He was blabbing and avoiding the question asked.
The question — I am not kidding — was whether Donald Trump was talking about Megyn Kelly's period when he said "blood coming out of her wherever." Ironically, in trying to avoid having to talk about female genitalia, Kasich had us — I don't know about you — thinking about male genitalia.
Whenever women touch anything they clearly make it better than we do as guys.
Well, that's how the conversation went at Meadhouse, but even if you don't go there — and aren't you an upstanding citizen if you don't? — the line is absurd. He's running for President. Is he pushing for Hillary Clinton? She's a woman. By his lights, we ought to want her hands on the levers of power.
Yes, there's also Carly Fiorina. By the way, she was on Tapper's show too, and she was also asked the question whether Trump was talking about Megyn Kelly's period. Fiorina's answer was great, talking about her own experience with men who've criticized her with references to her period, but I'm going to wait for the transcript to give you the full quote.
ADDED: Here's the transcript. Fiorina first gave a very short answer: The comments were "completely inappropriate and offensive." Tapper pushed her with: "But do you think that Trump's remarks were sexist? Do you think he was specifically referring to Megyn Kelly -- I can't believe I'm even saying this -- having her period?" At that point, she said:
You know, look -- you know, look, I can -- I started out as a secretary. And, as I made my way up in the business world, a male-dominated business world, I have had lots of men imply that I was unfit for decision-making because maybe I was having my period. So I will say it, OK? When I started this campaign, I was asked on a national television show whether a woman's hormones prevented her from serving in the Oval Office. My response was, can we think of a single instance in which a man's hormones might have clouded his judgment?Tapper said "I can." Fiorina continued:
The truth -- yes, me, too, maybe in the Oval Office.... The point is, women understood that comment. And, yes, it is offensive.
पोस्ट्स
२०३ टिप्पण्या:
203 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Kaisch hands the women of America a one-size-fits-all pick-up line.
I don't know who to hold in more contempt - women who let their heads be turned by such twaddle, or Kaisch for thinking women's heads would be turned by such twaddle.
Agree with Quaestor.
But I don't think it's a very good pickup line. Not for the kind of women I like, respect, and/or love.
Those kind of women (e.g., my wife) laugh contemptuously at men who talk that way.
What a loser.
Women make the best housewives.
He had no particular reason to enter the race, and this pandering remark is his exit line.
Kasich needs a better haircut. Then I might look at him. First of all, there was no "surplus" in Clinton's presidency. What there was was a raid on Social Security's trust fund.
Before the magic negro came the magic woman: Mary Poppins, Nanny Figalilly, Katy the Farmer's daughter, you get the idea.
In Hillary Administration, YOU give Government hand job, not other way around!
I wonder if women realize how much throwaway condescension is encapsulated in that line and it's variations. It's a polite-company stock line for when the menfolks want to let the gals know how much they're appreciated. I heard it on a kayaking trip in B.C. This weekend and I felt like slapping the poor chump with an oar.
Clinton was given the line item veto by the Republicans,
It was repealed by the court.
Now you know who really runs the asylum.
You can't criticize women and when you praise them, you can only do it in a politically correct way. If you shut up, you're avoiding the issue.
Tell that to the millions of babies chopped up like chicken broilers to be sold for parts at a profit.
Of course, they've been silenced.
All the male republicans are deathly scared of being attacked with "war on women". ( I don't count Trump as a Republican)
Look at what happened to Romney. He was bragging about how prepared he was to hire well qualified women to work for his administration...and that was turned into an "attack on women".
Repeal the 19th.
There's no response to Kasich (the GOP establishment's fallback in case of Jeb going full New Coke) that wouldn't have to descend to an equal level of fatuousness.
This just means a large enough percentage of women are stupid enough to fall for this kind of crap.
I blame public education.
As far as repealing the 19th, that in my opinion would be insufficient because there are a lot of retarded males too. Amend the 19th to include only people who actually pay a net positive amount in taxes.
"that was turned into an "attack on women".
Romney failed here to have a plan for a good response. It was his weakness as a candidate. Eisenhower would never get elected these days.
I think the country became unsalvageable after 2012. Romney could have done it. I just hope the roof doesn't fall in until I am gone. Three of my kids voted for Obama and so I am not that upset. I do worry about my grandkids but they may survive to see what comes after the singularity.
Pessimism is good in that it avoids you being surprised by this stuff.
The question was stupid and irrelevant. Apparently not enough policy questions to pursue? Ask Trump what he meant. How would Kaisch what Trump meant.
"include only people who actually pay a net positive amount in taxes."
Neville Shute, one of my favorite novelists, wrote a book about his idea about an alternate voting system. It's in his novel "In the Wet."
From the little I've seem of Carly Fiorina, she appears to be a formidable interviewee... sharp, fearless and precise in her response to questions.
Did Tapper ask her what Trump meant?
When does this reality show end?
Soap opera women are 40% of women. It's a large enough bloc to pay the news business daily bills, and they're not particular about news except that it has to have a story line they can be interested in.
So they take over the news business editorial control.
Politicians start from that.
Even the non soap opera women start to get hauled in, is the amazing thing.
Apparently it's a temptation to them.
"include only people who actually pay a net positive amount in taxes."
Robert Heinlein proposed the same idea. I'm not sure which author had the idea first.
Carly Fiorina does not appear formidable, except in a pandering storyline.
That she brings up her period at all shows it. It's the formidable woman narrative.
Somebody should ask her if she thinks menstrual cycles come in threes.
Blood coming out of female genitalia is a complicated hydrodynamics problem. So much depends on the environment. Probably armies of men in the maxipad industry have worked it out.
Well not completely, as evidenced by wings on maxipads.
Capillary action is what screws it all up.
These would be good questions for a formidable woman candidate.
Sheryl Crow's ridiculed suggestion of using only one toilet paper sheet was a suggestion for women peeing, an astute intuition about capillary action.
There's a formidable woman.
Oops..... should have read more carefully ... Tapper did ask the question.......
I'm trying to think of something good HP did.
No question it was the HP-35 in the 60s. A calculator that displaced all calculators.
They started refining it and ruined it right away, of course.
That was before affirmative action.
Tried to be a satirist, didn't he?
For that comment alone, he disqualified himself. How the hell could he run against Hillary, a woman?
Jesus, what a bunch of misogynists.
The correct answer to that question is, "of course he was, man that guy is a jerk."
rhhardin, RPN calculators are the devil.
Actually, women ruin everything.
Who is he?
Clearly, Fiorina should have been in the prime time debate instead of Kaisich.
It requires a mother and a father to conceive and raise a human child.
Coffee creamer experiment, 1960.
Why do women never do that.
The correct answer as always is,
Hey Kels, we have airtime rolling at $1,000,000 a second and you want to talk about Playtex? Aren't you ashamed of yourself? Let's get one thing straight, I'm never going to be responsible for what someone else says. Putin isn't interested in your stompy feet gotchas. Neither is the law of compound interest. Now would you like to ask important questions, like about the economy or Iran? Or shall I just talk to fill in the time while you sit there and look pretty/ intelligent/interested? I don't actually need you to communicate with the American people. I just need the camera rolling. You can go and powder your nose if you want.
Jake Tapper is one of the few decent journalists, but the rest have an unspoken agenda to enhance Hillary's chance to become Prez.
To do this, they have to portray the GOP candidates in a negative light. They hope that Trump sucks the oxygen out of these debates and says stupid stuff. They hope that Kasich and others get embroiled in trivial spats with Trump or silly issues like the topic of his post.
So, although Trump is a bit bombastic I'm not gonna fret about him. If he wins the nomination. I' ll support him.
Kasich and others have to sidestep these stupid discussions, and turn every interview into an offensive charge against Hillary and/or Obama's crummy 8 years. Play offense, not defense (I would humbly suggest)
Video & transcript here.
