Man it's gotta be hard to work for a guy that can't keep his foot out of his mouth
You know how those wine connoisseurs can smell a wine or take a small taste and tell you what kind of wine it is, where it come from and even when it was made?
No trying-to-be objective and fair journalist, no citizen who cares about the country and its future can ignore what Donald Trump said today. When he suggested that "The Second Amendment People" can stop Hillary Clinton he crossed a line with dangerous potential. By any objective analysis, this is a new low and unprecedented in the history of American presidential politics. This is no longer about policy, civility, decency or even temperament. This is a direct threat of violence against a political rival. It is not just against the norms of American politics, it raises a serious question of whether it is against the law. If any other citizen had said this about a Presidential candidate, would the Secret Service be investigating?
Candidate Trump will undoubtably issue an explanation; some of his surrogates are already engaged in trying to gloss it over, but once the words are out there they cannot be taken back. That is what inciting violence means.
To anyone who still pretends this is a normal election of Republican against Democrat, history is watching. And I suspect its verdict will be harsh. Many have tried to do a side-shuffle and issue statements saying they strongly disagree with his rhetoric but still support the candidate. That is becoming woefully insufficient. The rhetoric is the candidate.
This cannot be treated as just another outrageous moment in the campaign. We will see whether major newscasts explain how grave and unprecedented this is and whether the headlines in tomorrow's newspapers do it justice. We will soon know whether anyone who has publicly supported Trump explains how they can continue to do.
We are a democratic republic governed by the rule of law. We are an honest, fair and decent people. In trying to come to terms with today's discouraging development the best I can do is to summon our greatest political poet Abraham Lincoln for perspective:
"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
Lincoln used these stirring words to end his First Inaugural Address. It was the eve of the Civil War and sadly his call for sanity, cohesion and peace was met with horrific violence that almost left our precious Union asunder. We cannot let that happen again. [quote][/quote]
50 G.O.P. Officials Warn Donald Trump Would Put Nation’s Security ‘at Risk’ By DAVID E. SANGER and MAGGIE HABERMANAUG. 8, 2016 Fifty of the nation’s most senior Republican national security officials, many of them former top aides or cabinet members for President George W. Bush, have signed a letter declaring that Donald J. Trump “lacks the character, values and experience” to be president and “would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.”
Mr. Trump, the officials warn, “would be the most reckless president in American history.”
The letter says Mr. Trump would weaken the United States’ moral authority and questions his knowledge of and belief in the Constitution. It says he has “demonstrated repeatedly that he has little understanding” of the nation’s “vital national interests, its complex diplomatic challenges, its indispensable alliances and the democratic values” on which American policy should be based. And it laments that “Mr. Trump has shown no interest in educating himself.”
“None of us will vote for Donald Trump,” the letter states, though it notes later that many Americans “have doubts about Hillary Clinton, as do many of us.”
While foreign policy elites in both parties often argue among themselves — behind closed doors, or politely in the pages of Foreign Affairs magazine — it is extraordinarily rare for them to step into the political arena so publicly and aggressively. Several former midlevel officials issued a similar if milder letter in March, during the primaries. But Monday’s letter included many senior former officials who until now have remained silent in public, even while denouncing Mr. Trump’s policies over dinners or in small Republican conclaves.
Late Monday, Mr. Trump struck back. The signatories of the letter, he said in a statement, were “the ones the American people should look to for answers on why the world is a mess, and we thank them for coming forward so everyone in the country knows who deserves the blame for making the world such a dangerous place.” He dismissed them as “nothing more than the failed Washington elite looking to hold onto their power.”
Mr. Trump correctly identified many of the signatories as the architects of the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath. But he also blamed them for allowing Americans “to die in Benghazi” and for permitting “the rise of ISIS” — referring to the 2012 attacks on the American mission in Libya and the spread of the Islamic State, both of which occurred during the Obama administration. At the time, most of Mr. Trump’s Republican foreign policy critics were in think tanks, private consultancies or law firms, or signed on as advisers to the Republican hopefuls Mr. Trump beat in the primaries.
