I thought he handled that pretty well. He basically admitted that he didn't know without dodging the question and said he will know when he needed to. Not having being a position to really have any knowledge of the names is a fair point too imo.
You're skipping the most important part of what happened, which is that he pretended to know what he was talking about until he got caught.
"We have a problem in this country, it's called Muslims. We know our current president is one....When can we get rid of them?" - Questioner
"We're going to be looking at a lot of different things." - Donald Trump
So this exchange just happened at a recent town hall involving the current leader for the GOP nomination. Republicans should take a hard look in the mirror at what their party and leaders have become. Because the guy who has the most support right now, and who other candidates and the media frequently defer to, just said that if you want to stand up and suggest cleansing an entire group of people at a public event, he's not going to disagree with you. It wasn't that long ago (2008) that Republican John McCain was faced with the same situation at a similar event, except he had the courage and decency to correct his supporter for their ignorant, divisive attitude. But then this is also the guy who thinks McCain is a loser for getting captured during wartime (and somehow they let him get away with that too). The Republican party should be ashamed of themselves, they're a bunch of cowards for not standing up to this a-hole.
The Republican party should be ashamed of themselves, they're a bunch of cowards for not standing up to this a-hole.
I don't think you can blame the party as a whole. About 70% of the Republican voters, at least according to polls, are not supporting Trump. It's pretty clear that the Republican establishment doesn't want Trump. At the debates, you saw 10 people on the stage with Trump standing up to Trump, all basically saying that this guy's a massive douche.
The problem is that there are, allegedly, 30% of Republicans who are, or at least were, supporting Trump. And even if they were to abandon Trump entirely, they were still stupid enough to support him in the first place.
I don't think you can blame the party as a whole. About 70% of the Republican voters, at least according to polls, are not supporting Trump. It's pretty clear that the Republican establishment doesn't want Trump. At the debates, you saw 10 people on the stage with Trump standing up to Trump, all basically saying that this guy's a massive douche.
The problem is that there are, allegedly, 30% of Republicans who are, or at least were, supporting Trump. And even if they were to abandon Trump entirely, they were still stupid enough to support him in the first place.
I think it's worse than that. Trump is only the first choice of ~30%, but he's the second choice of even more. Not only that, he's preferred head-to-head against almost all of the candidates (only Carson beats him head-to-head). For example, if republican voters had to choose between Trump and Jeb Bush, Trump wins 59-34 (the remainder undecided). That's ~60% of the Republican electorate who think Trump would be better than Jeb Bush.
I think it's worse than that. Trump is only the first choice of ~30%, but he's the second choice of even more. Not only that, he's preferred head-to-head against almost all of the candidates (only Carson beats him head-to-head). For example, if republican voters had to choose between Trump and Jeb Bush, Trump wins 59-34 (the remainder undecided). That's ~60% of the Republican electorate who think Trump would be better than Jeb Bush.
I think it's the issue of a vocal minority supporting Trump with there being no clear "real" candidate to take the forefront in the Republican Party. Also, it's not clear how many people would actually vote Trump in the primary, vs. people who want to vote Trump to express their dissatisfaction with the party as a whole.
As for Jeb Bush, not that surprising really. There was a general dissatisfaction with Jeb Bush before the last debate, I'm not sure if any poll numbers have come out after, so the fact that Bush lost to Trump is not unexpected.
The thing we must remember is there are nine more debates to go. There was a major shift in the perceptions of politicians after the first debate, and I anticipate the polls after the second debate will show a major shift as well. So we're still in the first quarter of this game.
Good grief. Now he's on vaccines and autism. And with two doctors on stage, who failed to slap it down like the bull***** it is. Disappointing.
Obviously I still hope Trump fades soon, but now I'd like to see Carson and Paul go too.
Why is this still a thing? Seriously, there is nothing wrong with vaccines. My respect for Trump decreases even further toward zero, beyond the fact that he has too much money, is insensitive, speaks unintelligently and is too conservative. The only thing he actually has going for him in my books is that he is more open than most politicians.
