Image

Donald Trump Walks Away from Debate with Megyn Kelly

User avatar
Donald Trump walks away tail between legs from Debate with Megyn Kelly scheduled for January 28, 2016, in the Iowa Republican Presidential Debate. Ted Cruz says, "Megyn is such a pussycat, how can anywone be afriad of her?" Marco Rubio says, "Old dogs often flee from young, agile cats." Chris Christie says, "Somebody should get a leash." Jeb Bush says, "I always get along with pussycats." Ben Carson says, "Sometimes old dogs develope neurological phobias of cats." John Kasich says, "I remember when I was in Congress, I became an expert in herding the cats in the Senate to do what we in the House wanted done." Rand Paul says, "I think old dogs often develop opthamalogical ailments that cause them to see cats as being much bigger than they are." Carly Fiorina says, "We need another cat on the stage at the debate."

Image

In the picture shown above, Donald Trump walks tail-between-legs away from debate with Megyn Kelly scheduled in Iowa for January 28 2016 a part of the Republican Presidential Debate series.


--KOOK

 

 


 

User avatar
Cowardly Trump Debate.jpg

"I do believe in Cruz! I do, I do, I do believe in Cruz!"

 

 

User avatar
[PROG OFF]

James Taranto (whom I like, respect, and know personally) wrote a column in the Wall Street Journal about this yesterday. If you have a subscription, I suggest you read it in full.

Donald Ducks

Taranto is not a Trump's fan, but he sees the criticism from both right and left about The Donald skipping the debate as shallow and petulant.

First, he gives many examples when other candidates skipped debates, including Sanders - but there has never been such a storm of indignation about it.

A willingness to walk away from the table rather than yield to an unacceptable demand is usually a sign of strength, not weakness. During the Iran negotiations, conservatives rightly recognized that reaching a bad deal is worse than failing to reach a deal.

[...]

Trump calculated that he had more to gain from making a stand than from participating in yet another debate. One way of understanding this is as an application of Saul Alinsky’s seventh rule: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”

And so on. I tend to agree with Taranto on this. If I had time to develop this theme, I'd Photoshop Trump as an elephant who is being barked up by a bunch of puppies.

If you want my opinion, I'd like a Trump-Cruz ticket. I just hope they don't damage and alienate one another to the point of no return.

 

 

User avatar
Red Square wrote:[PROG OFF]


A willingness to walk away from the table rather than yield to an unacceptable demand is usually a sign of strength, not weakness. During the Iran negotiations, conservatives rightly recognized that reaching a bad deal is worse than failing to reach a deal.

[...]

Trump calculated that he had more to gain from making a stand than from participating in yet another debate. One way of understanding this is as an application of Saul Alinsky’s seventh rule: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”

And so on. I tend to agree with Taranto on this. If I had time to develop this theme, I'd Photoshop Trump as an elephant who is being barked up by a bunch of puppies.

If you want my opinion, I'd like a Trump-Cruz ticket. I just hope they don't damage and alienate one another to the point of no return.


OUT-OF-CHARACTER COMMENTS:

Of all my personal friends, Red Square knows he is among those I admire most.

Even though "KOOK" stands for "Kommenting Out of Character," KOOK usually posts things as a person imprisoned in the straight-jacket of leftist thinking. But for purposes of this out-of-character post, I'm stepping out of the straight jacket.

There are things I admire about Trump:

First, he defends himself. (Bush 43 failed to defend himself out of a misguided sense of duty to always comport himself in a civic-responsibility manner when his adversaries were attacking him in a street-fighting manner).

Second, Trump has an admirable charitable side (much of which is genuine, some of which is manipulative such as the event he just hosted as a way to spite his critics -- he probably could have raised far more if he were to have simply scheduled such an event farther in advance with greater advance planning on a different date at a different time, but he wanted to use veterans as tools to serve his spiteful, narcissistic purposes.)

Third, Trump genuinely wants to "make America great again" (in the process of making Trump "great").

Fourth, Trump is smart (but more self-servingly cunning than merely "smart").