Document: A Letter From G.O.P. National Security Officials Opposing Donald Trump Among the most prominent signatories are Michael V. Hayden, a former director of both the C.I.A. and the National Security Agency; John D. Negroponte, who served as the first director of national intelligence and then deputy secretary of state; and Robert B. Zoellick, another former deputy secretary of state, United States trade representive and, until 2012, president of the World Bank. Two former secretaries of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff, also signed, as did Eric S. Edelman, who was Vice President Dick Cheney’s national security adviser and as a top aide to Robert M. Gates when he was secretary of defense.
Donald Trump’s Diet: He’ll Have Fries With That AUG. 8, 2016 Robert Blackwill and James Jeffrey, two key strategists in Mr. Bush’s National Security Council, and William H. Taft IV, a former deputy secretary of defense and ambassador to NATO, also signed. Mr. Blackwill, a former aide to Henry A. Kissinger, is expected to endorse Mrs. Clinton this week.
The letter underscores the continuing rupture in the Republican Party, but particularly within its national security establishment. Many of those signing it had declined to add their names to the letter released in March. But a number said in recent interviews that they changed their minds once they heard Mr. Trump invite Russia to hack Mrs. Clinton’s email server — a sarcastic remark, he said later — and say that he would check to see how much NATO members contributed to the alliance before sending forces to help stave off a Russian attack. They viewed Mr. Trump’s comments on NATO as an abandonment of America’s most significant alliance relationship.
Mr. Trump has said throughout his campaign that he intends to upend Republican foreign policy orthodoxy on everything from trade to Russia, where he has been complimentary of President Vladimir V. Putin, saying nothing about its crackdown on human rights and little about its annexation of Crimea.
The sharp split in the Republican Party raises the question of whom Mr. Trump will turn to for institutional memory if he is elected. The officials he denounced made plenty of mistakes, some of which they acknowledge and some they gloss over. But they are also the party’s repository of experience of economic, diplomatic and military strategies, both successful and failed. Mr. Trump’s own bench of foreign policy advisers has had comparatively little experience.
Missing from the signatories are any of the living Republican former secretaries of state: Mr. Kissinger, George P. Shultz, James A. Baker III, Colin L. Powell and Condoleezza Rice.
Mr. Trump met with Mr. Kissinger and Mr. Baker several months ago, and “I came away with a lot of knowledge,” he told The New York Times in a July 20 interview. But neither of the two, who represent different foreign policy approaches within the party, has said if he will endorse Mr. Trump.
I think this is the first time a major US candidate advocated assassination against a potential future U.S. president.
There are many possible interpretations to what he said. When I heard the comments, my thoughts were just that pro-2A people are fiercely defensive of their rights. It's the old, "from my cold dead hands" kind of thing.
Others have interpreted as advocating an assassination. That is the worst possible interpretation of his remarks, but that is to be expected at this point.
Even his own supporters behind him on stage was like "oh sh.. Did he say that?"
It's the worse case interpretation simply because history says there's a good possibility he meant it that way.
And once again, nobody made him say it. He did it all on his own.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Paul Ryan AGAIN having to play damage control on trump's remarks.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Yes I watched it. Did you watch the whole relevant video, including his comments about how Hillary wants to essentially abolish the second amendment? Many of the news clips I have seen on this conveniently left off that important bit of context.
Maybe you think he is making up the part about Hillary wanting to 'essentially abolish the second amendment' and that indeed might be a bit of a stretch. However, there's a video out there of a Clinton delegate hitting on the talking points to eventually ban guns. This delegate says stuff like "you got to say you want common sense gun legislation". It's the gradual erosion of rights that gun advocates always talk about and it's right there on video (this delegate is so open about it because the video is taken covertly, which I'm not a big fan of, but the content is quite revealing).
Youtube search: Clinton delegate explains how democrats will ban all guns. There's swearing and such so I won't link it here.
I think this is the first time a major US candidate advocated assassination against a potential future U.S. president.
I have advocated that he is a plant for a long time now. He has a long history with The Clintons, I think now that he has the Repub nomination he is intentionally throwing the election
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
Anyone who knows me can attest, I'm very far from a Trump Supporter..
But in all honesty, I think with all my heart he was referring to with the comment "Maybe the 2nd amendment folks can take care of this" he meant it the way most of us took it, and that is, those that fight for gun rights will kill her.
That's the way it hit me.
BUT I do think there is a reasonable chance he was attempting to be funny. He wasn't. He didn't succeed at being funny. Not even close IMO. It was a failed joke.
