I’m not sure how it’s hyperbole?
National Review was totally out of line. There is at least a 50/50 chance (some would say better but I hold out hope) that Trump will be the republican nominee. National Review might just as well endorsed Clinton. Fortunately NR is only read by conservatives and not many of them at that.
I realized after I typed that that you were referring to Trump. Derp on my part.
Where’s the thumbs down button?
If you are going for the highest office you need to be able to answer tough questions, even if you don’t like the person asking them. This is laughable.
Do you think it will hurt him? Candidates will be able to attack him without a response, but he also won’t have any gauf moments like he did on the nuclear triad.
I think his supporters, like the hill link you posted suggests, will stand by him no matter what. They will think the ‘establishment’ is trying to get him and will only get more fired up, even though it is Trump being afraid of a FOX NEWS reporter. You couldn’t make this stuff up.
I don’t think it’ll hurt him pretty much for the reasons mentioned in the article from The Hill. Many of his supports see this boycott as a win for him already and they’re too close-minded to consider another candidate anyway.
I actually think this potentially hurts the other candidates more because I think attacking him while he isn’t there can easily make them come off as spineless and caddy. I’d like to see the other candidates act as if he isn’t even in the race; although, I’m sure some of the questions will be related to Trump. My response in those cases would be, “I don’t want to talk about Donald Trump. I want to talk about my vision for the future.”
I think it’s utterly hilarious how butt hurt he is over Kelly’s question in the first debate.
I get the angry voter angle, but I would still argue you (general you) are misinformed if you think he’ll be able to do, idk, half of what he says he’s gonna do. That’s just not how it works.