The biggest lie being thrown around the airwaves this election season is that Trump 'hates women'. That whopper is back in the news again because he openly despises one woman. Just one with whom he's picked a running feud. Again, because of that one, he is being painted as hating 'all' women. It's disgusting and it's wrong but the liberal left and the media keep spewing this nonsense like a torrent of wastewater from a sewage plant.
I know where it comes from. It comes from the fact that the man is outspoken and words that should stay 'inside' fall out and become quotes.
If he doesn't respect you - man or woman - he is not going to pretend he does. He's too fundamentally honest to hold back and not say what's on his mind. He is not capable of filtering his thoughts, guarding his opinions and speaking only what is palatable to the listener.
My observations are that if you're an idiot of either gender, he'll tell you. If you're not meeting expectations - no exception given for gender - he'll tell you.
In other words, he appears to treat men and women the same, without exception. Except for Megyn Kelly, but that's something else again.
Putting Kelly aside, the problem with this even-handed approach is that while women screech at the top of their lungs that they want to be treated equally, when someone (a man) doesn't hold back his opinion of them, they slap on the GENDER VICTIM label and start shrieking that this big bad man is mean.
It's disgusting and a case in point is the recent dust-up with the Breitbart female.
I saw that video. I saw it over-and-over-and-over again because the media wanted to make another mountain out of an anthill.
What I did not see in that clip is that she 'almost fell', as was claimed. She was moved to the side, but I did not see a stumble, an arm thrown out for balance or anyone leaping forward to catch her. She was moved to the side because she was standing in the way. End of story. Except for the bruises. But those could also be explained by a medical condition - hypothyroidism, for instance. People who have hypothyroidism tend to bruise very easily. Other conditions and some medications (Coumadin / Warfarin) predispose people to bruising. So give me a break, honey. I don't buy it. You're a woman who was *GASP!!!!* touched by a man without your explicit permission and you threw the GENDER VICTIM card.
Give me a break and grow up.
Either you want to be equal - and that means accepting whatever it is that's being dished because if the person doing the dishing is as rude and unpleasant to their gender peers as they are to the opposite sex, they are treating you equally - or you don't. You can take exception to what they say and how they say it, but don't go slapping on that worthless label and screaming at the top of your lungs the guy's a bastard for saying what he thinks.
Tackle him on his own terms, refute what he's said about you and make it stick, or walk away. Throwing yourself into the crowd and blubbering that you've just been victimized may get a bunch of people feeling sorry for you, but it demeans you not the bastard who called you a moron.
If you're not a big grown-up person capable of standing up to a bully, you don't deserve my respect. Sorry, but that's the standard. I have been bullied all my life - first by a brother and then by my husband. Through it all, having lived that, I eventually learned to step outside of myself and to look at myself as objectively as I was able through the eyes of colleagues and peers whom I respect. They said good things about me, about my person and my work and they helped me to learn my value. I learned to stop labeling myself VICTIM just because someone says something horrible to or about me. Now when someone says something cruel or demeaning I stop. I pause to look inside, to my core, and to evaluate what's been said against what I know to be true. Knowing my worth means the bully has no power over me. S/he can say what they want and it might sting, but in the end, it's my opinion about myself that matters most.
Because of that, because I am that strong, The Donald is a running joke when he says silly things about someone he doesn't respect.
I don't care that he despises Megyn Kelly. That's their problem, between them. That does not mean that he hates all women, and anyone who says it does just proves to me the point that a lot of people are morons.
It's like saying I'm a 'vegsogynist' because I will not eat eggplant or purple cabbage. I like other vegetables - almost all of them, but I am prejudiced against purple vegetables. Does that mean that I'm evil or wrong because I don't like eggplant or purple cabbage? No. I think we can agree that it's acceptable for me not to like purple vegetables.
So why should it be any different between people? Are we supposed to like everyone we cross paths with? Good lord! How boring would that be? Yeah - let's fall into that Utopian lock-step of '1984' where no one has individual thoughts or feelings.
A lot of people like Megyn Kelly. A number of people don't. I find her presentation annoying. She tends toward the melodramatic in some of her reporting - the cadence and tenor of her voice changes - and her voice gets screechy when she's worked up about something. That's irritating. Like fingernails on a blackboard irritating, and I don't find it appealing. Does this make me a misogynist? No. It means I don't like watching Megyn Kelly.
