Posted on 08/27/2015 9:12:37 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Because Trump doesn’t play reporters’ games. He can see a gotcha’ question a mile off.
Stop talking of Cruz that way!
Your daddy, Obama, is scared of Cruz as we have seen, so you are talking about the wrong person. LOL.
And Trump isn’t? LOL.
BTW, no personal attacks allowed at FR. That means shut up with that.
Got it?
Good.
Apparently, Cruz is not seen as a threat to the status quo of the GOP:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3329858/posts
Did Trump give to the Clinton Foundation? LOL.
Politico: “Clinton Foundation hangs on to donations from Donald Trump”
You just annihilated your own argument. LOL. ROTFL.
The Republican Obama is Trump. Got it?
I don’t know, he may be a person of action if elected, he might not be.
I’d like him to be, but my attraction to him has little to do with what most consider the presidential powers. Trump would likely be the first president in generations who filed most of the appointed positions within a week of entering office, and probably more importantly, the first to mostly select qualified people and not mostly campaign staff and family of those in Congress.
Just that, to me, would be a huge win.
Don’t forget what he told Bill O’Reilly, as reported by CNN
CNN, 8/5/2015
“Trump: Mexico will pay for wall because I say so.”
./s (From Matthew 8: “And when Trump had spoken to the winds and they calmed, the disciples said: Even the winds and the sea obey him!”
See, Trump speaks and Mexico pays for the wall, just like the winds and the sea obey him!) /s. LOL.
The GOP candidates running in 2016 (after after the primaries are over) for House seats, Senate seats, governorship and so on better get used to being asked if they think Obama is a citizen of the U.S.
Has Hillary Been on Steppinonupolous’ show? I’d like to hear the hard hitting questions that will be asked on that interview.
And what answers do you see from the rest of the field that are so deep and detailed?
There was a time when the people largely accepted the self-appointed role of the media as the final arbiters on what is acceptable and what isn’t. If a candidate didn’t pass their litmus test on what was an acceptable response to a question and what wasn’t, they got the thumbs down. Their litmus tests were always selective and arbitrary, being applied diligently to candidates who didn’t share their ideology, and not being applied at all to candidates who did. The people are now removing them from their self-appointed throne. This is a healthy development for a country that wants to remain free.
“And we don’t have a dork running right now?”
At least 15 are, in two parties, want names?
I figured out, why the best conservative candidate is failing to resonate with voters. His stance on illegals is hurting him. That is turning out to be his Achilles heel. Megyn Kelly cornered him with the question “would you deport anchor baby US citizen kids”, and Cruz could not get himself to utter the word “deport”. Of course his other agenda of increasing H1-B visa’s and doubling legal immigrant quota when 92 million American adults are without jobs is also not popular.
Trump is almost 70, and while there’s nothing wrong with that, if you want to run for office, you have to stay current. He’s not, has no elected experience in the past to draw on, and is basically just a wealthy old man shooting his mouth off.
I'd discount the age factor in this case since Sanders, Biden and Hillary are in the same age bracket, Warren is 66. Republicans notably have some young guns but not all of them are youthful. With age comes some experience of having seen a lot of things. A good number of people probably don't have a good recollection of President Reagan.
Age means little to me in this because Reagan was such a solid President.
“We are a country of laws and this must be carried out.
We know Jean Valjean of Les Miserables was imprisoned for stealing a loaf of bread, perhaps at a Court hearing, he could have been granted some leniency but as things stand now, the Court Systems are overloaded. In this case, 80-90% of Illegals don’t even show up at Court hearings.”
This is the way, I’ve spoken to people who bring up emotional appeals about deportation. I’m sure there are better ways but I think this is a start.
Yes, I’m wary of Cruz’s position on expanding legal immigration and green cards.
A good response to this is “Let’s secure the border and then we talk”, quite a few have used this approach.
Sorry, mini-rant everyone.
You are correct; media bias is certainly partisan. Your comment caused me to “connect the dots” as it were with the analogy.
The media is not objective, they are advocates for socialism, just as lawyers are advocates for their clients. The media conducts a “direct examination” of democrats; the questions are non-hostile, open-ended and allow the witness/interviewee to present themselves in the most favorable light. Major gaffes, inconsistencies and outright lies are not confronted, they are ignored. Just as an examining attorney would be expected to do with a testifying client in a court proceeding.
On the other hand, the conservative is subject to “Cross Examination.” The questions are much more close-ended. They are designed to attack for any flaw in the conservative position, or if one does not exist, to create one. The questions are also much more hostile, and they are intended to attack the credibility of the “witness.” Candy Crowley’s “moderation” of the 0bama/Romney “debate” had all of the hallmarks of direct examination for 0bama and cross examination for Romney.
At the end of the “news” show, just as at the end of a trial, it’s the opportunity for the editorial comment, or “closing argument.” Again, this is highly partisan advocacy of a predetermined position, and intended to advance the interests of the client, in this case the agenda of the democrat/communist party. Just as no attorney will make a closing argument as an objective evaluation of his client’s case, confessing it’s weaknesses and admitting that the client is in error, neither will the major media talking head give an objective assessment of the witness he has just tried to bolster or destroy, depending on the political stripe of the witness/interviewee.
Where the analogy breaks down politically is that in the Courtroom, there is an opposing counsel doing exactly the same for the other side. Not so in the American political/media discourse as managed by the major media outlets. It is entirely one-sided. The pity is that too many Republican officials and candidates simply don’t see this obvious truth and act accordingly. If you are a conservative and foolish enough to be “interviewed” by George Snuffleupagus, be prepared to be sucked into what will eventually become a cross-examination intended to destroy your credibility.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.