2016 Election
Democrat -200
Republican +160
Male -170
Female +130
You could bet both republican and female and it would take a Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders becoming president for you to not make a profit. And if Carly Fiorina became president, you win both
Or you could take Republican +160 and wait for things to tighten up, which they almost certainly will guaranteeing a profit.
On first reading, it appeared that you were referring to none other than Lyndon B. Johnson, a prominent broadcasting mogul, especially in view of the sequence of the four presidents. At any rate, Andrew Johnson's bio on Wikipedia lists him as not much more than a career Democratic politician:Quote: TwirdmanReally? Really?!! To believe that Obama will go down and be remembered as anywhere remotely comparable to Andrew Johnson shows you either have a tremendous lack of knowledge of history or a tremendous lack of awareness of the current world around you.
"He served as alderman and mayor there before being elected to the Tennessee House of Representatives in 1835. After brief service in the Tennessee Senate, Johnson was elected to the federal House of Representatives in 1843, where he served five two-year terms. He became Governor of Tennessee for four years, and was elected by the legislature to the Senate in 1857. In his congressional service, he sought passage of the Homestead Bill, which was enacted soon after he left his Senate seat in 1862.
"As Southern slave states, including Tennessee, seceded to form the Confederate States of America, Johnson remained firmly with the Union. In 1862, Lincoln appointed him as military governor of Tennessee after it had been retaken."
Quote: JoemanI can definitely see why the idea of Trump as president resonates for a couple of reasons:
-- His business acumen would serve this country well. I think he would "cut the fat" from our federal government. As a fiscal conservative, I don't think the problem is that my taxes are too high (although they very well may be). The problem is that I'm not getting full value for my tax dollars. There's too high of a House Edge, if I may use the analogy! If the government was run more like a business (streamlined, efficient, putting the customer, i.e. citizens first, etc), it would be better for everyone. I think someone like Trump could do that.
-- He's a leader in that he inspires others. It's been a while since I've been inspired by a resident of the White House.
-- He's fearless. Pols today walk on eggshells because their livelihood relies on everyone (well, at least 50% of their constituency) liking them. Trump seems not to care about that, and is more likely to speak his mind and say what needs to be said. However, this is a two-edged sword as we all can see.
-- He has his own money. He will not be answerable to financial backers. Yeah, I know only a fool would use his own money to run, but I get the feeling he won't be beholden to the wishes of his financial supporters as many pols are.
That said, would I vote for him? No. Mainly because I don't fully trust him. He's more of a showman than a statesman. His messages resonate, but they are delivered in a "non-presidential" way. Also, I had occasion to glean a bit of insight (secondhand knowledge) into how his companies do business back in the 90's. Nothing illegal or unethical, but not the type of way I would do business. Let's just say that was my first seed of doubt of his trustworthiness.
What I don't understand is why everyone doesn't want someone like him. Maybe with different viewpoints, maybe a little more diplomatic, but we need someone in the White House (and in Congress, too, but that's a post for another day!) who doesn't need to "play the game," so to speak, if we are ever going to see substantive change for the better in this country.
Re: trimming fat.
This is, unfortunately, a fallacy for a President Trump or anyone else in the Executive.
Congress holds the purse strings. Always has. Always will. The Executive can say whatever they want about what gets funded, but it's never been the President's decision.
So Trump could try and change things through influence or bully pulpit, but not in any way that resembles the decision-making authority he has as CEO of his companies. And he doesn't have the personality or social skills to be effective in talking Congress into following his lead. I don't think there's any scenario where, at this point in his life, he's going to develop them, either.
At best, he might force Congress to pass some stuff he wants. That's step 1. Step 2, though, is funding that initiative or change, which is where Congress has their way; they just let it languish. There's an awful lot of step 1 stuff that still sits there unfunded, as a vanity exercise for any number of people who can now say they "voted for" something or "pushed" something. I think that would only increase under a Trump presidency.
I found one of his comments interesting...he felt Fox "bullied" Donald Trump. That is rich comedy to me because, well, Donald Trump is a bully in his own right.
