August în flăcări la Cleveland: Prima dezbatere republicană

CELE MAI CITITE

Adrian Papahagi: Basarabia în UE va fi de facto pe jumătate unită cu România

Razboiul Săbiilor de Fier

Anatol Șalaru: Referendumul este pentru R. Moldova o a doua independență față de Moscova. Securitatea României, nu mai începe la Prut, ci la Nistru

7 August 2015

Prima dezbatere a candidaților republicani la nominalizarea pentru alegerile prezidențiale din noiembrie 2016 s-a desfășurat în Cleveland, Ohio, și a beneficiat pentru prima dată de un „matineu”.Numărul mare de pretendenți a împiedicat organizarea unei dezbateri la care să fie invitați toți cei care doresc să reprezinte Partidul Republican în alegerile de anul viitor.

Prima parte, la care au participat cei opt candidați cu cea mai scăzută susținere în sondaje, a fost mult mai liniștită. Senatorul de South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, a fost probabil cel mai slab dintre toți politicienii prezenți; fostul Guvernator de Virginia, Jim Gilmore, a fost mai degrabă neconcludent; George Pataki, fost Guvernator de New York, ar fi fost mai potrivit pentru alegerile primare din Partidul Democrat.

Alți doi republicani au mai candidat și în urmă patru ani – fostul Guvernator al Texasului, Rick Perry, și fostul Senator de Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum. Ambii s-au comportat onorabil în dezbaterea de joi după-amiază, în special Santorum, dar au părut obosiți și este puțin probabil să urce în sondaje și să fie primiți între cei 10 candidați care vor fi invitați și la următoarele trei dezbateri din toamnă.

Doar Guvernatorul de Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, și mai ales Carly Fiorina, fost Chairman și CEO la Hewlett-Packard (care a cîștigat detașat conform tuturor sondajelor), au avut idei clare, coerente și consistente. Începînd cu 16 septembrie, îi vom vedea aproape sigur în grupul fruntaș al candidaților republicane, în locul câtorva dintre cei care nu au reușit să performeze în lupta care s-a dat între primii zece politicieni de pe partea dreaptă a politicii americane.

A doua parte a dezbaterii, cea a celor zece „grei”, a fost în schimb mult mai tumultuoasă. De vină au fost anumite fricțiuni notorii între principalii competitori, dar și moderatorii de la Fox News (Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly și Chris Wallace), destul de agresivi și deseori părtinitori. Și aici au existat candidați care s-au prezentat inconsistent. În primul rînd, Guvernatorul de Ohio (statul „gazdă” al dezbaterii) John Kasich, apoi senatorul de Kentucky Rand Paul (deseori coleric în urma unor altercații cu Donald Trump și Chris Christie). Surprinzător, dar oarecum așteptat, a fost comportamentul fostului Guvernator al Floridei, Jeb Bush. Cotat la început ca al doilea favorit din alegerile primare republicane, acesta se află în scădere accentuată în urma unor declarații nefericite pe mai multe subiecte, în special pe seama Planned Parenthood, principala organizație responsabilă de avorturi în Statele Unite. Încercările sale de a se prezenta ca un candidat conservator au fost stângace și este puțin probabil să fi reușit a-i convinge pe sceptici.

După părerea noastră, sub așteptări a fost și senatorul de Florida, Marco Rubio. Prestația sa a fost bună, dar are nevoie de mai mult pentru a reuși să rupă din susținătorii lui Jeb Bush și a se profila ca o alternativă onorabilă la Cruz și Walker. A avut dreptate însă când a subliniat calitatea candidaților republicani în raport cu democrații care și-au anunțat intenția de a se lupta pentru președinția SUA. Guvernatorul de New Jersey Chris Christie a evoluat suficient de bine, folosindu-se de tema securității naționale, dar e puțin probabil să-și continue ascensiunea în sondaje, căci este unul din cei trei „rinoceri”* din cursă, alături de Bush și Kasich. Veteranul Mike Huckabee a dat răspunsuri bune, deseori apreciate de public, mai ales în probleme precum avortul, „căsătoria” între homosexuali și nuclearizarea Iranului. Din păcate pentru Huckabee, sondajele arată că are resurse de creștere limitate.

* RINO – Republican In Name Only, Republican doar cu numele; poreclă acordată republicanilor liberali, din aripa de stânga a partidului, ostili ideilor conservatoare.

