Is Donald Trump, a candidate for president, allowed to call names?
If he becomes the Republican nominee, will he be allowed to call names?
If he were elected president, would he be allowed to call names?
Do fill us in on your principled stances!
You’re saying this in defense of Trump? That guy? The one with the weird hair who wants to fuck his daughter? “Lyin’ Ted”, “Little Marco”, “I want to punch that guy in the face.” That Trump?
I’m afraid you’re not allowed any more irony for this quarter. You’ve gone completely plaid with it.
Of course he can. What’s more, he should; he can and should act in his country’s best interests – which, in this case, also happens to involve acting in our country’s best interests. I’d likewise hope to act in our country’s best interests by pointing out Trump’s shortcomings, and I recommend that you do the same.
It’s part of electioneering.
But if he said something bad about UK or about Cameron himself, then Cameron has a right to respond. In this case, Cameron has no right to comment. He should mind his own business.
Which part is part of electioneering? Be specific. And when must Trump stop calling names?
And how is it your business, again? If it’s not Cameron’s business, how is it yours? Seems like Trump’s words are more Cameron’s business than Cameron’s words are yours. Thinking about world affairs is his actual job.
Commenting on international issues which may have serious, direct and highly costly effects on travel and trade between two allies is not a PM’s business? What a peculiar position to take.
You are clearly missing the point. You stated some pure speculation that Mr. Cameron’s remarks regarding Mr. Trump (made in December of last year, BTW) were making many Britons angry. Other than maybe some far-right-wing types, I doubt this is true, and I posted some data suggesting widespread support for Mr. Cameron’s views. What data have you got?
And according to Trump’s playbook, he’s now going to hit Cameron harder than Cameron hit him, right?
Alienating the UK before the convention…oh no, there’s no chance of some worldwide disaster if Trump gets to be President.:rolleyes:
There isn’t going to be a disaster. Nations don’t have permanent friends, they only have permanent interests. Trumps protectionism(which Democrats at least claim to agree with him on) is actually more dangerous than his rhetoric, because that actually hits other nations where their interests lie. Which is why Democratic President always back off once they become President. But there aren’t going to be any disasters because Trump insults other world leaders. Heck, if anything it might get Europe doing more without relying on the US. If the Balkans heat up again or something of that nature, they might be motivated by not wanting to talk to Trump to deal with their own problems rather than expecting Bill Clinton to bail them out.
To get away, for a moment, from the topic of whether heads of national governments have a right to comment on international developments, or instead are obligated to muteness (!)…
I’m pretty sure the red bit is in the GOP platform.
But, yeah: the 'this isn’t a story, so move along’ approach won’t work for a lot of voters (particularly female ones, I should think) because this IS a story about the essence of Trump’s character. He’s a bigot. That’s his brand.
And it would work for him, too, if only some mega-effective voter suppression could keep the females and the non-whites (of any gender) from getting out there on November 8.
I guarantee truthseeker 2 would have had no trouble with Cameron speaking out if his statement had been in support of Trump.
Yes, I think you’re pretty safe, there.
The only Bizarro World statement I have seen has been this claim by you. I do not recall anyone saying that having better coping skills was a bad thing.
On the other hand, claiming that having such coping skills was what separated children of the 1950s from children of the 2010’s is certainly something that you strongly implied without providing a single shred of evidence either that the coping skills were better or that the pressures were as great.
Beyond that, this comment,
is on a par with idiotic claims that gender issues are simply examples of “transvestites” wanting to go out in public.
It appears to deliberately demean the experiences of kids who have suffered. Kids, (girls or boys), don’t commit suicide “because someone said something bad about them at school.” They commit suicide after having been subjected to repeated harassment. It ignores the difference between five or six kids in a school mocking a classmate and someone posting things on the internet that are seen (and reacted to) by hundreds or thousands of other people.
That you generally choose to couch your arguments in such terms explains most of the reactions other posters have to your comments.
That’s right. But do it like Putin did. Say good things about Trump if you want to and also say its not your (Putin’s) business but upto the people of America to elect him or not.
**El_Kabong **is bringing some useless online petitions which mean nothing and should be thrown into dustbin.
David Cameron hits out at Donald Trump’s ‘stupid’ comments . This video has twice as many dislikes on Cameron than likes and read the comments to know the opinion of people including from UK. This is also useless but less useless than online petitions by few people.
Freedom of speech doesn’t exist only when you agree with the speech. I’m pretty sure Cameron saying that he hopes Americans will prevent Trump from winning the Presidency implies that it’s not up to him. Let’s not delude ourselves that Putin’s statement was any less an attempt to sway voters than Cameron’s was, however he couched it.
I really couldn’t care less how many people Liked or Disliked a video on Youtube, as if that has any relation to the actual state of affairs.
Well, that’s a relief.
That’s actually what I was thinking of - I think his protectionist rhetoric portends disaster (especially since, as President, his words can move markets before his actions even begin).
I think you underestimate how incredibly arrogant and pigheaded Trump actually is. The nonsense about lying about the PR stunt (instead of just copping to a joke “before I ever had any idea I’d run for President - as I said, I’m not a politician.”) is just one more drop in the bucket against him, in my opinion. It definitely shouldn’t be the tipping point, but it can help corroborate the perception of him as a buffoon. And I don’t want a buffoon representing the United States in any capacity, let alone as Chief Executive.
And the suicides were women who had just entered the workforce, or the ones left behind?
Entering, presumably from the added pressures.
Trump tweeted:
That’s actually a pretty decent burn that Obama set himself up for. Obama takes pride in being smart, in knowing things. Yet whenever anything goes wrong, he retreats into ignorance. “I didn’t know!” Knowing “stuff” is great when you’re an academic. When you’re supposed to be a leader, it’s more important to know what’s going on than “stuff”.
Got a few examples?
(And even if true of Obama,of course, it is a far more savage condemnation of Trump.)
More silly fantasy criticism. The only basis this stuff has is in your own personal dislike of the man, not in anything he’s actually said or done.