I think all the candidates were given difficult questions. Some of them pivoted off the questions and gave graceful and eloquent answers. Thanks to Donald Trump those candidates had a huge audience for those answers. So maybe it's a net plus for the Republicans...,,,Also, I will say this for the harsh questionng. It will encourage the other moderators to up their game when they host the Dem debates. Instead of asking Hillary which of her many sterling qualities contributed most to world peace, they might actually ask her a hard question. I mean it's possible.
I'm not a fan. I agree with him on a lot of stuff, but I think his style is so harsh that he fails to convince anyone who isn't already in agreement, and isn't that the point of discourse. He's ideological masturbation.
"...the harsh questioning...will encourage other moderators to up their game when they host the Dem debates."
I'm fairly certain no moderator will ask Hillary about her actual war on the women, those bimbos who erupted and had to be, er...silenced, in order for her to secure her first co-presidency.
I wanted to like Trump, for all the reasons in the world, chief among them the idea that he would fight back the march of liberalism socialism and the rest.
Unfortunately Trump is not a conservative.
The sooner people get that idea out of their head, the better.
Like I said to Ari in the Rosie O'Donnell thread, it's fine to be willing to offend. But to sacrifice larger points on the altar of offensiveness is a strange priority.
I think there are people who think rudeness and hostility for their own sakes are great things, any larger purpose be damned. These are not the sort of people you want fighting your battles, though. If it doesn't help anyone go anywhere it's just rage-therapy. You've got to show you're capable of more.
And I can't understand how someone can take seriously a rage-a-holic who sounds like he inhales helium. His voice is seven octaves too high to convincingly pull off rage. Maybe that's why he's so addicted to doing it over and over and over again.
I don't even know what he said, Lem. I just know it wasn't worth listening to. That's what Bag's talking about. His voice is so distracting and his style so predictable that unless I have a raging rage-boner waiting to point upward against any woman who feels insulted about God knows what there's no point in even hitting the triangular play button.
Bagoh, did you listen to it? This wasn't a typical Levin rant, it was a thoughtful analysis of what actually happened. I'm not a fan of his rants either, but this made me think twice about what was going behind the scenes at Fox. Also, Trump apparently knew Kelly might be coming after him before the debate and had already cancelled an appearance on Fox.
Here's the thing. Trump is the loss leader in selling the Republican brand. People tune in to see him. Witness the ratings. While they are there they get to know the much more reasonable candidates like the unflappable Scott Walker or the passionate Ricky Ricardo Rubio. They get exposed to someone without the mainstream media filter. Win win.
Trump will pull out and he will not go third party because it will cost him too much money. It's all about the money for the Rug.
Not sure the folks want "reasonable" this time around. And what's so bad about "it's all about the money?" If I'd had the sense in yute to make it all about the money I'd be a rich man today...if I were a rich man deedle daddle deedle deedle daddle deedle daddle doo.........
"Yes, my first question is for Ms. Clinton, or I mean Ms. Rodham Clinton, or I mean Ms. Secretary of State Rodham Clinton, oh, and I forgot, Ms. Rodham Clinton SENATOR! You are so accomplished! Now, let me get to the questions, first, why is your daughter so awesome?" -- Journolist person
I heard a little of it live, because his show is on drive time here, on one of my favorite stations, but no, I didn't give it a full listen. Because of what I said above, I usually change the station after a few minutes. Everybody I know out here is more left than me, and if I have a friend in the car with me, it's just embarrassing. He may be making great points, but I've already heard so much over the top from him, I literally tune him out. Trump has the same problem. Even if you agree with what he says sometimes, you don't want him representing you. Both of them come off as unthinking, and emotional, and Levin in addition is an ideologue, and I know they are both intelligent men, especially Levin. You can have the best product in the world, but without decent packaging nobody will ever try it. The product I want isn't their showmanship - I'm looking for sound conservative/libertarian ideas.
Kelly drove this thing into the ditch where the media and left love to wallow. Now levin has jumped in there too. He fell for the bait. Now the story is all about this bullshit, and once again not about the nation's direction.
You don't have to like Trump, just appreciate what he's doing for (or to) the debate.
It's like cheering the Red Army to kill as many Krauts as they can because, though the Red Army is a bunch of commies who've already proven they'd kill their own mother if Uncle Joe told them, the more Krauts they kill, the fewer our guys have to face*.
And nobody gets mad like Levin.
Besides, Fox hasn't been the same since the Choom Gang stole the election.