Urmează cei doi „nepoliticieni” ai dezbaterii, fostul neurochirurg Dr. Ben Carson și excentricul om de afaceri Donald Trump, care conducea în sondaje înaintea dezbaterii. Amândoi sunt candidați extrem de inteligenți, dar cu comportamente și firi opuse. Dr. Carson a dat permanent răspunsuri mult apreciate de toată lumea, dar pe un ton blînd, cu un limbaj al trupului care sugerează mai degrabă timiditate, o atitudine care ar putea părea nepotrivită cu funcția de comandant suprem al forțelor armate. În schimb, Donald Trump a fost agresiv, în conflict cu moderatorii și cu alți candidați, mai cu seamă cu Rand Paul și Jeb Bush. Nu a reușit să dovedească o cunoaștere mai adâncă a temelor avute în vedere, dar unele dintre răspunsurile sale dure au fost aplaudate de audiență.

Cei doi republicani despre care credem că au cîștigat puncte în partea a doua a primei dezbateri sînt Guvernatorul de Wisconsin, Scott Walker, și Senatorul de Texas, Ted Cruz. Walker a formulat răspunsuri în general corecte, dar nu a strălucit. De pildă, întrebarea despre violența comisă împotriva forțelor de ordine nu a primit un răspuns satisfăcător. Cruz, în puținul timp pe care l-a avut la dispoziție, a dovedit că este capabil să transmită un mesaj conservator bine articulat și este conștient de prioritățile pe care trebuie să le aibă un viitor președinte republican. Dacă nu ar fi fost ignorat în mod intenționat de moderatorii dezbateri, care au preferat să pună întrebări cheie unui Kasich, senatorul texan ar fi fost încă și mai convingător. Cert este că atât Walker, cât și Cruz sunt lideri competenți care merită urmăriți și în viitor.

Dezbaterile din interiorul Partidului Republican sînt abia la început, sita selecției în alegerile primare este extrem de deasă, dar nu putem trece cu vederea importanță pe care o lasă prima impresie. Ea este foarte importantă pentru uriașul număr de alegători americani, dintre care mulți nu sunt atât de pasionați de politică și i-au văzut aseară pentru prima dată pe republicanii care le solicită votul. Încercarea moderatorilor Fox News de a-l pune la colț pe Donald Trump a sfârșit însă prin a umbri dezbaterea și a concentrat discuțiile pe miliardarul american în detrimentul colegilor săi.

Au contribuit Pataphyl și Vlad M.

Redacţia

Conservatori români

Articol anterior Robert Conquest, RIP

Articol următor Polonia, antisemitismul şi stânga

18 Comments

Emil Borcean
8 August 2015
Dezbaterea tv de ieri, gazduita de Fox News, s-a bucurat de o audienta record pt astfel de eveninmente:

In the estimation of many reporters who cover the political and media beats, Fox News was the winner of the first GOP debate. And with the just-released ratings we can confirm that.

A whopping 24 million watched the debate from 9 p.m. ET to just past 11 p.m. ET. FNC drew 7.9 million in the A25-54 demo.

This is now the highest non-sports cable program of all time, the highest-rated cable news program of all time, and Fox News’s most-watched program ever.

The 5 p.m. ET debate, withe the 7 lower-tier candidates did very well for Fox News too, drawing 6.1 million total viewers and 1.2 million in the demo, making it the third-highest primary debate ever on cable.

In the 2012 cycle, the first GOP debate, also on Fox News, and airing much earlier — on May 5, 2011 — was watched by 3.258 million viewers. The most-watched primary debate drew 7.630 million on ABC on the night of Dec. 10, 2011.

Going back to the 2008 cycle, when, like this go-round, there were open Democratic and Republican tickets, the first GOP debate on Oct. 9, 2007, simulcast on MSNBC and CNBC, drew a combined 2.141 million. The most-watched GOP debate of that cycle was on ABC, when 7.350 million watched the Jan. 5, 2008 face-off.

Nielsen Social TV ratings ranked last night’s debate as the number one event on Twitter with 3.3 million tweets and 393 million impressions, beating Jon Stewart’s farewell episode. The debate, which was co-sponsored by Facebook, increased interactions on FNC’s Facebook page by +74 percent from a typical day in July. The 10 million Facebook video views were up +190 percent compared to the daily July 2015 average.

