Yeah, Racism is racism, no matter how it lands. To not disavow it clearly shows an opportunist who cares not for the consequences. When he can’t deliver that god dam wall, He’ll blame it on Obama.
One thing I love about Trump is how he refuses to stoop to the level of insulting random people. Of course he didn’t say anything about David Duke–he doesn’t want to dignify Duke with a response.
That’s how the Donald rolls.
So yeah, it’s totally part of Trump’s schtick to rise above the fray.
McConnell is preparing for the worst, and assuming Trump is the nominee might be willing to just let the presidency go for 2016. His hope would be to not have Trump drag down the Senators who are running in 2016 as well. To do this, he will allow them to basically run negative ads against Trump, and disavow him.
Does anyone else think this is odd? I mean, yes, disavowing Trump makes sense. But, Trump is winning a lot of votes. This means that a lot of people in your party LIKE him. How do you run against him from within your party, when he is your party’s prohibitive favorite precisely because he is getting votes?
As all the buzz coming from his big David Duke blunder shows that is wishful thinking.
Again, I expect him to gain more “bullshit politics” support from other Republicans as they feel they have no choice, but several moderate and smart Republicans will have a choice, they will sit this election or vote against Trump in the general election.
To his credit, the reporter got a few licks in against the guy in the purple tie. Despite his disadvantage in years, he landed a decent kick and grabbed the guy’s throat briefly. Some articles say the security detail was Secret Service, and I believe Trump does have Secret Service protection. It’s confusing because when the reporter on the ground tweeted “Reporter at Trump Rally accuses SS agent of choking him”, that SS could mean a couple of things.
Anyway, notice that the crown was shouting in approval. It looked like some were shaking their fists, but perhaps their arms were just already raised.
Let’s look at it from the perspective of why he wouldn’t immediately denounce David Duke and the KKK. The basic reason for a politician not to denounce someone is because they think it’ll cost them an electorate. Leaving aside the laughable idea that he doesn’t know who David Duke or what the KKK stands for, the reason not to denounce a white supremacist group ahead of a primary date with a lot of contests in southern states is because he thinks these people are racist.
Hey, Trump advocated war crimes on Fox News. Not much is too big a leap after that.
I don’t understand the “bad earpiece” excuse. How can he say he misunderstood the question when he responded by repeating the key parts of the question?
Even if I decide to take a charitable view of this thing, it has confirmed in my mind how horrible he’d be as president. Presidents can’t afford to be flummoxed so easily. If he couldn’t hear the question, why not say what every ten-year-old has been taught to say in this situation: “Sorry, could you please repeat the question?” I can understand not doing this when you’re chewing the fat with the fellas. But in an intense interview? Maybe the old guy is just tired from the rat race, but I suspect he’s showing us how graceless he is when under fire. Say what you will about our current president, but you have to give him credit for keeping his wits at all times.
How can one read this and not cringe?
Only a white male billionaire can say something as dumb as this and still have decent shot at the White House.
Because that would imply that Trump couldn’t hear him. Trump has the greatest hearing. Okay? THE GREATEST HEARING. Everyone agrees that Trump hears everything.
I don’t agree that he has a decent shot. He is no more going to be president than I am.
He is already giving Senate candidates good ammunition though: Kirkpatrick Ties McCain to Trump
He’s gonna be the healthiest president ever, says his doctor.
That has to include hearing.
I don’t think its odd. Moderate republicans and independents will be deciding the general election, not the batshits. If reasonably sane voters want to support the party but don’t want to do so if that means electing a Trump toadie, they will be more inclined to vote for the Senators who go on record distancing themselves from him. Otherwise, these voters might choose to sit things out altogether or vote for an unelectable no-name.
It’s unorthodox and probably unprecedented, but I don’t blame the GOP for considering this strategy.
Two different issues. Most people can dislike Trump while still recognizing that a candidate has no control over who supports them.
True, a candidate can’t control who supports them. But …
Who supports a candidate is an indication of at least some of the constituency to which the candidate appeals. If that constituency is people who beat up Muslims and then say they were inspired by the candidate’s rhetoric, or if that constituency is white supremacists, then surely that says something about the candidate’s policies.
A candidate can’t control who supports them but they can control what they say about them. They can renounce them. Instead, Trump seemed to renounce David Duke and then later went back on it, saying he “knew nothing about him”. And saying also that he “knew nothing about white supremacists”, so he apparently wasn’t about to renounce this valuable voting bloc, either. Think about that. He claims he “knows nothing about” white supremacists. Just what is it that you suppose he needs to know?
I wonder: suppose Trump tones down his rhetoric and moves to the center during the general election, as establishment candidates probably would. Would this still not bother his fervent supporters, or would this be the one thing that DOES bother them because of the reasons they started supporting him to begin with?
Depends on what he means by not knowing anything about them. For example, I know of white supremacists but know very little about what they actually think, believe, or how they go about their lives. Same with David Duke. I would imagine that a multi-billionaire with international business interests and thousands of employees to ride herd over and who’s so busy he only sleeps four hours a night doesn’t spend a whole lot of time familiarizing himself with various of the country’s crackpots. So I’m inclined to think that while Trump may know of them by name or know who they are, he could still be giving a truthful answer when he says he doesn’t know them or doesn’t know about them. It all depends on the context.
I’m liking her more now. 
Arizonan here.
This stuff is stupid when it’s “BARRY HUSSAIN Obama!” or “RAFAEL Cruz!” or “WILLARD Romney!” or whatever. And at least those are their actual names, not some version from umpteen generations ago.
Why? Do you really thing a white supremacist that wants to keep minorities down is up to something good?
BTW Trump did call David Duke a crackpot in the past, I guess he forgot. :rolleyes: