“@gene70: @FireFlyFury@megynkelly@realDonaldTrumpAnd this is the bimbo that’s asking presidential questions? pic.twitter.com/oU1uUGnuWb“
6:36 AM – 28 Jan 2016
From Twitter.
I have never been a big Megyn Kelly fan. That opinion is beside the point. She is an accomplished journalist. It doesn’t matter if she posed in GQ or not. BFD. Lucky her that she is attractive enough to do it.
Donald Trump, on the other hand, is unfit to lead this country because of his demeaning, misogynistic attitude about women in general and because of his attack on Megyn Kelly. She dared to ask a question about his past behavior regarding comments about women. Good for her. She made him accountable.
Trump didn’t learn his lesson. He continues to this day to make unkind, sexist remarks about Megan Kelly. I rarely complement Fox News, but good for them for standing behind Megyn Kelly. They have gained at least 100 points in my book.
Trump needs to erase the term “bimbo” from his vocabulary. He, whose past behavior exhibits that he is a “bimbo monger” simply has no room to call anyone a bimbo.
Trump is coming dangerously close to winning the Republican nomination. What will the Grand Old Party do? Will they tolerate this pig running under their banner? These are scary times.
I don’t take sides in the Trump/Kelly feud. But is she really “an accomplished journalist”? I don’t think I’ve ever read anything by her that shows the slightest gift for boring into a complex, important issue and sorting out the facts in an intelligible way. She’s a newsreader. The woods are full of them.
I used to watch some of her interviews on Faux News. Let’s just say she profits from comparison. Then again, define “accomplished.”
“is unfit to lead this country because of his demeaning, misogynistic attitude about women in general and because of his attack on Megyn Kelly. She dared to ask a question about his past behavior regarding comments about women.”
Yet…… Bill Clinton was?
1. Not running for president.
2. never called anyone a bimbo that I am aware of.
3. I have never found him misogynistic. Have you ever met him?
4. Address the real issue. Trump is unfit. Bill Clinton isn’t running. Let’s discuss the reality of whats in front of us rather than your perpetual deflection onto another subject.
I going to wait for the primary votes to be counted to see if the pollsters are being punked. I’m not a member of any party so my opinion of primary candidates doesn’t matter unless one or the other party wants to attract my vote in November. Candidates that insult me are not very likely to get my vote. Just saying…
I don’t know why Megyn’s posing has anything to do with her ability to question presidential candidates. I don’t know why this month’s centerfold couldn’t do it, for that matter.
Trump is a hypocrite and really tends to pigeonhole women into roles I find highly unattractive.
From the Daily Caller: Michael Cohen is Donald Trump’s general counsel and the executive vice-president of the Trump Organization. He recently appeared on CNN’s “New Day” with Chris Cuomo. They discussed, inter alia, Trump’s attitude toward women.
Cohen stated that the Trump Organization employs about 57% men and 43% women. But the female executives are often paid more than their male counterparts. For instance, a male in accounting will get circa $70,000 and his female counterpart will get slightly more. The female assistant general counsel gets $25,000 more than her male equivalent in the legal office.
It sounds to me like Cohen is saying that Trump enjoys helping women up the corporate ladder in his organization. Cuomo was skeptical and asked Cohen if the latter could prove the claim of higher pay. Cohen replied that he could and that he would show Cuomo the company’s financials if Cuomo will sign a non-disclosure agreement.
Interesting, I think Cuomo should follow up on the Cohen offer.
I don’t think that is “fair” either. What ever happened to equal pay for equal work?
There is something about “helping” women because they are women that I find condescending.
What he really needs to do is STFU about Megyn Kelly. Her questions were fair because he had a chance to explain himself. He couldn’t, because he had done it. That is hardly her fault.
I would have more respect for him if he had said “yea, I called Rosie O’Donnel names and even though I hate her guts and want her to FOAD, I shouldn’t have said such a vile thing publicly.”
