Posted on 01/28/2016 2:18:11 PM PST by brothers4thID
Video at link. Under-card debate starts at 7pm EST, 4pm PST.
Main debate starts at 9pm EST, 6pm PST.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
They take it out of context because Trump speaks out of context.. .....
‘If she makes it to the general election, Hillary’s probably surmounted her legal problems ...’
The Clintons never completely shook off their now-ancient history of crimes. They spun them. Burned buildings full of evidence. People conveniently died to keep them out of trouble. They blackmailed countless politicians.
Cruz promised to investigate her. To him Clinton scandals are fair game. Trump also made it clear they are fair game. We saw what happened to Hillary when Trump hit back. They were never strong and NEVER will be strong. Just a lot of teeth, the same as Trump.
If Rubio or someone else rides the fumes of her downfall, that advantage might be lost after the primary.
Courage is the best way to defeat democrats. Trump proved it.
So I hope she wins the primary. Not that Sanders should be hard to beat. But just less opposition research on him. She will expose so much DNC corruption it will make the Federalists’ Sedition Acts look like a cub scout outing.
Bookmark
Her recent hairdo, the one used at the debate and for a few days earlier, has made her look ten years older.
Trying to deflect criticism of her skills as a “serious journalist” because of her looks is just like Obama saying some don’t like his policies because he is black. But I guess the race and gender card will continue to get played as long as they work.
You know it’s over for a candidate when they invoke their resumes rather than reveal their thoughts.
One thing I noticed at that portion of the debate was sometimes a question is asked of ne of the candidates and some of the other candidates will want to get in on the discussion. After this question was asked none of the other candidates were at all interested in getting in on the question.
Sorry to be so late in replying, but I've been out of town traveling. I don't look at FreeRepublic when travelling. Too busy.
Your comment above is nonsense. I recommend that you read the book, "An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments," by Ali Almossawi. Your post fits the Straw Man argument. To quote from the book, "To 'put up a straw man' is to intentionally caricature a person's argument with the aim of attacking the caricature rather than the actual argument. Misrepresenting, misquoting, misconstruing, and oversimplifying an opponent's position are all means by which one can commit this fallacy."
I made a comment about Megyn's appearance agreeing with another poster. I did not criticize her skills as a "serious journalist." Megyn's appearance has changed with her new hairdo. My wife and I noticed it days before the debate. When Megyn is now viewed from the side, she looks older, perhaps about 45 years old. I was surprised to learn that that is her real age, 45. (Now I suppose you think I'm an "ageist" because she looks older with her new hairdo? I chose the handle, "rustbucket," because I am older than dirt.) Her earlier hairstyle made her look much younger and more attractive. IMO, if I were her producer, I would advise her to go back to her earlier hairstyle. Purely as a business matter.
If Richard Nixon were alive, you could ask him how important appearance is on TV. I listened to the Nixon and Kennedy debate in 1960, and like most in the radio audience I thought that Nixon had won. The TV audience thought Kennedy won, largely because of Nixon's appearance and manner. Was that TV audience sexist or racist? Of course not, and neither was I with regard to Megyn. I recognize that some folks do judge by appearance. One would have to be naive not to recognize that. I think that most TV people, including Megyn, understand that. Apparently, Roger Ailes does too.
Re Megyn's skills at questioning. She is very good, IMO. I thought Megyn had asked a tough question of Cruz about his position on amnesty, one that he needs to be prepared for. That was OK. I noticed that Cruz quickly put out an ad after the debate better explaining that he and Sessions had stopped the Gang of Eight bill that Rubio was a part of. In her show immediately after the debate, Megyn acknowledged to Cruz that her research showed that Cruz's amendment to the Gang of Eight bill was indeed a "poison pill." I'm not sure how many in the TV debate audience understand a poison pill legislative amendment, but Cruz's approach worked and stopped the Gang of Eight bill and its path to citizenship. He was 100% opposite of Rubio on citizenship.
Was Megyn equally as tough on Rubio, who had switched from no amnesty to pro citizenship, something that Cruz has not done? I'm not sure that she was. If I remember correctly, she asked Rubio a question about it, but it lacked the impact of a video showing how Rubio had switched positions entirely. If my memory is off, please let me know. I suspect that Megyn and Fox could have found such a Rubio video. On the other hand, in questioning Cruz, she had shown a video about part of what Cruz had said about the Gang of Eight bill. A video is more effective than mere words.
I had much more of a problem with Chris Wallace's question to Christie that seemed to accuse Cruz of something, but Wallace wouldn't let Cruz answer the question to defend himself because Christie didn't rise to the bait and attack Cruz. That was a classic example of bad moderation or a bad debate rule that could be manipulated by a biased moderator. There were other "attack this candidate or that candidate" type questions asked by the Fox moderators in the debate. That was pure CNBC, and Cruz properly called the Fox moderators on it. And then there was Krauthammer saying after the debate that he thought Bush might have won the debate. Bush??? Come on, Fox.
Your post mentioned racism? What did my comment about Megyn's hairdo have to do with racism or is that just another term like sexism that you throw out willy nilly to castigate someone?
.....”Megyn acknowledged to Cruz that her research showed that Cruz’s amendment to the Gang of Eight bill was indeed a “poison pill.”
.... I’m not sure how many in the TV debate audience understand ‘a poison pill legislative amendment’, but Cruz’s approach worked and stopped the Gang of Eight bill and its path to citizenship. He was 100% opposite of Rubio on citizenship. “........
Absolutely....
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.