btw, for the many who won't read the source, it concludes that Trump will probably continue to get away with the free media ride.
He has an open invitation to go on Levin's show, but chooses msnbc???
Scarborough and Breznef love Trump.
Those are Hillary type questions.
People ought to realize Trump is not a rebel and is an establishment candidate.
Not necessarily GOP establishment, but mainstream and media establishment.
We see McConnell looks like he will waver and give in to the establishment and let Obama have the Supreme Court.
And who has nothing but praise for McConnell and sides with Mitch over Ted Cruz?
The Donald, of course.
Cue Screaming Jay Hawkins.
Hillary should demand equal time of MSNBC. Trump is trying to steal her primary voters in SC. She needs to shore up her base or she’ll get Berned.
Let me get this straight...
Slate is defending Trump against attacks from MSNBC???
Alice in Wonderland!
“a Muslim questioner got up to ask why he had said such bigoted things about minorities”
They’re confusing what Trump has said about new policies regarding our national security with racism, bigotry and “Islamophobia”. Our nation’s security means more to more Americans than any number of Muslim’s being offended by what they claim Trump has said, not about them but about NATIONAL SECURITY.
Look, I support Cruz...but if Trump is the nominee I will vote for him in a heartbeat.
He will actually accomplish many things which are absolutely critical to our nation... stopping illegal immigration and addressing the problem, reforming the tax system, overturning Obama care, strengthening our military, reversing the drain on the US economy from off shore, and standing up string internationally.
Sander and Hillary will do NONE of that.
One thing that does trouble me a lot about Trump lately are his comments about 9211 and Iraq.
While it is true that most of those who acted against us on 911 were Saudis, including Bin Laden who was in exile, this does not mean the government of Saudi Arabia was involved.
So, you can say Saudis knocked it down...but, as I say, that does not mean they were guided, directed, or controlled by the Saudi Royal Family/Government.
It also does not mean Bush was principle at fault. That, IMHO, goes to eight years of Clinton as the terrorists fought us and prepared to attack the US, and Clinton pretty much sat on his hands.
This is something we pretty much already know.
As to the Iraq war, Bush made a mistake (IMHO) saying that the reason we went into Iraq was for WMDs.
I believe we went into Iraq to defeat Saddam who had violated about every term of the desert Storm cease fire over ten years. But also to establish a strong presence for our military next to Iran, and to set up a fly trap for terrorists to come fight us.
They did...and died by the tens of thousands.
Bush should have been forthright about these goals...I believe after 911 he could have gotten the country to buy into them.
But he succeeded in:
1. Defeating Saddam and his military.
2. Defeating the terrorist insurgency.
3. Establishing a secular Iraq on the road to stability.
4. Establishing a strong base of operation right next door to Iran, the largest state sponsor of terror on earth.
All of that worked and was in place when Bush left office and all of it was worthwhile having.
In fact, it worked so well that in 2009 the Iranian people rebelled and would have themselves over thrown the Mullahs. I believe that the spreading of that type of freedom was a principle goal of the Bush administration...and I believe it was working.
The Iranian people wanted what the Iraqi people were achieving.
But one thing had changed.
Obama was in power. He did not lift a finger to help the people of Iran (he did not want Bush to be remembered as being successful, and he himself is sympathetic to Mullahs.
Then, he squandered all the gains in Iraq and pulled out sustainment force out of country before it was ready to stand on its own which gave us ISIS.
All of that is on Obama’s plate...not Bush’s. and all of this is what actually happened...despite Obama’s rhetoric and propaganda...and unfortunately, despite Trump’s comments to the contrary.
Read the whole article none of that happened. It’s a completely stupid article complaining that they were too nice to trump.
So that kind of puts a major dent in this argument doesn't it.
For those still playing catch-up, MSNBC has pretty much stepped into FoxNews position now that it has gone full anti Trump and Cruz.
As for Slate’s opening paragraph, it’s basically what FoxNews had planned to do against Trump in the debate he skipped. So good for him.
This is what Slate wanted to see happen in the town hall. Waaaaaa...
If I had to take a drink every time somebody said Trump was finished I would need a new liver by now
Path to Legal Status for Illegals
Cheap Foreign Workers on H1-B visa
Pushing import of Syrian Refugees:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7-nLXGoSjpg
Just like the media covers Obammy, Clinton, Sanders, and democrats in general.
Another turning point. Heavens, Donald Trump has now lost the MSNBC’s entire audience...all six of them!
lol Maybe trump can sue slate and/or the moderators next
Mark Levin? Really? Why would Trump go on Mr. “I haven’t made an endorsement yet” show? Levin is now just as bad as Beck.
Well, the media recognize an entertainer when they see one. That’s all he is but it gives them a feeling of power to know how far being a media star can get you these days.
No surprise the other knee jerk hysteric for Cruz, is here too.
Too bad your candidate sucks so bad you are reduced to posting these sort of infantile tirades in the vain hope that maybe, finally, today one of your infantile snark postsing will actually matter to someone other then you.
How many times has Ted Cruz been on MSNBC? Or CNN. Or FNC.
Watch the immediate implosion if he wins the nomination. The media is telling us everything we need to know. We will hear previously unheard super attacks by all of them. It is what they do.