Trump Steps In It Again

Trump is in the doghouse again, this time due to reactions by fellow Republicans to comments he made about Fox News Host Megyn Kelly after the Republican debate. Trump told CNN Kelly "had “blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.”

That comment resulted in Trump being axed from a Republican gathering hosted by the Red State Blog. Trump had been invited to be a "keynote speaker" at the event, which had a guest list of about 900 people. Red State is edited by Erick Erickson, who is also a Fox News Contributor. [More...]

Erickson said Trump went too far with his Kelly comments. According to Erickson, Trump's comments were an insinuation that when tough questions come from a woman, they are the product of her hormones.

Trump issued a statement blasting Erickson. He says he said he said "whatever" not "wherever" and that he was referring to her nose.

Trump responded on Twitter:

Re Megyn Kelly quote: "you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever" (NOSE). Just got on w/thought
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 8, 2015

Erickson counters that the tape proves he said "wherever."

The only winner here is Megyn Kelly. If you're not familiar with Kelly, or think she's just another blonde Fox news anchor, here's a recent profile in Variety.

Trump's beef with Kelly obviously predates the debate. I have no idea when it started, or what caused it, but he comes across as someone who has anger management issues with respect to people he can't control, which if true, is not a favorable indicator of leadership ability.

< Friday Night Open Thread | State of Emergency Declared in Ferguson >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Trump went too far? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 05:42:46 PM EST
    They all went too far.  Every single candidate proved beyond a shadow of any doubt they are all misogynists, singling Trump out means nothing other than Fox, and Redstate, and every other Republican candidate are hypocrites.

    Erickson had to close comments to his Redstate write up.  I wonder why?

    The pot calls the kettle. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by KeysDan on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 06:06:54 PM EST
    Erick Erickson is distraught by Trump's sexist and misogynist treatment of Kelly.  Erickson is also known for his sexist and misogynistic views, including a previous clash with same Kelly.  

    And, Kelly and her two sidekick moderators were trying to match, if not outdo Trump's aggressiveness in their questioning.  No fan, for sure, of Trump, but it was clear that Fox wanted to bring down Trump from his runaway with the Republicans so as to substitute their choice who they could control.

     And, what is the real difference between what Trump purports and the non-Trumpers?  Trump says it in a loutish and loud way, true.  Walker and Rubio, just want to see pregnant women die rather than deploy a medical procedure to save her life.   Rape, incest, too bad.  Jeb is pro-life, and has a record to prove it, he said, including end of life (without mentioning Terry Schiavo).  He is the servant of his religion on women's health, he proclaimed.

    And, Ms. Kelly is smart, but she is a careerist.  She knows what the boss wants.   No need to beatify her just yet.


    Erick Erickson (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 06:52:03 PM EST
    is more upset at the crudeness rather than the misogyny of the comment.

    The reason everyone keeps saying Trump is articulating the anger of the GOP is that Trump is voicing the long time misogyny of Conservatives.

    When conservatives talk about the degradation of the culture and bemoan modernity, they are talking about the changing role of women in our society.  Erickson in particular says women should stay at home with the kids rather than work.

    Conservatives have never come to terms with women's equality.....This is expressed in many ways including the anti-birth control sentiment.

    Trump is just exposing the truth about the GOP voters....they really, really like to bash women.  


    All out war (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 05:52:06 PM EST
    between Trump, FOX news and the Koch brothers with all the backstabbing, crossdissing and infighting that goes with it throughout the whole right wing nutisphere.

    Eric Ericson is probably a wholly owned subsidiary of Koch Inc.   Rush and Palin are backing Trump.  Beck, also Koch fueled, is bashing Donald.  Pick a side.  Yer with us or agin us.

    Holy f@ck.  have you ever had this much fun with your clothes on?

    I have not.


    Redstate is funded (none / 0) (#4)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 06:04:48 PM EST
    by big GOP donors.....At one time it was a smallish GOP version of Daily Kos....

    No more...


    It still (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 06:34:35 PM EST
    is a smallish blog compared to Kos. Look at the comments and recommended diaries usually have single digits in comments.

    Amen sister (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 06:42:05 PM EST
    I was thinking the same thing. What's the difference between Trump's misogyny and the general misogyny of the GOP? None that I really can see and frankly I consider most of them WORSE in that area than Trump. As far as I know Trump has never intervened in a family affair like Jeb, nor said we should all die like Ted Bundy Walker. The difference is Trump just says it.

    Oh, the comments on Facebook to Erickson are legendary. Megyn had it coming. And a lot of them are mad that Erickson invited Kelly to come INSTEAD of Trump.

    I think Fox asking for a loyalty oath at the beginning is what set all this off. If they had just asked tough questions Trump might be fading but they stupidly started with that and made themselves look like a bunch of fools to his supporters.


    I think it's simole (none / 0) (#54)
    by smott on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 08:07:41 AM EST
    Eric E simply got the memo from RNC/Koch.
    That's all.

    But it is delicious.

    And now Stone is out so we'll see if the wheels really are coming off.


    And Let's Not Forget... (none / 0) (#158)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 10:08:00 AM EST
    ...that Kelly has interviewed Trump, how many times, I want to say 5, and when Fox News loved Trump, she never bothered to ask him about those remarks.

    Now that Fox has decided to sink Trump, all of a sudden demanding remarks about women are something he needs to explain in a debate rather than where it should have been discussed, in an interview.  To me a debate is asking questions that are candidate specific.

    Why hasn't anyone asked her why those comments weren't discussed when she had the opportunity.

    I would add those comments are somehow cheer worthy when they are against Rosie, but sickening when they are against Megyn, even though IMO 'fat pig' is infinitely worse that 'bimbo' or a dumb reference to menstruation.

    It's all non-sense anyways, if Trump is the candidate, they will all get behind him including Kelly.  This same dust-up happened with Romney, with all the yahoos vowing to never vote for a Morman, not only did they, they gave him cash and backed him wholeheartedly.

    The idea that R's won't back their candidate is too funny.

    But I love watching Jim twist in the wind, his beloved Fox taking a second chair to a deranged lunatic.  Comedy Gold.


    Yes, Trump is getting (none / 0) (#166)
    by KeysDan on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 10:36:41 AM EST
    FOX flak about his retort to Ms. Kelly about blood, but Newton Gingrich, the former Republican House Speaker, beat him to that one when giving his "medical assessment" of why women cannot serve the military in combat roles: "Females have biological problems staying in a ditch for 30 days because they get infections."  That did not draw fire from Fox or friends.    Trump is just Republican pizza, with extra cheese.

    Also this (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 06:09:30 PM EST
    Trump's beef with Kelly obviously predates the debate. I

    I don't think so.  There has been a lot written about what happened in the debate and why.

    Roger Ailes biographer Gabriel Sherman has some interesting deets on what happened:

    It was a breakup days in the making. Over the past week, Ailes and his executives had been strategizing about how to deal with Trump. The prospect that the Donald could hijack the debate presented programming and political perils for both Ailes and his star anchors. What if Trump started insulting his GOP rivals onstage? Or broke the debate rules? During a meeting at Fox late last week, according to a source, senior Fox executives discussed a more worrisome scenario: What would happen if Trump won over the audience and moved the crowd to boo moderators Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly, and Chris Wallace on live television? What if Trump was able to direct his base of supporters to stop watching Fox? To prevent that from happening, Ailes needed a way to keep the audience firmly on the side of his moderators.


    Media Matters' Hannah Groch-Begley has another theory, that Fox wanted to use its moment in the spotlight to look like a legitimate journalism outfit, willing to hold its own side's feet to the fire at a time they knew a lot of people unfamiliar with its illegitimate tactics would be watching. While Kelly's question for Trump garners exactly the attention she undoubtedly aimed for, how many (other than Media Matters and I) are asking why Kelly waited until then? Fox gave Trump nearly five hours of airtime in the last three months, including time on on The Kelly File. Yet nobody thought it important to ask about his misogyny until last night?

    As far as Eric Ericson and his delicate sensibilities.  It's beyond laughable.   He is infamous for hateful misogynistic remarks.  That the person who called Justice Souter a goat f@cking child molester would take to his fainting couch over this has many people giggling.  And angry.  

    I actually (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 06:44:38 PM EST
    think Media Matters is right on this. With so many people watching they wanted to put out the mindset that they weren't a station of sycophants.

    The problem is a lot of those people watching were their regular viewers and this has created a whole lot of problems for Fox. The regular viewers expected the typical softball questions.


    On vacation missing most of this fun (none / 0) (#61)
    by ruffian on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 09:50:38 AM EST
    But I love reading about it here.

    Also love hat Fox's main concern is that Trump tells people to stop watching Fox. Ailes always has his eye on the prize - the eyeballs of the rubes.


    Where They Going to Go to Get... (none / 0) (#200)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 12:33:30 PM EST
    ...misinformed, Trump News ?

    A FOX panic attack. (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by KeysDan on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 06:49:57 PM EST
    Highest ratings ever.  Good news:  an awful lot of people watched the debates.  Bad news:  an awful lot of people watched the debates-- And, saw what the Trump and non-Trumpers offered.  So that is what they have offered for president of the USA.  

    Top among observations were the unanimous war on women---a chorus, some baritone, some tenor, one bombastic.  One heard louder than all the rest, but all singing the same tune.  As Bill Maher said, it is as if the Republicans did not know that women can vote.  

    Oh, what to do?   Trump's was on the Fox and Koch Brothers hit list. anyway. And, what better way to get out of the group misogyny showboat than to call the loudest and off-key singer to account.   Poor, sweet Megyn Kelly, we all need to rally around this damsel in distress.  And, maybe, just maybe, the non-Trumps will have a Trump scapegoat. And, then beg privately for Trump's money, as they all raised their hands in public to do.

