# Fox's Unethical Debate



## Mrs. M.

This morning, news sources quoted Megyn Kelly as saying, “I hope Donald Trump will show up for the debate.” Fox News has announced that it will be hosting the next presidential debate with Megyn Kelly returning once again, as one of their moderators.

Is it ethical for Fox News to allow Megyn Kelly to force herself upon Donald Trump? Kelly knows that Mr. Trump bowed out of the last debate because she was going to be one of the moderators. Americans still remember how she viciously targeted the GOP front runner, making it about herself rather than a presidential debate. Megyn Kelly has went on record stating that she would ask the same questions. Apparently she sees nothing wrong with how she handled herself during the presidential debate.

Perhaps Ms. Kelly does not realize how this looks to others. She comes off as a woman who is more concerned with making a name for herself than fairly moderating a presidential debate. She seems incapable of letting something go and worse yet wants to use another presidential debate to keep it going. It is as if she is “forcing herself” upon Donald Trump and the American people….

I believe Mr. Trump will show up for the debate and once again, prove that he is not a man to be intimidated. One can only hope that Megyn Kelly keeps her personal issues to herself this time. Her past behavior has been unprofessional to say the least.

Trump bowed out of the former debate to make a point.
It comes down to the leadership at Fox News.

When Roger Ailes – head of Fox apologized to Donald Trump, there should have been a change made so that the former offense did not happen again. There is no evidence that Fox News has changed anything.

In my opinion, there is a great deal of dishonesty going on at Fox News. I believe Fox is using their own people to sway the vote towards Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Rubio has been tied with Kaisach and Carson more than Cruz yet he's received far more coverage than either candidate at Fox.

Frank Luntz was a former employee of Marco Rubio. Can he keep his professional job and his political preferences separated? Apparently not.

In the days before the August 6th debate, Luntz (Pollster at Fox News) held a closed door meeting for a large group of conservatives. The pollster told the group that Donald Trump was dangerous to Republicans and was turning what “we” believe into a joke.

This news did not sit well with Donald Trump and he immediately called for Roger Ailes to fire Luntz.
Donald Trump said that he believes Frank Luntz has a long standing vendetta against him for refusing to do business with his polling company.

Once again, good leadership is absent and the employees at Fox News are permitted to use their position at the network for their own personal agenda.

Is it ethical for a pollster at Fox News to use a closed door meeting with a group of conservatives to slander the GOP front runner in a presidential election? How can Americans believe any poll results on the word of Frank Luntz at Fox News after seeing what has happened already?

Neither Megyn Kelly or Frank Luntz should be permitted anywhere near the presidential election debates.

If they had any integrity at all they would recuse themselves from this upcoming debate.
Fox News may well win Trump's attendance at their next debate but they have lost something greater.
The respect of the American people.

___________
News sources
Megyn Kelly Hopes Trump Shows Up at Next Fox GOP Debate
Updated: Donald Trump 'Definitely Not' Doing Fox News Debate - Breitbart
Marco Rubio Previously Paid Pollster Frank Luntz, Who Praised Rubio on Fox News - Breitbart
Frank Luntz Plays Favorites With Marco Rubio
Fox's Luntz blasted Trump at Koch seminar


----------



## HenryBHough

Trump apparently has experience in dealing with petulant bitches.

Ignore them, avoid them, give them full range to destroy themselves.


----------



## AceRothstein

Trump is a pussy.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

Mrs. M. said:


> This morning, news sources quoted Megyn Kelly as saying, “I hope Donald Trump will show up for the debate.” Fox News has announced that it will be hosting the next presidential debate with Megyn Kelly returning once again, as one of their moderators.
> 
> Is it ethical for Fox News to allow Megyn Kelly to force herself upon Donald Trump? Kelly knows that Mr. Trump bowed out of the last debate because she was going to be one of the moderators. Americans still remember how she viciously targeted the GOP front runner, making it about herself rather than a presidential debate. Megyn Kelly has went on record stating that she would ask the same questions. Apparently she sees nothing wrong with how she handled herself during the presidential debate.
> 
> Perhaps Ms. Kelly does not realize how this looks to others. She comes off as a woman who is more concerned with making a name for herself than fairly moderating a presidential debate. She seems incapable of letting something go and worse yet wants to use another presidential debate to keep it going. It is as if she is “forcing herself” upon Donald Trump and the American people….
> 
> I believe Mr. Trump will show up for the debate and once again, prove that he is not a man to be intimidated. One can only hope that Megyn Kelly keeps her personal issues to herself this time. Her past behavior has been unprofessional to say the least.
> 
> Trump bowed out of the former debate to make a point.
> It comes down to the leadership at Fox News.
> 
> When Roger Ailes – head of Fox apologized to Donald Trump, there should have been a change made so that the former offense did not happen again. There is no evidence that Fox News has changed anything.
> 
> In my opinion, there is a great deal of dishonesty going on at Fox News. I believe Fox is using their own people to sway the vote towards Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Rubio has been tied with Kaisach and Carson more than Cruz yet he's received far more coverage than either candidate at Fox.
> 
> Frank Luntz was a former employee of Marco Rubio. Can he keep his professional job and his political preferences separated? Apparently not.
> 
> In the days before the August 6th debate, Luntz (Pollster at Fox News) held a closed door meeting for a large group of conservatives. The pollster told the group that Donald Trump was dangerous to Republicans and was turning what “we” believe into a joke.
> 
> This news did not sit well with Donald Trump and he immediately called for Roger Ailes to fire Luntz.
> Donald Trump said that he believes Frank Luntz has a long standing vendetta against him for refusing to do business with his polling company.
> 
> Once again, good leadership is absent and the employees at Fox News are permitted to use their position at the network for their own personal agenda.
> 
> Is it ethical for a pollster at Fox News to use a closed door meeting with a group of conservatives to slander the GOP front runner in a presidential election? How can Americans believe any poll results on the word of Frank Luntz at Fox News after seeing what has happened already?
> 
> Neither Megyn Kelly or Frank Luntz should be permitted anywhere near the presidential election debates.
> 
> If they had any integrity at all they would recuse themselves from this upcoming debate.
> Fox News may well win Trump's attendance at their next debate but they have lost something greater.
> The respect of the American people.
> 
> ___________
> News sources
> Megyn Kelly Hopes Trump Shows Up at Next Fox GOP Debate
> Updated: Donald Trump 'Definitely Not' Doing Fox News Debate - Breitbart
> Marco Rubio Previously Paid Pollster Frank Luntz, Who Praised Rubio on Fox News - Breitbart
> Frank Luntz Plays Favorites With Marco Rubio
> Fox's Luntz blasted Trump at Koch seminar



Trump is a candidate for President, and if he can not handle Megyn Kelly then he is not the person for the job!

Fox News can appoint their moderators for their debate and if Trump has a issue with it then suck it up and be a man for once and not a pamper Richie Rich brat that he has been acting like!

A candidate should never be allow to tell a News Agency which moderator can moderate the debates!