* The other bonus is, since every Kraut who buys the farm takes 3 Russkies with him, it's a win-win.
I agree with Levin. The questions asked were incredibly disappointing. All that was missing were the questions "Boxers or Briefs?" and "Do you believe in evolution?"
But you see here that the debate went right back into the ditch. We might like better how Trump plays in the mud, but it's still not important stuff. The important stuff is always more conducive to a Conservative win, that's why the media and the Democrats always start talking about crap like a war on women in binders of un-affordable birth control.
This is just a sequel to the Sandra Fluke / Rush Limbaugh bullshit. A distraction skirmish that the right cannot win, because being technically correct on crap is still crap. When reporters ask, tell them that some insult a guy said once is not very important to world affairs when heads are literally rolling. Show them which side is really serious and paying attention.
People tune in to Trump because he has Charisma and they're looking for someone who will take on the Establishment. They're frustrated. At least the 30-40% who want change.
The problem is that most Republicans are like Bagoh - they like dull guys with executive hair who support the same old, same old. Unfortunately, the well-off well-to-do who just want the status quo is a dwindling percent of the USA. IMO, the RINO establishment will win again and we'll be looking at President Hillary in 2017.
I want the opposite of the same old, and Trump's style is a sure way to get as same old as it gets and that's called Hillary. Of all the people on that stage that night, Trump is the one closest to her and the only one who would absolutely lose to her in the general. This is an easy win for the Republicans, but that doesn't mean they won't blow it.
I also think Cruz can't win. The people in this forum are not typical of the voters in general. As foul as she is, Hillary (the worst candidate in history) has half the votes in her pocket. 1/3 of the country would vote for fricken Bernie Sanders.
I'd like to see Trump fighting someone other than Megyn Kelly or Rosie O'Donnell. Get into a feud with Sandra Fluke, whose name--honest to God--is pronounced fluck. Or maybe he could direct some of his charm offensive at Hillary. He's feuding with Mexicans and Fox moderators. I don't see how that helps the Republican cause--not that Trump is in any way committed to the Republcan cause. He has an id-ology more than an ideology. He's pretty good at looking out for number one but the Republican voters are the functional equivalent of investors in the Trump Casino venture.
He may be making great points, but I've already heard so much over the top from him, I literally tune him out. Trump has the same problem. Even if you agree with what he says sometimes, you don't want him representing you.
Since conservatives are always saying that no one represents their ideas well, why don't they ever consider the possibility that the ideas themselves are bad? You'd think if the product was so awesome finding a decent way of selling it wouldn't be the problem Republicans make it out to be. At some point the message itself should be evaluated.
When reporters ask, tell them that some insult a guy said once is not very important to world affairs when heads are literally rolling. Show them which side is really serious and paying attention.
In Trump's case though, he makes the clearest example of the GOP's main problem with foreign policy. They really do think belligerence 24/7 is the way to go. Trump just translated that into street terms and called the Chinese "motherfuckers". Intentionally and without irony. The crowd loved it. Why should "sensible" conservatives (if any exist any longer) object to that? They don't believe in any other theme in foreign policy except belligerence, warmongering and flag-waving. That's it. The last time they bothered with outlining an actual policy was PNAC. Since then it's just bomb hard, bomb often and bomb at American cost. Sanction hard, sanction often, sanction at American cost. Actual evaluations of what our allies and adversaries stand to gain or lose and how that will get them to go along with our interests is not something they can even stomach.
Now the story is all about this bullshit, and once again not about the nation's direction.
Tripling of the Dow. Cutting unemployment in half. Not spending a trillion $ on wars that we can get our allies to wage for us. All bad directions to go in, apparently.
The direction is obvious and unambiguously better under Obama. That is why the GOP is left with nothing other than "Let's find something trivial to direct some rabid hatred at!"
31 comments:
I will remember this when I hear EPL talk about the importance of being polite and not being disagreeable.
Mark Levin is just about the nastiest ass cockroach alive. Slugs have better etiquette.
And his voice sounds about two or twenty testicle sizes too small.
Like Joe Pesci but without the actual bravado.
I think all the candidates were given difficult questions. Some of them pivoted off the questions and gave graceful and eloquent answers. Thanks to Donald Trump those candidates had a huge audience for those answers. So maybe it's a net plus for the Republicans...,,,Also, I will say this for the harsh questionng. It will encourage the other moderators to up their game when they host the Dem debates. Instead of asking Hillary which of her many sterling qualities contributed most to world peace, they might actually ask her a hard question. I mean it's possible.
