it's not all been on Fiorina either.

I have seen posts about other candidates, and have real almost all of them. Those posts are being buried beneath the Trump stories though.

[Abbey Marie]

In addition to those who voice support for trump, and those who voice their displeasure... there's not a lot of talk about the other candidates. Par for the course, primaries and elections turn into events to see who can do more damage to the other guy - as opposed to what the candidates can do for us and our country.


The media may not be talking as much, but Ms. Fiorina and Dr. Carson have both received upticks, and increased donations, since the debates.

Much to my joy! :joy4:

[Kathianne]

I have seen posts about other candidates, and have real almost all of them. Those posts are being buried beneath the Trump stories though.

Well that might be by plan?

[Gunny]

I contend that some of us appear to be split on Megyn Kelly's performance, based on our liking or lack thereof for The Donald. I know that many of you will disagree with me, and will say that your feelings about her or him have absolutely nothing to do with the other.

But I see it this way: Those who like Trump, are very critical of her, due to her perceived unfair treatment of Trump. Those who do not like him, think she did a good and fair job. Not just with him, but overall.

I think they should each be evaluated separately, not in relation to the other at all.

At the risk of ticking off everyone, here's my summary of the issue:
1. Trump has said some things that do not sit well with me or many women
2. Trump has some serious inconsistencies in his policies
3. Megyn Kelly appeared rather unprofessional, especially with Trump, but not just with him
4. Therefore, I am not sold on either of them
5. Next debate I'd like to see less "gotcha', less of a circus atmosphere, and more elucidation of plans to fix this country

Let's stop evaluating these two based on our feelings about the other, and look at them for who they are and how they behaved.

Ok, let's hear how wrong I am! :cool:

Evaluating them separately is easy. She went after his balls and he responded like Trump responds. I think neither was right.

In the big scheme of things, his exposed weakness far outwieghs hers. She's not trying to be President of the US.

[Abbey Marie]

Evaluating them separately is easy. She went after his balls and he responded like Trump responds. I think neither was right.

In the big scheme of things, his exposed weakness far outwieghs hers. She's not trying to be President of the US.


http://basketball91.com/files/2010/12/Slam-Dunk.jpg

[Perianne]

In addition to those who voice support for trump, and those who voice their displeasure... there's not a lot of talk about the other candidates. Par for the course, primaries and elections turn into events to see who can do more damage to the other guy - as opposed to what the candidates can do for us and our country.

I am working now on a post about particular stances by the candidates on one issue. I should be finished by Wednesday.

[SassyLady]

Here's how I feel about the Megan Kelly - Donald Trump "thang".

She asked a pointed question that was not about anything other than his character. To be fair, every candidate should have been asked a question to reflect their character.

Trump was flustered and upset. So, he takes to social media and participates in MK bashing, FoxNews bashing, etc. .... for days.

Kelly responds with a short intro to her show that shows that with respect to this situation she has more class than Trump.


“I’ve decided not to respond [to those comments],” Kelly said on the show. “Mr. Trump is an interesting man who has captured the attention of the electorate. That’s why he’s leading in the polls. Trump, who is the front-runner, will not apologize, and I certainly will not apologize for doing good journalism. So I’ll continue doing my job without fear or favor. And Mr. Trump, I expect, will continue with what has been a successful campaign thus far.”
Added Kelly, “This is a tough business, and it’s time now to move forward. And now, let’s get back to the news.”
Kelly has been praised by conservatives and liberals alike for the way she handled the controversy. And clinical psychologist John Mayer (http://drjohnmayer.com/), PhD, who counsels on bullying, tells Yahoo Health that she responded perfectly.

“Research and experience in this field overwhelming maintains that you do not engage the bullying because fundamentally the bully is looking for that reinforcement for their tactics,” he says.
According to Mayer, bullies are often created because people and society “feed into” or reinforce their behavior by responding to their tactics.
Kelly’s response was “perfect,” he says, because she ignored his attacks and essentially took the rug right out of him: “It’s a great model for others.”



https://www.yahoo.com/health/why-megyn-kellys-non-response-to-donald-trump-was-126432089557.html

[Kathianne]

Here's how I feel about the Megan Kelly - Donald Trump "thang".

She asked a pointed question that was not about anything other than his character. To be fair, every candidate should have been asked a question to reflect their character.

Trump was flustered and upset. So, he takes to social media and participates in MK bashing, FoxNews bashing, etc. .... for days.

Kelly responds with a short intro to her show that shows that with respect to this situation she has more class than Trump.



https://www.yahoo.com/health/why-megyn-kellys-non-response-to-donald-trump-was-126432089557.html

It was fair, pure and simple. If the others had those types of remarks or anything similar, I think they would have been brought up. As it was, all the candidates, even Carson, were faced with misspeaks or possible flip flops and asked to address them.

[Drummond]

Here's how I feel about the Megan Kelly - Donald Trump "thang".

She asked a pointed question that was not about anything other than his character. To be fair, every candidate should have been asked a question to reflect their character.

Trump was flustered and upset. So, he takes to social media and participates in MK bashing, FoxNews bashing, etc. .... for days.

Kelly responds with a short intro to her show that shows that with respect to this situation she has more class than Trump.



https://www.yahoo.com/health/why-megyn-kellys-non-response-to-donald-trump-was-126432089557.html

Kelly was there to get views from each candidate relevant to the purpose each had in being there, relevant to the contest each was a participant in. But where Trump was concerned, she lost no time in launching a personal attack on him. That is not evidence from her of a 'class act'.

What it WAS, in effect, was an attempt at a knockout blow against probably the single most serious threat the Dem side has ranged against it. Liberals have been trying to capitalise ever since.

[Kathianne]

Kelly was there to get views from each candidate relevant to the purpose each had in being there, relevant to the contest each was a participant in. But where Trump was concerned, she lost no time in launching a personal attack on him. That is not evidence from her of a 'class act'.

What it WAS, in effect, was an attempt at a knockout blow against probably the single most serious threat the Dem side has ranged against it. Liberals have been trying to capitalise ever since.

She was fair, not nice but fair. Trump is a thin skinned whining man/child. He can't handle any criticism. All the candidates had uncomfortable questions-only Trump couldn't handle it.

[Russ]

I contend that some of us appear to be split on Megyn Kelly's performance, based on our liking or lack thereof for The Donald. I know that many of you will disagree with me, and will say that your feelings about her or him have absolutely nothing to do with the other.

But I see it this way: Those who like Trump, are very critical of her, due to her perceived unfair treatment of Trump. Those who do not like him, think she did a good and fair job. Not just with him, but overall.

I think they should each be evaluated separately, not in relation to the other at all.

At the risk of ticking off everyone, here's my summary of the issue:
1. Trump has said some things that do not sit well with me or many women
2. Trump has some serious inconsistencies in his policies
3. Megyn Kelly appeared rather unprofessional, especially with Trump, but not just with him
4. Therefore, I am not sold on either of them
5. Next debate I'd like to see less "gotcha', less of a circus atmosphere, and more elucidation of plans to fix this country

Let's stop evaluating these two based on our feelings about the other, and look at them for who they are and how they behaved.