I am in no way defending Fox; they could have done much better. I find it interesting also that everyone is joining in the criticism of Fox (from both sides) and no one seems at all concerned about the way Trump has talked about women. There are a whole lot of people out there being dishonest with themselves and the rest of us--he will absolutely be attacked for his actions/words at some point in the campaign. It is "baggage" that any candidate would have to work through and he won't get a free pass.
As CEO, he controls EVERYTHING. As President, you control SOME THINGS. You can use the bully pulpit to your advantage but nothing big happens without cooperation of the Congress. As i have said time and again, those folks are infiltrated with careerists who really have no interest in putting their seat on the line to stand with a President and cut or reform a popular program. They'll say things and do things to make it LOOK like they might help, but they won't be there when it counts. To many of them (way too many of them on both sides), keeping their seat is not just the most important thing...it is the only thing.
Working with Congress is like herding cats. Being CEO is being in total control.
The Presidency takes extraordinary abilities, not just business acumen. This is the standard we should hold for every candidate.
Quote: JohnCenaI wonder if these lesbian rumors about Hillary and Huma are true? National Inqurier was the first one to get the story about Jon Edwards baby with Rielle Hunter correct. I wonder if they are right right now too? http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/exclusive-hillary-clinton-lesbian-lovers-named-secret-emails
That nose injury has really messed you up...
They get a few stories right but how many HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS have been dead wrong?
Besides, if it were true, we already elected a Clinton who couldn't keep his pants up; why think it would hurt if there were another one?
That lady has a Weiner for a husband...
Quote: JohnCenaI am not really John Cena
Really? Wow. I thought you were the real deal.
I don't like the real John Cena anyway. I think he is "pushed" by the promotion and has found a way to make millions, but he just looks too fake for even a fake sport... Having said that, everyone in that occupation must be tougher than crap for the stuff they go through.
I'm still flabbergasted that you aren't the real Cena.
You had me there!!
(Okay...not really...)
Quote: JohnCenaI am not really John Cena
Damm, when are we going to get a real celebrity on this board :-)
Of course you are both right, Congress does control the purse strings, so to speak. And while Trump may be a good leader when in control, he hasn't yet proven to be a collaborator, which one must be to get Congress to work with you. However, our current president seems to be able to get funding for his initiatives, even with an uncooperative congress. But I take your point, Congress may grudgingly fund things, but they would be much more reluctant to cut things that would affect their constituency.
I may have let my hopeful/wishful thinking cloud my argument. But I also see that you two are both on the same side of this argument. Maybe there is room for hope after all! :) Still not voting for him, tho.
Quote: SanchoPanzaOn first reading, it appeared that you were referring to none other than Lyndon B. Johnson, a prominent broadcasting mogul, especially in view of the sequence of the four presidents. At any rate, Andrew Johnson's bio on Wikipedia lists him as not much more than a career Democratic politician:
"He served as alderman and mayor there before being elected to the Tennessee House of Representatives in 1835. After brief service in the Tennessee Senate, Johnson was elected to the federal House of Representatives in 1843, where he served five two-year terms. He became Governor of Tennessee for four years, and was elected by the legislature to the Senate in 1857. In his congressional service, he sought passage of the Homestead Bill, which was enacted soon after he left his Senate seat in 1862.
"As Southern slave states, including Tennessee, seceded to form the Confederate States of America, Johnson remained firmly with the Union. In 1862, Lincoln appointed him as military governor of Tennessee after it had been retaken."
