And people are surprised that the other side becomes obstinate?
Or he makes a deal and simply refuses to hold up his end. Then he challenges the wronged party to try and sue him. Like Hitler, it’s all in his book.
Whoever he is, he’s a terrible person for saying that, and he should be ashamed of himself.
The problem with Trump goes far beyond ONE comment – that’s what you’re not getting here.
Trump (and the tea party) have engaging in outright manufactured falsehoods and hinting at violence for quite some time now. It would take me all night to repeat them all.
I really don’t even feel compelled to Google or debate this with you. Honestly, I suspect that you actually are fully aware that Trump’s behavior is beyond the pale, but you’re an apologist because when it gets down to it, you don’t want to admit that you’re wrong. You don’t want to admit that it’s republicans and “conservatives” who have nominated a clearly defective candidate – a candidate so defective that his party won’t even support him. But rather than admit, “Yeah, maybe my thinking and my views are what led to this jackass representing me” you try like hell to find parallels – any you can possibly find – to convince yourself that you’re still a member of a legitimate political party and that as a conservative, your views are still somehow legitimate…despite all of the evidence to the contrary.
I reecall a fair amount of outrage, at the time.
OTOH, he made a stupid comment when he foolishly thought the mic was off and he had an audience of 1–and his remark was that he wanted to do it.
Trump made the comment, publicly, to an audience that includes a fair number of excitable idiots, and he suggested that they do it.
The outrage was appropriate to the situation in both cases.
Read Patti Reagan’s response to Trump.
No doubt about that.
Obviously, octopus was playing the “this Clinton guy did the same thing, where’s the outrage?” card.
When Trump makes a crude metaphor in what he thinks is a private setting, but which is picked up by a live mic, and apologizes publicly for the language, and is also not a major party candidate for presidency, you’ll probably see the same level of ho-hum from the left as you saw from the left about Jackson’s comments.
If you’d like to imply hypocrisy on the part of the left, you have two honorable approaches:
- Compare Jackson’s comments to similar comments from right-wing pundits, and then compare the response to them; or
- Compare Trump’s comments to similar calls for violence from Democratic presidential candidates, and compare the response to them.
But comparing the remarks of a left-wing has-been making off-the-record comments, to the remarks of the Republican presidential candidate in front of a crowd of thousands? Yeah, no.
To be fair, Assange played that same card, in a super-dishonest way that someone might not catch if they don’t factcheck Assange’s claim before reposting it.
I was always cautious about supporting someone like Assange, but initially I felt he was an Ellsburg, Woodward, Bernstein kinda guy. His precarious position of being holed up in an Ecuadorean embassy leaves me to believe he’s been growing desperate and is probably getting paid to do “leaks”. Sure, some of what he leaks – maybe all of it – is authentic. But seriously, what has he really leaked? That Democrats want an actual Democrat to win the nomination and not some Independent “socialist”? That’s not surprising; that’s common sense. Assange is now doing Wikileaks to survive.
Emphasis added. Other terms used are “sputtering rage” and I believe “hysteria”.
These seem to be euphemisms for “stating that it may be a bad idea for a presidential candidate to hint at assassination of the president”.
I’m not sure they are particularly valid or useful euphemisms. They seem to be euphemisms designed more to hide than enlighten.
I am not surprised that hoi polloi on both sides act like jerks.
I am occasionally surprised when rational people on either side buy into the rhetoric of the bumper stickers and Facebook posts of their parties’ worst elements.
Posts similar in tone are directed toward Democrats, liberals, and others to the left of Limbaugh, with a regularity that matches the frequency of those directed toward the GOP or conservatives.
When I stop hearing that Democrats all have a desire to destroy the family, kill babies, let the Mooslims use Sharia to replace the Constitution, or disarm all the police and so forth, I will be more concerned when some emotional Lefty pops off with a dumb remark.
Agreed. Look at his wiki page and note that he co-hosted a Fox show from 2011-2015. The clip came from a 2010 Fox Business clip. He now appears on CNN.
He also worked in the Carter admin and on Mondale’s 1984 campaign.
Wiki: I see that Beckel expressed worries about multi-ethnic dating last year.
Apologist? Trump is a buffoon and a jackass. He is very defective. I admit it. However I don’t want a Democrat in office picking judges. That’s my number 1 issue. My serious side is not pleased that it’s between Trump and Clinton.
Am I worried that Trump will ruin the US? No. The president is not that powerful.
Just consider that thanks to fortune conservatives have ruled the Supreme court in decades already, I consider what will happen under Clinton a fair result.
How quick we forget uh?
http://www.prattlibrary.org/locations/periodicals/?id=25494
The Nation Magazine telling all what was coming if Bush the lesser became president -Published before the election-)
(and it looks like a contradiction to worry then about who will appoint judges. The president is not that powerful after all :dubious: )
And yes, we should worry more about Trump as president. And the reality is that there is no chance that Clinton will appoint very liberal judges, the Republicans will not allow it. (I expect, even if Democrats take the Senate, that it will not be with a super majority)
And my point regarding standards, which was missed, is that the standards of politics in a democracy reflect what the people of the democracy accept and reward regardless of what the people say they want. People are dishonest, even to themselves, about the spectacles they enjoy seeing.
I don’t blame Trump for Trump. Trump is a reflection. And nastiness leads to more nastiness. The reason I like interacting on the SDMB is because it’s not a conservative echo chamber. It’s not a friendly place if you are not part of the left but I do like to engage with those who hold different view points. The folks here that have made an impression on me and have influenced my thinking are not the ones who are nasty though.
Well, if Trump wins, it’s more likely than not that there won’t be anyone picking judges, or judges to pick, or courts for them to preside over, or a human race for them to judge in the first place.
So… mission accomplished?
That might be exaggerating a bit. 
I don’t endorse what he said there, but Bob Beckel is pretty awesome in general.
Typical “conservatism”.
“Yah I think Trump is a buffoon and a jackass”
Just like in 2008 you were probably saying:
“Yah, I’m not a Bush fan (even though I voted for him twice)”
Okay, great. Now tell me: How did your party elect a buffoon and a jackass that half of your own party can’t even stomach?
Reflect on that.
How does this occur?
I’ll tell you how: It occurs because people on the right don’t analyze facts and generally aren’t informed voters; they just rely on their intuitions, which are often based on nothing more than their very limited life experiences.
And then the best part, you blithely dismiss the notion that your voting behavior has any real-world consequences.
“No matter what the president does, the president can’t ruin the United States.” 
:rolleyes:
I didn’t vote for Bush twice. And the president acting alone can’t do much. We have a congress, courts, a military, obstinate state governors, sanctuary cities, and the 2nd amendment.
Your broad brush inaccurately used contributes to the partisan atmosphere that leads to each side digging their heels in.
Bernie Bros on the nutty left would be a more accurate target of your rant.