Ok, let's hear how wrong I am! :cool:



Nicely summed up. And here's a link that might be a good summary of that Kelly/Trump exchange...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eesNA_W44SU

[Drummond]

She was fair, not nice but fair. Trump is a thin skinned whining man/child. He can't handle any criticism. All the candidates had uncomfortable questions-only Trump couldn't handle it.

No, she wasn't nice. There's nothing 'nice' at all about any attempt, much less one launched in as public a way as possible, at character-assassination.

Since when was it her job to attack candidates in such a highly personal way ?

Kathianne, perhaps her 'fairness' can be tested, right here. Can you list for me questions which each of the candidates were asked, which were comparably personalised, and comparably derogatory ?

[Kathianne]

No, she wasn't nice. There's nothing 'nice' at all about any attempt, much less one launched in as public a way as possible, at character-assassination.

Since when was it her job to attack candidates in such a highly personal way ?

Kathianne, perhaps her 'fairness' can be tested, right here. Can you list for me questions which each of the candidates were asked, which were comparably personalised, and comparably derogatory ?

Not going to bother. I sent the transcript link, someone else the video. I'm not going down your twisted row.

[Drummond]

Not going to bother. I sent the transcript link, someone else the video. I'm not going down your twisted row.

No list, then. I'm not surprised.

Claims are made that Megyn Kelly was 'fair' with Trump. That she was 'professional'. Well ... did she, or did she NOT, treat each candidate with equal fairness ? There's nothing 'twisted' about wanting proof that she did. Either, each candidate received questions equally as personally attacking, each with comparably derogatory content, and with intent to offer an equal amount of that per candidate .. OR, she SINGLED TRUMP OUT FOR JUST SUCH AN ATTACK.

If she did single him out, then she was being neither 'fair' nor 'balanced', nor had any interest in being such. But, she did it anyway.

So tell me. Why shouldn't Trump react, and strongly, against such an unfair singling out, something designed as a publicly-damaging knockout blow ? Weren't those candidates, ALL of them, entitled to fair and equal treatment ??

[Kathianne]

No list, then. I'm not surprised.

Claims are made that Megyn Kelly was 'fair' with Trump. That she was 'professional'. Well ... did she, or did she NOT, treat each candidate with equal fairness ? There's nothing 'twisted' about wanting proof that she did. Either, each candidate received questions equally as personally attacking, each with comparably derogatory content, and with intent to offer an equal amount of that per candidate .. OR, she SINGLED TRUMP OUT FOR JUST SUCH AN ATTACK.

If she did single him out, then she was being neither 'fair' nor 'balanced', nor had any interest in being such. But, she did it anyway.

So tell me. Why shouldn't Trump react, and strongly, against such an unfair singling out, something designed as a publicly-damaging knockout blow ? Weren't those candidates, ALL of them, entitled to fair and equal treatment ??

Kelly was fair, not nice, but fair. They gave uncomfortable questions to all the candidate. Only Trump couldn't handle and had a hissy fit. Tough guy he's not.

[Drummond]

Kelly was fair, not nice, but fair. They gave uncomfortable questions to all the candidate. Only Trump couldn't handle and had a hissy fit. Tough guy he's not.

Comparably uncomfortable ? Comparably personalised ? Can you list for me proof of this ?

I contend that Trump was singled out for a level of attack not equal to other challenges the other candidates faced. I contend that Trump, reacting to that, did so - understandably, considering the lack of professional even-handedness he had a right to expect from her.

[Kathianne]

Comparably uncomfortable ? Comparably personalised ? Can you list for me proof of this ?

I contend that Trump was singled out for a level of attack not equal to other challenges the other candidates faced. I contend that Trump, reacting to that, did so - understandably, considering the lack of professional even-handedness he had a right to expect from her.
Your contentions aren't facts. The moderators were all professional, Trump and his fans didn't like the list of things he's said. He shouldn't have said them and certainly shouldn't have doubled down.

But a whining misogynist is A-ok in some people's list of qualifications.

[SassyLady]

No, she wasn't nice. There's nothing 'nice' at all about any attempt, much less one launched in as public a way as possible, at character-assassination.

Since when was it her job to attack candidates in such a highly personal way ?

Kathianne, perhaps her 'fairness' can be tested, right here. Can you list for me questions which each of the candidates were asked, which were comparably personalised, and comparably derogatory ?

Quick search on internet about which questions to ask:


The thrust of these sessions was about how best to probe the candidates’ weaknesses, get them off their talking points and close off rhetorical escape routes.



Here are some questions to other candidates that were hard hitting:


.......question for Jeb Bush, tying it to Hillary Clinton’s recent charge that he is part of the war on women..... ask the former Florida governor about supporting a defunding of Planned Parenthood and his recent foot-in-mouth comment that $500 million might be too much to spend on women’s health.

...... question about opposition to abortion for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who did not support making an exception if the mother’s life was at stake. Did that stance render him out of the mainstream?

.......question about Marco Rubio’s tax plan and whether it amounted to “trickle-down economics.”

......question for Ben Carson centered on his past misstatements, such as not knowing that the Baltic states were part of NATO. Was the surgeon too inexperienced to be president?''

Ohio Gov. John Kasich about expanding Medicaid in his state by saying St. Peter at the pearly gates would ask what he did for the poor: “Why should people think you won’t use the St. Peter rationale to expand every government program?”

....asked Jeb Bush the question that tripped him up on the Iraq war, now planned to ask him about the families of those killed in action: “How do you now look at them and say your brother’s war was a mistake?”



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/06/behind-fox-debate-how-anchors-prepped-questions/

[SassyLady]

No list, then. I'm not surprised.

Claims are made that Megyn Kelly was 'fair' with Trump. That she was 'professional'. Well ... did she, or did she NOT, treat each candidate with equal fairness ? There's nothing 'twisted' about wanting proof that she did. Either, each candidate received questions equally as personally attacking, each with comparably derogatory content, and with intent to offer an equal amount of that per candidate .. OR, she SINGLED TRUMP OUT FOR JUST SUCH AN ATTACK.

If she did single him out, then she was being neither 'fair' nor 'balanced', nor had any interest in being such. But, she did it anyway.

So tell me. Why shouldn't Trump react, and strongly, against such an unfair singling out, something designed as a publicly-damaging knockout blow ? Weren't those candidates, ALL of them, entitled to fair and equal treatment ??

Drummond, go here to see how FoxNews came up with the questions and who would ask them. Or, you could just follow the link provided by Kathianne and watch the debate ... or read the transcript. All of the questions were designed to keep the candidates off kilter and off their talking points. Instead, have all of them give off-the-cuff answers.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/06/behind-fox-debate-how-anchors-prepped-questions/

[Drummond]

Your contentions aren't facts. The moderators were all professional, Trump and his fans didn't like the list of things he's said. He shouldn't have said them and certainly shouldn't have doubled down.