Hardin, looked at your Flickr, don't get it
53% of voters are women. Think hard about that before saying one will support Trump if he is the candidate. Republican women will not vote for Trump in large numbers. Democrat women would not vote for him at any rate. Trump is not Presidential material. He has a thin skin and displays classic symptoms of narcissism. How Would he represent the U.S.? We would be a laughingstock around the world. Seriously what are people thinking? Or are they not really thinking about the consequences? Do we want Democrats to win national elections for decades to come?
Kasich is obviously afraid of offending the very small number of misogynists who think Trump's comments about Megyn Kelly are OK. This hurts him with the vast majority of Republican voters who think Trump was way out of line. (It's important to remember that only the Republican voters matter. Many of Trump's supporters are people who can't be bothered to actually vote.)
But worse than that, by showing that he's afraid to say what he really thinks, he demonstrates that he'd be a lousy President. If you can't stand up to the buffoon, how are you going to handle ISIS?
The one thing to say about Trump, if you have to say anything, is that he is not serious.
You can pay as much lip service as you see fit to his (variable) success, and to the fact that he may be raising some good issues and providing something that the others aren't, but Donald Trump is not the next President of the United States, and everybody knows it, including Trump. No need to be rude, or no ruder than that.
When I mentioned to my wife the "blood coming out of whatever" comment, I asked (and that was the first she'd heard of it) what she thought "whatever" meant. She immediately said "he was talking about her period"
She then went on to express her disgust at such a remark. She's a regular Fox viewer. She can watch Hannity when I can't stand him.
Folks, guess what, women are over half of the electorate. It makes no sense to demean them.
(And its obvious that men, as Carly pointed out, have difficulty with their hormonally driven urges. Or as my Mom used to say "He couldn't keep his fly zipped")
Too many people asking too many stupid questions. We condense politics into sound bites and twitter length text. The Nobel Peace Prize went to Obama, who had done nothing! We analyze mistakes, not accomplishments or positions. The media is going to get Hillary elected so this is all working for that.
"He was blabbing"
It's all he does.
Just shows how part of the GOP establishment is utterly clueless about the media--or maybe just clueless. (I mean, even for a compassionately condescending quasi-conservative, K's line is ludicrously false. In art and technology, far more things have gotten far better for being "touched" by men and very few improved by the "touch" of women. If men stopped touching the infrastructure of modern civilization, things would fall apart within 48 hours.)
Yet we'll need Ohio and to get Ohio we may need K's help--not on the ticket, let's hope--so a little strategic pandering to him may be in order.
Well, I hear that Kasich is kind of a dick so there is that.
Problem for Kasich is that he doesn't have that winning, sexy, smile that enticed the elite XX's to elect Beautiful Barry. He has the bullshit, but not the smile!
This has disqualified Carly for me.
Many years ago I grew tired of the Democrat game where a Republican would say something and the Democrat would twist it into its worst possible meaning. I've always found such a tactic to be bullshit.
If you think Trump was talking about her period it says more about you than it does about Trump.
I hope all the Republicans are beating the bushes for the best tailors and dry cleaners out there so that their creases can be up to Obama level.
I don't know Eric, it seems likely enough. If you are denying it because admitting it would mean you couldn't support him anymore, that's one thing. If you're denying it because you think he's too much of a gentleman, well I don't know. No I do know, assuming Trump has any gentleman in him, he can turn it on and off like a switch.
It really doesn't matter because again, Putin doesn't care if you call people names. Imagine Perry or Bush saying, as Putin did, that he would find the terrorists and kill them in the s*** house, I'm sure that steam would come out of the goo-goos' ears. I would say that it's a pity that the ladies can't ask substantive questions like the men, but then again, what men are out there asking serious questions are there?
Nichevo, my limited experience of Trump is his mouth doesn't have a filter. It's one of the qualities I like about him. I don't think he is trying to be a politician and say things in such a way that makes it palatable. If he thinks you're a jerk and a loser, he calls you a jerk and a loser.
But suddenly everyone thinks he beats around the bush? Give me a break.
If you've ever listened to Trump speak, it's common for him to talk like that. Perhaps it's an affectation. He commonly ends whatever he is saying with whatever, or whatever, etc, as he moves to his next thought.
Kasich wasn't thinking about that idiot Mayor in Baltimore.
Kasich wasn't thinking about that idiot State's Atty. in Baltimore.
Kasich wasn't thinking about that idiot Secretary of State, HRC.
Kasich wasn't thinking about that idiot wife of Joe Biden.
Kasich wasn't thinking about that idiot Gov. Kathleen Blanco.
Kasich wasn't thinking about that idiot Sec. Kathleen Sebilius.
Kasich wasn't thinking about that idiot writer at Rolling Stone.
Kasich wasn't thinking about that idiot UVA President.
And so forth...!
If the media all agree that Trump is not Presidential material, exactly why are they giving him so much respect?
There has to be a reason. I noticed Chuck Todd brought up Aiken again today. The reason Todd gave him the publicity is because he tied it to the republican party. As short hand to say 'here's a person that personifies republicansconservativemalereligousevengelicalsteapartytypes.
But what is Trump shorthand for.
So now Althouse and the rest of the Republican establishment are trying to paint Trump as beyond the pale, as they say. Isn't this just another bullshit PC maneuver designed to shut down debate?
The Midas touch of Betterness.
Eric,
You look like a smart guy, who likes nice things. I like you because you like nice things, so why not vote for a candidate who likes nice things?
People like me, and I like people, and you're good people. Enjoy a complimentary mint and a round of golf.
-The Donald
"Kasich wasn't thinking about that idiot Mayor in Baltimore.
Kasich wasn't thinking about that idiot State's Atty. in Baltimore.
Kasich wasn't thinking about that idiot Secretary of State, HRC.
Kasich wasn't thinking about that idiot wife of Joe Biden.
Kasich wasn't thinking about that idiot Gov. Kathleen Blanco.
Kasich wasn't thinking about that idiot Sec. Kathleen Sebilius.
Kasich wasn't thinking about that idiot writer at Rolling Stone.
Kasich wasn't thinking about that idiot UVA President.
And so forth...!"
I think he was thinking I've got to make sure I don't say something that will blow up my campaign, it has to be something good about women but what, I can't think.
I'm not entirely sympathetic to the no filter thing. The people I know with no filters are trouble. And from my point of view, it's not much harder to - trigger alert Althouse - it's not much harder to gut somebody with decorous language than it is with the old f*** s*** c*** piss. For me it speaks to self control. I don't know that I need so much spontaneity from a candidate that their brain appears uncoupled to their tongue.
Trump doesn't need to finish the sentences because he's got X billion dollars. More to the point, because talk is not important in actual achievement, action is. This is the kind of thing that the Althouses of the world can never wrap their tiny little brains around. The harsh language is the least of my concerns about him, but it does illustrate his as it were unprofessionalism. I don't actually think the American people want a beer guzzling twit in the hot seat pushing buttons. They might want to see that side ready to come out to play now and then, but it shouldn't be your day personality.
As for you, ARMy boots. Nah, there's no point in addressing your arguments as you haven't made any.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2008/09/mistress_of_disaster_jamie_gor.html
This could be an exception so big it proves the rule Kasich is talking about.
I don't actually think the American people want a beer guzzling twit in the hot seat pushing buttons.
And yet we elected Obama, twice.
I'll say this, the doubling down thing is valid in as much as this Kelly went after him on the basis of something he said about Rosie O'Donnell or whoever back when, there certainly is no point in apologizing for it and she obviously was going to get her pound of flesh and in this particular case I don't mind pushing back right on it. But I think my original impulse is correct, we're talking about the fate of the world and you are diverting us into this, how did you get this job?