24 Million Watch GOP Debate on Fox News; Most-Watched Cable News Program Ever

Prezenta lui Trump si prestatia moderatorilor au contribuit mult la factorul “entertainment”, iar partea pozitiva este faptul ca de acest lucru au profitat cel mai mult restul candidatilor: expunerea lor mediatica a fost enorma, iar acest lucru nu poate decit sa fie de bun augur. Recordul de audienta inseamna si receptarea mesajelor din partea multor candidati Republicani de buna calitate.

Reply
Emil Borcean
8 August 2015
Despre Carly Fiorina:

Carly the Communicator

Reply
John Galt
8 August 2015
Who really won the #GOPDebate?

The number of shares, views and likes on FOXnews channel, facebook.

1. Ben Carson (5,988,256 Views – 365.000 likes, 86.000 shares)
2. Donald #Trump (1,566,193 Views – 93.000 likes – 9.700 shares)
2. Donald #Trump (3,220,513 Views – 89.000 likes – 27.800 shares)
3. Rand Paul and #Chris #Christie (539.000 Views – 7.000 likes – 2.874 shares)
4. Marco Rubio (468,373 Views – 30.360 likes – 4.500 shares)
5. Jeb Bush (294,037 Views – 6.700 likes – 660 shares)

After 24 hours the results speak for themselves. Ben Carson won by a landslide. That’s a bigger sample than any poll.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CL2ct2eUsAAm-AY.jpg:large

Reply
Daniel Francesco
8 August 2015
Dupa dezbarea “greilor”, Donald Trump a intrat in vizorul media pentru un comentariu neglijent si stupid la adresa moderatoarei Megyn Kelly de la Fox News:

You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her wherever.

Prima reactie a venit de la Erick Erickson care l-a eliminat pe Trump de la RedState Gathering, o importanta reuniune a activistilor conservatori sponsorizata de blogul Red State.

Donald Trump se facuse cunoscut in special pentru pozitia sa intransigenta cu privire la imigratia ilegala iar Huffington Post – The flagship of the Liberal news aggregator/ blog – titreaza cu vadita voiosie:

GOP Leaders Plan For The Donald’s Inevitable Demise

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-leaders-say-erratic-attacks-hurt-trump-but-he-vows-to-fight-and-win/2015/08/08/915a183c-3de6-11e5-8e98-115a3cf7d7ae_story.html?hpid=z1

Reply
Costin Andrieş
8 August 2015
Thomas Sowell:

With Hillary Clinton’s multiple misdeeds coming to light and causing her political problems, reflected in her declining support in the polls, both she and the Democratic Party have reason to be concerned. But both of them may yet be rescued by “The Donald,” who can turn out to be their Trump card.
Donald Trump has virtually no chance of becoming even the Republican Party’s candidate in 2016, much less being elected President of the United States.
The reason is not hard to understand: Republican voters simply do not trust him, as the polls show. Nor is there any reason why they should trust him, given his chameleon-like changes in the past.
//
36 percent of Republicans polled recently say that they would vote for Trump if he ran as a third-party candidate. That would virtually guarantee victory for Hillary Clinton. “The Donald” could definitely be the Democrats’ Trump card.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell080315.php3#C4DRQUCczK8uSHud.99

Jonah Goldberg despre Trump:

