Posted on 08/07/2015 2:42:08 AM PDT by Zakeet
So was the panel lying?
Why not? Passive-aggressive attacks are still attacks.
While I like Megyn Kelly, she turned TMZ like with that question.
She could have been asked whether a woman who has appeard half-naked online and a mother of children, is appropriate to be the on the panel of a presidential debate.
It works both ways.
You know I’m talking about Luntz’ panel, not the moderators, right?
Yes there was. When someone gives you the back of the hand, they need to be punished for it.
Could be.
Women are, and have always been, an independent bunch. Even in the Ozzie and Harriet and Father Knows Best days women let their men know where to sit and when to be quiet.
Kelly playing the feminist card that way made all women look bad. As if they needed some air brushed, silicone chested caricature of a woman to defend them.
Most women I know would rather be told the truth than lied to. Trump tells the truth *as he sees it*. And most women know his reality show personna isn’t all there is to him.
Women, as much as men, know this country is in danger. They know their children will inherit the world we leave them.
They have little temper for the gotcha moments when good questions about policy is required.
Of course, that’s just my opinion.
A 10% tariff on all imports would raise 400 Billion in revenues it could balance the budget, stop qualitative easing and could be offset by income tax reductions; ALL GOOD THINGS. But progressives don't like that.
Better question - what in the hell makes you think the panel was pro-Trump before the first setup question that they then tried to leverage? If you have been watching FOX for the duration, you would know that there's no way in Hell that they would "favor" Trump.
Give me a lucid answer on why they would be favoring Trump, only to go sour after an obvious "gotcha" question and I'll lead you through the truths/half-truths/lies/misleading innuendos - never mind - there is no rational reason to think they did what you claim and tons of evidence to the contrary.
I'd wager you have lots of opinions and nobody you believe in enough to risk your hard earned money - seems to be a trend with those who use your sort of "logic".
I donate to Cruz and have passed $400 (also donate to FR) - who do you donate to? Who do you believe in? Just curious about whether I should bother to take any of what you say seriously.
When she asked that stupid question, he hit it out of the ball park. That alone taught her that he is not easily caught unprepared and that alone would have likely prevented any further questions like that.
By attacking her, after the debates, like that, he has taught her that he can be cajoled into making statements that can damage his chances. It actually increases the chances that he will be attacked again.
For our purposes, yes.
If he had initially asked them if they were "supportive" of Trump, rather than "liked" him, I think you would have gotten much different answers.
Not when you are running for President. That’s a different ball game altogether.
That's not what he asked. He asked if the "liked" him.
Megan Kelly took one too many pills last night and permanently lost it. An anchor no more, she is now Megan the Queen of Snark.
LOL at Trump’s pushback on Frank Putz. This is good entertainment, and he’s skewering people deserving of ridicule. None of the other candidates would have the nerve.
Last time, Luntz had Romney cheerleaders in his focus groups. A lot of good that did for Willard in 2012.
It didn’t, and I never said it changed.
I commented on the huge reaction *against* Megyn Kelly for her treatment of Trump.
The women who commented on her facebook page were 99.99% pro Trump.
Trump probably *gained* traction, especially with women, because of the “Kelly Factor” in the debate.
Nope. It's that kind of arbitrary "rule change" that has gotten us into the PC miasma. This is not a bunch of little girls trying to get a "time out" to straighten their dress without losing position.
She actually snarked about God last night. I was gobsmacked. Lindsay Graham just came to Trump’s defense calling last night an “inquisition.”
OK, I don’t see how that’s better. They went from liking him to not liking him.
He should have been prepared to answer that first question. Just yesterday Hugh Hewitt told him the number one complaint he hears from callers is that he wouldn’t pledge to support the nominee, and suggested he do so. Donald said he would think about that. At the very least he should have been ready for that question and defined what he means by unfair treatment.
I guess the polls in the next few days will tell if it hurt him.
The fix was definitely in. Fox has been a shill for Bush, and the GOPe gave Ailes the word to take Trump out. Anyone who supports Kelly’s lame show after her disgraceful head-hunting performance last night has no right to complain about media bias. This was Exhibit A.
THAT’s what you base your assessment on?
Wow
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.