Yeah, that's a real disappointment Eric. But once he had that Times guy lapping his crack because of his trouser press, that image was not going to take apparently, even though you literally saw him giving people the finger. That's true, I don't know how that got by people.
Following up on dreams' comment . . .
Kasich: "Whenever women touch anything they clearly make it better than we do as guys."
Walker: "Every place in the world that Hillary Clinton has touched is more messed up today than when she and President Obama took office."
The Virgin Mary is always bleeding out of her eyes.
Henry Poole Is Here (2008) Luke Wilson, George Lopez and Radha Mitchell
Whenever a woman touches anything she makes it better? Hasn't he heard of Typhoid Mary?
Twaddle doesn't begin to describe Kasich's comment.
Burn After Reading (2008) Frances McDormand is an amusing case of innocent womanly destructive chaos. Wait for the end.
How could anyone NOT think he was talking about her period? If you didn't go there, it's because you haven't spent enough time with women.
Nichevo said...
Nah, there's no point in addressing your arguments as you haven't made any.
How about this: the Republican establishment are a bunch of shameless hypocrites. They rail against PC when it suits their political purposes, to rally the troops against liberals, but are perfectly happy to co-opt the exact same tactics when it suits their purpose. Could there be a more unprincipled example of this than Red State's Erick Erickson?
eric said:
I don't actually think the American people want a beer guzzling twit in the hot seat pushing buttons.
I think Hillary has been known to down a brewski or 4!
Nichevo said:
...we're talking about the fate of the world and you are diverting us into this, how did you get this job?
All of this primary bullshit is a test of temperament and suitability. The Donald is clearly not suited for the job. Margaret Thatcher was a little overweight. Angie Merkel is a bit pudgy. Unfiltered Name calling is probably not what we want in the King of the World.
I clicked on the link to Carly Fiorina. I like that woman. She takes no prisoners. In a couple of paragraphs she manages to shoot Trump between the eyes, and for dessert, wings Billy Jeff's "hormonal conduct" in the Oval Office. Don't mess with her. She's tougher than a two dollar steak, and, when appropriate, has a tongue like an adder. Oh I'll go classical here, and say she can have a tongue like a serpent's tooth. Except that I happen to think she's a pretty reasonable person.
Then there's the unsavory aftermath of Helen's whoring around, as Ann Carson put it somewhere.
@rhardin,
I agree about Burn After Reading. It was very funny too. I am sort of surprised it got made.
Kasich is a non-entity.
And lets not forget the story of prostitute Sadie Thompson and the lustful preacher who tries to 'save her'.
My ticket as of now is Walker/Carly, she will be helpful in going after Hillary.
Derbyshire wants Trump and Coulter as the ticket.
"Kasich is a non-entity."
As to Kasich, I think the Peter Principle applies.
It's more important to stamp out issue-protecting bullshit than anything.
How will the women react, is the problem. Bullshit is their thing.
The proper answer to a question about Trump is, "Don't know, don't care, he's a clown. Why aren't you asking me questions about substantive issues?"
Birches said, "How could anyone NOT think he was talking about her period? If you didn't go there, it's because you haven't spent enough time with women."
Or with men. He's sexually confused. Diffident. Wondering which way to go, he goes in every direction, seeking adulation.
Blogger Birches said...
How could anyone NOT think he was talking about her period?
I hope you don't come to your favorite politicians defense the next time Democrats twist their words into incoherence. As you're doing the same thing.
One of the appeals Trump has, he isn't into this PC bullshit. And I love that he gives your ilk, who use it to twist people's words, the middle finger.
"All of this primary bullshit is a test of temperament and suitability. The Donald is clearly not suited for the job. Margaret Thatcher was a little overweight. Angie Merkel is a bit pudgy. Unfiltered Name calling is probably not what we want in the King of the World."
This is a good point. We need someone with a better temperament, like ROmney, or McCain, maybe even a Jeb Bush or a Lindsey Graham.
These guys like Trump and Cruz? They are bomb throwers and won't bend over for the establishment. Who cares about doing what's right for the country, it's about temperament.
I like that woman [Carly Fiorina]
CF has an Achilles heel which will be difficult to overcome - the performance of HP during her tenure as CEO.
The sad fact is Democrats are never called on to demonstrate competence at anything... never, ever... or even ethical decency. Calls for release of Obama's transcripts have gone unheeded, and those who have done the calling are roundly condemned as racist monsters. Back in 2004 when John Kerry was "swift-boated" (i.e. held to normal standards of truthfulness) he solemnly promised the late Tim Russert that he would release his military record to public inspection. Russert, wherever he may be, is still waiting nearly eleven years later. No one in the press has asked Hillary to name a single unequivocal success of her stint at the State Department; in fact she's never been asked to defend any questionable aspect of her miserable public career, including those mysteriously materializing Rose Law Firm billing records.
Republicans, however must be perfect. If they're not Rhodes scholars with documented four-ohs, they're pilloried as morons (Sarah Palin) If the economy goes south under a Republican POTUS; he's a moron. Obama contrastingly is the "smartest president evah!" even though by any metric (GDP, public debt, poverty levels, employment, inflation) his economic record is far worse. Romney straps his dog crate to the roof of his station wagon; he's Torquemada. Hillary gets our ambassador to Libya tortured, raped, and murdered; she's the ideal woman of power.
The press has held their fire so far because she's polling in single-digits. Let her gain traction and the gloves will be replaced with mail gauntlets. Her HP career will be painted in the most lurid colors on the palette.
Traditional restraints protect women in politics (never hit the girls!) except when they wear the red cockade, then it's "burn the witch!"
AReasonableMan said...
"How about this: the Republican establishment are a bunch of shameless hypocrites. They rail against PC when it suits their political purposes, to rally the troops against liberals, but are perfectly happy to co-opt the exact same tactics when it suits their purpose. Could there be a more unprincipled example of this than Red State's Erick Erickson?"
The republican establishment are a bunch of shameless hypocrites. They claim to be for things like small government and border control during elections, and the last time they were in control we got medicare part B and 2 amnesties.
On the PC line you posted it is the progressives that are the shameless hypocrites. The right doesn't believe in no standards of decency, it believes in (sometimes)reasonable standards that are evenly applied.
For Hillary Clinton or anyone in the democrat party and their supporters to even mention feminism or try to use the word misogyny to describe anyone else is a complete joke. She is married to an abuser and a rapist. She worked to destroy the lives of multiple women who were abused and wronged by her husband who has spent his time out of office banging under aged girls on a donor's private jet.
eric said...
Blogger Birches said...
How could anyone NOT think he was talking about her period?
"I hope you don't come to your favorite politicians defense the next time Democrats twist their words into incoherence. As you're doing the same thing."
No dice eric. I will be the last to throw someone out over possibly twisted words. Trump was pretty clearly referring to menstrual cycles.
The problem with this was that Trump knew this question was coming. If he says "MK was asking stupid questions and being a tool for Ailes and the GOP establishment. They will do anything to take me down. Next time we need serious moderators who will ask about our countries serious problems and how I plan to fix them" he takes the nomination in a walk.
This comes to the real problem with The Donald. It took me 30 seconds to come up with that and I probably could have done it on the fly. He is not preparing himself the way a successful presidential candidate prepares. He will not win because he will not sacrifice his life to becoming President.
""Whenever women touch anything they clearly make it better than we do as guys.""
Well, I can only speak for my thing, so I'd say that's true of Megyn, but not Hillary or Carly. And John can just stay away from my thing. Some of us guys have standards.
"The republican establishment are a bunch of shameless hypocrites. They claim to be for things like small government"
No. Most establishment GOP-ers don't run on "small government." Bush 43 didn't. Romney didn't. Many GOP governors didn't. Moderate senators didn't -- and without them, the GOP would not have a majority in the Senate.
