trump

[jamil]

This. I'd sure hate to say the wrong thing and have people that already hate me get upset.

The problem is, there's more at stake than just pissing people off that already hate you. How many candidates lost elections because they said something that opponents used against them to turn other people against them? I hate that it works that way. It keeps candidates from speaking their minds. Even though I don't support Trump, I'd rather he lost because they either don't agree with him and/or don't believe he'll do what he says. I rather he not lose because someone exploited something he said to mean something he didn't mean. I'd rather a campaign be a contest between the actual candidates not the straw men that each of them makes of the other.

 

[BugI02]

Don't they already? Trump broke their rules and even people who don't support Trump like that about him. I do. I think he's a blowhard and I fear a a Trump presidency almost as much as a Clinton presidency. But I like that Trump says **** and the media hasn't been able to make him bleed for it. Until now maybe. We'll see how he handles it and what happens in the polls.

Trump didn't cause the riot. But he did open himself to being blamed for it. Sad but true. So I guess what I'm saying is that MF'er Alinsky, eventually trumps Trump.

And isn't it amazing how quickly the other GOP(e) candidates piled on, using eerily similar logic and language. Its almost as if they're reading from the same script

 

[jamil]

And isn't it amazing how quickly the other GOP(e) candidates piled on, using eerily similar logic and language. Its almost as if they're reading from the same script

I wish they'd all quit doing it. Trump does it too.

but I don't think it's as bad for candidates to say their opponents are saying more than they're saying. We kind of expect that. What's worse is when the press does it. That's not reporing. It is unforgivably biased editorializing.

 

[Kutnupe14]

So Trump would have been justified for shooting a person while not being attacked? Does that work for anybody, or just Trump?

Depending on the circumstances, anybody. There are PLENTY of situations where people have been justifiably shot, not due to their intent, but what they could potentially do, in the mind of the person doing the shooting. Do you disagree?

 

[Kutnupe14]

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...-may-pay-legal-fees-of-accused-attacker/?_r=0

Trump may pay legal fees for puncher. Surely he's smarter than that?

 

[olhorseman]

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...-may-pay-legal-fees-of-accused-attacker/?_r=0

Trump may pay legal fees for puncher. Surely he's smarter than that?

Well, his last statement in the article may be a clue "“Supposedly, there was chatter about ISIS,” Mr. Trump said. “All I know is what’s on the internet.”

 

[Hkindiana]

 

[miguel]

****ing beauty!

 

[mammynun]

Depending on the circumstances, anybody. There are PLENTY of situations where people have been justifiably shot, not due to their intent, but what they could potentially do, in the mind of the person doing the shooting. Do you disagree?

I stand corrected, I misread your post. Mea culpa.

 

[BugI02]

I wish they'd all quit doing it. Trump does it too.

but I don't think it's as bad for candidates to say their opponents are saying more than they're saying. We kind of expect that. What's worse is when the press does it. That's not reporing. It is unforgivably biased editorializing.

But is that not the essence of the 'dog whistle' - ie: inferring what the individual was really saying based on the hearer's interpretation and internal biases

 

[Tombs]

I only saw that he was Dutch. Where in the Middle East is he from?

Why don't you try reading his twitter profile, I'm not going to spoon feed you everything unless you're willing to pay.

About candidates and journalists blaming Trump for the riot. I dunno. Was the riot organized by moveon dot org? Ultimately the blame for rioting falls on the people rioting. However. Let's assume for a moment that this was organized by leftists. Had Trump been more mindful of the impact of his rhetoric and how it could be used against him, the journalists and political opponents couldn't point to those words and blame him for inciting the riot. Trump should be learning the importance of words and consequences.

People like Trump because he is unfiltered. He says what people wish could be said loudly and publicly. And up until now Trump has seemed immune from negative consequences of that. But apparently people have figured out how to make him bleed. His reliable supporters probably won't stop supporting him. But the coverage of this will have the world believing that Trump may as well be wearing a white hood. Words have consequences, and though we'd like our politicians to speak their minds openly, the consequences of doing that are unavoidable. Someone will find a way to turn them against the person.

If Kasich, Rubio, Or Cruz were in the lead, this still would have happened.

They do not want a republican in office ever again. Ask any of them, they're all militant hillary or bernie supporters. We will see more of this nonsense leading up to the election regardless who takes the nomination. They have no substantive arguments against Trump, just like many posters on this forum, they're just seeking to destroy the strongest candidate who threatens to beat their favorite democrat.

 

[17 squirrel]

Why don't you try reading his twitter profile, I'm not going to spoon feed you everything unless you're willing to pay.



If Kasich, Rubio, Or Cruz were in the lead, this still would have happened.

They do not want a republican in office ever again. Ask any of them, they're all militant hillary or bernie supporters. We will see more of this nonsense leading up to the election regardless who takes the nomination. They have no substantive arguments against Trump, just like many posters on this forum, they're just seeking to destroy the strongest candidate who threatens to beat their favorite democrat.

Yep.yep..

 

[Tombs]

[video=youtube;ra_ed9WMDNE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra_ed9WMDNE[/video]

Live Town hall. Trump should be coming on stage any minute.

 

[churchmouse]

****ing beauty!

I know right......and how very true.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Question, do you guys actually believe the stuff Donnie T actually says? I'm not taking about his visions or policy, but the stuff he says off the cuff. I really think he might be a pathological liar.... as in he just lies to lie, not really knowing if he's right or wrong.

 

[Tombs]

Question, do you guys actually believe the stuff Donnie T actually says? I'm not taking about his visions or policy, but the stuff he says off the cuff. I really think he might be a pathological liar.... as in he just lies to lie, not really knowing if he's right or wrong.

I believe he inflates his statements a bit, as he specifically said he does already in interviews and in his book.

If someone tells you they're exaggerating before they tell a story, are they lying to you when they exaggerate?

 

[red_zr24x4]

Question, do you guys actually believe the stuff (insert different name here)Donnie T actually says? I'm not taking about his visions or policy, but the stuff he says off the cuff. I really think he might be a pathological liar.... as in he just lies to lie, not really knowing if he's right or wrong.

Who else does this remind me of?? Hmmm thinking...

 

[churchmouse]

Question, do you guys actually believe the stuff Donnie T actually says? I'm not taking about his visions or policy, but the stuff he says off the cuff. I really think he might be a pathological liar.... as in he just lies to lie, not really knowing if he's right or wrong.

I have the same thoughts but he is magnanimouse beyond most of our understanding.

How would we actually know unless he gets a chance to prove it.

Not seen a politico yet the "Followed" through.

 

[Tombs]

Prepare for another Chiraq in Florida!

https://twitter.com/RestoreUSA2016/status/709088960811835392?lang=en

 

[Kutnupe14]

I believe he inflates his statements a bit, as he specifically said he does already in interviews and in his book.

If someone tells you they're exaggerating before they tell a story, are they lying to you when they exaggerate?

You don't see that as being a problem for a president? Especially after the last 8 years?