    I love this NYTimes headline (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 06:56:12 PM EST
    Hand-Wringing in G.O.P. After Donald Trump's Remarks on Megyn Kelly

    Handwringing.  Yes.  I imagine so.  I would even bet they are starting to feel like something else is caught in a wringer.


    OMG (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 07:15:17 PM EST
    why in the heck are they so worried about Trump? It's not like ! and the rest of the jokers don't have the same stances or are they wringing their hands because Trump is letting the cat out of the bag and there's no putting it back in?

    All the people who watched the debate should know what kind of jokers the GOP is comprised of. I guess they think that the voters will ignore their sorry stances if Trump is not talking about them?


    Choice B (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 07:16:33 PM EST
    i think

    I would suggest (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Peter G on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 08:01:58 PM EST
    Plan B instead.

    I think their worry about Trump (none / 0) (#29)
    by caseyOR on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 08:22:30 PM EST
    is based on the very real fear that nobody can control Trump. Not the Koch Boys, not Roger Ailes and FOX-News, not anybody.

    The Donald answers only to The Donald.


    Something else? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Redbrow on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 03:59:58 AM EST
    You better be reffering to his nose or else you are a convicted misandrist!

    the problem for erick (son of erick) erickson, (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by cpinva on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 08:25:34 PM EST
    is that 899 of those 900 people want to see Trump, not Erick (son of Erick) Erickson, and whatever second teamers he's still got lined up as "Keynote Speakers". so, the big pile of crap is going to be on Red State and the GOP, not Trump. another monster the dumber descendants of Dr. Frankenstein have created, and lost control of. those boys & girls are definitely a slow larnin bunch.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 08:44:26 PM EST
    somebody is going to take a picture of a half full venue and send the picture to Trump and he's going to tweet it and it's going to be all over the place in no time. LOL.

    Almost nobody was coming to the gathering anyway even with Trump. Without Trump I wonder how many will actually show up.


    I'm pretty much on board with all your insults (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Peter G on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 08:28:57 PM EST
    to the Foxies, except for the use of "blond" (by which you clearly mean "blonde") as a term of invective.

    Substitute the word bland then (none / 0) (#35)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 08:41:47 PM EST
    if you like.  It would be much more descriptive.

    mordigan, personal attacks (none / 0) (#48)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 10:32:11 PM EST
    are not allowed here. I deleted one of your comments with personal attacks on Kelly. Take that stuff elsewhere.

    Your call (none / 0) (#50)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 10:45:37 PM EST
    They're going to regret... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by desertswine on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 08:30:56 PM EST
    pushing Trump into a third party candidacy.  But good for the country.

    Wow (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 08:44:59 PM EST
    decisions.  Decisions.

    I posted a link in one of the last threads speculating that the Kochs are playing the long game and willing to let that happen.

    Well if I read that Donald probably did too.  And it reminded me of a line from ST3 The Search for Spock.  Kirk makes a request and the Klingon Commander denies it "because you wish it"

    Donald is not going to go quietly into the night.   What exactly happens when we get to the first primaries and he is still in?   What do they do then?   God forbid if he's winning.

    I hope Donald has excellent personal security.


    It would (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 09:01:33 PM EST
    be in the Koch's best interest probably to have Donald run third party because that way Donald would take the people that they don't like all that much with him and they could have complete control of that 29%.

    Works for me (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 09:11:57 PM EST
    they can control the sh!t outta that 29%

    They're going to have to... (none / 0) (#44)
    by desertswine on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 09:09:29 PM EST
    make peace with Trump if they want to move on from this. Or buy him out (he's certainly buyable).  Or promise him something he wants.

    I think he what's the nomination (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 09:13:33 PM EST
    and they might have bought him out but I fear that ship has sailed and there is blood in the water.   To mix nautical metaphors.

    More deliciousness (none / 0) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 08:55:08 PM EST
    We just can't lose.

    But I wish he would just go away (none / 0) (#51)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 02:42:29 AM EST
    The more stupid things he says, the more some people respond and want to be stupid. Heh. You all assured me last night that he will go away and people will regain their sanity before long. BUT,
    I was living in San Diego when a very decent governor, Gray Davis, was recalled. His bad deed was being blamed by the GOP for the Electricity crises. Can we say ENRON? The guy who got all those signatures really wanted the job himself. The thought among sane people was that there would be another election and Gray would get reelected. Then came the Jay Leno show and Arnold was urged to run and he said okay. WTF? And all these people who loved the movies thought the Governator would destroy the electrical companies. And before people discovered that Enron was behind the entire farce, Arnold was in the mansion. Yes, I make it sound so simple and innocent, but it was mob mentality rules. And right now we have a mob mentality going with Trump. After the 'debate' the other night I got a few calls from sitting on the fence friends. They were so delighted with Trump. I was speechless as in, were we all watching the same performance? So, yes, I agree he won't last, but I did not think Arnold would win either. So, the quicker the better for the departure of Trump from the stages.

    I was in CA too (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 08:28:25 AM EST
    and I admit it's easy to watch the Donald show and be reminded of that freak show.  I think I still have one of those debates with Gary Coleman, Arnold and Arianna on DVD someplace.

    Still, IMO there is very basic and fundamental difference.

    Hillary, and the Clinton political machine, is not Gray Davis.


    I don't think Trump can win a general (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 11:40:42 AM EST
    I pray he Naders the Republican vote.

    Gray Davis (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 12:40:01 PM EST
    signed a bill that re-affirmed a women's right to choose (in case Roe is overruled) and that required all the medical schools in California to teach how to perform an abortion.....

    These celebrity candidates like Ahnold and Jesse Ventura and now Trump can actually win.   Let the Republicans nominate the guy, or let America know that he stands for what the Republican party believes.


    And within 18 months of taking office, ... (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 01:32:51 PM EST
    ... Gov. Schwarzenegger agreed to a legal settlement with those same energy companies that had earlier effectively fleeced California residents and businesses of an estimated $20-30 billion during the faux 2000-01 "energy crisis," in which the State received mere pennies on the dollar. The roots of that energy debacle are tangled and complicated, and actually long predate the tenures of both Govs. Davis and Schwarzenegger.

    It has been my own considered opinion that California voters got exactly what they deserved in the 2003 recall, because the majority marched resolutely to the polls without ever truly pausing to consider what they were courting with Schwarzenegger's election. Hopefully, they've since learned and taken to heart a very expensive and bitter two-fold lesson about:

    • The superficial and sometimes toxic appeal of celebrity in our collective consciousness, and
    • The potentially adverse consequences of such collectively impetuous decision making at the ballot box.

    And further, that's a lesson which the rest of us should heed as well, with the 2016 election looming ahead.



    Kelly is "no saint either" (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by magster on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 09:36:01 PM EST
    when it comes to defending people bullied by jerks.

    Nor Did She Address... (none / 0) (#159)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 10:13:07 AM EST
    ...Donald's female problems is the past interviews.

    Donald Trump has (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by KeysDan on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 01:40:27 PM EST
    a defender.  Maureen Dowd knew what the "glamorous" Megyn Kelly was up to with that question about calling women he doesn't like "fat pigs, ..."  It was Tom Cruise taunting Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men."   Yes, that was the first thing that came to my mind, too.  

    And, MoDo was amused about FOX news, which is "a Daily Miss Universe pageant, chockablock with glossy beauties as anchors, reporters and even "experts," giving Trump a hard time about focusing on women's looks.   Sure, the same thing, just with a little extra.  

    Ms. Kelly "has a lot of Tim Russert in her.  She knows how to set up mesmerizing Gunfights at the O.K. Corral, loaded for a follow-up after every salvo."  Really, mesmerizing Tim Russert?  She sounded to me more like Luke Russert asking if Nancy Pelosi though she was too old to govern and did she think she should move over for someone younger. And, follow ups" neither Tim nor fils think further than getting that rehearsed zinger out.

    But, to Maureen Dowd, "Trump is, as always, the gleefully offensive and immensely entertaining high chair king in the Great American Food Fights."   And, she "enjoys Trump's hyperbolic, un-PC, fights because there are too few operatic characters in the world."  And, please, she says, overlook that Frank Sinatra lingo about women of yesteryear.  After all, " he always treated me courteously and professionally."  Yes, operatic characters treat wannabe Divas nicely--to their face.

    Policies?  Trump's policies are "ripped from the gut instead of the head. Still, he can be a catalyst, challenging rivals such as Jeb's defense of his brother's smashing the family station wagon into the globe."   Fifty percent correct here: got the brother part right, but wrong on the part of the anatomy from which Trump's policies are ripped.

    Now, it would not be a MoDo column if it did not somehow, anyhow, find an opportunity to diss a Clinton.  She does not disappoint.   Her example chosen for that "challenging of rivals," on the "warped" political system of financing, was not the groveling non-Trumpers on stage who either received money from Trump, or didn't, but right on stage raised their hands begging him for cash.   No, the MoDo example was the Clinton's at his wedding party and the Clinton Foundation's use of his money to travel by means other than, apparently, steerage air.

    Note to Mrs. Clinton.  To get better coverage by Ms. Dowd, call her a "fat pig."   It is just a term of endearment.  