Nor is anyone a hypocrite in calling Trump on his BS. Opposing political correctness does not entail approving the antics of a rude buffoon whose "campaign" is alienating several blocks of potential voters from the GOP.
H.L. Hunt, an oil tycoon, proposed that voters should get more votes if they paid more in taxes, like you do if you own a lot of stock in a corporation. I wouldn't go that far, but even in a credit union, co-op, or HOA, you have have at least one share to vote. Us allowing those who have no skin in the game to vote is not good.
This thread is funny. A woman quotes a woman and gets a bunch of men to fight. Kascich was right. Its better when a woman touches it.
Now gentleman pay your fee and move on.
Achilles said...
The right doesn't believe in no standards of decency, it believes in (sometimes)reasonable standards that are evenly applied.
Sebastian said...
Opposing political correctness does not entail approving the antics of a rude buffoon
So some forms of political correctness, sorry decency, are fine. You and the Republican establishment will be the sole arbiters of where this line falls. If liberals place this line somewhere else then they are being politically correct and killing discourse in this great nation of ours?
I see now. Obviously not hypocritical.
Who cares about doing what's right for the country, it's about temperament.
Point taken. Politics is not like business in at least one important way: Business is about money. Politics is about power. Money can buy power, but money is mainly about stuff, sold three-dimensional things that one can acquire, like sports cars and mansions on the Côte d'Azur. Power is about making people bend to your will. In North Korea this is done with guns and barbed wire. In America this is done by cementing productive relationships with other persons with power. To get things done in this half-democracy, half-oligarchy one needs power. If President Trump spends as much of his time making enemies of persons who ought to be his allies, he's not going to have the time let alone the political wherewithal to get much done; in fact he'll struggle just to stay above water.
Fox News leans right. Megyn Kelly is pointedly to the left of her colleagues, but that's still to the right of 90% of the so-called journalists whose heads nod up and down gravely on the boob tube. A person with real political talent would try to charm her, rather than attack her with that "she's on the rag" innuendo. Trump could have handled the question with aplomb rather than crude bombast, which would have made him more creditable instead of less so, which is where he stands now, else why the controversy? He could have replied something like this: Yes, I regret calling Rosie O'Donnell a pig, but her porcine manners provoked me to an angry outburst that I wish I had never made. O'Donnell is no pig... she's a loudmouthed bigot, but no pig. Provocative question disarmed; O'Donnell and her myrmidons correctly classified. Easy for someone with talent. The fact that Trump has made matters worse for himself by his ill-considered post-debate tweets and burps* lends credence to the idea that he's not so talented after all.
* We need a new term for these Trump-et blasts of thoughtless hot air.
ARM wrote: I see now.
Obviously not.
If you must to appropriate the image of a person much greater than yourself as your avatar, then I suggest Appius Claudius Caecus, at least the cognomen fits.
I have thought about this for a while. I think this statement makes him into a gay basher.
Quaestor said...
He could have replied something like this: Yes, I regret calling Rosie O'Donnell a pig, but her porcine manners provoked me to an angry outburst that I wish I had never made. O'Donnell is no pig... she's a loudmouthed bigot, but no pig.
He could have. But, he would have sounded like a pompous prig.
Not the look he was going for, I suspect. His actual answer was close to perfect. Why can't The Donald hate somebody. He's good at it.
"Fox News leans right. Megyn Kelly is pointedly to the left of her colleagues, but that's still to the right of 90% of the so-called journalists whose heads nod up and down gravely on the boob tube."
Or she has no political leanings and has decided to adopt the position that can (1) advance her career, (2) pose the most difficult questions to people who do not always get such questions, and (3) generally stirs things up. She would never have gotten ahead with a lefty news network. Too pretty, too female, too uppity, too ambitions. Except for Maddow, who is really a niche player, has there been a female who really got to the top at a mainstream left leaning network. Walters and Diane Sawyer, maybe, but they never gave either of them the very top job. Couric got sidelined. Erin Burnett has disappeared at CNN. If Kelly is as sharp as I think she is, she knew that the underlying sexism of the left, which must remain hidden and unacknowledged, was going to be a barrier. Roger Ailes does not give a shit who you are as long as you produce.
Blogger Quaestor said...
Yes, I regret calling Rosie O'Donnell a pig, but her porcine manners provoked me to an angry outburst that I wish I had never made. O'Donnell is no pig... she's a loudmouthed bigot, but no pig. Provocative question disarmed; O'Donnell and her myrmidons correctly classified. Easy for someone with talent. The fact that Trump has made matters worse for himself by his ill-considered post-debate tweets and burps* lends credence to the idea that he's not so talented after all.
* We need a new term for these Trump-et blasts of thoughtless hot air.
Oh yes, you're right. Trump could easily step up his game.
Or, another Republican could figure out what it is we like so much about Trump and step up his game and take all his voters away.
But no one is doing that, and so, we are left with Trump.
Eric,
Do you expect Trump or Cruz to work with Congress or go it alone like the Constitutional Law Prof in the White House now? I don't get the sense that either of them have a huge following in the Congress. Maybe you have a plan for replacing all the Republican Senators and Congressmen? Mitch will just step aside and let President Cruz run the Senate.
We had a idiot down here in Texas a few year back who sounded a lot like The Donald. Prolly heard about Kinky Friedman. He loved to crow about how corrupt both parties were. He was gonna clean-up the mess. Well most voters know that you can't shit in your own kennel! Some dumbass Republicans voted for him over Governor Oops, but they were disappointed and shocked that the establishment candidate won!
Did you vote for Ross Perot back in '92? Sounded a lot like The Donald!
Bad move by Kasich--trying to play it safe, and for what? Trump voters aren't the sort that care for logic or facts, they've decided he's a conservative and that Hiklary is no worse than any non-Trump politician. Other candidates would be wise to broaden the party's appeal because Trumpists are in too much of a fantasy world to be reasoned with.
And if you don't see the difference between "Un-PC" and pointless rudeness, then there's no getting through to you. Enjoy the mess you create next November.
But no one is doing that, and so, we are left with Trump.
Then get ready for President Democratic Poltroon, because that's the outcome of Trump vs Anybody in November 2016.
Sorry, that's gender politics. One may rightly despise it as inimical to sound governance, but one is a fool to ignore it.
The Democrats have one big gun in their arsenal; it's devastating, but it can only hit certain targets. The way to defeat it is to not be one of those targets. Trump has stupidly made himself a perfect target, ergo he loses in the final rundown.
Carly Fiorina said, "... can we think of a single instance in which a man's hormones might have clouded his judgment?"
Perfect. Now that's an adroit political manner. She managed to defend herself, rebuke Trump, and attack Hillary in one easy soundbite.
CF has my vote when the time comes (If ever, the winnowing being as brutal as it is.) Too bad about the competency thing.
Carly Fiorina said, "... can we think of a single instance in which a man's hormones might have clouded his judgment?"
She was having her period.
Fiorina first gave a very short answer: The comments were "completely inappropriate and offensive."
"THAT'S NOT FUNNY!"
There's not a clue in feminist PC that the sexes are different but fit because of it. Fiorina as you'd expect of an affirmative action success knows no better.
Quaestor said...
Carly Fiorina said, "... can we think of a single instance in which a man's hormones might have clouded his judgment?"
But Fiorina's retort really only says "look, men make decisions clouded by hormones." It emphatically doesn't say that women are free of hormone-storms. It was a clever tu quoque. So clever that most people miss it.
I'd really love to see John Kasich change Megyn Kelly's tires for her. IYKWIMAITYD
John Henry
Men's hormones are constant; they're not mood swings. Men learn stability from it, if they have fathers.
They learn to abstract as an interest. Hence math. Escape from women, Pagila says.
You don't see women on the rag abstracting.
