TAPPER: I want to ask you about the Anti-Defamation League, which this week called on you to publicly condemn unequivocally the racism of former KKK grand wizard David Duke, who recently said that voting against you at this point would be treason to your heritage. Will you unequivocally condemn David Duke and say that you don't want his vote or that of other white supremacists in this election?That's some strong language. Trump might want to distance himself from these people, but Tapper is asking him to condemn an individual and to reject the votes of a vague set of persons. That's hard to do, but a politician is normally expected to step right up and do it, lest he give his antagonists any raw material to use to depict him as a racist. Of course, Trump is already used to people depicting him as a racist, and he already knows he can withstand their attack and even get benefit from it. And here's Super Tuesday coming up, with all those southern states. Who knows how many voters he's being asked to tell not to vote for him? Maybe Trump actively wants to signal to these people that he's their guy, and maybe he wants to signal to a much broader group that some slick media character isn't going to lure him back toward that place known as political correctness.
Trump responds:
TRUMP: Well, just so you understand, I don't know anything about David Duke. OK? I don't know anything about what you're even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don't know. I don't know, did he endorse me or what's going on, because, you know, I know nothing about David Duke. I know nothing about white supremacists. And so you're asking me a question that I'm supposed to be talking about people that I know nothing about.That's 7 times he said I don't know. There's something weird about that. Why not say it once, twice, or even 3 times and then stop? He could have said: You're asking me to condemn a particular individual and I don't know him. I don't know what he said. I don't condemn people without knowing the details. That's not fair. I'm a very fair guy. Something more like that. Saying I don't know 7 times is going to make us start thinking — maybe around the 5th or 6th time — that you do know, you're denying, and you even want us to know that you know.
Tapper continues:
TAPPER: But I guess the question from the Anti-Defamation League is, even if you don't know about their endorsement, there are these groups and individuals endorsing you. Would you just say unequivocally you condemn them and you don't want their support?Tapper sticks to his question form. He wants Trump to condemn people (not just distance himself from them) and to say he doesn't want votes from a whole, large, undefined group. That makes it hard to say "yes" to Tapper's question, but a good communicator knows how to ignore the verbatim question and frame an answer to say exactly what he wants. That's what Trump does:
TRUMP: Well, I have to look at the group. I mean, I don't know what group you're talking about. You wouldn't want me to condemn a group that I know nothing about. I would have to look. If you would send me a list of the groups, I will do research on them. And, certainly, I would disavow if I thought there was something wrong.Tapper is hot for the kill:
TAPPER: The Ku Klux Klan?Suddenly, for the first time, he's naming a group that you can't say you don't know. Only an ignoramus doesn't know the Ku Klux Klan, and it seems obvious that anyone with any pretense to the American mainstream would want to make sure the KKK name doesn't get stuck on him. Does Trump spring into self-protection mode? He keeps calm:
TRUMP: But you may have groups in there that are totally fine, and it would be very unfair. So, give me a list of the groups, and I will let you know.He's steadfast in his position that fairness demands more detail, and — to be more cynical — gives the subject a push to float it past Super Tuesday — after all the Southern voters — who knows their precise affiliations? — have cast their votes.
TAPPER: OK. I mean, I'm just talking about David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan here, but...Tapper strives for the sound bite... or maybe he's genuinely perplexed that Trump won't react in the self-protective mode that normally works in interviews like this. Trump has one more line before Tapper gives up and goes on to the cooler topic of who'd be Trump's veep.
TRUMP: I don't know any -- honestly, I don't know David Duke. I don't believe I have ever met him. I'm pretty sure I didn't meet him. And I just don't know anything about him.And that's how it peters out on camera. But the media have picked it up and are playing it for what it's worth today, the day before the big primaries. And for all I know, that's what Trump wants, the media virally spreading his message to disaffected white people: Unlike everyone else, Trump won't shun you.
ADDED: Scott Adams — who's devoted months to explaining Trump's genius — reacted very strongly to this interview and posted yesterday to say "I disavow Trump." Disavow, eh? Or does he condemn?
Later — I don't know quite when — he added 2 updates.
First, he said what he was doing was "getting out of the splatter zone." What's splattering is racism, and Adams wants Trump to deal with it on his own, not with the help of any more of Adams's explanations of how it's all genius.
Second, he kind of needed to disavow the disavowing:
In the 2D world of reason it makes no sense to disavow someone I never avowed in the first place for not disavowing someone else when in fact the person I disavowed did disavow that other person.Ha ha. But, see, Adams is beyond that, beyond the 2D world where it doesn't make sense. That's why there's something to disavow. Unsaid things are very real in his dimension — the dimension where Trump's speech operates and that Adams has seen and explained — and therefore must be unsaid. His explanations have created the feeling of an endorsement and he needs to break you of that feeling.
AND: Trump is blaming the "lousy earpiece." That may sound feeble, but let me tell you. When I was watching the show on my own yesterday, before any of this story went big, I was saying to Meade, "I think there's something wrong with the earpiece," and: "You know they could really screw with him by messing up the sound." Here's what Trump is saying today:
"I'm sitting in a house in Florida with a very bad earpiece that they gave me, and you could hardly hear what he was saying. But what I heard was various groups, and I don't mind disavowing anybody, and I disavowed David Duke and I disavowed him the day before at a major news conference, which is surprising because he was at the major news conference, CNN was at the major news conference, and they heard me very easily disavow David Duke.... Now, I go, and I sit down again, I have a lousy earpiece that is provided by them, and frankly, he talked about groups.... He also talked about groups. And I have no problem with disavowing groups, but I'd at least like to know who they are. It would be very unfair to disavow a group, Matt, if the group shouldn't be disavowed. I have to know who the groups are. But I disavowed David Duke.... Now, if you look on Facebook, right after that, I also disavowed David Duke. When we looked at it, and looked at the question, I disavowed David Duke. So I disavowed David Duke all weekend long, on Facebook, on Twitter and obviously, it’s never enough. Ridiculous."
पोस्ट्स
१७९ टिप्पण्या:
At this point I think Donald Trump is just fucking with us.
"But the media have picked it up and are playing it for what it's worth today..."
This is a rare point of integrity in the mainstream media: they hate Trump, and they think he can't win the general election, but they're still trying to destroy him now, before the nomination process is over. They'd settle for Rubio, who might have a better chance of winning the general.
It's nice to see media folks not acting like party simpletons.
Scott Adams has "disavowed" Trump over this remark and is now taking a six-week hiatus. I think he's having a nervous breakdown. And perhaps he's a symbol of the country itself, especially liberals. While they can't possibly like Trump, he speaks at some level they can't dismiss. This is cognitive dissonance writ large.
Interesting times.
Best explanation I've seen so far for what otherwise seems completely inexplicable. Thanks, Ann, for being so smart.
Bob,
I think you're wrong about the media hating Trump. They're troubled by him, for sure, but look at Joe Sacrborough and his sidekick Mika. They're actually colluding with Trump. And there's no great outrage against them.
Mika, for Gid's sake! Daughter of Zbigniew or however you spell his name.