Before focusing upon what I don't like about Trump, I offer the following observations about the current controversy:

First, for years, FoxNews has (to my dismay) continually promoted Trump and hosted his bombastic self-promoting/opponent-caricaturing diatribes. This includes COUNTLESS appearances on virtually every FoxNews program with virtually every FoxNews anchor and/or commentator and/or personality (including, of course, Megyn Kelly) hosting Trump in a patently friendly manner.

Second, It's common sensical for questioners moderating any debate among people seeking their party's nominaiton for President to confront them with unvarnished questions describing criticisms of them likely to be made by critics within their own party, by opponents in other parties, or by independents (even including LIVs) to afford them opportunities to respond to such questions/criticisms in their own words.

Third, Americans seeking to decide for whom they'd vote for President are entitled to learn how such candidates respond to such criticisms, because the way they choose to respond reveals at least in part the nature of their character.

Fourth, anyone not living under a rock knows that in 2012, public statements and positions by some Republican candidates provided extremely effective ammunition for the dominant media (and the Left) to paint the entire Republican party with the "war on women" label. Thus, in the first debate, it was perfectly sensible for Megyn Kelly to pose to Trump the question she did, which obviously struck a nerve with Trump, who is great at dishing-out insults towards everyone else but narcissistically (almost adolescently) thin-skinned about anything negative said or accurately reported as having been said against him. Not only were the kinds of statements he had made (which she brought to his attention) the kind unbecomming a President, his adolescently tantrum-like response to her for asking it was likewise unbecoming a President. He seems utterly incapable of serious, mature introspection.

Fifth, in the leadup to the current conroversy, FoxNews did not initiate the controversy -- instead, it responded with a satirical retort to Trump's AGAIN raising his grudge against Kelly and suggesting that if she were to be a moderator, he might choose not to participate. This is the kind of "I'm above criticism" attitude that I believe Trump would exhibit as President. It's one of the many reasons I think he would be dangerous as a President. He can't separate in his mind what's best for him with what may be best for the country.

Sixth, thus, I think Roger Ailes was excactly correct to inform Trump that FoxNews would not remove Kelly as a moderator.

Seventh, no one could object to Trump sheduling an event to raise funds for veterans, but if his real motive was simply to benefit the veterans, he could have scheduled it in a different manner and probably raised quite a lot more money, but instead, he chose to use veterans as pawns in his scheme to spite his critics. Using people as pawns is what the Left does incessantly. This is the kind of thing he would do as President. It's offensive.

Eighth, I'm not saying Megyn Kelly (or FoxNews) is perfect. Kelly's patently cordial hosting of the morally-offensive Michael Moore buried the needle on my anger meter. She often does an excellent job, but like all humans (I include myself), she sometimes does a terrible job. But on balance, she does an excellent job far more often than she does a terrible job.

What I don't like about Trump:

First, he is first and foremost as salesman who "sells what he thinks you're buying." That's part of his "art of the deal." (And, of course, after all is said and done, the buyer belately realizes -- or perhaps remains too ignorant to realize -- that he has bought what Trump sold not what he had wanted to buy.) (Belatedly, at least some LIVs are slowly recognizing that in 2008 and 2012 they had naively bought what Obama sold and they are now suffering from intense feelings of "buyers' remorse.")

Second, he (like Obama) is a narcissist who uses emotional arguments to manipulate others.

Third, he relies upon the widespread economic ignorance among Americans to "sell" them on specious claims. For example, he says he'll out-negotiate China, Japan, Mexico, etc. to bring jobs back to the U.S. and he'll "make Mexico pay for the wall." In both situations, he would accomplish such feats by either imposing tariffs (which most Americans sadly don't understand are paid not by the other country but by Americans) or using the threats of tariffs (or threats of trade-limitations restricting choices otherwise available to Americans) to coerce China, Japan, Mexico etc. to adjust their currencies to make their products more expensive here (and make American products cheaper there), in which case Americans would still pay in the form of higher prices, but it's not at all clear that the economic activities in China, Japan and Mexico would stimulate enough purchases of American products to offset the higher costs being paid by Americans for imports. [Indeed, a far simpler way to help promote American products overseas and stimulate investment here would be the elimination of our income-tax system on individuals and corporations and replace it with the Fair Tax (one of the few things about which Huckabee is right), which would help us on both sides of international-trade without subjecting us to penalties under "free trade" treaties or igniting a world-wide depression that would ensue from a tariff war.] (Most American's alive today simply don't know that it was instigation of a tariff war that ignited the Great Depression.)

