Pundit on POTUS says Trump will be on Stage

[HenryBHough]

That noise you'll hear five minutes into the "debate" will be the sound of 20,000,000 TV sets changing channels when Trump isn't there. You might want to turn off your hearing aids.....

 

[Correll]

At least the MSM isn't picking your candidate for you this time....oh wait

WTF are you even TRYING to say?

You seriously are not claiming that Trump was picked for the GOP by the MSM?

Not in the literal sense .his gargantuan ego did that.

WTF?

THat made no sense what so ever.

Candycorn just obtusely implied that the Mainstream liberal Media are the ones who are pushing Trump as the GOP candidate.

That is absolutely insane on her part.

And your response is "not literally"?

Your response just proves you take everything literally.
Damn you're ignorant.

What "figurative" point was Candcorn supposedly trying to make that I supposedly missed?

Rhetorical question. THere isn't one, and you'll just spew moronic nonsense.

 

[daws101]

Show or no show the Donald has proven by this cowardice , what a diva he is .
If he hasn't got the balls to take some flack from the media ( btw, that's their job) he can't be trusted to lead.

The job of a MODERATOR in a debate is NOT to give flak to a specific candidate that she doesn't like.

Definition of MODERATOR

1. 1: one who arbitrates : mediator
   
   
2. 2: one who presides over an assembly, meeting, or discussion: asa : the presiding officer of a Presbyterian governing bodyb : the nonpartisan presiding officer of a town meetingc : the chairman of a discussion group

Note the lack of any "taking sides" or "giving flak".

False! A moderator has lots of leeway in what's fair and what's not .
That's in no way taking sides .
Everything about the candidates that might effect their credibility is fair game.
Not being able to stag manage everything is the Donald's greatest fear.
That's a fatal flaw.

Are you claiming that Kelly was NOT biased against Trump in the first debate?

Not claiming anything just starting fact.
To say she was is chicken shit and false.

 

[daws101]

At least the MSM isn't picking your candidate for you this time....oh wait

WTF are you even TRYING to say?

You seriously are not claiming that Trump was picked for the GOP by the MSM?

Not in the literal sense .his gargantuan ego did that.

WTF?

THat made no sense what so ever.

Candycorn just obtusely implied that the Mainstream liberal Media are the ones who are pushing Trump as the GOP candidate.

That is absolutely insane on her part.

And your response is "not literally"?

Your response just proves you take everything literally.
Damn you're ignorant.

What "figurative" point was Candcorn supposedly trying to make that I supposedly missed?

Rhetorical question. THere isn't one, and you'll just spew moronic nonsense.

Dodge!

 

[Arianrhod]

He all but guarantees Trump will be on the debate stage. He's a Cruz Operative so a grain of salt is in order

Whatever happens, the lookie-loos will tune in just to gawk, the ratings will soar, and Trump will claim it as a win.

 

[Correll]

Show or no show the Donald has proven by this cowardice , what a diva he is .
If he hasn't got the balls to take some flack from the media ( btw, that's their job) he can't be trusted to lead.

The job of a MODERATOR in a debate is NOT to give flak to a specific candidate that she doesn't like.

Definition of MODERATOR

1. 1: one who arbitrates : mediator
   
   
2. 2: one who presides over an assembly, meeting, or discussion: asa : the presiding officer of a Presbyterian governing bodyb : the nonpartisan presiding officer of a town meetingc : the chairman of a discussion group

Note the lack of any "taking sides" or "giving flak".

False! A moderator has lots of leeway in what's fair and what's not .
That's in no way taking sides .
Everything about the candidates that might effect their credibility is fair game.
Not being able to stag manage everything is the Donald's greatest fear.
That's a fatal flaw.

Are you claiming that Kelly was NOT biased against Trump in the first debate?

Not claiming anything just starting fact.
To say she was is chicken shit and false.

Interesting reply.

You deny "claiming" what I ask you about.

Then claim that if anyone states the opposite of what you are NOT claiming, that they are "chickenshit" and "false".


So you DON'T WANT TO MAKE THE CLAIM that Kelly was NOT biased, because then you would have to defend that, and you can't.

BUT you do want ridicule and disagree with anyone who says she WAS biased.



Liberals. All the intellectual honesty of a crack whore.

 

[daws101]

He all but guarantees Trump will be on the debate stage. He's a Cruz Operative so a grain of salt is in order

Whatever happens, the lookie-loos will tune in just to gawk, the ratings will soar, and Trump will claim it as a win.

Bravo! sombody gets it!

 

[Correll]

WTF are you even TRYING to say?

You seriously are not claiming that Trump was picked for the GOP by the MSM?