----------



## Eaglewings

They found a crack in Trumps campaign and are trying to open it wide...Trump has to show that he can handle it and they won't bug him as much ..
Kelly wants him out.. in a group of 30 guests last night she cut off a guy sticking up for Trump...and let the ones bashing him finish their sentence. She is a hag...



.


----------



## Rouge Rover

FOX is a private entity. Why are they involved in this in the first place? They have an agenda, I'd walk away from them too. Put all of the debates on C-SPAN, PBS and NPR.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Fox is using Megyn to crack a wedge into Trump's campaign.

Yes, Ailes wants Rubior or Cruz.

If Trump can't handle a journalist, he can't handle being President.


----------



## Valerie

trump is the one who turned a simple question into 'it all beiing about her'.  trump did that.

personal responsibility is an admiral trait in a presidential candidate... 

trump's behavior is un-presidential and rude.  a refined diplomat he is not.

meghan kelly is simply doing her job and trump can't even handle it.

this entire spectacle is a clear demonstration of trump's 'negotiating' skills.  

voters would like to see the candidates discuss issues seriously and in depth...

instead we get to see the art of the immature deal.


----------



## Valerie

_"Is it ethical for Fox News to allow Megyn Kelly to force herself upon Donald Trump? Kelly knows that Mr. Trump bowed out of the last debate because she was going to be one of the moderators. Americans still remember how *she viciously targeted the GOP front runner, making it about herself* rather than a presidential debate."_






trump knows he has no substance so he NEEDS this spectacle.  it's what he does best.

trump knows that his supporters are ridiculous individuals.  "i could shoot someone, and they'd still vote for me".

he is counting on these individuals, like the op, to continue to project this spectacle of ridiculous rhetoric.

not only are trump's supporters ridiculous, they are also dishonest.  aka unethical.

megyn kelly was doing her job and her relevant question was not vicious at all.

trump created bluster and roused the angry rabble with the right wing "PC" dog whistle.





Read the Full Text of the Primetime Republican Debate


*KELLY: Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don’t use a politician’s filter. However, that is not without its downsides, in particular, when it comes to women.


You’ve called women you don’t like “fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals.”


(LAUGHTER)


Your Twitter account…*

TRUMP: Only Rosie O’Donnell.

(LAUGHTER)

*KELLY: No, it wasn’t.


(APPLAUSE)


Your Twitter account…*

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: Thank you.

*KELLY: For the record, it was well beyond Rosie O’Donnell.*

TRUMP: Yes, I’m sure it was.

*KELLY: Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women’s looks. You once told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president, and how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who was likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?*

TRUMP: I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct.

I’ve been challenged by so many people, and I don’t frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn’t have time either. This country is in big trouble. We don’t win anymore. We lose to China. We lose to Mexico both in trade and at the border. We lose to everybody.

And frankly, what I say, and oftentimes it’s fun, it’s kidding. We have a good time. What I say is what I say. And honestly Megyn, if you don’t like it, I’m sorry. I’ve been very nice to you, although I could probably maybe not be, based on the way you have treated me. But I wouldn’t do that.

(APPLAUSE)

But you know what, we — we need strength, we need energy, we need quickness and we need brain in this country to turn it around. That, I can tell you right now.

WALLACE: Senator Cruz, your colleague, Senator Paul, right there next to you, said a few months ago he agrees with you on a number of issues ...


----------



## Rouge Rover

Valerie said:


> voters would like to see the candidates discuss issues seriously and in depth...



The last time I remember seeing this is the old David Brinkley show.

I'd agree with you about Trump and FOX if debates happened in a vacuum, but they don't.


----------



## Valerie

hillary and bernie had a great in depth exchange last night in new hampshire...

local reports say that hillary picked up over fifteen points over night.  


Sanders-Clinton debate transcript: Annotating what they say

Democratic debate: Hillary Clinton, Sanders battle - CNNPolitics.com


----------



## cereal_killer

Trump didn't show up because of Fox's stupidity (the press release) not because of Kelly. I'm sure Trump will show up and I do hope they hammer him with fair questions. By fair I mean things that we the American people care about...the issues and his beliefs.

They should be tough with him indeed and he should be prepared to stand in the line of fire thats coming his way. This next debate will be very telling because they are going to come after him and they should. It's time to put on the flak jacket, pick up a weapon and go to war. Trump will either excel or stumble and if he stumbles his numbers will go in decline. I predict this next debate is going to be pretty intense. He'll either come away as a very viable candidate, or as he likes to say, a loser. I don't think there is any room for error. It's game time--all this other stuff was just pre-game.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Very good analysis, ck.


----------



## Rouge Rover

cereal_killer said:


> This next debate will be very telling because they are going to come after him and they should. It's time to put on the flak jacket, pick up a weapon and go to war. Trump will either excel or stumble and *if he stumbles his numbers will go in decline*.



This is why he shouldn't go. He's polling in the lead. Why go before a hostile group if you have nothing to gain from it? If Trump loses in New Hampshire I don't think he'll have a choice then because at that point he'll have to engage other candidates face to face but until that happens why do something that offers no return but a lot of risk?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Rouge Rover said:


> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This next debate will be very telling because they are going to come after him and they should. It's time to put on the flak jacket, pick up a weapon and go to war. Trump will either excel or stumble and *if he stumbles his numbers will go in decline*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why he shouldn't go. He's polling in the lead. Why go before a hostile group if you have nothing to gain from it? If Trump loses in New Hampshire I don't think he'll have a choice then because at that point he'll have to engage other candidates face to face but until that happens why do something that offers no return but a lot of risk?
Click to expand...

because he will look weak, and his entire persona is built on the guy who ain't weak, who ain't afraid of nutthin, I said nuthin.  If appears weak, he will lost 15 points in three days.


----------



## Rouge Rover

JakeStarkey said:


> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This next debate will be very telling because they are going to come after him and they should. It's time to put on the flak jacket, pick up a weapon and go to war. Trump will either excel or stumble and *if he stumbles his numbers will go in decline*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why he shouldn't go. He's polling in the lead. Why go before a hostile group if you have nothing to gain from it? If Trump loses in New Hampshire I don't think he'll have a choice then because at that point he'll have to engage other candidates face to face but until that happens why do something that offers no return but a lot of risk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because he will look weak, and his entire persona is built on the guy who ain't weak, who ain't afraid of nutthin, I said nuthin.  If appears weak, he will lost 15 points in three days.
Click to expand...


Trump already skipped a debate and it didn't hurt him in the polls.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Rouge Rover said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This next debate will be very telling because they are going to come after him and they should. It's time to put on the flak jacket, pick up a weapon and go to war. Trump will either excel or stumble and *if he stumbles his numbers will go in decline*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why he shouldn't go. He's polling in the lead. Why go before a hostile group if you have nothing to gain from it? If Trump loses in New Hampshire I don't think he'll have a choice then because at that point he'll have to engage other candidates face to face but until that happens why do something that offers no return but a lot of risk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because he will look weak, and his entire persona is built on the guy who ain't weak, who ain't afraid of nutthin, I said nuthin.  If appears weak, he will lost 15 points in three days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump already skipped a debate and it didn't hurt him in the polls.
Click to expand...

because he was not seen as weak but this time he will be.


