Will Trump's poor-taste jab at Fox News anchor cool him in the polls?

This guy has no class whatsoever. Must be why the nasty wing of the GOP likes him so much ...

In a series of interviews on Sunday, Donald Trump insisted that he did not imply that menstruation caused Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly to question him aggressively during Thursday’s Republican presidential debate.

Trump declined any offer of a chance to apologize for the remark, and instead sought to focus attention on Jeb Bush, the establishment favorite, for remarks he made about federal spending on women’s health this week.

The latest Trump controversy began on Friday night, when he said in an interview with CNN that Kelly had “blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever” while she questioned him at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, on issues including his past statements about women.

Speaking to CNN again on Sunday, the real-estate mogul and poll frontrunner recited his academic credentials and asked: “Do you think I’d make a stupid statement like that?”

Most people did think so – and the comment prompted an immediate backlash on the right. The conservative radio host Erick Erickson revoked an invitation to appear at the RedState Gathering, a major conference of conservative activists in Atlanta.

In a late-night interview on Friday, Erickson said that when he approached the Trump campaign for clarification, it “wouldn’t deny” that the comment was about menstruation. In Erickson’s opinion, the remark “crossed a line of decency no one running for president should ever cross, whether you are a professional or amateur politician”.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/09/donald-trump-refuses-to-apologise-megyn-kelly

Well women are little horrors when they have PMT

I don't know if it's because I'm thick-skinned (or just thick?) but what's the big deal here?
That he said she was a bit aggressive because she was on a period?

Ben_Reilly wrote:This guy has no class whatsoever. Must be why the nasty wing of the GOP likes him so much ...

In a series of interviews on Sunday, Donald Trump insisted that he did not imply that menstruation caused Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly to question him aggressively during Thursday’s Republican presidential debate.

Trump declined any offer of a chance to apologize for the remark, and instead sought to focus attention on Jeb Bush, the establishment favorite, for remarks he made about federal spending on women’s health this week.

The latest Trump controversy began on Friday night, when he said in an interview with CNN that Kelly had “blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever” while she questioned him at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, on issues including his past statements about women.

Speaking to CNN again on Sunday, the real-estate mogul and poll frontrunner recited his academic credentials and asked: “Do you think I’d make a stupid statement like that?”

Most people did think so – and the comment prompted an immediate backlash on the right. The conservative radio host Erick Erickson revoked an invitation to appear at the RedState Gathering, a major conference of conservative activists in Atlanta.

In a late-night interview on Friday, Erickson said that when he approached the Trump campaign for clarification, it “wouldn’t deny” that the comment was about menstruation. In Erickson’s opinion, the remark “crossed a line of decency no one running for president should ever cross, whether you are a professional or amateur politician”.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/09/donald-trump-refuses-to-apologise-megyn-kelly

Probably the last thing Trump needs to do is to upset Fox, they would have been his biggest cheerleader

eddie wrote:I don't know if it's because I'm thick-skinned (or just thick?) but what's the big deal here?
That he said she was a bit aggressive because she was on a period?

Who said she was on her period?  I've seen no facts to substantiate that, and if there were it's none of our business.  If it were any of our business, we would be sniffing the arse of every woman we pass.

Trump was just using an insulting metaphor toward women to strike back at a person who happens to be a woman.  I could as easily call Trump an excessively mad-masturbater, because of his intense obsession with sexual matters and mindless intensity.

Jibes about physical characteristics of women are no different that jibes about skin color of races, or gay affectations.  Nor does it make it better to urge that 'I have lots of them working for me', as if they make nice pets.

I think discussing her menstrual cycle demeans her profressionalism further.

She doesn't seem to think it's a point of focus, so why should anyone else.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:I think discussing her menstrual cycle demeans her profressionalism further.

She doesn't seem to think it's a point of focus, so why should anyone else.

In order to excoriate her.  Trump wants to paint a picture of a smoke-filled back room, where the guys are crude and girls don't belong...where real political decisions are made away from brainless, pretty little girls.  That way he degrades her, and disqualifies her bona fides at the same time.

I wouldn't support a person running for city council if he said a female reporter who asked tough questions must be on her period -- let alone running for president of the United States.

That mentality is supposed to be discarded at around age 13.

There's a huge difference between being a straight-shooter and being crass.

Yet men think it all the time if they're honest!!
Come on! Who here, has been in a relationship and been on the receiving end of a woman's sharp tongue or bad mood and not thought "I think she's due a period she might have pmt..."

If you haven't ever thought it you're a liar and if you haven't ever asked her outright you're probably a little gutless tbh.

Women do get tetchy when they're due on sometimes - some worse than others. He shouldn't have said it but it's not the end of the flipping world!

eddie wrote:Yet men think it all the time if they're honest!!
Come on! Who here, has been in a relationship and been on the receiving end of a woman's sharp tongue or bad mood and not thought "I think she's due a period she might have pmt..."

If you haven't ever thought it you're a liar and if you haven't ever asked her outright you're probably a little gutless tbh.

Women do get tetchy when they're due on sometimes - some worse than others. He shouldn't have said it but it's not the end of the flipping world!

I disagree. I think it is a sexist way of marginalizing women...and no man really believes it.

We see it all the time: if someone gives a good argument, we switch to assaulting the person. Its a common practice of men (little boys, as Ben says) to respond to a woman who makes a good point....Oh, she's just on the rag!

As one matures, one abandons such sandbox tactics. Trump, obviously, is so surrounded by yes-men that he need not grow up. He was expecting chuckling and a few nudges from his buddies I guess. He still maintains it was a legitimate joke.

But that's Republicans. They are comprised of flawed personalities. Republican racists still tell black jokes (what was the name of Gov. Perry's hunting lodge--Niggerhead?). Republican sexist still tell jokes demeaning to women.

What a load of bollocks!

Women themselves will often admit that they feel very irritable when due on a period and often will,act irrationally.
Are you telling me that it doesn't cross your mind when your significant other does this, now or in the past, that you haven't secretly put it down to a period??

Would love another woman's opinion in this

eddie wrote:What a load of bollocks!

Women themselves will often admit that they feel very irritable when due on a period and often will,act irrationally.
Are you telling me that it doesn't cross your mind when your significant other does this, now or in the past, that you haven't secretly put it down to a period??

Trump is not a woman.  And does it make it any better if women demean women, or blacks demean blacks?  Or, for that matter, if Poles joke about Poles?  Does that make it all right?

I am really not concerned about what motivates a good argument or debating point; a good argument or point stands apart from it's proponent.  The reason I stay away from those concerns is that interest in motives often itself hides prejudices.  This is a case in point.

There is a fine line between incorporating motives into a discussion, and trying to demean someone amid a discussion.  Most often it is done for the latter.  Trump is sloppy in his language and tone, and Megyn Kelly caught him up on that.  He had no answer except a cheap, sexist retort.  Everyone saw the same thing.

We don't need to discuss whether women get testy on their periods, because that was not what it was all about.

Well you sidestepped that one rather clumsily.

I'll,take it that you do, but really don't want to admit it Quill.
You like to think you behave and think perfectly and have no bad "side", don't you?
I don't get that.

There's nothing wrong with thinking it or even saying it. Seriously. Get over the polishing of your halo quill! We know you're a nice bloke!
It's really okay to get irritated and annoyed sometimes!

eddie wrote:Would love another woman's opinion in this

Happy to oblige.  Trump is a misogynist disgusting lump of dog do, who reportedly raped Ivana Trump when they were married.  His lawyer says that it's not illegal to rape your wife in New York, it is, but she won't press charges.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trumps-lawyer-claims-you-cant-rape-your-spouse-after-ivana-trump-historic-rape-allegations-resurface-10420553.html

Sorry, I have to say he was way out of line here. She asked him about his long history of making disparaging remarks about women's looks -- I think female American voters have a right to have someone ask him that question, given that he wants to run our country and more than half of it is female.