I don't like Carly Fiorna, either. She has this head-bob thing that she does when she talks and it bugs the hell out of me. I like what she had to say when she was campaigning. I think she's an extremely smart woman. But I don't like watching her because of that bobblehead move she does. Does that make me a woman-hater? No. It means I can't watch Carly Fiorna when she talks.
Why can't Donald Trump not like someone? Why does his openly not liking one person make him an entirety of something else? What other women has he slammed? Help me out.
I've already posted about the women he championed long before it became the norm to promote women through the glass ceiling. Here's the post from back in January:
Oh Just Grow A Pair Already
Which explains why I don't get it.
Apparently, he is not allowed to like or dislike particular people - a standard to which others aren't held.
Are you going to sit there and tell me that you like everyone you've ever known? That you have never once in your entire life met someone you didn't like, someone you came to despise through contact and who you think is an idiot? No one? Then I would say you need to get out more, or you need to pass whatever it is that you're smoking so we can all share.
I don't care what the media pinheads say about him. I am smart enough, strong enough for form my own opinions and I do not think that this lie holds water.
So, there you have it. Donald Trump is not a misogynist no matter what the print press, Fox News and other media pinheads want us to believe.
Have a wonderful day.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Showing posts with label Megyn Kelly. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Megyn Kelly. Show all posts
Saturday, March 19, 2016
Saturday, January 30, 2016
Fox + Chickens = Kerfuffle
Kerfuffle. I love that word. Such a silly word. It makes me think of:
Last week we had the kerfuffle over Trump and Fox News and the debate and the aftermath and now it's over. All done.
Fox had its debate sans Trump.
Trump had his vet's event sans Fox.
CNN tried to chart the middle path, talking about the debate sans Trump while showing Trump's event sans Fox. It was amusing, to say the least.
Then there were those all week declaring, 'It's because Trump is afraid of Megyn Kelly!' which is laughable. C'mon, what woman who wants to be taken as a serious professional allows pictures like this to escape:
I mean, unless she's a member of the Oldest Profession or a lingerie model for Victoria's Secret, that is not professional.
Now don't get me wrong - I think she's a beautiful woman, smart as a tack (most of the time) and a capable news talking head. But for Trump to be afraid of a piece of smart, eye-candy? Gimme a break.
I think what gets under Donald's skin with this one is the fact that he's got a thing for blonde women but this blonde woman won't give him the time of day. That's just me, speculating.
Whatever.
And while all of this is going on, Hilliary Clinton and Obie-One are playing peek-a-boo (or peep-bo if you're from the UK) with James Comey and the FBI.
Hilliary is running around shouting at the top of her lungs, "I didn't do anything wrong!" (Sounds a bit Bill-ish to me).
Which, of course, continued to be an open question because of a certain little blue dress and a little thing called 'impeachment'.
In Hilliary's case, we have a smoking gun in the form of e-mails collected from her server. Some of those are so sensitive that they cannot be released to the people investigating this mess.
Now someone at my work asked, "Why is this so important?" My jaw just about hit my desk because, to me, it's obvious. Then again, I worked for a government contractor and saw first-hand how seriously they take this stuff.
No non-employees could walk anywhere - not even to the bathroom - without an escort. Every employee had not just a badge, but a badge with their picture on it. When I signed up to work there, I got verbal warnings and written warnings which I had to sign. Dead-serious non-disclosure agreement, which I had to sign. Warnings everywhere that if I handled anything for that contracting company and it made it out the door in any way, I could be fired and I could be prosecuted and sent to jail. And that was at the mud on the bottom of the ocean floor level of heirarchy.
Then we have Hilliary, swimming up near the top of that ocean, blithely going about transferring data, highly secret and sensitive data, to an unsecured - i.e, non-encrypted, not securely protected from tampering or hacking or anything else - computer. It's like posting national secrets on a gmail account.
And the data probably contains information gathered in hot-spots around the world. Perhaps even messages to and from Chris Stevens, the late ambassador to Libya who was killed at Benghazi because Hilliary and Obie-One couldn't be arsed to either provide more protection or withdraw him and his staff.