From Kathleen Parker, Washingtonpost.com:
This issue highlights the fact that the media are too powerful in the debates. This is similar to the previous election cycle in which Candy Crowley injected her own commentary in a debate to “correct” Mitt Romney (and later was shown to be wrong). The proper role for the media is to be debate moderators, not journalists asking “gotcha” questions. The debates are supposed to provide a forum in which the candidates can differentiate their views from one another. It is not appropriate for a debate moderator to state that a particular candidate’s statement is incorrect.
As for this case, Megyn Kelly’s question was poorly posed AND its premise was false. If Donald Trump had a history of insulting only women, then the premise that he was being misogynistic might have been fair. But he pretty much insults both genders and all races. And it was more of a journalistic “gotcha” question because it was phrased to be personally directed at him rather than to the candidates in general.
A reasonable question from a true debate moderator would go something like this: “Many Americans believe that a president should conduct himself with the utmost decorum because the job requires one to lead the entire nation, not just those that agree with him. Do you think that public insults are consistent with the office of the president and do you believe that strong, demeaning language is appropriate for a candidate that hopes to be his party’s presidential nominee?”
It may be time for the Parties to take over running the debates and choosing the moderators. The networks’ involvement could then be limited to televising the debates if they so choose.
@Moon-howler
Not deflection.
Pointing out double standards.
Clinton didn’t call women bimbos. He treated them like bimbos. He abused women.
@Kelly_3406
Exactly.
Because he had sex with women? Many of us don’t consider that “being treated like a bimbo.”
I don’t consider what he did abuse. I don’t know about you but I apparently just have an far different outlook.
You also have thrown in a few more women than he probably actually had sex with.
Clinton didn’t invent sex nor is he the only powerful man who has not been monogamous.
Yea, its deflection. The post was about how rude Trump is being to Megyn Kelly. You bring up Clinton who isn’t running for office, who isn’t even in office. That defines deflection.
What do you think about Trump’s behavior? That is the issue on the table.
It sounds to me like you want to do anything but discuss Trump’s really boarish behavior.
Here we go. IF Democrats did not have self aggrandizing double standards they would have no standards at all. Lets get to the name calling ASAP before their traitor and felon in chief and her proven misogynist in chief are actually indicted to establish that our justice system is still working and the Obama Oligarchy can be controlled. We only ask for the same justice already being imposed on Petraus and Cosby. I also get a kick out of FOX, which has made the argument that they could never compromise their journalistic standards and would always stand by their money by supporting Megan and keeping any profits from the public service they provide by televising these “national “ debates without any donations to our Wounded Warriors – which is all that Trump asked for. Oh and to those who once claimed that Fox was just the blond channel – how times have changed.
My guess is that the discussion will soon shift and that Ailes will not be able to hide the fact that he is an open borders establishment guy and supporter of Jeb and/or Marco. He used Megan as a tool to get Trump bumped by calling him names without any proof whatsoever. It was a calculated attack and Trump got it.
I am with Scout and Cargo on this. Megan is a talking entertainment head not an accomplished journalist. Her “Fair question” was not about being accountable, it was, however, a personal, unsubstantiated slander designed to give fodder to bring him down. That is the Democrats way = why is she on FOX?
Did you just drop by to attempt to insult me by making yourself look like a fool? I don’t believe there is any mention of Democrats in the post. The post wasn’t about Obama or Hillary either. It was about Donald Trumps nasty behavior.
Bill Cosby, who has nothing to do with this post, have been accused by no less than 20+ women of being a rapist. Why are you talking about him? I have no problem with Petraus. Why did he come up?
I hate fox News but I do respect them for back up their employee who I happen to believe is correct. Trump’s behavior has been egregious in the past. If he is running for president, its fair game. Some of the other candidates were asked some fairly awkward questions also. I don’t imagine Rick Perry wanted to be asked about N***** Rock. I doubt if Jeb Bush wanted to be asked about how his brother ran the war or his daughter’s drug use. Then there was Christie and his bridge-gate. I bet he would have liked to have avoided that unpleasant subject.
Trump must be pretty special to you, Blue.
