I agree. Trump is really setting politics in this country on its ear. He’s single-handedly brought the immigration issue to the fore and is now doing the same with political correctness. Both are in dire need of correction, yet neither would even be on the radar screen if not for Trump’s campaign.
This is some pure grade awesome right here. Tell me more about how Trump single-handedly caused the GOP primary to address immigration.
They’re certainly foreign concepts to Piers Morgan. And Morgan’s description of Trump reads like the way Morgan wants to be perceived himself - as a straight-talking, no-nonsense businessman who should be taken seriously rather than as the lying unscrupulous self-aggrandizing cunt he actually is.
Which has nothing to do with Trump, other than to point out that Morgan isn’t exactly a credible character witness.
Those are admittedly a significant element within the realm of political correctness, and to the degree they’re good, they’re…well, good.
But there is also a huge element of political correctness that is presumptuous, bullying, nonsensical and/or dishonest.
Those are the elements that most of us who are critical of political correctness abhor, and that’s where Donald Trump comes in. He’s showing that it’s possible to fight the sillier or more dishonest aspects of political correctness simply by not giving in to it.
Do you honestly not realize that while demonizing immigrants and railing about how it’s not fair you can’t say what you really think about women and minorities may get a big chunk of the GOP base excited, it’s not a very useful stance to take into a general presidential election?
Did I say he caused the GOP primary to address it?
If not, perhaps you’d care to speak to the reason you attempted to so narrowly define what I actually did say.
Seriously? I thought what I said was the most charitable paraphrase.
But, OK, let’s go with your actual quote: “He’s single-handedly brought the immigration issue to the fore.”
Please explain.
My scorecard:
Trump - He was able to be his usual self without shitting all over. The fact that he let others speak in his presence was a plus.
Bush - He didn’t do himself any favors, he came off as kinda professorial and weak.
Carson - Really sounded like to me like he was way out of his league.
Rubio - He did one thing in his closing statement that I didn’t see anyone else do, he spoke into the camera to the American People. This is very powerful and if he works that angle more he will go far. (Everyone else addressed all of their statements during the evening to the moderators or to the audience in the venue. Take a look back at Bill Clinton’s performance back when he started - he always addressed his remarks directly into the camera at the American People.) Otherwise, Rubio comes off as a earnest kid performing for his nana.
Walker - Decent performance, fairly polished, a shame that he looks like King Derp, that’s going to keep him from the final brass ring.
Kasich - He really sounded like a competent, experienced candidate to me, he’ll have no chance with the lions den of the primaries. He could use a little polish on his TV presentation skills. Surprising to say considering his history as a TV commentator. But, as a candidate, he needs to still his movement on TV. He was too animated.
Huckabee - Thanks for coming Uncle Huck, see you again around Thanksgiving time?
Cruz - Didn’t really score any positive points.
Paul - Nothing to move the needle with him either.
Christie - He did come off as fairly solid. He didn’t let the bully flag fly. He’s going to have to be careful not to bang that 9/11 drum again or he’ll risk becoming a ghost-of-Giuliani-past joke.
From the debate. (transcript)
He made unneeded, disparaging remarks for no reason than to belittle someone and characterizes it as fighting political correctness.
I wasn’t able to watch the debate. What policies did Trump propose to address these problems? What were some of his other policy proposals that you especially liked?
I think the unreality bubble has been burst for some and strengthened for others. Trump’s fans aren’t necessarily in the latter group. I know I’m always nattering on about freepers, but I think it’s very interesting to read the attitudes there about candidates. Some like Trump, saying he’s genuine, some like Trump only because he’s tweaking the noses of the “GOPe” (establishment Republicans), and some don’t like Trump at all because they feel he’s either unseemly or not a real conservative.
The second group, the nose-tweakers, don’t seem to be living in a Republican unreality bubble at least so far as an election is concerned. I don’t think they think that the Republicans will put up Trump and win, they just don’t care if the Republicans win at all and want the party destroyed or made irrelevant.
For a lot of these people, hurting the establishment is the goal. And because I agree with them that Trump does hurt the Republican establishment, I can’t say they are unrealistic about that!
Of course, they and I would disagree about what the result of hurting the establishment would be.
And there are freepers who think that if they just nominate someone conservative, they’ll win, because America has been waiting for a conservative messiah to come forth. I have nothing to say about those people except “Heh. That’s dumb.”
This debate was a sad spectacle. I worry for the children.
Trump admitted to being an outright crook and he gets applause, and many followers. The U.S. Is in trouble.
My husband pointed out that he looked like he was playing himself on SNL. His weird head movements are made to be parodied.
I guess that’s the way of the world, isn’t it?
It seems plain that Fox News isn’t buying the hype, which I guess is different from 2012 when they thought Romney really was going to win.
And I think you’re probably right that some of the people excited about Trump know in some sense that he’s unelectable, but that’s not their main concern. They’d rather watch the world burn, and don’t think Jeb Bush is very different from Obama, in the way Nader voters thought Gore and Bush were the same.
Extrapolate much?
I can see how a person might arguably believe Trump is demonizing immigrants, but most of what he’s alleged to be sexist about was merely what he said about one woman, with the remaining comment jokingly made during an episode of The Apprentice, where he was riffing off the idea that a Playboy Playmate would look good on her knees.
Neither of those comments was aimed at women in general, and the fact that Megyn Kelly (and now you) are trying to make it seem like they were is precisely the type of politically correct bullshit that I was just talking about…the kind where you say one word against one woman anywhere, and if you’re a conservative, why, you’re a sexist bigot conducting an all out war on women! It’s ridiculous!
Plus I haven’t heard Trump make the slightest complaint about not being able to say what he really thinks about women and minorities, which, while not only being…let’s say, inaccurate…also carries the implication that he harbors bigoted views toward both when neither is the case. Women have held very high positions within the Trump Organization hierarchy and many LEGAL immigrants have worked on his projects…in much more significant roles, btw, than cleaning his toilets. (I’m looking at you, Kelly Osbourne.) Comments like yours are what I consider political correctness in action, and they have nothing to do with genuine “common courtesy”, “basic respect” or “decency”. Especially not the latter.
So, did any of them perform embarrassingly enough for Fox News to start identifying them as Democrats?
“…of the national dialog on the upcoming presidential election.”
My quote function has stopped working. That’s weird. This was Richard Parker:
Yes, I was surprised to see no outrage there when a few posters said they’d choose Hillary Clinton over Jeb Bush, because at least Clinton (variously) 1. means what she says, 2. is tough, and 3. won’t tarnish conservatism.
I feel like four years ago, they would have been roasted alive for saying such things.
I’ve posted about the “cuckservative” meme, too, which I think is significant. It has some Republicans and conservatives actually admitting that racism and anti-Semitism is a problem for their side and trying to quell the use of a term that seems to say “They’re coming for your women and your country, and you like it!”
Asking Trump “when did you become a Republican” was along those lines.
So, in your view, immigration would not be part of the national dialogue on the upcoming presidential election in the absence of Donald Trump? If I have that right, I’d like to hear more about why you think that.
In the conservative town where I grew up, we all wanted to be Patrick Swayze in Red Dawn. I think there’s a kind of nexus between certain conservative sentiments and needing/wanting some enemy to be threatening your people. I don’t think it’s sexual, exactly. It’s more like…you can’t be William Wallace without King Edward I, and if he doesn’t exist, you shall have to invent him. And in some contexts he becomes the Mexicans (who, IIRC, were inexplicably part of the invasion force in Red Dawn), in other contexts the Muslims, but always someone.