    Via digby, here is the take of (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 02:20:55 PM EST
    David Castro, on the debates:

       Some final thoughts on the 10 Guys at Open Mic Nite at the Chuckle Hut in Cleveland:

        1. How did Ben Carson operate as a neurosurgeon when he can barely open his eyes?
        2. I want to see Trump and Rand Paul in a wind tunnel.
        3. Jeb Bush isn't even the kind of guy his brother would want to have a beer with.
        4. Marco Rubio says he knows what it's like living paycheck to paycheck. What else does he know?
        5. Mike Huckabee said the Supreme Court isn't the Supreme Being. Is this that Cthulu I've heard so much about?
        6. Chris Christie is clearly running to be the head of the Five Families.
        7. Mike Huckabee believes in DNA so his finally accepting the heliocentric view of our solar system is not out of the question.
        8. This Kasich guy - he arm-wrestled Carly Fiorina and won the right to be here, right?
        9. Ted Cruz - look up the etymology of decimated. You were decimated tonight.
        10. Scott Walker looks like the church group youth leader that parents know not to leave their kids with.

    Laughed out loud at more than a couple of these...if nothing else, it should tell you just how much of a sick joke this GOP field is.


    Trump and non-Trumpers (none / 0) (#88)
    by KeysDan on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 02:31:30 PM EST
    are, ripe for satire.  For sure, and for laughs.  But, what they offer goes beyond ripe to rotten.  Are they caricatures or, more accurately, profiles?

    Leave it to Modo to miss the (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 05:00:35 PM EST
    Lotus blossoms and instead focus on the layers of mud :)

    I saw this (none / 0) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 01:45:43 PM EST
    via a link from DRUDGEREPORT



    Really (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 02:12:09 PM EST
    apparently calling MoDo some names would have her adoring you I guess.

    Maureen Dowd & smart, powerful women (none / 0) (#123)
    by christinep on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 08:18:56 PM EST
    I've been scratching my head trying to recall if there are any strong, smart, powerful women that MS Dowd has respected or admired or written about in a positive way.

    Who knows? IMO, Maureen's disdain toward powerful women has been more than palpable.  While in the instance of Megyn Kelly, I might agree with the denouement about positioning, the posture of one Maureen Dowd remains true to form. Snigger-like laughable.


    Sigh..... (3.00 / 2) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 07:04:12 PM EST
    Neither Trump or those supporting him give a flip about what he and Kelly think of each other.

    But it is good theater and gives you folks something to talk about.

    What's not to like (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 08:28:06 PM EST
    ...about seeing despicable people who hate America and want the opportunity to harm our country, drowning in their own ineptitude?

    If God didn't want us to be entertained by such antics, He would not have invented the word schadenfreude.

    Schadenfreude is the best entertainment there is.


    So, you still like Trump? (none / 0) (#19)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 07:08:42 PM EST
    Trump is the perfect representative of the angry white male conservative.....

    I wonder if his poll numbers will go up with Republican Primary voters.


    Hey, Trump is great entertainment! (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 08:10:21 AM EST
    Would you like to listen to Jeb day after day??

    And do you think any of them, Demo, Socialist or Repub, are telling us the truth??

    Kelly is a woman. No doubt. Should anyone give her slack because of that?? I mean, here I thought we all believed in equal rights.

    Should we all be polite to each other?? Yes.


    I am (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by FlJoe on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 08:22:21 AM EST
    glad you admit that Trump supporters are more interested in being entertained then actually trying to thoughtfully choose a leader.

    It's How We Ended Up With... (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 10:23:09 AM EST
    ...'the guy a like to drink a beer with, even though he is a recovering alcoholic', President.

    Dough, dough heads who don't give two squirts about policy, they just want someone they can relate to, and if you are uniformed, hate-filled, and angry at the world, relating to Trump is a no-brainer, he's got it all, and he is rich which for the idiot class means they know how to lead, unless it's a democrat, then being wealthy is bad.


    Scott, now that Jon Stewart is gone (none / 0) (#187)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 11:22:38 AM EST
    where are you gonna get your news??

    Trump is forcing the issues. He is forcing the conversations to be about things you, and the DC centric Repubs and Demos, don't want.


    Trump (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 11:32:35 AM EST
    is not forcing Dems to do anything but he is forcing other GOP presidential candidates to talk about things they would rather not have a discussion about. It's hysterical to see all your conservative heros now calling you an idiot Jim.

    FYI Hillary was talking about immigration reform long before Trump showed up on the scene.


    Trump is forcing the issues? (5.00 / 3) (#195)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 12:02:59 PM EST
    Oh, please.  

    If Trump is forcing anything, he's forcing millions of people to have to confront just how empty and devoid of reason the Republican agenda/platform really is.  By the time Trump is finished, I'll be surprised if the GOP hasn't settled things Lord of the Flies-style; it's going to make "disarray" look like high tea at Kensington Palace.

    And just FYI, jim, no one ever got the news from Jon Stewart; what they got was commentary, satire and skewering of "the news" and the people making it. They sometimes got the rest of the story the media left out, and Stewart provided a microphone for people from both sides of the ideological aisle to explain themselves and their points of view.

    I shudder to think where you get your news from.


    Surely You Jest... (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 12:17:42 PM EST
    ...Trump is a gift to liberals.  

    Yeah, conversations about who is the biggest misogynist in the republican party, who hates Mexicans more, and why Fox News sandbagged the most popular republican, are certainly a conversations democrats are trebling over.

    But thanks for making my point crystal clear.


    Well, we have a quite a bit of time left (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 11:16:42 AM EST
    But tell you what, I'll send Bernie, Jim Webb and Biden over to see you.

    "Should we all be polite to each other"? (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Peter G on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 11:06:58 AM EST
    Well, sort of. We should all be respectful of one another first. A journalist interviewing or questioning a candidate for high political office is respectful by asking tough, fact-based questions and demanding straight answers. Being polite, in that context, is not paramount. A candidate for office is not respectful (or otherwise appropriate) by suggesting (then or later) that the reporter asked tough questions because she was menstruating at the time.

    Yeah, Trump isn't nice (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 11:18:12 AM EST
    Romney was.

    Romney lost.

    Maybe there is a lesson in there.


    You make my point perfectly. (5.00 / 6) (#69)
    by Peter G on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 11:35:00 AM EST
    I was respectful by giving a serious and honest response to your comment. You responded with baseless, tangential nonsense that does not suggest the existence of any error or defect in my comment, and which entirely reverses the position you took only a few moments earlier (first: we should all be polite; second: we should all do what it takes to "win," particularly when winning means "not being nice"). This is an effective tactic for only one purpose: to end any discussion between intelligent, fairminded people. I will therefore not delve into why you were wrong both times.

    I don't understand your problem. (2.00 / 1) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 01:31:20 PM EST
    I wasn't disagreeing with you. You wrote:

    A candidate for office is not respectful (or otherwise appropriate) by suggesting (then or later) that the reporter asked tough questions because she was menstruating at the time.

    I noted that Trump isn't nice.  I expanded my comment by noting that Romney was and he lost.  I speculated there is a message there.

    Did Trump go to far? Time will tell.


    If I cannot understand what you are trying to say, (none / 0) (#91)
    by Peter G on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 05:12:56 PM EST
    I suppose that could be my fault. If so, I apologize.

    You don"t speak RW Confusese (none / 0) (#92)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 05:56:07 PM EST
    For Jim that is his mother tongue.

    No apology needed. (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 07:21:41 PM EST
    But thank you anyway.

    Yeah, I didn't think so. (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Peter G on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 07:34:40 PM EST
    Thank you for confirming. And you're welcome.
        And, btw, Mordiggian, when I'm trying to model respectful and non-hostile communication, I don't need you to step on it.

    If you can achieve that (none / 0) (#108)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 07:52:01 PM EST
    with Jim, you'll be the first since log to achieve that goal.

    Since kdog, I meant. (none / 0) (#110)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 07:53:04 PM EST
    They Got Peter G. (none / 0) (#163)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 10:28:30 AM EST
    That is a shame, and while Peter handled himself very well, they still dragged him into the plague at TL.

    Do you think Trump went too (none / 0) (#127)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 08:24:09 PM EST

    Yes, I do. He went too far. (none / 0) (#182)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 11:15:45 AM EST
    But that's Trump. When you engage him I am reminded of the old saying, "Don't bring a knife to a gunfight." But I think Kelly can slice and shoot as well as Trump so I'm not all in a dither over this tempest in a tea pot that both the Left and the Right are using for their own goals.

    What I like about him is that he is forcing the conversation to be about things all the others want to ignore. Are ALL persons who have entered the country without permission of the authorities murders, drug dealers, etc? Of course not.

    But some are. Solution? Close the borders and the bad people won't be here.

    Can you imagine Trump surrendering to Iran?? Of course not.

    The list goes on but you get my point.


    In case you haven't noticed, Jim, ... (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 12:06:30 PM EST
    ... nobody's really talking about those issues right now, except on the fringes. Rather, everyone's talking about Donald Trump, including his interparty rivals.

    Trump has long been a master of self-publicity. He merely says or does a couple of outrageous things, and voila! He's suddenly the center of public attention. That's his shtick, and it's been a formula which has worked for him in other venues for several decades. Why wouldn't it work in retail politics, at least for the short term?

    So, the "issue du jour" is now Donald Trump, likely by his own design. Whether he can now turn his shtick into a durable and lasting political campaign remains to be seen.

    And quite honestly, I don't even know if that's his actual intention here. We may soon find that once he perceives his "presidential candidacy" as having served his own primary purpose -- which, again, is generating self-publicity and garnering headlines -- he may well drop out and return to his former venues of TV and real estate with a revitalized image and renewed vigor, which he'll then once again mine for all it's worth.

    Only then, will people realize that they got played.


    Romney was the leader of the (none / 0) (#68)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 11:32:59 AM EST
    gang that couldn't shoot straight in 2012.  

    To paraphrase the old Mae West line about her diamonds, niceness had nothing to do with it.


    Hey, blame the people who (none / 0) (#23)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 07:25:42 PM EST
    sent death threats to Erik Erickson, not the commentators here, for making a fuss about it.