His puerile response shows how poorly he handles even valid criticism -- we expect the leader of our country to be a bit more diplomatic than your average boyfriend or husband who's feeling put upon.

The last time we elected ("elected") a president who popped off at the mouth like that without understanding the weight of his words due to his position, we inflicted George W. Bush upon the world.

sassy wrote:

eddie wrote:Would love another woman's opinion in this

Happy to oblige.  Trump is a misogynist disgusting lump of dog do, who reportedly raped Ivana Trump when they were married.  His lawyer says that it's not illegal to rape your wife in New York, it is, but she won't press charges.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trumps-lawyer-claims-you-cant-rape-your-spouse-after-ivana-trump-historic-rape-allegations-resurface-10420553.html

Oh I'm not defecting him! I don't even like him.
I'm just saying that everyone is making a hoo-ha over his remark and most men have thought something similar themselves. Just because I dislike someone doesn't mean I won't see the real situation.

That was what I wanted an opinion on.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Sorry, I have to say he was way out of line here. She asked him about his long history of making disparaging remarks about women's looks -- I think female American voters have a right to have someone ask him that question, given that he wants to run our country and more than half of it is female.

His puerile response shows how poorly he handles even valid criticism -- we expect the leader of our country to be a bit more diplomatic than your average boyfriend or husband who's feeling put upon.

That's a more direct and honest answer, I guess.

eddie wrote:

sassy wrote:

Happy to oblige.  Trump is a misogynist disgusting lump of dog do, who reportedly raped Ivana Trump when they were married.  His lawyer says that it's not illegal to rape your wife in New York, it is, but she won't press charges.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trumps-lawyer-claims-you-cant-rape-your-spouse-after-ivana-trump-historic-rape-allegations-resurface-10420553.html

Oh I'm not defecting him! I don't even like him.
I'm just saying that everyone is making a hoo-ha over his remark and most men have thought something similar themselves. Just because I dislike someone doesn't mean I won't see the real situation.

That was what I wanted an opinion on.

Realise that Eddie, just pointing out how far his misogyny goes.

eddie wrote:Well you sidestepped that one rather clumsily.

I'll,take it that you do, but really don't want to admit it Quill.
You like to think you behave and think perfectly and have no bad "side", don't you?
I don't get that.

There's nothing wrong with thinking it or even saying it. Seriously. Get over the polishing of your halo quill! We know you're a nice bloke!
It's really okay to get irritated and annoyed sometimes!

Well, you don't like me personally. What a surprise. Start a thread on it separately.

Here we are discussing Donald Trump and the mini-episode with Megyn Kelly. Megyn called Trump out on his demeaning attitude toward women, and then he dug the hole deeper by showing that it was true. He wasn't discussing health issues with Dr. Nancy Snyderman, after all.

Yes he's a creep.
The type of person who thinks having a lot of money means he untouchable.

I just get a bit peeved at people who judge others for something they have no doubt, done themselves openly or covertly.

eddie wrote:Yes he's a creep.
The type of person who thinks having a lot  of money means he untouchable.

I just get a bit peeved at people who judge others for something they have no doubt, done themselves openly or covertly.

The man is interviewing for a job...the job of leader of the free world and the most powerful military in the world.  He is not just opining as 'one of the boys'.  He's not just one of those "who judge others".

Different thread. Different subject.

He's an idiot who should try shopping in Tesco's.

The pundits are beginning to say what I've been saying for years: Republicans are a different product, not just a different brand.

In trying to figure out the Trump phenomenon, the pundits are beginning to suggest that Republicans are different kinds of animals.  

I have been suggesting for years that while Democrats treat politics as rational problem solving, Republicans treat politics with more bestial instincts...patriotism, chest beating, knee-jerking.  They think in symbols and not in objective terms.

This also explains his popularity despite the lack of detailed programs and policies.  "Republicans are of the sort that don't get bogged down by details," one supporter noted.  But what for some is the "broad brush", is for others lack of critical thinking.

Doesn't this describe Republicans and conservatives to a tee?  I mean: First to war, last to understand why!  Lots of marching and flag waving, but little understanding beneath the symbolism?  These are people who want to be on vacation.