But then the sexes fit. Men expect it, accommodate it, as their job.
Feminism is delusional about all this.
Michael K, I've always enjoyed your notes.
As the founder of what became the Nevil Shute Foundation, I found your comment on In the Wet particularly perspicacious.
Drop me a note any time johnfajardohenry@gmail.com
John Henry
Trump foreign policy platform: "Russia: Putin's a sawed off little has been. Screw 'em. Germany: Merkel's bleeding from wherever. Screw 'em. Iran: The Ayatollah's an anti-American windbag. Screw 'em. Israel: Bibi's a born loser. Screw em'. China: they can't even make a toaster right. Screw 'em. Etc."
Trump is in it to screw the Republicans, preferably for Hillary who, if elected, will help him move from #133 on the rich list to the top 100. He has not spoken of divesting from his potential conflicts and hasn't been asked about it by the media. They know his game.
If he gets the Republican nomination he won't get the votes of conservatives or Christians and by now Hispanic Republicans and many Republican women will not vote for him. End of game.
If he runs as an Independent, he will get the Trumpadupes who think name-calling buffoonery is conservative and presidential. End of game for the Republican nominee.
From Obamadupes to Trumpadupes. We're toast. The dupes abide.
Feminism is one of men's accommodations to women on the rag.
Unlike black issues, where whites no longer care what blacks think, so ridiculous has that become, men care what women think. Whites no longer credit blacks' ideas of morality, but they do credit women's.
But it's an accommodating caring, not a caring caring. It's seen as an interesting women's position different from their own, part of life.
So clever that most people miss it.
I didn't see it as a tu quoque reply. The question she was responding to, at least in the terms she provided herself, was in essence Do female hormones disqualify a woman for high office?" the implication being estrogen can cloud the judgement, which may be true. However testosterone may also cloud the judgement. Perfect example: Bill Clinton's dalliance with Monica Lewinsky. If hormones disqualify women, other hormones disqualify men. Not a tu quoque, but a soundly reasoned argument.
I'm interested in Carly Fiorina's response to all this. It's a qualification for my vote.
rhhardin why do you hate women who have strong opinions? Why do you read Althouse when you clearly have no respect for her or other women who are not in lock step with your conservatism?
estrogen can cloud the judgement, which may be true
Obama 2008.
rhhardin why do you hate women who have strong opinions? Why do you read Althouse when you clearly have no respect for her or other women who are not in lock step with your conservatism?
He doesn't. You only have to read him more.
rhhardin why do you hate women who have strong opinions? Why do you read Althouse when you clearly have no respect for her or other women who are not in lock step with your conservatism?
I just figure things out. I solicit improvements. That would be the point of comments.
Freeman Hunt, so he is being ironic? I read his stuff and it seems archaic. As though he is living in 1945.
Blogger hombre said...
If he gets the Republican nomination he won't get the votes of conservatives or Christians and by now Hispanic Republicans and many Republican women will not vote for him. End of game.
If he runs as an Independent, he will get the Trumpadupes who think name-calling buffoonery is conservative and presidential. End of game for the Republican nominee.
From Obamadupes to Trumpadupes. We're toast. The dupes abide.
Are you a conservative? He won't get your vote?
Or are you a Christian, he won't get your vote?
Are you a hispanic Republican, and he won't get your vote?
Are you a Republican woman and he won't get your vote?
I see this stupid game played every single election cycle. We have to vote for your guy (Or gal) because the other guy can't win.
What the hell makes you a prophet? Please tell me what Tuesday's Mega Million Lottery numbers will be, or shut the hell up.
If you want to criticize someone from your own perspective and give your own opinion, great.
But stop pretending like you know how the people are going to vote. You haven't got a clue.
Blogger chickelit said...
Quaestor said...
Carly Fiorina said, "... can we think of a single instance in which a man's hormones might have clouded his judgment?"
But Fiorina's retort really only says "look, men make decisions clouded by hormones." It emphatically doesn't say that women are free of hormone-storms. It was a clever tu quoque. So clever that most people miss it.
This is another reason she bothers me. First, she starts with the time tested tact of Democrats by putting words in someone's mouth and coming up with the worst possible interpretation.
Now she excuses behavior by pointing to someone elses behavior, like the Clinton's love to do.
I won't vote for a politician like that.
Achilles said...
This just means a large enough percentage of women are stupid enough to fall for this kind of crap.
I blame public education.
As far as repealing the 19th, that in my opinion would be insufficient because there are a lot of retarded males too. Amend the 19th to include only people who actually pay a net positive amount in taxes.
8/9/15, 11:58 AM
Yes indeed! But being the nice guy that I am I would allow woman who actually pay a net positive amount in taxes to vote. And no payroll deductions. Everyone who pays taxes writes on check on April 15th.
Eric, Trump doesn't have a chance. Or, well, he has a chance, but it is very very low even for the GOP primary. Of course, this is my opinion, but seriously he is his own worse enemy and FOX News will help him stumble.
Blogger Quaestor said...
But no one is doing that, and so, we are left with Trump.
Then get ready for President Democratic Poltroon, because that's the outcome of Trump vs Anybody in November 2016.
Sorry, that's gender politics. One may rightly despise it as inimical to sound governance, but one is a fool to ignore it.
The Democrats have one big gun in their arsenal; it's devastating, but it can only hit certain targets. The way to defeat it is to not be one of those targets. Trump has stupidly made himself a perfect target, ergo he loses in the final rundown
Again with the, "I don't like it and I know what the people like, therefore, he can't win."
Look, if you don't like Trump, fine, say that.
But let's not pretend like you can predict the future. I never thought I'd see this of a Republican candidate, but:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP6S3KE2DaI
I mean, do you think these are conservative, Christian, women, standing up for Trump?
Have you seen the polling? It's not the Tea Party Republicans who are putting Trump at 25%.
I think you're missing Trump's independent appeal. I think you're missing Trump's appeal to Democrats. I think you're missing that Trump will have all the loyal Republican voters, plus he'll pick up a good chunk of the black vote and Democrat Union vote. He won't be labeled as a Republican.
In essence, I think you're missing a lot about Trump.
Donald Trump just posted this:
Wonderful Frank Gifford has just passed away at age 84. He was my friend and a truly great guy! Warmest condolences to family.
Next up, all the Trump haters are going to tell us how Trump meant to say that it's wonderful Frank Gifford passed away.
so he is being ironic?
I like cosmic irony. You can find it in feminism.
AReasonableMan said...
So now Althouse and the rest of the Republican establishment are trying to paint Trump as beyond the pale, as they say. Isn't this just another bullshit PC maneuver designed to shut down debate?
8/9/15, 2:28 PM
That's nothing compared to what Obama and the Democrat-Communists are doing to Chucky Schumer and the Jews.
I agree with Matt and Achilles. ARM is just being a moron...who doesn't understand that political correctness and decency are two very different things?
And of course Trump was referencing her menstrual cycle... you don't say "whatever" when thinking of the nose. You are a sap if you believe otherwise.
Lastly, as far as a woman in the White House? I am more concerned about a woman pres being post-menopausal. As much as I am a sexist for saying it, women get nutty during it.
And if Bill Clinton couldn't control his hormones then why would we expect a woman to be different?
The reason that women are more interesting than Democrats is that the Democrats know what they are actually doing. It's simple deceit. Feminists know the opposite of what they are doing.
"I think you're missing a lot about Trump."
I think the appeal to Trump is the exact same appeal Obama had. People are taken in by narcissists, because they see in the narcissist whatever they want to see. The narcissist lies freely and easily for their own benefit, so doesn't tend to send off the same social cues that reveal their fundamental sleeziness.
Trump is for Trump. Anyone taken in by anything Trump says is a person who will be happily led off the cliff, justifying why the trip is necessary all the while.