But a whining misogynist is A-ok in some people's list of qualifications.

While you were drafting that reply, I took a quick look at the transcript. Only Trump took questioning from Kelly aimed purely at him, personally. All other questioning had to do either with issues tied to their political stances, or in one case, association of a surname with other successful politicians bearing that name (Jeb Bush, of course). Only Trump was asked a personal question, so far as I can see, NOT tied in to any consideration of political policy ... it was just a personal attack.

Now, since you haven't offered the list I'd hoped for, can you concede that my description of the nature of questioning per candidate is accurate ? If not, please prove me wrong.

[SassyLady]

While you were drafting that reply, I took a quick look at the transcript. Only Trump took questioning from Kelly aimed purely at him, personally. All other questioning had to do either with issues tied to their political stances, or in one case, association of a surname with other successful politicians bearing that name (Jeb Bush, of course). Only Trump was asked a personal question, so far as I can see, NOT tied in to any consideration of political policy ... it was just a personal attack.

Now, since you haven't offered the list I'd hoped for, can you concede that my description of the nature of questioning per candidate is accurate ? If not, please prove me wrong.

See my previous post regarding some tough questions to the other candidates.

[Kathianne]

While you were drafting that reply, I took a quick look at the transcript. Only Trump took questioning from Kelly aimed purely at him, personally. All other questioning had to do either with issues tied to their political stances, or in one case, association of a surname with other successful politicians bearing that name (Jeb Bush, of course). Only Trump was asked a personal question, so far as I can see, NOT tied in to any consideration of political policy ... it was just a personal attack.

Now, since you haven't offered the list I'd hoped for, can you concede that my description of the nature of questioning per candidate is accurate ? If not, please prove me wrong.

Take your straw man. I owe you nothing. I do not have to 'prove' you anything, you do it yourself.

Your analysis of the debate is just that, yours.

[Drummond]

Drummond, go here to see how FoxNews came up with the questions and who would ask them. Or, you could just follow the link provided by Kathianne and watch the debate ... or read the transcript. All of the questions were designed to keep the candidates off kilter and off their talking points. Instead, have all of them give off-the-cuff answers.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/06/behind-fox-debate-how-anchors-prepped-questions/

Thanks for that, Sassy.

So, to quote from your link (the emphasised font is my own doing) ... I see ....


It was clear to everyone in a windowless conference room in the basement of Cleveland’s Quicken Loans Arena that this would be the most incendiary question of the debate.

Megyn Kelly, flanked by Bret Baier on her right and Chris Wallace on her left, read to the assembled group of executives and producers the wording she had crafted.


Kelly said she would ask Donald Trump: "You’ve called women you don't like 'fat pigs', 'dogs', 'slobs'" and "disgusting animals", including on Twitter. Did he have the temperament to be president?


There was some discussion of whether another woman, Hillary Clinton, should be added to the question. Kelly wanted to keep the Twitter reference so people could go online and see for themselves what Trump had written over the years and that it wasn’t just about Rosie O’Donnell. She felt there was a good chance she would be booed by the audience—and that The Donald would hit back hard.


“If Trump comes after me, don’t jump in and save me,” Kelly told her co-moderators.

Speaks for itself, surely. THE MOST INCENDIARY QUESTION OF THE DEBATE.

Exactly.

You see, NO even-handedness was planned. No being 'fair and balanced', at all. Trump WAS singled out for especially strong attack. What's more .. Kelly EXPECTED a negative reaction, EXPECTED to be booed for it. She KNEW her questioning was very likely to be considered unacceptable !!

BUT SHE WENT AHEAD WITH IT ANYWAY.

It was the performance of an attack-dog brand of attempted public humiliation, one straying well beyond her remit. But, EVEN expecting the question to be taken badly, she STILL went ahead.

And you wonder why Trump would 'mind' getting such treatment, and reflect that in his response ??

[Drummond]

Take your straw man. I owe you nothing. I do not have to 'prove' you anything, you do it yourself.

Your analysis of the debate is just that, yours.

It's not so much of a 'strawman' that you can usefully counter it, Kathianne. Fact is, I'm right. I've asked you to show otherwise. You've not done so.

[SassyLady]

Drummond ... if you want to be pissed then be pissed at Baier or FoxNews in general for asking the first question. It was definitely designed to get Trump unbalanced from the opening bell.

Don't you think this made from a dramatic intro to the first GOP debate of the 2016 cycle? Talk about laying it out about where one stands.


The team spent considerable time on the wording of what would be the night’s first question: Would everyone on stage agree to endorse the winner of the Republican primaries? The discussion turned to whether that seemed like a Trump question.
“It is a Trump question,” Washington Managing Editor Bill Sammon said.
Baier would ask for a show of hands. What if Trump was the only one not to take the pledge? Then, the group decided, the “Special Report” anchor would ask a followup about how Trump could seek the GOP nod without ruling out a third-party bid. (Trump took the bait, raised his hand, and the debate made news in its opening moments.)

[Kathianne]

Thanks for that, Sassy.

So, to quote from your link (the emphasised font is my own doing) ... I see ....



Speaks for itself, surely. THE MOST INCENDIARY QUESTION OF THE DEBATE.

Exactly.

You see, NO even-handedness was planned. No being 'fair and balanced', at all. Trump WAS singled out for especially strong attack. What's more .. Kelly EXPECTED a negative reaction, EXPECTED to be booed for it. She KNEW her questioning was very likely to be considered unacceptable !!

BUT SHE WENT AHEAD WITH IT ANYWAY.

It was the performance of an attack-dog brand of attempted public humiliation, one straying well beyond her remit. But, EVEN expecting the question to be taken badly, she STILL went ahead.

And you wonder why Trump would 'mind' getting such treatment, and reflect that in his response ??

You fail to admit his 'record.' He does have one on issues-which most here would disagree with. He has said all she listed and more. He has those quotes going back a long time. Yes, some people wanted to know things like that.

No questions on his marriages or about 'no rape in marriage.' None. This was about women he dealt with professionally or only in passing. Any woman or man for that matter, that doesn't kowtow to him is to be destroyed. For women it's misogynist statements; for men it's 'stupid' and other childish things. He's a man/child.

[Drummond]

Quick search on internet about which questions to ask:



Here are some questions to other candidates that were hard hitting:



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/06/behind-fox-debate-how-anchors-prepped-questions/

Sassy, hard-hitting those questions might have been. But, look through them. Is there one there, AT ALL, that couldn't be linked in some way to a political position ?

Was the same true of the personal attack that Trump took ? Can you show me the 'political stance' link present in Kelly's attack-question asked of Trump ?

No matter how tough the questioning, if political relevance can be found in the question asked, it's reasonable to see it as legitimate questioning. Trump did NOT receive that from Megyn Kelly. She strayed beyond her remit to conduct herself UNPROFESSIONALLY.

