Is Fox News [Ailes] caving in to Trump?

[hoot1]

I had heard it rumored that Donald Trump and Roger Ailes (Fox News chairman) talked on the phone recently. I had wished that I could have overheard the conversation between these two strong willed powerhouses.

As luck would have it, media stories are being circulated about the call. One of those stories is entitled "How Roger Ailes Picked Trump, and Fox News 'Audience, Over Megyn Kelly". The article in part has this to say,

Ailes [Fox News chairman Roger Ailes] raised the white flag and picked up the phone on Monday morning. “Roger wanted a friendly relationship,” the source explained.

Ailes offered Trump the chance to do a special on Kelly’s prime-time show to clear the air — an offer Trump flatly refused. “Donald was sufficiently pissed off that there was no way that was happening,” a person familiar with the call told me. According to the source, Trump’s ire was especially stoked after Howard Stern called to tell him about a 2010 interview in which Kelly joked about her breasts and her husband’s penis. Ailes offered other shows, and Trump agreed to appear on Fox and Friends and Hannity, two venues that have been loyal boosters of his candidacy.

Could any other Republican candidate for president talked to Ailes and gained a concession from Fox as did Donald Trump? It is easy to underestimate Trump as I did when I said Trump made a big political error by taking on Megyn Kelly. Guess I was wrong. Is it any wonder Trump is stealing all the headlines.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Well, whatever else you might say about him, he's a man who is accustomed to getting what he wants -- because he's very good at directing things towards his will.

 

[Rockfish1]

I had heard it rumored that Donald Trump and Roger Ailes (Fox News chairman) talked on the phone recently. I had wished that I could have overheard the conversation between these two strong willed powerhouses.

As luck would have it, media stories are being circulated about the call. One of those stories is entitled "How Roger Ailes Picked Trump, and Fox News 'Audience, Over Megyn Kelly". The article in part has this to say,

Ailes [Fox News chairman Roger Ailes] raised the white flag and picked up the phone on Monday morning. “Roger wanted a friendly relationship,” the source explained.

Ailes offered Trump the chance to do a special on Kelly’s prime-time show to clear the air — an offer Trump flatly refused. “Donald was sufficiently pissed off that there was no way that was happening,” a person familiar with the call told me. According to the source, Trump’s ire was especially stoked after Howard Stern called to tell him about a 2010 interview in which Kelly joked about her breasts and her husband’s penis. Ailes offered other shows, and Trump agreed to appear on Fox and Friends and Hannity, two venues that have been loyal boosters of his candidacy.

Could any other Republican candidate for president talked to Ailes and gained a concession from Fox as did Donald Trump? It is easy to underestimate Trump as I did when I said Trump made a big political error by taking on Megyn Kelly. Guess I was wrong. Is it any wonder Trump is stealing all the headlines

Trump is the honey badger. He doesn't give a f#ck, and his candidacy can't be killed by conventional means. Fox took him on and lost.

Nate Silver is right that Trump can't win the Republican nomination, but Trump has proven that he can't be dismissed as another Herman Cain or Michele Bachmann. Ezra Klein explains why:

1. With the possible exception of Newt Gingrich, those candidates had little experience under the klieg lights of the national media. But before Trump was a politician, he was a reality television star. He has more experience, and more savvy, in front of the camera than any other Republican running for president. He is more than prepared for the spotlight.
2. Trump is a billionaire who can self-fund his campaign. That matters, as one way parties can break insurgents is to systematically peel off their donors.
3. Trump's supporters do not seem to care about the normal rules of American politics. They do not care whether Trump is consistent, they do not care whether he is electable, they do not care whether he has supported Democrats, they do not care that he has backed single-payer, they do not care that he disrespected John McCain's war record, they do not care that everyone else in the Republican Party hates him. The Republican Party has launched a series of attacks that should have damaged Trump, and they've gotten nowhere with them.
4. Trump cannot be embarrassed, shamed, or otherwise brought to heel. He lives, as far as anyone can tell, to attract media attention and prove to the world that he is a winner.

I remember back in the day arguing about Bob Knight. The real problem wasn't the fans who loved him despite his flaws. That was understandable. The real problem arose from fans who loved him precisely because he was a flaming asshole. That's the Trump constituency: undereducated, resentful, pissed-off, conservative, white guys who regard Trump's vices as virtues. As Fox has now been reminded, this is also the network's core audience. Roger Ailes will side with Trump over Megyn Kelly because that's what his audience wants.

Fox is often regarded as an arm of the Republican Party, but it might be more accurate to view the Republican Party as an arm of Fox. I suspect that the Party has regrets about outsourcing itself to a private television network with ambitions that conflict with the Party's interests.