Not in the literal sense .his gargantuan ego did that.

WTF?

THat made no sense what so ever.

Candycorn just obtusely implied that the Mainstream liberal Media are the ones who are pushing Trump as the GOP candidate.

That is absolutely insane on her part.

And your response is "not literally"?

Your response just proves you take everything literally.
Damn you're ignorant.

What "figurative" point was Candcorn supposedly trying to make that I supposedly missed?

Rhetorical question. THere isn't one, and you'll just spew moronic nonsense.

Dodge!

I straight out ask you what the point was I supposedly missed.

AND predicted that you would not have an answer because there was no point that I missed.

And you post "dodge".

Liberals. All the intellectual honesty of a crack whore.

 

[Arianrhod]

Inadvertently, Trump may be contributing to the unraveling of FOX News, and this is a good thing.

 

[daws101]

Show or no show the Donald has proven by this cowardice , what a diva he is .
If he hasn't got the balls to take some flack from the media ( btw, that's their job) he can't be trusted to lead.

The job of a MODERATOR in a debate is NOT to give flak to a specific candidate that she doesn't like.

Definition of MODERATOR

1. 1: one who arbitrates : mediator
   
   
2. 2: one who presides over an assembly, meeting, or discussion: asa : the presiding officer of a Presbyterian governing bodyb : the nonpartisan presiding officer of a town meetingc : the chairman of a discussion group

Note the lack of any "taking sides" or "giving flak".

False! A moderator has lots of leeway in what's fair and what's not .
That's in no way taking sides .
Everything about the candidates that might effect their credibility is fair game.
Not being able to stag manage everything is the Donald's greatest fear.
That's a fatal flaw.

Are you claiming that Kelly was NOT biased against Trump in the first debate?

Not claiming anything just starting fact.
To say she was is chicken shit and false.

Interesting reply.

You deny "claiming" what I ask you about.

Then claim that if anyone states the opposite of what you are NOT claiming, that they are "chickenshit" and "false".


So you DON'T WANT TO MAKE THE CLAIM that Kelly was NOT biased, because then you would have to defend that, and you can't.

BUT you do want ridicule and disagree with anyone who says she WAS biased.



Liberals. All the intellectual honesty of a crack whore.

Hey asshole you need to learn the difference between stating a fact and making a claim .
A claim is an opinion.
Stating a fact is not .
Megan Kelly's "treatment of the Donald is well within the accepted rules of journalism.
Btw your fall back statement is false and Doa

 

[my2¢]

Trump is closer to the bottom of my favorites in this race than he is the top. Thus I'm looking forward to the debate without him. As to his absence's affect on Fox News and Iowa voters, makes for interesting speculation but I'd rather read about the views directly from folks here and not what the talking heads on TV say about what you're thinking.

 

[daws101]

Not in the literal sense .his gargantuan ego did that.

WTF?

THat made no sense what so ever.

Candycorn just obtusely implied that the Mainstream liberal Media are the ones who are pushing Trump as the GOP candidate.

That is absolutely insane on her part.

And your response is "not literally"?

Your response just proves you take everything literally.
Damn you're ignorant.

What "figurative" point was Candcorn supposedly trying to make that I supposedly missed?

Rhetorical question. THere isn't one, and you'll just spew moronic nonsense.

Dodge!

I straight out ask you what the point was I supposedly missed.

AND predicted that you would not have an answer because there was no point that I missed.

And you post "dodge".

Liberals. All the intellectual honesty of a crack whore.

I posted dodge because that's what you did .
If what you missed has to be explained to you, you haven't got the chops to understand it anyway.
However it does elegantly prove my point about you taking everything literally. Damn.

 

[Correll]

The job of a MODERATOR in a debate is NOT to give flak to a specific candidate that she doesn't like.

Definition of MODERATORNote the lack of any "taking sides" or "giving flak".

False! A moderator has lots of leeway in what's fair and what's not .
That's in no way taking sides .
Everything about the candidates that might effect their credibility is fair game.
Not being able to stag manage everything is the Donald's greatest fear.
That's a fatal flaw.

Are you claiming that Kelly was NOT biased against Trump in the first debate?

Not claiming anything just starting fact.
To say she was is chicken shit and false.

Interesting reply.

You deny "claiming" what I ask you about.

Then claim that if anyone states the opposite of what you are NOT claiming, that they are "chickenshit" and "false".


So you DON'T WANT TO MAKE THE CLAIM that Kelly was NOT biased, because then you would have to defend that, and you can't.

BUT you do want ridicule and disagree with anyone who says she WAS biased.



