Malkin is pointing out that FOX has invited guests to ask the candidates questions. Among the invited guests are an illegal immigrant activist and Muslim activist, both with YouTube accounts stating their positions.
She also points out all this is fine with RNC.
The debate is FOX-Google. Google owns YouTube. Three YouTube stars are invited.
Dulce Candy who entered the U.S. illegally from Mexico and Nabela Noor an outspoken Muslim activist are the two individuals that Malkin insists does not make sense for Republicans to accept offering questions, and why FOX and RNC would agree to cohost with Google is inexplicable.
Democrats would never accept anything like this. Republicans do. Republicans are confident they can handle any sabotage tossed them.
40 comments:
If this is true, Trump will win the debate just by not being there.
This is another reason why Trump was smart to blow off this ambush.
Were these morons picked to attack Chris Christie. I mean did they pick someone who got stuck on the George Washington Bridge? NO!
Were these morons picked because they were disgruntled Canadians who want to keep their Bacon? NO!
Were these morons post operative patients who had a surgeon leave a sponge in their noggin? NO!
Were these morons laid off from Hewlett Packard? NO!
Were these morons pissed off because Rubio damaged their cars when he valet parked it in South Beach in 1996? NO!
Plain and simple they were handpicked to attack Trump and Trump alone. Trump trolled their asses. They are so upset they are going to bleed out of their ears....err eyes....err whatever.
Exactly Trooper
The youtube shills were hand picked in order to attack Trump. They would have made derogatory speeches before asking a loaded question. Without Trump to play as their pinata, they will have to go to plan B.
Trump pulled out and left them all flat footed. If they start attacking Trump when he isn't even on the stage that would be pretty bad and would certainly reinforce the bias on the part of Fox. Proving Trump right....again.
Masterful the way he plays the media.
You have to read up on this Muslim Activist woman. She is literally insane. Read up on some of the stuff she has said. It is ridiculous.
I would imagine that "Dulce Candy" would be similarly situated, mentally speaking. (Transgender illegal, perhaps? Hi, I'm from another country and I'm here for the free vagina installation I saw advertised on tv.) These people are being used as pawns by the left/Google to voice progressive views during a Republican debate (immigration reform=raaaacism, Islamophobia, free shit for everyone, etc.). What an ideal opportunity to deconstruct those views, break down the assumptions behind them, and show them as the divisive, unrealistic, big government/corporate-crony gifts courtesy of OPM that they are. They won't convince the paid pawns but can make them look like fools. Lead them to water, just don't expect them to drink. It will be an excellent preview of how well the candidates can handle phony progressive attacks should they make it to the general election. I will give points for minimal sympathetic prefacing of responses.
These are the type of people who merit a prominent place in a Republican primary debate? Not a small businessman? Not a beleaguered Middle Class dude who lost his job to someone on a visa? Not an American whose daughter was murdered or raped by an illegal immigrant?
Why not make it fair and balanced Fox?
Why not have someone whose family was victimized by an illegal immigrant criminal to ask Jeb if the murder of their daughter was an "Act of Love?"
At least Fox is showing the candidates what they're up against in this fight. Don't we want to see how they do? Of course, one guy couldn't handle the heat. Hey Troop, didn't you say today that snark is great, but you have to accept the consequences. Trump is hiding behind guys in wheelchairs instead.
If you want Trump's mouth to rule the country, you better get ready for the response from the millions who might not like being called the enemy.
These are the type of people the Republican candidate will encounter, in herds, in the general election.
Fair enough bags. But I don't have to invite them into my house do I? Because I think that is stupid.
In New York City I hear non-stop every day from the millions who hate me because I am an old white guy. Finally there is someone who is not afraid to give it back to them with both barrels. And because he does the establishment of both parties shit their pants.
They will be in the general. They will not vote for him. He does not have to cater to them or try to win them over. That is the squishy Rhino road to defeat. Don't you guys get it yet?
Jeb only matters if one of the non-GOPe candidates is driven out of the race.
Trooper Jim bursts into tears when he hears he's meeting Trump.
Obviously the progressive pawns aren't going to vote for any Republican. I made that point already, above. It's a test to see how the candidates handle the entirely predictable progressive attacks best, turn them into an opportunity to persuade other people.
I don't understand why the establishment and the pundits are all butt hurt because Trump won't be there? This is what they wanted. They don't want to deal with Trump and his positions.So they have the stage to themselves. Isn't that what they want?
Plus I already know how Trump is going to handle the entirely predictable progressive attacks. He is going to tell them to fuck off.
The RNC is run by a fucking eunuch named Reince Priebus. WTF is wrong with that guy? Seriously. If I were any of the candidates, I'd tell him, the RNC, Fox to go fuck themselves and not show up. Trump did the right thing and this just proved it.
Don't tell the Trump haters that. They have to carry water for the Rhino's and the elites.
They just don't get it.
It'll be interesting to see the extent of pandering to these three by the usual suspects. Bush has nothing to lose so I'm guessing he gives them lots of virtual hugs and kisses in recognition of their "act of love".