Andrew Johnson
In Greeneville, Johnson established a successful tailoring business in the front of his home. In 1827, at the age of 18, he married 16-year-old Eliza McCardle, the daughter of a local shoemaker. The pair were married by Justice of the Peace Mordecai Lincoln, first cousin of Thomas Lincoln, whose son would become president. The Johnsons were married for almost 50 years and had five children: Martha (1828), Charles (1830), Mary (1832), Robert (1834), and Andrew Jr. (1852). Though she suffered from consumption, Eliza supported her husband's endeavors. She taught him mathematics skills and tutored him to improve his writing.[14][15] Shy and retiring by nature, Eliza Johnson usually remained in Greeneville during Johnson's political rise. She was not often seen during her husband's presidency; their daughter Martha usually served as official hostess.[16]
Johnson's tailoring business prospered during the early years of the marriage, enabling him to hire help and giving him the funds to invest profitably in real estate.[17] He later boasted of his talents as a tailor, "my work never ripped or gave way."[18] He was a voracious reader. Books about famous orators aroused his interest in political dialogue, and he had private debates on the issues of the day with customers who held opposing views. He also took part in debates at Greeneville College.[19]
In comparison I see no mention of Lyndon B Johnson as a broadcast mogul. He did get a broadcast license, but was at that point already a politician. Also when I mentioned the worst president that should have been an obvious clue I didn't mean Lyndon B Johnson who is basically never ranked in even the bottom half of presidents.
not serious about being president. He will lose
the female voters, he knows that. He's just having
a good time. He hasn't spent any real money yet,
and I doubt if he will. He just loves being the center
of attention, like putting his name on everything
he owns.
Quote: EvenBobWhat Trump said about Megyn Kelly shows he's
not serious about being president. He will lose
the female voters, he knows that. He's just having
a good time. He hasn't spent any real money yet,
and I doubt if he will. He just loves being the center
of attention, like putting his name on everything
he owns.
I've been saying this all along but people interpret it as me being afraid of Trump's chances.
He looooves attention. How many cable news shows does he call into every day? I see him interviewed on CNN, FOX, and MSNBC all on the same day multiple times per week.
I actually like Trump as an entertainer. I've watched just about every season of The Apprentice.
Quote: ams288I've been saying this all along but people interpret it as me being afraid of Trump's chances.
I've said here from the gitgo he has no intention
of running. Notice he never talks specifics about
any plans he has. He just throws out generalities
and walks away. This is fun for him, being in the
spotlight. Good for his business too.
Five years as a tailor and more than 40 as a hack Democrat does not make for anything close to being known as a "successful businessman." His impeachment is conclusive on that.Quote: TwirdmanJohnson's tailoring business prospered during the early years of the marriage, enabling him to hire help and giving him the funds to invest profitably in real estate.[17] He later boasted of his talents as a tailor, "my work never ripped or gave way."[18]
Quote: Twirdman
In comparison I see no mention of Lyndon B Johnson as a broadcast mogul.[/q[ Of course not. "Over the years, journalists have written about how Lyndon used his influence in the Senate to influence the Federal Communications Commission into granting the monopoly license, which was in Lady Bird's name.[27][28]."Maybe by you. But a heckuva lot of people still remember his lie about the Gulf of Tonkin and his half-baked halfhearted committment of several hundred thousand troops to a war that basically just he and his hawks wanted.Quote: TwirdmanAlso when I mentioned the worst president that should have been an obvious clue I didn't mean Lyndon B Johnson who is basically never ranked in even the bottom half of presidents.
Quote: Zcore138 times the viewers than the first debate of 2011.
On a related note, our Poker Room had about 30% less players for our Thursday night 6pm tournament than normal. Will be intesting to see next week if it was the debate or that school started in the area.
ZCore13
I personally was shocked at the interest in this debate, but I still didn't watch it. I can't get into a Presidential election 15 months ahead of time, if for nothing else than my own sanity. But when you compare this to the 2012 cycle, the last time I was in Vegas was October 2011 and there was a Republican debate at the Venetian/Palazzo while I was there, and I even had dinner at Carnevino that night, and you couldn't tell that there was a buzz at all about it, except for the Marquee outside the resort. There is something happening on the conservative side of the electorate and these numbers show it. I just don't know if the enthusiasm can stay up for 15 months though
Quote: Gabes22I personally was shocked at the interest in this debate, but I still didn't watch it. I can't get into a Presidential election 15 months ahead of time, if for nothing else than my own sanity. But when you compare this to the 2012 cycle, the last time I was in Vegas was October 2011 and there was a Republican debate at the Venetian/Palazzo while I was there, and I even had dinner at Carnevino that night, and you couldn't tell that there was a buzz at all about it, except for the Marquee outside the resort. There is something happening on the conservative side of the electorate and these numbers show it. I just don't know if the enthusiasm can stay up for 15 months though
I don't think it can or will. I don't think Trump will still be in it at that point either. He doesn't have a filter and it's going to end up getting him in trouble with two many different groups.
