• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Donald Trump defends himself after "Muslim" incident

mmi said:
A number of leading Democrats have correctly noted that some right-wing Republicans can legitimately be compared to religious extremists. Makes sense cuz that's what some of them are. Who opposes the Iran nuclear agreement? The hard Right in both countries.
Click to expand...

Being against abortion does not even come close to be a terrorist. There is no way in any sort of civilized conversation that the word "terrorist" should be used against your political opponents just because you disagree with them. The fact that you consider this as being "correctly noted that some right-wing Republicans can legitimately be compared" just proves Trumps whole premise. And saying "to religious extremists" is just you trying to excuse such behavior.

By the way, there is an example of a politician getting yelled at for not making a comment about something is Obama when he refused to comment on that one woman that got shot by a person that was here in the US illegally.
 
a351 said:
A complete non-sequitir. He may not have been praised, but the idea that a perceived violation of the man's free speech would garner similar rebuke, or was a "lose-lose" situation is simply Trump Fan-Fiction.
Click to expand...

Nope, not a non-sequitur. It's what actually happens.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Nope, not a non-sequitur. It's what actually happens.
Click to expand...
:doh Umm, no. You posted a video of someone claiming a phrase was racist. This discussion is about the likelihood of Trump being ripped for stifling 'free speech'. Even if your video related to the discussion, that would be a mere possibility ( a very remote one), certainly not some inevitable reaction as you imply.
 
a351 said:
:doh Umm, no. You posted a video of someone claiming a phrase was racist. This discussion is about the likelihood of Trump being ripped for stifling 'free speech'. Even if your video related to the discussion, that would be a mere possibility ( a very remote one), certainly not some inevitable reaction as you imply.
Click to expand...

You apparently didn't understand what I was referring to. My premise is that people are often called something in order to shut them up regardless if the validity, and often times done specifically to make the opponent appear in a bad light in order to gain political advantage. If you don't think that this doesn't happen then you know nothing of our political system.
 
Kal'Stang said:
You apparently didn't understand what I was referring to. My premise is that people are often called something in order to shut them up regardless if the validity, and often times done specifically to make the opponent appear in a bad light in order to gain political advantage. If you don't think that this doesn't happen then you know nothing of our political system.
Click to expand...
I understand just fine that it can happen. The likelihood of said critique gaining steam in this situation, is slim to none. There's still no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Trump would've been rebuked for talking down such a notion, and certainly not to the same degree as silence.
 
a351 said:
I understand just fine that it can happen. The likelihood of said critique gaining steam in this situation, is slim to none. There's still no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Trump would've been rebuked for talking down such a notion, and certainly not to the same degree as silence.
Click to expand...

I gave evidence of such in post 51.

"there is an example of a politician getting yelled at for not making a comment about something is Obama when he refused to comment on that one woman that got shot by a person that was here in the US illegally."

And no, the phrase "can happen" doesn't fit. It DOES happen. All the time.
 
As POTUS he has to defend and represent all Americans, for Trump to just stand there and let that guy run down all Muslims IMO is just further proof Trump himself doesn't believe he's got a snow ball's chance in hell of ever being POTUS.

He's getting a ton of free publicity, he's making a lot of fellow GOP candidates and his followers look like fools. He's having some fun, but he no dummy, he knows he has no chance so letting this guy ramble on about Muslims and Obama and him not correcting the guy means nothing to Trump, or his chances.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I gave evidence of such in post 51.

"there is an example of a politician getting yelled at for not making a comment about something is Obama when he refused to comment on that one woman that got shot by a person that was here in the US illegally."
Click to expand...
:lol: You gave an example of someone being criticized for silence on a matter, as Trump is experiencing now. You did not however, give an example of someone being widely criticized for denouncing a viewpoint similar to the one voiced by the audience member.

And no, the phrase "can happen" doesn't fit. It DOES happen. All the time.
Click to expand...

:doh My God. Does happen means it's a possibility, it doesn't mean it's an inevitability. So yes, can very much does work in this situation.
 
mmi said:
It's not. As others have noted, it's his business to get the nomination and get elected. By not rejecting the bizarre comments made by that audience member, Trump diminishes his chances.
Click to expand...

According to people who aren't going to vote in the Republican primary, and wouldn't vote for Trump in the general no matter what.

Do you think that there are enough lunatic bigots in this country to win a presidential election? Well, since yer a self-described "Proud Anti-Semite," I can see where you just might.
Click to expand...

No, but there are enough people who are tired of Republican politicians pandering to leftist pieties.
 
Trump doesn't have to defend himself.

The first thing he did was Interrupt and Mock the questioner, (8 seconds) Laughingly saying: "We Need This question? This is the first question?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4llxscu7GTQ
Then quickly moved on to the Next questioner/pretty much Dismissing it.

Anderson Cooper made a big deal of it until he was straightened out by another guest, and then said "I see what you mean."

This string, not identical, but pretty much Duplicating another with everyone having to say the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
Being against abortion does not even come close to be a terrorist.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know of anything Mr. Obama has said comparing the views of some Republicans on reproductive freedom to terrorism. Clinton did make that comment, and fwiw, I think it was inappropriate. She's not an effective politician, imo. Otoh, I also have serious objection to the idea that a rape victim should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. I believe Sen Rubio, for one, has taken that position.