THE PUREST RINO

Which gets me back to the grifter thing. I’ve written many times about how I hate the term RINO because conservatives should consider themselves Republicans in Name Only. The Republican Party is a vessel, a tool for achieving conservative ends. It’s nothing more than a team. Conservatism is different. It’s a body of ideas, beliefs, and temperaments. The amazing thing is that Trump is both a RINO and a CINO. I’m sure he has some authentic and sincere conservative views down in there somewhere. But the idea that he’s more plausibly conservative — or more loyally Republican — than Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Scott Walker, or any of the others is just flatly absurd. It is vastly more plausible that he is a stalking horse for his dear friend Hillary Clinton than he is a sincere conservative. Trump supporters need an intervention. I want to sit them down at the kitchen table, reach into a manila envelope, and pull out the proof that he’s a fraud. The conversation would go something like this: Immigration: You seem to think he’s an immigration hardliner, and he’s certainly pretending to be. But why can’t you see through it? He condemned Mitt Romney as an immigration hardliner in 2012 and favored comprehensive immigration reform. He told Bill O’Reilly he was in favor of a “path to citizenship” for 30 million illegal immigrants: Trump: You have to give them a path. You have 20 million, 30 million, nobody knows what it is. It used to be 11 million. Now, today I hear it’s 11, but I don’t think it’s 11. I actually heard you probably have 30 million. You have to give them a path, and you have to make it possible for them to succeed. You have to do that. Question: Just how many rapists and drug dealers did Donald Trump want to give green cards to? Abortion: In 1999 he said, “I’m totally pro-choice. I hate it and I hate saying it. And I’m almost ashamed to say that I’m pro-choice but I am pro-choice because I think we have no choice.” Man, it’s like he’s channeling Thomas Aquinas there. Now he says he’s pro-life. But I’ll spare the mocking on this because at least he’s flip-flopping in the right direction, and I don’t like to second guess peoples’ professed religious convictions. Obamacare: The man wrote in his own book and said elsewhere that he was in favor of Canadian-style socialized medicine — which would put him to the left of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and on pretty much the same page as Bernie Sanders. Hillary: Speaking of her, Trump praised Hillary Clinton and her health-care reform plan — in 2007! She attended his (most recent) wedding. He donated to her campaigns and to the Clinton Foundation. In 2008, he couldn’t get his head around the fact that Obama didn’t pick her for VP. “I’m a big fan of Hillary. She’s a terrific woman. She’s a friend of mine.” Economics: People tout the guy’s business record. But he represents almost exactly what his supporters think he opposes. He’s a crony capitalist par excellence. He gives to whatever politician can grease the skids for his next deal — and he makes no apologies for it. He’s an eminent-domain voluptuary. He abuses bankruptcy laws like a stack of homemade get-out-of-jail-free cards.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421045/donald-trump-fraud

Reply
Vlad M.
8 August 2015
In Statele Unite ale Americii exista zeci de milioane de imigranti ilegali si problema cea mai mare a lui Goldberg e stilul lui Trump? Ridicol. E cu atat mai ridicol cu cat moderatorii de la Fox au fost in mod evident mult mai ostili lui Trump decat altor candidati.

Donald Trump ar fi terminat politic daca Partidul Republican ar acorda problemei imigratiei ilegale un sfert din atentia pe care o ofera pacatelor acestui miliardar. Nu o face insa – si de aceea Trump are sustinatori. Pentru ca s-au saturat de politicieni care nu sunt in stare nici macar sa securizeze granita de sud a SUA si s-au saturat sa li se spuna ca sunt fara inima/ rasisti numai pentru ca nu vor ca legile tarii Sa fie aparate. It’s that simple.

Reply
Vlad M.
8 August 2015
FNC debate moderators: ‘Oh, the cleverness of me’

Millions of conservatives were looking forward to the GOP debate like kids waiting for a new Avengers film. Sick to death of leftist moderators going after Republican candidates with malicious intent, this debate was going to be different. With the moderators being from Fox, this debate would be classy and substantive. There would be none of Stephanopoulos’s trick questions meant to destroy, like when he asked Romney if he thought birth control should be legal. Chris Wallace has a lefty bent and, like his father, can be quite arrogant, but Bret Baier is one of the best in the business. And Megyn Kelly, whom we’ve watched since she was Megyn Kendall, is usually incisive and elegant.

Our fantasy was not to be. Right out of the box, Kelly asked Trump a lowbrow question that belied someone’s many hours of opposition research. The tone was instantly set. This debate was going to be like a tacky reality show, unworthy of the candidates, with the possible exception of Trump. Fox was going to take out Trump with glee while 24 million people watched. They were so proud, and they stooped to his level to do it. Rather than let him betray his own ignorance on legitimate topics, like how he would actually secure the border or how he would fix health care or his knowledge of the Constitution, they went for the low-info voter, trigger-warning crowd with a question about name-calling.

The whole fiasco was pathetic. Rather than something like “What do think about Obama’s Iran deal?” or “Should Planned Parenthood be defunded?” with an opportunity for the candidate to have a few minutes to reply, the questions were often convoluted and sometimes longer than the time allowed for an answer. The moderators were so delighted with their own brilliance that the spectacle was reminiscent of Peter Pan’s “Oh, the cleverness of me.” So convinced were they of their own importance that they took up most of the on-camera time themselves.