----------



## cereal_killer

Rouge Rover said:


> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This next debate will be very telling because they are going to come after him and they should. It's time to put on the flak jacket, pick up a weapon and go to war. Trump will either excel or stumble and *if he stumbles his numbers will go in decline*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why he shouldn't go. He's polling in the lead. Why go before a hostile group if you have nothing to gain from it? If Trump loses in New Hampshire I don't think he'll have a choice then because at that point he'll have to engage other candidates face to face but until that happens why do something that offers no return but a lot of risk?
Click to expand...

Because he's running for the office of President of the United States and he must be vetted thoroughly via these debates. If he is going to be the leader of the free world he must stand in the line of fire and field questions that he may not like. He needs to be able to stand up there, get punched the fuck around and explain to the American people why he is the man for the job. Hostile environment or not, its time to show us why you are the man for the job.


----------



## Rouge Rover

JakeStarkey said:


> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This next debate will be very telling because they are going to come after him and they should. It's time to put on the flak jacket, pick up a weapon and go to war. Trump will either excel or stumble and *if he stumbles his numbers will go in decline*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why he shouldn't go. He's polling in the lead. Why go before a hostile group if you have nothing to gain from it? If Trump loses in New Hampshire I don't think he'll have a choice then because at that point he'll have to engage other candidates face to face but until that happens why do something that offers no return but a lot of risk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because he will look weak, and his entire persona is built on the guy who ain't weak, who ain't afraid of nutthin, I said nuthin.  If appears weak, he will lost 15 points in three days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump already skipped a debate and it didn't hurt him in the polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because he was not seen as weak but this time he will be.
Click to expand...


Why do you think this?


----------



## cereal_killer

JakeStarkey said:


> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This next debate will be very telling because they are going to come after him and they should. It's time to put on the flak jacket, pick up a weapon and go to war. Trump will either excel or stumble and *if he stumbles his numbers will go in decline*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why he shouldn't go. He's polling in the lead. Why go before a hostile group if you have nothing to gain from it? If Trump loses in New Hampshire I don't think he'll have a choice then because at that point he'll have to engage other candidates face to face but until that happens why do something that offers no return but a lot of risk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because he will look weak, and his entire persona is built on the guy who ain't weak, who ain't afraid of nutthin, I said nuthin.  If appears weak, he will lost 15 points in three days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump already skipped a debate and it didn't hurt him in the polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because he was not seen as weak but this time he will be.
Click to expand...

exactly, he had a legitimate beef. Now just cutting and running for no reason other than "I'm leading in the polls they are going to attack me" would be cowardly


----------



## JakeStarkey

Rouge Rover said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This next debate will be very telling because they are going to come after him and they should. It's time to put on the flak jacket, pick up a weapon and go to war. Trump will either excel or stumble and *if he stumbles his numbers will go in decline*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why he shouldn't go. He's polling in the lead. Why go before a hostile group if you have nothing to gain from it? If Trump loses in New Hampshire I don't think he'll have a choice then because at that point he'll have to engage other candidates face to face but until that happens why do something that offers no return but a lot of risk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because he will look weak, and his entire persona is built on the guy who ain't weak, who ain't afraid of nutthin, I said nuthin.  If appears weak, he will lost 15 points in three days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump already skipped a debate and it didn't hurt him in the polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because he was not seen as weak but this time he will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think this?
Click to expand...

It has been explained by ck and me.  It's clear.


----------



## Rouge Rover

cereal_killer said:


> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This next debate will be very telling because they are going to come after him and they should. It's time to put on the flak jacket, pick up a weapon and go to war. Trump will either excel or stumble and *if he stumbles his numbers will go in decline*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why he shouldn't go. He's polling in the lead. Why go before a hostile group if you have nothing to gain from it? If Trump loses in New Hampshire I don't think he'll have a choice then because at that point he'll have to engage other candidates face to face but until that happens why do something that offers no return but a lot of risk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he's running for the office of President of the United States and he must be vetted thoroughly via these debates. If he is going to be the leader of the free world he must stand in the line of fire and field questions that he may not like. He needs to be able to stand up there, get punched the fuck around and explain to the American people why he is the man for the job. Hostile environment or not, its time to show us why you are the man for the job.
Click to expand...


Not once in my life until today have I ever seen anyone say that the point of a debate is to punch a candidate the fuck around. Right now FOX needs Trump but Trump doesn't need FOX. That may change in the future but right now I'd lose respect for him if he went on a hostile network without having to.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Rouge Rover said:


> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This next debate will be very telling because they are going to come after him and they should. It's time to put on the flak jacket, pick up a weapon and go to war. Trump will either excel or stumble and *if he stumbles his numbers will go in decline*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why he shouldn't go. He's polling in the lead. Why go before a hostile group if you have nothing to gain from it? If Trump loses in New Hampshire I don't think he'll have a choice then because at that point he'll have to engage other candidates face to face but until that happens why do something that offers no return but a lot of risk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he's running for the office of President of the United States and he must be vetted thoroughly via these debates. If he is going to be the leader of the free world he must stand in the line of fire and field questions that he may not like. He needs to be able to stand up there, get punched the fuck around and explain to the American people why he is the man for the job. Hostile environment or not, its time to show us why you are the man for the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not once in my life until today have I ever seen anyone say that the point of a debate is to punch a candidate the fuck around. Right now FOX needs Trump but Trump doesn't need FOX. That may change in the future but right now I'd lose respect for him if he went on a hostile network without having to.
Click to expand...

Then you don't understand American politics.


----------



## Rouge Rover

JakeStarkey said:


> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why he shouldn't go. He's polling in the lead. Why go before a hostile group if you have nothing to gain from it? If Trump loses in New Hampshire I don't think he'll have a choice then because at that point he'll have to engage other candidates face to face but until that happens why do something that offers no return but a lot of risk?
> 
> 
> 
> because he will look weak, and his entire persona is built on the guy who ain't weak, who ain't afraid of nutthin, I said nuthin.  If appears weak, he will lost 15 points in three days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump already skipped a debate and it didn't hurt him in the polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because he was not seen as weak but this time he will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been explained by ck and me.  It's clear.
Click to expand...


No, neither of you have explained why he would be seen as weak now but not before. He was called weak before but it didn't stick but it will now?


----------



## Rouge Rover

cereal_killer said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This next debate will be very telling because they are going to come after him and they should. It's time to put on the flak jacket, pick up a weapon and go to war. Trump will either excel or stumble and *if he stumbles his numbers will go in decline*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why he shouldn't go. He's polling in the lead. Why go before a hostile group if you have nothing to gain from it? If Trump loses in New Hampshire I don't think he'll have a choice then because at that point he'll have to engage other candidates face to face but until that happens why do something that offers no return but a lot of risk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because he will look weak, and his entire persona is built on the guy who ain't weak, who ain't afraid of nutthin, I said nuthin.  If appears weak, he will lost 15 points in three days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump already skipped a debate and it didn't hurt him in the polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because he was not seen as weak but this time he will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> exactly, he had a legitimate beef. Now just cutting and running for no reason other than "I'm leading in the polls they are going to attack me" would be cowardly
Click to expand...