[SassyLady]

Thanks for that, Sassy.

So, to quote from your link (the emphasised font is my own doing) ... I see ....



Speaks for itself, surely. THE MOST INCENDIARY QUESTION OF THE DEBATE.

Exactly.

You see, NO even-handedness was planned. No being 'fair and balanced', at all. Trump WAS singled out for especially strong attack. What's more .. Kelly EXPECTED a negative reaction, EXPECTED to be booed for it. She KNEW her questioning was very likely to be considered unacceptable !!

BUT SHE WENT AHEAD WITH IT ANYWAY.

It was the performance of an attack-dog brand of attekillmpted public humiliation, one straying well beyond her remit. But, EVEN expecting the question to be taken badly, she STILL went ahead.

And you wonder why Trump would 'mind' getting such treatment, and reflect that in his response ??

I can understand you are pissed ... but put the blame where it should be. Everyone involved agreed to use the question ... so, be pissed at FoxNews and everyone else that was part of it. Ms. Kelly was just the one who asked the question. Any one of the moderators was willing to ask.

Sometimes people misdirect their anger ... akin to killing the messenger. What concerns me more is that there was even a basis for asking the question (per his Twitter account). If he was a man of character he would never had said the things he said and the question would have never come up.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Comparably uncomfortable ? Comparably personalised ? Can you list for me proof of this ?

I contend that Trump was singled out for a level of attack not equal to other challenges the other candidates faced. I contend that Trump, reacting to that, did so - understandably, considering the lack of professional even-handedness he had a right to expect from her.



My friend, none of that matters. Trust me on this, the Trump haters reject every single word you type.
I have not seen this type of hatred manifested to this degree by people I once thought would never stoop that low.
Save yourself some grief and drop it. Just pray Trump wins.
Giving them a target the vent their anger on does nobody any good.
I post this openly now instead of pm directed solely to you , because perhaps some will re-examine how they have reacted and how much hate they now express.
I owe nobody a thing not Trump or any other candidate but I'll not kill myself trying to destroy the top guy simply to advance who I like.
I'll vote for whoever gets the Republican nod even if its somebody I detest but I'll not act a damn dem and try to destroy any candidate that may end up being the eventual nominee.
If people really respected my sincerity in supporting Trump , they wouldn't have started with the clever personal insults as I had issued not a damn one! And still have not...
Trust me I know how to hate too. However, I still will not let it make me disrespect other here.
Especially members I admire otherwise.
Drummond the hate is just too deep, leave it alone.
ALL you are doing now is feeding it IMHO.

I will not abandon a single friend I have here over this-- if they choose to abandon me--its on them.--TYR

[Kathianne]

I can understand you are pissed ... but put the blame where it should be. Everyone involved agreed to use the question ... so, be pissed at FoxNews and everyone else that was part of it. Ms. Kelly was just the one who asked the question. Any one of the moderators was willing to ask.

Sometimes people misdirect their anger ... akin to killing the messenger. What concerns me more is that there was even a basis for asking the question (per his Twitter account). If he was a man of character he would never had said the things he said and the question would have never come up.

Indeed.

[SassyLady]

Sassy, hard-hitting those questions might have been. But, look through them. Is there one there, AT ALL, that couldn't be linked in some way to a political position ?

Was the same true of the personal attack that Trump took ? Can you show me the 'political stance' link present in Kelly's attack-question asked of Trump ?

No matter how tough the questioning, if political relevance can be found in the question asked, it's reasonable to see it as legitimate questioning. Trump did NOT receive that from Megyn Kelly. She strayed beyond her remit to conduct herself UNPROFESSIONALLY.

The stance of "presidential character"?

[Drummond]

You fail to admit his 'record.' He does have one on issues-which most here would disagree with. He has said all she listed and more. He has those quotes going back a long time. Yes, some people wanted to know things like that.

No questions on his marriages or about 'no rape in marriage.' None. This was about women he dealt with professionally or only in passing. Any woman or man for that matter, that doesn't kowtow to him is to be destroyed. For women it's misogynist statements; for men it's 'stupid' and other childish things. He's a man/child.

Were those candidates there to be asked questions about their political positions, to be tested on those, specifically ? Yes, or no ?

Do such question and answer sessions stick to an agreed format, aren't parameters in place as to what the objective of all the questioning is ?

Are the candidates knowingly complicit, when they agree to take part in such a debate, to attacks designed to disgrace them ? OR, do they think they're there to answer questions about their political positionings, and political differences ?

No matter what you think of Trump, no matter what Kelly thinks of him, she was there to discharge a professional duty. This she failed to do.

And it sets a disturbing precedent ? Why should politicians want to agree to forums which, contrary to any agreement beforehand on format, have questioners who think themselves free to depart from that format ?

You think Trump isn't an honourable man ? What about what he was subjected to ? Last time I checked, two wrongs did NOT make a right.

[Kathianne]

Were those candidates there to be asked questions about their political positions, to be tested on those, specifically ? Yes, or no ?

Do such question and answer sessions stick to an agreed format, aren't parameters in place as to what the objective of all the questioning is ?

Are the candidates knowingly complicit, when they agree to take part in such a debate, to attacks designed to disgrace them ? OR, do they think they're there to answer questions about their political positionings, and political differences ?

No matter what you think of Trump, no matter what Kelly thinks of him, she was there to discharge a professional duty. This she failed to do.

And it sets a disturbing precedent ? Why should politicians want to agree to forums which, contrary to any agreement beforehand on format, have questioners who think themselves free to depart from that format ?

You think Trump isn't an honourable man ? What about what he was subjected to ? Last time I checked, two wrongs did NOT make a right.

The questions were fair and all had to face their soft areas. That character is Trumps is on him, not the moderators.

[Drummond]

The stance of "presidential character"?

Since when was that a stance ? It's a subjective assessment.

What makes it a relevant consideration is how that 'character' interacts with Presidential duties, that's to say, its objective outcome ... which can't be known BEFORE the fact of it. Do you have any proof that Trump's character would stop him doing his job ?

[Drummond]

The questions were fair and all had to face their soft areas. That character is Trumps is on him, not the moderators.

For the reason I've given already, Trump's questioning was not fair .. and even Megyn Kelly was expecting it to be viewed unfavourably !

Otherwise, if there's not going to be any consistency in the questioning, if questioners choose for themselves the level of abuse they want to commit their questions to, why not, instead, just put all the candidates in stocks, and throw rotten eggs at them all ?

Or in this case, just at Trump ...

[Kathianne]

For the reason I've given already, Trump's questioning was not fair .. and even Megyn Kelly was expecting it to be viewed unfavourably !

Otherwise, if there's not going to be any consistency in the questioning, if questioners choose for themselves the level of abuse they want to commit their questions to, why not, instead, just put all the candidates in stocks, and throw rotten eggs at them all ?

