Megyn Kelly Continues To Put Her Stupidity on Display

[Camp]

Voting records? Seriously? Seig Heil!

Where would you even get them to begin with?

Is there a record being kept of how I have voted?

Are you a journalist with a body of published work that people can refer to for information about your opinions and political leanings?

Sounds like you are suggesting that journalist should be excluded from the constitutional rights the rest of us have. Who will you exclude next?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cruz: Everyone needs to be a member to attend!
Kelly: Yeah, lets check to be sure
Cruz: Dont be stupid Kelly

Do you really think it's somehow difficult to tell which "journalists" are unlikely to ever vote in a GOP primary or for a GOP candidate?

He didnt say UNLIKELY he said only people that vote GOP. Pay attention

Sorry the paraphrase confused you. Oh, wait, I'm not.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Voting records? Seriously? Seig Heil!

Where would you even get them to begin with?

Is there a record being kept of how I have voted?

Are you a journalist with a body of published work that people can refer to for information about your opinions and political leanings?

Sounds like you are suggesting that journalist should be excluded from the constitutional rights the rest of us have. Who will you exclude next?

Where does the Constitution guarantee a right to moderate debates in party primary races?

 

[easyt65]

OK, but how is Kelly stupid for asking how Cruz would verify their voting records? Thats the part that gets me

There was a complete lack of professionalism and journalistic integrity in not only the phrasing of her questions but in her demeanor and her actions. It seemed obvious she was either trying to, too aggressively, pass herself off as a 'tough journalist', was pushed into doing what she did by her bosses, or - like CNBC - tried to generate some heat to bump up the ratings.

Barbara Walters (sudden angelic music and a light shines down in a moment of reverence) would never have conducted an interview or debate like that....just sayin'.

 

[Camp]

Voting records? Seriously? Seig Heil!

Where would you even get them to begin with?

Is there a record being kept of how I have voted?

Are you a journalist with a body of published work that people can refer to for information about your opinions and political leanings?

Sounds like you are suggesting that journalist should be excluded from the constitutional rights the rest of us have. Who will you exclude next?

Where does the Constitution guarantee a right to moderate debates in party primary races?

You are answering a question by asking a deflecting new question. Of course, there is nothing in the constitution that determines who and how moderators in a Presidential primary or any other kind of debate is chosen or regulated. The debate itself is conducted as a private or quasi-private venue. The first amendment protects the private venue entity and allows them to pick who ever they want and regulate it in any fashion they want.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Voting records? Seriously? Seig Heil!

Where would you even get them to begin with?

Is there a record being kept of how I have voted?

Are you a journalist with a body of published work that people can refer to for information about your opinions and political leanings?

Sounds like you are suggesting that journalist should be excluded from the constitutional rights the rest of us have. Who will you exclude next?

Where does the Constitution guarantee a right to moderate debates in party primary races?

You are answering a question by asking a deflecting new question. Of course, there is nothing in the constitution that determines who and how moderators in a Presidential primary or any other kind of debate is chosen or regulated. The debate itself is conducted as a private or quasi-private venue. The first amendment protects the private venue entity and allows them to pick who ever they want and regulate it in any fashion they want.

Dipshit, YOU said "constitutional rights", not me. There's no "deflection to a new question" by responding to YOUR OWN WORDS.

The First Amendment has diddly squat to do with this, and no amount of reaching and squirming is going to change that.

The only thing you got right is that the GOP debates are PRIVATE. They are run and presented by the GOP, a private entity, which has every right to set them up however they want, and choose their moderator any way they want. To try to pretend that there's any sort of "constitutional right" in any way involved with a GOP candidate expressing an opinion to the GOP leadership about how a GOP debate should be run is ludicrous.

You stepped on your johnson. Now while we all finish laughing at you, pick yourself up and go put on a Bandaid.

 

[bendog]

I've always wondered where the dis came from in "stepping on your Johnson." Few are capable. (-:

 

[Camp]

Is there a record being kept of how I have voted?

Are you a journalist with a body of published work that people can refer to for information about your opinions and political leanings?

Sounds like you are suggesting that journalist should be excluded from the constitutional rights the rest of us have. Who will you exclude next?

Where does the Constitution guarantee a right to moderate debates in party primary races?

You are answering a question by asking a deflecting new question. Of course, there is nothing in the constitution that determines who and how moderators in a Presidential primary or any other kind of debate is chosen or regulated. The debate itself is conducted as a private or quasi-private venue. The first amendment protects the private venue entity and allows them to pick who ever they want and regulate it in any fashion they want.

Dipshit, YOU said "constitutional rights", not me. There's no "deflection to a new question" by responding to YOUR OWN WORDS.

