Trump and him not calling BS on his supporters

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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.

I think you're being naive. Right now trump is the frontrunner and the #1 ratings driver on any media. He has a blacklist. If you don't softball him, you will end up on that list and you will never get another interview. Did you notice how many interviews he has done with Jorge Ramos after their flap? Have you noticed that Hugh Hewitt was really conciliatory toward trump at the debate after the Muslim naming flap they got into?

This is a period when the coverage will be fawning because of what it means to the news organizations' bottom line. When his poll #'s drop, journalists will get their pound of flesh.

Don't forget that we live in a capitalist system where you can't eat or clothe yourself on righteousness alone. You run this site and you know that.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Do you agree with the questioner that "We have a problem in this country, it’s called Muslims"?

[Anonymous]

I can't believe we went from Thomas Jefferson to Donald Trump in 300 years. It's absolutely mind-boggling. We have a reality show host running for President. Appalling.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

I think you're being naive. Right now trump is the frontrunner and the #1 ratings driver on any media. He has a blacklist. If you don't softball him, you will end up on that list and you will never get another interview. Did you notice how many interviews he has done with Jorge Ramos after their flap? Have you noticed that Hugh Hewitt was really conciliatory toward trump at the debate after the Muslim naming flap they got into?

This is a period when the coverage will be fawning because of what it means to the news organizations' bottom line. When his poll #'s drop, journalists will get their pound of flesh.

Don't forget that we live in a capitalist system where you can't eat or clothe yourself on righteousness alone. You run this site and you know that.

I do eat and clothe myself on righteousness. I bite the hand that feeds me almost every day.

You call me "naive" yet you are talking about the same media that immediately lined up to promote Fiorina after the debate. The financial well-being of the mainstream media depends on them being part of the dump Trump movement.

Someone has decided that emphasizing Trump's failure to rebuke his supporter is a better gambit than discussing Trump's apparent agreement that Muslims are a problems and that getting rid of them is something he will look into. I'd love to know what their calculus is.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

I think you're being naive. Right now trump is the frontrunner and the #1 ratings driver on any media. He has a blacklist. If you don't softball him, you will end up on that list and you will never get another interview. Did you notice how many interviews he has done with Jorge Ramos after their flap? Have you noticed that Hugh Hewitt was really conciliatory toward trump at the debate after the Muslim naming flap they got into?

This is a period when the coverage will be fawning because of what it means to the news organizations' bottom line. When his poll #'s drop, journalists will get their pound of flesh.

Don't forget that we live in a capitalist system where you can't eat or clothe yourself on righteousness alone. You run this site and you know that.

I do eat and clothe myself on righteousness. I bite the hand that feeds me almost every day.

You call me "naive" yet you are talking about the same media that immediately lined up to promote Fiorina after the debate. The financial well-being of the mainstream media depends on them being part of the dump Trump movement.

Someone has decided that emphasizing Trump's failure to rebuke his supporter is a better gambit than discussing Trump's apparent agreement that Muslims are a problems and that getting rid of them is something he will look into. I'd love to know what their calculus is.

Their calculus is the giant sucking sound of money being vacuumed into Mitt's pockets when he finally emerges as the white knight to save their asses.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

I think you're being naive. Right now trump is the frontrunner and the #1 ratings driver on any media. He has a blacklist. If you don't softball him, you will end up on that list and you will never get another interview. Did you notice how many interviews he has done with Jorge Ramos after their flap? Have you noticed that Hugh Hewitt was really conciliatory toward trump at the debate after the Muslim naming flap they got into?

This is a period when the coverage will be fawning because of what it means to the news organizations' bottom line. When his poll #'s drop, journalists will get their pound of flesh.

Don't forget that we live in a capitalist system where you can't eat or clothe yourself on righteousness alone. You run this site and you know that.

I do eat and clothe myself on righteousness. I bite the hand that feeds me almost every day.

You call me "naive" yet you are talking about the same media that immediately lined up to promote Fiorina after the debate. The financial well-being of the mainstream media depends on them being part of the dump Trump movement.

Someone has decided that emphasizing Trump's failure to rebuke his supporter is a better gambit than discussing Trump's apparent agreement that Muslims are a problems and that getting rid of them is something he will look into. I'd love to know what their calculus is.

Are you saying that you never held back something you believed because of a calculus you made that it wasn't worth it to clothe yourself in righteousness because of the hit it would mean to your business? If so we should canonize you as st. jsteele.

I don't like it, but I make that calculus at work 100 times a day. It is part of being a grown up.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

I think you're being naive. Right now trump is the frontrunner and the #1 ratings driver on any media. He has a blacklist. If you don't softball him, you will end up on that list and you will never get another interview. Did you notice how many interviews he has done with Jorge Ramos after their flap? Have you noticed that Hugh Hewitt was really conciliatory toward trump at the debate after the Muslim naming flap they got into?