They ignored Ted Cruz as much as possible. His reputation as a good debater would give him an edge. Can’t have that. Ben Carson, too. Too good, too soft-spoken. Can’t be seen beating him up. Jerry Springer-like, they got Christie and Rand to shout each other down. Kasich got the questions designed to thrill the NYT and CNN.

In short, the debate might as well have been moderated by Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, and Lawrence O’Donnell.

Reply
Costin Andrieş
8 August 2015
Nu stilul lui Trump e pb lui Goldberg

You seem to think he’s an immigration hardliner, and he’s certainly pretending to be. But why can’t you see through it? He condemned Mitt Romney as an immigration hardliner in 2012 and favored comprehensive immigration reform. He told Bill O’Reilly he was in favor of a “path to citizenship” for 30 million illegal immigrants: Trump: You have to give them a path. You have 20 million, 30 million, nobody knows what it is. It used to be 11 million. Now, today I hear it’s 11, but I don’t think it’s 11. I actually heard you probably have 30 million. You have to give them a path, and you have to make it possible for them to succeed. You have to do that.

Reply
Costin Andrieş
8 August 2015
Privit de departe, Trump poate parea un papagal caraghios, cel putin asa il vedeam eu, dar privind mai atent, e sinistru, mai sinustru ca fiul lui rompol

“Ca preşedinte, cred că m-aş înţelege foarte bine cu Vladimir Putin”, a spus Donald Trump, între două partide de golf în Scoţia, scrie Digi 24.
„Cred că m-aş înţelege foarte bine cu Vladimir Putin. Aceasta e părerea mea. Oamenii mă vor întreba ce vreau să spun, vreau să spun că ne-am înţelege bine”, a spus Donald Trump.

Reply
Vlad M.
8 August 2015
Daca nu stilul lui Trump e problema, ci fondul, de ce Goldberg scrie despre Donald Trump si nu despre Jeb Bush? Fostul guvernator din Florida este cat se poate de flexibil in opiniile sale politice si sociale. Hai sa fim seriosi, fondul n-are nici o legatura. Goldberg, ca multi alti comentatori din partea republicana (foarte multi dintre cei de la National Review, un site care l-a eliminat pe Mark Steyn pentru erezie), vor ca anumiti candidati sa fie scosi din cursa. Acum e Trump pentru ca asta are un discurs anti-imigratie, nationalist, anti-elite etc. Dupa ce Trump va fi eliminat, vor urma altii pentru ca in final sa ramana cine „merita” – adica Jeb Bush, Romney 2.0, McCain 3.0. E o reluare a campaniei din 2012. „Trebuie sa alegem un moderat care sa ne permita sa organizam o campanie centrista cu care vom castiga alegerile prezidentiale.” Ca in 2008 si 2012.

Cat despre treaba cu Vladimir Putin, e mult mai simpla de atat. Trump crede ca daca esti un tip puternic, esti respectat de adversarii tai, si acest respect te ajuta sa obtii mult mai usor ceea ce doresti decat daca esti dispretuit. De aceea spune ca s-ar intelege cu Putin.

Businessman and 2016 GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump says if he’s elected president, Russian President Vladimir Putin would turn over former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.

“If I’m president, Putin says ‘hey, boom — you’re gone’ — I guarantee you that,” Mr. Trump said in an interview with CNN.

Mr. Trump called Mr. Snowden, who faces Espionage Act charges for his role in leaking information about the NSA’s phone-snooping program, a “total traitor” and said he “would deal with him harshly.”

“And if I were president, Putin would give him over. I would get along with Putin. I’ve dealt with Russia,” Mr. Trump said.

“He would never keep somebody like Snowden in Russia — he hates [President] Obama; he doesn’t respect Obama. Obama doesn’t like him either. But he has no respect for Obama, has a hatred for Obama, and Snowden is living the life,” he said.

Normal ca s-ar intelege cu Tarul. Putin, ca si Trump, crede ca puterea te ajuta sa negociezi. Din punctul asta de vedere, Trump e mai sanatos la cap decat tot Partidul Democrat.