So all of this is out there on something no better than a gmail server. And the Chinese and the Iranians and India and North Korea and everybody else probably tripped over it as they were collecting sigint (signal intelligence = electronic intelligence) as they do all the time.
Perhaps, at first, they couldn't believe anyone like the Secretary of State would be so woefully stupid as to do this, so maybe they passed over it. Then again, maybe not.
And in those e-mails are twenty-two that, if rumor has it right, have the capacity of endangering people's lives.
People take great risk for belief and patriotism and, if they believe the United States will help them or their family or community or country, they sometimes work up the courage to talk. Then, once they do, they live in constant fear of being found out. Thus, the need for tightly secured, highly protected servers. Except if you're Hilliary Clinton and are either blithely stupid or think that you're bigger and more important than some little guy in Iran who just took a head-shot for passing information.
On Friday, Obie-One met with Berns, privately. Now there's all sorts of interesting speculation about that. Doesn't seem like Obie-One and Berns are bestest buddies since this get-together was notable. I doubt they were comparing calendars for lunch or a golf date. No, I suspect it was one of three things:
1) Shut up about the e-mails. We have enough trouble with those and don't need you stirring the pot.
2) I have to recommend that Lynch lynches Hilliary and passes down an indictment, but we're still not giving you the nomination - that's going to go to Joe and Liz.
3) Both of the above.
See, Obie-one, because of his faithful Sycophant of State, is in an untenable position. He's in the last year of Legacy Building. Will his legacy be one of setting politicians and their appointees above the law by giving Hilliary a pass?
Well, that flies in the face of the Constitution and the guarantee contained in the Preamble - the Declaration of Independence that 'all men are created equal'. There is no provision anywhere in the Founding documents for government officials being treated differently or with greater preference under the law than regular folks.
Another point, one which would be just as damning, is if he doesn't let Lynch lynch Hilliary. If he gives both a pass, he is likely to have James Comey and half the FBI leadership stand up and walk out on him. And Comey is not a push-over. Comey threatened to do this once before, and I believe he meant it. Comey is a law and order guy who sees purely in shades of black and white / legal and illegal.
So, does Obie-One's legacy stand as a president who effectively pardoned a traitor to the country by not permitting an indictment and had a revolt at the top law enforcement agency as a result? Yeah, that'll look good in the history books.
He's a politically savvy guy who's entire life has been spent looking out for himself, his position and how he is perceived among the people. He is purely self-serving when it comes to stuff like that, and now he's being tested. He is caught between a rock - his pride and dream of what his legacy will look like - and a hard place - those Elites behind the scene that pull the string of Obie-One and every other politician in Washington.
They probably don't want to see Hilliary indicted. They're probably furious with Obie-One and Hilliary for creating this mess, but they need and want Hilliary in the Oval Office to further their agenda.
What is Obie going to do? Cave and let Hilliary take a pass and see his golden legacy turn black with tarnish, or...
Wait! Cavalry trumpets in the distance! It's Joe and Liz to the rescue! We can toss Hilliary to the wolves, let her take her lumps and pay the price in some cushy place, but keep the agenda of the Elites alive and well - we'll bring out Biden and Warren and dust them off and thrust them into the fray. Sure! That sounds like a plan.
After all, Biden went to great lengths a few months ago to say that he wouldn't be running and why. Now, more recently, he's making noises about how he 'regrets it every day' that he's not running. Uh huh. Yeah. Probably began regretting it since that 0200 phone call that said 'it's looking bad for Hil so you'd best be ready to pony up and ride, son.'
We'll find out. It depends on how things play out in the next week or so.
Obie-One and his puppet masters can't wait too long. If Berns does well in Iowa and New Hampshire, well enough to bring into question the eventual outcome of the election later this year, they might pull Hilliary, toss the indictment at her, and shove Joe and Liz into the limelight in her place.
Now that's guaranteed to piss off the liberal base because there are people out there clamoring for Hilliary and her ovaries (her sole qualification for the job as far as I can see) to run this place. If she's yanked and yet another bland white man is shoved in front of them, game over. The Ovary Voters will stay home, Bernie's voters will push him along, coupled with defectors from the Ovary Class, Trump will take Biden apart one bit at a time (the man is a Gaffe Disaster and a moron) and the Democrats will have a right mess on their hands.
