Republican Debates

[Guest]

[Amppax]

On 3/2/2016, 10:15:40, Ark said:

KKK supports Trump? You mean the David Duke "endorsement"?

Here are some facts:

#1 David Duke never endorsed Trump

#2 Nor is David Duke in the KKK (hasn't been in 40 years)

#3 Trump disavowed Duke numerous times.

 

Didn't know this? You can thank your local liberal media station for promoting disinformation. Trump is self funding and therefore has not been bought out by any of the lobbyists or special interests and therefore is the most feared. Rubio is the biggest puppet of them all. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TihORiLAvbo

 

Well, I did speak a bit imprecisely, didn't I? Just to clarify for everyone, because your facts are a little misleading: 

1) David Duke didn't formally endorse Drumpf, however, on his radio show he said "Voting for these people, voting against Donald Drumpf at this point, is really treason to your heritage" and "I haven’t formally endorsed him. But I do support his candidacy, and I support voting for him as a strategic action." So saying Duke didn't endorse him is a pretty weak defense. 

2)While Duke did leave the KKK, he has been affiliated with white supremacism his entire public career. He is seen as a leading figure in white supremacist/nationalist circles, in Holocaust denial circles, etc. So perhaps he's not burning crosses in people's front yards, fine. He's still someone with absolutely despicable views which are completely contrary to Catholicism. 

3) Drumpf has disavowed Duke, that's correct. However, when asked specifically when the story first broke whether he would unequivocally denounce Duke's support, and the KKK, he said he wouldn't "unless he knew more." Watch the video in the link I shared. Yes, since then he's stated it more strongly, but only after widespread public backlash. There's a few options here: either Drumpf was completely ignorant when it comes to radical racist groups in this country, which is unacceptable for a presidential candidate, or he has racist views himself (which, you know, he does. But that's a different debate), or he doesn't have fortitude to condemn racists support for his campaign. None of those options reflect well. 

Having said all that, I know that I probably wasted my time. Like Drumpf said himself, he could shoot someone and not lose his supporters. 

[Anomaly]

4 minutes ago, Amppax said:

Well, I did speak a bit imprecisely, didn't I? Just to clarify for everyone, because your facts are a little misleading: 

1) David Duke didn't formally endorse Drumpf, however, on his radio show he said "Voting for these people, voting against Donald Drumpf at this point, is really treason to your heritage" and "I haven’t formally endorsed him. But I do support his candidacy, and I support voting for him as a strategic action." So saying Duke didn't endorse him is a pretty weak defense. 

2)While Duke did leave the KKK, he has been affiliated with white supremacism his entire public career. He is seen as a leading figure in white supremacist/nationalist circles, in Holocaust denial circles, etc. So perhaps he's not burning crosses in people's front yards, fine. He's still someone with absolutely despicable views which are completely contrary to Catholicism. 

3) Drumpf has disavowed Duke, that's correct. However, when asked specifically when the story first broke whether he would unequivocally denounce Duke's support, and the KKK, he said he wouldn't "unless he knew more." Watch the video in the link I shared. Yes, since then he's stated it more strongly, but only after widespread public backlash. There's a few options here: either Drumpf was completely ignorant when it comes to radical racist groups in this country, which is unacceptable for a presidential candidate, or he has racist views himself (which, you know, he does. But that's a different debate), or he doesn't have fortitude to condemn racists support for his campaign. None of those options reflect well. 

Having said all that, I know that I probably wasted my time. Like Drumpf said himself, he could shoot someone and not lose his supporters. 

Referring to Trump only as Drumpf is meant to show your reasonable intelligence?   You're just flouncing around in emotionville.   They're politicians vying for attention.  I don't doubt Trump loves the attention.  It works because detractors emotionally react with disdain, and his supports emotionally react to the unfair initial response.  Nobody really thinks about it. 

Duke is a minor issue.  A nobody as far as most people and Trump are concerned.  He is being made important by people who only want to attack Trump.   It was relatively a trick question to ask Trump to "unequivocally reject Duke".  What if Duke said it was important for people to pay attention and think about who to vote for?    Is that something to reject out of hand?

Dont be upset when you fling about snide comments and snark when complaining about the crassness of someone.   I'm no Trump supporter, but we've all let this devolve into a debate about cankles, bad hair, grumpy old guy, kid, or grumpy white guy. 

[Amppax]

5 hours ago, Anomaly said:

Referring to Trump only as Drumpf is meant to show your reasonable intelligence?   You're just flouncing around in emotionville.   They're politicians vying for attention.  I don't doubt Trump loves the attention.  It works because detractors emotionally react with disdain, and his supports emotionally react to the unfair initial response.  Nobody really thinks about it. 