We're looking for forethought where there may not be any. Trump is trying to stick with the "never apologize, period" mode and the "screw this PC BS" mode, and that means he didn't have the ready response to an odious group supporting him. (For the record, when Reagan learned the John Birch Society backed him, his response was that he cannot control who favors him, only who he favors, and another group's endorsement of him means they like his principles, not that he likes theirs). The correct answer of course is "I don't condone bigotry, and I disavow the Klan and Duke, but I cannot keep people from supporting me" which he had already said in the past and should have just referred back to.
Of course, the "correct" answer does not get you headlines.
If we assume this was prepped and planned, then maybe it's part of the strategy to sop up as much media coverage as possible, all the time, and get the "right" people to hate you so your supporters circle the wagons even more. This has been what works for him, and accusing Trump of racism hasn't hurt him among his supporters so don't expect this to have any affect now.
...or in its collective wisdom, the wisdom of the mob, the MSM may have already realized that any Republican POTUS candidate will defeat any Democrat in 2016, so they're just vying for the least-bad choice.
Luke Lea,
Agreed. Good take on this strange interplay, Ann.
Trump will be president of all America. Not just your special interest group.
"This is a rare point of integrity in the mainstream media: they hate Trump, and they think he can't win the general election, but they're still trying to destroy him now, before the nomination process is over."
I agree with M Jordan here--the media cannot hate Trump. They love every bit of his clickable nonsense. They want stories and headlines, and he is giving them the best in decades. If they wanted to destroy him, they'd have stopped giving him constant coverage like lapdogs. But they cannot do that.
Agreed. Bad answer. He would've been better off telling them to fuck off with their gitcha game question. Many unsavory characters endorse politicians but only Pubs are required to play this game.
Bill Ayers was off limits. Remember the blow back from Palin's palling around with terrorists quote? Has Sanders been asked to distance himself from Farrakhan? How about the whole racists BLM movement?
So yeah. Just say fuck off.
M Jordan, you make a good point. I don't watch that Mika/Joe show, but I've seen clips. The FNC show "The Five" has had a weirdly pro-Trump tendency lately, too-- everyone but Juan Williams seems to be warming up to Trump, or at least bargaining with the idea that Trump may win in the end.
Trump is good for ratings, of course. As Rush Limbaugh constantly reminds his audiences, this is entertainment. The SNL people have got to be hoping he'll win.
The whole thing is a non-stop attempt to "get" Trump somehow. He's right to be suspicious, and he's right not to walk around condemning every person or group some idjit brings up. I would have preferred for him to tell the interviewer to stop asking stupid gotcha questions and move on to the real issues Americans are interested in.
I don't even like Trump, he's not my kinda guy, but they make you root for him.
Also, more benefit of diversity. Wasting vast amount of time, money, and effort smoothing over the natural tensions between different groups of people. What an enormous drag this diversity is. Fred Reed has a column about it this week.
Come on - I know you're a Trump supporter (Cruz's nose is way too big and his cheekbones too low, I get it), but shouldn't it be easy to fault Trump for refusing to defenestrate the KKK?
I think this is a bigger deal than you think it is and I don't think it'll help Trump.
"Agreed. Bad answer. He would've been better off telling them to fuck off with their gitcha game question. Many unsavory characters endorse politicians but only Pubs are required to play this game."
I would have had to give him credit if his response was "tell you what--you go ask Clinton and Sanders to disavow Al Sharpton's endorsement, then tell me what they say, and I'll give you my answer then." Sharpton, like Duke, is a grade-A bigot. But I don't recall Duke ever being accused of inciting a riot that caused deaths.
Trump knows what he's doing. Don't worry. The more people attack Trump, the more common average Americans like him.
"And here's Super Tuesday coming up, with all those southern states. Who knows how many voters he's being asked to tell not to vote for him?"
Uh-huh. Last weekend's KKK-rally-turned-riot was in California, thankyouverymuch.
Typical MSM PC Gotcha game, which Trump has prospered by defying.
We heard for hours last night about a powerful industry that has a long history of racism, top to bottom, and yet will anyone demand that Hillary denounce Hollywood, and return all her donations?
Ann is right to sniff out the subtext of what Tapper was really trying to do. If he had been successful at getting Trump to knuckle under on this absurd point, that would've demonstrated to all his "unprotected" working middle class voters that the same "Racist" labelling that has scared every other Republican politician off doing anything about open borders would work on Trump.
"And for all I know, that's what Trump wants, the media virally spreading his message to disaffected white people: Unlike everyone else, Trump won't shun you." Sure, but in this case he could have done it better. Go meta: "There you go again, with al your PC BS, trying to discredit a Republican. Tell you what, I'll disavow the support of white racists if Bernie/Hillary! . . . etc."
This comes under pandering to soap opera women voters, that is, political morons. How will they vote?
Pol Pot endorsing Cruz isn't mentioned.
"Uh-huh. Last weekend's KKK-rally-turned-riot was in California, thankyouverymuch."
Are they still doing rallies? I sort of assumed the KKK was about 50% investigative reporters and 50% old guys who needed an excuse to get out of the house.
Check out Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse's FB post on Trump. He won't vote for Trump. And not disavowing the KKK was part of it.
Sasse goes on to suggest there might be a third party coming.
Trump should have just said "David Duke? I don't really know him, don't really remember him, he's just some guy from the neighborhood" and the Media would move on--in fact they'd call anyone who tried to link Trump to any unsavory character a kook!
That's how it works, no? I mean, Trump and Duke don't actually know each other, not like Obama and Ayers. But oh, right, Ayers was the right kind of hate filled terrorists--he's a Leftist. Lefty terrorists are a-ok, I forgot.
Everyone remembers when Tapper & company grilled candidate Obama about his friendship and association with Ayers and Dohrn, right?
And that's how it peters out on camera.
Sexist language.
Sorry to see Scott Adams go. I wasn't construing his blog as supportive of Trump. It was insightful and entertaining. Strange dude, though.
Another acceptable response would have been "clearly the KKK understands my platform about as much as you media types do".
"Sasse goes on to suggest there might be a third party coming."
That seems to be the buzz. For a lot of Republicans and right-leaners, the question is whether they are more fearful of a Trump or Clinton presidency. Maybe some Republicans figure if a third party actually wins states they can throw this whole thing to the House of Representatives.
What possible advantage could there be in pandering to white supremacists? There are, like, six of them. If pandering to racists could get you elected, David Duke would be president, not Obama. Come to think of it, if pandering to racists could get you elected, Democrats would be doing it.
When Hillary made that goofy "Ah ain't no ways tahred!" comment, she had no idea her audience was Black. She thought was mocking Blacks before an audience of Wall Street fund managers.
"Everyone remembers when Tapper & company grilled candidate Obama about his friendship and association with Ayers and Dohrn, right?"
Hell, how about Sharpton? The fact that he gets a free pass on his racism and criminal acts needs to be called out.
This is a mutual misunderstanding arisng from a stronghold in the minds of people who are ignorant about the South. Southerners actually disavowed the KKK 50 years ago. That is how MLK's group won here when he could not affect Chicago neighborhoods.
But the images still live in the collective mind of the rest of the country of KKK cross burning shows. There is no KKK in existence now other than undercover FBI guys trying to start one to join. It once had a power to threaten white people that dared to break the Rules of Segregation.