I don’t think he is just a misogynist. I think he is just a rude pig to anyone who stands in his way. It shows poor breeding regardless of how affluent his childhood was. It just goes to show that having money doesn’t mean a person has class.
and Newt Gingrich had an affair with his Congressional Aide – while trying to impeach Clinton. And Rudy Giuliani shacked up with his press secretary.
Many of those that throw stones at Clinton are divorced 2,3,4 times – and have had 2,3,4 affairs while married, yet some forgive them – but no forgiving Clinton.
And livingston had an affair, and several congressmen have had very public affairs and had children as a result.
So why are we dodging the Trump question and going after Bill Clinton who isn’t running for office.
I am getting ready to go a step further and start asking people if they have ever strayed. (not that I expect an honest answer)
Trumps marital fidelity isn’t on the table. How he uses the Golden Rule is very much in question. He obviously doesn’t treat others as he would like to be treated.
His treatment of Megyn Kelly is totally unacceptable. I haven’t moved past his vulgar “blood” remark.
@Kelly_3406
+1
And the RNC has worked with the media outlets to have these debates….and it is getting us…. no where.
If it wasn’t for the long history of worldwide discrimination and mistreatment of women by men I would probably agree with Kelly that it’s no big deal that the leading Republican candidate for president was playing into the worst stereotypes of women and referring to them publicly in demeaning language. It would just be more of the same by this guy. But since abuse and mistreatment of women to include disenfranchisement is still a widespread problem even among our allies such as Saudi Arabia this is particularly problematic for the advancement of women’s rights around the world and the positioning of our country on these issues. It makes little difference what he pays his employees- perception is reality and he works hard at his misogynistic image.
Very well said, middleman. Thank you for pointing out why its so important that this behavior not end up a benchmark.
The way the “debates” are conducted now I don’t think it makes much of a difference who conducts them. It might as well be the parties themselves as Kelly has suggested. The Fox debate was yet another series of questions designed to get the candidates arguing with each other and none of the false statements were challenged.
I might be old fashioned but I think it is a major part of the job of journalists to get the facts out to the public. Statements that are clearly false should be challenged so the voters can judge the candidates reaction. The moderators can ask one of the other candidates if they want to challenge the false statement. Or they could point out that the claim has been frequently debunked and ask if the candidate wanted to comment on that fact.
Rubio stated the often debunked claim that we have “the smallest navy in 100 years.” Cruz stated that the ACA had killed millions of jobs, another often debunked lie. Fiorina stated the falsehood that 307,000 veterans had died waiting for healthcare. There were lots more, and the Dems aren’t innocent of this either in their “debates.” Obvious lies should be at least noted if not challenged.
Totally agree. I was horribly bored during that debate. I wouldn’t have watched other than our housemate was watching.
I am no fan of Megyn Kelly’s. I will defend her, however, in light of what she was attacked over. I still think she asked a very good set of questions to old Trumpy boy–ones that needed answering.
In fact, to some of the men who feel she was out of line…I think it is high time that men are held personally responsible for their conduct towards women. (especially as it relates to historical treatment of women) It’s only been a year or so since Darryl Issa insulted Sandra Fluke and Limbaugh called her a slut, all to the hoots, howls and cheers of his millions of pig followers.
50 years ago the women of Virginia were banned from attending the state’s flagship school unless they wanted to be teachers, nurses or librarians. It’s really important that men are held accountable.
I agree that outright lies should be challenged. Additionally, questions should be answered. When a candidate veers off into his/her standard talking points that are off subject, he should be asked to answer the question. Too many of these “debates” are merely platforms for “speechifying”.
I’m okay with newspeople or the League of Women Voters as moderators. To have parties supply the moderators is asking for softball questions and possibly steering questions that make a particular candidate look good.
1+
@middleman
and that Obama has defunded our military – Sequestration was a bi-partisan act, voted bi-partisan and enacted bi-partisan.