    Trump accomplished a splinter, a rift (none / 0) (#1)
    by christinep on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 05:35:02 PM EST
    IMO, Fox & Trump could well amount to a plus for Democrats.  While Fox & the Ten Men on stage had 24 million viewers (a success), there is a probability that many viewers did not like the spectacle and bottom=feeder comments all the way around (not a success.)

    From what I've seen and heard today, many of the so-called Conservatives in that party don't particularly mind--and may cheer along with their talk radio types--what they euphemistically call "non politically correct" comments.  Maybe Trump knows his audience quite well.  Sure, Megyn Kelly is admired among Fox viewers; but, old Donald Trump's pushing the edges of decency or whatever edges he pushes may only serve to drive the wedge between those who take to Trump and those who take to Fox.  To drive such a wedge ... geez, I'd love to hear what Jon Stewart would have said.  

    Help me out here (none / 0) (#7)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 06:10:46 PM EST
    Trump and Roger Stone parted company today. One said he fired Stone. And Stone says he quit. My question is, why does that name stand out to me other than his association with Trump? I am thinking in the back of my mind that he has his own little past going for him.

    Roger Stone started "Citizens United" (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by scribe on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 12:25:46 PM EST
    Prior to the emergence of Obama, it was assumed in 2006-7 that Hillary would be the Democratic nominee in 2008.  Stone started the organization now known as "Citizens United".  When he started it the name was "Citizens United Not Timid" (you can do the acronym) and it was explicitly an anti-Hillary organization.
    Here's a link to their original logo.
    Nice historical overview here.
    When Obama beat out HRC, the organization's name was changed to just "Citizens United".  I suppose that was to give it a veneer of respectability when they went to the S.Ct.

    It was their desire to distribute a propaganda film about HRC free from the distraction of campaign finance laws which led to the eponymous Supreme Court case telling us corporations are people and have free speech rights.


    Stone is a republican star for many years (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 06:17:11 PM EST
    According to a 2007 magazine profile of Stone by Matt Labash, the consultant "often sets his pronouncements off with the utterance 'Stone's Rules', signifying listeners that one of his shot-glass commandments is coming down, a pithy dictate uttered with the unbending certitude one usually associates with the Book of Deuteronomy." Examples of Stone's Rules include "Politics with me isn't theater. It's performance art. Sometimes, for its own sake." [2]

    Clearly he wants a life after Trump.


    He dates back to the era of Richard Nixon (none / 0) (#9)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 06:18:11 PM EST
    and was thought by some to be behind the exposure of Elliot Spitzer's using an escort service which led to his resignation from the Governorship of New York State.  Rodent copulator, if yah know what I mean.

    Yes, that was itttttttttttttttttttttt (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 06:24:53 PM EST
    Thanks. Elliot. Yes. He really is another bottom feeder.

    Stone is one of the original (none / 0) (#56)
    by smott on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 08:08:48 AM EST
    Rat - f-ckers. He's a classic.

    Chuck Colson's favorite expression. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 08:14:57 AM EST
    Nixon's frat-house/locker room/Mad Men presidency.

    Art Buchwald had a great column (none / 0) (#70)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 11:35:12 AM EST
    based on Colson's reported remark that he would run over his grandmother to get Nixon re-elected.

    Daily Caller (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 06:45:05 PM EST

    Red State Gathering Attendees Voice Shock Over Trump Speech Cancellation

    ATLANTA -- Red State Gathering attendees were shocked to find out this morning that businessman Donald Trump, a Republican presidential candidate, was disinvited from speaking at the event Saturday night at the College Football Hall of Fame.

    "There were death threats against [Erickson]. I think this is ridiculous. I can tell you those are not conservatives doing those death threats and those nasty comments. So I would say I wanted to hear Trump. I had three friends cancel on me tonight to go to this thing, and I told them this was never about Trump. This is about Red State Gathering."

    Erickson told TheDC that, while he did receive death threats and threats of violence over the Trump speech cancellation, they "aren't serious" and "they're just pissed off people."

    Exactly...they're shocked (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 08:50:33 PM EST
    Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut and a prostitute and every Fox News anchor and fan cut him a break. He eventually coughed up a half baked apology and he's golden again....but Redstate and whoever wants to throw the book at Trump over his remarks about a women? Of course Redstate gatherers are shocked, these aren't Fox News/Republican base rules damn it! Something stinks around there.  Someone's obviously trying to sandbag the Donald.

    I wonder what Eric wrote about the Sandra Fluke incident?  I'm too underwhelmed to go in search tonight.  Maybe tomorrow.


    Ta-da (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 08:55:37 PM EST
    Erick Erickson of CNN and Red State.com expressed this "she asked for it" view pungently in a March blog post: "Of course Rush Limbaugh was being insulting. He was using it as a tool to highlight just how absurd the Democrats' position is on this. It's what he does and does quite well. And in the process he's exposing a lot of media bias on the issue as people rush out (no pun intended) to make Sandra Fluke a victim of his insults and dance around precisely what is really insulting ? her testimony before congress that American taxpayers should subsidize the sexual habits of Georgetown Law School students because, God forbid, they should stop having sex if they cannot afford the pills themselves."

    I love thee (none / 0) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 08:57:41 PM EST
    Regardless of her profile in Vanity Fair, ... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 07:25:32 PM EST
    "Well, I mean, Ann Coulter has got a whole book out right now that makes this point. Now granted, she's not running for president. But she she cites data that does support the fact that some, obvious, immigrants who come across the borders do turn out to be criminals[.]"
    -- Megyn Kelly, "The Kelly File," Fox News (June 29, 2015)

    ... Megyn Kelly is no Walter Cronkite, Jeralyn.

    Megan Kelley (none / 0) (#24)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 07:30:06 PM EST
    has pushed back against some of her more sexist colleagues on the air from time to time, but that quote and plenty more are proof enough of her adherence to the Faux Line like Gretchen Carlson and the other blondes and himbos that they traditionally employ for on-the-air talent.  

    What exactly is your objection (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Peter G on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 08:05:59 PM EST
    to her hair color? Or the relevance of that? Anything you can cite that connects hair color with intelligence, journalistic skill, or professional seriousness?

    I agree with Peter. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 10:33:36 PM EST
    Her hair color is irrelevant.

    With all due respect, Jeralyn, ... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 04:03:30 AM EST
    ... while I would agree with you that hair color is irrelevant to the art of journalism, please re-read the second to the last paragraph of your post. You were the one who first brought up the fact that Megyn Kelly's a "blonde Fox news anchor," albeit not "just another" one.

    MY point was that, Vanity Fair puff pieces and hair color notwithstanding, you should not lose sight of the fact that Kelly's an opinionated woman with very distinct Republican leanings. Only three days ago, she was upbraided by her own guest for peddling more baseless innuendo about Hillary Clinton's e-mail.

    And as criminal defense attorneys, both you and Peter rightly ought to have plenty of issues with her rather alarming propensity to repeatedly find fault with victims of color in recent confrontations with police officers.

    Megyn Kelly clearly didn't deserve her crude characterization at the hands of Donald Trump. But to paraphrase her own recent disparaging comment about a 14-year-old black girl who was manhandled for no apparent reason by a white police officer at a McKinney, TX pool party, Kelly "is no saint, either."



    Jeralyn can defend herself (if she wishes to) (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Peter G on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 10:54:14 AM EST
    But for myself, I would just say that I'm not one of those commenters (such as you, Donald) who tend to post full-blown essays. I am more likely to address a single point that interests me, often one that I think another commenter has misstated in a way that might be misleading to readers and is likely otherwise to go uncorrected. When I do that, I don't mean to suggest (and don't want to be taken as suggesting) that I have no other opinions on the subject, much less what those opinions may be, and even less that I have chosen sides in a war.

    Point taken. (none / 0) (#75)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 12:12:03 PM EST
    My own initial point -- which seems to have gotten lost in the back and forth over the references to hair color -- was that Trump's personal attack on Megyn Kelly doesn't elevate her professionally to "best in class."

    In my honest opinion, Kelly used / abused her position as moderator last Thursday night to specifically target Trump in a fairly belligerent manner. That's not to excuse what Trump said both to her during the debate, and then about her afterward in remarks to Fox News' Bret Baier. But she provoked the response she got, which I further believe was likely her original intent.

    Whether or not Kelly actually intended to become a post-debate topic of conversation is beside the point. In my opinion, what she did is not good journalism, for the simple fact that she inserted herself personally into Thursday's debate storyline and was part of its subsequent results and fallout. It wasn't even good debate moderation, because from the portions I watched, she was not at all evenhanded.

    Roger Ailes obviously hired Kelly for her advocacy skills, which clearly suit Fox News' primary raison d'etre as the "go to" media outlet for conservative GOP opinion. No doubt, she's earned her keep in that regard, as well as her prominent position in the network's weekly prime-time lineup.



    There are plenty of ways to criticize (none / 0) (#55)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 08:08:34 AM EST
    people and even insult them without resorting to sexist b/s.

    My rule is to never base an attack on sex, race, country of origin, disabilities, or anything else that a person has no control over.  No one controls where and what they were born.  Attacking what can't be controlled is just plain unfair.

    What people can control are their opinions, politics, affiliations, whether they're jerks and how big a jerk, etc..  

    That leaves plenty of room for criticism and cheap shots and insults without attacking what people can't change.


    Does that leave out hair color, then? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Peter G on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 10:48:27 AM EST
    Since it's something we do have control over, at least our public presentation of hair color?

    Bam! (none / 0) (#72)
    by Steve13209 on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 11:45:30 AM EST
    But (none / 0) (#73)
    by FlJoe on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 11:50:41 AM EST
    We need to take it up a step to look at the actual target of the criticism. From my observation FNC's business model is to hire attractive people, especially long legged blond females, to deliver the "news".