Trump is holding at 24%
Carson's, Florina's, Rubio's, Huckabee's, and Cruz's numbers have gone up
Bush's, Kasich's, and Paul's have gone down
Scott Walker's REALLY went down
Looks like about what you would expect at this point. I'm still sticking with my prediction that Bush is getting the nomination at the end of it all, but I could see an argument for Rubio as well now. All the other candidates have too much going against them (IMHO) and/or don't have the broad appeal necessary to win the actual nomination. Fiorino or Carson might make decent VP candidates.
The mere fact that we are even talking about the possibility that Trump could be president means, in my mind anyway, that we are only steps away from voting this guy in:
ATTACHMENTS
president-camacho-idiocracy
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Post Ravnica Allegiance Type 2 - WUB Control
States '09: 14th place. Aiming for better next year.
States '10: 12th place. Aiming for better next year.
I would gladly take Trump over anyone else in the GOP field. He does have quite a lot of moderate to left-leaning economic positions, but doesn't talk about them much if at all because they wouldn't get him anywhere with the Tea Party field. Sure, his nationalistic racism is kind of horrifying and disgusting, as is the way he treats women, but I suspect that he's at least partially exaggerating it for the base and the way he treats women is roughly on par with Bill Clinton and JFK so it's not really worse, and he actually gives a damn about reproductive rights apart from abortions, which of course nobody else on the Right comes even close to.
He's a decent compromise candidate. I'm not really satisfied with Hillary either, though she'd be a better option than Trump if only for Supreme Court nominations. I'd take Sanders or either of them over the rest of the Republicans in a heartbeat, no questions asked.
I suspect that he's at least partially exaggerating it for the base and the way he treats women is roughly on par with Bill Clinton and JFK
Uh, what? It's not an act, Trump has always been a sexist pig going back years before he ever thought of running for president. Clinton on the other hand, actually used his presidential powers to veto a bill that would have banned partial birth abortions, twice.
There is a very significant difference between someone's views on reproductive rights and how they personally treat women in person. Clinton was similar to Trump in the latter, not the former, though he obviously wasn't as public about it.
It's bad, but it's a lesser degree of bad than most of the field, is what I'm saying.
Keep in mind the margin of error is within + or - 6.46 percentage points, making this survey superaccurate!
Seriously though, what the survey does indicate that is noteworthy is pretty much what has been said: Trump has about twice as many people who dislike him as the number of people who like him.
Again, I believe this whole Trump thing will quickly subside once the GOP nominees dwindle down into the single digits and endorsements get thrown around. We had a major vacuum for a GOP frontrunner going into this election, which left Trump ready to seize the day because grabbing media attention is easy for him. As this race progresses, I anticipate him fading away while a few strong "real" candidates step up to the plate.
Seems the main contenders for that group right now are Carson, Florina, and Rubio.
So it's finally happening. Trump has committed the unforgivable sin (as far as Republican establishment is concerned) he has gone against their narrative on 9/11 and openly criticized a former Republican president. Not only saying it happened on Bush's watch (which it did), but now is saying Bush knew about it, that the CIA warned him it was coming, and he didn't stop it. Not coincidentally he's also torpedoing Jeb's campaign in the process, and Jeb is falling for it hook, line, and sinker.
We always knew the GOP didn't really like Trump, that it only accepted him into the race to prevent him from running as an independent, and I don't think they really believed he would last this long. I expect the GOP is now going to launch a full out assault on Trump at any time.
It will be interesting to see how he responds once they really start hitting him or if he will fold. Personally, I expect it will be the end of his campaign. I don't think he stands up to scrutiny very well, and I don't think he really wants to be president so badly that he will be willing to endure the criticism from the right.