This is a period when the coverage will be fawning because of what it means to the news organizations' bottom line. When his poll #'s drop, journalists will get their pound of flesh.

Don't forget that we live in a capitalist system where you can't eat or clothe yourself on righteousness alone. You run this site and you know that.

I do eat and clothe myself on righteousness. I bite the hand that feeds me almost every day.

You call me "naive" yet you are talking about the same media that immediately lined up to promote Fiorina after the debate. The financial well-being of the mainstream media depends on them being part of the dump Trump movement.

Someone has decided that emphasizing Trump's failure to rebuke his supporter is a better gambit than discussing Trump's apparent agreement that Muslims are a problems and that getting rid of them is something he will look into. I'd love to know what their calculus is.

Are you saying that you never held back something you believed because of a calculus you made that it wasn't worth it to clothe yourself in righteousness because of the hit it would mean to your business? If so we should canonize you as st. jsteele.

I don't like it, but I make that calculus at work 100 times a day. It is part of being a grown up.

I am secure in my views and don't feel a need to hold them back -- as much as some posters would wish that I would. Your suggestion is almost insulting because it presumes that I have a bunch of inappropriate thoughts that I carefully conceal. That is really not the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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..."

Libertarianism is a completely antisocial political philosophy and is complete bullshit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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..."

Libertarianism is a completely antisocial political philosophy and is complete bullshit.

Speaking of anti-social.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

I think you're being naive. Right now trump is the frontrunner and the #1 ratings driver on any media. He has a blacklist. If you don't softball him, you will end up on that list and you will never get another interview. Did you notice how many interviews he has done with Jorge Ramos after their flap? Have you noticed that Hugh Hewitt was really conciliatory toward trump at the debate after the Muslim naming flap they got into?

This is a period when the coverage will be fawning because of what it means to the news organizations' bottom line. When his poll #'s drop, journalists will get their pound of flesh.

Don't forget that we live in a capitalist system where you can't eat or clothe yourself on righteousness alone. You run this site and you know that.

I do eat and clothe myself on righteousness. I bite the hand that feeds me almost every day.

You call me "naive" yet you are talking about the same media that immediately lined up to promote Fiorina after the debate. The financial well-being of the mainstream media depends on them being part of the dump Trump movement.

Someone has decided that emphasizing Trump's failure to rebuke his supporter is a better gambit than discussing Trump's apparent agreement that Muslims are a problems and that getting rid of them is something he will look into. I'd love to know what their calculus is.

Are you saying that you never held back something you believed because of a calculus you made that it wasn't worth it to clothe yourself in righteousness because of the hit it would mean to your business? If so we should canonize you as st. jsteele.

I don't like it, but I make that calculus at work 100 times a day. It is part of being a grown up.

I am secure in my views and don't feel a need to hold them back -- as much as some posters would wish that I would. Your suggestion is almost insulting because it presumes that I have a bunch of inappropriate thoughts that I carefully conceal. That is really not the case.

All I am saying is that we all have personal beliefs that we don't always voice in consideration of the situation around us. That is not something I am ashamed of. I am proud of my emotional intelligence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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..."

Libertarianism is a completely antisocial political philosophy and is complete bullshit.

You really know fuck-all about Libertarians, don't you?

I do more volunteer work as a Libertarian - I don't believe in government taking care of people - than most SJWs I know.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Do you agree with the questioner that "We have a problem in this country, it’s called Muslims"?

That's the way he feels. I'm not going to speak for him. I think we have a problem with radical Islam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Bullshit. Your views are completely amoral. Civil society cannot be amoral. And by the way, some things are actual FACT, including that our President was born in American and a Christian. This man clearly stated that the President is a Muslim (factually not correct) and implied that he is not American (factually not correct). Your argument is a sham.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Bullshit. Your views are completely amoral. Civil society cannot be amoral. And by the way, some things are actual FACT, including that our President was born in American and a Christian. This man clearly stated that the President is a Muslim (factually not correct) and implied that he is not American (factually not correct). Your argument is a sham.

In truth, Obama is probably more of an agnostic/atheist than either a Christian or a Muslim. He uses religion for political purposes, which is disgusting enough in its own right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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..."

Libertarianism is a completely antisocial political philosophy and is complete bullshit.

You really know fuck-all about Libertarians, don't you?

I do more volunteer work as a Libertarian - I don't believe in government taking care of people - than most SJWs I know.

No, I actually am related to several people who claim to be "libertarian" which is a loose collection of generally antisocial ideas spanning the left-right spectrum, and which in practice in this country seems to attract people who have a problem with social norms and authority in all forms. Individual rights are king, society be damned. Right vs. wrong is all relative depending upon the person's individual beliefs/wants/desires. You cannot run a country of 360M appealing to people who are inherently hostile to government and law and who frequently express confusion between their beliefs and actual facts.