And in reality NO ONE has “defunded” our military- merely decreased the rate of growth temporarily. Obama’s most recent budget proposed a 7.8% INCREASE in Defense Department funding and the final bill passed included a 6% increase. Obama’s budget INCREASES discretionary defense spending from 521 billion in 2014 to 634 billion in 2023.
Oh, the humanity!!!
@Moon-howler
Whoa, there Moon, I did not “drop by” to start the name calling for this post and that is exactly what that whistle calling of anyone a Misogynist is – name calling or worse labeling. It is not “fair” game any more than the race whistle is, but I do understand why FOX has to be so defensive of it now. Worse, when its done on national TV by a major FOX host, you know there is more to the story — and Megan Kelly had an agenda that was unprofessional and inappropriate for the venue. Thats all. And no, I have lost any and all respect that I might have had for Kelly for what she did. It was crude, rude, factually incorrect and political and I am, frankly, disappointed that you supported that kind of behavior.
“I don’t think he is just a misogynist. I think he is just a rude pig to anyone who stands in his way. It shows poor breeding regardless of how affluent his childhood was. It just goes to show that having money doesn’t mean a person has class.” I agree that money does not make the man. It has certainly not made the woman.
Do you think what he said to Megyn Kelly was appropriate? How about making fun of a handicapped person?
I think he is without class and I don’t want anyone with manners that horrible representing my country.
Yea, you did come by to start in on the Democrats. No one had mentioned them.
Much of the funding for the DoD goes to retirement pensions and medical care. The Air Force in 2015 was at its smallest end strength it has ever been at since 1947. There is a slight increase planned for 2016.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/careers/air-force/2015/02/02/budget-would-add-4000-active-duty-airmen-in-2016/22740199/
The problem is that what is an obvious “lie” to some is not so obvious to others. Why are you so sure that Rubio’s claim has been debunked? I read politifact and similar sites, which supposedly debunked those claims, but they were not very convincing at all. Politicians like to speak in grand terms (i.e. weakest Navy in a century), which suggests there may be some exaggeration, but there is NO question that Navy ships and personnel are at their lowest numbers in many, many years, especially relative to our near-peer competitors.
@Pat.Herve
While your statement that sequestration was bipartisan is technically correct, it neglects the fact that the Executive Branch usually gets the force structure that it wants. Even at his most unpopular, Bush was able to get the military spending needed to support his strategy. If Obama had called for the DoD to be exempted from sequestration under the rationale that the expected cuts would hollow out the military and invite aggression from our foes, it is very likely that Congress would have done so.
Current Navy strength in terms of capital ship numbers has been lowered to the point that serious strategists are wondering whether we may have badly compromised our long-held concept of being able to fight two wars simultaneously. Add to that the fact that China is developing new surface-to-ship missiles which may, in the event of conflict, force our own carriers out of the Western Pacific and leave our allies in dire straits.
I do believe that this POTUS elected as much as he could to apply much of the sequestration to the military rather than to domestic programs. Hence we heard analysts stating that, unless we changed course, the Army could wind up being at a pre-WW II level. That POTUS got away with it lies, in my opinion, with the timidity and stupidity of the Establishment Repubs currently in charge on the Hill.
Blogmistress, having been a bit of the same ilk myself with regard to helping capable women break through tough and long-standing glass ceilings, I do not see a man like Trump, who turned an initial $1 million into a $4 billion plus fortune, as hiring and promoting women in his own organization whom he did not perceive to have the right stuff. I certainly would not have tried that with inadequate material. I would think he gives the chances to women who are considered by him to have a promising future at the senior executive level.
But, if you feminists don’t want sympa men to serve as”rabbis” and help the worthiest among you to break through those tough ceilings, just say so and we will knock it off. That would be too bad, as the last lady I helped while I was still in harness rose to a higher pay grade than me — which didn’t bother me one bit as that was my goal.
During the most recent debate, I thought Megan was acting like a “gotcha” snot, especially with Cruz. The looks on her face told me so. There, I said it.
