IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
| JWeinCom said:
How about instead of just insulting me and repeating trite things like "blah blah blah liberal blah blah blah media" you actually explain to me what I've said that is taken out of context and inaccurate. I'll be happy to discuss anything and admit it if I'm wrong. But I'm not exactly holding my breath here. It seems a lot of people want to defend Drumpf without actually addressing anything he says. And no more ad hominen attacks please.
|
I recently went through all those quotes and accusations in a different thread, but I'll give you a brief version:
"YOU have the obligation to TAKE IT FUCKING SERIOUSLY WHEN A CANDIDATE SAYS HE WOULD FORCE THE ARMED SERVICE TO INTENTIONALLY MURDER CIVILIANS"
Watch the debate where Drumpf made his statement. He said "They won't refuse" in a clearly facetious manner to further his tough guy-image. Then the media took the bait.
"YOU have the obligation to TAKE IT FUCKING SERIOUSLY WHEN A CANDIDATE SAYS WE SHOULD CONSIDER A DATABASE FOR MEMBERS OF A CERTAIN RELIGION."
Fact of the matter is that followers of a certain religion do commit more terrorist attacks. Hundreds, if not thousands of civilian lives are at stake. A database of this sort may not be the best way to combat terrorism, but to completely rule out the idea at this point while more terrorist attacks keep popping up regularly would be foolish.
"YOU have an obligation to TAKE IT FUCKING SERIOUSLY WHEN A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE DOESN'T KNOW A GOD DAMN THING ABOUT FOREIGN AFFAIRS."
Drumpf opposed entering Iraq and accurately predicted that getting rid of Saddam would destabilize the Middle East. His judgement on this issue alone would have saved many lives and prevented the rise of ISIS.
"YOU have an obligation to TAKE IT FUCKING SERIOUSLY WHEN A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SAYS THAT MOST MEMBERS OF A PARTICULAR RACE ARE RAPISTS AND DRUG DEALERS."
This is true, and Drumpf never said anything of the sort.
"YOU have and obligation to TAKE IT SERIOUSLY WHEN A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDAT INCITES RACIAL HATRED BY TWEETING IMAGES THAT SAY 81% OF WHITE HOMOCIDE VICTIMS ARE KILLED BY BLACK PEOPLE."
Re-tweeting images of this sort without fact-checking first is indefensible. If one of his workers did that using his twitter, I hope that he was fired. If he did it himself, which I highly doubt, then I would be greatly concerned.
"YOU have the obligation to TAKE IT FUCKING SERIOUSLY WHEN SOMEONE WILL NOT DENOUNCE THE FORMER GRAND WIZARD OF THE KLU KLUX KLAN AND PRETENDS HE DOESN'T KNOW WHO HE IS DESPITE HAVING SPOKEN ABOUT HIM IN PAST INTERVIEWS"
Listen to how Drumpf expressed himself in that interview. He sensed a trap, which is why he refused to give a straight answer without "seeing the full list".
After his blunder, he disavowed David Duke time and time again before various reporters and news outlets. If getting the ever-essential KKK supporter vote is on Drumpf's list, he is doing a very poor job.
"It seems a lot of people want to defend Drumpf without actually addressing anything he says. And no more ad hominen attacks please."
Hilarious.
|
Watch the debate where Drumpf made his statement. He said "They won't refuse" in a clearly facetious manner to further his tough guy-image. Then the media took the bait.
Interesting how you chose to focus on the "forced" part and not on the part where he suggests war crimes. Let me get the quote for you.
"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lieves, don't kid yourselves. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families."
Explain to me the context where that is not advocating a war crime. And also explain to me why suggesting this would be ok even in a facetious matter. The idea that a commander in chief would be in any way facetious about the prospect of ordering the military to commit war crimes is fucked up enough on its own.
"Fact of the matter is that followers of a certain religion do commit more terrorist attacks. Hundreds, if not thousands of civilian lives are at stake. A database of this sort may not be the best way to combat terrorism, but to completely rule out the idea at this point while more terrorist attacks keep popping up regularly would be foolish."
Fact of the matter is, that doesn't matter even if it is true (which I'm not saying it is). You said I was taking things out of context because I believe everything the media tells me. If you think that's ok, then go ahead and vote for him, but don't change the subject. I'd like you to explain how what I said is in any way inaccurate as you claimed. If not, then you should probably take that back.
Drumpf opposed entering Iraq and accurately predicted that getting rid of Saddam would destabilize the Middle East. His judgement on this issue alone would have saved many lives and prevented the rise of ISIS.
Again, you can't explain how anything I said is actually wrong, and you keep changing the subject. He doesn't know that Scotland voted against Brexit, he doesn't know that Russia invaded the Ukraine, he doesn't know the difference between an Afghan and an Afghani, and he doesn't know the name of the players in Iraw.
As for predicting the war in Iraq would destabilitze the middle East, no he didn't. Listen to the man's words themselves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79MSQOuAwEU
He says "yeah I guess" as to whether they should go in. I'm not going to say he supported the war based on that, but he clearly didn't oppose it, and he didn't accurately predict anything.
