Donald Trump's war on Megyn Kelly

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cider said:
link

**here’s what Paterno, who died in January, told the grand jury **former Penn State quarterback Mike McQueary had told him, after driving to his home in a swivet one Saturday morning in February of 2001: “Well, he had seen a person, an older — not an older, but a mature person who was fondling, whatever you might call it — I’m not sure what the term would be — a young boy.’’

Asked if he’d ever had a man named Jerry Sandusky in his employ, Paterno responded, “I did for a while, yes.’’ Which is true; Sandusky only worked for him for 30 years. So who was this ‘mature person’ fondling somone in the showers?

“Jerry Sandusky, who had been one of our coaches,” but had retired in 1999. That is, a year after an investigation of another report about Sandusky molesting two boys in the team shower went nowhere.

Of the ‘fondling’ incident in 2001, Paterno didn’t seem to think there was much doubt about Sandusky’s actions: “Obviously, he was doing something of a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was. I didn’t push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset. Obviously, I was in a little bit of a dilemma since Mr. Sandusky was not working for me anymore. So I told — I didn’t go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster.”

It doesn’t sound to me like he doubted the validity of his quarterbacks statement, according to his grand jury testimony. Surely if it was you in that place you would have contacted the police and urged your quarterback to also do so?
Click to expand...
As hearsay, any Paterno testimony would be worth spit in a court of law. :rolleyes:
 
As hearsay, Paterno’s testimony was worth spit in a court of law
Click to expand...
He said it to the grand jury which is a legal body empowered to bring criminal charges.

But I did notice that you ignored my question asking if you would have reported it to police. I’m astounded that anyone wouldn’t report it. From his own testimony, he clearly believed the person who brought him the information. He was also an authority figure in this situation. It happened in his own locker room and his own quarterback reported it to him. Yet he didn’t call police and didn’t tell his quarterback to call police.

Surely you would have reported right? So why justify his essentially doing nothing except alerting the school that they better start a cover up? How can anyone justify that? And when Pen State did nothing about Sandusky, why didn’t he go to police then?
 
DeniseNY said:
No worries. He’s shown who he is.
Click to expand...
I merely pointed out the tendency of certain Pennsylvanians to support personality cults. Paterno’s veneration, no matter whether it comes from his status as a “good man” or his 409 football wins–a number which his followers never tire in bandying about–definitely qualifies as a personality cult.

It’s also undeniable that much of Trump’s support arises from a personality cult. Look at all the Trump junk he peddles, and how his name is prominently affixed to everything he’s associated with. Look at the see-no-evil attitude of certain of his supporters, and the way they attack Megyn Kelley as if she were Lin Biao.

Thus, it is logical to assume that the former would be conducive to the message of the latter.

Don’t shoot the messenger!
 
As much as some don’t like Rush, others like me love him. This was a fine statement this morning, if we have equality, the opening question to Hillary could be something like and roughly paraphrasing, the transcript will surely be up later:

“Missus Clinton, do the 7 names, Kathryn Willie, Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick, Gennifer Flowers, etc. mean anything to you?”

Remember, Fair and Balanced.
 
Path_Finder said:
As much as some don’t like Rush, others like me love him. This was a fine statement this morning, if we have equality, the opening question to Hillary could be something like and roughly paraphrasing, the transcript will surely be up later:

“Missus Clinton, do the 7 names, Kathryn Willie, Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick, Gennifer Flowers, etc. mean anything to you?”

Remember, Fair and Balanced.
Click to expand...
So Hillary Clinton made misogynistic comments about Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers?

Is there tape of this?
 
Trump’s popularity among women Republicans is dropping. (I doubt that is much of a concern to him however - who needs 'em)
 
FollowChrist34 said:
Trump’s popularity among women Republicans is dropping. (I doubt that is much of a concern to him however - who needs 'em)
Click to expand...
All he needs to do to counteract this drop is to bring up the binders of women he used to hire employees. Say hello, President Trump!
 
Darryl_Revok said:
All he needs to do to counteract this drop is to bring up the binders of women he used to hire employees. Say hello, President Trump!
Click to expand...
I just now saw that Hillary is calling Trump over the top and tying all this to the Republican war on women. Love it. How did I not see that one coming. Too busy fighting Trumpitis.
 