Duke is a minor issue.  A nobody as far as most people and Trump are concerned.  He is being made important by people who only want to attack Trump.   It was relatively a trick question to ask Trump to "unequivocally reject Duke".  What if Duke said it was important for people to pay attention and think about who to vote for?    Is that something to reject out of hand?

Dont be upset when you fling about snide comments and snark when complaining about the crassness of someone.   I'm no Trump supporter, but we've all let this devolve into a debate about cankles, bad hair, grumpy old guy, kid, or grumpy white guy. 

No, I think referring to him as Drumpf is funny. I'll refrain though, as you seem to think it means I'm irrationally reacting to him. 

I don't actually think Duke is a minor issue. I think that Trump's campaign is driven in large part by what historically has been labeled nativist tendencies (Know-Nothing Party, etc). Do I think all Trump supporters are overt racists like Duke? No. But I think a lot of them are, and that worries me. I think that Duke's support is a sign of this aspect of Trump's campaign. If you look at what Duke said, and what Trump's campaign has been promising, I think it's clear why Duke supports Trump. So I think it's something legitimate to point out, and something that should be held against Trump, because it shows the dangerous side of his campaign. 

I have no idea what you're trying to say with that last paragraph, but I'm not upset. 

[Ark]

6 hours ago, Amppax said:

No, I think referring to him as Drumpf is funny. I'll refrain though, as you seem to think it means I'm irrationally reacting to him. 

I don't actually think Duke is a minor issue. I think that Trump's campaign is driven in large part by what historically has been labeled nativist tendencies (Know-Nothing Party, etc). Do I think all Trump supporters are overt racists like Duke? No. But I think a lot of them are, and that worries me. I think that Duke's support is a sign of this aspect of Trump's campaign. If you look at what Duke said, and what Trump's campaign has been promising, I think it's clear why Duke supports Trump. So I think it's something legitimate to point out, and something that should be held against Trump, because it shows the dangerous side of his campaign. 

I have no idea what you're trying to say with that last paragraph, but I'm not upset. 

In CNN's most recent poll Trump got 49% approval nationally among Republicans. What is your basis for saying "a lot of them" are "overt racists"?

Your suggestion is very offensive so please provide facts.

13 hours ago, Amppax said:

Well, I did speak a bit imprecisely, didn't I? Just to clarify for everyone, because your facts are a little misleading: 

1) David Duke didn't formally endorse Drumpf, however, on his radio show he said "Voting for these people, voting against Donald Drumpf at this point, is really treason to your heritage" and "I haven’t formally endorsed him. But I do support his candidacy, and I support voting for him as a strategic action." So saying Duke didn't endorse him is a pretty weak defense. 

2)While Duke did leave the KKK, he has been affiliated with white supremacism his entire public career. He is seen as a leading figure in white supremacist/nationalist circles, in Holocaust denial circles, etc. So perhaps he's not burning crosses in people's front yards, fine. He's still someone with absolutely despicable views which are completely contrary to Catholicism. 

3) Drumpf has disavowed Duke, that's correct. However, when asked specifically when the story first broke whether he would unequivocally denounce Duke's support, and the KKK, he said he wouldn't "unless he knew more." Watch the video in the link I shared. Yes, since then he's stated it more strongly, but only after widespread public backlash. There's a few options here: either Drumpf was completely ignorant when it comes to radical racist groups in this country, which is unacceptable for a presidential candidate, or he has racist views himself (which, you know, he does. But that's a different debate), or he doesn't have fortitude to condemn racists support for his campaign. None of those options reflect well. 

Having said all that, I know that I probably wasted my time. Like Drumpf said himself, he could shoot someone and not lose his supporters. 

You're missing the point.

The Media spun the story in a such a way as to suggest that the head of the KKK endorsed Trump. This is an exageration at best and lie at worst. David Duke is not the head of the KKK and hasn't been a member in 40 years. Nor did Duke officially endorse Trump, he said he disagrees with Trump on a lot of issues, rather he feels people should vote for him because of Trump's stance on securing the border (note, not because of some racist pretext.) 

As mentioned about, Duke is a non-issue. This is a concocted story created by the Media to attack Trump because he is a self funding candidate and that scares the blueberries out of the Establishment. 

[Guest]

Whoever does the Trump impersonation on Red Eye does it flawlessly lol Freaking hilarious

[Peace]

On 3/3/2016, 10:37:44, Josh said:

That's funny. It can't be real though?