 

[Noodle]

Caving? It's a news outlet and Trump is currently the leading GOP candidate. Are they supposed to ignore Trump's campaign or turn on him? Or not somehow talk to Trump in order to ensure that he will come on their network? Besides, aside from the death threats, I doubt Megyn Kelly is out for blood, er....looking to strike back at Trump. While I think Trump's comments, like a lot of other stuff has says, were way out of line (further cementing my dislike of him as both a person and a candidate), Aisles still has a news outlet to run and Kelly still has a job to do.

 

[Univee2]

Caving? It's a news outlet and Trump is currently the leading GOP candidate. Are they supposed to ignore Trump's campaign or turn on him? Or not somehow talk to Trump in order to ensure that he will come on their network? Besides, aside from the death threats, I doubt Megyn Kelly is out for blood, er....looking to strike back at Trump. While I think Trump's comments, like a lot of other stuff has says, were way out of line (further cementing my dislike of him as both a person and a candidate), Aisles still has a news outlet to run and Kelly still has a job to do.

Trump = Ratings. Q.E.D.


What would you rather see? Pataki and Gilmore having a pleasant conversation about their thriving, energetic "campaigns"?

 

[Rockfish1]

Caving? It's a news outlet and Trump is currently the leading GOP candidate. Are they supposed to ignore Trump's campaign or turn on him? Or not somehow talk to Trump in order to ensure that he will come on their network? Besides, aside from the death threats, I doubt Megyn Kelly is out for blood, er....looking to strike back at Trump. While I think Trump's comments, like a lot of other stuff has says, were way out of line (further cementing my dislike of him as both a person and a candidate), Aisles still has a news outlet to run and Kelly still has a job to do.

I think "caving" reflects the broadly-shared perception that the Fox moderators consciously sought to embarrass Trump during the first debate, and the reports that Roger Ailes then felt compelled to make peace with Trump, despite the . . . well, bloodying Trump had given Ailes' people -- particularly Megyn Kelly. Of course Fox will cover Trump -- everyone is. But it looks like Fox tried and failed to take him down, then backed down and is now giving him fawning coverage that he wouldn't possibly get anywhere else.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

I had heard it rumored that Donald Trump and Roger Ailes (Fox News chairman) talked on the phone recently. I had wished that I could have overheard the conversation between these two strong willed powerhouses.

As luck would have it, media stories are being circulated about the call. One of those stories is entitled "How Roger Ailes Picked Trump, and Fox News 'Audience, Over Megyn Kelly". The article in part has this to say,

Ailes [Fox News chairman Roger Ailes] raised the white flag and picked up the phone on Monday morning. “Roger wanted a friendly relationship,” the source explained.

Ailes offered Trump the chance to do a special on Kelly’s prime-time show to clear the air — an offer Trump flatly refused. “Donald was sufficiently pissed off that there was no way that was happening,” a person familiar with the call told me. According to the source, Trump’s ire was especially stoked after Howard Stern called to tell him about a 2010 interview in which Kelly joked about her breasts and her husband’s penis. Ailes offered other shows, and Trump agreed to appear on Fox and Friends and Hannity, two venues that have been loyal boosters of his candidacy.

Could any other Republican candidate for president talked to Ailes and gained a concession from Fox as did Donald Trump? It is easy to underestimate Trump as I did when I said Trump made a big political error by taking on Megyn Kelly. Guess I was wrong. Is it any wonder Trump is stealing all the headlines.

Fox and other blatantly republican media outlets, like Limbaugh, are used to republican candidates and office holders kissing their collective asses. I've even heard congressmen call in and apologize to Limbaugh. Call in and apologize to a racist, woman hating drug addict. They aren't used to being stood up to and like a typical bully mindset, they back down and cower at the first sign of being challenged. Trump might (that's a big MIGHT) feel differently if he were already in office, but he has absolutely nothing to lose right now. What, is he gonna damage his reputation?!?!

 

[hoot1]

I think "caving" reflects the broadly-shared perception that the Fox moderators consciously sought to embarrass Trump during the first debate, and the reports that Roger Ailes then felt compelled to make peace with Trump, despite the . . . well, bloodying Trump had given Ailes' people -- particularly Megyn Kelly. Of course Fox will cover Trump -- everyone is. But it looks like Fox tried and failed to take him down, then backed down and is now giving him fawning coverage that he wouldn't possibly get anywhere else.

Did Fox try to "take him down" or did Megyn Kelly decide those questions on her own only to find herself in the doghouse and at odds with Ailes?

 

[iuwclurker]

Could any other Republican candidate for president talked to Ailes and gained a concession from Fox as did Donald Trump? It is easy to underestimate Trump as I did when I said Trump made a big political error by taking on Megyn Kelly. Guess I was wrong. Is it any wonder Trump is stealing all the headlines.