Or in this case, just at Trump ...
Once again, your opinion is just that, yours. We do not have to agree and by not doing so, doesn't make you right.

[Drummond]

My friend, none of that matters. Trust me on this, the Trump haters reject every single word you type.
I have not seen this type of hatred manifested to this degree by people I once thought would never stoop that low.
Save yourself some grief and drop it. Just pray Trump wins.
Giving them a target the vent their anger on does nobody any good.
I post this openly now instead of pm directed solely to you , because perhaps some will re-examine how they have reacted and how much hate they now express.
I owe nobody a thing not Trump or any other candidate but I'll not kill myself trying to destroy the top guy simply to advance who I like.
I'll vote for whoever gets the Republican nod even if its somebody I detest but I'll not act a damn dem and try to destroy any candidate that may end up being the eventual nominee.
If people really respected my sincerity in supporting Trump , they wouldn't have started with the clever personal insults as I had issued not a damn one! And still have not...
Trust me I know how to hate too. However, I still will not let it make me disrespect other here.
Especially members I admire otherwise.
Drummond the hate is just too deep, leave it alone.
ALL you are doing now is feeding it IMHO.

I will not abandon a single friend I have here over this-- if they choose to abandon me--its on them.--TYR

Sorry, Tyr, only just now seen. I was warming to my subject !

My friend, these are wise words, and thank you for them. I'll be guided by them as of this moment, and maybe I won't be the only one (?). Besides ... my point is already amply made - I need not add further to it.

[Kathianne]

My friend, none of that matters. Trust me on this, the Trump haters reject every single word you type.
I have not seen this type of hatred manifested to this degree by people I once thought would never stoop that low.
Save yourself some grief and drop it. Just pray Trump wins.
Giving them a target the vent their anger on does nobody any good.
I post this openly now instead of pm directed solely to you , because perhaps some will re-examine how they have reacted and how much hate they now express.
I owe nobody a thing not Trump or any other candidate but I'll not kill myself trying to destroy the top guy simply to advance who I like.
I'll vote for whoever gets the Republican nod even if its somebody I detest but I'll not act a damn dem and try to destroy any candidate that may end up being the eventual nominee.
If people really respected my sincerity in supporting Trump , they wouldn't have started with the clever personal insults as I had issued not a damn one! And still have not...
Trust me I know how to hate too. However, I still will not let it make me disrespect other here.
Especially members I admire otherwise.
Drummond the hate is just too deep, leave it alone.
ALL you are doing now is feeding it IMHO.

I will not abandon a single friend I have here over this-- if they choose to abandon me--its on them.--TYR

I agree with what your saying, though the hate isn't all towards Trump; much is towards towards those that find him unacceptable.

That doesn't make those that do: UnAmerican, liberal, hate filled, pussies, man haters, etc.

I'm really tired of those types of terms being used. We agree on that. I have refrained from name calling towards posters. I don't feel a compulsion regarding Trump, especially after all the opinions being passed off as facts or beyond questioning.

We all have a right to support whom we want. Likewise we all have the right to post about candidates or politicians in general we disagree with.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I agree with what your saying, though the hate isn't all towards Trump; much is towards towards those that find him unacceptable.

That doesn't make those that do: UnAmerican, liberal, hate filled, pussies, man haters, etc.

I'm really tired of those types of terms being used. We agree on that. I have refrained from name calling towards posters. I don't feel a compulsion regarding Trump, especially after all the opinions being passed off as facts or beyond questioning.

We all have a right to support whom we want. Likewise we all have the right to post about candidates or politicians in general we disagree with.

I once took a hardcore principled stand and beat the hell out of my best friend that fully deserved it. Everybody Ive ever told the full story to stated I had every right and he knew what he was doing thus got what he deserved. They were right!!!!
Yet I lost forever the best friend I ever had and one I loved like a brother--never had a friend that close since and that was 40 years ago.
Some fights just aren't worth the costs , even if you win--for in the winning you still lose.
I learned my lesson on that and since have been careful to consider the high costs of my winning.
Nobody here wins in this specific fight because nobody can be a winner no matter which side wins out.

I say just hope for your guy but vow to fully support the candidate that gets the nod.
Thats my plan and exactly what I will do..

EVERY FREAKING OUNCE OF THE HATE HERE SHOULD BE FOR THE DEMS, THE OBAMA AND THEIR TREASON BUT THATS EITHER DENIED OUTRIGHT OR IGNORED IMHO.-TYR

SOON I go to do my shift caring for my mother and this all will leave my mind.Thank God..
Family is everything..... --Tyr

[SassyLady]

Since when was that a stance ? It's a subjective assessment.

What makes it a relevant consideration is how that 'character' interacts with Presidential duties, that's to say, its objective outcome ... which can't be known BEFORE the fact of it. Do you have any proof that Trump's character would stop him doing his job ?

Which is why the info is out there for 24M people to make their own assessment and decision.

As you've said ... can't be known before the fact. However, I feel that at this time there are plenty of good, qualified candidates to chose from so I'm not inclined to support someone that I feel has less character than the others.

If he's the nominee ... then hopefully before that happens there's more information or "proof" that he can indeed do his job as President.

We can only wait and see.

[SassyLady]

For the reason I've given already, Trump's questioning was not fair .. and even Megyn Kelly was expecting it to be viewed unfavourably !

Otherwise, if there's not going to be any consistency in the questioning, if questioners choose for themselves the level of abuse they want to commit their questions to, why not, instead, just put all the candidates in stocks, and throw rotten eggs at them all ?

Or in this case, just at Trump ...

Drummond ... if Trump drops out, who would be your next pick? What does Trump have that that person doesn't?

[Abbey Marie]

Drummond ... if Trump drops out, who would be your next pick? What does Trump have that that person doesn't?


Great question!

[Kathianne]

Which is why the info is out there for 24M people to make their own assessment and decision.

As you've said ... can't be known before the fact. However, I feel that at this time there are plenty of good, qualified candidates to chose from so I'm not inclined to support someone that I feel has less character than the others.

If he's the nominee ... then hopefully before that happens there's more information or "proof" that he can indeed do his job as President.

We can only wait and see.
:clap::clap::clap::dance::clap::clap::clap:

[Jeff]

My friend, none of that matters. Trust me on this, the Trump haters reject every single word you type.
I have not seen this type of hatred manifested to this degree by people I once thought would never stoop that low.
Save yourself some grief and drop it. Just pray Trump wins.
Giving them a target the vent their anger on does nobody any good.
I post this openly now instead of pm directed solely to you , because perhaps some will re-examine how they have reacted and how much hate they now express.
I owe nobody a thing not Trump or any other candidate but I'll not kill myself trying to destroy the top guy simply to advance who I like.
I'll vote for whoever gets the Republican nod even if its somebody I detest but I'll not act a damn dem and try to destroy any candidate that may end up being the eventual nominee.
If people really respected my sincerity in supporting Trump , they wouldn't have started with the clever personal insults as I had issued not a damn one! And still have not...
Trust me I know how to hate too. However, I still will not let it make me disrespect other here.
Especially members I admire otherwise.
Drummond the hate is just too deep, leave it alone.
ALL you are doing now is feeding it IMHO.