Trump's beef is no longer legitimate? FOX has changed that much?


----------



## Rouge Rover

JakeStarkey said:


> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This next debate will be very telling because they are going to come after him and they should. It's time to put on the flak jacket, pick up a weapon and go to war. Trump will either excel or stumble and *if he stumbles his numbers will go in decline*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why he shouldn't go. He's polling in the lead. Why go before a hostile group if you have nothing to gain from it? If Trump loses in New Hampshire I don't think he'll have a choice then because at that point he'll have to engage other candidates face to face but until that happens why do something that offers no return but a lot of risk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he's running for the office of President of the United States and he must be vetted thoroughly via these debates. If he is going to be the leader of the free world he must stand in the line of fire and field questions that he may not like. He needs to be able to stand up there, get punched the fuck around and explain to the American people why he is the man for the job. Hostile environment or not, its time to show us why you are the man for the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not once in my life until today have I ever seen anyone say that the point of a debate is to punch a candidate the fuck around. Right now FOX needs Trump but Trump doesn't need FOX. That may change in the future but right now I'd lose respect for him if he went on a hostile network without having to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you don't understand American politics.
Click to expand...


I understand well enough. You want Trump's blood in the water and you're not getting it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Rouge Rover said:


> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why he shouldn't go. He's polling in the lead. Why go before a hostile group if you have nothing to gain from it? If Trump loses in New Hampshire I don't think he'll have a choice then because at that point he'll have to engage other candidates face to face but until that happens why do something that offers no return but a lot of risk?
> 
> 
> 
> because he will look weak, and his entire persona is built on the guy who ain't weak, who ain't afraid of nutthin, I said nuthin.  If appears weak, he will lost 15 points in three days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump already skipped a debate and it didn't hurt him in the polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because he was not seen as weak but this time he will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> exactly, he had a legitimate beef. Now just cutting and running for no reason other than "I'm leading in the polls they are going to attack me" would be cowardly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump's beef is no longer legitimate? FOX has changed that much?
Click to expand...

Immaterial.  Fox could be the hordes of Lucifer, and if so, Trump must be the Arch Angel, even Michael, and go and destroy them   He has portrayed himself as the Strong Man, and if he does not follow through, he will be seen as a weak man and thus he will be finished.


----------



## Rouge Rover

JakeStarkey said:


> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> because he will look weak, and his entire persona is built on the guy who ain't weak, who ain't afraid of nutthin, I said nuthin.  If appears weak, he will lost 15 points in three days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump already skipped a debate and it didn't hurt him in the polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because he was not seen as weak but this time he will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> exactly, he had a legitimate beef. Now just cutting and running for no reason other than "I'm leading in the polls they are going to attack me" would be cowardly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump's beef is no longer legitimate? FOX has changed that much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Immaterial.  Fox could be the hordes of Lucifer, and if so, Trump must be the Arch Angel, even Michael, and go and destroy them   He has portrayed himself as the Strong Man, and if he does not follow through, he will be seen as a weak man and thus he will be finished.
Click to expand...


I see. This brings me back to the question I've asked, why now but not before?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Rouge Rover said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump already skipped a debate and it didn't hurt him in the polls.
> 
> 
> 
> because he was not seen as weak but this time he will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> exactly, he had a legitimate beef. Now just cutting and running for no reason other than "I'm leading in the polls they are going to attack me" would be cowardly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump's beef is no longer legitimate? FOX has changed that much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Immaterial.  Fox could be the hordes of Lucifer, and if so, Trump must be the Arch Angel, even Michael, and go and destroy them   He has portrayed himself as the Strong Man, and if he does not follow through, he will be seen as a weak man and thus he will be finished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see. This brings me back to the question I've asked, why now but not before?
Click to expand...

Since it has been explained to you, no, you don't get "just once more."


----------



## cereal_killer

Rouge Rover said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump already skipped a debate and it didn't hurt him in the polls.
> 
> 
> 
> because he was not seen as weak but this time he will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> exactly, he had a legitimate beef. Now just cutting and running for no reason other than "I'm leading in the polls they are going to attack me" would be cowardly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump's beef is no longer legitimate? FOX has changed that much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Immaterial.  Fox could be the hordes of Lucifer, and if so, Trump must be the Arch Angel, even Michael, and go and destroy them   He has portrayed himself as the Strong Man, and if he does not follow through, he will be seen as a weak man and thus he will be finished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see. This brings me back to the question I've asked, why now but not before?
Click to expand...

Because he's never bailed on a debate because they were going to be mean to him, he bailed because of Fox's press release. A candidate cannot bail because he's afraid of the moderators going on the attack or treating them unfairly.


----------



## Rouge Rover

JakeStarkey said:


> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> because he was not seen as weak but this time he will be.
> 
> 
> 
> exactly, he had a legitimate beef. Now just cutting and running for no reason other than "I'm leading in the polls they are going to attack me" would be cowardly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump's beef is no longer legitimate? FOX has changed that much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Immaterial.  Fox could be the hordes of Lucifer, and if so, Trump must be the Arch Angel, even Michael, and go and destroy them   He has portrayed himself as the Strong Man, and if he does not follow through, he will be seen as a weak man and thus he will be finished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see. This brings me back to the question I've asked, why now but not before?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since it has been explained to you, no, you don't get "just once more."
Click to expand...


I know what your problem is, you don't like Trump's persona and you think he needs to pay for it and you don't care if a debate becomes obviously biased in order to accomplish that.


----------



## Rouge Rover

cereal_killer said:


> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> because he was not seen as weak but this time he will be.
> 
> 
> 
> exactly, he had a legitimate beef. Now just cutting and running for no reason other than "I'm leading in the polls they are going to attack me" would be cowardly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump's beef is no longer legitimate? FOX has changed that much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Immaterial.  Fox could be the hordes of Lucifer, and if so, Trump must be the Arch Angel, even Michael, and go and destroy them   He has portrayed himself as the Strong Man, and if he does not follow through, he will be seen as a weak man and thus he will be finished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see. This brings me back to the question I've asked, why now but not before?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he's never bailed on a debate because they were going to be mean to him, he bailed because of Fox's press release. A candidate cannot bail because he's afraid of the moderators going on the attack or treating them unfairly.
Click to expand...


FOX has changed that much? They're cool now but weren't a few days ago?


----------



## cereal_killer

Rouge Rover said:


> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> exactly, he had a legitimate beef. Now just cutting and running for no reason other than "I'm leading in the polls they are going to attack me" would be cowardly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's beef is no longer legitimate? FOX has changed that much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Immaterial.  Fox could be the hordes of Lucifer, and if so, Trump must be the Arch Angel, even Michael, and go and destroy them   He has portrayed himself as the Strong Man, and if he does not follow through, he will be seen as a weak man and thus he will be finished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see. This brings me back to the question I've asked, why now but not before?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he's never bailed on a debate because they were going to be mean to him, he bailed because of Fox's press release. A candidate cannot bail because he's afraid of the moderators going on the attack or treating them unfairly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FOX has changed that much? They're cool now but weren't a few days ago?
Click to expand...

No they are still not cool. They have an obvious agenda, a lot of people see right through it, me included. Thats ok though. If Trump is prepared he'll be able to handle them and come out looking even better. He has everything to gain if they go after him in a bias way....or course that all depends  on if he knows how to handle himself. He'll face the same thing once he's president x 100.


----------



## Rouge Rover

cereal_killer said:


> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's beef is no longer legitimate? FOX has changed that much?
> 
> 
> 
> Immaterial.  Fox could be the hordes of Lucifer, and if so, Trump must be the Arch Angel, even Michael, and go and destroy them   He has portrayed himself as the Strong Man, and if he does not follow through, he will be seen as a weak man and thus he will be finished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see. This brings me back to the question I've asked, why now but not before?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he's never bailed on a debate because they were going to be mean to him, he bailed because of Fox's press release. A candidate cannot bail because he's afraid of the moderators going on the attack or treating them unfairly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FOX has changed that much? They're cool now but weren't a few days ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they are still not cool. They have an obvious agenda, a lot of people see right through it, me included. Thats ok though. If Trump is prepared he'll be able to handle them and come out looking even better. He has everything to gain if they go after him in a bias way....or course that all depends  on if he knows how to handle himself. He'll face the same thing once he's president x 100.
Click to expand...


As President he'll have people to do his heavy lifting.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Trump needs to face the enemy.

In this case, it is Fox.

If he does not, he is weak, and that will soon be reflected in the polls.

Watch Rubio gain on him.

Personally, I want Kasich and Rubio.  However, Trump has been mellowing somewhat and moving to the center.  If he gets the nomination, he will compromise even more with the establishment leaders.


----------



## Rouge Rover

JakeStarkey said:


> Trump needs to face the enemy.
> 
> In this case, it is Fox.



You have just validated the OP.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Rouge Rover said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump needs to face the enemy.In this case, it is Fox.
> 
> 
> 
> You have just validated the OP.
Click to expand...

You may think so.


----------



## Rouge Rover

JakeStarkey said:


> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump needs to face the enemy.In this case, it is Fox.
> 
> 
> 
> You have just validated the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You may think so.
Click to expand...


Someone conducting a debate is the enemy of a particular candidate. That's unethical. Game over.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Rouge Rover said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump needs to face the enemy.In this case, it is Fox.
> 
> 
> 
> You have just validated the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You may think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone conducting a debate is the enemy of a particular candidate. That's unethical. Game over.
Click to expand...

What world do you live in?  Unethical it may be, but this no game.  Trump has to face up to his enemies.  He will lose the edge he has over the rest of the field if he refuses to confront his enemies.


----------



## oldsoul

What does it matter? The debates are nothing more than a bunch of showmanship anyway. What I, and ALOT of other people, care about is what a canidate has, and can accomplish, as well as what they stand for. Trump has publicly supported conflicting positions on so many topics that I cannot trust anything he says. Other canidates could, if they chose, let their records speak for themselves, not Trump, he has no record. Only support for various proposals and people that where of benefit to him and his business at the time. Name one thing the man stands for, other than "winning". How will he do it? when? where? on what? These are the questions we need answers to, not "is he tough enough?", Is he this, is he that? I just want him to say what he stands for already. What does he intend to accomplish? If we look at his business record (the only one we have), he has failed several times (financially), he's a bully, he does not negociate (only dictate), he is a totalitarian dictator. He is using the same tactics Obama did:

Tell anyone who will listen YOU are the ONLY one for the job.
Anyone who disagrees is a moron.
Assassinate the character of any threats.
Tell anyone who will listen YOU are the ONLY one for the job.
And look what we got when we fell for THAT crap.


----------



## blackhawk

Tough questions and sometimes even questions the candidate thinks are unfair are part of running for President that will continue when and if you become President not just from journalist but other world leaders the opposition party sometimes your own party and even 9-5 everyday Americans. If Trump and any other candidate Republican or Democrat can not handle this they need to drop out of the race because they are not cut out for politics.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Rouge Rover thinks this debate is on FOX. He's arguing from that POV.  Very stupid of him. 

And...Trump threatened to bail on the debate due to Kelly being one of the moderators BEFORE Ailes sent the petulant tweet. That tweet became his excuse after the fact.


----------



## LoneLaugher

oldsoul said:


> What does it matter? The debates are nothing more than a bunch of showmanship anyway. What I, and ALOT of other people, care about is what a canidate has, and can accomplish, as well as what they stand for. Trump has publicly supported conflicting positions on so many topics that I cannot trust anything he says. Other canidates could, if they chose, let their records speak for themselves, not Trump, he has no record. Only support for various proposals and people that where of benefit to him and his business at the time. Name one thing the man stands for, other than "winning". How will he do it? when? where? on what? These are the questions we need answers to, not "is he tough enough?", Is he this, is he that? I just want him to say what he stands for already. What does he intend to accomplish? If we look at his business record (the only one we have), he has failed several times (financially), he's a bully, he does not negociate (only dictate), he is a totalitarian dictator. He is using the same tactics Obama did:
> 
> Tell anyone who will listen YOU are the ONLY one for the job.
> Anyone who disagrees is a moron.
> Assassinate the character of any threats.
> Tell anyone who will listen YOU are the ONLY one for the job.
> And look what we got when we fell for THAT crap.



Bullshit. You nutbags can't go a day without trying to convince yourselves that your shitty candidates are similar to the sitting president. It's got to suck knowing that your guys would lose to the man again if he were able and willing to run.


----------



## Rouge Rover

LoneLaugher said:


> Rouge Rover thinks this debate is on FOX. He's arguing from that POV.  Very stupid of him.



Not really. There are two different issues being discussed here. Is Trump afraid of Kelly and should he debate at all. Sorry if you got confused.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Rouge Rover said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rouge Rover thinks this debate is on FOX. He's arguing from that POV.  Very stupid of him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. There are two different issues being discussed here. Is Trump afraid of Kelly and should he debate at all. Sorry if you got confused.
Click to expand...


I'm not confused. See post #22. Just admit that you didn't know get tonight's debate was not on FOX. If you did, you wouldn't be suggesting that Trump skip the debate to avoid hostile unfairness from FOX.

The idea that there is any reason for him to miss a debate other than avoiding difficult questions is ridiculous.


----------



## Camp

Valerie said:


> _"Is it ethical for Fox News to allow Megyn Kelly to force herself upon Donald Trump? Kelly knows that Mr. Trump bowed out of the last debate because she was going to be one of the moderators. Americans still remember how *she viciously targeted the GOP front runner, making it about herself* rather than a presidential debate."_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> trump knows he has no substance so he NEEDS this spectacle.  it's what he does best.
> 
> trump knows that his supporters are ridiculous individuals.  "i could shoot someone, and they'd still vote for me".
> 
> he is counting on these individuals, like the op, to continue to project this spectacle of ridiculous rhetoric.
> 
> not only are trump's supporters ridiculous, they are also dishonest.  aka unethical.
> 
> megyn kelly was doing her job and her relevant question was not vicious at all.
> 
> trump created bluster and roused the angry rabble with the right wing "PC" dog whistle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the Full Text of the Primetime Republican Debate
> 
> 
> *KELLY: Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don’t use a politician’s filter. However, that is not without its downsides, in particular, when it comes to women.
> 
> 
> You’ve called women you don’t like “fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals.”
> 
> 
> (LAUGHTER)
> 
> 
> Your Twitter account…*
> 
> TRUMP: Only Rosie O’Donnell.
> 
> (LAUGHTER)
> 
> *KELLY: No, it wasn’t.
> 
> 
> (APPLAUSE)
> 
> 
> Your Twitter account…*
> 
> (APPLAUSE)
> 
> TRUMP: Thank you.
> 
> *KELLY: For the record, it was well beyond Rosie O’Donnell.*
> 
> TRUMP: Yes, I’m sure it was.
> 
> *KELLY: Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women’s looks. You once told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president, and how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who was likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?*
> 
> TRUMP: I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct.
> 
> I’ve been challenged by so many people, and I don’t frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn’t have time either. This country is in big trouble. We don’t win anymore. We lose to China. We lose to Mexico both in trade and at the border. We lose to everybody.
> 
> And frankly, what I say, and oftentimes it’s fun, it’s kidding. We have a good time. What I say is what I say. And honestly Megyn, if you don’t like it, I’m sorry. I’ve been very nice to you, although I could probably maybe not be, based on the way you have treated me. But I wouldn’t do that.
> 
> (APPLAUSE)
> 
> But you know what, we — we need strength, we need energy, we need quickness and we need brain in this country to turn it around. That, I can tell you right now.
> 
> WALLACE: Senator Cruz, your colleague, Senator Paul, right there next to you, said a few months ago he agrees with you on a number of issues ...


Kelly should start the debate with the same questions. This time she should hold out for a non-whining and evasive answer.


----------



## Rouge Rover

LoneLaugher said:


> Rouge Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rouge Rover thinks this debate is on FOX. He's arguing from that POV.  Very stupid of him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. There are two different issues being discussed here. Is Trump afraid of Kelly and should he debate at all. Sorry if you got confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not confused. See post #22. Just admit that you didn't know get tonight's debate was not on FOX. If you did, you wouldn't be suggesting that Trump skip the debate to avoid hostile unfairness from FOX.
> 
> The idea that there is any reason for him to miss a debate other than avoiding difficult questions is ridiculous.
Click to expand...


Alright, here's post #22:



Rouge Rover said:


> Not once in my life until today have I ever seen anyone say that the point of a debate is to punch a candidate the fuck around. Right now FOX needs Trump but Trump doesn't need FOX. That may change in the future but right now I'd lose respect for him if he went on a hostile network without having to.



First I say that the point of a debate is not to "punch a candidate the fuck around". Then I say FOX needs Trump more than Trump needs FOX, that was in response to the idea that Trump is afraid of Megyn Kelly. Then I say in the future he may need to appear on FOX, once again a response to the same idea. I don't see anything in post #22 about the next debate being on FOX.

FOX is a topic because the thread is about FOX. This thread isn't about the upcoming debate.


----------



## PK1

Mrs. M. said:


> This morning, news sources quoted Megyn Kelly as saying, “I hope Donald Trump will show up for the debate.” Fox News has announced that it will be hosting the next presidential debate with Megyn Kelly returning once again, as one of their moderators.
> 
> Is it ethical for Fox News to allow Megyn Kelly to force herself upon Donald Trump? Kelly knows that Mr. Trump bowed out of the last debate because she was going to be one of the moderators. Americans still remember how she viciously targeted the GOP front runner, making it about herself rather than a presidential debate. Megyn Kelly has went on record stating that she would ask the same questions. Apparently she sees nothing wrong with how she handled herself during the presidential debate.
> ...


---
*Unethical?* You must live in another reality.
If it's ethical for Trump to debase women or refugees, *as a group*, then it's ethical to criticize him for his unfairness. 

Besides, i thought Donald likes pretty women, like Megyn!
Or, does he only like them if they're stupid and on their knees?

.


----------



## cereal_killer

Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds - Albert Einstein


----------



## JoeMoma

Kelly's 1st question to Trump was unfair.


Kelly tried to use Trump's comment about Brande Roderick being on her knees as an example of an attack on women.  As seen in the video clip, Brande was actully on her knees.  Trump did make a flippant joke about it, but Brande had set it up for him.  And the context of her being on her knees was begging.  Megan Kelly tried to imply without completely coming out and saying it that the context of her being on her knees was oral sex.  I don't like Trump, and I don't plan on voting for him.  He has plenty of faults to attack, but the use of this example was way over the top.  Kelly for all practical purposes implied that Trump said that Brande being on her knees for oral sex would be a pretty picture.


----------



## Camp

JoeMoma said:


> Kelly's 1st question to Trump was unfair.
> 
> 
> Kelly tried to use Trump's comment about Brande Roderick being on her knees as an example of an attack on women.  As seen in the video clip, Brande was actully on her knees.  Trump did make a flippant joke about it, but Brande had set it up for him.  And the context of her being on her knees was begging.  Megan Kelly tried to imply without completely coming out and saying it that the context of her being on her knees was oral sex.  I don't like Trump, and I don't plan on voting for him.  He has plenty of faults to attack, but the use of this example was way over the top.  Kelly for all practical purposes implied that Trump said that Brande being on her knees for oral sex would be a pretty picture.


Kelly was right about her assessment and your version is not believable. Everyone grinned a giggled but everyone, including the target of the joke knew exactly what Trump was implying.


----------



## JoeMoma

Camp said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kelly's 1st question to Trump was unfair.
> 
> 
> Kelly tried to use Trump's comment about Brande Roderick being on her knees as an example of an attack on women.  As seen in the video clip, Brande was actully on her knees.  Trump did make a flippant joke about it, but Brande had set it up for him.  And the context of her being on her knees was begging.  Megan Kelly tried to imply without completely coming out and saying it that the context of her being on her knees was oral sex.  I don't like Trump, and I don't plan on voting for him.  He has plenty of faults to attack, but the use of this example was way over the top.  Kelly for all practical purposes implied that Trump said that Brande being on her knees for oral sex would be a pretty picture.
> 
> 
> 
> Kelly was right about her assessment and your version is not believable. Everyone grinned a giggled but everyone, including the target of the joke knew exactly what Trump was implying.
Click to expand...

No, Kelly made it seem 10 times dirtier than it really was.  Was there an innuendo there, perhaps.  But it didn't happen the way Kelly set it up, and was no where near as demeaning as one would think by watching the debate.  Trump's comment was said on an entertainment program.  Compare the comment to the things that are said on the sitcoms like Two and 1/2 men.......  It's nothing.