I think people are underestimating Trump at every turn, especially the GOP, Fox and the media, and ideological conservatives and liberals (like many here on the WC). Trump is a serious threat to their status quo, namely, the two-party political system that panders to lobbyists, and vested and special interests. The current game, for voters, is root for your team, the DNC or the GOP. Trump is turning that on its side. He's offering a new game. Trump succeeding can be viewed a positive for the US if he forces candidates to be real and the two political parties to serve their constituencies rather than special interest groups.

Ezra Klein's analysis above has some good points but his condescending view of Trump as an unserious circus performer predisposes him to miss the crux of Trump. Trump has been evolving into politics. This isn't his first go-around and doesn't need to be his last. He's well-positioned to become a conceivably viable independent candidate in 2020. If he doesn't get nominated in 2016 then he can undermine the GOP's nominee, allowing Hillary to carry on with another disheartening four years of the status quo, while building toward an actual independent run.

~~~~~~~~

The Apprentice was Big Brother with Trump being a visible rather than invisible Big Brother. As such Trump was only beholden to the ratings. Rules of engagement completely different from politics as usual. Key here, imo, is that Trump's modus operandi was being real.

In this (reality show) campaign, Trump is playing two roles: 1) he dictates the rules of engagement and 2) he's also a candidate. Because he's a master of 1), he can manipulate that to his benefit for 2).

He dictates the rules of engagement because 1) he's got the energy and dynamics to dominate the narrative, 2) he's got 100% leverage on the GOP (and Fox if they want to support the GOP), and 3) he's real, meaning he's consequently free from any political correct constraints.

What Trump critics are missing is that Trump is being real. What is real? Having the courage to say what you believe and do what you think is right, despite external pressures. The self-confidence to not kowtow to anyone. In life people say all kinds of things that aren't politically correct when out of public eye. It's the politically correct police that coerce submissive, docile pc behavior.* The starting point for competing with Trump is being real. Like him or not, he's unscripted and says it like he sees it. Name another candidate who really truly does that. Hillary is the least real, most filtered candidate out there, at least when on stage. Genuine sincerity is not her forte.

Of course, Trump critics are spitting their coffee, reading that Trump is "real." I get that. One has to be willing and able to move out of one's box to understand Trump. Trump is a phenomenon I don't think we've seen on the political scene. He's played the special interest game from the inside and not only freely admits it, but also touts it as an expertise making him uniquely able to combat it. In the abstract, who can argue with that? He wants to make America great again by moving jobs back to the US. In the abstract, who can argue with that? He wants border control. Who doesn't? What's not real about his positions, in the abstract?

So the question is, how many people out there are willing to vote for the only real candidate on the ballot?

His critics will say he's not real, just putting us on. Personally, I don't know. Maybe he's a big faker, but in modern-day America, I don't see too many people who aren't fake in one way or another. Even worse, I see a whole lot of people who think their fake is real. If they can't see their own fake, they can't see that of others.

* Political correctness is inherently antithetical to freedom. One should be free to be oneself, not feel constrained to behave according to the dictates of others.

 

[ryanmilli]

Did Fox try to "take him down" or did Megyn Kelly decide those questions on her own only to find herself in the doghouse and at odds with Ailes?

I think Fox was poor for the same reason that media outlets always ruin these events: they made the debate about the media personalities rather than the candidates. Something I read said Fox moderators used 35% of the air time. The storyline after the debate was Fox and the media. We see this in almost every debate. The media makes itself the story. It's ridiculous and frustrating.

 

[mjvcaj]

I think "caving" reflects the broadly-shared perception that the Fox moderators consciously sought to embarrass Trump during the first debate, and the reports that Roger Ailes then felt compelled to make peace with Trump, despite the . . . well, bloodying Trump had given Ailes' people -- particularly Megyn Kelly. Of course Fox will cover Trump -- everyone is. But it looks like Fox tried and failed to take him down, then backed down and is now giving him fawning coverage that he wouldn't possibly get anywhere else.

I don't buy this line of thinking. Trump embarrassed himself with his comments. The moderators asked him tough questions. When you make dumb statements, you are asking for it.

That is the part I don't care for about Trump. If you are going to dish it out, learn how to take it like a man.

 

[Univee2]

I don't buy this line of thinking. Trump embarrassed himself with his comments. The moderators asked him tough questions. When you make dumb statements, you are asking for it.

That is the part I don't care for about Trump. If you are going to dish it out, learn how to take it like a man.

Let him be that "HR guy". Gets the assignments to fire people, such as Lois Lerner and the EPA Animas River clowns. HR always handles the insurance programs, so he can work out the details of a plan to replace/improve the ACA.

I can also see Scott Walker as Secretary of Labor............. Jimmy Hoffa would be spinning in his grave and that mystery would finally be resolved.

 

[Noodle]

I don't buy this line of thinking. Trump embarrassed himself with his comments. The moderators asked him tough questions. When you make dumb statements, you are asking for it.

That is the part I don't care for about Trump. If you are going to dish it out, learn how to take it like a man.

I agree. I think they asked him questions that a lot of Republicans wanted to hear him answer, such as whether he would run as an independent if he does not get the nomination, and whether he intends to continue behaving like a douchebag even as a candidate for President or, God-forbid, as President. Frankly, I like the format, style and questions they asked, and they did not really go easy on any of the candidates. The only difference with Trump is that some of his warts are like gaping, oozing, festering sores that might kill most anyone else, whereas most of the other candidates just have a bunch of pimples that were squeezed to see if they might pop. (Though, quite frankly, a few of them look like Ray Liotta)

 

[zeke4ahs]

I had heard it rumored that Donald Trump and Roger Ailes (Fox News chairman) talked on the phone recently. I had wished that I could have overheard the conversation between these two strong willed powerhouses.

As luck would have it, media stories are being circulated about the call. One of those stories is entitled "How Roger Ailes Picked Trump, and Fox News 'Audience, Over Megyn Kelly". The article in part has this to say,

Ailes [Fox News chairman Roger Ailes] raised the white flag and picked up the phone on Monday morning. “Roger wanted a friendly relationship,” the source explained.

Ailes offered Trump the chance to do a special on Kelly’s prime-time show to clear the air — an offer Trump flatly refused. “Donald was sufficiently pissed off that there was no way that was happening,” a person familiar with the call told me. According to the source, Trump’s ire was especially stoked after Howard Stern called to tell him about a 2010 interview in which Kelly joked about her breasts and her husband’s penis. Ailes offered other shows, and Trump agreed to appear on Fox and Friends and Hannity, two venues that have been loyal boosters of his candidacy.

Could any other Republican candidate for president talked to Ailes and gained a concession from Fox as did Donald Trump? It is easy to underestimate Trump as I did when I said Trump made a big political error by taking on Megyn Kelly. Guess I was wrong. Is it any wonder Trump is stealing all the headlines.

What the hell does what she said on Howard Stern have to so with the way Trump treated her? Glad Fox News is caving.....keep up the clown show!!

 

[zeke4ahs]

I don't buy this line of thinking. Trump embarrassed himself with his comments. The moderators asked him tough questions. When you make dumb statements, you are asking for it.

That is the part I don't care for about Trump. If you are going to dish it out, learn how to take it like a man.

Trump doesn't play by those rules and never has. He is a classic bully that dishes out constantly, but can't take it if anyone criticizes him.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I had heard it rumored that Donald Trump and Roger Ailes (Fox News chairman) talked on the phone recently. I had wished that I could have overheard the conversation between these two strong willed powerhouses.

As luck would have it, media stories are being circulated about the call. One of those stories is entitled "How Roger Ailes Picked Trump, and Fox News 'Audience, Over Megyn Kelly". The article in part has this to say,

Ailes [Fox News chairman Roger Ailes] raised the white flag and picked up the phone on Monday morning. “Roger wanted a friendly relationship,” the source explained.

Ailes offered Trump the chance to do a special on Kelly’s prime-time show to clear the air — an offer Trump flatly refused. “Donald was sufficiently pissed off that there was no way that was happening,” a person familiar with the call told me. According to the source, Trump’s ire was especially stoked after Howard Stern called to tell him about a 2010 interview in which Kelly joked about her breasts and her husband’s penis. Ailes offered other shows, and Trump agreed to appear on Fox and Friends and Hannity, two venues that have been loyal boosters of his candidacy.

Could any other Republican candidate for president talked to Ailes and gained a concession from Fox as did Donald Trump? It is easy to underestimate Trump as I did when I said Trump made a big political error by taking on Megyn Kelly. Guess I was wrong. Is it any wonder Trump is stealing all the headlines.

Two things about this

First, I don't see the "concession" you see. It is not unusual for Fox to interview and have as a guest the leading GOP candidate for any important office, let alone POTUS.

Second, those who seem surprised by the questions posed by Kelly, Wallace and Baier don't know or understand Fox News. Most FNC critics don't know what the hell they are talking about. Those three are among the three best in the business regardless of network. They deliberately made each candidate squirm a little. The only reason Trump sqirmed the most is because he concistently says the most squirmable things.

Move along, there is nothing to see here.

 

[hoot1]

Two things about this

First, I don't see the "concession" you see. It is not unusual for Fox to interview and have as a guest the leading GOP candidate for any important office, let alone POTUS.

Second, those who seem surprised by the questions posed by Kelly, Wallace and Baier don't know or understand Fox News. Most FNC critics don't know what the hell they are talking about. Those three are among the three best in the business regardless of network. They deliberately made each candidate squirm a little. The only reason Trump sqirmed the most is because he concistently says the most squirmable things.

Move along, there is nothing to see here.

