And, it was a sincere question. I really don't know if he will get a bump, take a hit, or his standing remains the same. I've read articles arguing both ways:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/will-trump-voters-in-iowa-balk/article/2000777
I think Chuck Todd believes Trump will come out ahead, because Cruz and Rubio will beat and bloody each other.
I mentioned that those who are following the stories, which I mean really listening or reading about them, may have a totally different take than one, like myself, who just sees the headlines. Basically the headlines that I've read talk about how Trump feels Megan was unfair to him. Well, there's several candidates who believe they've been treated unfairly by the networks and debate moderators, yet they show up. His approach reminds me of Sarah Palin leaving the Governor of Alaska's office. To me, on the face of it, Trump looks like a pussy! But, I could be wrong! It's purely a matter of impressions, and that is what Trump tries to manipulate and control. Perhaps, he let this one get out of hand. 
P.S. I'm no Fox fan, but I truly hope Ailes and Murdock call his bluff. It would be a great spectacle, which I might even bother to watch, if he did show up and Megan was still a moderator.
Even dumber than a love child conceived between nuguy and bigguy, and Trump may be many things, but he's not dumb.
Not only is Trump not showing up, but two of the candidates on the small stage tonight have pledged to join him, whether in person or via live feed I don't know, but both Huckabee and Santorum are saying they are attending.
You sound like a Megan Kelly fan and I feel the exact opposite, I think she tried a "gotcha" and quite insulting question right out of the gate as her very first question of the first debate and that was the start of my actual support of Trump. The press has been acting as if they are the ones in charge for decades now, I am so happy to see at least Bernie and Trump pushing back, and pushing back hard.
But, I think her questions were fair, and she asked hard and pointed questions to other debaters. Think it's time for Trump to put on his big boy britches!
But, I can imagine he does have ulterior motives other than avoiding Megan. But again, I'm never going to vote for him, but what impression will be left on those who both strongly support Fox and Trump.
First, in dispute of your assertion, everything about her question was based on things that Trump had said and done in the past regarding women and was all pretty much in context.
Any person worthy of being President should be able to handle hard questions, even gotcha questions. There are ways to push back and push back hard without resorting to Trump's tactics and attempted abuse. (In contrast, look back to how Newt Gingrich handled his opening gotcha question in the 2012 election, see link below. Newt won the debate with just that one answer and didn't make any enemies in the process, except maybe for King)
And now Trump refuses to even take any further questions from Kelly (because she a debate moderator), all under the guise of "pushing back"? What kind of a narcissistic pussy do you want for President? Maybe it was all one of his media tactics but if I had been a Trump supporter before I can say most assuredly that this incident would now make me drop him, and I doubt I'm alone on this.
I would rather vote for Bernie than Trump. If Bernie becomes President I will need to get on my knees and pray for our economy and country (and I'm not that much of a praying person). But if Trump becomes President we all will need to pray for not just the U.S. but the entire world as well.
BTW, I COMPLETELY agree with you that the majority of the media thinks they are in charge and they think they should be in charge. They are totally out of control and have been for quite awhile and I have talked here for some time about how their failing honor will be the determining factor in our long term demise.
-- Modified on 1/28/2016 7:22:28 PM
and in all fairness the worst "gotcha question" was not asked by Kelly, but by John Harwood.
Here is the very first question of the very first debate, and the start of my real support of Donald Trump. Anyone these guys are trying THIS hard to derail from day one, must have something going for him.
Fox thinks they speak for and can dictate to all people voting in the GOP primaries. Well Donald Trump is proving otherwise. If he wins, he'll be proven right. if he loses, I suppose the opposite will be proven. The voting starts in just a few days. Care to wager on the outcome?
and if Newt was so fucking smart, why isn't he POTUS? Not to mention, by almost all accounts Trump won the first debate by a mile. He is like the defending champion at this point. He doesn't have to follow the rules set up by Fox, he can make his own rules. By doing so, he has completely set himself apart from the pack. This is not the act of a coward, this is the act of a man who wants to win. While everybody else is playing it safe, Trump is making history.