"We have a problem in this country, it's called Muslims. We know our current president is one....When can we get rid of them?" - Questioner
"We're going to be looking at a lot of different things." - Donald Trump
So this exchange just happened at a recent town hall involving the current leader for the GOP nomination. Republicans should take a hard look in the mirror at what their party and leaders have become. Because the guy who has the most support right now, and who other candidates and the media frequently defer to, just said that if you want to stand up and suggest cleansing an entire group of people at a public event, he's not going to disagree with you. It wasn't that long ago (2008) that Republican John McCain was faced with the same situation at a similar event, except he had the courage and decency to correct his supporter for their ignorant, divisive attitude. But then this is also the guy who thinks McCain is a loser for getting captured during wartime (and somehow they let him get away with that too). The Republican party should be ashamed of themselves, they're a bunch of cowards for not standing up to this a-hole.
The climate of this country is such that you can be the son of a known Muslim agitator, bring a hoax bomb to school, be told by your science teacher that it's nice, but don't go showing it around because people might misinterpret it, have it disrupt an unrelated class, have that teacher rightfully call it in, get arrested for like 5 minutes while you get a trip to the White House and another to visit a genocidal Muslim dictator and you can still have the press blame the entire situation on racism and "Islamophobia."
So I'm not particularly worried about Muslims in the U.S.
The climate of this country is such that you can be the son of a known Muslim agitator, bring a hoax bomb to school, be told by your science teacher that it's nice, but don't go showing it around because people might misinterpret it, have it disrupt an unrelated class, have that teacher rightfully call it in, get arrested for like 5 minutes while you get a trip to the White House and another to visit a genocidal Muslim dictator and you can still have the press blame the entire situation on racism and "Islamophobia."
So I'm not particularly worried about Muslims in the U.S.
What makes someone a "known Muslims agitator"? What does that even mean?
What makes someone a "known Muslims agitator"? What does that even mean?
I would also like to hear the response to this.
Recent polls show Trump and Carson dominating the Republican race with no other candidate in the primary coming close to them. Still very early, but what's interesting is to see Florina's support drop significantly.
The climate of this country is such that you can be the son of a known Muslim agitator, bring a hoax bomb to school, be told by your science teacher that it's nice, but don't go showing it around because people might misinterpret it, have it disrupt an unrelated class, have that teacher rightfully call it in, get arrested for like 5 minutes while you get a trip to the White House and another to visit a genocidal Muslim dictator and you can still have the press blame the entire situation on racism and "Islamophobia."
So I'm not particularly worried about Muslims in the U.S.
What makes someone a "known Muslims agitator"? What does that even mean?
I don't understand what's confusing about that phrase. He is a man who has long agitated for the cause of Islam. His version of Islam, at least... which is not as reprehensible as many others.
I don't understand what's confusing about that phrase. He is a man who has long agitated for the cause of Islam. His version of Islam, at least... which is not as reprehensible as many others.
Oh, so when someone defends Islam by engaging in peaceful dialogue, they're a "known Muslims agitator"?
This is maybe why you should be worried about Muslims in the US, Ljoss.
I don't understand what's confusing about that phrase. He is a man who has long agitated for the cause of Islam. His version of Islam, at least... which is not as reprehensible as many others.
It is confusing because who is "agitated"? You seem to be using the word to code what you really want to say, much in the same way "thug" has become code for another word.
But back to Trump as horrifying as his following is, there are times I find myself hating that I am happy he called it how it is (even if 80% I vehemently disagree). Like him calling out Trey Gowdy on what a mistake the Clinton hearing today was for him personally and rebuplicans at large. Or the 9/11 talk. Funny to hear it come from a front runner.
I don't understand what's confusing about that phrase. He is a man who has long agitated for the cause of Islam. His version of Islam, at least... which is not as reprehensible as many others.
Oh, so when someone defends Islam by engaging in peaceful dialogue, they're a "known Muslims agitator"?
This is maybe why you should be worried about Muslims in the US, Ljoss.
I was unaware of any negative connotations attached to that word. I certainly intended to indicate aggressiveness, but that is not an inherently negative trait. John Brown and Martin Luther King, Jr. were agitators and I have no problem with their public lives. (Well, John Brown a tad, perhaps but overall...)
Now please don't do the whole social justice warrior thing and tell me that what I meant is what you think I meant. What I meant is what I actually meant and that intent you cannot know with certainty but please take my word for it.
Speaking of intents that SJWs imagine/invent, that brings me back to the main point. The purpose of pointing out that his father is a known agitator (hereafter 'activist' if it suits you) is to frame the context under which this event unfolded. Here you have a man who is an activist for a cause in which his son mysteriously becomes entangled. They then hire a lawyer immediately and all persons involved are instantaneously deemed 'Islamophobes' without evidence. There's no coincidence.
I'm not concerned about Muslims overall because they have a high place in the twisted European/leftist worldview which is beginning to prevail in the West. They are allowed to be homophobes. They are allowed to be bigots. They are allowed to persecute under the banner of Islamophobia. Their victims are the subject of victim-blaming. They are not in any trouble.
I don't understand what's confusing about that phrase. He is a man who has long agitated for the cause of Islam. His version of Islam, at least... which is not as reprehensible as many others.
Oh, so when someone defends Islam by engaging in peaceful dialogue, they're a "known Muslims agitator"?
This is maybe why you should be worried about Muslims in the US, Ljoss.
I was unaware of any negative connotations attached to that word. I certainly intended to indicate aggressiveness, but that is not an inherently negative trait. John Brown and Martin Luther King, Jr. were agitators and I have no problem with their public lives. (Well, John Brown a tad, perhaps but overall...)
Now please don't do the whole social justice warrior thing and tell me that what I meant is what you think I meant. What I meant is what I actually meant and that intent you cannot know with certainty but please take my word for it.
Speaking of intents that SJWs imagine/invent, that brings me back to the main point. The purpose of pointing out that his father is a known agitator (hereafter 'activist' if it suits you) is to frame the context under which this event unfolded. Here you have a man who is an activist for a cause in which his son mysteriously becomes entangled. They then hire a lawyer immediately and all persons involved are instantaneously deemed 'Islamophobes' without evidence. There's no coincidence.
What's so mysterious about it? Heck, lets assume your conspiracy theory about this all being a set up, that the dad told his son to make the clock and bring it to school so he would get in trouble and then they could raise a stink (which is super funny, because you just lectured another poster on why he shouldn't "do the whole social justice warrior thing and tell me that what I meant is what you think I meant. What I meant is what I actually meant and that intent you cannot know with certainty but please take my word for it", yet your entire point hinges on saying we shouldn't take the kid at his word and should listen to what you think he meant to do). Let's assume your conspiracy theory for their motives is correct, guess how their nefarious plan to make the teachers and police look like Islamophobes would have fallen apart? Can't guess? It would have fallen apart if the teachers and police didn't act like Islamophobes and immediately assume the Muslim kid with a clock is a terrorist trying to blow up the school, especially since they had a member of the faculty that could have confirmed that "Yes, that's just a clock". When your conspiracy to make people look like ********s can be foiled by your targets simply not acting like ********s, can you really call it a conspiracy?
And while activist and agitator have similar meanings, the latter has negative connotations. It implies the person is a troublemaker riling up the crowd.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"We're going to be looking at a lot of different things." - Donald Trump
So this exchange just happened at a recent town hall involving the current leader for the GOP nomination. Republicans should take a hard look in the mirror at what their party and leaders have become. Because the guy who has the most support right now, and who other candidates and the media frequently defer to, just said that if you want to stand up and suggest cleansing an entire group of people at a public event, he's not going to disagree with you. It wasn't that long ago (2008) that Republican John McCain was faced with the same situation at a similar event, except he had the courage and decency to correct his supporter for their ignorant, divisive attitude. But then this is also the guy who thinks McCain is a loser for getting captured during wartime (and somehow they let him get away with that too). The Republican party should be ashamed of themselves, they're a bunch of cowards for not standing up to this a-hole.