I put the "caving" by Fox as a question and not as a fact. Also I am relying on the article which like any piece of this nature which is quoting unnamed sources is subject to doubt.

Some of material from the article which brought up my questioning whether Fox was caving in to Trump includes the following,

Trump is now back in Fox’s fold, but the lengths that Ailes went to in order to win Trump back revealed a rare moment of weakness for the Fox chief.

Ailes raised the white flag and picked up the phone on Monday morning. “Roger wanted a friendly relationship,” the source explained.

Ailes called Trump "multiple" times yesterday morning “begging” him to tweet out that they had made peace. Trump refused at first, but finally consented.

I for one find the Ailes/Trump relationship to be interesting and plan to stay tuned . A final comment is to say Ailes enjoys politics but is also a businessman. The Donald's trump card in respect to concessions from Ailes may be the ratings Trump can bring to Fox with as his appearances will draw large audiences. Ratings translate into bucks.

 

[mjvcaj]

Jimmy Hoffa would be spinning in his grave and that mystery would finally be resolved.

LOL

 

[mjvcaj]

Trump doesn't play by those rules and never has. He is a classic bully that dishes out constantly, but can't take it if anyone criticizes him.

That's why I have minimal respect for the guy.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Someone may have shared this article already, but if they did, I don't remember. It's from a couple of weeks ago. The basic context it paints is that there is a power struggle between Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes concerning Trump. Essentially, Murdoch hates Trump, and Ailes loves him.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/07/on-trump-murdoch-has-lost-control-of-ailes-fox.html

 

[hoot1]

Someone may have shared this article already, but if they did, I don't remember. It's from a couple of weeks ago. The basic context it paints is that there is a power struggle between Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes concerning Trump. Essentially, Murdoch hates Trump, and Ailes loves him.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/07/on-trump-murdoch-has-lost-control-of-ailes-fox.html

The Plot Thickens

So we don't already have Roger Ailes (Fox News Director) siding with Donald Trump at the expense of Megyn Kelly (lowly Fox commentator), but we now have Rupert Murdoch (owner of Fox) questioning this decision.

This proves once again that truth is stranger than fiction. This of course hinges on whether the so-called media is giving us the truth. Not what we used to call "major media" by the way. Instead it is the internet media as opposed to the old print media.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The Plot Thickens

So we don't already have Roger Ailes (Fox News Director) siding with Donald Trump at the expense of Megyn Kelly (lowly Fox commentator), but we now have Rupert Murdoch (owner of Fox) questioning this decision.

This proves once again that truth is stranger than fiction. This of course hinges on whether the so-called media is giving us the truth. Not what we used to call "major media" by the way. Instead it is the internet media as opposed to the old print media.

There is also a lot of reading between the lines there. But if we see the WSJ and NYP treating Trump consistently one way, and Fox treating Trump consistently another way, that's certainly worthy of examination.

I mean, just looking at the two wildly different takes on Trump among self-identified conservatives on this board, it's clear that there is a bit of a civil war brewing. Seeing that play out in conservative media is going to be fascinating.

 

[Leafhen1]

I had heard it rumored that Donald Trump and Roger Ailes (Fox News chairman) talked on the phone recently. I had wished that I could have overheard the conversation between these two strong willed powerhouses.

As luck would have it, media stories are being circulated about the call. One of those stories is entitled "How Roger Ailes Picked Trump, and Fox News 'Audience, Over Megyn Kelly". The article in part has this to say,

Ailes [Fox News chairman Roger Ailes] raised the white flag and picked up the phone on Monday morning. “Roger wanted a friendly relationship,” the source explained.

Ailes offered Trump the chance to do a special on Kelly’s prime-time show to clear the air — an offer Trump flatly refused. “Donald was sufficiently pissed off that there was no way that was happening,” a person familiar with the call told me. According to the source, Trump’s ire was especially stoked after Howard Stern called to tell him about a 2010 interview in which Kelly joked about her breasts and her husband’s penis. Ailes offered other shows, and Trump agreed to appear on Fox and Friends and Hannity, two venues that have been loyal boosters of his candidacy.

Could any other Republican candidate for president talked to Ailes and gained a concession from Fox as did Donald Trump? It is easy to underestimate Trump as I did when I said Trump made a big political error by taking on Megyn Kelly. Guess I was wrong. Is it any wonder Trump is stealing all the headlines.

Trump is a bully and lacks respect for anyone who opposes him. There is not enough human decency in our country--especially politics. At least republcans used to respect those in their own party. The way they treated Bill Clinton and President Obama was a disgrace. It is O.K. to oppose one's policies, but to demonize opponents is totally wrong. What goes around, comes around, and the republicans are paying a price. They will never win a national election until they demonstrate a little civility. However, they do have one candidate who is decent--John Kasich. Although I am an independent, I feel that he would be the republicans best nominee.

 

[iuwclurker]

The Plot Thickens