I'm not a fan. I agree with him on a lot of stuff, but I think his style is so harsh that he fails to convince anyone who isn't already in agreement, and isn't that the point of discourse. He's ideological masturbation.
"...the harsh questioning...will encourage other moderators to up their game when they host the Dem debates."
I'm fairly certain no moderator will ask Hillary about her actual war on the women, those bimbos who erupted and had to be, er...silenced, in order for her to secure her first co-presidency.
I wanted to like Trump, for all the reasons in the world, chief among them the idea that he would fight back the march of liberalism socialism and the rest.
Unfortunately Trump is not a conservative.
The sooner people get that idea out of their head, the better.
We don't need the distraction.
Like I said to Ari in the Rosie O'Donnell thread, it's fine to be willing to offend. But to sacrifice larger points on the altar of offensiveness is a strange priority.
I think there are people who think rudeness and hostility for their own sakes are great things, any larger purpose be damned. These are not the sort of people you want fighting your battles, though. If it doesn't help anyone go anywhere it's just rage-therapy. You've got to show you're capable of more.
And I can't understand how someone can take seriously a rage-a-holic who sounds like he inhales helium. His voice is seven octaves too high to convincingly pull off rage. Maybe that's why he's so addicted to doing it over and over and over again.
Fighting back Megan Kelly was... undignified?... something like that.
Day in, day out.
I don't even know what he said, Lem. I just know it wasn't worth listening to. That's what Bag's talking about. His voice is so distracting and his style so predictable that unless I have a raging rage-boner waiting to point upward against any woman who feels insulted about God knows what there's no point in even hitting the triangular play button.
I don't think Trump has an ideology. Ego is his ideology.
It's similar to when you read Althouse attempting discussions of politics and ideology and realize how lightweight it comes across.
Bagoh, did you listen to it?
This wasn't a typical Levin rant, it was a thoughtful analysis of what actually happened. I'm not a fan of his rants either, but this made me think twice about what was going behind the scenes at Fox.
Also, Trump apparently knew Kelly might be coming after him before the debate and had already cancelled an appearance on Fox.
Wow, Schmendrik's verbal diarrhea is in overdrive today.
As is your mental constipation, riclit.
Here's the thing. Trump is the loss leader in selling the Republican brand. People tune in to see him. Witness the ratings. While they are there they get to know the much more reasonable candidates like the unflappable Scott Walker or the passionate Ricky Ricardo Rubio. They get exposed to someone without the mainstream media filter. Win win.
Trump will pull out and he will not go third party because it will cost him too much money. It's all about the money for the Rug.
Not sure the folks want "reasonable" this time around. And what's so bad about "it's all about the money?" If I'd had the sense in yute to make it all about the money I'd be a rich man today...if I were a rich man deedle daddle deedle deedle daddle deedle daddle doo.........
"Yes, my first question is for Ms. Clinton, or I mean Ms. Rodham Clinton, or I mean Ms. Secretary of State Rodham Clinton, oh, and I forgot, Ms. Rodham Clinton SENATOR! You are so accomplished! Now, let me get to the questions, first, why is your daughter so awesome?" -- Journolist person
"Bagoh, did you listen to it?"
I heard a little of it live, because his show is on drive time here, on one of my favorite stations, but no, I didn't give it a full listen. Because of what I said above, I usually change the station after a few minutes. Everybody I know out here is more left than me, and if I have a friend in the car with me, it's just embarrassing. He may be making great points, but I've already heard so much over the top from him, I literally tune him out. Trump has the same problem. Even if you agree with what he says sometimes, you don't want him representing you. Both of them come off as unthinking, and emotional, and Levin in addition is an ideologue, and I know they are both intelligent men, especially Levin. You can have the best product in the world, but without decent packaging nobody will ever try it. The product I want isn't their showmanship - I'm looking for sound conservative/libertarian ideas.
Kelly drove this thing into the ditch where the media and left love to wallow. Now levin has jumped in there too. He fell for the bait. Now the story is all about this bullshit, and once again not about the nation's direction.
You don't have to like Trump, just appreciate what he's doing for (or to) the debate.
It's like cheering the Red Army to kill as many Krauts as they can because, though the Red Army is a bunch of commies who've already proven they'd kill their own mother if Uncle Joe told them, the more Krauts they kill, the fewer our guys have to face*.
And nobody gets mad like Levin.
Besides, Fox hasn't been the same since the Choom Gang stole the election.
* The other bonus is, since every Kraut who buys the farm takes 3 Russkies with him, it's a win-win.
I agree with Levin. The questions asked were incredibly disappointing. All that was missing were the questions "Boxers or Briefs?" and "Do you believe in evolution?"
But you see here that the debate went right back into the ditch. We might like better how Trump plays in the mud, but it's still not important stuff. The important stuff is always more conducive to a Conservative win, that's why the media and the Democrats always start talking about crap like a war on women in binders of un-affordable birth control.
This is just a sequel to the Sandra Fluke / Rush Limbaugh bullshit. A distraction skirmish that the right cannot win, because being technically correct on crap is still crap. When reporters ask, tell them that some insult a guy said once is not very important to world affairs when heads are literally rolling. Show them which side is really serious and paying attention.
People tune in to Trump because he has Charisma and they're looking for someone who will take on the Establishment. They're frustrated. At least the 30-40% who want change.
The problem is that most Republicans are like Bagoh - they like dull guys with executive hair who support the same old, same old. Unfortunately, the well-off well-to-do who just want the status quo is a dwindling percent of the USA. IMO, the RINO establishment will win again and we'll be looking at President Hillary in 2017.
I want the opposite of the same old, and Trump's style is a sure way to get as same old as it gets and that's called Hillary. Of all the people on that stage that night, Trump is the one closest to her and the only one who would absolutely lose to her in the general. This is an easy win for the Republicans, but that doesn't mean they won't blow it.
I also think Cruz can't win. The people in this forum are not typical of the voters in general. As foul as she is, Hillary (the worst candidate in history) has half the votes in her pocket. 1/3 of the country would vote for fricken Bernie Sanders.
I'd like to see Trump fighting someone other than Megyn Kelly or Rosie O'Donnell. Get into a feud with Sandra Fluke, whose name--honest to God--is pronounced fluck. Or maybe he could direct some of his charm offensive at Hillary. He's feuding with Mexicans and Fox moderators. I don't see how that helps the Republican cause--not that Trump is in any way committed to the Republcan cause. He has an id-ology more than an ideology. He's pretty good at looking out for number one but the Republican voters are the functional equivalent of investors in the Trump Casino venture.
He may be making great points, but I've already heard so much over the top from him, I literally tune him out. Trump has the same problem. Even if you agree with what he says sometimes, you don't want him representing you.
Since conservatives are always saying that no one represents their ideas well, why don't they ever consider the possibility that the ideas themselves are bad? You'd think if the product was so awesome finding a decent way of selling it wouldn't be the problem Republicans make it out to be. At some point the message itself should be evaluated.
Trump because he has Charisma and they're looking for someone who will take on the Establishment.
Only in America do conservatives antagonize institutions.
When reporters ask, tell them that some insult a guy said once is not very important to world affairs when heads are literally rolling. Show them which side is really serious and paying attention.
In Trump's case though, he makes the clearest example of the GOP's main problem with foreign policy. They really do think belligerence 24/7 is the way to go. Trump just translated that into street terms and called the Chinese "motherfuckers". Intentionally and without irony. The crowd loved it. Why should "sensible" conservatives (if any exist any longer) object to that? They don't believe in any other theme in foreign policy except belligerence, warmongering and flag-waving. That's it. The last time they bothered with outlining an actual policy was PNAC. Since then it's just bomb hard, bomb often and bomb at American cost. Sanction hard, sanction often, sanction at American cost. Actual evaluations of what our allies and adversaries stand to gain or lose and how that will get them to go along with our interests is not something they can even stomach.
"I also think Cruz can't win."
LoL. I heard that about Reagan in 1980. And of course we nominated "electable" Dole, Romney, and McCain and how'd that work out?
Given the moderate/Establishment/pragmatic Republican track record of
picking losers maybe we should discount their advise on who is electable.
"Do you believe in evolution?"
Yes. Whether or not presidents take science seriously is no matter.
And the GOP wonders why the American people don't take them seriously.
Now the story is all about this bullshit, and once again not about the nation's direction.
Tripling of the Dow. Cutting unemployment in half. Not spending a trillion $ on wars that we can get our allies to wage for us. All bad directions to go in, apparently.
The direction is obvious and unambiguously better under Obama. That is why the GOP is left with nothing other than "Let's find something trivial to direct some rabid hatred at!"
Post a Comment