Trump boycotting Fox because they are mean to him
https://www.yahoo.com/tv/s/donald-trump-declares-no-more-fox-news-appearances-161052172.html
https://www.yahoo.com/tv/s/donald-trump-declares-no-more-fox-news-appearances-161052172.html
Too thin skinned to handle being President
- Thread starter WhiteTailEER
- Start date
Calling Obama thin skinned is like saying Jesus is thin skinned for complaining about being crucified.
There are two points to be made about that. Obama doesn't boycott Fox And Fox News promotes a completely different agenda than Obama. Trump, OTOH, is WINNING in the GOP race and yet he's pissed off at the primary GOP mouthpiece.
If Trump doesn't like Fox News now then he's REALLY not going to like the left wing part of the media during the general election campaign.
It's beyond dispute that Obama is thinned skinned. Obama tried to have Fox banned from some pool reporting. All the networks stood up for Fox and Obama relented. Obama's spokesman claimed Fox was not a real news outlet. Obama had almost all the media in his corner and complained because there was one news outlet not on his reservation.
How in the world will he ever be able to handle the scrutiny of his every move? How is he going to react to opposition to bills before anybody has even read them?
It is so petty too. He's mad because they didn't show the most favorable poll numbers, even though the ones they showed still had him in the lead.
He's a petulant child ... holding his breath until he gets his way.
I personally think this is simply Trump's way of continuing his attempts to get Roger Ailes to genuflect publicly to him.
Trump can only be one thing.....and that's the boss......and right now, Ailes is the only one I know who has the juice look him dead in the eye and tell him to f*** off. To the best of my knowledge, Ailes has never kissed anyone's *** when it come to how his network does business. Of course, nobody on his political side has had the balls (or the need) to take him on.
Since his run-in with Megyn Kelly.....and by extension, Ailes himself.....this has been, by several dozen light years, the most compelling aspect of the Trump's latest act to yours truly. Ailes is media's absolute most powerful puppeteer; and say what you choose about Trump, but he's absolutely nobody's puppet.
JMO, but I think Trump currently has the advantage in this battle of the titans. But somewhere along the line.....and certainly if he becomes the nominee......you have to believe Trump is going to want (and need) Ailes' and his Empire solidly in his corner.
You know, I'm cynical enough to think this whole "battle" between the two is a charade, and Trump and Ailes are actually working together behind the scenes with some yet-to-be-determined mutually beneficial end game. Who knows, maybe Trump is trying to convince Ailes to make The Apprentice, at some point, Fox News' first "entertainment" Show.
Trump can only be one thing.....and that's the boss......and right now, Ailes is the only one I know who has the juice look him dead in the eye and tell him to f*** off. To the best of my knowledge, Ailes has never kissed anyone's *** when it come to how his network does business. Of course, nobody on his political side has had the balls (or the need) to take him on.
Since his run-in with Megyn Kelly.....and by extension, Ailes himself.....this has been, by several dozen light years, the most compelling aspect of the Trump's latest act to yours truly. Ailes is media's absolute most powerful puppeteer; and say what you choose about Trump, but he's absolutely nobody's puppet.
JMO, but I think Trump currently has the advantage in this battle of the titans. But somewhere along the line.....and certainly if he becomes the nominee......you have to believe Trump is going to want (and need) Ailes' and his Empire solidly in his corner.
You know, I'm cynical enough to think this whole "battle" between the two is a charade, and Trump and Ailes are actually working together behind the scenes with some yet-to-be-determined mutually beneficial end game. Who knows, maybe Trump is trying to convince Ailes to make The Apprentice, at some point, Fox News' first "entertainment" Show.
Give it some more time. As more and more fade out of the race their supporters are going to flock more and more to acceptable candidates. The big deal I think right now is that Carley is polling so well. I think she will snap up a large percentage of those pulling for trump as she and Carson are the only other viable non-establishment candidates. Truth be told here, I am really starting to like her more and more.
Kasich is still my first choice but if he doesn't get it going to remain until he takes, places, or shows well in Iowa he will be out. I think Rubio basically has the VP slot locked up for whoever the candidate eventually ends up being. Kasich is currently preaching the message most appealing to me and that is unity, not just within the party but with the left as well. Jobs/Economy/Defense are all big ticket items but the number one concern I want addressed this election is someone who will unify the country again.That also happens to be why I am most adamantly opposed to Hillary. We cannot sustain another 4-8 years where the two sides are so diametrically opposed.
Right now, I'm in for either Kasich or Fiorina. I could handle either of those. I think Carley could decimate Hillary in a debate. People I know who don't follow politics all that close but are active in business matters are very much liking what Carley is saying.