>>There is no way in any sort of civilized conversation that the word "terrorist" should be used against your political opponents just because you disagree with them.

I generally agree, but were there politicians subject to valid criticism in the 1960s for, to some extent, being aligned with terrorists who attacked and in some cases murdered civil rights advocates? And how do you feel about the endless criticism of Mr. Obama for his supposedly being a "terrorist sympathizer"?

>>there is an example of a politician getting yelled at for not making a comment about something is Obama when he refused to comment on that one woman that got shot by a person that was here in the US illegally.

Fwiw, I think it would have served the president's political interests to have said something about that. But it looks like the woman's death, although certainly tragic, was not intentional. And the way the Right has treated this issue is, imo, quite shameful.

Megyn Kelly’s Jaw-Dropping Racial Rant Suggests President Obama Is Too Black To Care About Kathryn Steinle’s Murder

Frumpy's crude and clumsy exploitation of this woman's senseless killing makes me puke. "Beautiful Kate," he likes to say. How would he react if she looked more like Rosie O'Donnell?

"Donald Trump talks about Kate Steinle like he knows her. I've never heard a word from his campaign manager, never heard a word from him," her brother, Brad Steinle, told CNN recently. "It's disconcerting, and I don't want to be affiliated with somebody who doesn't have the common courtesy to reach out and ask about Kate and ask about our political views and what we want." — "Immigration moves from campaign trail to halls of Congress," LA Times​

Paleocon said:
there are enough people who are tired of Republican politicians pandering to leftist pieties.
Click to expand...

Perhaps enough to get him nominated, but not elected imo.
 
Clinton's point was that crazy terrorist Muslims -- who are right-wing religious conservatives -- have the same views on abortion and women's reproductive rights as Republicans. Which is factually correct.
 
mmi said:
Perhaps enough to get him nominated, but not elected imo.
Click to expand...

According to someone who wouldn't vote for him anyway.
 
a351 said:
No, no he's not. As a quick example that blows apart that premise, McCain was nearly universally praised for his quick shutdown of a similar speaker at a campaign event.
Click to expand...

And yet, he lost. Following the loser's example will very rarely yield positive results. :mrgreen:
 
Perhaps the gain in muslim votes isn't worth the loss in other demographics. Or at least, that would be the question to ask in determining the best course of action from an electoral perspective.
 
Paleocon said:
According to someone who wouldn't vote for him anyway.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't vote for Chuck Schumer. Does that limit yer ability to access his chances?

Obviously, you assume people can't be objective about these things. I've been following presidential politics very closely for more than forty years, and I have a pretty good track record judging a candidate's electability. Fwiw, I haven't missed yet on a general election outcome, although I've managed to get there by not making a call in 2000 and 2004, both extremely close. I don't think this is anything special — they all seemed pretty easy to me. And I say Frumpy would be crushed in a very high turnout.

clownboy said:
And yet, he lost. Following the loser's example will very rarely yield positive results. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

McCain lost because he economy went through the floor and because Obama was a very strong candidate.

Citizen.Seven said:
Perhaps the gain in muslim votes isn't worth the loss in other demographics.
Click to expand...

The losses for Frumpy's outrageous behaviour come from moderates and Independents.
 
Last edited:
clownboy said:
And yet, he lost. Following the loser's example will very rarely yield positive results. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
For reasons other than the aforementioned scenario. Being intellectually lazy won't yield much of anything either.
 
Amadeus said:
Clinton's point was that crazy terrorist Muslims -- who are right-wing religious conservatives -- have the same views on abortion and women's reproductive rights as Republicans. Which is factually correct.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see how you'd be able to make this opinion or yours and hers as 'factually correct'.

In reality the two are worlds and cultures apart.
 
ecofarm said:
It's everyone's business to confront bigotry, especially a leader. It's not Muslims that needed defending, as any decent person would disagree with the nutbag's statement, it's common decency.
Click to expand...

What a horrible life. Bigotry of one type or another is confronted daily. You calling someone a "nutbag" is bigotry. He is not a nutbag, he is a person who expressed a nutbag view on a topic. The act, not the person, should be criticized.
 
grip said:
Obama will probably go down in history as the greatest President to have ever existed.
Click to expand...

obama_laughing_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg


ecofarm said:
It's everyone's business to confront bigotry
Click to expand...

If that was true every single democrat preaching for welfare would have to be confronted.
 
mmi said:
You wouldn't vote for Chuck Schumer. Does that limit yer ability to access his chances?
Click to expand...

It would mean he wouldn't care about my opinion of whether he was being moderate enough, if he were wise.

Obviously, you assume people can't be objective about these things. I've been following presidential politics very closely for more than forty years, and I have a pretty good track record judging a candidate's electability. Fwiw, I haven't missed yet on a general election outcome, although I've managed to get there by not making a call in 2000 and 2004, both extremely close. I don't think this is anything special — they all seemed pretty easy to me. And I say Frumpy would be crushed in a very high turnout.
Click to expand...

Anyone can claim anything on the Internet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom