Trump and him not calling BS on his supporters

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since when is that any candidate's job?

Since men and women were born with decency.

Since candidates have wanted to be seen differently from their racist constituents.

To censor free speech?

I guess to you, someone walking up to young kids repeatedly using the racist n-word in front of them, and telling them to shut up is curtailing their right to free speech.

How is calling Obama a Muslim a derogatory racist comment? Unless you think Muslim people are nasty? If this man thinks Obama's religion is Islam, he's entitled to come to that conclusion. It's not Trump's job to tell him how or what to think. I know that comes as a surprise to liberals though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since when is that any candidate's job?

Since men and women were born with decency.

Since candidates have wanted to be seen differently from their racist constituents.

To censor free speech?

I guess to you, someone walking up to young kids repeatedly using the racist n-word in front of them, and telling them to shut up is curtailing their right to free speech.

How is calling Obama a Muslim a derogatory racist comment? Unless you think Muslim people are nasty? If this man thinks Obama's religion is Islam, he's entitled to come to that conclusion. It's not Trump's job to tell him how or what to think. I know that comes as a surprise to liberals though.

Did you listen to what the Trump supporter said? You didn't hear anything offensive?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since when is that any candidate's job?

Since men and women were born with decency.

Since candidates have wanted to be seen differently from their racist constituents.

To censor free speech?

I guess to you, someone walking up to young kids repeatedly using the racist n-word in front of them, and telling them to shut up is curtailing their right to free speech.

How is calling Obama a Muslim a derogatory racist comment? Unless you think Muslim people are nasty? If this man thinks Obama's religion is Islam, he's entitled to come to that conclusion. It's not Trump's job to tell him how or what to think. I know that comes as a surprise to liberals though.

Yes, we know the constitution guarantees you the right to the the biggest racist bigot in the world. Have at it. It also guarantees me the right to tell you to STFU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since when is that any candidate's job?

Since men and women were born with decency.

Since candidates have wanted to be seen differently from their racist constituents.

To censor free speech?

I guess to you, someone walking up to young kids repeatedly using the racist n-word in front of them, and telling them to shut up is curtailing their right to free speech.

How is calling Obama a Muslim a derogatory racist comment? Unless you think Muslim people are nasty? If this man thinks Obama's religion is Islam, he's entitled to come to that conclusion. It's not Trump's job to tell him how or what to think. I know that comes as a surprise to liberals though.

Yes, we know the constitution guarantees you the right to the the biggest racist bigot in the world. Have at it. It also guarantees me the right to tell you to STFU.

Not the PP you addressed but I am glad that we have come to a mutual agreement. If only Democrats and Republicans can agree on issues the same way we would be in great shape.

[jsteele]

I think most, if not all of you, are actually missing the bigger point here. It's not just that Trump didn't correct the guy claiming that Obama was and Muslim and isn't American, but Trump actually affirmatively agreed with the guy about removing Muslims. Here is the question and Trump's response:

"We have a problem in this country, it’s called Muslims. We know our current president is one — you know he’s not even an American. But anyway, we have training camps growing where they want to kill us. That’s my question, when can we get rid of them?"

and Trump's response:

"We’re going to be looking at a lot of different things, a lot of people are saying bad things are happening, we’re going to be looking at that and plenty of other things."

The guy is claiming that Muslims are a problem in the US and he wants to know when we can get rid of them and Trump's response is that he going to look into it.

Can you imagine if someone was asking about getting rid of Catholics or Mormons or any other religious group? Would a candidate say that he is going to "look into it"?

We already know that Trump wants to deport millions of undocumented residents. But, now he is going to look in to getting rid of Muslims, regardless of the legal status in this country? Where is the outrage about that?

[Anonymous]

Well, he's not entirely wrong. We do have a problem with Muslim extremists, and they do have training camps, and they do want to kill us. I'm not aware of Mormons training to do that, but I could have missed it.

I don't think he said "regardless of their legal staus." Where are you getting that from, Jeff?

Also, could you address the Reverend Wright parallel?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:I think most, if not all of you, are actually missing the bigger point here. It's not just that Trump didn't correct the guy claiming that Obama was and Muslim and isn't American, but Trump actually affirmatively agreed with the guy about removing Muslims. Here is the question and Trump's response:

"We have a problem in this country, it’s called Muslims. We know our current president is one — you know he’s not even an American. But anyway, we have training camps growing where they want to kill us. That’s my question, when can we get rid of them?"

and Trump's response:

"We’re going to be looking at a lot of different things, a lot of people are saying bad things are happening, we’re going to be looking at that and plenty of other things."

The guy is claiming that Muslims are a problem in the US and he wants to know when we can get rid of them and Trump's response is that he going to look into it.

Can you imagine if someone was asking about getting rid of Catholics or Mormons or any other religious group? Would a candidate say that he is going to "look into it"?

We already know that Trump wants to deport millions of undocumented residents. But, now he is going to look in to getting rid of Muslims, regardless of the legal status in this country? Where is the outrage about that?