Now, as far as William J. and “bimbos” are concerned, I recall press reports about one of the top Clinton campaign staffers in 1992. Her name was Betsy Wright, and one of her tasks was to keep girls away from William J. I believe the terminology of the time including something about preventing “bimbo eruptions.” Of course, I also recall campaign staffer Old Snake-eyes referring to William J’s accusers as being the kind of girl you got by dragging a $100 dollar bill through a trailer park. Lots of respect for the female side in that camp.
I think capable women are hired because they are capable women. In 2016, I just don’t think we need to be having this conversation. I would help someone advance, male or female, because I thought they were capable, not because of their gender.
Women absolutely can make it without the help of men. Sometimes my husband thinks I need his help. This becomes very apparent when he backseat drives or finishes my sentences for me. Sometimes he corrects me when I am speaking to my friends on the phone. One day he will get tired of having his head ripped off.
Occasionally there are tough ceilings. Those are becoming fewer and fewer.
I think Trump is condescending and just about horrible in every sense of the word. I am simply appalled that there are people living in America who want him to represent them.
Bill Clinton is not part of this conversation. He also is not running for office. I get it you don’t like him. I do like him. I don’t require people I like to be perfect.
@Censored bybvbl
Assuming then that you want Hillary to confess to lying about Benghazi and about classified mail on her non-secure server. I would also throw in some things like her not knowing where the Rose law firm files were. And maybe even, just for fun, her making a big score on the commodities market simply by reading the Wall Street Journal; but I’ll let that one slide since “Red” Bone died a couple of years ago in Missouri and cannot testify.
Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with Trump’s treatment of Megyn Kelly. Benghazi has nothing to do with it either.
Almost 100 years. See “US Navy Active Ship Force Levels” at the Navy History and Heritage Command.
http://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/us-ship-force-levels.html
2015 level is 271. The last time we had active ship levels that low was 1924-1930. There were more active ships in 1917-1923 than there are now.
Whoops, they switched the Total Active and the surface warships lines in the 1924-1930 chart. You do have to go all the way back to 1916 to find an active ship total lower than the 271 in 2015.
@Wolve
So you did prove that Rubio’s statement was not factually correct. Since we don’t yet know ship totals for 2016, Rubio can really only claim that we have the smallest Navy in 99 years, not 100. Clearly the moderator should have stepped in to correct him.
@Wolve
Obama abandoned the two-simultaneous-war strategy in 2012.
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/04/panetta-ending-two-war-strategy/
@Wolve
Trump, who turned an initial $1 million into a $4 billion plus fortune
That is oversimplifying it a bit. At 18 he was given the $1million – then he inherited a much larger sum at his fathers and mothers deaths ($200 million range). There are reports that he barely did better than if he had invested the money in the S&P 500.
Kelly, comparing today’s ship count to 1916 levels is misleading at best. Due to ever-changing and advancing technology such as missile and radar, individual ship’s capabilities are much greater today, so this is really an apples to oranges comparison.
The real question is wether or not our current number of ships is adequate for our world mission and responsibilities, and some analysts feel that it is, while some see the need for about 30 more ships. Some of the Republican candidates want 80 more but don’t say how the’d pay for it. It would always be nice to have more and more, but budget considerations have to be considered at some point. Right now our Navy is arguably 10 times stronger than all the other navies combined. We have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined. As Ike said- beware the military-industrial complex!
I am going to cut comments off on this thread.
Take comments that have nothing to do with Trump and Kelly to the open thread.
I have the sinus headache from hell, it is making me mean as a snake and I am going to take it out on all of you all.
I didn’t cut them off because I don’t know how. Something changed.
@middleman
Middleman: Unless there have been some incredible technological advances that I do not know about, today’s ships can be in only one place at a time, just like those in 1916. And if you believe the polar caps are melting, then the world’s oceans are getting larger, which implies that our fleet must patrol a larger ocean area.