Its political influence as a secret society was popular mostly in the midwest where it was reborn as a poor man's Free Masonry group from about 1906 to 1926 until its exposure as a corrupt organisation.
Trump, not being from the south, was too tired of playing the gotcha games to think quickly Sunday morning. How many time does he have to be perfect? He will make mistakes again, and when he does, so what.
If Trump beats Hillary AND a Republican '3rd party', will you consider him President?
Trump won't play the trained seal for the journalists even when he maybe should. It's an alpha male thing. The alpha never lets the beta control the moment.
Are they still doing rallies? I sort of assumed the KKK was about 50% investigative reporters and 50% old guys who needed an excuse to get out of the house.
Remember when that black church shooter couldn't find any fellow KKK sympathizers and so was lonely? But that just goes to show you that they are resurgent! They are like the dark money behind denialism! The more you can't see it, the more you know it must be there!
Brndo: You have it right. It's just that any public appearance of more than person in Klan-ish getups is universally called a "rally." This one was just a handful of a-holes, as ever. But the point stands.
Oh, please. Trump was asked a gotcha question by a liberal reporter and refused to play ball. Trump knows perfectly well who David Duke but had no intention of letting some Democrat smear him by association with some wing-nut cracker who's been out of the news for 25 years. I thought Trump's remark about needing to google Duke a hilarious piece of mockery of Leftist obsessions.
So many on Althouse decry the abuses of PC bullies, but immediately start pearl-clutching and panicking the instant those bullies roll out their creakiest shibboleth. Good for Trump. He won't play their game and, win or lose, he's done all Americans a service.
It's not surprising white supremacists support Trump and the GOP. They used to have the power to corrupt the law in their favor so they naturally gravitated to the party which endorsed that practice. Now that they've lost that power they gravitate to the party which supports treating everyone fairly.
Trump's sudden onset know-nothingism may have had something to do with being lined up for the Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III endorsement later in the day.
I know at this point facts don't matter, but David Duke is not now affiliated, and hasn't been since 1980, with the KKK. I believe he now has his own white nationalist group, but it may be defunct.
Now, is David Duke an anti-Semite, Holocaust denier, white supremacist & all-around nasty character? Yes, he is. But not with the KKK. Every far-right nutjob is not the same as every other far right nutjob, just like even though Stalinists & Maoists may both be fond of murdering millions of their own people doesn't mean they are the same.
Ideological details matter. Facts matter. Especially, if you want to beat a candidate for President over the head with them in a public forum.
What does it even mean, this "disavowing"?
Simply that the candidate is willing to jump through whatever flaming hoop the questioner has prepared.
Better answer would have been "It's a free country and I welcome the votes of all eligible voters. Doesn't mean I agree with them on anything."
Plus, and this joke was told to me by my Millennial daughter, Donald Trump will decrease racism in America by getting Al Sharpton to leave the country!
Look, the Media's going to call the Republican racist. That's a given. Rick Perry was a racist because of a word painted on a rock on a ranch his family leased--a word Perry's family actually painted over and anyway had been the local name for an area for a long time. Didn't matter, Perry = racist.
Mitt Romney belonged to a church that for some time excluded black people. Romney didn't set that policy, it's not the policy now, and by all accounts Romney has great relationships with minorities (within his companies, through his charitable giving, etc). Didn't matter, Romney = racist.
The "Trump is a racist" play that first got going was to cast him as racist against Latinos. Trump's rhetoric around illegal immigration made that seem easy...but most of the attacks fell flat. My theory on why is that actual people who live with the problems that illegal immigration has caused don't see the problem in terms of race (or at least not only in terms of race) and so they agree with much of what Trump says and are hesitant to write his position off as racist. From the polling I've seen so far Trump has done surprisingly well with black men and not terrible with moderate black women (although the black woman vote overall if heavily for Hillary Clinton) so of course it's job #1 of the Media to find a way to paint Trump as racist against blacks.
It's something he 100% should have expected. His reaction so far hasn't been catastrophic but could definitely have been better. He and the other Repub. candidates had better learn from this, and fast.
It's now a gotcha game to ask a candidate for president to denounce/disassociate support from the KKK or white supremacists?
This is defining Donald down.
This is a disgrace, the man is a clown and buffoon and thoroughly corrupt and his supporters are either idiots or worse. Or more likely both.
Based on your transcript Tapper initially said "publicly condemn unequivocally the racism of former KKK grand wizard David Duke" and later asked if he would publicly condemn Duke (though I suspect Tapper meant Duke's racism). Condemning someone's behavior is different than condemning the person exhibiting the behavior (although some folks have a hard time distinguishing). Trump could easily have condemned the man's racism (and not the man himself). Ultimately, I think this will pass and Trump will be the face and standard bearer of the republican party for the 2016 election.
Look, Trump has no problem verbally eviscerating his competitors for president. One of Trump's mantra's is he is not going to attack anyone who does not attack him first....this is consistent with Trump's response to Putin who complimented Trump. Maybe Trump is fine with anyone who supports him (and by extension his family0and he could care less as to how a Trump supporter treats other people.
If the GOPe goes third party they have then given us all Exhibit AAA on why this entire Trump phenomenon occurred. Recall that it was they, the establishment, who demanded a "no third party" pledge. Recall that it was Trump who at first wouldn't agree to it but then did after Reince Preibus was nice to him. Recall the other ga-jillion candidates hypocritically raising their hands to take the pledge.
And now they talk third party. Not only are they the world's biggest hypocrites, they have confirmed they are the worst bunch of political strategists since Wendell Wilkie. That image of them with their hands patriotically raised ... that one's gonna leave a mark.
Senator Ben Sasse
"A presidential candidate who boasts about what he'll do during his "reign" and refuses to condemn the KKK cannot lead a conservative movement in America."
And there are quotes and articles on the net that Trump knows who David Duke is and has condemned him in the past. Guess that was when Trump was a liberal.
So when is CNN going to demand Hillary and Bernie denounce the racist BlackLivesMatter movement?
My neighbor Betty reads Althouse. Thinks she is great. But Betty also hates black people. When is Ann going to denounce her? I think a groveling apology tour is in order, maybe even revocation of tenure.
@Steven M. Galbraith,
I will give you clown and buffoon, but where to you get "thoroughly corrupt?"
David Begley said...
Senator Ben Sasse
"A presidential candidate who boasts about what he'll do during his "reign" and refuses to condemn the KKK cannot lead a conservative movement in America."
And there are quotes and articles on the net that Trump knows who David Duke is and has condemned him in the past. Guess that was when Trump was a liberal.
Begley and Sasse are mad the Trump would not give Tapper his paw or play dead.
I would have been ok with him telling Tapper to go fuck himself with his stupid gotcha questions.
Will Hillary disavow Al Sharpton? Or, rather, will she "condemn" him and all of his followers. That's an equally good question, isn't it?
Instead of answering Tapper's repeated gotcha questions, I would have had more respect for Trump if he would have punched Tapper in the mouth.
His explanations have created the feeling of an endorsement and he needs to break you of that feeling.
Now he figures that out?
It would be interesting to see Tapper do this regarding Hillary's supporter who is a big old lover of Workplace Harassment, but that would require her to actually, you know, appear on a show. And we all know she needs a long sleep on Sunday morning.