Liberals. All the intellectual honesty of a crack whore.

Hey asshole you need to learn the difference between stating a fact and making a claim .
A claim is an opinion.
Stating a fact is not .
Megan Kelly's "treatment of the Donald is well within the rights of journalism.
Btw your fall back statement is false and Doa

"rights of journalism"?

WTF is that bullshit?

She was supposed to be an MODERATOR.

Instead she took sides.

She failed in her professional duties.

That Fox wanted to put her in charge again was them taking sides and trying to rig the game against Trump.

He refused to bend over and be their bitch and told them to fuck off.

GOOD FOR HIM!

Your dishonest semantics games is of no interest to me. Save them for some one who cares.

 

[Correll]

WTF?

THat made no sense what so ever.

Candycorn just obtusely implied that the Mainstream liberal Media are the ones who are pushing Trump as the GOP candidate.

That is absolutely insane on her part.

And your response is "not literally"?

Your response just proves you take everything literally.
Damn you're ignorant.

What "figurative" point was Candcorn supposedly trying to make that I supposedly missed?

Rhetorical question. THere isn't one, and you'll just spew moronic nonsense.

Dodge!

I straight out ask you what the point was I supposedly missed.

AND predicted that you would not have an answer because there was no point that I missed.

And you post "dodge".

Liberals. All the intellectual honesty of a crack whore.

I posted dodge because that's what you did .
If what you missed has to be explained to you, you haven't got the chops to understand it anyway.
However it does elegantly prove my point about you taking everything literally. Damn.

If you were able to give this supposed "figurative" point that candycorn was trying to make, that would have demonstrated that I indeed missed something.

And I went straight into that, I specifically asked you to prove that there was a point that I missed.

That is the exact opposite of a "Dodge".

I also predicted that you would NOT give me the "figurative" point, because there was none.

I stated instead that you would spew bullshit.

Which you have done.

Liberals: all the intellectual honestly of a crack whore.

 

[daws101]

Your response just proves you take everything literally.
Damn you're ignorant.

What "figurative" point was Candcorn supposedly trying to make that I supposedly missed?

Rhetorical question. THere isn't one, and you'll just spew moronic nonsense.

Dodge!

I straight out ask you what the point was I supposedly missed.

AND predicted that you would not have an answer because there was no point that I missed.

And you post "dodge".

Liberals. All the intellectual honesty of a crack whore.

I posted dodge because that's what you did .
If what you missed has to be explained to you, you haven't got the chops to understand it anyway.
However it does elegantly prove my point about you taking everything literally. Damn.

If you were able to give this supposed "figurative" point that candycorn was trying to make, that would have demonstrated that I indeed missed something.

And I went straight into that, I specifically asked you to prove that there was a point that I missed.

That is the exact opposite of a "Dodge".

I also predicted that you would NOT give me the "figurative" point, because there was none.

I stated instead that you would spew bullshit.

Which you have done.

Liberals: all the intellectual honestly of a crack whore.

It was unnecessary for me to prove anything as its obvious.
Thanks for the heads up on my journalism statement .
It's fixed now.

 

[Correll]

What "figurative" point was Candcorn supposedly trying to make that I supposedly missed?

Rhetorical question. THere isn't one, and you'll just spew moronic nonsense.

Dodge!

I straight out ask you what the point was I supposedly missed.

AND predicted that you would not have an answer because there was no point that I missed.

And you post "dodge".

Liberals. All the intellectual honesty of a crack whore.

I posted dodge because that's what you did .
If what you missed has to be explained to you, you haven't got the chops to understand it anyway.
However it does elegantly prove my point about you taking everything literally. Damn.

If you were able to give this supposed "figurative" point that candycorn was trying to make, that would have demonstrated that I indeed missed something.

And I went straight into that, I specifically asked you to prove that there was a point that I missed.

That is the exact opposite of a "Dodge".

I also predicted that you would NOT give me the "figurative" point, because there was none.

I stated instead that you would spew bullshit.

Which you have done.

Liberals: all the intellectual honestly of a crack whore.

It was unnecessary for me to prove anything as its obvious.

And you keep dodging.

LIberals: All the self awareness of a turnip.

 

[daws101]

False! A moderator has lots of leeway in what's fair and what's not .
That's in no way taking sides .
Everything about the candidates that might effect their credibility is fair game.
Not being able to stag manage everything is the Donald's greatest fear.
That's a fatal flaw.

Are you claiming that Kelly was NOT biased against Trump in the first debate?

Not claiming anything just starting fact.
To say she was is chicken shit and false.

Interesting reply.

You deny "claiming" what I ask you about.

