This blog was callig Donald Trump a joke, as to his supposed flirtation with "running for Rresident", adn even the GOP nomination. This was at a time when the unfair and unbalanced network was putting Trump on almsot every program, in an effort to increase ratings.
Now, however, Trump has propsed to have a "debate", after which he will make an endorsement for the GOP nomination (thratening to run as an independent if the GOP voters reject his "endoresement"-another joke).
Okay, This is THEATER (sort of entrtaining theater). And I don't "fault" a GOP candidate who is willing to seek Trump's endorsemetn. Trump could give the GOP lessons on how to handle the media, even if he is not a truly serous politican OR thinkrer. Still, you have to lighten up here. Trump is who he is. Thaat is, he is unelss you are the DISHONEST HYPOCRITES of the unfair and unbalanced network.
Yep,. My few minutes of srufing the unfair and unbalanced network were spendt today looking at the Bret Baire panel discusion on Trump's "debate"--which happens to sort of take some of the wind out of the sails of the debate that the unfair and unbalanced network has scheduled for December 15. Trump--if he can pull this off--will probably get BETTER ratings than the unfair and unbalanced network. THAT is what has cuased their noses to get out of joint, alng wtihte fact that Trump probably has MORTE "respect" out there than ANY "journalist" on the unfair and unbalanced network (or any "panelist"; Charles Krauthammer, this means YOU).
Frankly, I thik thi sis a good thing, even if Trump is a joke as a serious thinker. So are most of the peole of the unfair and unbalanced network. Let me be as blunt as I can: I would RATHER have Donald Trump asking questins than the people the unfair and unbalanced network has had askng questions in "their" debate.s. Trump simply cannot do any worse. And my utter CONTEMPT for the unfair and unbalanced network gets wrose every day.
I tgot worse today with this TRASHING of Trump. Trump was sarcastically dismissed as nothing more than a "reality TV star" (A LIE, whihc is what you can expet form the unfair and unbalanced network, as Trump was FAMOUS well before there was reality TV). Remember, Trump is the person that the unfair and unablanced network has been REGULARLY putting on as somebody wroth listening to. If Trump is really nothing more than a "reality TV star with nothing to say or contribute, as the unfair and unablanced network said today, then WHAT is the unfair and unbalanced network? Hypocrties? Dishoenst? Ratings crazy? Arrogant? Swine fromt he Devil's herd? All of those, I thk.
See tonight's aarticle on CNN and Gloria Borger. These people (today's "journalists") are dishoenst political hacks--virtually all of them. WHY should these peole have a mopoly on "aksng quesitns" of political candidates in debates? They should not. I hope Trump starts a trrend. "Journalists" should be BARRED from debates. This is not a matter os "News'> This is a matter of aksing INTELLIGENT, FAIR questins, or else letting the CANDIDATES control thier own debate by aksing each otehr questins. (or some othe format) Don't even TALK to me about the FRAUD of "intternet" debates,, or "town hall" debates, or whatever. The "JOURNALISTS" sill PICK the quesionts, and it is the same as if they ask the quesions. The questins get asked tha "JOURNALISTS" want asked, even if they come from the mouths of anmed people. That FRAUD is like a "card trichK" where the magician PUSHES the cared he wants into your hand, trying to decievei you with sleight of hand and trikery. I cna't stand those fraudulent 'citizen" quesitns---not because th equestins are bad but because the process is a FRAUD.
No, it is time to look for a way to get "journalists" OUT of the debates, except in the most minimal--NON-QUESTION CONTROLLING, way. How about having a "debate" with foreign policyh "professionals' askng the questions (UNSCREENED)? How about thse asame thing with ECONOMIC EXPERTS. Sure, you have to BALANCE the bias of the questioners, but they can't possibly be any more biased than teh "journalists" (and a Hell of a lot more knowledgeable and intelligent). No, I don't even think there is even any quesitn about this. We NEED to get these "debates" (jonint press conferences) out of the hands of "journlaists", in one way or another, and not for the FARUD of "journalists'" controlling the questions from the internet (or Facebook or wherever). Key: The questions CANNOT BE SCRENED. If they are then it is a FRAUD. You mean candidates might have to face UNSCREENDED questins from peole who may embarrass them ? Right . Don't you agree that would be a good thing. Right now, "journalists" push theeir agenda, and politicians know where they are coming from (disgraceful as the performance of the "journalists" usually is) . Politicans are acutally ore comfortable with this than with UNSCREENED unknown quantities askng the questins. But WE would be much better off if "journlalists" were ut OUT of the business of "makng nwes", and merely reported on the degate performance of cnadidates either handkng their own debate, or facing ptopel who KNOW something that they can bring to the table.
Did I just say Donald Trump had a good idea her? I thik I did. Actually, Trump has ots of good ideas, but he is a SELF-PROMOTER. But, then, so are "journlaists', without nearly the experience in actual life that Trump has. GO DONALD. I am with you on this one.
My contempt for the unfair and unbalanced netork, on the other hand, just continues to grow.