I get the appeal of what he's saying, but anyone who believes what he is saying has any bearing one who the man is or what the man wants or what the man will do has no grasp on history or reality.
You don't see women on the rag abstracting.
I have. I've known a few female mathematicians with doctorates in my time, one biblically. I have never noticed their abstract reasoning abilities to swing in 28-day sine waves. On the contrary, though I must admit that none struck me as brilliant like a Poincaré or a Gödel, they were all deadly - outsmarted me, bygod.
Most men successfully cope with testosterone. Some do not; our prisons are full of them. Likewise women cope with their hormones. The notion that women go nuts every 28 days is just as ludicrous as the ludicrous claims by some feminists about testosterone. Evolutionary biology makes nonsense of the idea. How could Homo sapiens have survived the Ice Ages if every 28 days the cave became a bedlam of crazy females?
How could Homo sapiens have survived the Ice Ages if every 28 days the cave became a bedlam of crazy females?
Good time to hunt.
That's why menstrual cycles synchronize.
As Michael K noted before, the only real problem with Trump is if he runs 3rd Party like Perot did in 1992 - to hand he election over to Hillary.
As long as he doesn't do that, I'm gonna give him a fair shake, but not buy into any hysteria for him or against him.
The Left likes Trump because they hope he explodes and slimes all over the GOP. I'm not gonna worry about that.
In fact, if he pledges to not run as a 3rd Party, which I predict he eventually will, then there really isn't a problem. He will either succeed on his own or flame out like Howard Dean did in 2004.
Ted Cruz is the most polished speaker and debater. He's also the most Conservative. If he were running as Governor of Texas, rather than Senator, he'd be the front runner.
@ Eric "These guys like Trump and Cruz? They are bomb throwers and won't bend over for the establishment. Who cares about doing what's right for the country, it's about temperament."
I can't really picture Cruz making a snarky remark about a woman's menstrual cycle.
Blogger Paddy O said...
"I think you're missing a lot about Trump."
I think the appeal to Trump is the exact same appeal Obama had. People are taken in by narcissists, because they see in the narcissist whatever they want to see. The narcissist lies freely and easily for their own benefit, so doesn't tend to send off the same social cues that reveal their fundamental sleeziness.
Trump is for Trump. Anyone taken in by anything Trump says is a person who will be happily led off the cliff, justifying why the trip is necessary all the while.
I get the appeal of what he's saying, but anyone who believes what he is saying has any bearing one who the man is or what the man wants or what the man will do has no grasp on history or reality.
I've heard very similar unhinged rants about Trump followers being the same as Obama followers quite a lot on the internet lately.
It reminds me of a television show out of England called "Mind Control with Darren Brown". A pretty good show about a magician/hypnotist and how easy it is to control minds, and why advertising works.
If you see and hear things enough, you start to believe them.
And if you think your thoughts on Trump are original and started with you, then you're a fool. But I don't think you're a fool, I think you realize you're just a parrot, repeating the lines you've read elsewhere written by people with whom you agree.
And yet, you think we who agree with Trump are doing that.
And so I laugh at you.
He meant to say blood coming out of her nose, not out of her vagina... sheesh!
Blogger Ctmom4 said...
@ Eric "These guys like Trump and Cruz? They are bomb throwers and won't bend over for the establishment. Who cares about doing what's right for the country, it's about temperament."
I can't really picture Cruz making a snarky remark about a woman's menstrual cycle.
Nor can I. However, I can see those who oppose Cruz twisting his words, like Trumps were.
Trump has already said he wasn't referring to her cycle. I suppose you think Trump doesn't speak his mind and he's a typical Republican coward who backs down on what he says when challenged.
That sure destroys the memes about him.
Trump actually had a chance to explain himself to Erick Erickson of RedStates but he instead gave him attitude so Erickson disinvited him. Trump dug himself deeper and he will continue to do so because he is very thin-skinned. He takes a personal jab at every journalist who asks tough questions. He can't handle political pressure and the reason is because he has always been the boss without having to answer to anyone. That is not appealing in a politician. It's not just about political correctness.
Root for Trump all you want. Sit under a pyramid, too.
Trump has no desire to be POTUS. You think he wants all the crapola that comes with the job? He can write off his political campaign as advertising for his businesses, I bet he tries.
He is just out for the ego-stroking and to voice his concern with what has happened to America the last few years (I believe that is genuine). The Presidency is too confining for him...plus he'd have to step down from running his businesses, both legally and practically. You see him doing that?
Make the case for Trump all you like. But if you think he is a serious presidential candidate, well.........
Kasich is a mangina. What have women touched that have made things better than we do as guys? Clearly not anything physical.
That is such a simpering line meant to be obsequious to women. And clearly women know that.
Jiminy Eric, take your medications and a deep breath. You are making me sad.
Alluding to a woman's period is usually synecdoche, part for the whole. It means she's a woman and that's why she thinks this and you don't.
Like calling her a cunt, which also is for some reason taken a disparaging.
The latter just adds a willingness to forget about her to the mix.
OpenID Livermoron said...
Jiminy Eric, take your medications and a deep breath. You are making me sad.
I've heard there are medications for sadness.
cubanbob wrote;
That's nothing compared to what Obama and the Democrat-Communists are doing to Chucky Schumer and the Jews.
so true. Obama is actually worse in this regard than Trump. He just does so in a more nuanced way.
jacksonjay said... I didn't vote for Perot but he wasn't wrong and you or anyone else has yet to make a convincing case that he would have been a bad president. He would have been better than Clinton and unlike 41 he wouldn't have walked back his read my lips no new taxes. As for Kinky would he have been any worse than any Democrat Texas governor? As for Trump, he has brass but I'm surprised that as a businessman he doesn't know when to shut up and when to charm. He's a real estate developer in other words a salesman, he ought to know better. Which is why I suspect he threw it away at the debates. He doesn't want the job. I suspect he wants to be a kingmaker.
"And if you think your thoughts on Trump are original and started with you,"
Ha! I'm the parrot. Okay. That's fine. I've dealt with enough leaders over my life to know what's what. I've seen people befuddled and lives destroyed and innocents bilked for all they had.
I think there's a difference from agreeing with Trump and thinking Trump actually has any bearing on what he says. But believe him, trust him, send him money, root for him, sell your mind and your soul to him. Have fun with it. Laugh at others. Belief is enticing. It's entrancing even.
That's why Trump is Trump. It's his thing. And he's very good at drawing people into whatever they want so they believe in him, yearn for him, give themselves over to him.
OpenID Livermoron said...
Root for Trump all you want. Sit under a pyramid, too.
Trump has no desire to be POTUS. You think he wants all the crapola that comes with the job? He can write off his political campaign as advertising for his businesses, I bet he tries.
He is just out for the ego-stroking and to voice his concern with what has happened to America the last few years (I believe that is genuine). The Presidency is too confining for him...plus he'd have to step down from running his businesses, both legally and practically. You see him doing that?
Make the case for Trump all you like. But if you think he is a serious presidential candidate, well.........
Are you the guy on this website who kept writing, "I'll believe Trump is a serious candidate for President when he files the paperwork." and then after he files the paperwork, "I'll believe Trump is a serious candidate for President when he releases his tax records." and now that he has released his tax records, "I'll believe Trump is a serious candidate for President when he has an operation going in all 50 states." ??
Are you that guy who kept moving the "Trump isn't serious" goalposts?
Livermoron wrote: And if Bill Clinton couldn't control his hormones then why would we expect a woman to be different?
Do I have to point out the logical fallacy here?
yes
that was a yes to Quaestor and a no to eric (who needs a vacation asap).
It's called the fallacy of illicit transference.
We've been through this movie before.
In 1968, there was a third-party Presidential candidate very much like Trump: George Wallace.