Reply
Vlad M.
8 August 2015
Mark Levin: The big Fox News debate ‘wasn’t a debate, it was a REALITY SHOW’

Levin claims that “We the people” were overlooked in the debate, and the event became a media spectacle with more emphasis on the show’s moderators than on discussing the important issues that face America. “Even today, it’s all about who has Megyn Kelly’s back. We the people, this is our process. We don’t get that many opportunities to go through the primary process. There are only nine debates,” he said.

“The Great One” pointed out that Fox had an opportunity to host one of these important debates, “And they took advantage of us, they took advantage of the audience.” Levin explained that Kelly”s “question two,” accusing Donald Trump of making inappropriate comments to Rosie O’Donnell and others, “was outrageous.” Levin suggested that Fox went to great lengths to engage in “oppositional research” on Mr. Trump.

“This isn’t a matter of who I support but a matter of basic fairness and what a debate is to be like,” he clarified.

Levin complained that Fox sifted through 185 shows and 14 seasons of Trump’s Apprentice and Celebrity Apprentice to come up with “a line that they had to take out of context about some lady on her knees. He didn’t tell her to get on her knees, They brought it up to him. He responded to it, but not in a sexual context.”

The conservative author expressed sincere disgust with Megyn Kelly for pointing to that incident as an example of misogyny. Levin said that Kelly was a “lawyer, she was law review, and she should know better.” He admitted that he blames Fox News management more than Kelly for the outrageous question. He said Fox turned the gathering into a “National Enquirer Debate, and not a Republican Debate.”

Si acum un comentariu (inca unul) pe National Review.

Atlanta — Ted Cruz praised Megyn Kelly in a gaggle with reporters Satuday, but declined to say anything negative about Donald Trump or address the comments Trump made about Kelly. “That was a decision for RedState to make,” Cruz said of RedState Gathering host Erick Erickson disinviting Trump from the event. “I think every candidate should treat everyone else with civility and respect. That’s the standard I try to follow, it’s a standard I hope all of us aspire to. I also think that we’re not gonna solve the problems in this country, we’re not gonna defeat the Washington cartel by obsessing over the politics of personalities. This is about real challenges facing the American people. This is about bankrupting our kids and grandkids, defending the bill of rights, and restoring America’s leadership in the world. That’s where my focus has been and it’s where I intend to keep it.” Asked to directly address the comments, Cruz praised Kelly, calling her “a terrific journalist.” “I think she does a great job; I think she did a very good job moderating the debate,” he said. ”And I’m not gonna engage in the back and forth on personalities.” And with that, Cruz shamelessly changed the subject. “Let me give you a story that is infinitely more important than the momentary bickering between different political candidates, which is what has happened with Gen. Soleimani,” Cruz said, and continued to discourse on the subject for several minutes.

Cam asa sta treaba cu comentatorii „dreptei”. Daca nu urmezi linia partidului, esti nerusinat.

Reply
Vlad M.
8 August 2015
Rush Limbaugh: The Orders to Take Out Trump Must Have Gone to Fox, Not the Other Candidates

RUSH: It was just 24 hours ago, ladies and gentlemen — a mere 24 hours ago — that I was behind this very Golden EIB Microphone informing you that I had come across a bit of news. The bit of news was that big-time Republican donors had ordered to take out Donald Trump in the debate last night.

We all made a mistake. We assumed that the orders went out to the candidates. But the candidates did not make one move toward taking Donald Trump out. The broadcast network did; the candidates didn’t. I mean, let’s review. The first question from Megyn Kelly to Trump was, “You’ve called women fat slobs, pigs, whatever,” and he said, “No, just Rosie O’Donnell.” The place starts laughing and so forth, but she’s not amused, and she tells him, “No, it’s more than that.”

P.S. Pana si Joe Scarborough de la stangistul MSNBC a observat circul de la Fox.

Morning Joe mocks Fox: ‘Donald Trump, do you beat your wife when you’re drunk?’

Savagely mocking Fox News moderators who have taken criticism over their handling of last night’s GOP debate, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough scored laughs this morning when posing pretend questions to the candidates.

With a stadium announcer’s voice, Scarborough asked, “Donald Trump, do you beat your wife when you’re drunk?” Then, with his best Megyn Kelly impression, Joe threw a softball at Marco Rubio.