Who of course doesn't even work at FOX, but Kelly is his stated reason. He tried to get her booted.
I agree Harwood's questioning was terrible but so was Trump's response. He rarely explains or defends his positions. Instead he simply trumpets his high poll numbers with the implication that he must be right because so many people like him or agree with him. From your link about the Harwood dustup, Trump's response was, Larry Kudlow likes my plan, (therefore everyone should know or believe it's a great plan).
I don't get that vibe from FOX at all but you are correct that Trump is proving many things, one of them being he's not even close to being qualified to be Commander in Chief. I'll buy that he'd probably be OK as CEO but not CIC.
To a degree you're sounding a bit like Trump. My example or talk about Newt did not go beyond a demonstration that there are good ways to handle gotcha questions and there are bad ways. The fact that he did not get elected or even nominated is a diversion.
No question Trump is making history and that accounts for a good deal of his success (and I'm actually pleased at some of the results his presence has caused). I am in no way, no shape, no form, comparing Trump to Hitler but a lot of world leaders as well made history that a substantial number of people liked at the time but in the end the results were terrible.
and like Trump, i don't take shit lying down either.
Just admit it, you are a "real Republican" and Trump is not, so he won't ever get your support, until it comes down to him and someone like Hillary or Sanders and then you will hold your nose and vote for him.
I am hardly a Republican, real or otherwise, and perhaps that's why I like Trump thumbing his nose at the Republican establishment and the MSM all at the same time. I don't believe in giving respect to people who don't give it in return. Trump has the luxury of being able to say what he means and getting away with it, even if both the PC crowd and the Republican establishment hate him for it.
I have no idea what you mean by "real" Republican. I don't "hate" Trump over anything. I'm not PC. I'm not what is generally considered an establishment Republican. I guess I might be an "unreal" Republican (still not sure what that would mean though). I just previously stated I'm pleased with some of the things Trump has done and accomplished in this election cycle. But enough about me. This has nothing to do with me (or you).
The only reason I chimed in on this was to point out reasons why Trump would make a not just a terrible President but a potentially dangerous one. So far you haven't said anything to allay my concerns that were so forcefully reinforced by this most recent and thus far most dramatic demonstration of his petulant behavior. Maybe if he used sentences containing more than 4 or 5 words he'd have a chance to at least describe his positions. I want a President who is able to demonstrate an affirmative rationale for his ideas rather than claiming his ideas must be great because he's leading in the polls. Or maybe it's simply that I want a President that has more than just shtick.
Tell me why you think he would make a good Commander in Chief, or even a mediocre one.
I don't believe for one second that you would actually vote for an admitted socialist, regardless of your feelings about Donald Trump.
As for Trump, right now he is in the business of getting elected and if sentences containing no more than 4 or 5 words are the way to do it, then that's what he should do. Republicans have been doing what the MSM and the Dems have been telling them to do for almost a decade and where has it gotten them/you? Trump can't do a damn thing unless and until he gets the job and for a guy with ZERO chance only a few months ago, I don't think he needs to be taking campaign advice from the Dems, the MSM, or from you for that matter. IOW, what he is doing seems to be working.