If Berns runs the table after New Hampshire, how can the Dems not give him the nomination? But they don't want to, because he, like The Donald, doesn't take money from the Elites (aka special interests). That means that if either one of those two win, the Elites no longer have control over the White House - for at least four years.
I love politics - from the outside. Have a wonderful day!
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Last week we had the kerfuffle over Trump and Fox News and the debate and the aftermath and now it's over. All done.
Fox had its debate sans Trump.
Trump had his vet's event sans Fox.
CNN tried to chart the middle path, talking about the debate sans Trump while showing Trump's event sans Fox. It was amusing, to say the least.
Then there were those all week declaring, 'It's because Trump is afraid of Megyn Kelly!' which is laughable. C'mon, what woman who wants to be taken as a serious professional allows pictures like this to escape:
Now don't get me wrong - I think she's a beautiful woman, smart as a tack (most of the time) and a capable news talking head. But for Trump to be afraid of a piece of smart, eye-candy? Gimme a break.
I think what gets under Donald's skin with this one is the fact that he's got a thing for blonde women but this blonde woman won't give him the time of day. That's just me, speculating.
Whatever.
And while all of this is going on, Hilliary Clinton and Obie-One are playing peek-a-boo (or peep-bo if you're from the UK) with James Comey and the FBI.
Hilliary is running around shouting at the top of her lungs, "I didn't do anything wrong!" (Sounds a bit Bill-ish to me).
Which, of course, continued to be an open question because of a certain little blue dress and a little thing called 'impeachment'.
In Hilliary's case, we have a smoking gun in the form of e-mails collected from her server. Some of those are so sensitive that they cannot be released to the people investigating this mess.
Now someone at my work asked, "Why is this so important?" My jaw just about hit my desk because, to me, it's obvious. Then again, I worked for a government contractor and saw first-hand how seriously they take this stuff.
No non-employees could walk anywhere - not even to the bathroom - without an escort. Every employee had not just a badge, but a badge with their picture on it. When I signed up to work there, I got verbal warnings and written warnings which I had to sign. Dead-serious non-disclosure agreement, which I had to sign. Warnings everywhere that if I handled anything for that contracting company and it made it out the door in any way, I could be fired and I could be prosecuted and sent to jail. And that was at the mud on the bottom of the ocean floor level of heirarchy.
Then we have Hilliary, swimming up near the top of that ocean, blithely going about transferring data, highly secret and sensitive data, to an unsecured - i.e, non-encrypted, not securely protected from tampering or hacking or anything else - computer. It's like posting national secrets on a gmail account.
And the data probably contains information gathered in hot-spots around the world. Perhaps even messages to and from Chris Stevens, the late ambassador to Libya who was killed at Benghazi because Hilliary and Obie-One couldn't be arsed to either provide more protection or withdraw him and his staff.
So all of this is out there on something no better than a gmail server. And the Chinese and the Iranians and India and North Korea and everybody else probably tripped over it as they were collecting sigint (signal intelligence = electronic intelligence) as they do all the time.
Perhaps, at first, they couldn't believe anyone like the Secretary of State would be so woefully stupid as to do this, so maybe they passed over it. Then again, maybe not.
And in those e-mails are twenty-two that, if rumor has it right, have the capacity of endangering people's lives.
People take great risk for belief and patriotism and, if they believe the United States will help them or their family or community or country, they sometimes work up the courage to talk. Then, once they do, they live in constant fear of being found out. Thus, the need for tightly secured, highly protected servers. Except if you're Hilliary Clinton and are either blithely stupid or think that you're bigger and more important than some little guy in Iran who just took a head-shot for passing information.
On Friday, Obie-One met with Berns, privately. Now there's all sorts of interesting speculation about that. Doesn't seem like Obie-One and Berns are bestest buddies since this get-together was notable. I doubt they were comparing calendars for lunch or a golf date. No, I suspect it was one of three things:
1) Shut up about the e-mails. We have enough trouble with those and don't need you stirring the pot.
2) I have to recommend that Lynch lynches Hilliary and passes down an indictment, but we're still not giving you the nomination - that's going to go to Joe and Liz.
3) Both of the above.
See, Obie-one, because of his faithful Sycophant of State, is in an untenable position. He's in the last year of Legacy Building. Will his legacy be one of setting politicians and their appointees above the law by giving Hilliary a pass?
Well, that flies in the face of the Constitution and the guarantee contained in the Preamble - the Declaration of Independence that 'all men are created equal'. There is no provision anywhere in the Founding documents for government officials being treated differently or with greater preference under the law than regular folks.
Another point, one which would be just as damning, is if he doesn't let Lynch lynch Hilliary. If he gives both a pass, he is likely to have James Comey and half the FBI leadership stand up and walk out on him. And Comey is not a push-over. Comey threatened to do this once before, and I believe he meant it. Comey is a law and order guy who sees purely in shades of black and white / legal and illegal.
So, does Obie-One's legacy stand as a president who effectively pardoned a traitor to the country by not permitting an indictment and had a revolt at the top law enforcement agency as a result? Yeah, that'll look good in the history books.
He's a politically savvy guy who's entire life has been spent looking out for himself, his position and how he is perceived among the people. He is purely self-serving when it comes to stuff like that, and now he's being tested. He is caught between a rock - his pride and dream of what his legacy will look like - and a hard place - those Elites behind the scene that pull the string of Obie-One and every other politician in Washington.
They probably don't want to see Hilliary indicted. They're probably furious with Obie-One and Hilliary for creating this mess, but they need and want Hilliary in the Oval Office to further their agenda.
What is Obie going to do? Cave and let Hilliary take a pass and see his golden legacy turn black with tarnish, or...
Wait! Cavalry trumpets in the distance! It's Joe and Liz to the rescue! We can toss Hilliary to the wolves, let her take her lumps and pay the price in some cushy place, but keep the agenda of the Elites alive and well - we'll bring out Biden and Warren and dust them off and thrust them into the fray. Sure! That sounds like a plan.
After all, Biden went to great lengths a few months ago to say that he wouldn't be running and why. Now, more recently, he's making noises about how he 'regrets it every day' that he's not running. Uh huh. Yeah. Probably began regretting it since that 0200 phone call that said 'it's looking bad for Hil so you'd best be ready to pony up and ride, son.'
We'll find out. It depends on how things play out in the next week or so.
Obie-One and his puppet masters can't wait too long. If Berns does well in Iowa and New Hampshire, well enough to bring into question the eventual outcome of the election later this year, they might pull Hilliary, toss the indictment at her, and shove Joe and Liz into the limelight in her place.
Now that's guaranteed to piss off the liberal base because there are people out there clamoring for Hilliary and her ovaries (her sole qualification for the job as far as I can see) to run this place. If she's yanked and yet another bland white man is shoved in front of them, game over. The Ovary Voters will stay home, Bernie's voters will push him along, coupled with defectors from the Ovary Class, Trump will take Biden apart one bit at a time (the man is a Gaffe Disaster and a moron) and the Democrats will have a right mess on their hands.
If Berns runs the table after New Hampshire, how can the Dems not give him the nomination? But they don't want to, because he, like The Donald, doesn't take money from the Elites (aka special interests). That means that if either one of those two win, the Elites no longer have control over the White House - for at least four years.
I love politics - from the outside. Have a wonderful day!
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Thursday, January 28, 2016
Trump's Triumph?
We've all heard the news over the last few days. If you've been living at the bottom of the ocean or under a rock you might have missed it, otherwise not.
Donald Trump is gasp! not participating in tonight's debate.
Since the moment of his announcement about this, the newsies have been running in circles, waving their hands, and crying about the fact that Trump won't be there because he objects to Megyn Kelly being a moderator. Having gone back to read their exchange there, and the exchanges between them since, I don't blame him. She's not professional in her interviews with him. She doesn't like him and it shows.
If you didn't see the first debate, here's the start of this whole thing between Kelly and Trump:
Her first question out of the gate at that debate was qualified by some as a tough question and by others as an unserious "gotcha": "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.'"
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/26/10835994/trump-megyn-kelly-debate-boycott
C'mon, little girl. Pull up those grup panties and get over it. People say ugly things about other people all the time.