Another point goes to what John Stuart Mill said long ago: "I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant that stupid persons are generally Conservative."  The lack of critical thinking might, for some, be seen as stupidity.  Others might simply call it 'intellectually lazy'.  But whatever the causal theory, Republicans elect to follow symbols rather than reasoning it through.

That is being raised to explain Donald Trump.  Republicans don't want to think about what he says, or the implications; they long for a belief...a one-dimensional symbol that will make it all so simplistic: Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers; all women are on the rag; Obama wasn't born in America.

All I can add to that is that they also have a tribal defense mechanism to handle criticism such as yours -- well, you're just an egghead elitist; we're the "real Americans" who don't understand all them fancy words and don't want to!

Ben_Reilly wrote:All I can add to that is that they also have a tribal defense mechanism to handle criticism such as yours -- well, you're just an egghead elitist; we're the "real Americans" who don't understand all them fancy words and don't want to!

But do you notice that they will never attempt to reason?  They stick to the realm of totems and slogans.  It requires little energy, and even less thinking.

Look...this is the pattern that got us into the Iraq war in the first place, leading to the blow-up of the entire Middle East.  Who was actually reasoning during the GWB administration?  They expressed themselves in terms of slogans: WMDs, appeasers, pre-emptive war and flip-floppers.  They were living in a world that was more fond of mispronouncing the term nu-que-ler than matching evidence to conclusions.

This is what play-acting gets you.  Slogans!  Symbols!  Scripts.  But no reality.  The reality is 10-years of war, and a completely destabilized Middle East.  The RW lives in a linguistic and perceptual milieu equivalent to cheap TV programming.

Trump is playing upon that element in the Republican Party.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:All I can add to that is that they also have a tribal defense mechanism to handle criticism such as yours -- well, you're just an egghead elitist; we're the "real Americans" who don't understand all them fancy words and don't want to!

But do you notice that they will never attempt to reason?  They stick to the realm of totems and slogans.  It requires little energy, and even less thinking.

Look...this is the pattern that got us into the Iraq war in the first place, leading to the blow-up of the entire Middle East.  Who was actually reasoning during the GWB administration?  They expressed themselves in terms of slogans: WMDs, appeasers, pre-emptive war and flip-floppers.  They were living in a world that was more fond of mispronouncing the term nu-que-ler than matching evidence to conclusions.

This is what play-acting gets you.  Slogans!  Symbols!  Scripts.  But no reality.  The reality is 10-years of war, and a completely destabilized Middle East.  The RW lives in a linguistic and perceptual milieu equivalent to cheap TV programming.

Trump is playing upon that element in the Republican Party.

They even think that they can create reality with these symbols and slogans:

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

-- first called an anonymous Bush aide, later revealed to be Karl Rove

Speaking of Rove, remember how much it seemed like he (and many other Republicans) thought they could dream a Romney victory into reality, if they just kept saying they knew he was going to win? It's a lot like prayer, if you think about it.

Very much like the Romney communications aide, Eric Fehrnstromon, who likened campaign promises to an etch-a-sketch game. At the next level, you simply erase and start over.

The myth of Trump’s angry legions

Trumpmania may be telling us a lot less about the dominant mood in the electorate at large than we think.

Voters of America: Get ahold of yourselves, please.
I know you’re irrational and seething with anger. I know this because I keep reading about it, in every somber piece of punditry about Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders or what’s going to drive the 2016 campaign. I hear it on my Twitter feed and in the fundraising emails that batter me all day long.

Apparently the entire country got hit with some kind of gamma ray, and now everybody’s all huge and green and hurling campaign buses willy-nilly across the highway.

Except that when I meet American voters, they don’t generally seem so unhinged to me. They mostly seem bewildered by our politics, and maybe a little too busy to care. Which makes me wonder if this whole year-of-the-angry-voter thing might be one of those instances where we think we’re seeing one thing, when really we’re seeing something else.