It is true that ship technology has improved, but technology is a double-edged sword since our adversaries have improved anti-ship technologies. A century ago, our foes did not have the capability to target ships from beyond the horizon. According to popular news reports, the Chinese have developed a missile called the DF-21, also known as the carrier killer. If true, this suggests that our adversaries can now hold entire carrier battle groups at risk, which was unthinkable a decade or two ago. The Iranians appear to have developed new offensive capabilities that threaten our ships as well.
None of these developments suggest that the US requires fewer ships now than at any time in the last 100 years. Given the challenges from Russia and China together with the instability in the Middle East, it would seem unwise strategically to keep the Navy so small. If a former active-duty Air Force officer such as myself can recognize that the Navy should grow, then you can be sure that the need is dire.
@Moon-howler
Sorry to hear about your sinus headache.
Thanks, Kelly. It is making me evil.
The reading today at church:
“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.”
By this standard, Trump does not love America.
That is very powerful.
Censored called for the challenging of outright lies in debates. You gave that a 1+. No reason to exempt Hillary. Fair is fair, I say.
@Moon-howler
As long as Bill Clinton hits the hustings as part of Hillary’s campaign, I say he is eligible for criticism of his own past, especially when his wife throws out sexist charges at possible rivals. That is not going to go away. Hillary supporters will just have to get used to having that weak link in their armor.
That’s cute, Pat. $200 million to $4 billion ain’t half bad either.
I have about given up on checking my own portfolio lately.
I keep telling myself the ship will right itself and that this is normal in the money cycle. I am too old and greedy to stick with safe fixed accounts. I guess that’s the price I pay….Friday was good for me, btw.
I have stopped looking at a lot of mine also. I have things divided up into money I need when I am old and play money….the play money has some real big chunks bitten out of it lately as does the real money.
200M put into an S&P index fund with a compounded return of 6.5% over 50 years is 4.4B
Maybe the guy wanted to work for a living by building things instead of watching a stock ticker all day. Some people in the 1% are like that.
There are always good discussion on this blog
Why thank you, El Guapo.
this isn’t really about Megyn Kelly. It’s about control.
You are pretty much correct, Lyssa. He couldn’t get his own way.
Trumps career wasn’t spectacular if he couldn’t accumulate wealth faster than the median investor of his lifetime. If his career wasn’t great, why believe that he has the ability to make America great?
I haven’t figured out how he is going to by-pass Congress and the Supreme Court yet and his followers are apparently too Trump-drunk to ask him.
@Moon-howler
A) Clinton used his position to intimidate women. Using an intern for sex gets people charged with sexual misconduct. Treating them so badly that the abuser suggests putting ice on a swollen lip is a perfect example. Anita Broddrick accused him of rape.
B) Trump’s actions don’t come close. He’s a rude boor. But he doesn’t abuse women, that we know of.
C) You have a double standard when it comes to this.
What part of this do you not get? Clinton isn’t running for office.
You also don’t seem to understand a lot of about abuse of women. Where I come from, talking about women like they are dogs is a form of abuse. He doesn’t have to punch Megyn in the face for it to be abuse.
Kelly, I’d love to respond to your last post but I’ll respect Moon’s wishes and refrain.
Use the open thread and thank you. You can write about almost anything you want there.
“I think we’re going to find some other things. And I think that when all of this is put into context, and we really look at the people involved here, look at their motivations and look at their backgrounds, look at their past behavior, some folks are going to have a lot to answer for.”
– Hillary Clinton – 1/28/98 – this was an interview just after the Lewinsky scandal broke showing how Hillary was leading the intimidation machine against women Bill either slept with or abused in an attempt to silence them.
She is basically saying on national TV that if you go public with accusations (true or not) against Bill she will lead a team to dig into your background to expose embarrassing things. She was ‘Slut Shaming’ before slut shaming was a thing.
…BTW I agree with you Moon about Trumps treatment of Megan Kelly. It is both wrong and offensive and just one more reason why I do not care for him.
But lets not forget Hillary’s misogynistic treatment of Bill’s women. Threatening to slut shame someone is, in my opinion, much worst than calling someone a bimbo.
Let’s take that discussion to the open thread. I will gladly discuss it there.