What is fascinating is that when I went back in time to find similar nasty remarks made by the Left's Golden Girl I came across a fascinating 2008 article in Scientific American - and this excerpt strikes directly at the heart of this discussion about Megyn Kelly and Donald Trump and will he / won't he / should he, etc.:
Being aware of how the ad hominem attack works can help us evaluate which instances of its use we should ignore and which we should consider. Ask yourself: How relevant is a political candidate’s character or action to his or her ability to perform in office? How pertinent is any person’s past or group affiliation to the claims that person makes or to that individual’s expertise in a specific domain? If the character-based attacks are not relevant to these larger issues, then they are best ignored. Instead we should attend to what is really important: What is a person asserting? Why does he or she offer a particular view, and is the view defensible?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/character-attack/
Looks like this isn't a new 'controversy'.
Trump has made ugly remarks about women, many times. Yes, he does stoop down into the gutter, not stopping at generalizations but getting highly personal in his remarks. But! That proves he has a mile-wide character flaw and nothing more.
Kelly, by raising this at a political debate (not an etiquette debate), shows that she took this personally.
Now, because he's refusing to meet this dame across a debate stage and deal with her silliness, there's a big hoorah across the networks. Trump has been called 'childish', 'petulant', 'unprofessional' and just about everything else you can think of for days. Talking heads and pundits, commentators and pinheads all are weighing in.
After digesting this, watching and listening and thinking about it, I think I know what's behind the excitement.
It's so simple I had to take all the verbiage off and... It's because, by refusing to participate, Trump is marginalizing the organizations that have worked so hard for months to marginalize his candidacy.
Let's go back to the beginning: Kelly asked Trump a question about personality. It has zero to do with policy or what he would do as president. Why? Why, of all the questions she could ask, did she ask that?
This unrelated-to-the-presidency nonsense continued through the first half in a most unprofessional manner. I've gone back and looked down into the transcript.
http://time.com/3988276/republican-debate-primetime-transcript-full-text/
The moderators tried hard to start a food fight between the candidates, attempting to pit one against the other in one-on-one challenges, like this one, almost immediately after the debate started:
WALLACE: Senator Rubio, when Jeb Bush announced his candidacy for presidency, he said this: “There’s no passing off responsibility when you’re a governor, no blending into the legislative crowd.”
Could you please address Governor Bush across the stage here, and explain to him why you, someone who has never held executive office, are better prepared to be president than he is, a man who you say did a great job running your state of Florida for eight years.
Now, this, at least, does have relation to the presidency and qualification for the office, but really? Asking one candidate to address another (and no doubt hoping for sparks if not fireworks as the result). Unprofessional in my view because it does nothing to allow Rubio to advance himself. It just invites him to disparage Bush and damage himself in the process if he speaks badly.
And here is the entire exchange between Trump and Kelly that night:
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.
(APPLAUSE)
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)
Looking at that, and I grant that I don't have all of the background - what he's said - I really think she was out of line. What has that question got to do with anything?
So he's not going to tonight's debate in Iowa. So what. If Jeb Bush or John Kasich or Ben Carson or Chris Christie bowed out would there be this huge kerfuffle? No. There would be questions and perhaps some commentary if it was Rubio who walked away and the same with raised eyebrows if it was Cruz, but no one would be throwing the kinds of firebombs at those candidates that they're throwing at Trump.
And it's that which makes me believe that Fox is worried about their ratings and the after-effect of Trump's walk. After all, if Trump doesn't go, and I don't think he's going to since he's already made a commitment to attend a fund-raiser for military veterans, Fox's ratings for this 'do' tonight may spike at the outset due to curiosity, but will probably drop like a rock after the first commercial break.
We'll see, but I am glad that Trump has principles and is willing to stand on them. That is a good character component and one I can admire.
Think about it and have a lovely day.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Donald Trump is gasp! not participating in tonight's debate.
Since the moment of his announcement about this, the newsies have been running in circles, waving their hands, and crying about the fact that Trump won't be there because he objects to Megyn Kelly being a moderator. Having gone back to read their exchange there, and the exchanges between them since, I don't blame him. She's not professional in her interviews with him. She doesn't like him and it shows.
