Hiku said:
1.) It's doubtful that it was a blunder when it was brought up multiple times and he failed to adress it/ignored it multiple times. And especially when it becomes a pattern.
Was it also a blunder that he forgot to mention during his speech that it's a bad thing that his supporters beat up a homeless mexican in his name? That's a very strange thing to have slip your mind.
(More examples of him saying/implying messed up things, and then taking them back later, below.)
Most right wing voters are probably not going to be put off from voting for him because of the off chance that him not immediately dismissing the extreme right might mean something. On the other hand the extreme right tend to vote for their own specific parties, so gaining their votes can be valuable. And the extreme right are growing ever more popular in today's world. (A former Neo-Nazi party, with nazi and white supremecist ties is the third largest party in Sweden today. They were nowhere to be seen for the past 80 years.) Another thing he gains out of this is provoking both sides. The left get angry when he implies that he condones violence. And Trump keeps encouraging his voters to get physical. Just the other day, he said (during a public speech) that he wanted to hit several people who spoke during the Democrats convention. He kept saying this several times. And that's not the first time he's condoned violence. A trait commonly found in the far right. The more chaotic things get, the more it suits his cause, as he often plays on people's fear.
2.) There are other publications that talk about Sadam's relationship with terrorists and how he wasn't good at taking them out.
Any respected media always quote him saying that "Sadam is a bad guy", so they're not hiding that fact. But they are questioning why he praises Sadam for this, when he is known to support our definition of terrorists.
3. That's not true. He specifically said that they should go after the families of militants:
|
"'The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families,' he said during the interview.
'When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families.'" |
As for waterboarding, he did not suggest to make it legal in any quote I've read. (Feel free to provide a quote and a link to where he does.) And that they should go for waterboarding and even further.
| "waterboarding is fine but we should go even further" |
He also said that his soldiers would not refuse his order to break the law.
| When asked about former CIA Director Michael Hayden’s recent comments that the military could defy unlawful orders to torture or kill civilians, Trump said, “They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse, believe me.” |
http://time.com/4247397/donald-trump-waterboarding-torture/
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/04/politics/donald-trump-reverses-on-torture/
He backpedled on this later. But you can't pretend that he didn't say these things.
And you still don't see the pattern of him first saying messed up things, and then taking them back later?
4.) I don't see him as a dictator, but rather a very insincere person. Which makes him difficult to read, and that's one reason many people around the world are afraid of the prospect of him taking office. It's not about whether he's a republican or a democrat to people outside of the United States, but about the messed up things he constantly says. Granted all politicians are making promises they can't keep, but there's a difference between an occasional white lie and a sociopathical liar, and there's a distinct difference between Trump's rhetoric and any other candidate in recent history. He says a lot of extreme things. And the amount of times he's rapidly changed his policies makes it hard to gauge when he's overselling an idea, playing both sides, or how well he understands half the things he's saying.
|
1. The Sweden Democrats have been clean from nazi ties for years. Decades, even. Do you seriously believe that a neo-nazi party would be able to grow into the third largest party in a country as liberal as Sweden? A ridiculous notion. Despite what the media is trying to convey, the extreme right is actually a tiny, insignificant part of the voting population. What Trump wants to do is gain the independent and undecided vote. And the absolute worst way to attract those voters would be appeasing the extreme right and the KKK.
Judging by his success with the independents and the black voters (relative to recent republican nominees), I would say he is doing quite a good job.
As for this homeless Mexican, Trump couldn't possibly have known what exactly was going on until all facts were on the table. The Mexican could have brought a weapon and started threatening or attacking people for all he knew, hence the delayed condemnation. While he is no stranger to jumping to conclusions, he wisely waited this time before he passed judgement.
2. "Any respected media always quote him saying that "Sadam is a bad guy", so they're not hiding that fact."
Funny, because the very article that you linked made no mention of him saying that.
As for why he "praises" Saddam's ability to kill terrorists, the media was the first and only people to refer to it as "praise." All Trump did was stating the truth: With a guy like Saddam still in power ISIS would not have been able to grow and manifest themselves the way that they have. Just because he supported terrorists that he deemed useful that doesn't make him any worse at quelling terrorist uprisings.
3. What's not true? I said that he was in favor of targeting relatives, a.k.a. families. Thus we are in agreement.
First you say that Trump never suggested making waterboarding legal while asking me to provide a source, then you go on to quote him saying "waterboarding is fine but we should go even further"? He also explicitly voiced his support for waterboarding in the early republican debates if your own quotes haven't convinced you.
His statement about soldiers not refusing his orders is obviously him playing tough in a facetious manner to further his tough guy-image. Watch the debate again and observe his body language if you don't believe me.
4. "It's not about whether he's a republican or a democrat to people outside of the United States, but about the messed up things he constantly says."
And therein lies the problem. There is a reason why Donald Trump opposes political correctness so vehemently. People these days are acting like words are the most horrible thing when used to offend others, and frequently misconstrue the words made by their opponents to undermine their message and avoid having a discussion altogether. Certain viewpoints are silenced from social media platforms because some people might find them "inappropriate" or "offensive", regardless of how valid those points may be. Because the subjective feelings of the reader are more important than having a free marketplace of ideas.
That is what this election is all about. On one hand we have people who happily label their political opponents horrible things like racist, sexist, fascist and xenophobic to poison the well and conveniently avoid listening to what they have to say, while on the other hand we have people who are sick and tired of labels when there's proper discussion to be had. And you don't need to look any further than this very thread to find out which side predominantly supports which party.
Funny thing is, when the time comes to discuss actual political issues you'll see me defend the Democrats more often than not. But at the moment we have a more pressing, underlying issue to take care of.