    I plead guilty to referring to Kelly et al  as Fox's "Bimbos" or some variation of such, I do not consider myself to making a sexist personal attack on the individuals, but rather making a point on Roger Ailes' cynical use of sex to catapult the propaganda.

    I consider Fox the enemy and I reserve the right to mock all their soldiers, their commanders and their tactics without worrying about crossing some arbitrary PC line. This is war ladies and gentlemen.



    Yeah, he uses sex to sell his lies (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 12:04:17 PM EST
    And sadly he gets some attractive articulate enough to read a teleprompter women to play along. Being blonde though is an entirely different thing :)

    Fox seems to choose a lot of blondes, but being blonde isn't inherently a bad thing.


    Militarytracy: "Fox seems to choose a lot of blondes, but being blonde isn't inherently a bad thing."

    But Peter's point is that remarks about someone's own hair color, whether natural or otherwise, are irrelevant in any discussion regarding that person's actual professional skills. I don't disagree with him.

    My own take is that Megyn Kelly's newfound status as a victim of misogyny -- or in this case here, "blonde-bashing" -- should in no way blind us to the fact that Ms. Kelly is a mediocre journalist with her own share of controversial and infuriating public remarks, such as her racist insistence in December 2013 that Santa Claus is white, as was Jesus of Nazareth.



    I guess my question is - or maybe it's (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 01:39:41 PM EST
    a couple of questions - is there someone we would have preferred be the object of Trump's crass, sexist remarks?  And if so, why?

    Is it because we don't like defending someone - Kelly - who is no stranger to making disrespectful remarks, and that somehow doing so gives her credibility we don't want her to have?

    That we end up feeling that if we're now critical of Kelly that we're playing into Trump's hands?

    Trump was wrong to say what he did, no matter who he said it to.  He has - as Kelly pointed out - a history of expressing these kinds of ugly things to and about women.  It's how he deflects, and it says a lot about his character.

    None of what he said at the debate, or after, changes who Megyn Kelly is, how she's conducted herself as a so-called journalist, or reporter.  We can still be repulsed by her tactics or obvious political bias, without that meaning that Trump was justified in any way in his own comments.

    It also isn't Kelly's fault if the network for which she works likes to put attractive women before the camera, many of them blonde.  

    Trump's the one running for office.  He's the one who has to explain his actions, past and present.  Did Kelly bait him, sandbag him?  Would there be the same kind of criticism for Rachel Maddow, if Rachel had been the one to ask that exact same question of Trump?  Maybe not here, but I'm pretty sure she'd have been on the receiving end of a lot of flak from other quarters if she had.

    I guess my point is that objecting to Trumps misogynistic comments doesn't mean we approve of Kelly as a journalist, it just means we see Donald Trump for who he is.


    Thank you, Anne. (none / 0) (#109)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 07:52:14 PM EST
    I care for neither Trump nor Kelly, and I refuse to take anyone's side in that kerfuffle? Suffice to say that nobody acquitted themselves well last Thursday night, save perhaps for John Kasich, who was then roundly criticized by many conservatives for behaving like the only adult on that podium and declining to join the food fight. Watching that debate on replay was truly cringe worthy.

    Here is What I Don't Get... (none / 0) (#170)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 10:46:57 AM EST
    ...every man and woman on the news desk is good looking, very good looking.  There are several exceptions, but to say Fox has bimbos reporting the news is failing to realize that just about every station has mimbos and bimbos reporting the news.  Reporting the news is not reporting, it's reading a teleprompter.

    If anything, with the men Fox is sub-par in the looks department, does that mean that Fox is hiring men by resume rather than camera friendliness.  Hardly.  Brian Kilmeade & Steve Doocy are probably two of the stupidest people I have ever seen on the TV.

    I don't get why Fox News has always gotten a bad wrap on the hiring of beautiful people when every network does it.


    SNL loves them some "Fox & Friends." (none / 0) (#188)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 11:23:37 AM EST
    Steve Doocey and Brian Kilmeade are definitely not the brightest bulbs in the Fox News chandelier, and they've been comic gold to the writers and performers of late night comedy shows. Any blonde whom Roger Ailes hires to co-host the morning show with those two clowns -- first Gretchen Carlson, now Elisabeth Hasselbeck -- often has to serve as an interpreter.

    Video of... (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 12:23:07 PM EST
    ...Carlson walking off stage because of Kilmeade's comment.

    Women are everywhere, they are letting them play golf and tennis now, it's out of control.

    at the risk of being judgmental (none / 0) (#64)
    by Reconstructionist on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 11:01:45 AM EST
    I don't think one's natural hair color has any bearing on anything. I do think one's chosen color, as with other choices made about one's appearance can often tell us things.

    Back when I was a blonde, (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by fishcamp on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 01:01:58 PM EST
    I caught a lot of fish.  Now that I have gray hair, I catch even more fish.

    Chosen Color... (none / 0) (#173)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 10:49:31 AM EST
    ...would also extend to cosmetic surgery, which is also a choice.  The idea that no one else employees beautiful people to read the news is funny.  The notion that it somehow effects the actual news being read is absurd.

    Rush (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 08:13:40 PM EST
    The Orders to Take Out Trump Must Have Gone to Fox, Not the Other Candidates

    RUSH: It was just 24 hours ago, ladies and gentlemen -- a mere 24 hours ago -- that I was behind this very Golden EIB Microphone informing you that I had come across a bit of news.  The bit of news was that big-time Republican donors had ordered to take out Donald Trump in the debate last night.

    We all made a mistake.  We assumed that the orders went out to the candidates.  But the candidates did not make one move toward taking Donald Trump out.  The broadcast network did; the candidates didn't.  I mean, let's review.

    Rush is a jerk in a lot of ways, (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 09:04:39 PM EST
    and most of the time, but that observation was accurate and funny.

    That's just unfair (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 08, 2015 at 08:23:38 PM EST
    That is From... (none / 0) (#174)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 10:58:46 AM EST
    ...Idiocracy which is the future where basically corporations run the country.

    Narrator: As the 21st century began, human evolution was at a turning point. Natural selection, the process by which the strongest, the smartest, the fastest, reproduced in greater numbers than the rest, a process which had once favored the noblest traits of man, now began to favor different traits. Most science fiction of the day predicted a future that was more civilized and more intelligent. But as time went on, things seemed to be heading in the opposite direction. A dumbing down. How did this happen? Evolution does not necessarily reward intelligence. With no natural predators to thin the herd, it began to simply reward those who reproduced the most, and left the intelligent to become an endangered species.

    It's the very reason Donald Trump is popular.


    What he said (none / 0) (#175)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 11:03:26 AM EST
    It was the plot of the SF story (none / 0) (#179)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 11:13:26 AM EST
    The Marching Morons

    In the "Introduction" to The Best of C. M. Kornbluth, Frederik Pohl (Kornbluth's friend and collaborator) explains some of the inspiration to "The Marching Morons". The work was written after Pohl suggested that Kornbluth write a follow-up story that focuses on the future presented in the short story "The Little Black Bag". In contrast to the "little black bag" arriving in the past from the future, Kornbluth wanted to write about a man arriving in the future from the past. To explain sending a man to the future, Kornbluth borrowed from David Butler's 1930 science fiction film, Just Imagine, in which a man is struck by lightning, trapped in suspended animation, and reanimated in the future. In "The Marching Morons", after the character John Barlow is told how he had been in a state of suspended animation, Barlow mutters, "Like that movie."

    I would say that Trump is the (none / 0) (#190)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 11:28:44 AM EST
    natural predator.

    Found this on Tumblr (none / 0) (#77)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 12:33:04 PM EST




    Moderator: Don't you mean the War on Terror?

    Scarecrow: I KNOW WHAT I SAID!

    Brainiac: I will provide pants to everyone. A decent pair of pants.


    News from the non-Trumpers, (none / 0) (#89)
    by KeysDan on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 03:53:09 PM EST
    or those "moderates."   Marco Rubio  on Meet the Press, tried to clarify his extreme anti-abortion position of no exceptions (rape, incest, or when the mother's health is in danger) by stating that he is opposed to abortion without exemptions, rape, incest or when the mother's health is in danger.

    John Kasich, who squeezed out Rick Perry to be behind door number 10, said today,  that there is no need to do anything about climate change, its all unproven.  An apparent flip from a previous position.  

    But, then he is self-described as  "old-fashioned."  Kasich was one of those nonTrumpers who won because he was moderate.

    He would not throw his daughters onto the street if they were gay. And, that is Ohio nice and  Republican moderate.  And, Kasich even went to a gay wedding.  He did not indicate if the cake was force-baked, but apparently, it was not force-fed.

     Although, the Supreme Court's landmark case on same sex marriage, Obergefell v Hodges, was initially,  Obergefell v Kasich,  for Ohio to recognize the Maryland marriage of James Obergefell and John Arthur--the couple flew to Maryland and were married there on the airport tarmac (Arthur was dying of AHS (Lou Gehrig's disease).  

    Subsequently, Ohio would not issue a death certificate indicating that Obergefell was the surviving spouse.   The case became Obergefell v Hodges . Hodges was Ohio Director of Health.

    I've been DVRing the Sunday shows (none / 0) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 07:32:54 PM EST
    the one sort of cool thing about dish is you can record 5 network channels at once.

    Interesting day to FF through.  My favorite might the be George Will who repeated what I've been hearing a lot which is that Trump supporters are not really republicans or even conservatives they are just dumb yahoos who can't tell reality from reality TV.

    while it might contain some truth I can't see it helping Trumps fans assimilation into support for anyone else.   Ericsson (or maybe it was someone else who was quoted at the Red State thing) said pretty much the same thing.