I wonder what would happen if someone like a Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, Larry Page or Warren Buffet (in his younger years) were to run. That's the type of person I would be interested in. They don't have to know everything about everything. They just have to know how to manage and lead.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13I don't think it can or will. I don't think Trump will still be in it at that point either. He doesn't have a filter and it's going to end up getting him in trouble with two many different groups.
Don't think he will go anywhere as long as polls have him in the lead.
Also, wonder what exactly he will do or say to get him into significant trouble since he has strong numbers with his current rhetoric.
Although, right now all the many other candidates are probably splitting remaining support. Some of that support will coalesce for a few candidates as others drop out and then their poll numbers will be higher (I assume)
Quote: rxwineDon't think he will go anywhere as long as polls have him in the lead.
Also, wonder what exactly he will do or say to get him into significant trouble since he has strong numbers with his current rhetoric.
Although, right now all the many other candidates are probably splitting remaining support. Some of that support will coalesce for a few candidates as others drop out and then their poll numbers will be higher (I assume)
Bitching about the government always resonates with the voters. The government is not for the people...well, not all the people...it is for those who govern. That isn't to say there aren't good government programs; there is just a lot of waste that is out of control. No one really wants to control it because some of that waste is in pork that goes to their neighborhoods.
That gives Trump some room to say stuff, but at some point someone will take issue with his statements about women or other things. You don't get away with saying women are ugly or fat or any of those things too long in an election cycle--pretty soon you say something about the wrong person and all hell breaks lose.
It is WAY out now and his "candidacy" is fun for everyone. Lots of sound bites and lots of crowd-pleasing stuff. The phase that comes after this "open season" is actual elections with concentration of effort in certain states. It is a grind and he won't get a free ride. He'll have all of the remaining candidates PLUS the democrats after him. Someone will ask him questions he can't answer. His answer to the third party thing the other night, no matter how you view the moderation of the event, will not play well with the "base"...you can't alienate too many people before you hurt yourself.
I won't disappear for three months should I be wrong (even though that might make some happy), but I predict his poll numbers and his interest in the election go down late in the fall.
The particular comments about "blood in her eyes....blood...wherever"(don't want to misquote it so paraphrasing) was in the context of why he lashed out at her, and the next sentence was that "Chris (whoever - another Fox moderator) had blood in his eyes...". So I don't think he was referring to her menstrual cycle; I think he dug himself a hole in attempting to be colorful and defensive. and was trying to blunder back out of it; it's the interpreters who are claiming he was making an on-the-rag type comment when he really wasn't. I could be wrong; I wasn't in his head any more than anybody else was.
1) Financially. A person making 10s or hundreds of millions of dollars per year would not be exactly enthusiastic about a job that would pay 400K. I know, most everyone here would jump at a chance for 400K, but when you are used to making that in a week, it doesn't sound so appealing for a full year
2) Control. There are checks and balances in our government and while each branch tries to overextend those limits. These are people who ask to get something done, they are used to getting it done with immediacy, not by spending months or years campaigning for the legislation. As President, you have to wait for something to get to your desk, in business, you decide what goes out from your desk and you delegate
3) Inability to trim the fat. One thing government is awful at is getting rid of extinct or outdated programs. The programs oftentimes were created for noble purposes, served that purpose, and not to stay afloat, keep afloat by creating legislation for increasingly less significant issue. The conversation that was going on here regarding the EPA a couple days ago would illustrate that fact.