No Bando the answer is not:
The correct answer of course is "I don't condone bigotry, and I disavow the Klan and Duke, but I cannot keep people from supporting me" which he had already said in the past and should have just referred back to.
Why because tomorrow there will be another (probably phony) group he has to disavow (say NAMBLA), and another and another. Trump should have said. If you have an accusation about me make it straight and like a man so I can sue your butt into oblivion.
"We're looking for forethought where there may not be any. Trump is trying to stick with the "never apologize, period" mode and the "screw this PC BS" mode, and that means he didn't have the ready response to an odious group supporting him. "
I agree with this. Trump might not have expected this question after a previous rejection of Duke's "support." I suspect he was just saying "Buzz Off !"
Tapper is usually pretty fair for CNN but this was a gotcha that may have been ordered from on high.
Blogger Limited blogger said...
Trump will be president of all America. Not just your special interest group.
Not blacks. The Dems will play this 24/7 on black radio and TV. If Althouse is right, this was a very short sighted strategy.
I think Trump could have been the Pub who had a chance to go into the black churches and black communities. With his anti-illegal platform and populist economics he could have made great headway with black voters. Maybe not too late but this sure didn't help.
I also think the fact that the primaries are in the South is significant. He may have been looking for some northern leftist angle that slammed the South.
Blogger Mark in LA said...
No Bando the answer is not:
Trump's strategy so far has been to NOT say what Rubio, Bush, or Kasich would say. I think he is doing that deliberately. I think when Trump gets asked a gotcha question, he imagines how Rubio, Bush, or Kasich would respond, and does the opposite. It's worked for him so far.
All the MSM outlets are running with the "Trump is a racist", and "what will the Republican party do about it?" I'm watching CNBC (I need the ticker), and they are trying to use this as a last gasp effort to derail him tomorrow. Can't imagine what CNN is saying right now.
I don't get the point of condemning idiotic nonsense spewed by supporters. Obama didn't have to condemn the woman claiming he'd pay her mortgage. You ignore the idiocy of supporters you don't like. He wasn't COURTING that vote at all.
Just "Am I endorsing him?" should be sufficient.
It is a pretty thought held by the left that they are there at the bulwarks against the advancing KKK horde. Of which there might be a few hundred nationwide. Trump may have been genuinely puzzled by the name David Duke. In a national poll probably less than 2% would know his name and associate it with the KKK. That is probably high.
Candidates on both sides should publish a long list of those people and ideas they condemn so we can get this out of the way.
Or the questions should get better: have you read the novels of Luis Ferdinand Celine?
David Duke is a troll. He "endorses" politicians to set up just these sorts of ginned up controversies. And, magically, his endorsements always seem directed towards one party in particular.
Has anyone ever asked Barack Obama to disavow his endorsement from Communist Party USA? No
When is anyone going to call out the Left for their association with racists like the Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam and La Raza?
You do not come out and say it but insinuate Southern white voters are more inclined to be white racist than other sections of the country. I have lived most of my life in Tennessee and have spent a considerable amount of time in the Midwest, particularly six years spent in South Dakota, ( I lived in the southwest part so it's more western than Midwest there.) I have not heard much KKK noise in Tennessee since the 1970's. I am sure it is here but is not accepted by the mainstream and thus more covert and dying I think. But I saw them openly in SD and Indiana.
I personally know many working class whites and they are suffering. And by far most are not racist, just trying to be good people and raise a family. To me many white working class in the South are just wanting to someone to speak to them a little.
Have you spent much time in the South other than tourist destinations? I do not think if you did you would find any more racism, and likely less, than other parts of the country. Blacks and whites work together, play together, fall in love in in many cases marry and raise families together.
Brian said... [hush][hide comment]
"And here's Super Tuesday coming up, with all those southern states. Who knows how many voters he's being asked to tell not to vote for him?"
Uh-huh. Last weekend's KKK-rally-turned-riot was in California, thankyouverymuch.
Paraphrasing a witness.: 100 or so counter demonstrators present when three KKK members show up.. KKK attacked, run away and are chased down and beat, stomped.
So, last I read four people stabbed.
Local CBS News reports "KKK stabs man with flagpole during riot"
Why not say it once, twice, or even 3 times and then stop?
It's the television equivalent of the four corers offense.
Dance, monkeys, dance.
It's remarkable how successful the left's Pavlovian training of "conservatives" has been. The media can use the moldiest, smelliest bait imaginable, stuff years past its sell-by date, and conservatives will start salivating, drop everything, and lunge for it.
Meanwhile, openly racialist groups like La Raza are picking taxpayers' pockets to the tune of millions of dollars a year to advance their own racialist interests, and "small government", "ugh, (white) racists!" conservatives do nothing but focus-group about how best they can best pander to them, in between those bouts of reacting to their media trainers' stimuli.
Look for a lot more of this.
If we are all lucky and nothing significant (external events, crises) happens in the meantime, by October every interview will be nothing but this sort of stuff.
Having a shitty football program has driven those Cornhuskers nuts!
This is all horseshit.
Nobody cares about David Duke, he's not an important cultural figure, he's not a powerful figure. He's a dessicated remnant from a time long past.
I condemn him, I condemn, I condemn him!
And I disavow him too!
This is a game of tripwire the Left plays to unsuspecting people. If you don't immediately and forthrightly condemm racists and racism at a time of my choosing, YOU ARE A RACIST!
Screw that -- I don't play that game.
But, Yes, Trump was a little unprepared, I'll grant that.
The funny thing is, Blacks have no beef with Trump. I don't recall him ever taking a position on any of the BLM stuff.
Leftwing Hispanic rabble-rousers, who affirmatively want illegal immigration to continue unabated to fortify the welfare state and add to Democrat voter rolls, Yes, will have a problem with Trump. Hispanics who came here legally, who have basically assimilated, who have attained middle class status, who own homes, who work, who raise families -- they won't have a problem with Trump, whatsoever.
Learn to Love The Donald, I say.
I think what Trump should have said was "I wanna know how Duke could be understood with Obama's dick in his mouth?"
I should be a campaign strategist.
The left successful use of the race charge has gotten them amazing cultural changes as the right capitulates ... every time. But Donald Trump doesn't know that word. He doesn't capitulate. He doubles down. That's why he is the most hopeful thing to come along in a long time. He finally offers hope against the media hoardes. He's Bernard Goetz, in a way, tired of being mugged.
Liberals will laugh and clap at being called racists by a black man as long as they know the limos are waiting to whisk them back to their gated communities. But along comes Trump, threatening to steal the keys to the limo, lock everyone in the theater, and actually have that Eric Holder conversation.
This terrifies the left. And here we are.
No white supremacists. No black supremacists. No male chauvinists. No female chauvinists. No "=" or selective exclusion. The class diversity schemes rationalized by the pro-choice doctrine need to be condemned.
That said, we need a universal baby suffrage law.
"Remember when that black church shooter couldn't find any fellow KKK sympathizers and so was lonely?"
It really says something that a white racist cannot find fellow travelers in South Carolina. Maybe the South has come to terms with its past better than other regions have.
"You do not come out and say it but insinuate Southern white voters are more inclined to be white racist than other sections of the country."