If you didn't see the first debate, here's the start of this whole thing between Kelly and Trump:
Her first question out of the gate at that debate was qualified by some as a tough question and by others as an unserious "gotcha": "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.'"
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/26/10835994/trump-megyn-kelly-debate-boycott
C'mon, little girl. Pull up those grup panties and get over it. People say ugly things about other people all the time.
What is fascinating is that when I went back in time to find similar nasty remarks made by the Left's Golden Girl I came across a fascinating 2008 article in Scientific American - and this excerpt strikes directly at the heart of this discussion about Megyn Kelly and Donald Trump and will he / won't he / should he, etc.:
Being aware of how the ad hominem attack works can help us evaluate which instances of its use we should ignore and which we should consider. Ask yourself: How relevant is a political candidate’s character or action to his or her ability to perform in office? How pertinent is any person’s past or group affiliation to the claims that person makes or to that individual’s expertise in a specific domain? If the character-based attacks are not relevant to these larger issues, then they are best ignored. Instead we should attend to what is really important: What is a person asserting? Why does he or she offer a particular view, and is the view defensible?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/character-attack/
Looks like this isn't a new 'controversy'.
Trump has made ugly remarks about women, many times. Yes, he does stoop down into the gutter, not stopping at generalizations but getting highly personal in his remarks. But! That proves he has a mile-wide character flaw and nothing more.
Kelly, by raising this at a political debate (not an etiquette debate), shows that she took this personally.
Now, because he's refusing to meet this dame across a debate stage and deal with her silliness, there's a big hoorah across the networks. Trump has been called 'childish', 'petulant', 'unprofessional' and just about everything else you can think of for days. Talking heads and pundits, commentators and pinheads all are weighing in.
After digesting this, watching and listening and thinking about it, I think I know what's behind the excitement.
It's so simple I had to take all the verbiage off and... It's because, by refusing to participate, Trump is marginalizing the organizations that have worked so hard for months to marginalize his candidacy.
Let's go back to the beginning: Kelly asked Trump a question about personality. It has zero to do with policy or what he would do as president. Why? Why, of all the questions she could ask, did she ask that?
This unrelated-to-the-presidency nonsense continued through the first half in a most unprofessional manner. I've gone back and looked down into the transcript.
http://time.com/3988276/republican-debate-primetime-transcript-full-text/
The moderators tried hard to start a food fight between the candidates, attempting to pit one against the other in one-on-one challenges, like this one, almost immediately after the debate started:
WALLACE: Senator Rubio, when Jeb Bush announced his candidacy for presidency, he said this: “There’s no passing off responsibility when you’re a governor, no blending into the legislative crowd.”
Could you please address Governor Bush across the stage here, and explain to him why you, someone who has never held executive office, are better prepared to be president than he is, a man who you say did a great job running your state of Florida for eight years.
Now, this, at least, does have relation to the presidency and qualification for the office, but really? Asking one candidate to address another (and no doubt hoping for sparks if not fireworks as the result). Unprofessional in my view because it does nothing to allow Rubio to advance himself. It just invites him to disparage Bush and damage himself in the process if he speaks badly.
And here is the entire exchange between Trump and Kelly that night:
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.
(APPLAUSE)
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)
Looking at that, and I grant that I don't have all of the background - what he's said - I really think she was out of line. What has that question got to do with anything?
So he's not going to tonight's debate in Iowa. So what. If Jeb Bush or John Kasich or Ben Carson or Chris Christie bowed out would there be this huge kerfuffle? No. There would be questions and perhaps some commentary if it was Rubio who walked away and the same with raised eyebrows if it was Cruz, but no one would be throwing the kinds of firebombs at those candidates that they're throwing at Trump.
And it's that which makes me believe that Fox is worried about their ratings and the after-effect of Trump's walk. After all, if Trump doesn't go, and I don't think he's going to since he's already made a commitment to attend a fund-raiser for military veterans, Fox's ratings for this 'do' tonight may spike at the outset due to curiosity, but will probably drop like a rock after the first commercial break.
We'll see, but I am glad that Trump has principles and is willing to stand on them. That is a good character component and one I can admire.
Think about it and have a lovely day.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)