Like Trump, Wallace was saying blunt extreme things that appealed to the kind of guys who like to commiserate with each other in bars about how women don't understand them.
Like Trump, Wallace was appealing to older white men who were furious that women, minorities, and "college sissies" from Ivy League schools were gaining power at their expense.
Wallace was a self-described white racist (he was the Alabama governor who had stood in the door of the school shouting "Segregation forever!") But that didn't bother his supporters at all. Some agreed with him; others just liked his politically incorrect bluntness.
By Labor Day or thereabouts, Gallup had Wallace at 25% of the vote, a remarkable showing for the racist candidate of a brand-new third party.
So all these attacks on Trump's extreme statements are unlikely to dissuade his supporters.
The GOP will need to do with Trump what Nixon did with Wallace in 1968: Co-opt him.
Trump's big issue so far has been opposition to illegal immigration. That you can't get a straight answer on immigration from most of these candidates is the reason that Trump is so popular.
The question to each GOP candidate is: Are you going to try to expel all the illegal aliens currently residing in America?
There are only 3 credible answers to that question (as to many others):
YES
NO
I DON'T KNOW
Anything else is a dodge.
Blogger Paddy O said...
"And if you think your thoughts on Trump are original and started with you,"
Ha! I'm the parrot. Okay. That's fine. I've dealt with enough leaders over my life to know what's what. I've seen people befuddled and lives destroyed and innocents bilked for all they had.
I think there's a difference from agreeing with Trump and thinking Trump actually has any bearing on what he says. But believe him, trust him, send him money, root for him, sell your mind and your soul to him. Have fun with it. Laugh at others. Belief is enticing. It's entrancing even.
That's why Trump is Trump. It's his thing. And he's very good at drawing people into whatever they want so they believe in him, yearn for him, give themselves over to him.
You believe this because it has some truth. Because there isn't a politician in the world who doesn't have followers like this.
But you completely miss Trumps appeal if you think people trust him, or believe in him, or think he is going to be a different sort of politician and uphold his promises.
I don't care what they say they will do, because I've learned over the past 8 years that they all lie. Especially the Republicans who keep saying, "Once you elect us, we'll get'r done!" and then we elect them and they come up with yet the next excuse why they can't do it (Except for Cruz, he's the one exception out there. God bless him.)
This isn't Trumps appeal. I could care less about any of Trumps promises, if he has made any. If he has, I don't believe him.
Instead, I look at what he is doing right now. And what he is doing now is why I support him. He has brought attention to our southern border. He isn't a politician in Congress. He has no power to make laws. He can't do anything but donate to politicians and hope they'll do what he asks.
And yet, having no power, what's happened since he joined the race? The Congress has taken up immigration. It's trying to pass laws banning sanctuary cities. It's talking about a 5 year prison sentence for prior deports.
This is what Trump is doing right now. Not promising to do. It's what he is doing. At this very moment.
There's nothing to be duped by here. I support him for what he is doing, not what he's promising.
Also alluding to a woman's period suggests that her belief is temporary. Just wait it out. It will be over in a week.
Male dogs know about this. The females are in heat much longer than they're receptive to male advances. You just have to keep trying. It's been a minute. Maybe she's changed her mind.
In fact it's a double case of illicit transference.
Trump only appeals to some Republicans because he is politically incorrect as well as a blank slate who has the benefit of no government voting record like governors or senators have. Every other politician running can be accused of flip flopping or not being conservative enough (whatever that means). But Trump suddenly becomes this savior for America yet he's a reality show star with opinions. Is that genuine? PT Barnum would be proud.
Blogger sinz52 said...
The question to each GOP candidate is: Are you going to try to expel all the illegal aliens currently residing in America?
There are only 3 credible answers to that question (as to many others):
YES
NO
I DON'T KNOW
Anything else is a dodge.
I disagree. Just look at their record. How are they fighting for that right now? Don't buy into any promises of what they will do. Look at what they are doing, and what they have done.
As an example, did you see what Carly said about Cruz and his attempt to shut down the government? She was opposed to what Cruz did.
We can look at their current and past actions to get our answers. We don't need to see if they are willing to make empty promises.
It's either the fallacy of the excluded middle or nothing, in my book.
Blogger Matt said...
Trump only appeals to some Republicans because he is politically incorrect as well as a blank slate who has the benefit of no government voting record like governors or senators have
If you think this is accurate, then you're not listening, or paying attention.
OK Quaestor, I see your point: Just because so many of our male presidents have controlled their urges is no reason to believe Carly can.
Gotcha.
Eric - I am just laughing at you now. Thanks for turning the sad frown upside down.
OpenID Livermoron said...
Eric - I am just laughing at you now. Thanks for turning the sad frown upside down.
Good for you. As they say, laughter is the best medicine.
Every month women are overcome by the biological desire to have children and abort them.
Science.
I am Laslo.
Well, thanks. Couldn't have done it without you. I look forward to your other rav...er...ramblings.
It's either the fallacy of the excluded middle or nothing, in my book.
You must mean the undistributed middle, and it ain't that.
Blogger Quaestor said...
It's either the fallacy of the excluded middle or nothing, in my book.
You must mean the undistributed middle, and it ain't that.
C'mon, that was funny.
OK Quaestor, I see your point: Just because so many of our male presidents have controlled their urges is no reason to believe Carly can.
Actually that's logical, validity is no guarantee of non-stupidity. The negation is just as valid, btw.
OK Quaestor, I see your point: Just because so many of our male presidents have controlled their urges is no reason to believe Carly can.
This does nothing to correct your original error, however.
The error is in your mind.
I've studied logic as well. The fallacy you state is informal and you are not using it accurately. And what a boring exchange. Quite pretentious, don't you think?
Are you always such a (I'll use latin) biggus dickus?
Enjoy!
I don't really see any benefit in Carly's jumping into the middle of this. If she thinks it will endear her to Democratic women, she's dreaming. All it's probably done is irritate Trump even more, encouraging him on the third-party path he really wants to take anyway.
If anything, I think a little less about Fiorina after this, and I see a lot of potential in her.
The notion that Donald Trump needs to be disappeared from the national stage is absurd (who is Erick Erickson anyways--I keep hearing a lot of fawning praise). So that was inappropriate of FOX.
If you look at the issues that Perot and Trump are/were most known for -- immigration and "that giant sucking sound" you see not just unrequited populism but populism with compound interest. The truth is that the media didn't give two shits about what any of the present Republican candidates said about jobs and immigration. If Trump were politically off'd, they could go back to not covering it. Until it rears its head again. Obama policy is Clinton policy is Sanders until shown otherwise.
Glad I Did not watch.
I figure no one asked what we might do with the politicized SerenePoliceState ensconced in the IRS, the EPA, the State Dept and Dept of Justice, etc. and when we might perp-walk the Lois Lerners of the world off a cliff? Did they ask about that?
No, instead we get the clutching of the prima donna drama, gotta hand it to trump, he can sure divert attention away from the conversation America needs to have.
Quaestor said...
I didn't see it as a tu quoque reply. The question she was responding to, at least in the terms she provided herself, was in essence Do female hormones disqualify a woman for high office?" the implication being estrogen can cloud the judgement, which may be true. However testosterone may also cloud the judgement. Perfect example: Bill Clinton's dalliance with Monica Lewinsky. If hormones disqualify women, other hormones disqualify men. Not a tu quoque, but a soundly reasoned argument.
I had missed Fiorina's dodge of the Kelly/Trump dispute. So, in Fiorina's view, it's possible for both men and women to be affected by hormones. Surely that means that journalists' judgements could be clouded by hormones as well -- vindicating Trump! It's also a given that business moguls' judgements can be affected by hormones as well, vindicating the public.
Equal opportunity impairment.