The First Amendment has diddly squat to do with this, and no amount of reaching and squirming is going to change that.

The only thing you got right is that the GOP debates are PRIVATE. They are run and presented by the GOP, a private entity, which has every right to set them up however they want, and choose their moderator any way they want. To try to pretend that there's any sort of "constitutional right" in any way involved with a GOP candidate expressing an opinion to the GOP leadership about how a GOP debate should be run is ludicrous.

You stepped on your johnson. Now while we all finish laughing at you, pick yourself up and go put on a Bandaid.

I was responding to your post about wanting to know the voting record of journalist and you answered with a question about how moderators were chosen, hence, changing the subject. Voters have a constitutional right to a secret ballot when voting. That has nothing to do with how moderators are chosen.
The choice of moderators is not a constitution issue except for the fact that it falls under free speech rights guaranteed to the entity in charge of the debate.
Is any of that to complicated for you?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I've always wondered where the dis came from in "stepping on your Johnson." Few are capable. (-:

In this case, it's because he's so twisted into a pretzel trying to be clever. He could probably step on his own ear.

 

[Seawytch]

Just like Democrats voting in a GOP primary, I do not believe any registered Democrats or anyone who is biased and have no intention of voting for a Republican should be allowed to vote in a GOP Primary.

Like Rush Limpballs in 2008? Operation CHAOS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you don't believe states should be able to set their own election rules?

Yet another "Being obtuse is such a clever debate strategy!" post.

No one suggested that states shouldn't set their own election laws, dimbulb. The suggestion is that they should set their laws to restrict party primaries to party members.

Why should the state give a flying fuck? Why should the state be footing the bill for your partisan primary? You think the states should be more partisan...while the VOTERS want more open primaries.

 

[sarahgop]

Kelly is a rubio/bush asslicking establishment pig.

 

[Fang]

Megyn Kelly does a great job! What's not to like about a woman who is not only hot, but very intelligent and well spoken. Well, I guess if you're a Liberal those qualities aren't appealing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just like Democrats voting in a GOP primary, I do not believe any registered Democrats or anyone who is biased and have no intention of voting for a Republican should be allowed to vote in a GOP Primary.

Like Rush Limpballs in 2008? Operation CHAOS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you don't believe states should be able to set their own election rules?

Yet another "Being obtuse is such a clever debate strategy!" post.

No one suggested that states shouldn't set their own election laws, dimbulb. The suggestion is that they should set their laws to restrict party primaries to party members.

Why should the state give a flying fuck? Why should the state be footing the bill for your partisan primary? You think the states should be more partisan...while the VOTERS want more open primaries.

Did you seriously just ask me why the state should "give a flying fuck" about elections and pass laws about them? Really?

Also, who said anything about footing bills for anything? Who was talking about funding? We're talking about laws as to how elections are conducted. No more, no less. Please try to at least PRETEND you know what the fucking topic is.

I think it's not too farfetched to say that primaries for a candidate representing a party should be voted in by members of the party, rather like saying that elections for people representing a specific state should only be voted in by residents of that state. Why would you have people voting in an election that is none of their business? And clearly, I'm not the only one who thinks it's not farfetched, since there are already states which have laws mandating closed primaries.

The only voters who want open primaries are the ones who want to manipulate that law to sabotage groups they don't agree with. I don't think something as serious as elections should leave itself open to that kind of crap. Go vote for your own candidate.

Watching you try to squirm around like a worm in hot ashes while you search for a leg to stand on is pretty funny, though.

 

[Rotagilla]

So journalists have to produce papers now?

How Germany, 1933..

Journalists are not moderating debates, hacks from the Democratic party's propaganda ministry are. Kelly is no journalist she's a damn lawyer.

well then, that explains her professional career since 2002 ... journalist.

comical..suddenly the radical left wants to defend fox news and their tactics......

 

[Seawytch]

Just like Democrats voting in a GOP primary, I do not believe any registered Democrats or anyone who is biased and have no intention of voting for a Republican should be allowed to vote in a GOP Primary.

Like Rush Limpballs in 2008? Operation CHAOS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you don't believe states should be able to set their own election rules?

Yet another "Being obtuse is such a clever debate strategy!" post.

No one suggested that states shouldn't set their own election laws, dimbulb. The suggestion is that they should set their laws to restrict party primaries to party members.

Why should the state give a flying fuck? Why should the state be footing the bill for your partisan primary? You think the states should be more partisan...while the VOTERS want more open primaries.

Did you seriously just ask me why the state should "give a flying fuck" about elections and pass laws about them? Really?

You really should refrain from calling other people "dim bulbs", when you seem to have a comprehension problem. I asked why a state should give a flying fuck about YOUR partisan primary. I said nothing about a state's interest in making election laws.