The entire exchange is found below in the clip, along with a partial transcript provided by the Media Equalizer:

SCARBOROUGH: [mock Madison Square Garden announcer’s voice] ‘And now the next question to Marco Rubio- Donald Trump, do you beat your wife when you’re drunk?’ [laughter] And now the next question to Marco Rubio [mock female voice]: Hi, how do you help entrepreneurs? [unclear] [laughter]

Al, you’ve seen a lot of these debates, there was no doubt these moderators were treating Donald Trump to much different standard than anybody else!

AL HUNT: Yeah, they were, there was an imbalance, and they really, I thought the questions to Trump were fair, they were tough, I thought the questions to the others were the kind of softballs Bryce Harper [Nationals baseball player] should wish for any day!

Reply
Costin Andrieş
8 August 2015
Trump nu vrea sa il puna la punct, ce vrea sa obtina de la Putin e altceva – sa faca afaceri in Rusia, deci cu Putin. Daca pot fi numite afaceri.

“Putin has no respect for our president whatsoever. He’s got a tremendous popularity in Russia, they love what he’s doing, they love what he represents. I was over in Moscow two years ago and I will tell you—you can get along with those people and get along with them well. You can make deals with those people. Obama can’t. I would be willing to bet I would have a great relationship with Putin. It’s about leadership.”

It’s also about rubles. During the above-referenced visit to Moscow for—what else?—the 2013 Miss Universe contest, Trump declared “plans for the establishment of business in Russia. Now, I am in talks with several Russian companies to establish this skyscraper.” Trump didn’t specify which companies, or which “this” he was referring to or where the latest five-lettered behemoth might eventually pop up to deliver its mirrored charms to “those people.” But according to Kremlin propaganda organ Russia Today, the mogul struck up a friendly rapport with oligarch developer Araz Agalarov, owner of Crocus City Hall, which served as the venue for Miss Universe 2013. That pageant, of course, is co-owned by Trump and NBC Universal. “How ’bout you, sweetheart? What would you do to change the world with me in the Oval?” … “Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad, Order of Lenin for Snowden, and world peace.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/18/these-are-the-dictators-donald-trump-loves.html

Si apoi, mai sunt toate celelalte subiecte. Chiar in dezbaterea asta a laudat sistemul de sanatate din Canada, de unde se face “turism de nasteri” in sua, daca pot sa-i zic asa, pentru ca femeile nu prea gasesc loc sa nasca in spitalele canadiene. Emil poate povesti mai multe.
Dezbaterea nu mi-a placut, nici cum a fost organizata nici multe intebari, dar nu despre dezbatere vb.
Din punctul meu de vedere, Trump, cu gura lui mare, nu ar fi mai bun decat Hillary, care e cea mai corupta fiinta de pe fata pamantului.

Reply
Transsylvania Phoenix
8 August 2015
Candidatura lui Donald Trump are un aspect pozitiv si unul negativ.

Pe partea cu plus:
Trump le demonstreaza celorlalti candidati Republicani ce inseamna sa ai doua bile de rulmenti industriali intre picioare si sa nu-ti pese de ce crede si spune presa de partid si de stat despre tine. Lumea s-a saturat de political corect si tanjeste un candidat care atunci cand este lovit sa intoarca lovitura inapoi de doua ori mai tare. Sa fii Republican si sa astepti ca ziaristii liberali sa nu te sape in favoarea contracandidatului democrat daca te “imprietenesti” cu ei este o tampenie care a fost comisa si de McCain si de Romney; asa ca cea mai buna tactica nu este sa incerci sa castigi favorurile ziaristilor care iti sunt ostili, ci dimpotriva trebuie sa-i pui cu botul pe labe de la bun inceput. Trump a demonstrat ca se poate sa fii dur si tupeist chiar pana la limita mitocaniei si sa ai succes politic.

Pe partea cu minus:
In afara de perspectiva infioratoare a deciziei de a candida ca independent (daca pierde nominalizarea) si care va asigura victoria sigura a Democratilor dupa modelul Ross Perot 1992, un alt aspect negativ este cimentarea in constiinta alegatorilor independenti si a multor femei a propagandei liberale conform careia Republicanii au declarat “razboi contra femeilor”. Felul degradant in care Trump tratat-o pe Megyin Kelley a fost imediat folosit ca instrument propagandistic de catre capii partidului Democrat.
Si “last but not least”, am indoieli foarte mari asupra sinceritatii lui Trump, care pana nu demult a fost in cercurile inalte ale Democratilor New-Yorkezi si mai ales al Clintonistilor. Schimbarea lui la fata este mai mult decat suspecta.