From my own experience I've encountered more white racism in cosmopolitan areas of the north than anywhere in the south--not that my experience is representative of the country, but I suspect today the sentiment is fairly evenly spread. Some people are more "guarded" about what they say, though. Black racism however is pretty much in the open in most urban areas I've lived in, and this is because whites have decided it's tolerable.
"Tapper is usually pretty fair for CNN but this was a gotcha that may have been ordered from on high."
I usually don't care for the "but you guys do this too" counterargument, as it doesn't really address the point, but I would have liked to see Trump turn this around as "how about I disavow white racists at the same time Hillary disavows black racists like Al Sharpton". Put them on defense!
"insinuate Southern white voters are more inclined to be white racist than other sections of the country. "
No, I think he was looking for an anti-Southern white theme in that question and was just putting off the answer. I don't think the MSM will lay a glove on him.
The MSM does insinuate that.
I thought Duke disavowed the KKK years ago.
"I would have liked to see Trump turn this around as "how about I disavow white racists at the same time Hillary disavows black racists like Al Sharpton". Put them on defense!"
No, the headline would still be "Trump refuses to condemn KKK."
He was probably right about this. His instincts have been better then the others so far.
You know what they say about men with bad earpieces.
Duke says that he never endorsed Trump.
Very good, Mary Beth! Too bad the haters couldn't have accomplished what you just did.
The weird part about this is, Trump has been denouncing David Duke specifically since 2000. Back in 2000, Trump ran for the reform party and David Duke joined the reform party. Trump denounced him as a bigot and a racist. Trump denounced him again recently in 2015 and again in a tweet last week.
Yet Jake Tapper asks him to denounce him again?
Why didn't Tapper know he has denounced him at least three times already?
More importantly, why didn't Trump know he has denounced him three times already and said as much?
So I disavowed David Duke all weekend long, on Facebook, on Twitter and obviously, it’s never enough. Ridiculous.
This marks peak indulgence sales and signals a climate change.
Yes. Trump can always be explained.
That's how you practice cruel neutrality. Ignore one candidate. Criticize the other. And protect the third.
After a while I wondered if Cruz's campaign or one of his PAC's is behind planting this KKK association with Trump. Cruz's campaign director is former CIA and Wall Streeter.
I'm not a fan of Donald Trump but the question is just a little too well timed.
Hillary won big in South Carolina on the backs of the black vote and is publicly pivoting to attacking Trump. How convenient that the Anti Defamation League would raise the spectre of David Duke and the KKK at this time. How coincidental that Jake Tapper would attempt to tie Trump to the KKK in this manner, as if the candidate is responsible for the remarks of people unaffiliated with his campaign.
It is surprising that Trump didn't pick Tapper apart, though. He normally better than that. Maybe Rubio's attacks are unnerving him.
-Do you love comrade Stalin?
Yes, Yes.
-Do you love Comrade Stalin?
Yes, yes.
-Do you love Comrade Stalin?
Yes.
- I smell a counter-revolutionary. Off to the Gulag.
Amazing how brain washed everyone is. Who is David Duke and why is he important? How many KKK members are there, and why are they important?
Why is Trump's refusal to "disavow" them important? Why must he keep disavowing them over and over again?
Above all, what does this have to do with being the President of the USA?
There is some good news out of this. Joe Scarborough has denounced Trump now for not denouncing David Duke and the kkk. That's one point against Trump, or has been. Joe has seemed to like him.
But, that might just have been for the ratings and such. Now that it's coming down to actual votes, he has pulled the rug out from under Trump. Or tried to.
Hopefully all Republicans can see media love for what it really is. A rope a dope.
"Why didn't Tapper know he has denounced him at least three times already?"
Because this was a setup. I'm still not sure Trump dodged it but I think he did.
Blogger Michael K said...
"Why didn't Tapper know he has denounced him at least three times already?"
Because this was a setup. I'm still not sure Trump dodged it but I think he did.
I don't think Trump dodged it. I think this will be the first thing that hurts Trump.
Why?
Because early on when people treated Trump like a joke, the attacks didn't matter. People didn't care enough to worry about Trump.
Now, it seems like Trump might just win. And you have a lot of Republican not Trump voters out there. Especially in the conservative media. And they will play this up, just like the MSM, and leave the implication that Trump is a racist. They probably won't say it directly, but they will imply it.
In other words, the very same game they hate played against their candidate, they'll use against the other guy.
Just learned that Charles Manson supported Trump and Trump has not disavowed him. Oh wait, Breaking News......since Trump leanred that Manson can't vote Trump described him as a nasty person.
" I think this will be the first thing that hurts Trump."
No, I think the most serious thing against Trump is the Trump University thing. It sounds like one of those "Make millions in Real Estate" scams but it might have real risks for him.
Maybe not because Fred Thompson was selling reverse mortgages but that was after he ran.
"Hillary won big in South Carolina on the backs of the black vote and is publicly pivoting to attacking Trump. How convenient that the Anti Defamation League would raise the spectre of David Duke and the KKK at this time. How coincidental that Jake Tapper would attempt to tie Trump to the KKK in this manner, as if the candidate is responsible for the remarks of people unaffiliated with his campaign."
Remember Hillary is following the Obama playbook--scare the hell out of blacks, Hispanics and women, and get them to turn out in big numbers. If you think she won't make hay out of this you don't know the Clintons. They've done more with far less.
"I don't think Trump dodged it. I think this will be the first thing that hurts Trump."
I think the CLintons will use it, and it ought to turn out more blacks to vote for her (I never figured Trump would do better than a generic Republican among blacks). But it won't stop his momemntum in the primary. His supporters figure he's not actually pro-KKK (hell, I don't like the guy but even I don't think he's actually pro-KKK) and if anything are tired of having the most lukewarm things being called racist. I think he'll do better than expected tomorrow as a result of this.
Can you imagine Chris Christie and Jeff Sessions watching this yesterday?
The earpiece may explain Trump's reaction; he heard enough to know he was being attacked and instinctively threw up a verbal fogbank.
Why did Tapper bring up David Duke and the KKK?
Today they are about as relevant as those silly "Nazis" someplace on Chicago's north side who were such a big thing 20-30 years ago.
So why the hectoring?
This will hurt trump among stupid people and maybe drive up Black turnout a little.
Smart people will see this as just another manufactured controversy designed to label the potential Republican nominee as "racist".
It will reinforce Trump supporters belief that "their guy" is the "Right guy". And it will increase support for Trump with the independent minded who are tired of the Left-wing mind control and PC bullshit.
Jesse Jackson once referred to New York City, as "Hymie-Town," -- a disgusting racist attack on our Jewish brethren.
Do you Althouse disavow Jesse Jackson? Huh? We're waiting?
"No, I think the most serious thing against Trump is the Trump University thing."
I agree. The other Trump problem is that he loves to talk. I don't care how smart you are - if talk long enough you'll say something that will give your enemies a weapon.
Probably the most amazing thing about Limbaugh is he's been talking 15 hours a week for over 20 years and the Left has never been able to significantly hurt him with what he's actually said.
Reagan got around the "talks too much" problem by giving endless variations of the "The Speech" on the campaign trail.