    And all this time... (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 11:04:30 AM EST
    ...I thought 'dumb yahoos who can't tell reality from reality TV'. were the republican base.  These are the same yahoos who wanted to have a beer with a recovering alcoholic.

    I love the R's trying to distance themselves from he most popular R and their own base.  Reminds me of when GWB left office and all the R's insisting he wasn't a real conservative and that the Tea party wasn't about distancing themselves from their own failed policies.

    Personal respectability is, apparently, for everyone else.


    Should Say... (none / 0) (#184)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 11:19:33 AM EST
    ...'Personal responsibility' rather than 'Personal respectability'.

    Kasich has a face different than (none / 0) (#112)
    by christinep on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 07:58:17 PM EST
    his recently-adopted "moderate" image.  While I hope this person doesn't get anywhere near the Repub nomination in view of both his ability to fool and the fact that the NY/DC press bunch are already fooled into downplaying the degree of his conservatism, IF he should become the eventual Repub Estab go-to ... perhaps, Hillary Clinton would want to look at the pragmatic possibility of Sherrod Brown (Dem. Ohio) for VP.  

    First post debate poll (none / 0) (#93)
    by ragebot on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 07:04:17 PM EST
    that pretends to be scientific.  It is from


    I posted the link mainly because it mostly agrees with my take on the debate.

    Trump made marginal gains but retained his lead over the field.  He was the most polarizing candidate with the highest positives and highest negatives.  Kinda reminds me of Hillary in that respect.  Carly was viewed as the biggest winner according to the poll with Cruz in second place.  No one else moved the bar much.  Bush and Walker were the biggest losers.

    It is way too early to pick the final two, but that is not going to stop me.  Carly seems like a shoe in for the VP and Trump or Cruz are my guess to head the ticket.

    I am not convinced Hillary will make it through to the end, way too much mud to come out yet.  I was a little sad to see Sanders get the hecklers veto for a second time from BLM since he has been involved in the civil rights longer than most folks have been alive.  Uncle Joe may wind up heading the ticket on the other side, but VP is still up for grabs.

    One of the more interesting (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 07:22:25 PM EST
    bits from that poll was that only 19% of Trump supporters said they would vote for the republican candidate and 54% said they would vote for Donald the independent.   That's well over 10% gone from the republican vote total right now.

    That number will rise.  I betcha.


    I (none / 0) (#102)
    by FlJoe on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 07:34:48 PM EST
    saw that, the Republicans are terrified right now. Whats up with Cruz and Carson picking up The Bush/ Walker numbers? I understand Fiorina getting hers, but I thought Rubio or Kaisich would pick up some if not most of those points.

    That is (none / 0) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 07:40:47 PM EST
    because there is a BIG disconnect between what the GOP pundits say and reality. GOP pundits loved Kasich. The GOP base not so much. But I knew that was coming. He can't credibly scream about how Obamacare is the end of the world when he took the Medicaid expansion.

    I think they ain't lookin (none / 0) (#106)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 07:46:48 PM EST
    for cute or sane.   More like armed and dangerous.  

    I love that Huckabee is saying he would use the military to stop abortion.   And no one cares.  Pfffft.


    I (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by FlJoe on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 08:02:32 PM EST
    do believe a rabid weasel would pull 5-10% with the Republican base.

    He's pulling (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 08:08:19 PM EST

    Huck (none / 0) (#111)
    by ragebot on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 07:54:31 PM EST
    was very effective at poking a stick in the eyes of main stream old guard Republicans the first time around and did well in Iowa because of it.  But Cruz is better at poking sticks in eyes.  Still Cruz can't hold a candle to the Donald when it comes to poking sticks in peoples eyes and that seems to be what gets peeps to support candidates in the poles.

    Sanders is fairly good at poling sticks in establishment eyes and it shows in him moving up while Hillary is moving down.


    What did Huckabee say about the military? (none / 0) (#116)
    by Peter G on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 08:02:21 PM EST
    And what could that even mean? And what could anyone, even a crazy and stupid person, even think that it meant?

    C&L (none / 0) (#119)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 08:07:08 PM EST
    Thanks for the link. You would think (maybe) that (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Peter G on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 08:58:17 PM EST
    a former governor of a state would have a better idea of basic concepts in Constitutional law. I realize he's not a lawyer, but he did take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, I assume. Didn't he think he needed to understand a few things about what it says first?  Huck states,
    "But the bigger issue is, is that unborn child a human being? Because if it is then the Fifth and the 14th Amendment apply because we're dealing with personhood. ... It means that you guarantee due process under the Fifth Amendment before you deprive someone of their life and liberty," Huckabee continued. "It means under the 14th Amendment there's equal protection under the law."
    What this (hardly unique) misunderstanding overlooks is that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment protects the life and liberty of persons against arbitrary (procedurally unfair or substantively unjustified) deprivation by the state. Abortions are not performed on women (thus, in Huckabee's view, "depriving" the fetal person of life) unwillingly by the state; abortions are a form of conduct engaged in by non-state actors (women and their doctors). No one who understands the Constitution would claim that all private action that the state does not forbid, thereby constitutes "state action." Roe v Wade already fully acknowledges that the state may legitimately assert an interest in the life or potential life (depending on your religious or medical opinion) of the developing fetus. In regulating abortion in furtherance of this interest, however, the state inevitably restricts the constitutionally protected "liberty" of the pregnant woman to make fundamental decisions about her own reproductive life, and thus her autonomy. This impact on the woman is what the Constitution's due process clause protects against arbitrary deprivation. The Constitution has nothing else to say about the "life" of the fetus ... not because the fetus isn't a "person" under the 14th Amendment (which I would say it isn't, but that's irrelevant to my point), but because it is not "the state" the seeks to "deprive" the fetus of "life" when the court recognizes abortion as a lawful choice in order to protect the "liberty" of the woman, who is (I hope uncontroversially) a "person" who enjoys due process protection against such state deprivations.

    Would you agree (none / 0) (#151)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 09:17:10 AM EST
      that Roe v. Wade is an example of the Court applying substantive due process and  similar in reasoning to Dred Scott, Lochner and a host of cases in the late 19th and  early 20th Centuries in which the doctrine was employed to strike down legislation acts which in the court's view infringed upon economic liberty (minimum wage, maximum hours, child labor, etc.)?

       I believe that regardless of what one believe about the rightness or wrongness of any particular legislation in policy terms, the doctrine does as a matter of practice allow the court to act as a sort of super-legislature acting to impose policies that a majority of the court at any given time happen to support.

       One of the more striking aspects of debates about this is how people on either side of issues  will applaud such "activism" when it results in policies they prefer and condemn it when it results in ones they abhor, when the court.



    No, I would not agree (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by Peter G on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 10:29:56 AM EST
    with that tendentious misunderstanding of modern, principled, substantive due process. The doctrine originates, not in Lochner, but in Justice Harlan's dissent in Poe v Ullman, and was deeply explored in the 3 majority and concurring opinions in Griswold. Associating Roe (or Obergefell) with Dred Scott is just a reactionary meme for undermining the legal and moral authority of those landmark decisions.

    The one where he wrote: (none / 0) (#202)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 04:32:14 PM EST
    "The laws regarding marriage which provide both when the sexual powers may be used and the legal and societal context in which children are born and brought up, as well as laws forbidding adultery, fornication and homosexual practices which express the negative of the proposition, confining sexuality to lawful marriage, form a pattern so deeply pressed into the substance of our social life that any constitutional doctrine in this area must build upon that basis....

    Of course, just as the requirement of a warrant is not inflexible in carrying out searches and seizures...., so there are countervailing considerations at this more fundamental aspect of the right involved. "[T]he family . . . is not beyond regulation," Prince v. Massachusetts, supra, and it would be an absurdity to suggest either that offenses may not be committed in the bosom of the family or that the home can be made a sanctuary for crime. The right of privacy most manifestly is not an absolute. Thus, I would not suggest that adultery, homosexuality, fornication, and incest are immune from criminal enquiry, however privately practiced. So much has been explicitly recognized in acknowledging the State's rightful concern for its people's moral welfare"

      I think that suffices to show that substantive due process depends a whole lot on the personal views of the justices at a given time despite elaborate efforts to ground holdings in some "principled" framework.


    Kaisich screwed the pooch (none / 0) (#115)
    by ragebot on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 08:00:23 PM EST
    when he started rambling about going to a gay marriage.  The folks who support gay marriage are not looking for a wishy washy 'I have gay friends' comment, they want the kinda red meat liberals give them.  Even at TL there were jabs at Kaisich with comments about forcing someone to bake the cake or force feeding the cake.  All conservatives get for supporting gay marriage is left handed compliments and it turns off the voters who might otherwise have voted for them.

    Look at it this way.  There are voters who support military intervention in the Mid East, but they won't vote for dems who suggest it when they have a chance to vote for repubs who support it.  Same for gay marriage, if you support it why vote for watered down gay marriage support when you can get the real thing.


    I have no idea what you're saying here, ... (none / 0) (#133)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 12:25:28 AM EST
    ... and I have my doubts that you do, too. Your comments about supporters of gay marriage looking for red meat are over the top.

    The differences of opinion on the subject are likely generational, rather than political. Opponents of marriage equality tend to be older and are passing from the scene, while those people who don't have any problems with LGBT civil rights are by and large younger and still coming of age.

    I'm not supporting John Kasich, who called himself personally "old-fashioned" on the subject of marriage, but I applaud him for forthrightly calling upon Republicans to recognize the validity of the Supreme Court's ruling on marriage equality, and move on.



    Donald, did you really say that. (none / 0) (#145)
    by ragebot on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 08:48:56 AM EST
    How can you not understand my point that folks who are in favor of gay marriage will be voting for dems who favor gay marriage, they will not be voting for repubs who favor gay marriage?

    Posting irrelevant demographics of those who do or don't support gay marriage does not detract from my point.


    Tell that to the Log Cabin Republicans. (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by caseyOR on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 12:13:54 PM EST
    LCR is an organization of LGBT Republicans who have pushed for same-sex marriage for sometime now. An they all vote Republican. They voted Republican before the Supreme Court decision, and they will vote Republican henceforth.

    People will vote for the party with whom they most identify, regardless, sadly, of just about any policy position the party takes.


    Yup (none / 0) (#201)
    by sj on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 12:46:51 PM EST
    People will vote for the party with whom they most identify, regardless, sadly, of just about any policy position the party takes.
    Until they don't. When the party strays too far, members and voters start peeling off.

    That's me from the Dems. I won't vote for a party that has abandoned all the values that made me a Dem to begin with, and replaced it with something party elders call "electability". Which is mostly governed by the size of the war chest.

    What I wonder is when non-mouthbreathing Republicans are going to start peeling off.

    Maybe it's happening now. Some "independent" organization is running ads extolling the virtues of being Republican. I did a quick search to see if I could find the ad on YouTube, but I didn't see it. Next time it airs I'll look for the "paid for by" bit.


    HIllary (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 07:22:22 PM EST
    is not stupid despite what some people like to believe. There is going to be nothing coming out despite people's hopes and even if Biden gets in he still loses the primary. So Biden is probably not going to run for yet another third loss. Sanders is appearing to be a repeat of the Dean campaign from 2004.

    Carly is not going to be VP if Hillary wins the primary. She said women of all political stripes owe Hillary Clinton a debt of gratitude which I would imagine would kill her off once that information comes out.


    Disagree (none / 0) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 07:23:12 PM EST
    i think Carly is a very likely VP.

    I thought (none / 0) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 07:30:34 PM EST
    so too until I found out what she said. She's going to look like a fool saying what she says now when a few years ago when she was running women for McCain she was praising Hillary to the high heavens.

    But then it's not like the GOP is entirely all that bright and they are pretty desperate. So...


    Trump gave her 5400 bucks (none / 0) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 07:34:06 PM EST
    and invited her to his wedding.    Doesn't seem to be hurting him.

    Trump (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 07:38:39 PM EST
    is a man and yeah, he donated to her but he also donated to a lot of the people up on that stage. Carly failed at HP and at her run for the senate but then again I'm sure the GOP might not care. However after putting Sarah Palin on the ticket they might be gun shy of another woman.

    Meh (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 07:44:00 PM EST
    she has shown herself more than willing to be the attack dog, typically the job of the VP and it would help them a LOT for it to be a woman.

    But who knows.


    Well (none / 0) (#122)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 08:15:01 PM EST
    if she is I would expect Barbara Boxer to hand over everything she has on Carly. And since she beat her for the senate I would imagine it must have worked.

    And (none / 0) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 07:59:10 PM EST
    Carly may be many things  but she ain't Sara Palin.

    No (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 08:20:31 PM EST
    never said she was however with the GOP women are interchangeable and Carly might as well be Sarah in their minds.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#129)
    by Politalkix on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 09:15:08 PM EST
    "Carly may be many things  but she ain't Sara Palin". Also what worked for Barbara Boxer in California is not going to work because the whole country is not California.

    If the GE is a two person contest it will be close because both Democrats and Republicans will hold their nose and vote for their respective nominees keeping the Supreme Court in mind. If Trump runs as an independent it will give the Democratic Party nominee a big advantage. Why not nominate Bernie in that case when any Democrat would win. It make sense to nominate the leftiest Democratic candidate who can win and in a three person race with Trump running as an Independent, any Democratic nominee would win.


    Try again, politalkix (none / 0) (#130)
    by christinep on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 09:18:51 PM EST
    The lameness of that argument suggests that it is thrown out there to see what will stick.

    Go Hillary!!!


    I'm not (none / 0) (#132)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 09:55:04 PM EST
    even sure Bernie could win in a three person race frankly.

    My VP money is on Rubio (none / 0) (#134)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 12:50:32 AM EST
    He'd really be a good choice for them,

    In a lot of ways (none / 0) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 06:07:26 AM EST
    he would make more sense since he comes from a swing state.

    Swing State (none / 0) (#148)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 09:02:32 AM EST
    Has very little to do with it.  The VP selection doesn't have much of a correlation with that.

    Rubio might be a good pick because he's Hispanic, not because he's from Florida.


    Rubio has (none / 0) (#150)
    by CoralGables on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 09:11:53 AM EST
    the worst missed-vote record of any current senator.

    He also has close ties to disgraced former Congressman David Rivera.

    Baggage doesn't tend to make for an effective VP on the ticket. And I doubt Trump would name him :)


    Trump would probably want to (none / 0) (#152)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 09:18:10 AM EST
    be his own VP - he might have to be, since he's systematically insulted and disparaged pretty much everyone else.

    But since Trump's not going to be the nominee, it's irrelevant who he would pick.

    In the long run, is it really going to matter?  I can't think of a potential VP nominee who could make up for the poor quality of whichever of these people is going to be the presidential nominee.


    You'te right that Trump wouldn't pick him (none / 0) (#154)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 09:41:51 AM EST
    (And Trump isn't getting the nomination anyway), but missing vote won't hurt Rubio.

    Obama was by far the king of missing votes, and it worked out ok for him.  ;)


    No Obama wasn't (none / 0) (#155)
    by CoralGables on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 09:55:45 AM EST
    McCain missed far more. In fact at this point McCain missed more than twice as many as Obama in the 2008 campaign.

    I'm not sure why anyone is sure (none / 0) (#160)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 10:14:24 AM EST
    Trump won't be the nominee.  I never thought so either but I'm not seeing how he is dethroned.

    Joe Scarborough made the interesting point this morning that this has to end.  To have open war between FOX news and the republican front runner is not good for anyone, that Trump gave them the most viewed debate and the 12th most viewed show in history and that they will kiss any make up when it's clear (if it becomes clear) Trump is not going away.

    IMO he is not going away.  

    So logically it will eventually come down to an establishment candidate and (most likely IMO) him.  If you look at the numbers it's very clear the nutcase candidates as a group are getting more votes than the "moderate" candidates.  

    To say at this point flatly "Trump will not be the nominee" seems a bit like magical thinking to me.   I don't think that is assured at all.


    And as far as Carly (none / 0) (#161)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 10:17:39 AM EST
    while she has been trashing him he has been saying mostly good things about her.  

    IMO in the admitted improbable event he is the nominee she would be the perfect VP.   Would she take it?  I think she would.


    Well, not entirely good... (none / 0) (#167)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 10:40:48 AM EST
    Bombastic billionaire Donald Trump is leveling his criticisms at fellow Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina, saying she has "zero chance" at winning the GOP nomination.

    "I just realized that if you listen to Carly Fiorina for more than ten minutes straight, you develop a massive headache," Trump said Sunday in a Twitter post.

    His denunciation of Fiorina marks a fast turnaround from three days ago, when Trump told Fox News that he thought she had been "an effective debater."

    Trump's recent tweet continues a battle between Trump and the tech executive that began Friday, when Trump implied Fox News debate moderator Megyn Kelly asked sharp questions because she was hormonal with "blood coming out of her wherever."


    Trump lashes out, he gets mad and then he needs to get even.  He has no time to rise above the fray, be the better person; he doesn't build bridges, he burns them.


    I believe I said "mostly good" (none / 0) (#171)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 10:47:24 AM EST
    and they have been recently since the debate.  He's said he is pleased she is doing well and he hopes she continues to do well.   And agreed she took the early debate.

    Which is high praise compared to what he is saying about everyone else.


    All right (none / 0) (#172)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 10:48:57 AM EST
    well I guess this is going to be another increase in Trump's numbers and watch for Fiorina's to go down.

    And his fans love him for that (none / 0) (#178)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 11:08:50 AM EST

    He doesn't have a job to lose, nobody can take his stapler away from him, he has no accountability, and he doesn't apologize or grovel to anyone, man, woman, or child.

    He knows how to play to the crowd.  I don't know how familiar you are with with rock music, but he puts me in mind of these lyrics from In Living Color(the band, not the TV series) and these lyrics from their song The Cult of Personality:

    Look in my eyes, what do you see?
    The cult of personality
    I know your anger, I know your dreams
    I've been everything you want to be

    I'm the cult of personality
    Like Mussolini and Kennedy
    I'm the cult of personality
    The cult of personality
    The cult of personality

    Neon lights, Nobel Prize
    When a mirror speaks, the reflection lies
    You won't have to follow me
    Only you can set me free

    I sell the things you need to be
    I'm the smiling face on your TV
    I'm the cult of personality
    I exploit you, still you love me
    I tell you one and one make three

    You really can't (none / 0) (#183)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 11:17:12 AM EST
    make this stuff up

    We are in uncharted territory.

    A duo of black women -- hosting a YouTube "show" called "The Viewers View" -- eviscerated Fox News debate moderator Megyn Kelly for her questions related to Trump's statements on Twitter concerning women.

    Carly (none / 0) (#168)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 10:43:17 AM EST
    not too bright with the trashing of Trump it seems to me as far as the GOP base goes. She would have a lot of 'splaining to do if she took the GOP VP slot with Trump.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#169)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 10:45:51 AM EST
    I don't know how anyone can say anyone is or is not going to be the GOP nominee at this point. Trump could implode but he also could go all the way to the convention. The way things look now he's in it until at least super Tuesday.

    Guess it would depend on how many implode (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by CoralGables on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 11:07:43 AM EST
    prior to Super Tuesday.

    Thus far Paul, Rubio, and Christie have dropped more than half their support in recent months.