The chief exhibit in the case for voter rage, of course, is Trump. In case you haven’t heard, because maybe you’re all about Caitlyn Jenner and can fixate on only one attention-craved reality-TV star at a time, Trump is the clear frontrunner in the Republican field and the instrument of our blinding national outrage.

Also, just by the way, he’s phenomenal to the women.

Democrats and liberal commentators love the Trump story.

It underscores, at a glance, how twisted with bile and bigotry the Republican Party must be. The guy excoriates Mexicans and manages to make Megyn Kelly look sympathetic, and still he’s ahead! What does that tell you?

Maybe not as much as you think.

Yes, there’s a sizable segment of enraged voters in the GOP — and on the left, for that matter. The angry vote is a fixture of the modern political landscape and has been, more or less, since at least the 1970s.

But Trumpmania may be telling us a lot less about the dominant mood in the electorate at large than we think. As one of the more astute liberal bloggers, Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum, points out, Trump has been drawing the support of less than a quarter of Republican primary voters, who in turn make up less than a quarter of the voting public.

And not only are Trump’s mad-as-hell voters a fraction of a fraction of the electorate, but they represent even a subset of that small group who are engaged in the campaign at this point and angry enough to actually take a pollster’s call.

In other words, Trump’s summer surge tells you about as much about prevailing political attitudes in America as the line outside the Yogiberry tells you about the state of the American dairy industry.

Here’s something interesting to consider: According to the Pew Research Center, which to my mind does the best polling on public attitudes across a range of topics, anger in the American electorate actually peaked in 2013 (at about 30 percent), after Republicans in Washington decided to turn the budget process into a series of hostage crises. Since then, the number of voters who identify themselves as angry has actually dipped precipitously, to about 19 percent last year.

It’s also worth noting that, according to the latest data from the University of Michigan, consumer confidence in the economy — which is what voters are said to be most angry about — is considerably higher than it was a year or two ago.

- Yahoo News

What is your take on the Bernie Saunders situation with the Democrats now Quill?

eddie wrote:Would love another woman's opinion in this

I think it's crass eddie because the implication is that if a woman is a bit tetchy, it's just her hormones and she's over-reacting, but if a man is tetchy it's because he has good reason to be.

Then there's the "menopause" comments as well - just as crass IMO.

I think it's OK for women to joke about those things amongst themselves, but it's not OK for a man to make comments.

Eilzel wrote:What is your take on the Bernie Saunders situation with the Democrats now Quill?

Unfortunately, Sanders is a one-issue candidate.  He's onto the economics thing.  Because of the endless frontier, Americans did not get into the same thing as British socialists.  Americans were simple devotees to the micro market metaphor...which is one of the reason why Keynesian economics is not well understood in America.  (Republicans still argue for regressive taxes here in America.)

Besides socialism, Sanders has an image problem going against him.  He looks old and tired.  Americans are attracted to robust looking presidential candidates.  Americans go for guys with set jaws, cleft chins, guys like Kennedy, Nixon, especially Reagan...and even handsome George H.W. Bush looked good until he  opened his mouth.  Clinton was youth, as were Al Gore (who actually won) and John Kerry.  And of course Obama blew away the field with youth, handsomeness, athleticism and charisma...and throw in super intelligence.

Add to that, Hillary has really tied up the Democratic field.  With the clown show on the Republican Party side, almost any Democrat could win.  But, Trump, Cruz and Walker seem to be going out of their way to insult women.  That will do them in when the field opens up to all voters, not just Republicans.

I think Sanders is in it to pull some attention over, and onto the economic left. The 1%ers, corporate donations buying votes--which is really what has destroyed the Republican Party--and unemployment and the American workforce, even the TPP on the international front, are the issues he wants to highlight. He's like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who is a tough lawyer too. I like her. And I like Wendy Davis...tough, Texas Democrat, but originally from New England (West Warwick, Rhode Island) like me. Lol. Look for one of those to be Hillary's VP.

That would be a decent settlement, because although the GoP look hopeless I do think Hillary is a better bet with mainstream America than Saunders.