To answer your question about why I think Trump would be any good as CIC, Trump is a businessman and by necessity a pragmatist, his balls are also a hell of a lot bigger than Obama and he would not be afraid of walking away from a bad deal like the one that got shoved up Obamas ass (and ours) by the Iranians. I also believe he would stop this stupid renewal of the cold war with Russia. In Syria for example, we cannot fight both ISIS and Assad, I firmly believe that with the partnership of Russia, we could decimate ISIS in Syria in a matter of weeks and THEN we could work on the Assad problem. Unlike Saddam, Assad is not a danger to his neighbors, wiping out ISIS is much more important than regime change in Syria. I think Trump gets that. I doubt Hillary or especially Bernie would do the same
I said I would rather vote for Bernie than Trump and I totally meant it. I may end up not voting, especially if it's HRC vs. Trump but I'll not vote for Trump. I still don't know what a "real" Republican is but let's get one thing clear, I am very pleased with what Trump has done and is doing. It's been great for the political system and even the Republican party. The system has needed disrupting for 20 years. I'm very glad he's done that but I absolutely abhor the idea that he might end up as CIC. He may be a pragmatist but he's also a narcissist and pathologically so. (I could tell you personal stories about the way he treats people.) Obama is also a narcissist (as are many politicians) and as you say, Trump's got a set of balls but he thinks his are bigger than anyone's. Being a civilian and having to obey laws have made him a pragmatist. President Trump, following BHO's precedents visa-vi executive "actions", and the pragmatic restrictions disappear. BTW, other Republicans share the same perception regarding Assad as you and Trump but what happens after Trump makes a "deal" with Putin and then he reneges on it because Assad is Putin's guy?
But I hope you change your mind and decide to cast a vote against Clinton in November, assuming of course she is even on the ballot of course.
As for Assad, what makes you think Trump will have to renege on any "deal" he cuts with Putin? He can leave himself an easy out which would be to have Assad held to a certain standard of conduct, one he would most probably break and then our hands would be untied to deal with him. In the meantime we wipe out ISIS which is a MUCH bigger threat to the world than Assad will ever be..
Just like with every POTUS before him, POTUS Trump will not be the same as Candidate Trump, but the one thing I am confident about is Trump getting the two TRILLION dollars currently held offshore by American corporations repatriated, giving this country a huge financial shot in the arm we need so desperately. Trump is BY FAR the most likely candidate to make that happen. Trump is also the most likely to stop the brand new cold war we have with Russia, especially in areas where "our side" doesn't necessarily have the moral high ground like The Ukraine.
I am positive Trump could do a lot of positive things as President, some things that no one else could do. But based on what I know about Trump he will be a President Trump that is WORSE than candidate Trump. The pre-candidate Trump will emerge. The negative things that are visible in candidate Trump will amplify not subside. All the good things he might accomplish are foreshadowed by even just one of the catastrophic things he is likely to trigger.
Set aside for the moment the things that are what I see as a personality disorder. He has spent his entire adult life as owner, CEO and COB of a privately held LLC. In a very real practical sense he does not even have to answer to a board of directors. That's not different from your own situation except of course he's of such a size that he can get done whatever he wants, within the limits of his organization and the limits of laws governing LLCs. Indeed he makes "deals" by negotiating with entities outside his organization, but now he's going to be just the CEO, not chairman of the board, not the owner. He will have to learn how to share that power with 2 other entities where in the past he's had no such experience. Also in the past, inside the confines of the laws governing LLCs, he was answerable to no one. Now he is theoretically going to be answerable to We the People. He refuses to talk about any of that except to use one of his 4th grade sentences "I'll get things done."
Now throw into the mix that he suffers from severe pathological narcissism. A LOT of things are going to "get done.
Trump is simply doing what is necessary to win. He has analyzed the game and decided this strategy gives him the best chance of winning. Why should he employ a losing strategy just to satisfy the people who aren't going to vote for him anyhow?
I think Trump is simply taking a page out of Clinton's play book, not Hillary though, but Bill. Anyone remember KISS; Keep It Simple Stupid??? Well that strategy worked just fine for Bill Clinton who beat an unbeatable, very popular incumbent POTUS in George HW Bush. This seems to be just what Trump is doing and he too seems to be doing quite well with this strategy.
Indeed, I criticized some of them but praised others and that is all a side show. Your implication that my concerns should be focused on the nomination and election process rather than Trump is a brand new path you are opening.
None of a candidates good intentions mean squat if they don't get elected. Both McCain and Romney ran miserable campaigns and let both the media and the Democrats tell them how to run their campaigns and look where that got them. Trump is the first candidate on either side of the aisle with either the brains or the balls to do it "his way" and he is being properly rewarded for it.