So we don't already have Roger Ailes (Fox News Director) siding with Donald Trump at the expense of Megyn Kelly (lowly Fox commentator), but we now have Rupert Murdoch (owner of Fox) questioning this decision.

This proves once again that truth is stranger than fiction. This of course hinges on whether the so-called media is giving us the truth. Not what we used to call "major media" by the way. Instead it is the internet media as opposed to the old print media.

They're all starting to figure out that they're all role players in Trump's reality show until Trump fires them. There are no exceptions. Cue Twilight Zone music.

 

[cosmickid]

Someone may have shared this article already, but if they did, I don't remember. It's from a couple of weeks ago. The basic context it paints is that there is a power struggle between Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes concerning Trump. Essentially, Murdoch hates Trump, and Ailes loves him.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/07/on-trump-murdoch-has-lost-control-of-ailes-fox.html

Very insightful commentary on the Murdoch/Ailes schism,including a lot I wasn't aware of.I think the Newsmax/Fox "war" complicates things even further,because for some reason I thought Murdoch owned both Fox and Newsmax.For that reason I always felt the Trump/anti Trump battle within the extreme right wing was mainly for publicity and to drum up business for Murdoch and expand his brand...

For the record I don't think Trump is some sort of right wing idealogue,and I dare to say if elected some of his actions would infuriate a lot of conservatives.He supported/voted for Obama in '08,contributed to Hillary's Senate campaign in NY,and then in the 2012 election suddenly championed the ridiculous "birther" issue.Strange how Obama's "birth certificate" wasn't an issue for Trump in '08 when he endorsed him.But that just points up my main feeling about Trump-he is an opportunist...

A bit OT,but I was struck by the interview with Gene Simmons which is linked within the article.I've always likened Gene to being cut from the same sort of neanderthal cloth as Ted Nugent,but despite the interview being on Fox Business I thought Gene came across as a pretty rational,thoughtful guy.
He sort of sounds like a quasi-socialist fiscal conservative,which I guess qualifies as MOR.I'll link it as I think it's a good listen that some might enjoy hearing...

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4358...16-election/?intcmp=sem_outloud#sp=show-clips

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Very insightful commentary on the Murdoch/Ailes schism,including a lot I wasn't aware of.I think the Newsmax/Fox "war" complicates things even further,because for some reason I thought Murdoch owned both Fox and Newsmax.For that reason I always felt the Trump/anti Trump battle within the extreme right wing was mainly for publicity and to drum up business for Murdoch and expand his brand...

For the record I don't think Trump is some sort of right wing idealogue,and I dare to say if elected some of his actions would infuriate a lot of conservatives.He supported/voted for Obama in '08,contributed to Hillary's Senate campaign in NY,and then in the 2012 election suddenly championed the ridiculous "birther" issue.Strange how Obama's "birth certificate" wasn't an issue for Trump in '08 when he endorsed him.But that just points up my main feeling about Trump-he is an opportunist...

A bit OT,but I was struck by the interview with Gene Simmons which is linked within the article.I've always likened Gene to being cut from the same sort of neanderthal cloth as Ted Nugent,but despite the interview being on Fox Business I thought Gene came across as a pretty rational,thoughtful guy.
He sort of sounds like a quasi-socialist fiscal conservative,which I guess qualifies as MOR.I'll link it as I think it's a good listen that some might enjoy hearing...

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4358...16-election/?intcmp=sem_outloud#sp=show-clips

This is the second time I've had to correct this on here in the past few weeks. I don't know where it's coming from. But Trump, although he said nice things about both Hillary and Obama in 2008, actually endorsed McCain publicly.

 

[hoot1]

Very insightful commentary on the Murdoch/Ailes schism,including a lot I wasn't aware of.I think the Newsmax/Fox "war" complicates things even further,because for some reason I thought Murdoch owned both Fox and Newsmax.For that reason I always felt the Trump/anti Trump battle within the extreme right wing was mainly for publicity and to drum up business for Murdoch and expand his brand...

For the record I don't think Trump is some sort of right wing idealogue,and I dare to say if elected some of his actions would infuriate a lot of conservatives.He supported/voted for Obama in '08,contributed to Hillary's Senate campaign in NY,and then in the 2012 election suddenly championed the ridiculous "birther" issue.Strange how Obama's "birth certificate" wasn't an issue for Trump in '08 when he endorsed him.But that just points up my main feeling about Trump-he is an opportunist...

A bit OT,but I was struck by the interview with Gene Simmons which is linked within the article.I've always likened Gene to being cut from the same sort of neanderthal cloth as Ted Nugent,but despite the interview being on Fox Business I thought Gene came across as a pretty rational,thoughtful guy.
He sort of sounds like a quasi-socialist fiscal conservative,which I guess qualifies as MOR.I'll link it as I think it's a good listen that some might enjoy hearing...

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4358...16-election/?intcmp=sem_outloud#sp=show-clips

To set the record straight, Murdoch owns Fox and the Wall Street Journal, but doesn't own Newsmax. Newsmax was founded by Christopher Ruddy and has several investors who are doing quite well financially as the website Newsmax appears to be an income producer.