The problem is that there are, allegedly, 30% of Republicans who are, or at least were, supporting Trump. And even if they were to abandon Trump entirely, they were still stupid enough to support him in the first place.
I think it's worse than that. Trump is only the first choice of ~30%, but he's the second choice of even more. Not only that, he's preferred head-to-head against almost all of the candidates (only Carson beats him head-to-head). For example, if republican voters had to choose between Trump and Jeb Bush, Trump wins 59-34 (the remainder undecided). That's ~60% of the Republican electorate who think Trump would be better than Jeb Bush.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_90115.pdf
See page 5 for the head-to-head and second choice numbers.
As for Jeb Bush, not that surprising really. There was a general dissatisfaction with Jeb Bush before the last debate, I'm not sure if any poll numbers have come out after, so the fact that Bush lost to Trump is not unexpected.
The thing we must remember is there are nine more debates to go. There was a major shift in the perceptions of politicians after the first debate, and I anticipate the polls after the second debate will show a major shift as well. So we're still in the first quarter of this game.
Obviously I still hope Trump fades soon, but now I'd like to see Carson and Paul go too.
Why is this still a thing? Seriously, there is nothing wrong with vaccines. My respect for Trump decreases even further toward zero, beyond the fact that he has too much money, is insensitive, speaks unintelligently and is too conservative. The only thing he actually has going for him in my books is that he is more open than most politicians.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Anyway, NUMBERS:
Donald Trump: 24% (down 8%)
Carly Florina: 15% (up 3%)
Ben Carson: 14% (down 5%)
Marco Rubio: 11% (up 3%)
Jeb Bush: 9%
Ted Cruz: 6%
Mike Huckabee: 6%
Rand Paul: 4%
Chris Christie: 3%
John Kasich: 2%
Rick Santorum: 1%
Below 1%:
Jim Gilmore
Lindsey Graham
Bobby Jindal
George Pataki
Scott Walker (OUCH!)
When we compare these to the polling numbers from the CNN/ORC poll a month ago:
Trump is holding at 24%
Carson's, Florina's, Rubio's, Huckabee's, and Cruz's numbers have gone up
Bush's, Kasich's, and Paul's have gone down
Scott Walker's REALLY went down
This leaves us with 15 candidates.
States '09: 14th place. Aiming for better next year.
States '10: 12th place. Aiming for better next year.
Idaho State Champ: 2011
States '12: 5th place.
He's a decent compromise candidate. I'm not really satisfied with Hillary either, though she'd be a better option than Trump if only for Supreme Court nominations. I'd take Sanders or either of them over the rest of the Republicans in a heartbeat, no questions asked.
It's bad, but it's a lesser degree of bad than most of the field, is what I'm saying.
Donald Trump would not do as well against Hillary Clinton as many other Republican candidates, a fact which should surprise nobody.
Also:
Trump: 21%
Carson: 20%
Florina: 11%
Rubio: 11%
Bush: 7%
Kasich: 6%
Cruz: 5%
Paul: 3%
Christie: 3%
Huckabee: 2%
Keep in mind the margin of error is within + or - 6.46 percentage points, making this survey superaccurate!
Seriously though, what the survey does indicate that is noteworthy is pretty much what has been said: Trump has about twice as many people who dislike him as the number of people who like him.
Again, I believe this whole Trump thing will quickly subside once the GOP nominees dwindle down into the single digits and endorsements get thrown around. We had a major vacuum for a GOP frontrunner going into this election, which left Trump ready to seize the day because grabbing media attention is easy for him. As this race progresses, I anticipate him fading away while a few strong "real" candidates step up to the plate.
Seems the main contenders for that group right now are Carson, Florina, and Rubio.