4) Base-line budgeting. When in business you hear the term "making the budget" it means you reached revenue goals in terms of revenue, margin, volume or whatever, when you hear that term in a government office it's reflecting how much you have spent. Anyone who was in a club in school can see this illustrated. Every year at the end of the school year, your organization had a party, whether it was math club, chess club, glee club etc. The purpose of the party was said to be a celebration of the year, but that's not the true purpose, it was to spend the rest of the money in the budget so the club could ask for just as much or more the following year without any regard to rainy day funds or anything like that.
I am sure there are more, but as a person who is used to snapping his fingers and getting stuff done, the glacial pace at which the government moves would infuriate someone like Trump, Jobs, Bezos, Buffet etc
but he did lose some when he was dropped
by NBC and Macys. When you're worth 10
billion, who really cares. He could lose a
billion and not even feel it. He is hurting the
real candidates by making them invisible,
though. Fiorina is the one to watch, she
tears Hillary a new every time she speaks
publicly.
Murdock, who it is said to be backing Jeb Bush, wants Trump out and wants Trump out right now. In trying to force him out, he may have just insured that Trump hangs around longer. Today Trump started raising money on the internet so he doesn't even have to spend his own money.
I know I am sounding redundant, but these people and by that I mean those in the republican party leadership and republican media, that want Trump to disappear should have just let him implode on his own and fade away.
I agree with Ron C, Trump would have started losing support and would have been gone in a month or two, long before any real voting occurred early next year. Instead he is now liable to stay around as long as he can and do as much damage as he can just out of spite. He wasn't exactly a 'sleeping dog', but it still was a bad idea to go poking him with a stick, like they did.
Quote: EvenBobLike I said, he has spent little money so far,
but he did lose some when he was dropped
by NBC and Macys. When you're worth 10
billion, who really cares. He could lose a
billion and not even feel it. He is hurting the
real candidates by making them invisible,
though. Fiorina is the one to watch, she
tears Hillary a new every time she speaks
publicly.
Maybe he is not hurting the other candidates as much as giving them a chance to "find" their message (that is, the way to present their views in a way that sounds best) while none of them have the scrutiny of being the front runner. Look at Jeb...with Trump sucking all of the air out of the room, he can get on his feet and work on campaigning; he has not done it in a while. Trump also gets the other folks some times when he says stuff about them; air time is important to every one of them.
If the pockets backing each candidate are as deep as people say, they will be able to stay in the race as Trump either goes from here to being a "serious" candidate (take him seriously, of course, but what is his plan for ANYTHING?) or slides out of the race when he realizes it isn't for him. He can afford to stay in as long as he wants but he won't stay in very long if his support drops back to the lower end of the numbers...his ego cannot stand something like that.
Isn't it a great silly season?
Quote: EvenBobLike I said, he has spent little money so far,
but he did lose some when he was dropped
by NBC and Macys. When you're worth 10
billion, who really cares. He could lose a
billion and not even feel it. He is hurting the
real candidates by making them invisible,
though. Fiorina is the one to watch, she
tears Hillary a new every time she speaks
publicly.
I can't see how anyone thinks Carly Fiorina is qualified to be president. The achievement that she rest on is the first female CEO of a major company. But during her 6 year tenure at HP, which ended in 2005, she laid off 30,000 workers and HP's stock fell more than 50% and that was before the big stock market crash. And then she was fired.
What else has she done that qualifies her to be president? And yes, she is a wonderful public speaker. Most CEO's are now a days as that is a big requirement and part of the job. They need to be a cheerleader/salesman.
I would think someone like you EB, would see the danger in electing someone who speaks well but isn't qualified. (that's an Obama reference...lol)
Quote: kewljI can't see how anyone thinks Carly Fiorina is qualified to be president.
What's Hillary done except marry Bill. She
did nothing she can point to as a senator
or SoS. She's not a wonderful anything.
Quote: EvenBobWhat's Hillary done except marry Bill. She
did nothing she can point to as a senator
or SoS. She's not a wonderful anything.