I'm pretty offended by it, but I get that sometimes, jokes come out wrong and are taken wrong.
What I'm more offended by is that those that stood up for him decided to make up a whole big excuse for that bad joke. Trying to blow sunshine up our collective skirts is not a good way to handle things.
If they had just come out and said, it was bad attempt at humor. It failed. If they'd have done that, that would have left his opponents no where to go with it without looking stupid.
Given that the Secret Service is aware of the comment and is getting into it, I'd say they take things like this very serious. Joke or no joke, they don't find this stuff funny and it doesn't matter who says it.
But yeah, I do believe he meant it as a joke. A horrible one.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
There are many possible interpretations to what he said.
However it is interpreted or misinterpreted...we shouldn't even have these type of discussions when it comes to Presidential candidates. He is a total disaster and it's refreshing to see that many GOPs are realizing this and announcing they can no longer support him as the nominee of their party.
I think this is the first time a major US candidate advocated assassination against a potential future U.S. president.
I have advocated that he is a plant for a long time now. He has a long history with The Clintons, I think now that he has the Repub nomination he is intentionally throwing the election
The thing about it that caused me to believe that it was about violence is this. To nominate a Supreme Court Justice, you must already be the president. Nobody can stop a Supreme Court Justice from being appointed for the entire presidency. Not as long as that president remains in office.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Give it up, at this point it's little more than boogeyman talk, an attempt to keep people scared.
It was a beyond tasteless comment from trump to even joke about something like that.
I watched the press conference, no editing or nothing.
Your boy can't stop saying dumb stuff bro.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
There are many possible interpretations to what he said.
However it is interpreted or misinterpreted...we shouldn't even have these type of discussions when it comes to Presidential candidates. He is a total disaster and it's refreshing to see that many GOPs are realizing this and announcing they can no longer support him as the nominee of their party.
Since I am not easily offended and I don't regularly apply the worst possible interpretation to whatever a president or presidential candidate says, I don't really agree that we shouldn't be having these discussions. Well, maybe we shouldn't be having this discussion because there's nothing to it really, but that's obviously not the angle you were going with. Heck, I remember defending Obama a while back over his "You didn't build that" comments. That was sloppy on his part for sure, and I wouldn't blame other business owners for taking offense to that, but at the end of the day I don't believe he meant it to come out like it sounded.
Same thing here. I'm not going to waste too much time analyzing every single word that comes out of someone's mouth. Sometimes people have slipups or things come out the wrong way or whatever. It happens. I think it would be more fruitful to talk about actual policy-- in this case, the candidates' stances on gun rights.
At this point, the people who are always defending trumps comments have to ask themselves why?
Because people blame the media, but for some reason don't acknowledge the fact that NOBODY is making trump say these things.
Nobody. He says it all on his own.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I think this is the first time a major US candidate advocated assassination against a potential future U.S. president.
I have advocated that he is a plant for a long time now. He has a long history with The Clintons, I think now that he has the Repub nomination he is intentionally throwing the election
Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.
A customer of mine turned me on to this thinking months ago. I wasn't sure at first, but I'm convinced. He is a plant.
But I really don't think it was supposed to go as far as him actually being the republican nominee. I think he was sent in to disrupt the party. I just think it went further than it was supposed to.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
I see they got the tin foil hats buy one get one free on this board.
Who's y'all supplier?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
At this point, the people who are always defending trumps comments have to ask themselves why?
Because people blame the media, but for some reason don't acknowledge the fact that NOBODY is making trump say these things.
Nobody. He says it all on his own.
It's funny because many people complain about how athletes, politicians, and others who are in the public spotlight are always politically correct, never say what's on their minds, etc. Yet as soon as they deviate from that very narrow spectrum of politically correct modesty, people go ape.... on them. Some people get offended way too easily.
You really just pulled the BS PC excuse line again?
Trump can say whatever he want. But that doesn't mean he's free from Critiscim
He can say whatever comments.
And I have every right to call him a dumbass for it.
Why does it always have to be PC. Why can't it be that people simply do not agree with what he has to say?
Some if I don't agree with trump, it's because of PC?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
At this point, the people who are always defending trumps comments have to ask themselves why?
Because people blame the media, but for some reason don't acknowledge the fact that NOBODY is making trump say these things.
Nobody. He says it all on his own.
It's funny because many people complain about how athletes, politicians, and others who are in the public spotlight are always politically correct, never say what's on their minds, etc. Yet as soon as they deviate from that very narrow spectrum of politically correct modesty, people go ape.... on them. Some people get offended way too easily.
I think possibly insinuating the assasination of a POTUS is offended worthy
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
At this point, the people who are always defending trumps comments have to ask themselves why?
Because people blame the media, but for some reason don't acknowledge the fact that NOBODY is making trump say these things.
Nobody. He says it all on his own.
It's funny because many people complain about how athletes, politicians, and others who are in the public spotlight are always politically correct, never say what's on their minds, etc. Yet as soon as they deviate from that very narrow spectrum of politically correct modesty, people go ape.... on them. Some people get offended way too easily.
I think possibly insinuating the assasination of a POTUS is offended worthy
I don't think he was insinuating that.
Obviously though, doing so would be offense-worthy or crossing the line or what have you.
Again...the fact this is being discussed by so many people in many outlets means he did offend people.
A candidate for the President of the US should be more tactful, eloquent and certainly more educated to realize that somebody in his position cannot say these outrageous comments.
I remember when Iranian President, Ahmadinejad made appalling comments about the holocaust, Israel and 911. As a nation we were disgusted and couldn't believe a major political leader of a country could get away with saying those things let alone make excuses for them. Yet, here we are with Trump and people continue to make excuses for him while pardoning his repulsive language, remarks and behavior.
Even if he meant something else (which he didn't, sorry,) can you imagine if he said something like this about a world leader somewhere as president? Then had to say "Oh well I didn't really mean to kill him" or whatever.
Seriously. How can people think this guy is a good choice as president?
Man it's gotta be hard to work for a guy that can't keep his foot out of his mouth
Yes, sadly, all Hillary has to do to win this election is stay out of trouble and let Trump continue to self-implode.
As many people predicted, his off-the-wall comments were well received by the segment of the Republican party he was playing to.. and many wondered if he could make the transition to playing to a much broader audience... so far it's not looking good.
It would suck to be his speech writer because, when he gives a speech, he sounds pretty darn good. Then every once in a while it looks like he ad libs, the tries to throw in a joke or some comment to somebody in the crowd.. and that's usually where the wheels fall off. If he would just stick to what the speech writer wrote, I think he would be much better off.
When people have to defend things he says over and over on a weekly basis, that should at some point cause them to understand he's not leadership quality.
And the PC excuse is hilarious.
When you call every opponent you face names, make fun of a man with a severe disability, that's being a crass bully. That has nothing to do with being PC. It has nothing to do with PC and everything to do with being a complete a$$hole.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Again...the fact this is being discussed by so many people in many outlets means he did offend people.
A candidate for the President of the US should be more tactful, eloquent and certainly more educated to realize that somebody in his position cannot say these outrageous comments.
I remember when Iranian President, Ahmadinejad made appalling comments about the holocaust, Israel and 911. As a nation we were disgusted and couldn't believe a major political leader of a country could get away with saying those things let alone make excuses for them. Yet, here we are with Trump and people continue to make excuses for him while pardoning his repulsive language, remarks and behavior.
If that is what you want in a president, then Hillary is your gal. I do believe that Trump has made great strides in being more tactful (and it doesn't seem to be doing him a whole lot of good, quite frankly) but he will never be the kind to tow the party line even when things are completely whack. He is the kind to call it like it is, even when that is not pleasant.
Hillary on the other hand, has more of a filter. She is by far less likely to offend some people. However, she is the one who will overthrow a perfectly stable government in Libya and allow ISIS to run amok. She is the one who will be extremely careless with sensitive, compartmentalized information that even she does not have any business having in the first place. She is the one who will accept massive donations from sketchy foreign actors in exchange for favorable treatment. But she will say all the right things about it.
But wasn't that one of the petty complaints people had about Obama? The teleprompter?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
"The judge is biased because he's Mexican and I'm building a wall"
Yea, he's making huge strides
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Even the "new and improved" Donald Trump would need to become a pole vaulter to clear the bar of respectability.
At this point, I can't imagine how exhausting it would be to continue being a Trump supporter. At what point do you run out of excuses for this walking gaffe machine?
Hadn't really thought of it in those terms,,,
