or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Trump is #2 in GOP Field - Page 82

post #1216 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by SixOhNine View Post

Maybe so; not really relevant. My point has been that people are unusually vocal and remarkably consistent in how much they can't stand Cruz. The fact that his roommate from 25 years ago still hates him that much is, to me at least, noteworthy.

How many people has Cruz known over the years?

The only thing surprising about this story is that you've heard of it.
post #1217 of 8748


FoxNews isn't dropping Kelly so Trump isn't showing
post #1218 of 8748
Trump has consistently turned lemons into lemonade,

But I think his boycott of the debate, to protest Megyn Kelly's appearance, is a big mistake,

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20160127_Trump_will_skip_GOP_debate_in_Iowa.html
post #1219 of 8748
Could be a big mistake, but I think it could be an even bigger mistake for Fox to pick Kelly over Trump. If it turns out that there is no damage to Trump from this and he goes on to win, it will just confirm that TV/news is not important anymore and that they are losing their control. If you look at it from TV/Fox perspective I don't see the merit of picking an unimportant, individual like Kelly over Trump when the future risks could be huge.
post #1220 of 8748
Trump's success has basically been through free TV exposure. Maybe he's banking on the "controversy" from his little feud with Kelly giving more attention than the debate, but it seems strange to back out of the last debate before the caucus.
post #1221 of 8748
It really amuses me when people think Trump is manipulating voters when he's really the master of manipulating the media. Since he's a middling debater, I don't see how this could be the wrong call.
post #1222 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by the shah View Post



FoxNews isn't dropping Kelly so Trump isn't showing

 

Yeah, I accidentally posted the link in the wrong thread, but the whole thing is hilarious:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/692045676079874048?card_data={%0A%20%20%22tweet_id%22%20:%20%22692045676079874048%22,%0A%20%20%22choice%22%20:%202%0A}&ref_src=twsrc^tfw

post #1223 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

It really amuses me when people think Trump is manipulating voters when he's really the master of manipulating the media. Since he's a middling debater, I don't see how this could be the wrong call.



Agreeed.  Trump's poll numbers fall after the debates.  His numbers go up when he tweets or says something offensive or his opponents criticize him for something.  The only good thing that came out of any of the debates for Trump is getting Jeb Bush positioned as "low energy"/too much of a wuss in the eyes of primary voters

post #1224 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post

Could be a big mistake, but I think it could be an even bigger mistake for Fox to pick Kelly over Trump. If it turns out that there is no damage to Trump from this and he goes on to win, it will just confirm that TV/news is not important anymore and that they are losing their control. If you look at it from TV/Fox perspective I don't see the merit of picking an unimportant, individual like Kelly over Trump when the future risks could be huge.

Removing Megyn as a moderator would have caused irreversible damage to the network's reputation, not to mention bolstering Trump's ego. Fox's entire schtick is claiming to be tougher/fairer/more balanced than the left leaning networks. They lose all credibility in making that claim if they change the debate panel because a candidate doesn't want to be asked tough questions.
post #1225 of 8748
If Fox wanted to replace Kelly, they could have made some excuse and kept their credibility at the same time (something like...we decided to replace Kelly to remove any possibility of controversy surrounding the debate and keep it fair and balanced...or whatever). I think they will lose even more if Trump goes on without any damage from this boycott, as it would confirm from here on that Fox debates have little meaning (and TV in general). I don't think anyone ever thought of Fox as "fair and balanced" and their comments after Trump announced the boycott don't seem to be from an organization that is concerned with their credibility either.
post #1226 of 8748
you can't lose what you don't have nod[1].gif
post #1227 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post

If Fox wanted to replace Kelly, they could have made some excuse and kept their credibility at the same time (something like...we decided to replace Kelly to remove any possibility of controversy surrounding the debate and keep it fair and balanced...or whatever). I think they will lose even more if Trump goes on without any damage from this boycott, as it would confirm from here on that Fox debates have little meaning (and TV in general). I don't think anyone ever thought of Fox as "fair and balanced" and their comments after Trump announced the boycott don't seem to be from an organization that is concerned with their credibility either.

It's important to put that into context. Comparing Fox to say, MSNBC, isn't exactly fair. To pretend there isn't a difference between Megyn Kelly and Rachel Maddow is absolute nonsense. I realize how uncouth it makes one within some circles to say that Fox might, gasp, have more journalistic integrity than some other networks, but there are a lot of brilliant and respected people who believe that.

I stand by my position that removing her from the panel would have been a terrible idea.
post #1228 of 8748
I don't really think there's any bigger message to the events here. I doubt future candidates are going to be able to have whatever it is (along with the cultural moment) to be able to completely reject normal procedure the way Trump has gotten away with.

Trump picking a fight with Fox and then getting away with it while skipping a debate has no moral in the bigger picture, it's just Trump doing Trump stuff.
post #1229 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post


It's important to put that into context. Comparing Fox to say, MSNBC, isn't exactly fair. To pretend there isn't a difference between Megyn Kelly and Rachel Maddow is absolute nonsense. I realize how uncouth it makes one within some circles to say that Fox might, gasp, have more journalistic integrity than some other networks, but there are a lot of brilliant and respected people who believe that.

I stand by my position that removing her from the panel would have been a terrible idea.

 

I agree that comparing Megyn Kelly and Rachel Maddow isn't a good comparison, but Rachel Maddow and Bill  O'Reilly or Sean Hannity is.  While Kelly has her biases, Maddow is a commentator not a journalist.

post #1230 of 8748
What do Rachel Maddow and most men posting in this thread have in common?

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
They'd both fuck Megyn Kelly but she's out of their league.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field