Carly doesn't come across to me as pearl-clutching. She seems quite in command of every interview she's had and I'm quite confident Putin wouldn't be able to give her any crap. Did you see her cool stick the shiv in Chris Matthews?
Donald Trump is such a narcissistic jackass that any woman who asks him a tough question must be on the rag. He needs to go away.
Quaestor, my view is that Carly did the necessary work at HP to clear out the deadwood and position the company for the dominant position they have in servers right now. She ruffled feathers and was released but my belief is that she was a pretty good CEO. In fairness she ignored the share price in favor of a management blitzkrieg but overall, it worked.
I still have yet to subject myself to the "debate".
But it seems Kasich trumped it with the douchiest line.
Livermore wrote: I've studied logic as well.
If you wrote this: "And if Bill Clinton couldn't control his hormones then why would we expect a woman to be different?," which you did. And if you think this is anything other than a case of fallacious reasoning from the particular to the general, which it is, then you flunked.
So does Caitlin make it only superficially better?
And if Bill Clinton couldn't control his hormones then why would we expect a woman to be different?
Isn't a big reason for this moral equivalency the reasoning put forth by CF?
Jack Wayne, she nearly destroyed the company by grossly overpaying for Compaq, which was in a commodity business with low margins. Like a lot of vain CEOs, she wanted to run a "big" company without actually caring whether it was a profitable company. In doing so she placed her vanity ahead of her stockholders.
Yeah, condescending dickhead is what we need as President.
What the hell happened to Kasich?
People are upset that Trump won't promise to not run third party should he not win. If Kasich or Bush wins, I won't vote Republican either.
What exactly do you think you know about Compaq?
The person who apologizes to or for Megyn Kelly, is not the person who will become the POTUS. Someone made the fair point that Trump might have charmed her instead of blowing through her, but the one thing he can not do is let words like "sorry" leave his lips. (Unless he really is sorry, which he should not be for despising such as O'Donnell.) He should not make pro forma apologies to gain peace. He will get none. This is an issue for children. He will rise or fall on other merits.
Kasich said about women the thing we like to say about ourselves, no? How women wouldn't send people to war? All the blather we see about the female Senators getting along so well?
Calling other women our "sisters"?
Saying our menstrual blood running down our legs during a marathon is an important statement?
Nichevo said... [hush][hide comment]
The correct answer as always is,
Hey Kels, we have airtime rolling at $1,000,000 a second and you want to talk about Playtex? Aren't you ashamed of yourself? Let's get one thing straight, I'm never going to be responsible for what someone else says. Putin isn't interested in your stompy feet gotchas. Neither is the law of compound interest. Now would you like to ask important questions, like about the economy or Iran? Or shall I just talk to fill in the time while you sit there and look pretty/ intelligent/interested? I don't actually need you to communicate with the American people. I just need the camera rolling. You can go and powder your nose if you want.
8/9/15, 1:18 PM
I would actually pay to see that happen on live TV!
rhhardin said...
Unlike black issues, where whites no longer care what blacks think, so ridiculous has that become, men care what women think. Whites no longer credit blacks' ideas of morality, but they do credit women's.
But it's an accommodating caring, not a caring caring. It's seen as an interesting women's position different from their own, part of life.
8/9/15, 6:03 PM
Mighty broad brush you got, there with a nice dash of condensention thrown in on the end for good measure.
All the blather we see about the female Senators getting along so well?
And he sells it as a positive. Because what I want is Republicans and Democrats being buddies. No bad ideas can come from that.
Phil said:
"When I mentioned to my wife the "blood coming out of whatever" comment, I asked (and that was the first she'd heard of it) what she thought "whatever" meant."
Did she hear it/react that way in the debate or based on you conveying it to her?
Because first of, the offending word was "wherever" and secondly, there was a pause in his actual delivery that to many suggests he was just reaching for words to extend the metaphor. No one gets the latter when it's put in print or repeated without it.
But the real issue here is a high level Foxite invoking the "War on women" as foundational and not SJW/Left/Dem power grab. I guess here as well...the debate is over.
Did Phil's wife react to that premise?
[Perot] wasn't wrong and you or anyone else has yet to make a convincing case that he would have been a bad president.
Other than that Mr. Perot was paranoid and batshit crazy, he'd have made a fine president.
Yes, I am seeing - it's coming theough - that Kasich has what I guess can be called intellectual limitations. He really has no insight into anything. A pity becauyse he sounds like good person.
His answer in the debate when he spoke on mental illness was really stupid or ignorant.
"treatment" wouldn't save money, it would cost money. It wouldn't cure. Medication doesn't make it possible for people to function - just the opposite. Plus maybe giving them heart disease - a little known fact. None of it is help, because "help" is what is appreciated, although maybe it may be of some help to others they annoy.
Kasich seems to just believe anything he's told. I don't think he's right about the budget, either. He claims he balanced the federal budget!
He didn't - economic growth did that, and he didn't cause that either.
His analysis of why Donald Trump has some popularity was maybe more disngenuous, than stupid, though. One of the things he's hitting a nerve for is because he is echoing some unconraducted propaganda.
Jeb Bush flounders around too.
That shoold be "uncontradicted propaganda."
Neither Kasich nor Bush understand what's going on and the twosts and turns of the argument.
If course not too many other people do, either. Either they don't understand the underlying facts, or they don't understand what it is that people believe.
People either think Donald Trump is right or that he's making it up about what he's being told by members of the Border Patrol about the Mexican government sending criminals. He's not - the union members are lying.
Trump didn't finsh the sentence because he had a senior moment. (which he won't admit to)
He forgot what goes with blood coming out of the eyes.
Hours later, he came up with ears - and then finally remembered - the NOSE.
Nichevo said...8/10/15, 7:10 AM
the one thing he [Donald Trump] can not do is let words like "sorry" leave his lips.
That's something he learned from Bill Clinton.
Especially the word "apologize"
The same thing happened to Donald Trump that happened to Rick Perry in a debate the last time around, when Rick Perry couldn't remember what was the third federal agency he wanted to eliminate.
"Trump didn't finsh the sentence because he had a senior moment. (which he won't admit to)"
So..if someone who is above age __ forgets something, it's a senior moment.
Therefore someone below age __ who does the same is having a junior moment.
This kind of thinking reminds me of some interactions with a few millenials on various topics. If you point out the error is their thinking and they know you are older than them, they will claim you are just too old to understand/keep up as opposed to defending their point with substance.
So..if someone who is above age __
50. Fifty is the age usually given as the boundary line for this sort of thing.
forgets something, it's a senior moment.
That's what we call it, because it gets more common. It means forgetting a word.
Therefore someone below age __ who does the same is having a junior moment.
No. Someone below that age may be under the weather.
Or suspected of having a serious disease - or at least a cold..
While for aomeone older, it is not a sign of a big problem. It is after all, a senior moment
Or.."people" forget just because...
(like pressure of a campaign, being interviewed and recorded)
AReasonableMan said...
Achilles said...
The right doesn't believe in no standards of decency, it believes in (sometimes)reasonable standards that are evenly applied.
Sebastian said...
Opposing political correctness does not entail approving the antics of a rude buffoon
"So some forms of political correctness, sorry decency, are fine. You and the Republican establishment will be the sole arbiters of where this line falls. If liberals place this line somewhere else then they are being politically correct and killing discourse in this great nation of ours?"
Way to dodge the second paragraph. I will post it again because it addresses your post:
"For Hillary Clinton or anyone in the democrat party and their supporters to even mention feminism or try to use the word misogyny to describe anyone else is a complete joke. She is married to an abuser and a rapist. She worked to destroy the lives of multiple women who were abused and wronged by her husband who has spent his time out of office banging under aged girls on a donor's private jet."
Hil' can get the "feminist" vote regardless of history, character or deeds.
"It's about the Vagina, stupid"
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा