Megyn Kelly: I didn’t ‘attack’ Trump at the GOP debate

wtvr ^ | August 9, 2015

[Red Steel]

NEW YORK

[PinkChampagneonIce]

Have we really sunk this low? That this woman would moderate a discussion by the best statesmen this country has to offer, and treat them like high school boys. And that they, with one outstanding exception, would accept that treatment? I feel as if Caligula is going to enter the race next.

[VideoDoctor]

Megyn Kelly: I didn’t ‘attack’ Trump at the GOP debate

She LIES as well as Obozo and Hitlery.

[DoughtyOne]

This obviously wasn’t written to you, but I think it’s a reasoned tool to help folks focus on exactly what Megan was up to. Let me know if you still think her tactic was reasoned.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3322722/posts?page=26#26

[VideoDoctor]

Do you not think a Candy Crowley or a Chuck Todd wouldn't ask him a questions about his past utterances?

Trump would EXPECT such from the LIBERALS like Crowley and Todd.. but to be blindsided by those who claim to support Conservative principles would send anyone into a tirade.

A knife in your back is usually a strong enough reason to retaliate.

[Inkie]

Well, look. He has to be prepared to answer incredibly vicious attacks being planned by the Democrats if he is to be the nominee. He can’t be thin-skinned, and he can’t just give an “up yours” answer to them. That will doom us to another 8 years of a Democrat in the White House.

That being said, since Baer thought it so important to ask the third party question, he could have saved it for the end, instead of starting off so negatively. Ditto with Megan and her sexism questions. They should have started off with something on policy - taxes, for example. Does he have any plans to reform the tax code, and if so, what are they? That sort of thing.

[eddie willers]

So you agree he acted poorly.

[MaxMax]

Asking personal, non-policy, gotcha questions is an attack.

That's exactly it right there. Nothing about any policy or Governing.
It was a slanderous attack in line with "have you stopped beating your wife"
and completely out of context and line for a Presidential debate. It was
asked like he was being charged with a crime.

[Democratic-Republican]

"Trump handled this trial poorly. He lost his cool. He failed. His tantrum reveals his true colors. He’s fine as a lighting rod, and I’m glad he’s taking the heat, glad he’s imploding."

Trump could play you like a fiddle if he wanted to. He could turn on a dime and act the dignified gentleman statesman and presumably suck you in since you demonstrate all this concern with appearance ( Right? Or could he? Unless you are feigning this concern as you are really wedded to a party or philosophy ). But as Nixon pointed out you run to the base in the primary and then back to the middle in the general. We are in the primary season and he is running to the base. Red meat is what's on the menu, and that includes major media personalities and wussie politicians. Like I said before, you have a knack for misreading the events in front of your eyes.

"This isn’t about “the MSM” or about “RINOs.” This is about Trump making an absolute ass of himself. That’s his schtick. Lots of FReepers love it. They want to see it “all burn down,” and that’s Trump’s gimmick."

Sorry, it is ONLY about the party duopoly and the captive major media outlets. In the past it was just 3 networks, but now it is 6 plus a slew of enemy combatants embedded behind enemy lines out of uniform, like RedState. Ignore them no more, the country is literally at stake.

"Once he’s off stage and back with his casinos and TV shows and blather, the conversation will become more about serious policy and the right man (or woman) for the job and the best path forward, and not about Mr. Self-Absorbed."

Ummm, Trump has no casinos you know. He is getting up there in age and who knows, maybe he figures he only has 5-10 years left on Earth and wants to do good now. That is a reasonable theory in my opinion, but who can tell? Most of them know they can't take it with them and quite probably even The Donald understands this fact. He could do a lot of good as President for issues he already cares about, such as Veterans, so I am willing to believe this, for now.

"One person will rise to the top, a solid conservative who is good with ideas and good with words, a man with character and determination and fearlessness who gets the job done."

Okay, I have to complement you on your faith. However, you are not going to like what I tell you here, it will be as bad as the Doctor that walks in and says 'it's Cancer'.

In short, you are still living in 1988 or 1992. You might optimistically stretch that out to 1996, some 20 million illegal aliens ago, and some 70 million total people ago. Read that again. That was perhaps the last chance that a textbook Conservative had to win a legitimate election. Then, in 2000 Gore finally dragged more people to the polls than Bush43, and he just squeaked by in 2004 with +3 million against Lurch Kerry.

You really do not want to know the numbers after that, 280 million in 2000, to 320 million today. The (D)emocrat-Socialist enemy has somehow managed a complete non-quota bias towards Mexico so you can guess that they have padded their rolls by perhaps 30 million to our 10 million.

When you say: "a solid conservative who is good with ideas and good with words, a man with character and determination and fearlessness who gets the job done." you are whistling past the graveyard. You are describing the path to 180+ electoral votes, maybe 200, *if* the (R)inos would even nominate him in the first place. But since you literally just said this is not about RINOs at all it is clear you don't even get the insurmountable odds in front of you. Maybe *you* should visit a casino and learn something that Trump and many of us know - the house almost always wins, and in this casino - the uniparty is planning on winning.

I don't want to be accusatory, but IMHO anyone still pressing the myth that all we need to do is nominate another good guy may be trolling, or is completely in denial. But make no mistake, the one sure way to ensure a repeat of recent elections is to repeat the same mistakes ...

---

2008
DingelBarry = 365
McCain = 173

---

2012
DingelBarry = 332
Romney = 206

---

It is up to you to place your perfect candidate name on those maps and then draw the path to 270+ electoral votes. Can you demonstrate that? 5 states need to be flipped just to get back in the game, 5 or more actually, since they are hard at work in conquering Texas.

Their next move is for naturalizing 13 or 35 million and 100 million total with extended families, of which 70% at least are in their pocket. You can leave your eyes closed and fingers in your ears and argue that we just need to do the same thing yet again, but more people are going to call you a troll, or insane, or both. Because a (D) troll would do exactly what it takes to ensure that one of those above maps occurs again next year. An insane person does the same thing over and over expecting a different result. (D) and (R) party politics and insanity all fit together rather nicely you see.

I'm not optimistic. But I can see narrowly threading a needle here in a multi-step operation. Trump has the ability to compete in California and New York. He could draw the enemy into a siege in places they never even have to defend. The stupid (R) party would be free to use their resources in state and local elections with Trump financing the main event. Any other candidate means the stupid party money must go into the main event and whatever is left over in state and local, so the Congress is at risk again. I call them stupid because they cannot understand the force multiplier they would have in a self-financed campaign by Trump. BTW: doesn't anyone remember that idiot Romney did NOT self-finance? Who needs more proof that he never even tried to win.

So, there is a possible perfect storm scenario here, with lots more money than ever before, and playing in every ballpark, against a bad (D)ummycrat no matter who it is. Trump nailing either New York and Florida or California is a win. Getting all three and many more is a landslide. Populism can make this happen. Conservatism cannot ( sorry Rush ). We already have all the "Conservative" states. Demographics turned several into purple. We're at the end of the road now. So which guy is addressing the border, illegals and immigration? We actually need an extended moratorium, so who would even consider that?

Still think that Trump is crazy idea? Still think his supporters are robots? I think these people are just being realistic. Someone please put forth a better idea that is mathematically sound.

[EDINVA]

She’s on the “A” list for the West Side parties now!

[Pining_4_TX]

Yep, that’s what I thought, too. It looks like a one cheek sneak.

[VideoDoctor]

So you agree he acted poorly.

NO! He responded as anyone would receiving a knife in the back.

Are you carrying out a "politically correct" survey or what?

[AdaGray]

Meghan may be worried. She should be.

[sneakers]

bttt

[Covenantor]

Very cogent post.

A+++

[FLCowboy,]

-—Megyn Kelly clearly wants to be the Katie Couric of the 2016 campaign.-—

Or Candy Crowley

[T-Bone Texan]

Q: why does Megyn Kelly have legs?

A: So she doesn’t leave a snail trail of herpes and chlamydia in her wake!

[Cen-Tejas]

To borrow Trump’s favorite word, I think Megyn’s “tactic” was “stoopid”!

That said, I like her when she really goes after people in interviews that I don’t like. I literally cheer her on.

There are other times where her lack of knowledge about the subject matter being discussed is embarrassing. So, I have mixed feelings about her, to say the least.

[FreedomPoster]

Honey, don’t pee on my boots and tell me it’s raining.

[DoughtyOne]

It has been a few years since I watched her do interviews.

My impression was that it was more about her than her guests.

Don’t get me wrong, I am a lot more lenient with her in her show, than I would be in a debate of presidential contenders.

There is a place for contemporary discussion of certain issues, that have no place in a debate.

Once those issues are a month or so old, they’ve ready been beaten to death.

Trump was asked to talk about the Rosie issue over and over again when it took place.

Now here we are 18 months to two years later, and Kelly was lofting it again. Enough already. She didn’t know that?

So I can’t cut Kelly slack here. This was so sophomoric.

When I watched her show, it didn’t seem to me she was all that intellectually gifted. You don’t have to be, if you treat people decent. She doesn’t always do that. And I believe that Trump probably has a point, that she’s bluffs her way along more than she should.

When folks suggested it was all about her and making a name for herself, vs drawing out the candidate’s inner thoughts, it sounded like the Kelly I remembered.

[Tau Food]

“I’m sure nerves were high as they were for all of the candidates. He felt attacked. It wasn’t an attack,” Kelly said. “It’s okay with me that there’s some consternation. He’ll get over that and we’ll be fine.”

I'll bet Trump got over it faster than she'll get over it. She screwed up and she knows it. She was the one person in that group of three moderators who was smart enough to know that they were taking huge risks by devising the questions that they devised to attempt to sink Trump. The effort failed and she has lost a lot of fans. All three of them got hurt. Luntz got hurt, too. I don't know how anyone can take any one of them seriously now.