I will not abandon a single friend I have here over this-- if they choose to abandon me--its on them.--TYR

This cracks me up, these same woman will tell you how Howard Stern is disgusting I am sure ( cause he usually is ) But they now come to the defense of a woman that gladly spoke of the size of her husbands penis and other vile trash on his show, all in the name of fame. Same thing she did in the debate, she wanted her name out there and she got it.

[Kathianne]

This cracks me up, these same woman will tell you how Howard Stern is disgusting I am sure ( cause he usually is ) But they now come to the defense of a woman that gladly spoke of the size of her husbands penis and other vile trash on his show, all in the name of fame. Same thing she did in the debate, she wanted her name out there and she got it.

I'm with you about shock radio. Kelly has to deal with her past for the same reason Trump does. Honestly, seems they do have a lot in common. Again though, Kelly isn't running for president.

[Jeff]

I'm with you about shock radio. Kelly has to deal with her past for the same reason Trump does. Honestly, seems they do have a lot in common. Again though, Kelly isn't running for president.

I don't really care what she does, y'all are running around like every Hillary fan, OOO she is a woman she must be right, Kat it just looks to me like Trump called a spade a spade and said Rosie is a fat pig, which she is, Personally I like that he says whats on his mind but I also understand that can get you in hot water ( been there done that ) But I have watched the board here the last couple of days and some of y'all are acting like Gabby on steroids. Everyone has a right to pick and choose who they vote for, but lets call a spade a spade, Kelly didn't attack any other candidate on a personal level the way she did Trump, and Pleaseee don't go with they didn't say what he did, heck if you look into someone's past we all have skeletons. Lets face it just as she whored herself for Howard she did the same the other night. What truly surprises me is y'all jumping to this woman's defense, if she had asked every candidate a question that she or they knew would embarrass and upset the candidate I would say fine, Fox is a bunch of pecker heads, but they didn't, did they ask questions from others past, Yes, where they meant to embarrass and put them down no.

And yes I know she isn't running for president but to see y'all jump to her defense and make excuses why it is all good you would think she was running.

Again lets not forget that I am sure everyone of these candidates felt as though they where on their home turf, Fox is suppose to be a Conservative news station, you and I both know Hillary will not be asked anything even close to what Trump was asked and quite honestly after seeing Kelly in action I think she would of treated Hillary with kit gloves.

And I will repeat again, I don't believe Trump will even be around when the big show comes, so no I am not upset because he is my guy, I am upset to see the attacks by some on here over a woman's personal attacks on the man, hell I for one would of loved to of heard what he stood for rather than if and or why he called a fat pig a fat pig.

[Kathianne]

I don't really care what she does, y'all are running around like every Hillary fan, OOO she is a woman she must be right, Kat it just looks to me like Trump called a spade a spade and said Rosie is a fat pig, which she is, Personally I like that he says whats on his mind but I also understand that can get you in hot water ( been there done that ) But I have watched the board here the last couple of days and some of y'all are acting like Gabby on steroids. Everyone has a right to pick and choose who they vote for, but lets call a spade a spade, Kelly didn't attack any other candidate on a personal level the way she did Trump, and Pleaseee don't go with they didn't say what he did, heck if you look into someone's past we all have skeletons. Lets face it just as she whored herself for Howard she did the same the other night. What truly surprises me is y'all jumping to this woman's defense, if she had asked every candidate a question that she or they knew would embarrass and upset the candidate I would say fine, Fox is a bunch of pecker heads, but they didn't, did they ask questions from others past, Yes, where they meant to embarrass and put them down no.

And yes I know she isn't running for president but to see y'all jump to her defense and make excuses why it is all good you would think she was running.

Again lets not forget that I am sure everyone of these candidates felt as though they where on their home turf, Fox is suppose to be a Conservative news station, you and I both know Hillary will not be asked anything even close to what Trump was asked and quite honestly after seeing Kelly in action I think she would of treated Hillary with kit gloves.

And I will repeat again, I don't believe Trump will even be around when the big show comes, so no I am not upset because he is my guy, I am upset to see the attacks by some on here over a woman's personal attacks on the man, hell I for one would of loved to of heard what he stood for rather than if and or why he called a fat pig a fat pig.

I too would like to get rid of all the negatives. Would be good to see some of his fans saying that what he said was wrong, he should clean up his act if he wants to be president of 'all the people.' It wasn't just O'Donnell, which he admitted at the debate.

I'd love to see his fans post on what he's actually proposing to do, if elected. I even posted a link to his appearance last evening on Hannity and that he's again appearing tonight. Fox has given him basically a free platform to speak from, without challenge. No other candidate has had that-yet none of his fans have pointed that out, nor apparently found specifics to post about.

Folks just posting on whatever he states with 'attitude' is an invitation to responses in kind, especially with the vitriol that's been spewed towards his detractors.

Sassy, Abbey, Perrianne, myself have posted much in the past few days about other candidates and their proposals-just this morning I posted on both Carly and Carson, some of the things they've discussed on issues. Why no response by others? At least some of Trump's ideas that they think are better?

There's been lots of talk about posts that are considered 'hate' posts on Trump. Anyone noted the many more posts to those that are actually discussing issues, rather than the celebrity? They are there.

[Jeff]

I too would like to get rid of all the negatives. Would be good to see some of his fans saying that what he said was wrong, he should clean up his act if he wants to be president of 'all the people.' It wasn't just O'Donnell, which he admitted at the debate.

I'd love to see his fans post on what he's actually proposing to do, if elected. I even posted a link to his appearance last evening on Hannity and that he's again appearing tonight. Fox has given him basically a free platform to speak from, without challenge. No other candidate has had that-yet none of his fans have pointed that out, nor apparently found specifics to post about.

Folks just posting on whatever he states with 'attitude' is an invitation to responses in kind, especially with the vitriol that's been spewed towards his detractors.

Sassy, Abbey, Perrianne, myself have posted much in the past few days about other candidates and their proposals-just this morning I posted on both Carly and Carson, some of the things they've discussed on issues. Why no response by others? At least some of Trump's ideas that they think are better?

There's been lots of talk about posts that are considered 'hate' posts on Trump. Anyone noted the many more posts to those that are actually discussing issues, rather than the celebrity? They are there.

I would love to see that as well, but instead what we got was a personal attack on him, doesn't really help with choosing a candidate at all, unless of course you just want to be pissed because he called Rosie a fat pig, mean while not a word about Hillary collecting money from Countries that treat woman terribly, nope she didn't call them a fat pig, she just accepts money from Countries that treat their pigs better than women.

And yes I have seen quite a few post of what other candidates will do, unfortunately for Trump all we hear about is how he called Rosie a fat pig, Great question at a debate, and please spare me the we need to see how he will act if elected and a tough situation comes up, I will buy that when all candidates are asked personal questions set out to humiliate them.