What does one have to do with the other. If you want to say Hillary is unqualified, go ahead. Other's may argue...whatever. But pointing out another persons qualifications or lack of qualifications doesn't address the issue that Carly Fiorina isn't.
Quote: EvenBobWhat's Hillary done except marry Bill. She
did nothing she can point to as a senator
or SoS. She's not a wonderful anything.
Heck, what did the guy in office do to be elected President? He was a "community organizer" spent a fraction of a term in the IL State Senate, most of which he spent running for the US Senate, and a fraction of a term in the US Senate, much of which he spent running for President.
Quote: kewljWhat does one have to do with the other.
She's more qualified than Hillary, at least
she's done something in her life.
Love the camera angles.
This reminds me so much of Trump.
was actually fun to play.
He's quadrupled his net worth since then, most of it since he started his TV show.
ZCore13
http://www.trueactivist.com/18-ceos-called-out-by-bernie-sanders-for-taking-trillions-in-bailouts-evading-taxes-and-outsourcing-jobs
Quote: EvenBobThis is hilarious!
What a waste of time. Not very funny for the first minute; that ended my interest.
Quote: RonCWhat a waste of time. Not very funny for the first minute; that ended my interest.
I actually LOL and watched it twice. This is
Trumps fan base, these are the people who
loved his show and are keeping him in the
race. He's inspiring them to speak out. I
love it. Can you imagine anybody getting
this fired up over Bush or Rubio or Huckabuck?
He is just toying with everybody.
I'm constantly amazed how gullible people are. WOW!
Not a chance in hell Trump is on the ballot. He doesn't want to be. He is having fun right now. That's all.
Quote: HowManyHe is just toying with everybody.
The epitome of AP'ism and its "supporters".
Quote: HowManyC'mon, wise up, you guys. Trump isn't running for president.
l.
Really? No kidding? I've only said that
in this tread about 10 times, from the
minute he announced. Why don't you
wise up, nobody here thinks he's
serious.
Trump wasn't hurt at all. That's just crazy.
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/new-nbc-news-survey-monkey-poll-donald-trump-still-lead-n406766
Quote: EvenBobThe first official poll since the debate is in and
Trump wasn't hurt at all. That's just crazy.
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/new-nbc-news-survey-monkey-poll-donald-trump-still-lead-n406766
Keep moving, nothing to see here.
Did you really think he would be hurt?
Quote: AZDuffmanKeep moving, nothing to see here.
Did you really think he would be hurt?
No. In fact when Kewlj said after the debate
that Trump was done, I said I didn't think
the debate hurt him at all. But this poll was done
before all the stuff he said about Megyn
Kelly this weekend.
Quote: EvenBobNo. In fact when Kewlj said after the debate
that Trump was done, I said I didn't think
the debate hurt him at all. But this poll was done
before all the stuff he said about Megyn
Kelly this weekend.
I amended my statement to say who knows? We seem to be in some kind of twilight zone, uncharted waters situation with Donald Trump. Things he seems to say that would totally sink any other candidate on either side seem to not effect his support. He gives new meaning to the term "Teflon Don". :)
I don't consider this survey Monkey poll legitimate. It polls people that visit the survey Monkey site, a site that attracts the far right tea party types. That is why some of the more moderate candidates like Bush and Walker are no where to be found in the poll. I mean do you really think Bush and Walker are trailing Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina among all republican voters? If you really believe that you can get pretty good odds on a number of sites. lol
Taking this poll as credible would be like talking a poll of the people that visit JebBush.com or Hillaryclinton.com and thinking that credible with no bias.
I am looking forward to more mainstream polls that will be released in the coming days. If Trump goes up, then cue that twilight zone music and buckle in for what could be a rocky ride. :)
Trump was invited to be the prime-time speaker on Saturday night, which leading in the polls, he should be a prime-time speaker. Despite what he said or how obnoxious he is, it is the Voter's place to disqualify him, not the organizer of such an event. Dis-inviting him like that, and only 12 hours before his turn to speak, smacks of censorship. It's like this Erick Erickson guy is trying to make the decision for the voters.