[Ice_nine]

22 hours ago, Anomaly said:

Referring to Trump only as Drumpf is meant to show your reasonable intelligence?   You're just flouncing around in emotionville.   They're politicians vying for attention.  I don't doubt Trump loves the attention.  It works because detractors emotionally react with disdain, and his supports emotionally react to the unfair initial response.  Nobody really thinks about it. 

 

 

Well, we all can't be as reasonable and as level-headed as you anomaly. We're probably just overly sensitive and emotional. We should really think about things, yes think deeply about who Donald Trump is and what he's about and how he's garnered so much support. It's a very complex issue.

Don't ever let emotion get in the way of your reasoning. That's what women do (another reason we can't let Hilary win!) Emotion is inferior. And you shouldn't get emotional about a racist, chauvinistic narcissist getting so much support from many of your neighbors and fellow countrymen who love how he "tells it like it is." After all he's probably not racist, or chauvinistic, or even a narcissist. It's probably just your feelings telling you that.

[PhuturePriest]

My gut feeling sense my logical reasons for disliking Trump are correct.

[4588686]

On ‎3‎/‎5‎/‎2016‎ ‎10‎:‎53‎:‎59‎, Anomaly said:

Referring to Trump only as Drumpf is meant to show your reasonable intelligence?   You're just flouncing around in emotionville.   They're politicians vying for attention.  I don't doubt Trump loves the attention.  It works because detractors emotionally react with disdain, and his supports emotionally react to the unfair initial response.  Nobody really thinks about it. 

Duke is a minor issue.  A nobody as far as most people and Trump are concerned.  He is being made important by people who only want to attack Trump.   It was relatively a trick question to ask Trump to "unequivocally reject Duke".  What if Duke said it was important for people to pay attention and think about who to vote for?    Is that something to reject out of hand?

Dont be upset when you fling about snide comments and snark when complaining about the crassness of someone.   I'm no Trump supporter, but we've all let this devolve into a debate about cankles, bad hair, grumpy old guy, kid, or grumpy white guy. 

 

4 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

 

Well, we all can't be as reasonable and as level-headed as you anomaly. We're probably just overly sensitive and emotional. We should really think about things, yes think deeply about who Donald Trump is and what he's about and how he's garnered so much support. It's a very complex issue.

Don't ever let emotion get in the way of your reasoning. That's what women do (another reason we can't let Hilary win!) Emotion is inferior. And you shouldn't get emotional about a racist, chauvinistic narcissist getting so much support from many of your neighbors and fellow countrymen who love how he "tells it like it is." After all he's probably not racist, or chauvinistic, or even a narcissist. It's probably just your feelings telling you that.

Plus, you know, lott's of empirical evidence that a lot of Trump's support is coming from racists. But, you know, I'm what Trump's people would call a 'cuck' so I'm probably just as emotional and emasculated as you

7 hours ago, Peace said:

That's funny. It can't be real though?

It is funny. It's not real. That picture is from the #BringBackOurGirls campaign

[PhuturePriest]

1 hour ago, Hasan said:

 

Plus, you know, lott's of empirical evidence that a lot of Trump's support is coming from racists. But, you know, I'm what Trump's people would call a 'cuck' so I'm probably just as emotional and emasculated as you

It is funny. It's not real. That picture is from the #BringBackOurGirls campaign

What I'm getting from this map is that my State is one of the most ethnically accepting States in the nation, surpassing the allegedly progressive and tolerant northeast. Booyah.

Also, my State's republicans are among the least favorable towards Trump. I don't think I've ever been so proud of Kansas.

Edited March 6, 2016 by PhuturePriest

[Amppax]

On 3/5/2016, 11:49:09, Ark said:

In CNN's most recent poll Trump got 49% approval nationally among Republicans. What is your basis for saying "a lot of them" are "overt racists"?

Your suggestion is very offensive so please provide facts.

You're missing the point.

The Media spun the story in a such a way as to suggest that the head of the KKK endorsed Trump. This is an exageration at best and lie at worst. David Duke is not the head of the KKK and hasn't been a member in 40 years. Nor did Duke officially endorse Trump, he said he disagrees with Trump on a lot of issues, rather he feels people should vote for him because of Trump's stance on securing the border (note, not because of some racist pretext.) 

As mentioned about, Duke is a non-issue. This is a concocted story created by the Media to attack Trump because he is a self funding candidate and that scares the blueberries out of the Establishment. 

My basis? several things. What Hasan shared above is telling, and I think certain polls, such as those following the South Carolina primary, seem to suggest it. 