And will the moderators, in defiance of Rupert Murdoch's desires, question Rubio on his Gang of Eight amnesty machinations? That was a rhetorical question.
There is nobody running who is as elite and RINO as Trump. He is the definition of the terms. Talk about Trump blindness. Next you'll tell me he's gonna fight against the scourge of gambling.
If this is why Trump ran away, I understand it, but it is not the move of a leader, or a fighter. He was scared that he couldn't handle these idiots. It should have been a walk in the park for our hero, but maybe he's not a Trump believer himself.
I bet you he will bags!
Dulce Candy? Translated to Sweet Candy. Is that a stripper name? Is Mohammed Noor going to fling rocks at her while she gyrates? Veiwership should soar.
Bags, Cruz is the anti-establishment. McCain's VP endorsed the establishment candidate. The establishment is lining up w/ Trump to stop the true maverick, Cruz. It's hard to understand some lemmings here because they have Trumps 4 inch dick in their mouth.
Lem, I think there's a inappropriate comment by a Dick, Private Dick that is, that should probably be vanished.
Trump pwned and continues to pwn Fox News, like he does all the media. Having locked up the Republican nomination Trump has moved on, and now he's running his campaign for the general election in November. Trashing Fox News is an appeal to all those Fox haters out there on the left, moving them into his camp as he cakewalks to victory.
Everybody will now tune in to see Jeb hug the illegal alien as an "act of love."
Whoever hugs the Muslim activist is dead in the water.
I'm waiting for the joint Communist Party-RNC debate on CNN.
And BTW, Hillary & Sanders don't appear on FOX. There's no way the DNC would schedule a debate with hostile questions on ANY network.
But Bags isn't upset about that.
Debates have nothing to do with being President. The Presidency isn't a debating society. FDR didn't debate Hitler.
There only purpose is give us - the voters useful information. Sadly, the RNC and the TV outlets have decided to make these debates into part soap opera and part carnival act. Plus the chance to showcase their TV newsreaders as super important "Newsman".
If the RNC really wanted a serious debate they'd have well known conservatives ask the candidates serious questions and give them at least 5 minutes to answer.
"Dulce Candy who entered the U.S. illegally from Mexico"
Would have been cool if The Donald shows up with a couple of Border Patrol guys and busts his/her/its ass and puts him/her/it on a slow boat to Ensenada.
AllenS said...
If this is true, Trump will win the debate just by not being there.
Thread winner right there.
The debate is FOX-Google. Google owns YouTube. Three YouTube stars are invited.
Dulce Candy who entered the U.S. illegally from Mexico and Nabela Noor an outspoken Muslim activist are the two individuals that Malkin insists does not make sense for Republicans to accept offering questions, and why FOX and RNC would agree to cohost with Google is inexplicable.
Wasn't aware of that. So it's basically a hit on Trump.
So why isn't Mr Conservative bailing on this if he's got such terrific ethics (this is why he's such a hard sell for me)? Why isn't Christie Creme? Or, for that matter, Rand Paul (although it is his last shot at the big kids' table)?
Were it me, I'd make common cause with Trump on this one out of principle.
But, nonetheless, The Donald turns it all into a plus for himself, hosting a wounded Warrior event.
Is this guy a tactician or what?
rcocean said...
Debates have nothing to do with being President
Very true.
This started as a stunt in '60 and we didn't have another until '76, when the media told the people they were wrong about who won.
There is only one party, Crony Capitalism. Hillary and Trump are in it, Cruz and Rubio aspire to it. Nothing will change except the continuing shift of populations, a la Mexicans back into the American Southwest, the Muslims back into Europe, paired with technical progress and globalism. It's a done deal.
I think it's good that the Democrats avoid tough questions in the primary. That leaves them unprepared to answer well in the general. They are weaker for avoiding the trial by fire, and having it come out later won't give them time to shove it down the memory hole. It's a strategic mistake for the sake of tactical safety, so no, I'm not upset at all by it.
How conveeeenient.
(signed) The Church Lady
deborah wrote: Nothing will change except the continuing shift of populations, a la Mexicans back into the American Southwest, the Muslims back into Europe, paired with technical progress and globalism. It's a done deal.
"Mexicans back into the American southwest" makes a bit of historical sense. But "back into the rest of the US" really doesn't, unless you say that they're really just "Native Americans" reasserting population. There is no reason I can think of for "Mexicans" to be given special rights, privileges or "look the other way allowances" to resettle the US in general way. Their advantage is proximity. The only "real" reason for Republicans to favor open borders is to lower unit labor costs across the board; the only "real" reason for Democrats to favor open borders to gain a voter base.
Likewise, "Muslims back into Europe" makes no sense. Muslims and immigrants in general from the Levant have no historical claim to most of Europe, unless you define semitic in its broadest possible sense.
Both of these mass migrations across continents are specifically unprecedented, but, in a general sense, not a new thing. I do think these population shifts are now unavoidable. The difference is that both parties D and R want to it accelerate it.
I do hope that when Jeb responds to the special YouTubers, that his response is translated via subtitles in real time rather than later.
I don't know where else to put this, so whether or not it's apropos to this post, I'm going to place this comment here.
Out there, somewhere, are people who still can't get why the polls are indicating what they are indicating.
Right here, where I am, not only has my father-in-law been for Trump for a number of months, my father is leaning in that direction. Now, there is a lot of cross-over between those two, but at the same time they are very different people in a number of ways (except for the ways in which they are not very different people, of course). Regardless of any debate as to how much or how little they have in common, here's the crux of the matter:
Neither of them neatly fit into the narrative being fed to us with regard to those polls.
Perhaps that ^ might account for some of the confusion.
Bag, about not being upset about planted questioners.
I get your point about being stronger for dealing with it and being weaker for not dealing with it.
You are not accepting that Democrats control EVERYTHING, absolutely control every single aspect of what occurs and what does not occur on their paid time. They brook no nonsense from Republicans whatsoever. Republican voices do not get herd EVER!
It's always diluted. Always goofed up. Never ever ever delivered in its purity without being pissed on or pissed all over by conservatives themselves behaving un conservatively mouthing off the things they expect the candidates to deal with, thus goofing on their own programs.
This must sink in: Republicans are allowing Democrat vocabulary to enter their debates.
Democrats wisely reject ALL Republican vocabulary and allow it ONLY to mock it derisively. You know what the problem is with conservatives politically? They're way to f'k'n CONSERVATIVE!
When dealing with insanity you do not compromise with it. And you do not discuss things in their terms. You do not allow their vocabulary into your space.
*boink*
Shit. It bounced right off again. I knew it wouldn't work.
herd = heard, of course. Shut up.
The Dem vocabulary, and assumptions, are the cultural lingua franca of America. It's on tv, in the movies, books, ads, internet. It's everywhere. Most people have internalized at least some portion of it (e.g., well, that seems reasonable; that'll be my concession to the yute) even if they're conservative in most other aspects of their lives. Republicans cannot run in a bubble, not even in the primary. At the outset of the primary season, when we're becoming familiar with the candidates we should stick to conservative issues so we know where they land on particular topics. Later and late in the primary, we need to focus on who is going to be the best candidate of the ones with whom we agree on the issues. Republicans must do what the Dems did over the years and coopt the culture. That means being able to encounter and counter the pervasive Dem assumptions in a persuasive manner. Yelling out "fuck off, empty-headed over-entitled under-brained jackass," while ALWAYS a temptation, is not persuasive. That's what a candidacy is about; persuasion. Reps are constantly caught in the cross-hairs of the Dem Media, looking mean and/or stupid when faced with sad refugee children, widows, orphans, devoted old gay couples who can't get married. etc etcetcetcetc. The list never ends because, of course, the victim parade is politically expedient and opportunistic. Of course it's not fair, but it is the reality. THEREFORE, effective Rep candidates MUST be able to deal with this effectively, turn it around, spin it on its ass (including but not limited to pointing out how obviously political and opportunistic and infinite the Dem party's interest in their victimhood is), argue the facts and the law, and do it with consummate ease, and (IMHO) without looking like a holy roller or some other nut. NO I'M NOT ADVOCATING COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM. (Just in case you were wondering.) I'm advocating for an effective presentation of actual conservatism. Yes we can.
I am not worried about the Democrats this time. This is nearly a forfeit from their side. These three people will likely just cement more support for Republicans with the inevitable radicalism and out of touch demands they can't resist showing.
The problem is that Trump has fooled a lot of people into thinking he is someone he is not. He never has been that guy, and that means he won't be once elected. If you haven't already, just read the post linked below and watch the new Cruz ad there with Trump in his own words, some of it very recent and tell me how this guy is who you want, because he is more of what you hate than Jeb or Rubio ever were, unless you really believe that a man like Trump in his late 60's suddenly changed everything he believes. Either he has abandoned all his beliefs or his supporters will have to drop theirs to vote for him. Then imagine Supreme Court Justice Barack Obama - nominated by President Trump. You know damned well he is the only Republican who you can even imagine doing that, and I think he would.
Donald (Jeb Rubio) Trump.
Never count out the Dems, even if not in the White House. You don't want to win the White House and lose everything else, including downticket races. 1. Dems are stacked deep in every agency, all throughout the judicial branch, and as we have seen Congress is prone (in every sense of the word) to squishiness and cronyism. 2. If a Republican gets into the White House we'll be back to dissent being patriotic, like, immediately. The professional goon squad of bullshit will spring into action and the screeching will be piercing and nonstop for the next 4 (barring impeachment proceedings) - 8 years. Just because the Dems have a ridiculously weak slate for POTUS doesn't mean you let up on making the conservative argument, especially given the plethora of evidence supporting that argument thanks to Barack Obama. The Republican candidate must be able to address emotional crybaby tantrums and social justice poseurs without looking like Scrooge or the minister in Footloose.
Post a Comment