Darryl_Revok said:
So Hillary Clinton made misogynistic comments about Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers?

Is there tape of this?
Click to expand...
It is likewise relevant of her if it is argued this with Trump was relevant,

31,000 missing emails and the FBI seem to be Hillary’s big problem now.
 
Path_Finder said:
It is likewise relevant of her if it is argued this with Trump was relevant,

31,000 missing emails and the FBI seem to be Hillary’s big problem now.
Click to expand...
How are the names of your husband’s mistresses the same thing as negative comments Trump has made in the past about women?
 
FollowChrist34 said:
How are the names of your husband’s mistresses the same thing as negative comments Trump has made in the past about women?
Click to expand...
Would you think it would be a legitimate question to ask Hillary in a debate? That’s the point.

I’ll have to read it in full later.
 
RACJ said:
Megyn seemed pointlessly hostile in the tone of her questions, seeming to play to the leftist Beltway cocktail crowd instead of her TV audience, most of whom wanted to learn where the candidates stood on issues. :cool:
Megyn is just one more angry pro-abortion establishment hack.
Click to expand...
I am not impressed by Megyn. She is OK with the woman hater Stern and going on his program discussing
****, and *** in a trashy, gutter, nonchalant way as noted by Walid and Theodore Shoebat on their website Shoebat.com, where they called Kelly a hypocrite for criticizing Trump after her lewd conversation with Stern. She says that she wants people to adore her, so I guess she doesn’t like it when someone like Trump says what he thinks of her.
 
If Hillary’s viewpoint goes along with the mythical “war on women”, then, is she really standing up for women? I think that is part of the question as well as it being obviously done to embarrass someone.

What’s good for the goose as they say.
 
Path_Finder said:
If Hillary’s viewpoint goes along with the mythical “war on women”, then, is she really standing up for women? I think that is part of the question as well as it being obviously done to embarrass someone.

What’s good for the goose as they say.
Click to expand...
But it doesn’t follow. Hillary’s viewpoint towards her husband’s old mistresses and Trump’s attitude towards the female sex have only the most tenuous of relations. Even you’re struggling to relate them.

It’s one of many things that Limbaugh says that superficially sound clever, but are ultimately nonsensical. Like much of his rhetoric, it’s quotable, glib, yet fall apart under the merest scrutiny.
 
Path_Finder said:
So? Jesse Ventura doesn’t seem like one of those abortion promoting politicians out there, friends of Planned Parenthood. That is one of low morals.

I didn’t see Senator Al Franken defund planned parenthood along with a number of other senators, you want shame, that is shameful.

Or winning Planned Parenthood’s “Sanger award”, as Democratic candidate Clinton did.

Someone can uncharitably describe others as a “joke” too, almost a laugh but nearly a cry as they say. I could go into specifics but I think it’s extremely unkind to use “I know other people who say this” and then, call these peoples this name. This is shameful.

I could say “I know people who call this person so and so a racial epithet”, understand, I’m not saying it. This is abhorrent. This becomes a way to get around personally using such language.
Click to expand...
I had a really difficult time understanding what you were getting at in your post and I think part of the problem is that you appear to be projecting something on my words that isn’t there. If you continue doing that I won’t continue this conversation. When I don’t have a lot of time I might take some shortcuts but I’ll try to be clearer in the future.

I described how two politicians were perceived by people inside of the beltway. It was interesting to me because people made comments about President Reagan being an actor. And I wasn’t trying to deflect something away from me but making it clear I wasn’t the only one who thought it odd. And since the comments came from both conservatives and liberals I found it notable.
 
Path_Finder said:
And many other prognosticators said Trump would still not be in the race by now.

At least, Trump employs 1000s of people, and Mr. Silverman?
Click to expand...
I didn’t reference “many other prognosticators.” I referenced Nate Silver, who was nearly spot-on in his statistical predictions for the recent national elections. Nate Silver calculated Trump’s chances of winning the nomination at 2%. I believe him.
 
Granted I am jumping in late and haven’t read anything. But isn’t the title of this thread backward?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top