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 83

post #1231 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

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.

She isn't that good looking. Bone structure is too masculine. Born with a lot of testosterone, so she's a thoroughbred in the sack though. In terms of money, she's in another universe compared to me. I would probably stand a better chance then you guys, because I am a wetback, and she'll do me to spite Trump.
post #1232 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hombre Secreto View Post

She isn't that good looking. Bone structure is too masculine. Born with a lot of testosterone, so she's a thoroughbred in the sack though. In terms of money, she's in another universe compared to me. I would probably stand a better chance then you guys, because I am a wetback, and she'll do me to spite Trump.

You're smoking rocks.
post #1233 of 8748

That is some of the most flawed logic I've seen in this thread.

post #1234 of 8748
Trump would agree with me.
post #1235 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 understand what you're saying, but I think you're missing the point. The feud between Fox and Trump has nothing (or little) to do with keeping journalistic integrity. Fox executives could care less about Kelly. It is all about power and having control over the political process. Up until now, networks like Fox basically had major power in controlling the political process on the republican side, but Trump is challenging that power. They didn't think Trump would actually go through with the boycott, but now that he did if he goes on undamaged from this, Fox will have made a big mistake, because it confirms the loss of control/power over all future elections. In a way, Trump's campaign is confirming that people care less about TV (and are not being controlled by TV as much) and that the internet is becoming much more important. Maybe all those tweets he makes aren't a waste of time.
post #1236 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hombre Secreto View Post

She isn't that good looking. Bone structure is too masculine. Born with a lot of testosterone, so she's a thoroughbred in the sack though. In terms of money, she's in another universe compared to me. I would probably stand a better chance then you guys, because I am a wetback, and she'll do me to spite Trump.

Not only am I a dirty furriner I still have blonde hair and blue eyes. She'll pick me.
post #1237 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post

I understand what you're saying, but I think you're missing the point. The feud between Fox and Trump has nothing (or little) to do with keeping journalistic integrity. Fox executives could care less about Kelly. It is all about power and having control over the political process. Up until now, networks like Fox basically had major power in controlling the political process on the republican side, but Trump is challenging that power. They didn't think Trump would actually go through with the boycott, but now that he did if he goes on undamaged from this, Fox will have made a big mistake, because it confirms the loss of control/power over all future elections. In a way, Trump's campaign is confirming that people care less about TV (and are not being controlled by TV as much) and that the internet is becoming much more important. Maybe all those tweets he makes aren't a waste of time.

Fox is hilariously misplaying this so far. That bizarre statement trying to link Trump to the Ayatollah and Putin, mocking him for his Twitter obsession. It's just not how a serious news organization would be acting. They're just used to candidates licking their ass, and they can't process how to behave when they're not in the role of kingmaker.

I still can't stand Trump as a candidate, but it's really refreshing to see someone blow up the process like this.
post #1238 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

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.

Hannity, definitely. O'Reilly might be obnoxious at times but he's no Maddow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post

I understand what you're saying, but I think you're missing the point. The feud between Fox and Trump has nothing (or little) to do with keeping journalistic integrity. Fox executives could care less about Kelly. It is all about power and having control over the political process. Up until now, networks like Fox basically had major power in controlling the political process on the republican side, but Trump is challenging that power. They didn't think Trump would actually go through with the boycott, but now that he did if he goes on undamaged from this, Fox will have made a big mistake, because it confirms the loss of control/power over all future elections. In a way, Trump's campaign is confirming that people care less about TV (and are not being controlled by TV as much) and that the internet is becoming much more important. Maybe all those tweets he makes aren't a waste of time.

I agree with the point in bold, but I don't see it as a mistake by Fox. It was out of Fox's control. They couldn't remove her from the panel. They had to keep her on knowing that if Trump walked and didn't suffer because of it, they would lose a certain amount of control over the process going forward. By removing Megyn from the panel they would be preemptively forfeiting that control while greatly reducing whatever journalistic integrity they might have. The only way Fox comes out ahead is if Trump tanks in the polls/loses Iowa because of it, which isn't going to happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

That bizarre statement trying to link Trump to the Ayatollah and Putin, mocking him for his Twitter obsession.

I thought that was a joke at first, or an op-ed.
post #1239 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post


I still can't stand Trump as a candidate, but it's really refreshing to see someone blow up the process like this.

This is why I think at this point Trump is destined to get the GOP nomination. There is indeed a process, and all the players know it and always play along by the rules, and Trump has just nuked the whole damn thing. No one playing by the rules can deal with him as he's destroying the rules. FNC is playing right into his game. They should have completely ignored him but instead got all pissy Trump, by definition, doesn't need them as needing some friendly media is part of the rules and he's not going by the rules.

I think Trump would be a horrible POTUS but I have to admit it's going to be an interesting election.
post #1240 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

This is why I think at this point Trump is destined to get the GOP nomination. There is indeed a process, and all the players know it and always play along by the rules, and Trump has just nuked the whole damn thing. No one playing by the rules can deal with him as he's destroying the rules. FNC is playing right into his game. They should have completely ignored him but instead got all pissy Trump, by definition, doesn't need them as needing some friendly media is part of the rules and he's not going by the rules.

I think Trump would be a horrible POTUS but I have to admit it's going to be an interesting election.

He will be a bad president, but at least I'll get my wall. That has been the centerpiece of his campaign, and it is the top concern (subconsciously or not) of the majority of Republicans and Democrats, even if they don't admit it to themselves. Trumps failure to build a wall will be a humiliation to him, and he is a narcissist, so he will build the wall. He may destroy the D.C. system in the process and scare the crap out of the rest of the world.

Added bonus.
post #1241 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

Hannity, definitely. O'Reilly might be obnoxious at times but he's no Maddow.
I agree with the point in bold, but I don't see it as a mistake by Fox. It was out of Fox's control. They couldn't remove her from the panel. They had to keep her on knowing that if Trump walked and didn't suffer because of it, they would lose a certain amount of control over the process going forward. By removing Megyn from the panel they would be preemptively forfeiting that control while greatly reducing whatever journalistic integrity they might have. The only way Fox comes out ahead is if Trump tanks in the polls/loses Iowa because of it, which isn't going to happen.

Trump totally played them. They couldn't pander to Trump and kick Kelly off, it would have been ceding control of the network. The best thing they could have done is make a very neutral statement saying they stand by Kelly and their journalistic standards, they regret Trump choosing not to participate, and then shut up. The other candidates and the various mainstream conservative outlets would have done the rest. But Fox made themselves part of the story, totally took the bait from Trump. Now they're pretty much hosed unless Trump tanks as you said.
post #1242 of 8748
Lighthouse aside, why are people so convinced that a wall is going to be a game changer over the fence that already exists? It feels more like a symbol than a real attempt to address illegal immigration/migration.
post #1243 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Lighthouse aside, why are people so convinced that a wall is going to be a game changer over the fence that already exists? It feels more like a symbol than a real attempt to address illegal immigration/migration.

Well, yeah. It's basically a sign that "enough is enough." People will still bullshit their way in here, tunnel in, or swim here. If you really wanted slow down immigration from the South you would have to change the corrupt governments down there. I ain't sure the U.S. government is that eager to change that.
post #1244 of 8748
Trump is the price the GOP is paying, and will pay, for betraying the country on immigration.

Gov-Corp, Inc. made money on cheap, no questions asked labor and the GOP aided and abetted the crime.

What is a country when you can make a few bucks and buy Gucci for your mistresses?
post #1245 of 8748
That's sort of the point though, Trump hasn't offered any real solutions on immigration. There's the wall, and the freeze on Muslims which is like 0.01% of immigration. It doesn't address the economic draw, the fact that a huge amount of our agriculture and labor intensive industry relies heavily on migrant labor (frequently below minimum wage). It's just a big expensive token solution that will only slow down the issue and not really take the serious steps to actually fixing it.
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