Reply
Theo Hahn
8 August 2015
De acord cu Costin Andrieș. Donald Trump e un cal troian înfipt în conservatorismul american. O spune nu doar Jonah Goldberg – care, a propos, arată că Donald Trump nu e un conservator adevărat în primul rând din cauza cameleonismului său politic (ba e cu Hillary, ba e cu republicanii; ba e pro-imigrație, ba e anti; ba e pro-choice, ba e anti-avort; ba e pro-Obamacare, ba e anti; ba e capitalist care face afaceri cu statul, ba e un critic acerb al crony capitalismului…). O spune și Thomas Sowell.

Și, a propos, faptul că individul face atâta caz de cât a câștigat el și cât e de valabil și de bogat și îl insultă pe Goldberg făcând caz de dezechilibrul raportului de avere dintre ei, spunând „cum își permite sărăntocul ăsta să mă critice” – deja întregește portretul destul de bine. E un narcisist pervers și lipsit de principii care a ieșit în cursa electorală și a câștigat voturi spunând poporului mâniat pe reprezentanții săi ce vrea să audă.

Dar conservator adevărat, Donald Trump? Niciodată! Veci pururi! E un cal troian cu jobul clar de a fărâmița dreapta americană și de a o arunca într-o confuzie suficient de adâncă încât să fie cât mai mulți deziluzionați care să stea acasă în loc să meargă la urne.

Reply
Octavian
8 August 2015
Hai recunoasteti ca Trump e “tare”. Nu oricine care isi incepe viata cu 400 milioane $ de la tata reuseste sa se declare bankrupt de sase (6) ori in viata. Da e mare afacerist, mare om e un “greu”. Aici in SUA e la rubrica entertainment cu Kim Kardashian nu politics. Eu nu am avut 400 mil si am zero bankruptcies la activ.

Reply
Vlad M.
8 August 2015
Trump nu este un campion al conservatorismului (e doar un democrat nationalist), dar nici un prorus. Oricum, nu de aceea este atacat, sa fim seriosi. Este atacat pentru ca are un discurs anti-imigratie ilegala si strica apele lui Jeb Bush care candideaza ca republicanul pro-amnistie, prietenul latinos.

Jonah Goldberg, George Will, Charles Krauthammer si atatia alti mari comentatori republicani au dovedit, din nou si din nou, preferinte pentru candidatii sustinuti de conducerea republicana. Ar fi avut acelasi discurs respingator si despre Ted Cruz, de pilda, care este cu adevarat un campion al conservatorismului. Cateva exemple:

Jonah Goldberg – Ted Cruz Is Running the Mirror Image Strategy of Hillary Clinton
Jonah Goldberg – Ted Cruz: The GOP’s Barack Obama
George Will – Ted Cruz’s Crazy Supreme Court Strategy
Charles Krauthammer – Ted Cruz, guilty of committing act of rather amazing hypocrisy

Imediat ce Trump va pierde locul I si o sa creasca T. Cruz, vor incepe sa spuna si mai multe porcarii. S-a dat ordine pe unitate: trebuie sa castige Jeb sau Rubio.

Reply
liv stomer
8 August 2015
Limbajul trupului, la Ben Carson, mie imi indica doar un om care, avand de-a face profesional, aproape in exclusivitate, cu copii sau persoane mai tinere decat el, a capatat acest defect profsional, de a se adresa oricui ca si unui copil. Ceea ce mie nu-mi spune nimic despre cum s-ar comporta in situatii limita, in caz de razboi – poate bine, poate rau. In schimb, in legatura cu Trump, nu atat artagul ma ingrijoreaza ci asta http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/11/trumps_big_mistake_attacking_carsons_faith_and_character.html , adica posibilitatea ca mesajul lui sa fie doar o mare minciuna (suntem deja patiti cu Obama).
In fond, celmai usor (ma refer la mine), sa iti faci o parere, este atunci cand nu ai dreptul sa votezi – atunci nu trebuie sa te ingrijorezi ca ai putea gresi.

Reply

Puteți sprijini activitatea noastră cu o donație unică sau una recurentă prin Patreon.

Redacţia

18 Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Ce ai mai putea citi

MENIU

CONTACT