In 2014 Newsmax started a cable network show TV News Network to compete with Fox News which will be offered on Direc TV along with being free on its website.

 

[cosmickid]

This is the second time I've had to correct this on here in the past few weeks. I don't know where it's coming from. But Trump, although he said nice things about both Hillary and Obama in 2008, actually endorsed McCain publicly.

Well from me it's coming from hearing it directly from Trump's mouth on tv at some point during the election process.It shocked me at the time because I thought Trump would be a Republican,but I seem to remember it involved him saying someone had to clean up the mess financially and he liked Obama's plan better...

This is not something I just dreamed up that is topical due to current Trumpmania.In fact this is the reason I was so shocked by Trump intitiating the whole "birther issue" because I remembered very distictly hearing support for Obama come out of his mouth earlier.It may be as simple as him saying he voted for Obama,perhaps after the fact.

Not sure if there is anyway to link any evidence,since I'm going by what I heard him say.But I'll do some digging anyway...

Edit to add...

I see articles referencing a Trump endorsement of McCain,but I'm wondering if those predated the "financial crisis" which McCain blundered during the Campaign.Or some of the Palin missteps?

At any rate I found this article on Newsmax from 2011,talking about why Trump shifted from supporting Obama in 2008 to calling for his defeat and the repeal of Obamacare.To me the first sentence basically says that Trump did in fact support Obama...

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Trump-Obama-class-warfare/2011/10/19/id/414955/

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Well from me it's coming from hearing it directly from Trump's mouth on tv at some point during the election process.It shocked me at the time because I thought Trump would be a Republican,but I seem to remember it involved him saying someone had to clean up the mess financially and he liked Obama's plan better...

This is not something I just dreamed up that is topical due to current Trumpmania.In fact this is the reason I was so shocked by Trump intitiating the whole "birther issue" because I remembered very distictly hearing support for Obama come out of his mouth earlier.It may be as simple as him saying he voted for Obama,perhaps after the fact.

Not sure if there is anyway to link any evidence,since I'm going by what I heard him say.But I'll do some digging anyway...

After the fact, he made some comments about how he "liked" Obama and "cheered for" and "supported" him and stuff like that, but before the election, he went on Larry King and publicly endorsed McCain.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13558.html

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Here's another fascinating addition to the Trump Civil War discourse, from NYT, about the #cuckservative movement. This is the movement that attacks mainstream GOP candidates and politicians for forgetting their values. The movement is largely pro-Trump.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/u...gop-candidates.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

I don't think most of us doubt that Trump isn't a true believer in conservatism. He's a true believer in Trump, nothing more, nothing less. And he's playing the conservative movement like a keyboard. But it still seems to me that the most radical portion of the white, male right-wing traditionalist faction of America is latching onto Trump. He's practically a hate group in his own right. Supporting Trump in the primary ought to get you on a SPLC watch list.

 

[cosmickid]

After the fact, he made some comments about how he "liked" Obama and "cheered for" and "supported" him and stuff like that, but before the election, he went on Larry King and publicly endorsed McCain.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13558.html

Thanks for linking this.I had seen it referenced,but never before seen it in print.

Going back to what I described as my view of Trump-he's an opportunist.If I was a conservative I'd be more than leery of what he would actually do to further my wishes.

Check out this article from National Review where they use Trump's own words to try and pin him down on exactly what he advocates.In this interview (on Fox) right after Obama won Trump is advocating for Universal Healthcare and what sounds conspicuously like some sort of "amnesty" provision as part of Immigration reform.

And even in your link look how his"profound admiration" for McCain has morphed into his anti-McCain sentiments a few months back.I don't really dislike Trump on a personal level,but he is definitely one of the more opportunistic people I can recall on the public stage...

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...-iran-obama-cannot-do-worse-bush-jim-geraghty

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Thanks for linking this.I had seen it referenced,but never before seen it in print.

Going back to what I described as my view of Trump-he's an opportunist.If I was a conservative I'd be more than leery of what he would actually do to further my wishes.

Check out this article from National Review where they use Trump's own words to try and pin him down on exactly what he advocates.In this interview (on Fox) right after Obama won Trump is advocating for Universal Healthcare and what sounds conspicuously like some sort of "amnesty" provision as part of Immigration reform.

And even in your link look how his"profound admiration" for McCain has morphed into his anti-McCain sentiments a few months back.I don't really dislike Trump on a personal level,but he is definitely one of the more opportunistic people I can recall on the public stage...

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...-iran-obama-cannot-do-worse-bush-jim-geraghty

I think "opportunist" is a great description of Trump. I think he looked at the sexist, racist wing of America, and said, "I'm going to do whatever I have to do to get these votes, and see if it's enough to get a surprise victory in a muddled GOP primary." I don't think for one second he believes most - if any - of what he's said.

 

[zeke4ahs]

I think "opportunist" is a great description of Trump. I think he looked at the sexist, racist wing of America, and said, "I'm going to do whatever I have to do to get these votes, and see if it's enough to get a surprise victory in a muddled GOP primary." I don't think for one second he believes most - if any - of what he's said.

Read an article today that rings true also. Compared Trump to a 69 year old white rapper. He has enough money, all the publicity in the world, and can say whatever the world he wants and he gives zero f's. Honestly, that IS a little appealing. He could care less if he is bad for the party? I doubt that he cares that if he runs as an independent, he'd certainly give the election to the Dems. He's starting to remind me of the Kardashians.

 

[cosmickid]

Here's another fascinating addition to the Trump Civil War discourse, from NYT, about the #cuckservative movement. This is the movement that attacks mainstream GOP candidates and politicians for forgetting their values. The movement is largely pro-Trump.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/u...gop-candidates.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

I don't think most of us doubt that Trump isn't a true believer in conservatism. He's a true believer in Trump, nothing more, nothing less. And he's playing the conservative movement like a keyboard. But it still seems to me that the most radical portion of the white, male right-wing traditionalist faction of America is latching onto Trump. He's practically a hate group in his own right. Supporting Trump in the primary ought to get you on a SPLC watch list.

Here's an interesting link to the "mouthpiece" of the folks who coined the term "cuckservative".I'm sure it's naive of me,but I still find it hard (and pretty sad) to believe that folks like this are part of 2015 American society.I knew they were on the fringes,but this has gone a lot farther into the "mainstream" than the morons like "posse comitatus" from the 80's and 90s...

http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/an-open-letter-to-cuckservatives/

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Here's an interesting link to the "mouthpiece" of the folks who coined the term "cuckservative".I'm sure it's naive of me,but I still find it hard (and pretty sad) to believe that folks like this are part of 2015 American society.I knew they were on the fringes,but this has gone a lot farther into the "mainstream" than the morons like "posse comitatus" from the 80's and 90s...

http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/an-open-letter-to-cuckservatives/

So that's where it comes from? I guess the Times was understating it when it described it as "maybe" racist. Jared Taylor is one of the pre-eminent racists in America today.

 

[Bill4411]

If you read the definition of "narcastic leadership" you realize that these type people put themselves above all else. I think we saw how that worked out with Knight and I sure don't want to see a President who has that same type of personality. Knight nor Trump can take criticism and you have to be able to in order to govern in a democracy. Everything is all about them. The rest of us are only a secondary consideration.

 

[hoot1]

What is a Cuckservative?

Apparently some self appointed conservatives started using the term "cuckservative'' as part of their hashtag on Twitter, and it has become a label for conservatives prone to be concerned about white American values being diminished by such things as political correctness and fellow conservatives taking stands which offend them.

Wikipedia offers an essay on the term "cuckservative" which might give us a place to start in discussing the term.

 

[cosmickid]

What is a Cuckservative?

Apparently some self appointed conservatives started using the term "cuckservative'' as part of their hashtag on Twitter, and it has become a label for conservatives prone to be concerned about white American values being diminished by such things as political correctness and fellow conservatives taking stands which offend them.

Wikipedia offers an essay on the term "cuckservative" which might give us a place to start in discussing the term.

I may be misreading what you wrote,but it sounds like you're confusing who applies the term with who they apply it to.Cuckservative is a derisive name that folks to the right of Brother John Birch have applied to anyone not up to their "standards".Here is an example from the "American Renaissance" letter to people they feel are "cuckservatives"...

"You are not alone. Like you, Erick Erickson at RedState.com, Matt Lewis at the Daily Caller, Taylor Millard at Hot Air, the blogger Ace of Spades, and Jim Harper with the Cato Institute are all squirming under the lash of this new coinage. They are squirming because a single word–cuckservative–lays bare the rot at the heart of your movement: American conservatism can conserve nothing if it cannot conserve the nation’s founding stock. I’ll put it bluntly: Nothing you love will survive without white people."

To these nuts,folks like Huckabee,Walker,Cruz and Perry (who I consider far right wing) are not far right wing ENOUGH,because basically they don't wear their racism on their sleeve.The ironic thing is that the braintrusts at Am Ren seem to be currently on the Trump bandwagon (due to his outspokenness on Immigration). But the reality is (imho) Trump is not really a racist.As I mentioned before,Trump is primarily an opportunist...