And then for Erickson to replace Trump with Megyn Kelly?? At an event for Presidential candidates?? Did I miss Megyn Kelly's entrance into the already over-crowded republican field? :/
Quote: kewljI also want to say that I find this 'dis-invite' of Trump from the Red State Event, Saturday night kind of disturbing. If I was someone who attended that event, I would be up in arms. This event was a forum for the candidates to speak to voters, to help voters make up their minds about candidates.
Trump was invited to be the prime-time speaker on Saturday night, which leading in the polls, he should be a prime-time speaker. Dis-inviting him like that, and only 12 hours before his turn to speak, smacks of censorship. It's like this Erick Erickson guy is trying to make the decision for the voters. And then for Erickson to replace Trump with Megyn Kelly?? At an event for Presidential candidates?? Did I miss Megyn Kelly's entrance into the already over-crowded republican field? :/
Kind of goes right along with Fox arbitrarily separating the field on Thursday night, doesn't it? It is censorship. I read somewhere that the event was sold out before they announced Trump was the keynoter, or I'd say it was a bait-and-switch as well.
Be interesting to see, if this gets to the level of an all-out war between Trump and Fox, who wins it. Between what the outside commentators consider clear bias in the questions, the artificial division of the candidates, and the post-debate attacks from Fox, I think the forces are divided, and everybody's going to have to choose sides. Red State, whatever organization they are, seems to have chosen Fox. But Trump might end up running the table on them and discrediting their standing.
Quote: beachbumbabs
Be interesting to see, if this gets to the level of an all-out war between Trump and Fox, who wins it. Between what the outside commentators consider clear bias in the questions, the artificial division of the candidates, and the post-debate attacks from Fox, I think the forces are divided, and everybody's going to have to choose sides. Red State, whatever organization they are, seems to have chosen Fox. But Trump might end up running the table on them and discrediting their standing.
Disclaimer: I am not a big fan of Fox news, although I do watch regularly along with the other networks to see their take on things.
There is no mistaken that the first question to Trump from each of the three moderators was an attack "gottch ya" type question designed to make Trump look bad. Other candidates were not attacked like that. There is a difference between asking tough questions about policy or a candidate's position and what Fox did, IMO.
BUT, it looks like this decision didn't come from Fox news. It was reported yesterday that this decision to go after Trump was made from the very top of Fox, Rupert Murdock, over the objections of Roger Aires, who supposedly runs Fox news.
My gut feeling tells me that someone powerful on the republican side has decided they have had enough of Donald Trump and they want him out of the picture immediately, and the focus on more legitimate candidates. Someone like the Koch Brothers or other big money donor, or maybe the leadership of the RNC and they influenced Murdock and probably Erick Erickson, organizer of the Red State Event as well.
If I am correct there will be a movement to not have Trump participate in the September debate. But with CNN moderating that debate, whoever is calling the shots and trying to push buttons may not have such a willing partner.
in the way. Trump is hard to hurt because people
know who he is after 10 years on TV. And he
has his own money. He's pissed now, he might
stay around longer than he intended just to
get back at them.
Look at this way.
Ain't no record he can break in wealth -- he will drop dead of old age before becoming wealthy enough to take the richest man title.
He doesn't need anything. He's likely bought all the same crap 3 times over or more.
Here's another thing -- and any of the big time gamblers hiding out here will know this. After awhile money is just chips you move around when you're moving so many. He's not that interested in more wealth. He's even said as much.
But here's the kicker, THIS is the biggest attention grabbing thing he's ever done. He knows this is likely the only time he will garner this much attention ever.
Why not? This is a guy who is doing something big. He's got nothing to lose that he can't afford.
I don't know how much more he believes than that. But I believe he believes that much.
The others were most definitely challenged. My favorite is when Kelly challenged Walker on using abortion to save the mother's life.Quote: kewljOther candidates were not attacked like that. There is a difference between asking tough questions about policy or a candidate's position and what Fox did, IMO.