Then claim that if anyone states the opposite of what you are NOT claiming, that they are "chickenshit" and "false".


So you DON'T WANT TO MAKE THE CLAIM that Kelly was NOT biased, because then you would have to defend that, and you can't.

BUT you do want ridicule and disagree with anyone who says she WAS biased.



Liberals. All the intellectual honesty of a crack whore.

Hey asshole you need to learn the difference between stating a fact and making a claim .
A claim is an opinion.
Stating a fact is not .
Megan Kelly's "treatment of the Donald is well within the rights of journalism.
Btw your fall back statement is false and Doa

"rights of journalism"?

WTF is that bullshit?

She was supposed to be an MODERATOR.

Instead she took sides.

She failed in her professional duties.

That Fox wanted to put her in charge again was them taking sides and trying to rig the game against Trump.

He refused to bend over and be their bitch and told them to fuck off.

GOOD FOR HIM!

Your dishonest semantics games is of no interest to me. Save them for some one who cares.

Translation : I'm getting my ass handed to me.

 

[daws101]

Dodge!

I straight out ask you what the point was I supposedly missed.

AND predicted that you would not have an answer because there was no point that I missed.

And you post "dodge".

Liberals. All the intellectual honesty of a crack whore.

I posted dodge because that's what you did .
If what you missed has to be explained to you, you haven't got the chops to understand it anyway.
However it does elegantly prove my point about you taking everything literally. Damn.

If you were able to give this supposed "figurative" point that candycorn was trying to make, that would have demonstrated that I indeed missed something.

And I went straight into that, I specifically asked you to prove that there was a point that I missed.

That is the exact opposite of a "Dodge".

I also predicted that you would NOT give me the "figurative" point, because there was none.

I stated instead that you would spew bullshit.

Which you have done.

Liberals: all the intellectual honestly of a crack whore.

It was unnecessary for me to prove anything as its obvious.

And you keep dodging.

LIberals: All the self awareness of a turnip.

Nothing to dodge,
Oh no not the zero self awareness ploy again!

 

[Correll]

Are you claiming that Kelly was NOT biased against Trump in the first debate?

Not claiming anything just starting fact.
To say she was is chicken shit and false.

Interesting reply.

You deny "claiming" what I ask you about.

Then claim that if anyone states the opposite of what you are NOT claiming, that they are "chickenshit" and "false".


So you DON'T WANT TO MAKE THE CLAIM that Kelly was NOT biased, because then you would have to defend that, and you can't.

BUT you do want ridicule and disagree with anyone who says she WAS biased.



Liberals. All the intellectual honesty of a crack whore.

Hey asshole you need to learn the difference between stating a fact and making a claim .
A claim is an opinion.
Stating a fact is not .
Megan Kelly's "treatment of the Donald is well within the rights of journalism.
Btw your fall back statement is false and Doa

"rights of journalism"?

WTF is that bullshit?

She was supposed to be an MODERATOR.

Instead she took sides.

She failed in her professional duties.

That Fox wanted to put her in charge again was them taking sides and trying to rig the game against Trump.

He refused to bend over and be their bitch and told them to fuck off.

GOOD FOR HIM!

Your dishonest semantics games is of no interest to me. Save them for some one who cares.

Translation : I'm getting my ass handed to me.

You could have defended your claim that her previous behavior was indeed, within the "rights of journalism" and not a professional failure.

Instead you make a vague claim of winning this debate.

LIberals: All the intellectual honestly of a crack whore.

 

[Correll]

I straight out ask you what the point was I supposedly missed.

AND predicted that you would not have an answer because there was no point that I missed.

And you post "dodge".

Liberals. All the intellectual honesty of a crack whore.

I posted dodge because that's what you did .
If what you missed has to be explained to you, you haven't got the chops to understand it anyway.
However it does elegantly prove my point about you taking everything literally. Damn.

If you were able to give this supposed "figurative" point that candycorn was trying to make, that would have demonstrated that I indeed missed something.

And I went straight into that, I specifically asked you to prove that there was a point that I missed.

That is the exact opposite of a "Dodge".

I also predicted that you would NOT give me the "figurative" point, because there was none.

I stated instead that you would spew bullshit.

Which you have done.

Liberals: all the intellectual honestly of a crack whore.

It was unnecessary for me to prove anything as its obvious.

And you keep dodging.

LIberals: All the self awareness of a turnip.

Nothing to dodge,
Oh no not the zero self awareness ploy again!

And you still having provided that "figurative" point that I supposedly missed.

And asked you for.

And predicted that you would not provide.

Because there wasn't one.

And you don't have the intellectual honesty to admit it.