In the Hannity post you just posted I thought Trump handled it very well, he explained how his words where twisted on immigration when he was speaking of illegals. Seems to me the people that are extremely scared of Trump ( he must have something going for him, no one would bat a eye at him if they weren't afraid ) are changing wording and doing everything in their power to try to make him look fooish, but yet he just keeps rising in the polls.

[Kathianne]

I would love to see that as well, but instead what we got was a personal attack on him, doesn't really help with choosing a candidate at all, unless of course you just want to be pissed because he called Rosie a fat pig, mean while not a word about Hillary collecting money from Countries that treat woman terribly, nope she didn't call them a fat pig, she just accepts money from Countries that treat their pigs better than women.

And yes I have seen quite a few post of what other candidates will do, unfortunately for Trump all we hear about is how he called Rosie a fat pig, Great question at a debate, and please spare me the we need to see how he will act if elected and a tough situation comes up, I will buy that when all candidates are asked personal questions set out to humiliate them.

In the Hannity post you just posted I thought Trump handled it very well, he explained how his words where twisted on immigration when he was speaking of illegals. Seems to me the people that are extremely scared of Trump ( he must have something going for him, no one would bat a eye at him if they weren't afraid ) are changing wording and doing everything in their power to try to make him look fooish, but yet he just keeps rising in the polls.

I'm a bit confused, are you saying that those who aren't enamored with Trump are supposed to be posting positive links or quotes from him? That is up to his supporters. Defend him. He isn't, the choice of others. Convince them? At least give some positive things he's suggesting?

[Jeff]

I'm a bit confused, are you saying that those who aren't enamored with Trump are supposed to be posting positive links or quotes from him? That is up to his supporters. Defend him. He isn't, the choice of others. Convince them? At least give some positive things he's suggesting?

Kat enjoy Hillary, going into a election I look at things openly, all I have seen is ooo the bad man said some pig was a pig, yup that ought to knock him out, hell lets vote for Hillary, but while doing so lets not forget the millions she gets from countries that no they don't call woman pigs, they just treat them that way, as I said I am done here, I always enjoyed coming here and quite honestly learning from folks here, what I have learned is we have folks that are no different than the people that voted for Obama, hell he is black lets vote for him, hell he said a woman is a fat pig lets slam him for days. Y'all have fun, carry on.

[Drummond]

Drummond ... if Trump drops out, who would be your next pick? What does Trump have that that person doesn't?

Trump's great strength is that he's his own man. He says what he means, he's candid, you know where you stand with him. He'll tell it 'as it is', without any need to, or interest in, allowing any PC censorship imperative to curb him.

I don't think that any of the candidates match him in this way .. and if Obama's proven anything, it's that you need his exact opposite to take over. I think Trump qualifies ! Don't you ?

I don't really want to consider a 'next pick'. Still, the question was asked, so I'll do what I can to answer.

I took the 'online test' this forum offered, and I think it decided that I was most aligned to Rubio in my thinking. Well, I don't know about that.

The candidate that catches my eye, IF Trump were to somehow leave the race, would be Rick Santorum. He has the right basic strengths. Most importantly to me, he'll not follow trends if there's a truth out there which demands he not do so.

So it was that, in the summer of 2006, he held a press conference. In it, he disseminated the contents of a newly-declassified two page section of an Intelligence report, showing that your people in power are well aware that WMD's actually WERE found in Iraq ... over 500 of them. Degraded, perhaps .. but nonetheless found. Their existence proved once and for all that the Iraq War (2003) was JUSTIFIED ... nothing in UN Resolution 1441 specified that WMD's had to be in pristine condition.

So, how widely was all of this reported ? I can tell you that in my part of the world, NOTHING AT ALL was relayed of it in any of our media. I'd be willing to bet that if I told all this to my countrymen, I'd not be believed, or thought to be a raving nutter. No, the press wanted GW Bush's Iraq invasion discredited, so they weren't going to let Santorum's revelation see the light of day any more than they could help.

What we have in Santorum is a man dedicated to truth, even if it's uncomfortable truth. He's very strong on foreign security issues (we all need this .. BADLY). He's anti-abortion. He takes an anti-Obamacare position. I understand he's no friend of liberalised attitudes towards drugs (I applaud that !). He's strong on immigration issues .. also very strong on wanting your military supported and strengthened (the world also BADLY needs this !).

I actually have difficulty in faulting him.

I found this interesting ...

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4414589525001/santorum-talks-isis-strategy-increase-of-campaign-staff/?#sp=show-clips

Good overall points, fine attitude .. his ideas are useful (if maybe a little restrained, though ?). But he is critical of Trump in the clip, in my view, unjustly.

He's no Trump. A pity.

[SassyLady]

Kat enjoy Hillary, going into a election I look at things openly, all I have seen is ooo the bad man said some pig was a pig, yup that ought to knock him out, hell lets vote for Hillary, but while doing so lets not forget the millions she gets from countries that no they don't call woman pigs, they just treat them that way, as I said I am done here, I always enjoyed coming here and quite honestly learning from folks here, what I have learned is we have folks that are no different than the people that voted for Obama, hell he is black lets vote for him, hell he said a woman is a fat pig lets slam him for days. Y'all have fun, carry on.

Hi Jeff. I'm not on here every night so I do miss some of the debate that goes on. I'm not sure I understand why you are pissed at the 4-5 women who post here because they don't like Trump. And, comparing us to Hillary and liberals just because we don't like Trump. Really??? If you read my posts you'll find that it's not just his misogynistic attitude that I take issue with...it's just one of them. I think you'll also find that I like some of things he has to say and some I don't like.

I have not once said that those who support Trump, and have been calling Megan Kelly a whore, bitch, bimbo, etc., are now suddenly people I don't like. Au contraire, I love that not everyone on here agrees. It's a DEBATE site ... which means there will be differing opinions. I just wish people could debate the issue and leave personal attacks of the poster out of the debate. However, personal attacks on the candidates is a given.

I can remember when Palin ran and I would post how much I liked her and the things she said. She was also an attack dog. Guess what? There were tons of personal attacks on not just her, but her family as well. Did I get pissed and say I'm not playing with you guys anymore? No. I stayed and tried to use my "persuasive writing skills" (LOL) to change the hearts and minds of those who thought she wasn't the right person for the job.

Now, the shoe is on the other foot. I still believe a lot of what Trump is saying is inspirational. Especially when he says he'll build the military back up (other candidates are saying the same thing; just not as loud). I get it. He's saying all the things we want our politicians to say. And yet, I still think he's a loose cannon and I don't trust him.

I just wish people here who have known each other for over a decade didn't turn their backs on each other so easily. Very sad.

[Kathianne]

Hi Jeff. I'm not on here every night so I do miss some of the debate that goes on. I'm not sure I understand why you are pissed at the 4-5 women who post here because they don't like Trump. And, comparing us to Hillary and liberals just because we don't like Trump. Really??? If you read my posts you'll find that it's not just his misogynistic attitude that I take issue with...it's just one of them. I think you'll also find that I like some of things he has to say and some I don't like.

I have not once said that those who support Trump, and have been calling Megan Kelly a whore, bitch, bimbo, etc., are now suddenly people I don't like. Au contraire, I love that not everyone on here agrees. It's a DEBATE site ... which means there will be differing opinions. I just wish people could debate the issue and leave personal attacks of the poster out of the debate. However, personal attacks on the candidates is a given.

I can remember when Palin ran and I would post how much I liked her and the things she said. She was also an attack dog. Guess what? There were tons of personal attacks on not just her, but her family as well. Did I get pissed and say I'm not playing with you guys anymore? No. I stayed and tried to use my "persuasive writing skills" (LOL) to change the hearts and minds of those who thought she wasn't the right person for the job.

Now, the shoe is on the other foot. I still believe a lot of what Trump is saying is inspirational. Especially when he says he'll build the military back up (other candidates are saying the same thing; just not as loud). I get it. He's saying all the things we want our politicians to say. And yet, I still think he's a loose cannon and I don't trust him.

I just wish people here who have known each other for over a decade didn't turn their backs on each other so easily. Very sad.

I'm pretty sure we were on the opposite sides regarding Palin. Thanks. Jeff is always a great guy in my book, he's not all that strong in his decision yet, I don't think. He thinks the debate should have been different. We respectfully disagree.

[SassyLady]

I'm pretty sure we were on the opposite sides regarding Palin. Thanks. Jeff is always a great guy in my book, he's not all that strong in his decision yet, I don't think. He thinks the debate should have been different. We respectfully disagree.

I think we were ... however, we didn't eviscerate each other in our disagreement about qualifications for the job ... as it should be.

[Kathianne]

I think we were ... however, we didn't eviscerate each other in our disagreement about qualifications for the job ... as it should be.

Yep. We saw Palin differently, which led to differences in what we posted. We could take shots at her or praise how she stood her ground and eviscerated the other party. We could argue the merits of that type of campaign and still come out friends.

One person will win the election, whatever office we're talking about. All others will not. Their supporters will be unhappy, but go on with their lives-forgetting about that election.

I think Obama though may have caused some game changing with that though. No one that voted the other way can help but feel the majority are idiots. Failure on all fronts.

[Jeff]

Hi Jeff. I'm not on here every night so I do miss some of the debate that goes on. I'm not sure I understand why you are pissed at the 4-5 women who post here because they don't like Trump. And, comparing us to Hillary and liberals just because we don't like Trump. Really??? If you read my posts you'll find that it's not just his misogynistic attitude that I take issue with...it's just one of them. I think you'll also find that I like some of things he has to say and some I don't like.

I have not once said that those who support Trump, and have been calling Megan Kelly a whore, bitch, bimbo, etc., are now suddenly people I don't like. Au contraire, I love that not everyone on here agrees. It's a DEBATE site ... which means there will be differing opinions. I just wish people could debate the issue and leave personal attacks of the poster out of the debate. However, personal attacks on the candidates is a given.

I can remember when Palin ran and I would post how much I liked her and the things she said. She was also an attack dog. Guess what? There were tons of personal attacks on not just her, but her family as well. Did I get pissed and say I'm not playing with you guys anymore? No. I stayed and tried to use my "persuasive writing skills" (LOL) to change the hearts and minds of those who thought she wasn't the right person for the job.

Now, the shoe is on the other foot. I still believe a lot of what Trump is saying is inspirational. Especially when he says he'll build the military back up (other candidates are saying the same thing; just not as loud). I get it. He's saying all the things we want our politicians to say. And yet, I still think he's a loose cannon and I don't trust him.

I just wish people here who have known each other for over a decade didn't turn their backs on each other so easily. Very sad.

Hello Sassy, Sassy I have stated time and time again, I don't think Trump is even serious, sure their are things he says that I like, and on the other hand there are things not so much, but all I keep saying is I would of loved to of seen him asked something that might of been informative instead of a attack, I also feel that all of the guys on the panel that night felt they where dealing with FOX ( a supposedly fair and unbiased media outlet ) and he was attacked just as if one of the liberal media sources where asking the questions. And here is where I get upset, every time I say that I hear how you Trump fans, again I haven't committed to no one, then I hear how I have said this that and the other, all I have ever said ( at least I don't remember anything more ) was it wasn't a fair debate. So yes do I get upset and say hell y'all are doing just as Hillary, absolutely, because she does the same thing, puts words in peoples mouths to make her story look good, and what I actually had said was enjoy Hillary as a president, because if all anyone is worried about is what Trump said about some woman, that lets be honest, is a hypocrite and a fat pig and would lie to God if she thought it would put a couple of bucks in her pocket, then yes we will wind up with Hillary, if all anyone cares about in a Republican debate is if a man called a woman a name ( not what he stands for in the coming race ) than yes we are doomed to another term of the same we have had.

Now with that said I do understand opposite sides, Gunny has made great points ( as y'all have at one point ) but even when I kid with Gunny he has never put words in my mouth or assumed I was a trump fan, that is what gets me upset, and the only reason Hillary even has a chance is because she will more than likley get the female vote, well if all the females are worried about when a debate comes up is what Trump called a woman a few years back, well I'm sorry, but to me that is the same as voting for Hillary only because she is female.

But to let you know I believe this has been worked out, and no I won't voice my opinion again, because it doesn't matter anyway, so as for me not playing, that to me is more of respecting folks that I have a lot of respect for and have had for years now, no need for me to argue about something that again honestly I don't feel will ever happen.

[Kathianne]

After reading SL's post and Jeff's I'm going to weigh in here-not on politics, but on this messageboard & political postings.

Sure, positions can lead to one or more people feeling they are being attacked, rather than their choice. There is also the problem that comes when side issues come into play, with differences of opinion-say the debate-and where differing people come down on it.

It seems to me that Jeff holds an opinion shared by many backing Trump, he was upset when felt he was being categorized? I don't know that's true, but is my impression.

As Jeff rightly points out, the election is actually far off, hell the primaries are over 6 months away! Most of us have not decided whom we'll vote for-which actually has been my impetuous in finding out more about each that I consider viable candidates-not likely, but viable.

I'm not going to stop posting the way I've always posted. I'm not going to be drawn into a pretzel for someone's idea of 'owning' a win. I will do my best to refrain from name-calling, I would appreciate the same in return and that's not towards Jeff, who almost always remains friendly. Blame it on the same tendencies that made me like teaching and hopefully good at it. I read and share. This is a messageboard, not a classroom. Everyone here is over 21, if we can believe them. I can share my take on what I find. Each person can decide to look into the information and decide if it's relevant to them or not. They can ignore it. They can get snarky. I really don't have any influence on what anyone else does.