Also, who said anything about footing bills for anything? Who was talking about funding? We're talking about laws as to how elections are conducted. No more, no less. Please try to at least PRETEND you know what the fucking topic is.

Yes, we were and counties and states foot the bill for partisan primaries. They don't get money from the DNC or RNC for holding their partisan primary elections and they should. They should be reimbursed by the parties just like they are reimbursed by districts that hold elections. We bill out to districts and to the state for holding their elections...the parties get their little primaries for free, no reimbursement from the parties.

I think it's not too farfetched to say that primaries for a candidate representing a party should be voted in by members of the party, rather like saying that elections for people representing a specific state should only be voted in by residents of that state. Why would you have people voting in an election that is none of their business? And clearly, I'm not the only one who thinks it's not farfetched, since there are already states which have laws mandating closed primaries.

Most states have closed primaries, but that's because the parties want them, not the voters. When the voters get a chance to choose, they choose open primaries.

The only voters who want open primaries are the ones who want to manipulate that law to sabotage groups they don't agree with. I don't think something as serious as elections should leave itself open to that kind of crap. Go vote for your own candidate.

Nope. The people that want open primaries are the people that don't want to belong to a party. They are the independents, unaffiliated voters.

Watching you try to squirm around like a worm in hot ashes while you search for a leg to stand on is pretty funny, though.

You should be careful who you buy your drugs from. You're having a bad trip. You might make people squirm with discomfort, but the source of the squirming isn't what you think.

 

[BlueGin]

So journalists have to produce papers now?

How Germany, 1933..

Why not when they are known for fake stories to sway elections or to make the news instead if reporting it. See Dan Rather and the Reporter from Rolling Stone.

 

[BlueGin]

Here's the full transcript. What questions do you have trouble with?

Republican Debate: Read the Transcript of the CNBC Debate

Megyn Kelly's condescending / snarky question about checking past voting records....again that demonstrates a level of immaturity / lack of professionalism, in my opinion (as someone with a journalism degree).

Exactly.

 

[BlueGin]

"Megyn Kelly Confronts Cruz: Should GOP Moderators Have to Show You Their Voting Records?"
LINK: Megyn Kelly Confronts Cruz: Should GOP Moderators Have to Show You Their Voting Records?

"Megyn Kelly confronted Ted Cruz tonight about his proposal that any future Republican debate moderators should not include people who have never voted in a Republican party primary."

The candidate's actions since the CNBC debate has nothing to do with how someone has voted in the past but has been instead about JOURNALISTIC Integrity, Journalistic Competence, and exposed extreme bias. Being what SHE calls a journalist, she finds offense at that. She also is obviously still a little sensitive / pissed about being taken to task for her own LACK of professionalism in the 1st debate. In doing so, she continues to demonstrate her INABILITY to BE a fair, un-biased, and professional journalist.

ALSO, Cruz brings up a VALID Point. Just like Democrats voting in a GOP primary, I do not believe any registered Democrats or anyone who is biased and have no intention of voting for a Republican should be allowed to vote in a GOP Primary. Similarly, the Liberally-biased media have already proven they are not competent enough to come up with debate questions that address REAL issues versus questions about fantasy football or trying to incite candidates to engage in personal attacks.

As I said, if Megyn Kelly, still having her proverbial panties in a wad after being lectured on her lack of professionalism, can't understand that or is still offended by that concept, to hail with her. 'It' ain't all about the media.

She thinks she was successful in destroying Trump over Rosie O'Donnell, the fat, foul-mouthed lesbo, that Kelly was sticking up for, that thinks good looking women like Ms Kelly, are stupid crack-whores.

Megan Kelly lost my trust. What she did was unforgivable. She got a boost in ratings, but when you betray your viewers, you find out what the Dixie Chick's had to find out....the hard way. If you have no integrity, conservative viewership will crater. Once the liberals stop watching her, she's toast.

She has really gotten bad at hiding her contempt for the people she interviews. Plus she asks them stupid questions. She has gotten as bad or even worse in some cases than Hannity and I don't like watching her segments anymore.

 

[BlueGin]

The left have confused hosting a roast with moderating a debate, well not really they know exactly what they are doing and why.

I agree. That's why they spend so much time defending it.

 

[BlueGin]

I don't think it's a bad idea to find moderators for a GOP debate who know and understand what issues Republicans/conservatives care about and want addressed.

...except Liberals think if one of their 'trusted, liberally-certified, card-carrying biased media members' doesn't moderate then it's not credible and not a valid debate...

I don't give a rat's furry fat ass if the liberals think a GOP debate is "legitimate" or not. The whole point is that these debates shouldn't be about liberals at all.

Exactly