Fourth, when confronted with his decades-long support for liberal/leftist causes (universal health care, abuse of eminent domain to further private gains of people such as he at the expense of others lacking political clout or influence rather than for the the constitutionally permitted purpose of "public use," New-York-style restrictions on the Second Amendment, and most of the rest of what w'eve come to known as liberal/leftist orthodoxy for the last several decades), he speciously compares himself to Ronald Reagan by saying Reagan "used to be a Democrat." In fact, Reagan's rejection of liberalism occurred decades before he entered the political arena. Trump's alleged "conversion" occurred merely a few years ago (and in some instances a few months ago). Trump's equating himself with Reagan is utter hogwash. Reagan actually stood on constitutional principles with which Trump isn't even conversant.

Fifth, in defending himself, Trump often exhibits either his ignorance of history or his willingness to "rewrite" it. For example, he has claimed ad naseum that "in 2004" he opposed Bush 43 toppling Saddam as though he thinks we don't know that Bush toppled Saddam in 2003. He speciously claims toppling Saddam made things worse while gnoring (or trying to rewrite) historical facts that demonstrably refute such claim: For example, if Bush 43 were not to have toppled Saddam, Gadhaffi would have completed his Nuke programs years ago and Iran would not have suspended its nuclear program from 2003 until soon after Obama took office. To understand this, watch the video at the end of these comments-- Trump is in it at the end.

Sixth, his understanding of foreign policy is dangerously impulsive. He serially issues contradictory pronouncements.

Seventh, he rarely actually describes his "solutions" to problems he (accurately) describes-- instead, when asked to describe them, he usually launches an angry tirade against what's wrong and then simply states that his solution would be "terriric."

Eighth, he says, "I will make America great again." We've already suffered more than seven years under another narcissistic egomaniac who suffers from the same "I" strain. Other candidates sensibly describe what they would do would be to enable Americans to make America great again by removing the boot of government from the neck of individual liberty.

Ninth, once in office, Trump the deal-maker would take over. Every deal he would make compromising with the Left would reduce, not enlarge, our liberties, but he would find a way to describe the odor of such crap as though it smells like a rose.

Tenth, there is much more, but this post is already far too long.

Watch the video (regarding, among other things, Trump's specious attempt to re-write/ignore history regarding the effects of Bush 43 having toppled Saddam, which benefits and sacrifices by our troops Obama utterly squandered by leaving Iraq unsecured in 2011):

[media][/media]

--KOOK

 

 

User avatar
[media][/media]


This guy is half evil half insane and half ignorant

 

 

User avatar
Red Walrus wrote:
This guy is half evil half insane and half ignorant

Joe Dan Gorman's "Intellectual Froglegs" video cleverly and humorously does what Trump does. Most of his humorous jibes effectively caricature people or views that deserve to be caricatured. The production quality of the video greatly exceeds that of my own videos.

Anger can be a great motivator. Directing anger at things that warrant anger is, without doubt, necessary to set in motion the process for remedying such things, but it's not sufficient. This video unwittingly makes my point. Trump's solutions for the problems is Trump. The Left loves Obama because he so self-righteously directs his anger at limited-government constitutionalists because he (like they) disdains restraints on government and favors executive-based imperious authority over others. Obama cast himself as the "savior" from the start in his victory speech claiming it marked the time when "the planet started healing ... etc., ad nauseum." The underlying premise of Trump's is that he can do better what Obama is doing. "I will make America great again."

To paraphrase Gorman, none of us would hire a plumber to perform brain surgery. Building hotels, casinos and golf courses is not a qualification (nor is it a disqualification) for being President. But exemplifying an understanding of, and dedication to, constitutional principles and sober assessments (rather than a bar-room characterization) of history, current world events and the views of opponents is an essential qualification for a person seeking to perform the Presidential duties to faithfully enforce the law in a manner that serves, protects and defends the Constitution (and the liberties it guarantees).

Gorman's video includes a number of popular misconceptions. Shakespear's reference to the need to "kill all the lawyers" was a compliment towards, rather than a contemptuous remark about, lawyers. The context of the statement was that if one were to want to establish a tyranny, first one would have to kill all the lawyers.

Mostly lawyers (and some busiessmen/inventors) authored the two greatest documents in history: The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. (See "Life, Liberty & ??")

There are countless highly successful business people (including billionaires) that no limited-government constitutionalist would want as President. Indeed, far too many of them today are capitalists (for themselves but not for others) -- i.e., crony capitalists. Crony capitalists (like Trump) can attribute large parts of their success to their reliance upon the boot of government on the necks of their opponents (which is why Trump favors the unconstitutional government-picks-winners-and-losers interpretation of the power of eminent domain in the Fifth Amendment).

To the limited extent to which Trump has actually described his solutions, they are big-government solutions. He would simply place the boot of government on a different part of the neck.

I would vote for Trump over Hillary, but I have no doubt that after four years, limited-government constitutionalists would have almost the same contemptuous view of Trump as the view we hold towards Obama's imperious, government-knows-best tyrannical rule.

--KOOK

 

 

User avatar
[img]images/clipart/Prog_Off.gif[/img]
Kook -

It appears the Country will have a choice between Hillary and Trump. The Republican nominee is the person I will vote for (as you have said). I am guessing Trump see's the need for a guy like Cruz in the backseat over the next 4 years. As you know a successful president, CEO, or carpenter (for that matter) surrounds himself with the best team he can find to achieve the results he has been hired to carry out.
To agree with you and back what you say with more arguments and information is an easy task. It's also an easy argument to counter everything you said with logic and conclude Trump is the best guy for the job, especially when piggybacking with a skilled politician like Cruz. Like I said, I will support the Republican nominee regardless of who it is as another Obama term will be disastrous.

Love,
Red Walrus

 

 

Kook, Other words,
You are scared shitless.

 

 

User avatar
Red Walrus wrote:Image
Kook -

It appears the Country will have a choice between Hillary and Trump. The Republican nominee is the person I will vote for (as you have said). I am guessing Trump see's the need for a guy like Cruz in the backseat over the next 4 years. As you know a successful president, CEO, or carpenter (for that matter) surrounds himself with the best team he can find to achieve the results he has been hired to carry out.
To agree with you and back what you say with more arguments and information is an easy task. It's also an easy argument to counter everything you said with logic and conclude Trump is the best guy for the job, especially when piggybacking with a skilled politician like Cruz. Like I said, I will support the Republican nominee regardless of who it is as another Obama term will be disastrous.

Love,
Red Walrus

My Dear Comrade Red Walrus,

If Trump were to win the nomination and become POTUS, it would be my hope that four years thereafter a realistic assessment of the fruits of such election would force me to print my comments in this thread and then post an apologia to you (and to Red Square) showing me eating my words. May I expect reciprocity if my predictions were to be proven correct? Unfortunately, I must say I would not look forward to, or enjoy, you eating your words because that would mean that Trump would have proven to be only a slight progressive deviation from Obama.

What saddens me is that I think we passed the point of no return in 2012.

--KOOK

 

 

User avatar
The Donald debates himself:


[media][/media]

 

 

User avatar
For all you Trumpsters out there in Utopia Land, this is an article I found tonight that supports some of what I have been saying all along (obviously, I'm not referring to the more unusual positions that I hold). It's from a Trump defector. Believe it or don't but at least consider it.

https://www.xojane.com/issues/stephanie-cegielski-donald-trump-campaign-defector

 

 

User avatar
Since some comrades are taken over to the Dark Side by this issue and can't abstain from off-karakter negativity, which amounts to trolling, I'm moving this thread to Gulagotroll and locking it.

 

 


 
TOPIC LOCKED