Trump Rally Canceled for Safety Reasons
- Thread starter ipatent
- Start date
How many democratic candidates have offered to pay the legal fees for a supporter punching out a protester? You need to incentivize.
A tort lawyer's dream, with punitive damage potential off the charts.
No, you don't directly rally around Trump. That is true. But at the first misstep of those who enthusiastically oppose him, you quickly step up to speak against them. And you are correct in doing so. But where were you when Trump was repeatedly inciting violence at his rallies? Perhaps I missed it? I know you're all flagged up in the Constitution, but even so, you can't help but show at least implicit bias in his favor.
Source? Link?
Let's connect the dots, shall we? The former grand wizard klukker himself endorsed Trump. You think maybe Duke no longer has his finger on the pulse of white supremacist thought? All gone? Control-Alt-Delete? I don't think so.
As for Trump, yeah, he dismissed Duke and his klukkers in the past -- in the abstract. But when he actually got Duke's endorsement, he suddenly wasn't sure anymore what Duke or the Sheets stood for. He had to give it some thought. Is Trump outright racist? I don't know for certain. Is he a shamelessly amoral opportunist? You betcha.
FF, you are really something. A guy who fronted the KKK 30 years ago and whom Trump has never met in his life "endorses" Trump and it means Trump wants to reinstitute slavery. Can we say guilt by association, except there isn't even any association? And that media "disavowal" game, the one only republicans are subjected to, is over. No candidate should get sucked into it.
Meanwhile Bernie and Hillary are down on their knees begging to kiss Al Sharpton's ring. The guy has blood on his hands from riots he fomented, has a long record of anti-Semitism and makes Jesse Jackson look respectable.
Meanwhile Bernie and Hillary are down on their knees begging to kiss Al Sharpton's ring. The guy has blood on his hands from riots he fomented, has a long record of anti-Semitism and makes Jesse Jackson look respectable.
Nice try:
The...uproar started when Trump was asked by Tapper whether he would disavow Duke and other white supremacist groups that are supporting his campaign.
"Just so you understand, I don't know anything about David Duke, OK?" Trump said.
Trump was pressed three times on whether he'd distance himself from the Ku Klux Klan -- but never mentioned the group in his answers.
"I don't know anything about what you're even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists," he said. "So I don't know. I don't know -- did he endorse me, or what's going on? Because I know nothing about David Duke; I know nothing about white supremacists."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/28/politics/donald-trump-white-supremacists/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/donald-trump-white-supremacists-new-hampshire/
It isn't only David Duke. And while he disavowed him in the past, along with white supremacists, that was before he was endorsed by them. Then he was not quite so quick to disavow, was he?
"Because I know nothing about David Duke; I know nothing about white supremacists."
How much do you need to know about white supremacists apart from the fact that they're...white supremacists?
It was entirely fair for the media to ask him about an endorsement. It was a new development during the course of his campaign. And he could have repeated what he had said before about both Duke and his cohorts before such an endorsement. But he was trying to finesse a way to not alienate a segment of his base. And it showed. Which brings us back to his being a shameless and amoral opportunist.
Last edited:
I don't go out of my way to dig up times when Trump is doing something wrong. You're the policeman who does that. When you post something Trump does that is wrong (in my opinion) and I see it, I will comment on it. If I don't see it, feel free to send me a PM to draw my attention to it.
If you think my interpretation of the 1st amendment shows favor to Trump, then that's not entirely out of alignment with your belief that I showed favor to TGregg in my same, exact interpretation back when nine ender was trying to get him banned. Perhaps it's the fact that you aren't exactly in alignment with what the 1st amendment allows. But i'm consistent with how I view the 1st amendment, I assure you.