This drove the liberal reporters crazy but it was a smart way to avoid giving them ammunition.
If he'd been thinking ahead, he'd have had the perfect reply to go with his other posturing: "As a Christian, it's not my place to condemn individuals, but I deplore bigotry and racial hatred and think they have no place in America."
Would have been perfect.
But he can't think ahead, I guess.
(Yes, it's obviously a manufactured pseudo-controversy and the Klan and Duke don't matter at all - but someone running for President, and the "presumptive nomineee", no less, has to expect that and prepare for it.
It's like 2008 all over again - amateur hour.)
I am hugely anti-Trump but I also hate this kind of media/campaign tactic and I find the timing suspect too. I want something to take down Trump but I think I want even more for this to backfire on whoever planted it. This is one of the few pluses I see in the Trump candidacy- I can easily see him turning this to an advantage, by pointing out that all kinds of people might support him but that doesn't mean Trump supports everything those people stand for.
Watch the Tapper interview here. Trump never shows any sign that he's having trouble with an earpiece.
He's a fake.
"Do you Althouse disavow Jesse Jackson? Huh? We're waiting?"
And then disavow him again twice a year for the next three years.
"I agree. The other Trump problem is that he loves to talk. I don't care how smart you are - if talk long enough you'll say something that will give your enemies a weapon."
Yes, but what weapon would work? I think if you're whole schtick is "will say anything, never apologize, and the more outrageous the better for free media" then the only real mistake is to be boring.
"Probably the most amazing thing about Limbaugh is he's been talking 15 hours a week for over 20 years and the Left has never been able to significantly hurt him with what he's actually said."
Same point as above. Limbaugh has been repeatedly criticized from the left (and sometimes the right) over things he's said over the years, but as a media figure he needs the attention. Paul Harvey was never so well known.
"If he'd been thinking ahead, he'd have had the perfect reply to go with his other posturing: "As a Christian, it's not my place to condemn individuals, but I deplore bigotry and racial hatred and think they have no place in America.""
Yes, that's the correct response--but the whole point of Trump is no correct responses. He needs media coverage, and a response like that would not have any of us talking about it.
"I want something to take down Trump but I think I want even more for this to backfire on whoever planted it."
The only thing that would ever take down Trump is for people to get bored of him. Every day it's another "I can't believe he said this!" and a back and forth about whether "he really did it this time" and his fans rally behind him, rinse, repeat. He may want to actually be president, but what he wants even more than that is to be on everyone's mind all the time. If people start ignoring him he'd wither like a vampire in sunlight.
See also, Kardashians.
"Do you Althouse disavow Jesse Jackson? Huh? We're waiting?"
Jesse Jackson has endorsed Althouse? Link please?
"Trump never shows any sign that he's having trouble with an earpiece."
How do you "Show" that you're having trouble hearing?
Details please.
Ah, Meade, David Duke never endorsed Trump.
Ah, Allen:
Duke said “Voting against Donald Trump at this point is really treason to your heritage.”
“I’m not saying I endorse everything about Trump, in fact I haven’t formally endorsed him."
"But I do support his candidacy, and I support voting for him as a strategic action. I hope he does everything we hope he will do.”
Whatever you think of Trump, does anyone seriously believe that Trump is a white supremacist or is sympathetic to the KKK?
More likely Trump is arrogant enough to think he can dance on the third rail. It's like his saying he could shoot somebody in the middle of 5th Ave and not lose voters.
The class diversity racketeers are beating their straw clowns. Their projection or rather displacement is quite impressive. The State-established pro-choice cult continues to pay dividends, maybe.
Yeah, Meade, but he is a real fake!
I am surprised you have gone on the dark side, and you make no sense. He said he never heard of David Duke when he disavowed him just two days before. He can't blame the audio if the words came out of his mouth. I was wondering if you would defend him, and so it has come to pass. Very sad. I'll come by in a few months to check for Mussolini tweets.
"maybe drive up Black turnout a little."
The Democrat primary vote this week was down 30% in South Carolina. Black vote was only down 18% but white vote was down 44% !
This has been the case all primary season so far.
"Well, just so you understand, I don't know anything about David Duke. OK? I don't know anything about what you're even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists."
He can't square that with his previous statements. They can't both be true..but came out of his mouth days apart.
Not shooting in the street..just shitting on logic and integrity.
I think we should ask Obama why he hasn't outlawed the KKK and jailed David Duke, whoever he might be. If he hasn't then why hasn't he? Why can't we have a conversation about why Obama, the president of the US, has not, as far as I know, condemned David Duke.
That's a very Trumpian deflection.
Adams looks like a worm here. After months of bragging how he sees all the subtleties, how he's above the knee-jerk reactions, how cool and objective he is, just when Trump is asked to genuflect and tries something less knee-jerk, Adams virtue signals as fast as he can.
Maybe Scott Adams fears that by expressing admiration for Trump's powers of persuasion,it becomes only matter of time before he's accused of goose-stepping in parade past Mein Fuhrer Trump.
But of course, the question is objectively ridiculous. If you are running for office, you want all the votes you can get. Hillary wants the white supremacist vote; Sanders wants the white supremacist vote; Trump wants their votes.
You might have no intention of doing anything for any interests the group may have, but you do want their votes.
Are there many white supremacists? I doubt it. But to the extent there are, every candidate wants their votes.
I consider this whole thing proof that Trump is being honest.
We're back to the "black lives matter" activism or "=". Everyone loses, eventually, in turn, with chauvinism or selective exclusion.
By the way, if you're having trouble hearing a question..especially from a reporter, the appropriate response is "What?"
I don't know what all the fuss is about. He's a Republican. Of course he's a racist. He's also a bigot, a sexist, and a homophobe.
If we don't have specific examples of this yet, don't worry, we will--the Media will make sure to give you all the examples you need.
How many articles did the WashPo run about the word "macaca?" George Allen said a word, he's racist. Mitt Romney may have engaged in mild bullying behavior when he was a child, so Mitt's a homophobe.
It's a waste of time to even look at the specific examples. People on the Left are convinced everyone on the Right is a racist. People in the middle (like Meade, I guess) seem to be pretty sure that most people on the Right are racist. Being called/judged/branded a racist is just about the worst outcome for a person in public life now (just ahead of pedophile, homophobe, and sexist) and it's disheartening that as a tool it's used so damn frequently--it sure seems to be the weapon of first resort in many cases now.
But if it wasn't this (and keep in mind the "this" here is a national political candidate's failure to denounce in sufficiently harsh terms an unsolicited endorsement from a racist person/group) it'd be something else--there's 0% chance the "Trump is a racist" narrative wouldn't have shown up in this election.
You didn't condemn Duke's endorsement quickly enough or harshly enough, Trump. That's ugly.
Yup, right on schedule, Trump rallies being interrupted by large crowds of protesters. It's not enough, see, to oppose Trump (or, you know anyone accused of racism). You have to do your best to deny people you've accused of racism from having a platform--from even being able to speak. A racist shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves from being called a racist--listening to that would just be giving air time to a racist, and we can't allow that.
Trump's not my candidate. I'm not really a fan of Trump as a person nor as a politician. But if this is what sinks him I will be very disappointed.