I'm willing to give the left a chance but Bernie does nothing for me. Hillary has seemed like the forgone conclusion for the nominee and I wouldn't vote for her if she were running against ISIS. O'Malley oooof had enough of that buffoon as Governor although I think he did a fine job as mayor. Lastly, Biden is someone I could live with although I don't think he would win the general. In Biden's case, someone like Cruz or Huckabee would have to get the nomination for me to vote D.
I would love to see the left's victimization strategy if the GOP ticket consisted of Fiorina/Rubio. Pretty much shoots the minority/war on women stigma all to hell.
figures. Yeah, Fox sucks and all, but he took a personal shot at Megan whatshername and now he's just a whiny little *****.
Every news outlet has it's own take on what they are reporting. If you are conservative, you'll report negatively on all things liberal, same if you are liberal, same thing only opposite. News outlets are biased one way or the other. Some just don't care how they report it.
That is my position precisely. Perhaps not completely sold on Kasich, but just looking for somebody that can reach across the aisle.
Hilary is the WORST choice in that regard ... and in just about any other as well ... but especially that one.
I'm liking Fiorina as well, but maybe not for the same reason. Well, for a lot of the same reasons, but for an additional one. If people are convinced that Hilary is going to get the Dem nomination, then Fiorina would give another option to those that would vote for Hilary just because she's a woman.
I actually liked Carson's calm demeanor.
As you stated jobs/economy/defense. Those will be my focus. I don't really care about the social issues because they are mostly just noise as far as I'm concerned. Instead of attacking or being defensive, I can see Carson's calm demeanor and sticking with the issues being a good thing long term.
I like a lot of what Bernie is saying, but not everything. I don't think I've ever agreed with everything from any candidate. However, I think many on both the right and left, more the right, will immediately be against him just because of the "socialist" label. However, the major things that he talks about "the cost of war is more than the weapons, it's caring for those that come back", etc. I like a lot and actually I think interjects a lot of rationality into the conversation. People talk about our military like it's just some nebulous force. I don't have to tell you, of course, but our military is made up of people, many of which either won't come back or come back as a shell of their former selves and leave a family devastated. It's the most obvious thing to say, but it doesn't seem to be something people think about when talking about all the places we should send our military.
This is absolutely true, and one of the things I've mentioned about the make up of this board even. It seems to be dominated by GOP supporters that are outraged over what's going on. However, I feel that's only because we have a Dem president and if we have a GOP president you will see a lot of the posters' roles on this board reversed. Same goes for all/many of the news outlets.
Obama has been more polarizing than anyone I can remember and I voted in 72 for Nixon. Carter was too passive, Ford too. If the economy is good, most everybody is happy.
Let's be realistic, the chance that a woman or a black, especially ones that weren't very well known beforehand, will win the GOP POTUS nomination in 2012 when there are a lot of white male candidates running, is close to zero. I know if might look good now with those two running #2 and #3 in the polls, neither of them are going to come anywhere near winning the nomination. I could be wrong (but I doubt it) and if I am remember my prediction and come back and rub my nose in it.
I don't rub people's nose in their missteps. Just not part of my character. I'm gracious in defeat but more so in victory.
I do believe you are likely correct, Jeb will probably end up being the nominee sadly. I'm really hoping Carley makes a strong run though. She is the first female candidate I've felt that was qualified and moreover rationale.
I think Fiorina is pretty impressive right now. She handled herself very well in both debates. I like Carson's demeanor, but I'm not sure that will translate well as president. He may be too passive - a la Carter - but maybe that's a misread of character on my part. I like Kasich a lot right now, but he's going to have to step it up somehow in order to stand a chance. I see Christie trying to do that, and I think that helped him in the most recent debate.
I agree with WhiteTail about some of the sense that Bernie makes. Take away the politics, and you have to admit that he's a fairly logical guy. I may not agree with all of his proposed policies, but at least the guy is thinking and not afraid to share his thoughts. I can't tell you much about any of the folks on the D side other than Sanders and Clinton. I think this whole email fiasco speaks negatively about her judgement - control first, everything else is secondary.
My fear is that we'll have another choice between a Clinton and a Bush, and I think that will make a lot of voters generally disinterested.
The thing I like about Bernie is the same that makes Carson appealing, they speak their mind. They aren't scripted and right or wrong, they tell you what they think. I also like the fact that both establishments dislike them.
I think that's a fair characterization of both. It's a fine line to walk with that sort of personality. People associate that with Trump also. I'm not so sure that Trump is really saying what he thinks as much as he's trying to get a rise out of people.
