Ran out of time for a further edit: and nobody with any intelligence could possibly believe that Bush-Cheney-Rove wouldn’t have used all the resources of the government to REALLY investigate Obama after he was nominated, and drop a Kenya-bomb on him a few days before the election, if there was anything at all to it.
Why is everyone criticizing the “God spoken to you” question? I think it’s an interesting insight into the religiosity of the candidates, how it informs their lives, and so on.
I took that question as “we know the base is a bunch of ignorant rubes who can’t wrap their heads around the concept that other people have different religious beliefs, so please say something to reassure them that you aren’t a godless socialist communist secular human Muslim”.
There is no god, and even if there was, he only speaks to his prophets. He doesn’t speak to and support a football team, an army, or a candidate for the president of the U.S.
I actually took that question as likely coming from a liberal/secular person who was trying to trap them into saying something that could be ridiculed.
I am a Democrat and a long time staunch supporter of President Obama (and I actually was born in Kenya ), but frankly I always thought that seemed like there was something fishy with that whole deal. OTOH, this is a good point:
Irrelevant. Among other things, as I said, it’s an insight into the candidate’s beliefs and psyche, especially if he responds to how others answer the question.
You don’t believe in God, but are somehow an expert on what those who do believe?
Pretty much every Christian I know believes that they have a God-given calling on their life. You pray and have God show you what that is. That’s why you pray before making any big decisions.
Have you never heard people talk about having a calling? How they felt motivated to do a certain job? That’s where that idea comes from.
You need to seek immediate medical attention for that.
Yeah, but you know if they ask the Democrats that they’ll wax just as devout.
But they don’t because Democratic voters aren’t nearly as interested in the faith of their candidates.
I don’t think that’s necessarily going to be true, and it certainly won’t be true in the general election. Remember Obama and McCain together at Rick Warren’s little forum?
Can you elaborate on this please?
So, at the top you try to argue that everyone else does it. And, by the end, you’re claiming that it’s all a media attack. So, at the top, he’s bad, but so is everyone else. By the bottom, he’s not really all that bad. Do you not see the contradiction?
The media really doesn’t have to do anything to portray Trump as sexist, racist, or just a generally horribly person. All of it is out in public. If some politicians have said things equally sexist or racist or what have you, they are at least capable of keeping it private, meaning it won’t necessarily affect how they govern.
The only thing that bugs me is that I think it may be tactical on his part. Keep everyone focused on the racism and sexism, and get the focus off the many other reasons he’d be a horrible president. His policy ideas give the naive what they want because they are just as naive. He has but one strategy to deal with problems, that of being aggressive and taking huge risks… And he has a long history of those ruining the things he leads–he’s just smart enough to make sure he comes out relatively unscathed or even ahead.
You say he needs to tone it down, but I think his tone is the only thing propping him up as a candidate. I think his defiance after the miscalculation of getting himself cut off from NBC is the only thing fueling him.
He needs to back off to be treated seriously, but I don’t think he can.
Even if Trump was awesome, the Republican party can’t nominate CEOs. What they did to Romney would be done ten times as much to Trump. And Trump doesn’t have half of Romney’s skills.
Trump is all name recognition at this point. YOu know who Trump voters’ second choice is? Jeb Bush. The other guy who nearly everyone knows.
I also remember Obama saluting atheists (“nonbelievers”) in his first inaugural, which no previous president has done, and which I can’t imagine a Republican doing.
It just seemed like they were very evasive for a long time, and I got a sense they were hiding something. (It should be pointed out that the only way in which this might have disqualified Obama for citizenship is a ridiculous technicality, a glitch in the law really that cannot have been intended and was subsequently corrected.)
There is no contradiction, you’re premise is in error. At the top he’s no worse than pretty much everyone else. At the bottom the media is cherry picking things that most people do and singling him out for it.
What’s sexist, racist, etc. to liberals isn’t necessarily sexist, racist, etc. to everyone else. Most people hew to dictionary meanings; liberals hew to whatever serves their PC purpose, and it often has little to do with reality. Objecting to illegal behavior on the part of a certain group is far from a belief in the genetic or social inferiority of the “race” of people they’re a segment of. Certainly you wouldn’t call concern over the activities of groups like the Hell’s Angels or the KKK as racism against white people. It one and the same.
And again, Trump has hurled insults at a wide range of people, male and female. Why is the media focussing only the ones aimed at women while ignoring the rest? The answer of course is obvious.
So in reality, nothing Trump has said or done makes him a racist or sexist in any realistic interpretation of those terms. You people call him these names because you don’t want him to succeed. As we’ve seen with hip-hop, rap music and Bill Clinton, you don’t give two whits about genuine misogyny if it’s coming from your side of the aisle, but you go off like a rocket in order to falsely proclaim them against anyone if they’re on the right.
It’s not tactical on his part. It’s tactical on the media’s part. I’m sure he had no idea his comments would be interpreted as sexist or racist in the beginning, and once attempts have been made to portray them that way his tendency has been to give them the consideration they deserve and blow them off as the PC nonsense they are.
He has a history of no such thing. He’s built dozens if not hundreds of very difficult businesses from the ground up, and earned a multi-billion dollar fortune from comparatively nothing two times now. He’s only had four of them go bankrupt, including at least one (but maybe two) that he no longer owned. So what he has a huge history of is breathtaking success and only a handful of failures. No one who hits it big scores big every time. Muhammed Ali was beaten occasionally, Arnold Schwarzenegger in his heyday had a few movies that were bombs, etc. The key thing is they didn’t let their failures beat or identify them. They fought back and achieved greater success even than they had before. And so has Donald Trump.
What I meant was that he needed to cool it with the insults of individual media personalities, like Megyn Kelly for instance. It’s fine to battle with the media on the whole, but insulting individuals makes him look petty and unsavvy. And while I’m all for him doing battle with the more ridiculous or dishonest aspects of political correctness, he needs to back off at least somewhat and be cognizant of how his opponents and the media will try to spin what he says.
I don’t know if he can or not. He’s pretty much painted himself into a corner where if he apologizes and tones it down it’ll appear that he’s giving in to political correctness, but if he doesn’t tone it down and he continues down the path he’s been on without making at least some concessions to political realities he’s going to find himself overwhelmed on all sides and unable to function. I’m sure he doesn’t go about his day-to-day business activities and negotiations acting like he has on the campaign trail and he needs to savvy up and approach things with the same tone and tenor that he uses in his business dealings.
He released his birth certificate in mid-2008, before birtherism was actually a thing (probably causing the controversy by getting into the issue at all, really). I’m pretty sure he was the only presidential candidate who ever did that. More was known about his birth certificate than any other candidate’s, because he released his and other candidates did not. There was never any evasion, because birtherism was actually prompted by evidence that completely and incontrovertibly disproved it.
All of this is true. To be exact, “On June 12, 2008, Obama’s campaign responded to the rumors by posting an image of Obama’s birth certificate on the “Fight The Smears” website,” according to Wikipedia. This was over two months before the Democratic National Convention and only a couple of weeks after he secured the delegates for the nomination.
So SlackerInc, do you really think that was “evasive for a long time?” And what as for your “sense they were hiding something,” what could that something have been?
Yet he also mentioned God more often than Reagan in that same inaugural address.
I’m not so sure about that, I just watched a focus group of Trump fans being interviewed and almost all of them named Ben Carson as their second choice.