    The only ones that haven't been dropping are Trump and the bottom feeders.


    I expect Christie (none / 0) (#186)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 11:22:32 AM EST
    and Paul to be gone before Iowa at this point. Of if not before Iowa then immediately after. Rubio is probably going to stay in until Florida.

    Yeah, and when you're polling at 1% like Graham there's really nowhere to go except completely off the polling data. I don't expect him to last much longer but then he also seems to be kind of a useful idiot for the GOP establishment and they might want him around quite a while longer.


    Nah (none / 0) (#165)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 10:32:35 AM EST
    Over the course of his career, John McCain has missed 10.1% of the votes.  Barack Obama missed 24.2% votes. (You can't compare actual numbers since there is a huge time difference in time served).

    Rubio has missed 10.9% of all the votes during his tenure.  He's been missing a lot this year campaigning.

    The median rate for senators currently serving is 1.6%.


    Apples and oranges (none / 0) (#181)
    by CoralGables on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 11:15:43 AM EST
    when comparing over a career against when running for President. But you knew that. It's why the a quote attributed to Mark Twain (but likely far mentioned earlier) still lives on:

    "Figures don't lie, but liars figure"


    And to be clear (none / 0) (#156)
    by CoralGables on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 09:58:23 AM EST
    the conversation is a VP nominee where the Presidential candidate is (should be?) looking for someone that won't cause headline damage.

    Well (none / 0) (#157)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 10:06:33 AM EST
    if it's to avoid headline damage then I can't think of anyone who would do that outside of maybe Kasich and his numbers actually went down with GOP voters after the debate. Anymore slippage and he's going to be relegated to the kiddie table.

    Truth (none / 0) (#153)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 09:37:45 AM EST
    be told you could make a case for and against any of them. Yes, maybe Rubio being Hispanic would matter more to the GOP than him being from Florida.

    Rubio's problem (none / 0) (#147)
    by ragebot on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 08:53:48 AM EST
    is even though he has a short record as an elected official he is not well liked by many conservatives because of his support for amnesty for illegal aliens.  He has sorta, kinda, maybe moved from complete amnesty but there are still many conservatives who would not vote for him.

    He is also not running for reelection in the senate which says a lot about how popular he is in Florida.  I agree with what Jerlyn posted earlier about how he looked to be in over his head in the debate.  Note he was not moving in the right direction according to polls.


    No Way Fiorina... (none / 0) (#180)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 11:15:31 AM EST
    ...is VP, once anyone decides to actually look at her performance, she doesn't have a chance.

    If you listed to her, she was the CEO god, if you look at the actual facts, she was a failure, so bad that HP stock went up the day she left HP.

    And the cherry is the Hillary comment.

    Also, it's hard to imagine Trump not being the candidate and I can't imagine him or her seeing eye-to-eye on much.  I would expect him to pick someone that will create the most press, a Palin like candidate that is outside the establishment, who also hearts Trump a whole lot and would rather talk about him than themselves.


    First (none / 0) (#185)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 11:20:24 AM EST
    he bragged about declaring bankruptcy.

    Second, he doesn't need Palin.   He IS Palin.  He needs Carly.

    And third, two words.

    Voodoo economics.


    To be more clear (none / 0) (#189)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 11:27:58 AM EST
    DEFINITION of 'Voodoo Economics'
    A slanderous term used by George H. W. Bush in reference to President Ronald Reagan's economic policies, which came to be known as "Reaganomics".

    Before President Bush became Reagan's vice president, he viewed his eventual running mate's economic policies less than favorably.

    Just because Hillary is not stupid (none / 0) (#107)
    by ragebot on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 07:50:53 PM EST
    does not mean more mud is not coming out.  Look how much mud has come out so far, a lot of which is recycled mud.  Folks who hope nothing more comes out are the ones missing the boat.

    A lot of dems still think Hillary is bought by Wall Street and like positions Warren and Sanders push.  Hillary has even higher negatives than Trump, which is saying a lot.  Hillary also has health issues, the note from her doctor lacked lots of details.

    Sure Hillary has lots of positives, but it is foolish to think there are not a lot of negatives as well.


    The recycled (none / 0) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 07:58:51 PM EST
    mud is just that recycled. The GOP's negatives are higher than Hillary's.

    The GOP already went down the she's the "walking dead" line of attack and got laughed at for that one.

    Hillary has been around the block and knows how to handle this stuff. Yeah, there are people in the Warren/Sanders wing who think that BUT the vast majority of them will vote for Hillary because of the supreme court if nothing else.

    Bernie is not going to win since he cannot seem to expand his base of support.


    Some polls have (none / 0) (#118)
    by ragebot on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 08:06:03 PM EST
    over 50% thinking Hillary is not trust worthy.  The Donald does not have negatives that high.  I do agree Hillary will get spillover when the field is thinned out, just not sure how much.

    Remember when Hillary fell down and had the funny eye glasses.  Medical opinion was that was serious.  She got over that but if it happens again it could be more serious.  She is clearly showing her age more and more, not just in looks but in how much time she is able to spend on the stump.

    Like I said she has big positives, but there are real negatives as well.  Not to mention she has been on a slide in the polls for a while, something she needs to change.


    So what? (none / 0) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 08:18:58 PM EST
    Do you think any politician gets high marks for being trustworthy? The GOP thinks they can play personality politics and people will ignore the fact that they want women to die?

    The Donald had sky high negatives at one point higher than Hillary's so none of that is etched in stone.

    The GOP did the same thing with Bill's medical records. They were screaming he was hiding something and that he was using drugs and all kind of stuff and then he released everything and they looked like idiots.


    GA, I am glad to see that (none / 0) (#191)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 11:32:01 AM EST
    you agree that Hillary is not trustworthy.

    I said (none / 0) (#193)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 11:34:31 AM EST
    they all have bad numbers. Especially people running for president but I guess you missed that part.

    Yeah, we know your issues are horrible so you have to play personality politics.

    And yet she still beats the crap out of Trump in the polls.


    You thinks Donald Trump is? (none / 0) (#194)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 11:58:14 AM EST
    Bank on it, ragebot .... (none / 0) (#121)
    by christinep on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 08:10:52 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton will be our Democratic nominee for President.  

    As for your candidate for Prez,  well ... with that large unwieldy Repub bunch, you might want to look more toward a Rubio (if Jeb! continues to look so lackadaisical.) Cruz is much too reminiscent of Joe McCarthy; and, he looks plain crafty mean.  In the TV-dominant race, that hurts Cruz.

    Meanwhile, my Democratic friends & myself are just soaking in the Trump show.  We all sure hopes that he runs as an Independent ... y'know how Bill Clinton is beholding to Ross Perot AND, now, Hillary Clinton could have a hearty laugh at the inevitable result of a Trump independent run.


    Even (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 08:22:20 PM EST
    Rubio wants women to die. So I wouldn't even look for him to do well and then he has mismanagement of money issues.

    It isn't that he wants them to die, it is (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 09:24:22 PM EST
    that he values the life of a fetus more than he values the life of the woman in whose uterus it is growing.  And he values it more than the other children a woman may have, more than the husband or partner who will be left to raise a child or children alone.  

    This reverence for fetal life, though, does not seem to extend beyond the delivery room, and this is something I'd like explained to me.  Why is fetal life so precious that someone would legislate that its life is more important than the mother's, and then once safely born, consign both the baby and the mother to a life of deprivation by denying them assistance with food, housing and medical care?

    And when the answer is, well, if you can't afford these basic things, maybe you shouldn't be having babies, then they can explain why they don't want to make contraception widely and readily available in order to prevent pregnancy.

    The answer will be that those who can't afford birth control shouldn't be having sex.  Then we can ask them if they are familiar with rape, something that is done without a woman's permission.  And that's when we find out how prevalent the disdain for women is when we're asked whether it was "really" rape.  Maybe the woman just thought she said no?  And what was she wearing, anyway?

    One of these days, it would be refreshing to have someone pursue the immutable-but-circular logic and the hypocrisy of these politicians, but I don't think that's ever going to happen.


    Birth control (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Steve13209 on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 08:07:56 AM EST
    Anne, The answer to the birth control part is actually that women shouldn't have control of their reproductive systems. If they choose to have sex and get pregnant, that's the chance THEY took. It's a misogynist power trip from a century ago, but one some men really want to continue.

    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#136)
    by smott on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 05:49:08 AM EST

    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 07:25:08 AM EST

    FOX explains... (none / 0) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 07:50:27 AM EST

    Why the Fox Debate is taking hits from Donald Trump's fans
     by Howard Kurtz

    Oh man.   Kurtz remains he king of piercing .... whatever.

    Btw (none / 0) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 08:00:42 AM EST
     inutes ago on mourning Joe Trump demanded an apology from Megyan Kelly.

    I guess (none / 0) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 08:38:44 AM EST
    his numbers are probably going to shoot up in the 30's with that.

    I find humor is the title of the thread (none / 0) (#142)
    by CoralGables on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 08:31:46 AM EST
    I'm not sure Trump has "stepped" in anything yet... not this time, not last time, or whatever perceived time the title is referring to.

    Funny (none / 0) (#143)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 08:35:31 AM EST
    for almost a day I was misreading the title as "Trump steps IT UP Again"

    Steps it up would be more accurate (none / 0) (#149)
    by CoralGables on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 09:05:33 AM EST
    since all the other GOP candidates have been relegated to the kiddie table since the debate (exactly where they were prior to the debate).

    I (none / 0) (#146)
    by FlJoe on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 08:52:15 AM EST
    Think it should be Trump wallows in it again.

    Peter G, I owe you a response. (none / 0) (#203)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Aug 10, 2015 at 08:36:16 PM EST