Another quote
"Well, he has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps, because perhaps shouldn't be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know. He's under a lot of pressure. I think he's doing a very good job. But, of course, if you look at the polls, a lot of people are getting a little tired. I think the Iraqi situation is a problem. And I think the economy is a much bigger problem as far as the president is concerned."
Again nothing about destabilizing the middle East and hardly strong opposition. Definitely not as Trump says "loud and clear opposition".
I presume that in the light of this evidence that you will admit you were wrong about this. Of course, since you already mentioned to soundwave that there were "countless other instances" of Trump opposing the war or predicting destabilization in the middle east, then show me those, and I'll gladly change my position.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/13/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-his-early-opposition-iraq-war-wa/
This is true, and Drumpf never said anything of the sort.
I suppose I would have to add the caveat, "members of a certain race in our country", but this definitely qualifies as "something of the sort". Do you actually think this is an ok thing for a presidential candidate?
"Re-tweeting images of this sort without fact-checking first is indefensible. If one of his workers did that using his twitter, I hope that he was fired. If he did it himself, which I highly doubt, then I would be greatly concerned."
Nah man.
Watch the video. Donald Trump clearly states he's the one who sent out the image. And, he has blamed interns for other posts in the past, so you can't say he just didn't want people to know he doesn't run his own twitter. But, my absolute favorite part of this is when Donald Trump says "am I gonna check every statistic"?
Apparently, even if he for some reason lied to make it seem like he DID send out a racist tweet, he thinks, unlike you, that sending out this sort of thing without fact checking is very defensible.
So, how am I taking this out of context? The only context I'm using is what Donald Trump actually says. And are you concerned?
Listen to how Drumpf expressed himself in that interview. He sensed a trap, which is why he refused to give a straight answer without "seeing the full list".
After his blunder, he disavowed David Duke time and time again before various reporters and news outlets. If getting the ever-essential KKK supporter vote is on Drumpf's list, he is doing a very poor job.
I absolutely did listen to that interview. For the benefit of those who didn't, let's look at the text.
Tapper, Feb. 28: 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?
Drumpf: 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.
Tapper: OK. I mean, I’m just talking about David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan here, but…
Drumpf: 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 from a few years back
Lauer, Feb. 14, 2000: When you say the party is self-destructing, what do you see as the biggest problem with the Reform Party right now?
Drumpf: Well, you’ve got David Duke just joined — a bigot, a racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party. Buchanan’s a disaster as we’ve, you know, covered. Jesse’s a terrific guy who just left the party. And he, you know, it’s unfortunate, but he just left the party. He’s going to be doing his Independence Party from Minnesota.
New York Times, Feb. 14, 2000: Mr. Drumpf painted a fairly dark picture of the Reform Party in his statement, noting the role of Mr. Buchanan, along with the roles of David Duke, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, and Lenora Fulani, the former standard-bearer of the New Alliance Party and an advocate of Marxist-Leninist politics.
“The Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. Fulani,” he said in his statement. “This is not company I wish to keep.”
Even further back...
King, Nov. 19, 1991: Did the David Duke thing bother you? Fifty-five percent of the whites in Louisiana voted for him.
Drumpf: I hate —
King: Four hundred New Yorkers contributed.
Drumpf: I hate seeing what it represents, but I guess it just shows there’s a lot of hostility in this country. There’s a tremendous amount of hostility in the United States.
King: Anger?
Drumpf: It’s anger. I mean, that’s an anger vote. People are angry about what’s happened. People are angry about the jobs. If you look at Louisiana, they’re really in deep trouble. When you talk about the East Coast — it’s not the East Coast. It’s the East Coast, the middle coast, the West Coast —
King: If he runs and Pat Buchanan runs [for president in 1992], might you see a really divided vote?
Drumpf: Well, I think if they run, or even if David Duke — I mean, George Bush was very, very strong against David Duke. I think if he had it to do again, he might not have gotten involved in that campaign because I think David Duke now, if he runs, takes away almost exclusively Bush votes and then a guy like Cuomo runs — I think Cuomo can win the election.
King: But Bush morally had to come out against him.
Drumpf: I think Bush had to come out against him. I think Bush — if David Duke runs, David Duke is going to get a lot of votes. Whether that be good or bad, David Duke is going to get a lot of votes. Pat Buchanan — who really has many of the same theories, except it’s in a better package — Pat Buchanan is going to take a lot of votes away from George Bush. So if you have these two guys running, or even one of them running, I think George Bush could be in big trouble.
Mind you, I did not say he is a white supremacist, because I believe he certainly has some biases, but I wouldn't go that far. But at the very least he is obviously lying about not knowing anything about David Duke.
As for a trap, I don't see what they were trying to trap him into doing. Denouncing David Duke? That doesn't seem like a trap. And he actually did denounce David Duke later, so good for that at least. But, the fact that he not only didn't denounce him before , but lied to avoid doing so is something that is certainly worth being concerned about.
You can say the Trump doesn't mean what he actual says, which is troubling by itself, but you can't claim that I took anything out of context. These are Trump's own words.