Trump is pretty crafty. I think he muddled his response perfectly to be able to plausibly deny your interpretation of his response. There's no gotcha there.

Carly, on the other hand, is a rank amateur.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Well, he's not entirely wrong. We do have a problem with Muslim extremists, and they do have training camps, and they do want to kill us. I'm not aware of Mormons training to do that, but I could have missed it.

I don't think he said "regardless of their legal staus." Where are you getting that from, Jeff?

Also, could you address the Reverend Wright parallel?

The guy didn't say we have a problem with Muslim extremists. He said we have a problem with Muslims. Where are there training camps in this country? The guy explicitly said the problem was in this country.

Every aspect of that guy's statement was wrong and Trump said he is going to look into it. What exactly is he going to look into?

Regarding Reverend Wright, Obama said he was not in church when the controversial statements were made. I've never seen proof that Obama in fact heard those statements. It is quite obvious that Trump heard the statements about Muslims.

But, since you are so into comparing these two situation and you obviously condemn Wright, do you think Trump should have rebuked this guy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Trump is pretty crafty. I think he muddled his response perfectly to be able to plausibly deny your interpretation of his response. There's no gotcha there.

Carly, on the other hand, is a rank amateur.

Just the point I made earlier.

Note the focus has shifted from the debate and Carly back to Trump!

I don't care for Trump but the guy is a master at getting the attention he needs - at zero cost to him. In the meantime he has plausible a excuse for why he did not say anything - he did not hear it or whatever. Liberals may not believe him but those who support him or are inclined to do so will accept what he says.

And if push comes to shove, he will send out a tweet that he loves law-abiding Muslims who are here legally and are willing to assimilate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I think most, if not all of you, are actually missing the bigger point here. It's not just that Trump didn't correct the guy claiming that Obama was and Muslim and isn't American, but Trump actually affirmatively agreed with the guy about removing Muslims. Here is the question and Trump's response:

"We have a problem in this country, it’s called Muslims. We know our current president is one — you know he’s not even an American. But anyway, we have training camps growing where they want to kill us. That’s my question, when can we get rid of them?"

and Trump's response:

"We’re going to be looking at a lot of different things, a lot of people are saying bad things are happening, we’re going to be looking at that and plenty of other things."

The guy is claiming that Muslims are a problem in the US and he wants to know when we can get rid of them and Trump's response is that he going to look into it.

Can you imagine if someone was asking about getting rid of Catholics or Mormons or any other religious group? Would a candidate say that he is going to "look into it"?

We already know that Trump wants to deport millions of undocumented residents. But, now he is going to look in to getting rid of Muslims, regardless of the legal status in this country? Where is the outrage about that?

Trump is pretty crafty. I think he muddled his response perfectly to be able to plausibly deny your interpretation of his response. There's no gotcha there.

Carly, on the other hand, is a rank amateur.

I would also add that that vague response is tough to come up with whe someone hits you with a surprising question at an event being broadcast live nationally through seven outlets.

Trump has evolved from his early days when he fumbled with remarks that could be directly challenged. He he learns fast and is quick on his feet. He has become a much more savvy politician in a short amount of time. He can adapt to a steep learning curve, which is probably necessary for a billionaire.

Don't like the guy, but gotta respect the game that this guy brings at this point. He's nobody's fool.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I think most, if not all of you, are actually missing the bigger point here. It's not just that Trump didn't correct the guy claiming that Obama was and Muslim and isn't American, but Trump actually affirmatively agreed with the guy about removing Muslims. Here is the question and Trump's response:

"We have a problem in this country, it’s called Muslims. We know our current president is one — you know he’s not even an American. But anyway, we have training camps growing where they want to kill us. That’s my question, when can we get rid of them?"

and Trump's response:

"We’re going to be looking at a lot of different things, a lot of people are saying bad things are happening, we’re going to be looking at that and plenty of other things."

The guy is claiming that Muslims are a problem in the US and he wants to know when we can get rid of them and Trump's response is that he going to look into it.

Can you imagine if someone was asking about getting rid of Catholics or Mormons or any other religious group? Would a candidate say that he is going to "look into it"?

We already know that Trump wants to deport millions of undocumented residents. But, now he is going to look in to getting rid of Muslims, regardless of the legal status in this country? Where is the outrage about that?

Trump is pretty crafty. I think he muddled his response perfectly to be able to plausibly deny your interpretation of his response. There's no gotcha there.

Carly, on the other hand, is a rank amateur.

I would also add that that vague response is tough to come up with whe someone hits you with a surprising question at an event being broadcast live nationally through seven outlets.

Trump has evolved from his early days when he fumbled with remarks that could be directly challenged. He he learns fast and is quick on his feet. He has become a much more savvy politician in a short amount of time. He can adapt to a steep learning curve, which is probably necessary for a billionaire.

Don't like the guy, but gotta respect the game that this guy brings at this point. He's nobody's fool.