With respect to the original topic, if Trump becomes the nominee, I think you'll see Ailes and him mend fences - no pun intended. I hope that's not something that has to happen though. In order for Trump to get in trouble in the primaries, I think you'll have to see the current field dwindle significantly shortly after the SC primary. Also, if Biden doesn't jump into the race by late October, I think we are either looking at Clinton or Sanders as the nominee on that side. Someone else is going to have to tear it up in that first D debate in October for me to change my mind about that.
He is also taking a stand against many of the things that the majority of people seem to think are big issues.
He isn't taking money from big business.
He won't get into mudslinging, he just wants to explain his stance on issues, not try to tear others down.
He recognizes that the cost of war extends way beyond the battlefield.
etc.
I think you could take the vast majority of his statements, post them, and if people didn't know who it came from there would be overwhelming agreement. Do the same thing, but post that it's from him and you'd probably get 1/3 the level of agreement that you would have if posted anonymously.
It's a big problem, I think, with the way people evaluate candidate and topics. They seem to want to know who said it before they decide whether they want to agree with it or not.
Having said all of that, I don't think I like him as President because he might be a little too radical for either side and as such he won't be uniting the sides. However, I wouldn't mind seeing more of his ideas interjected into the conversations.
There is no question regarding the validity of that statement. He certainly shoulders a lot of the blame for that, but I don't think all of it. As soon as he was elected, all the birther stuff came out as well as accusations of he being Muslim, which probably eroded some public support. Also, the economy was in a steep decline and he ended up shouldering a lot of the blame for that. And finally, I read an article recently from a GOP Senator (don't remember which one) that stated that before he ever addressed Congress the first time that the GOP leaders decided they were going to be against him on everything.
But as has been stated many times, a leader is supposed to lead. And he has greatly exacerbated the situation as well through a lot of the actions he has taken, things he has said, sliding things past Congress instead of trying to work with them, etc.
This is where people get in their fox holes and pick sides. Either it was the GOP's fault for what they did, or it was Obama's fault and his failure as a leader.
Sometimes both sides can be wrong, and both sides can be right. Sometimes they can both be right and wrong at the same time. It's important to see and recognize where both sides did things wrong and where both sides did things right. Then you can try to mitigate what was done wrong for the future, and build on what was done right.
I don't understand the fox hole mentality. Never have.
!. The fact that it was very difficult to find a birth cert. didn't help.
2.National healthcare sets off an alarm for those smart enough to realize that a govt that controls your health, controls everything. Remember how polarizing it was when Hiliary tried to introduce it right after bill was elected.
3.By passing it with a resolution, no actual vote took place, a complete meltdown took place on the GOP side since there was nothing from there side included. Remember, you have to pass it to see what's in it.
4.When the round table met at the WH, Obama told McCain, you lost, shut up. He showed his true diplomatic colors.
5.His policies have slowed down a recovery. Socialism doesn't like capitalism.
2.National healthcare sets off an alarm for those smart enough to realize that a govt that controls your health, controls everything. Remember how polarizing it was when Hiliary tried to introduce it right after bill was elected.
3.By passing it with a resolution, no actual vote took place, a complete meltdown took place on the GOP side since there was nothing from there side included. Remember, you have to pass it to see what's in it.
4.When the round table met at the WH, Obama told McCain, you lost, shut up. He showed his true diplomatic colors.
5.His policies have slowed down a recovery. Socialism doesn't like capitalism.
To this day, I'll give the man credit if he does something right. Sadly, there are a great many things he does that I'm in disagreement with him on and successes are hard to come by in my eyes. The reality is that he got Bin Laden, he is effectively using drones, and he is trying to keep this country safe. I pretty much disagree with his fiscal and foreign policies. However, if his administration is secretly tanking Hillary's chances at becoming President, I'll put the son of a ***** up there with Washington and Lincoln.
Seems people are still operating with very selective memory.
Who was the most liberal Senator from his class.
Who had an excessive number of DidNotVote as State Senator.
Who had a veto proof congress, and used it,
Who arrogantly said Elections Have Consequences
As to the tags put on him, he was arrogant there as well. All it required was a Birth Certificate. But he and his followers said that was racist. Therefore, it was rejected arrogantly.
He has been, and continues to be, the most arrogant and devise President in my life.
I just glanced at an article a few minutes ago that suggested that. Haven't read it yet. Seems she became a bit unhinged ... which also wouldn't be very presidential. Not that anything else about her is either.
Yes she did, but the media has seemed to have lost all interest in that fact. Like everything else she denies any role but the e-mail that was circulated by her campaign and the actions of her Democrat sidekick Phillip Berg reveal the truth.
Last edited:
Obama found his birth certificate before officially running for POTUS. You have to provide it to run for POTUS.
It was in the list of stories on Yahoo ... I was looking for it and couldn't find it again. That bugs me at times, every time you look at the page the stories are different. I'll link it if/when I see it again.