We always knew the GOP didn't really like Trump, that it only accepted him into the race to prevent him from running as an independent, and I don't think they really believed he would last this long. I expect the GOP is now going to launch a full out assault on Trump at any time.
It will be interesting to see how he responds once they really start hitting him or if he will fold. Personally, I expect it will be the end of his campaign. I don't think he stands up to scrutiny very well, and I don't think he really wants to be president so badly that he will be willing to endure the criticism from the right.
The climate of this country is such that you can be the son of a known Muslim agitator, bring a hoax bomb to school, be told by your science teacher that it's nice, but don't go showing it around because people might misinterpret it, have it disrupt an unrelated class, have that teacher rightfully call it in, get arrested for like 5 minutes while you get a trip to the White House and another to visit a genocidal Muslim dictator and you can still have the press blame the entire situation on racism and "Islamophobia."
So I'm not particularly worried about Muslims in the U.S.
What makes someone a "known Muslims agitator"? What does that even mean?
Recent polls show Trump and Carson dominating the Republican race with no other candidate in the primary coming close to them. Still very early, but what's interesting is to see Florina's support drop significantly.
I don't understand what's confusing about that phrase. He is a man who has long agitated for the cause of Islam. His version of Islam, at least... which is not as reprehensible as many others.
This is maybe why you should be worried about Muslims in the US, Ljoss.
It is confusing because who is "agitated"? You seem to be using the word to code what you really want to say, much in the same way "thug" has become code for another word.
But back to Trump as horrifying as his following is, there are times I find myself hating that I am happy he called it how it is (even if 80% I vehemently disagree). Like him calling out Trey Gowdy on what a mistake the Clinton hearing today was for him personally and rebuplicans at large. Or the 9/11 talk. Funny to hear it come from a front runner.
I was unaware of any negative connotations attached to that word. I certainly intended to indicate aggressiveness, but that is not an inherently negative trait. John Brown and Martin Luther King, Jr. were agitators and I have no problem with their public lives. (Well, John Brown a tad, perhaps but overall...)
Now please don't do the whole social justice warrior thing and tell me that what I meant is what you think I meant. What I meant is what I actually meant and that intent you cannot know with certainty but please take my word for it.
Speaking of intents that SJWs imagine/invent, that brings me back to the main point. The purpose of pointing out that his father is a known agitator (hereafter 'activist' if it suits you) is to frame the context under which this event unfolded. Here you have a man who is an activist for a cause in which his son mysteriously becomes entangled. They then hire a lawyer immediately and all persons involved are instantaneously deemed 'Islamophobes' without evidence. There's no coincidence.
I'm not concerned about Muslims overall because they have a high place in the twisted European/leftist worldview which is beginning to prevail in the West. They are allowed to be homophobes. They are allowed to be bigots. They are allowed to persecute under the banner of Islamophobia. Their victims are the subject of victim-blaming. They are not in any trouble.
What's so mysterious about it? Heck, lets assume your conspiracy theory about this all being a set up, that the dad told his son to make the clock and bring it to school so he would get in trouble and then they could raise a stink (which is super funny, because you just lectured another poster on why he shouldn't "do the whole social justice warrior thing and tell me that what I meant is what you think I meant. What I meant is what I actually meant and that intent you cannot know with certainty but please take my word for it", yet your entire point hinges on saying we shouldn't take the kid at his word and should listen to what you think he meant to do). Let's assume your conspiracy theory for their motives is correct, guess how their nefarious plan to make the teachers and police look like Islamophobes would have fallen apart? Can't guess? It would have fallen apart if the teachers and police didn't act like Islamophobes and immediately assume the Muslim kid with a clock is a terrorist trying to blow up the school, especially since they had a member of the faculty that could have confirmed that "Yes, that's just a clock". When your conspiracy to make people look like ********s can be foiled by your targets simply not acting like ********s, can you really call it a conspiracy?
And while activist and agitator have similar meanings, the latter has negative connotations. It implies the person is a troublemaker riling up the crowd.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!