I don't think I'm missing the point, I think you are. Which is why I took the time to respond to your original post. Everything you said ignores that post. Also, your last sentence is nonsense. 

In other news, I'm glad to see this list of prominent Catholic figures coming out against Trump: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432437/donald-trump-catholic-opposition-statement. 

[StMichael]

On March 5, 2016 at 8:49:09 PM, Ark said:

In CNN's most recent poll Trump got 49% approval nationally among Republicans. What is your basis for saying "a lot of them" are "overt racists"?

Your suggestion is very offensive so please provide facts.

You're missing the point.

The Media spun the story in a such a way as to suggest that the head of the KKK endorsed Trump. This is an exageration at best and lie at worst. David Duke is not the head of the KKK and hasn't been a member in 40 years. Nor did Duke officially endorse Trump, he said he disagrees with Trump on a lot of issues, rather he feels people should vote for him because of Trump's stance on securing the border (note, not because of some racist pretext.) 

As mentioned about, Duke is a non-issue. This is a concocted story created by the Media to attack Trump because he is a self funding candidate and that scares the blueberries out of the Establishment. 

Trump is not "self-funding" no matter how many times he states it.

Trump has LOANED his campaign $12.6 million with over $2.5 million coming from outside donations (visit his site he has 2 yuge donate buttons).

What does this mean? The campaign will owe him all the money and whatever donations he has from the outside will pay him back. Pretty slick, no?

As for the KKK, no one believes that Trump is associated with the KKK anymore than he has been audited for the last 12 years because he is a devout Christian, but he lied in the interview claiming not to know who David Duke was and refused to denounce him or an endorsement from him (and saying to vote for a particular candidate is an endorsement -definition = an act of giving one's public approval or support to someone or something.).

Trump has enjoyed wall-to-wall coverage from almost every network, without ever really answering a single thing. 

Trump is the establishment or rather a democrat in Republican clothing.

[little2add]

Which Presidential Candidates Are Winning the Money Race?  Rubio netted 51.7 mil. for himself, by walking away.

interesting who is winning, so far compared to who is buying (spending the most) the vote.  Rubio spent 32.9 mil out of a pot of 84.6, that leaves him with 51.7 to keep for himself now that he's quit.  so you could say, "to the losers goes the spoils", in this election.

LINK: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html?_r=0

Millions Raised and Spent So Far

Some candidates who dropped out and some PACs have not yet filed complete reports.

 

1Hillary ClintonTOTAL RAISEDIN MILLIONS$188.0CANDIDATERAISED$130.4SPENT$97.5CASH ON HAND$32.9SUPER PACS & OTHER PACSRAISED$57.5OTHER GROUPSRAISED

2Ted Cruz104.254.741.013.649.6

3Bernie Sanders96.396.381.614.7<0.1

4Marco Rubio84.634.7*32.95.134.215.8

5Ben Carson68.057.953.74.110.1

6Donald J. Trump27.325.523.91.61.8

7John Kasich27.38.67.21.56.911.7

Jeb BushDROPPED OUT157.633.530.62.9124.1

Scott WalkerDROPPED OUT39.58.18.00.124.17.3

Carly FiorinaDROPPED OUT26.011.88.53.414.2

Chris ChristieDROPPED OUT26.08.07.30.718.0

Rand PaulDROPPED OUT20.612.211.30.98.5

Rick PerryDROPPED OUT16.71.41.8<0.115.2

Bobby JindalDROPPED OUT11.01.41.44.55.0

Lindsey GrahamDROPPED OUT10.05.65.30.34.4

Mike HuckabeeDROPPED OUT8.84.14.1<0.14.7

Martin O’MalleyDROPPED OUT7.16.05.90.21.1

George PatakiDROPPED OUT2.10.50.5<0.11.5

Rick SantorumDROPPED OUT2.01.41.3<0.10.6

Lawrence LessigDROPPED OUT1.21.21.2

Jim WebbDROPPED OUT0.80.80.60.2<0.1

Lincoln ChafeeDROPPED OUT0.40.40.40

Jim GilmoreDROPPED OUT0.20.20.2<0.1

Numbers reported to the Federal Election Commission and the Internal Revenue Service are shown in black. Figures that were announced to the news media but not officially filed are shown in gray.

cruse has spent almost four times as much as trump, with most of the money coming from big corporations 

Edited March 23, 2016 by little2add

[Peace]

Hmm. What exactly do you mean by "netted for himself"? It's not like he can use the money to buy a new luxury yacht to go with the one he already has.