It seems pretty clear to me that Trump says that he is going to be looking into something. The "something" in question may be unclear, but it is pretty much limited to getting rid of Muslims and/or their imaginary training camps. The guy asking the question was very explicit that "We have a problem in this country, it’s called Muslims" and Trump is equally clear that he is going to be looking into that. I'm not sure how that can be less clear.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I think most, if not all of you, are actually missing the bigger point here. It's not just that Trump didn't correct the guy claiming that Obama was and Muslim and isn't American, but Trump actually affirmatively agreed with the guy about removing Muslims. Here is the question and Trump's response:

"We have a problem in this country, it’s called Muslims. We know our current president is one — you know he’s not even an American. But anyway, we have training camps growing where they want to kill us. That’s my question, when can we get rid of them?"

and Trump's response:

"We’re going to be looking at a lot of different things, a lot of people are saying bad things are happening, we’re going to be looking at that and plenty of other things."

The guy is claiming that Muslims are a problem in the US and he wants to know when we can get rid of them and Trump's response is that he going to look into it.

Can you imagine if someone was asking about getting rid of Catholics or Mormons or any other religious group? Would a candidate say that he is going to "look into it"?

We already know that Trump wants to deport millions of undocumented residents. But, now he is going to look in to getting rid of Muslims, regardless of the legal status in this country? Where is the outrage about that?

Trump is pretty crafty. I think he muddled his response perfectly to be able to plausibly deny your interpretation of his response. There's no gotcha there.

Carly, on the other hand, is a rank amateur.

I would also add that that vague response is tough to come up with whe someone hits you with a surprising question at an event being broadcast live nationally through seven outlets.

Trump has evolved from his early days when he fumbled with remarks that could be directly challenged. He he learns fast and is quick on his feet. He has become a much more savvy politician in a short amount of time. He can adapt to a steep learning curve, which is probably necessary for a billionaire.

Don't like the guy, but gotta respect the game that this guy brings at this point. He's nobody's fool.

It seems pretty clear to me that Trump says that he is going to be looking into something. The "something" in question may be unclear, but it is pretty much limited to getting rid of Muslims and/or their imaginary training camps. The guy asking the question was very explicit that "We have a problem in this country, it’s called Muslims" and Trump is equally clear that he is going to be looking into that. I'm not sure how that can be less clear.

I don't dispute that what you are saying is what he intended to communicate. All I am saying is that the way he said it is vague enough to effectively dismiss your accusations. That is what political savvy and skill are all about.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I don't dispute that what you are saying is what he intended to communicate. All I am saying is that the way he said it is vague enough to effectively dismiss your accusations. That is what political savvy and skill are all about.

It is certainly clear enough that he should be expected to clarify what he said. He should be asked a simple question, "Are Muslims in America a 'problem'?". He can answer with a yes or no. If he says "yes", he should be asked if plans to get rid of them.

If there is even a chance that a major candidate is supporting ethnic cleansing, I think we should expect to have it clarified. Certainly that is not the sort of issue you allow to remain vague and confused.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, he's not entirely wrong. We do have a problem with Muslim extremists, and they do have training camps, and they do want to kill us. I'm not aware of Mormons training to do that, but I could have missed it.

I don't think he said "regardless of their legal staus." Where are you getting that from, Jeff?

Also, could you address the Reverend Wright parallel?

The guy didn't say we have a problem with Muslim extremists. He said we have a problem with Muslims. Where are there training camps in this country? The guy explicitly said the problem was in this country.

Every aspect of that guy's statement was wrong and Trump said he is going to look into it. What exactly is he going to look into?

Regarding Reverend Wright, Obama said he was not in church when the controversial statements were made. I've never seen proof that Obama in fact heard those statements. It is quite obvious that Trump heard the statements about Muslims.

But, since you are so into comparing these two situation and you obviously condemn Wright, do you think Trump should have rebuked this guy?

Somewhat. As someone with increasingly Libertarian leanings, I bristle at the idea that political candidates should be in the business of "rebuking" the free speech of the voters. I'm certainly no fan of Trump, and a candidate more reasoned and gracious than he might have prefaced his response with something like "I don't believe that's true about the President's religious faith, and I want to point out that our problem is with Muslim extremists, but to address your concerns about terrorism, I'd like to say..."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since when is that any candidate's job?

Since men and women were born with decency.

Since candidates have wanted to be seen differently from their racist constituents.

To censor free speech?

I guess to you, someone walking up to young kids repeatedly using the racist n-word in front of them, and telling them to shut up is curtailing their right to free speech.

How is calling Obama a Muslim a derogatory racist comment? Unless you think Muslim people are nasty? If this man thinks Obama's religion is Islam, he's entitled to come to that conclusion. It's not Trump's job to tell him how or what to think. I know that comes as a surprise to liberals though.

Did you listen to what the Trump supporter said? You didn't hear anything offensive?

Yes, I did. How I feel is of no matter. It's not for me to say this man is incorrect, or correct for that matter. The only one who knows his own religious or non-religous heart is Obama himself, so what this man says is of no matter to anyone. If Trump corrected him, he'd be speaking for Obama, and he really should not do that.