----------



## mudwhistle

Mrs. M. said:


> This morning, news sources quoted Megyn Kelly as saying, “I hope Donald Trump will show up for the debate.” Fox News has announced that it will be hosting the next presidential debate with Megyn Kelly returning once again, as one of their moderators.
> 
> Is it ethical for Fox News to allow Megyn Kelly to force herself upon Donald Trump? Kelly knows that Mr. Trump bowed out of the last debate because she was going to be one of the moderators. Americans still remember how she viciously targeted the GOP front runner, making it about herself rather than a presidential debate. Megyn Kelly has went on record stating that she would ask the same questions. Apparently she sees nothing wrong with how she handled herself during the presidential debate.
> 
> Perhaps Ms. Kelly does not realize how this looks to others. She comes off as a woman who is more concerned with making a name for herself than fairly moderating a presidential debate. She seems incapable of letting something go and worse yet wants to use another presidential debate to keep it going. It is as if she is “forcing herself” upon Donald Trump and the American people….
> 
> I believe Mr. Trump will show up for the debate and once again, prove that he is not a man to be intimidated. One can only hope that Megyn Kelly keeps her personal issues to herself this time. Her past behavior has been unprofessional to say the least.
> 
> Trump bowed out of the former debate to make a point.
> It comes down to the leadership at Fox News.
> 
> When Roger Ailes – head of Fox apologized to Donald Trump, there should have been a change made so that the former offense did not happen again. There is no evidence that Fox News has changed anything.
> 
> In my opinion, there is a great deal of dishonesty going on at Fox News. I believe Fox is using their own people to sway the vote towards Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Rubio has been tied with Kaisach and Carson more than Cruz yet he's received far more coverage than either candidate at Fox.
> 
> Frank Luntz was a former employee of Marco Rubio. Can he keep his professional job and his political preferences separated? Apparently not.
> 
> In the days before the August 6th debate, Luntz (Pollster at Fox News) held a closed door meeting for a large group of conservatives. The pollster told the group that Donald Trump was dangerous to Republicans and was turning what “we” believe into a joke.
> 
> This news did not sit well with Donald Trump and he immediately called for Roger Ailes to fire Luntz.
> Donald Trump said that he believes Frank Luntz has a long standing vendetta against him for refusing to do business with his polling company.
> 
> Once again, good leadership is absent and the employees at Fox News are permitted to use their position at the network for their own personal agenda.
> 
> Is it ethical for a pollster at Fox News to use a closed door meeting with a group of conservatives to slander the GOP front runner in a presidential election? How can Americans believe any poll results on the word of Frank Luntz at Fox News after seeing what has happened already?
> 
> Neither Megyn Kelly or Frank Luntz should be permitted anywhere near the presidential election debates.
> 
> If they had any integrity at all they would recuse themselves from this upcoming debate.
> Fox News may well win Trump's attendance at their next debate but they have lost something greater.
> The respect of the American people.
> 
> ___________
> News sources
> Megyn Kelly Hopes Trump Shows Up at Next Fox GOP Debate
> Updated: Donald Trump 'Definitely Not' Doing Fox News Debate - Breitbart
> Marco Rubio Previously Paid Pollster Frank Luntz, Who Praised Rubio on Fox News - Breitbart
> Frank Luntz Plays Favorites With Marco Rubio
> Fox's Luntz blasted Trump at Koch seminar


They have that **** moderating another debate?
What the heck is wrong with them?
It's obvious they're trying to rig the election.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Mrs. M. said:


> This morning, news sources quoted Megyn Kelly as saying, “I hope Donald Trump will show up for the debate.” Fox News has announced that it will be hosting the next presidential debate with Megyn Kelly returning once again, as one of their moderators.
> 
> Is it ethical for Fox News to allow Megyn Kelly to force herself upon Donald Trump? Kelly knows that Mr. Trump bowed out of the last debate because she was going to be one of the moderators. Americans still remember how she viciously targeted the GOP front runner, making it about herself rather than a presidential debate. Megyn Kelly has went on record stating that she would ask the same questions. Apparently she sees nothing wrong with how she handled herself during the presidential debate.
> 
> Perhaps Ms. Kelly does not realize how this looks to others. She comes off as a woman who is more concerned with making a name for herself than fairly moderating a presidential debate. She seems incapable of letting something go and worse yet wants to use another presidential debate to keep it going. It is as if she is “forcing herself” upon Donald Trump and the American people….
> 
> I believe Mr. Trump will show up for the debate and once again, prove that he is not a man to be intimidated. One can only hope that Megyn Kelly keeps her personal issues to herself this time. Her past behavior has been unprofessional to say the least.
> 
> Trump bowed out of the former debate to make a point.
> It comes down to the leadership at Fox News.
> 
> When Roger Ailes – head of Fox apologized to Donald Trump, there should have been a change made so that the former offense did not happen again. There is no evidence that Fox News has changed anything.
> 
> In my opinion, there is a great deal of dishonesty going on at Fox News. I believe Fox is using their own people to sway the vote towards Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Rubio has been tied with Kaisach and Carson more than Cruz yet he's received far more coverage than either candidate at Fox.
> 
> Frank Luntz was a former employee of Marco Rubio. Can he keep his professional job and his political preferences separated? Apparently not.
> 
> In the days before the August 6th debate, Luntz (Pollster at Fox News) held a closed door meeting for a large group of conservatives. The pollster told the group that Donald Trump was dangerous to Republicans and was turning what “we” believe into a joke.
> 
> This news did not sit well with Donald Trump and he immediately called for Roger Ailes to fire Luntz.
> Donald Trump said that he believes Frank Luntz has a long standing vendetta against him for refusing to do business with his polling company.
> 
> Once again, good leadership is absent and the employees at Fox News are permitted to use their position at the network for their own personal agenda.
> 
> Is it ethical for a pollster at Fox News to use a closed door meeting with a group of conservatives to slander the GOP front runner in a presidential election? How can Americans believe any poll results on the word of Frank Luntz at Fox News after seeing what has happened already?
> 
> Neither Megyn Kelly or Frank Luntz should be permitted anywhere near the presidential election debates.
> 
> If they had any integrity at all they would recuse themselves from this upcoming debate.
> Fox News may well win Trump's attendance at their next debate but they have lost something greater.
> The respect of the American people.
> 
> ___________
> News sources
> Megyn Kelly Hopes Trump Shows Up at Next Fox GOP Debate
> Updated: Donald Trump 'Definitely Not' Doing Fox News Debate - Breitbart
> Marco Rubio Previously Paid Pollster Frank Luntz, Who Praised Rubio on Fox News - Breitbart
> Frank Luntz Plays Favorites With Marco Rubio
> Fox's Luntz blasted Trump at Koch seminar




LOLWUT!!!

I do enjoy reading your badly worded bullshit.

Please, by all means, continue.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Trump is a cad, period.


----------



## JoeMoma

Megan Kelly seems to have no problem with Howard Stern.  Yes, I know Howard Stern is not running for president.  However, this conversation seems far worse to me than Trump's little innuendo on the apprentice.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yep, JoeMoma, it is a false equivalency fallacy.


----------



## JoeMoma

JakeStarkey said:


> Yep, JoeMoma, it is a false equivalency fallacy.


No it's not.


----------



## JoeMoma

Lefties thank they are being clever by using the word "fallacy".


----------



## JoeMoma

JakeStarkey said:


> Yep, JoeMoma, it is a false equivalency fallacy.


Actually, I change my mind.  You are right, it is a faults equivalency because Megan's trashy talk with Stern blows Trumps little innuendo out of the water.  They are no where near equivalent --  Megan and Stern are much worse.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Nope, you are wrong.  The venues are different, their purposes and intent are different, and your argument falls flat.


----------



## Rouge Rover




----------



## JoeMoma

JakeStarkey said:


> Nope, you are wrong.  The venues are different, their purposes and intent are different, and your argument falls flat.


Yes, Megan choose to be on a much trashier venue than Trump.  However, they both were entertainment venues.


----------



## JoeMoma

Part one of Megan's question was do you think (those comments) are the temperament of a man to be President.  Let's look at some precedents.  President Kennedy, one of our most beloved presidents, is famous for cheating on his wife while president, perhaps maybe even having an affair with Marilyn Monroe.  President Clint, beloved by democrats and many moderates, had sex with an intern in (or very near) the Oval Office, and then lied about it.  Donald Trump, made an innuendo on a reality show.  Considering the precedents set by Kennidy and Clinton, it seems pretty presidential to me.  Let's not even bring up Clinton's cigars.


----------



## bravoactual

Mrs. M. said:


> This morning, news sources quoted Megyn Kelly as saying, “I hope Donald Trump will show up for the debate.” Fox News has announced that it will be hosting the next presidential debate with Megyn Kelly returning once again, as one of their moderators.
> 
> Is it ethical for Fox News to allow Megyn Kelly to force herself upon Donald Trump? Kelly knows that Mr. Trump bowed out of the last debate because she was going to be one of the moderators. Americans still remember how she viciously targeted the GOP front runner, making it about herself rather than a presidential debate. Megyn Kelly has went on record stating that she would ask the same questions. Apparently she sees nothing wrong with how she handled herself during the presidential debate.
> 
> Perhaps Ms. Kelly does not realize how this looks to others. She comes off as a woman who is more concerned with making a name for herself than fairly moderating a presidential debate. She seems incapable of letting something go and worse yet wants to use another presidential debate to keep it going. It is as if she is “forcing herself” upon Donald Trump and the American people….
> 
> I believe Mr. Trump will show up for the debate and once again, prove that he is not a man to be intimidated. One can only hope that Megyn Kelly keeps her personal issues to herself this time. Her past behavior has been unprofessional to say the least.
> 
> Trump bowed out of the former debate to make a point.
> It comes down to the leadership at Fox News.
> 
> When Roger Ailes – head of Fox apologized to Donald Trump, there should have been a change made so that the former offense did not happen again. There is no evidence that Fox News has changed anything.
> 
> In my opinion, there is a great deal of dishonesty going on at Fox News. I believe Fox is using their own people to sway the vote towards Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Rubio has been tied with Kaisach and Carson more than Cruz yet he's received far more coverage than either candidate at Fox.
> 
> Frank Luntz was a former employee of Marco Rubio. Can he keep his professional job and his political preferences separated? Apparently not.
> 
> In the days before the August 6th debate, Luntz (Pollster at Fox News) held a closed door meeting for a large group of conservatives. The pollster told the group that Donald Trump was dangerous to Republicans and was turning what “we” believe into a joke.
> 
> This news did not sit well with Donald Trump and he immediately called for Roger Ailes to fire Luntz.
> Donald Trump said that he believes Frank Luntz has a long standing vendetta against him for refusing to do business with his polling company.
> 
> Once again, good leadership is absent and the employees at Fox News are permitted to use their position at the network for their own personal agenda.
> 
> Is it ethical for a pollster at Fox News to use a closed door meeting with a group of conservatives to slander the GOP front runner in a presidential election? How can Americans believe any poll results on the word of Frank Luntz at Fox News after seeing what has happened already?
> 
> Neither Megyn Kelly or Frank Luntz should be permitted anywhere near the presidential election debates.
> 
> If they had any integrity at all they would recuse themselves from this upcoming debate.
> Fox News may well win Trump's attendance at their next debate but they have lost something greater.
> The respect of the American people.
> 
> ___________
> News sources
> Megyn Kelly Hopes Trump Shows Up at Next Fox GOP Debate
> Updated: Donald Trump 'Definitely Not' Doing Fox News Debate - Breitbart
> Marco Rubio Previously Paid Pollster Frank Luntz, Who Praised Rubio on Fox News - Breitbart
> Frank Luntz Plays Favorites With Marco Rubio
> Fox's Luntz blasted Trump at Koch seminar




The words, "*Fox News*" and "*Ethics*" do not be long in the same sentence

Der Trumpenfuhrer is under the sadly misinformed opinion that he has a right control the media.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Trump will be out of the race before SuperTuesday if he refuses to face Megyn.  If he can't face Megyn, how the heck is he going to face Putin?


----------



## JoeMoma

He will have no problem facing Megan.  Also he will be ready for her next time.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JoeMoma said:


> He will have no problem facing Megan.  Also he will be ready for her next time.


He must be.


----------



## HenryBHough

Rubio was looking somewhat acceptable until the "mainstream" (read "Closetcrats") united behind him.  Now it's clear.  If it's not Trump or Cruz then we might as well elect Nutty Old Uncle Bernie on the theory that he would do the least harm and provide the biggest laughs.


----------



## oldsoul

LoneLaugher said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does it matter? The debates are nothing more than a bunch of showmanship anyway. What I, and ALOT of other people, care about is what a canidate has, and can accomplish, as well as what they stand for. Trump has publicly supported conflicting positions on so many topics that I cannot trust anything he says. Other canidates could, if they chose, let their records speak for themselves, not Trump, he has no record. Only support for various proposals and people that where of benefit to him and his business at the time. Name one thing the man stands for, other than "winning". How will he do it? when? where? on what? These are the questions we need answers to, not "is he tough enough?", Is he this, is he that? I just want him to say what he stands for already. What does he intend to accomplish? If we look at his business record (the only one we have), he has failed several times (financially), he's a bully, he does not negociate (only dictate), he is a totalitarian dictator. He is using the same tactics Obama did:
> 
> Tell anyone who will listen YOU are the ONLY one for the job.
> Anyone who disagrees is a moron.
> Assassinate the character of any threats.
> Tell anyone who will listen YOU are the ONLY one for the job.
> And look what we got when we fell for THAT crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. You nutbags can't go a day without trying to convince yourselves that your shitty candidates are similar to the sitting president. It's got to suck knowing that your guys would lose to the man again if he were able and willing to run.
Click to expand...

 What? Where you drunk when you posted that? Trump IS using the same tactics as Obama. Think I am wrong? Show me evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, I would have no problem discussing the canidate I ACCUALLY like with someone who is willing to have a serious debate, based on real topics, not slander, and name calling. Guess that rules YOU out! Now, get back to your drink before you sober up.


----------