I think of it like this: I'm not a racist. If I somehow to achieve public figure status and then be accused of being a racist, who would defend me? Would anyone? No, good people like the Professor and Meade would at best stay on the sidelines in a situation like that. To be non-Left is to have no allies when one is accused of racism, and being accused of racism is par for the course for any non-Left public figures--it's expected.
Hoodlum, I get your point. But does he have to hand it to them on a silver platter?
At some point he has to be accountable for what he actually says..not just lack of reaction from his blind and deaf supporters.
Wow, this has to be the lamest attack on Trump yet. Who is David Duke again? How long has it been since he was relevant in any way? 25 years? No one cares.
Yep..another Trumpian response.
Like "The National Review is a dying dying paper,"
Walt, typical Cuckservative response.
walter said...At some point he has to be accountable for what he actually says..not just lack of reaction from his blind and deaf supporters.
He SHOULD be accountable for what he actually says, sure. But so SHOULD all of 'em. Candidate Obama SHOULD have paid some price, don't you think, for HIS PASTOR's history of hateful, kooky pronouncements. What actually happened, though, was candidate Obama lectured ME on how I need to do a better job of working for racial healing. The Media (and most moderates) applauded him. I recognize it's a tu quoque, and in one sense it's just more complaining about Media bias, but it makes a difference if you're trying to make a "fair" judgement of a person or their statements/actions.
Now, again, I don't defend Trump's handling of this situation and he's not my preferred candidate at any rate. But it's naive in the extreme to pretend like 1.)this actually reveals Trump's hidden racist core or 2.) the Media wouldn't find some issue like this and put it forward as revealing Trump's racist core at some point anyway.
I'm tired of the pretense, walter.
Moderate Meade or Cruelly Neutral Professor Althouse - do you think Trump's a racist? Based on what you know of him (public statements, actions, etc) what makes you think that he is or isn't? What response (to Tapper, etc) could he have given that would have made you conclude he isn't a racist, and what actions, if any, could he take now that would convince you he's not?
ahhh that explains it, you actually swallow the GOPe bullshit. Must be tough coming to terms with the fact that your ideology is a complete failure huh? That explains all the butthurt coming from you guys.
Yeah..the guy who states he can get along with the establishment..make GREAT DEALS is the rebel.
Trump has no ideology..has no principles.
He's whatever you want him to be.
Shape Shifter.
Blogger HoodlumDoodlum said
it's naive in the extreme to pretend like 1.)this actually reveals Trump's hidden racist core.
--
I agree..but not the issue.
HoodlumDoodlum said...
Moderate Meade [...] - do you think Trump's a racist?
I think Trump's racism is about average. No worse than Kennedy's, LBJ's, or Robert Byrd's.
Meade, what do you base that on?
But I do think Trump is a big league fake and liar who is very effectively duping millions of vulnerable Americans.
And what is this "Make America Great Again" bullshit? When was America ever "Great"? What's wrong with Make America Better? Or even Make America Good Enough? Why the need to be "Great"?
The CNN guy is the one building up David Duke's power. I guess Duke is useful to them.
If you want a real scandal, Trump has not disavowed Vladimer Putin's half endorsement that sounded just like Duke's half endorsement.
Alas, the has KKK given up acquiring Nuclear weapons and second most powerful Military forces in the world and lives off its FBI pension.
This race baiting is a annoying. They do it every election cycle.
For once I wish the candidate would just say, "Oh shut up."
Even more annoying is all the #nevertrump people now saying this disqualified Trump.
Oh shut up.
"If you want a real scandal, Trump has not disavowed Vladimer Putin's half endorsement that sounded just like Duke's half endorsement."
If Trump gets elected, he'll be our third straight president who thought he could charm Putin and work with him. He'll also be our third straight president to discover Putin is a dangerous shark and his interests often do not align with our own.
I'd like to see some candidate running on the "Putin's tricky, I don't trust him as far as I can throw him, but I'll keep him in line!" argument rather than the "I think we'll get along just great because I saw Christ in his eyes and gave him a fake reset button" gambit. I mean, sure you have to be diplomatic but going back to Stalin we had a long history of arrogant presidents who thought they could out-charm a Russian. Russians can't be charmed! They're immune to it!
Their charm receptors were frozen off in the tundra, or lopped off by Mongol invaders long ago.
Eric, that would have been a far better response.
Sure, Scott Adams looks a coward here. But he has a lot to lose. I think he's done ok. I'm proud of his body of work. If someone can generate that many interesting relatively-PC-free ideas over a few months (making only ironic nods to virtue-signaling) without being intimidated into shutting down, I think they did their part to freshen up our thought-policed discourse.
Mead said,
"And what is this "Make America Great Again" bullshit? When was America ever "Great"? What's wrong with Make America Better? Or even Make America Good Enough? Why the need to be "Great"?
"Better" is a given. We're going to get better on the way to "great". Well. At least for you guys. I'm already great.
So, no equal rights? Not even a voice? For an American citizen. Really?
This is reminiscent of the pro-choice cult that excised Posterity from the constitution, disarmed them, and cannibalized their fresh corpses, in order to reduce women to taxable commodities, exploited for democratic leverage, and, presumably, to make room for class diversity (i.e. racism, sexism, congruence, etc.).
Rusty:
"Better" is a given. We're going to get better on the way to "great".
Exactly. Low self-esteem and lowered expectations are the hallmarks of a dodo dynasty. Our fathers and mothers should be honored, the People should expect and realize greatness, and our Posterity should enjoy the fruits of our principles and labor.
You know what was "GREAT"?
Frosted Flakes. And they were nothing more than flattened out carbohydrates.
Sugar was the secret..
" He'll also be our third straight president to discover Putin is a dangerous shark and his interests often do not align with our own."
Look, I think Putin is almost a big a crook as Hillary. He is very popular in Russia which is still recovering from the realization that the USSR collapsed.
Russia is doing what Russia has done for centuries. "The Great Game" referred to Britain and Russia's rivalry in Afghanistan in the 19th century. It's what Russians do.
I think Putin is playing a weak hand but he is doing hell of a lot better than Obama with a strong hand. Syria has been a Russian client for 50 years. He is defending his client. If Hillary should win the election, you might see Netanyahu make friends with Putin. He has already been visiting Russia. Hillary is as hostile to Israel as Obama is.
Russia has outmaneuvered us all over the place. Obama is a fool.
Would Trump do any better ? They kind of sound similar, don't you think ? I don't know. It could not be worse.
eric -
As someone who truly hates Trump, this KKK/condemnation is down to about 1,255th place on the list.
I'm more troubled by his mendacious claim that he'll build a border wall, and deport 11 million people.
Still more troubled by his repeated claim that if the Ford Motor Company doesn't satisfy Trump's desires about locating assembly plants, Trump will harass the company with things like a 35% tax on imported parts. Trump couldn't do that as president; Congress would never support it. But the fact that Trump thinks like that is worrisome.
And yet more concerning is Trump's perfectly idiotic summary of the intersection of libel litigation, the press and the Constitution.
Trump has the least understanding of constitutional issues that are important to conservatives, so the idea of Trump picking federal judges for nomination to vacancies terrifies me.
And on and on and on. In that long list of crazed, hateful stupidity, the Klan is minor stuff.
For once I wish the candidate would just say, "Oh shut up."
That's exactly what Bill Clinton said to the protesting Marine last week. I think you can do better than oh shut up.
What's wrong with "I condemn racism and racial superiority of any kind. Period."
Why couldn't Trump simply say that? Why'd he have to obfuscate and then lie about obfuscating?
He's a fake and a liar. Period.
HoodlumDoodlum said...
"Moderate Meade..."
Not a Moderate. I'm a Liberal. A very very very conservative Liberal who believes the two most important things ever written (besides the Bible) were one sentence and one book. The sentence was written by Thomas Jefferson and the book was written by Adam Smith.
@Meade
"But I do think Trump is a big league fake and liar who is very effectively duping millions of vulnerable Americans."
If true, you should have been all in for Cruz or Rubio 3 months ago.
Better than that — I was all in for Romney 13 months ago.
walter said...
"Sugar was the secret."
Same as Trump.
Remember— sugar is the original gateway drug.
The list of people who feel the need distance themselves from Donnie seems to be growing.
Scarborough and co-host Mika Brzezinski, who have been accused of cozying up to Trump, were adamant in their disgust for the candidate throughout the first hour of the show.
One way Trump keeps everything in focus is to step back and see things from above the usual narrative categories we always use when interpreting data. He does that step back intentionally to create distance between his views and Jake Tapper's World.
Making Trump seem to now be racist dog is a stretch, especially coming from a Mormon Brahmin like Romney. Those guys are the original natural born racists.
aha. This is the "have you stopped beating your spouse yet? question? What "what do you mean spouse? "Which one?" Can't answer you until I have a lot more data." "And even then your question is impertinent you heathen pimp for the opposition"
Meade Wrote:
. . . and the book was written by Adam Smith.
"The Theory of Moral Sentiments"?
Oh, no! Trump has lost Meade. LOL
He never had me.
Me: "..you should have been all in for Cruz or Rubio 3 months ago."
Meade: "Better than that — I was all in for Romney 13 months ago."
Romney wasn't running 13 months ago, you goof!
Ya gotta play with the cards that are dealt, not imaginary ones. That's like supporting McCain in 2012:)
"Romney wasn't running 13 months ago, you goof! "
He would have if only there were more smart people like me. ;-)
Since there weren't and he didn't, I went to Walker. Then Carson. Then Fiorina. Then Paul. Then Christie. Never Rubio. Never Cruz.
I guess now I'll be for Sanders.
Never Trump/Never Clinton.
Blogger Meade said...
For once I wish the candidate would just say, "Oh shut up."
That's exactly what Bill Clinton said to the protesting Marine last week. I think you can do better than oh shut up.
What's wrong with "I condemn racism and racial superiority of any kind. Period."
Why couldn't Trump simply say that? Why'd he have to obfuscate and then lie about obfuscating?
The purpose of the question is to get a denial from you so people can think, he doth protest too much.
It's one thing to tell a marine and member of the electorate to shut up. It's another thing to tell a loud mouth politician, talking head, or lawyer to shut it.
Don't you get that we are fed up with these games? Is there some doubt in your mind whether or not Trump is a racist? The game is, how can we pretend we think he is a racist. Let's get him to deny it and then we can ask why he denies it so much.
Instead of playing this stupid game, just give them the middle finger.
Oh, and Meade, please don't be too upset when your whole world falls apart because we are sick and tired of the game. You've very clearly thrown your support behind the game and accept it.
I, on the other hand, am mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore.
Meade
Virtue pin in the mail. Wear with pride!!
I will be glad if Trump loses support from the Right, but it will be a shame if this is what does it.
If it is; if trumped up charges of racism continue to be effective in taking out non-Leftists, good luck getting anyone else with an R behind their name elected nationwide again.
It was dumb of Gingrich to attack Romney as an out of touch self-dealing heartless rich guy. It helped doom Romney and the Republicans in the general. It is dumb of Republicans to support baseless charges of racism against a fellow Republican now. Even if you win, you lose.
The problem with that extrapolation is most people wouldn't step into it that "bigly".
Blogger HoodlumDoodlum said...
I will be glad if Trump loses support from the Right, but it will be a shame if this is what does it.
If it is; if trumped up charges of racism continue to be effective in taking out non-Leftists, good luck getting anyone else with an R behind their name elected nationwide again.
It was dumb of Gingrich to attack Romney as an out of touch self-dealing heartless rich guy. It helped doom Romney and the Republicans in the general. It is dumb of Republicans to support baseless charges of racism against a fellow Republican now. Even if you win, you lose.
Yeah, Hugh Hewitt is doing the, "I'm switzerland, I'm just asking questions" routine on his radio show today, repeatedly misquoting Trump and saying he said, "I don't know how David Duke is." instead of saying what Trump actually said.
They do this, they jump on the MSM train, because they think it'll help their candidate. And while it might in the short term, in the long term, it keeps them using these stupid attacks.
"I think Trump's racism is about average. No worse than Kennedy's, LBJ's, or Robert Byrd's."
LOL. And where do you rate YOUR Racism Meade? Is your racism average or really super special below average?
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/05/02/us/reagan-spurns-klan-support.html
Reagan on hearing about support from the KKK:
Those of us in public life can only resent the use of our names by those who seek political recognition for the repugnant doctrines of hate they espouse.
The politics of racial hatred and religious bigotry practiced by the Klan and others have no place in this country, and are destructive of the values for which America has always stood."
rcocean said...
"I think Trump's racism is about average. No worse than Kennedy's, LBJ's, or Robert Byrd's."
LOL. And where do you rate YOUR Racism Meade? Is your racism average or really super special below average?
I rate my racism somewhere around Ronald Reagan's. In other words — room for improvement.
How about yours, raccoon?
sorry. I hit publish before seeing the autocorrect on "rcocean".
I'm not on to normally defend Donald trump as some may know. But in this case. The issue with the ear piece may be accurate. Because trump has. Denounced David duke. Before.
Previously when he ran for president he ran third party on the freedom party. In the same party also running were DAVID DUKE, pat Buchanan and. Some communist lady. And he left the freedom party saying he can't be in a party with a racist white supremacist, a navy sympathizer and a communist. I think the dig on bucanan was a bit unfair. But regardless, he left the party because of David duke. So why would he suddenly have trouble denouncing David Duke?
The issue was, that he had not heard that David duke had in fact endorsed him . And these other groups that went nameless also endorsed him. He was asking who am I denouncing ? Since he has no specifics about said. Endorsements.
By the way, David duke said he'd vote for him, but never said he'd endorse him. So, there is no David duke endorsement, but if you don't know what the reporter is even referring to it might be wise to not say I renounce people simply because a reporter says they are bad.
He had renounced Duke on Twitter prior and did so again after the kerfuffle.
So , I really don think the issue is a problem with denouncing David Duke.
Limbaugh actually had an interesting point. The reason he wouldn't denounce him on the Sunday shows was because middle. America watches the Sunday shows but may not. Read his tweets. In other words, he may have been trying to not alienate those voters on such a big forum. The other arguments. Don't really pass the smell test. There may be some truth to this.
donald trump with kkk duke endorse trump but trump not endorse david duke.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा