In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On March 16 2016 02:49 ticklishmusic wrote: the tomato patent is for the entire plant with a very specific characteristic developed in a very specific way, not for tomatoes in general. i'm okay with it from that angle. on the other hand, it does seem like a dumb thing to patent for because it describes a pretty generalized way of identifying a virus resistant variety. dunno how that would stand up in court. IANAL.
People look for genes naturally existing in tomato's, they use GMO to create that tomato where breeding would require a lot and lot of crosses to get a shot of getting the right gene combination.
Then, they patent that specific phenotype. Then, no one can breed the same tomato, GMO or not.
In fact, people breed tomato's that are great. They do not patent them. Then a big multinational comes in and patents their work, because traditional plant breeders/academics are principially against patenting.
And them being patented doesn't mean you can't sell them for profit. It means you can't use them in your own breeding.
It is just stupid and hugely damaging against innovations, as are all patents.
All we need to do is ban all patents and make sure all scientists that now have jobs can get paid to do research. Believe me, scientists aren't in it for the profit. The people that hire and pay them are. You just need to hire and pay the scientists as a public works programme. And do that effectively. Because right now, those scientists that do need to vie for grants often spend half of their time applying for several grants they have a 1% shot to get. Complete waste of time. Even more so as you realize that the criteria do not do anything for giving more money to the best scientists.
And I say this as a biophysist/structural biologist.
The patent says they inoculate a bunch of tomato plants with the virus, pick the ones that survive and then use those to grow virus resistant tomato plants. It's a super generalized principle and I find it kind of ridiculous that (from my understanding) you can patent plants created with the process.
I have a pretty solid bio background (I know the struggles 100%), and it's baffling you can patent something so simple. Like imagine if antibiotic-based gene selection in a general form was patented (it is, but with some pretty specific protocols and reagants), that would be absolutely ridiculous.
I think it's interesting that literally every single person who knows the man absolutely loves him. They've found 0 people that hate him despite really, really trying. I've never seen a chance at character assassination like this before. Every media outlet is full throttle against the man. Only recently has Fox started some tempered positive content about him but it's most definitely still against him. You'd think a billionaire businessman would have a world of people that hate him. But no from Oprah to his butler to random people, they love him.
Pretty sure the media literally wants someone to assassinate him on their behalf so they can say, "see, you talk shit you get hit. Maybe he should have toned it down. He angered a lot of groups and people".
On March 16 2016 01:22 Erasme wrote: [quote] This remind me of that episode of south park where they conclude that yes, at least 25% of the americans are retards.
And as always pointed out, head to head polls are wildly inaccurate and a lot of polling does not accurately represent how the population will vote. And apparently freedom to decide and vote means freedom from criticism by the media and population.
But there will always be a section of the US population that is racist and politicians willing to listen to them.
But the criticisms are often not factual. What the media and other politicians are doing to Trump is just dirty. Instead all I see time and time again is quote taken out of context with a pose of Trump in a not so friendly position. Trump doesn't have these attack ads - Trump insults the opposition in his speeches, but not like what is currently being campaigned by the democrats and republicans.
Tell people to watch the debates, to view their opinions on important issues, don't tell people Trump is bad because of something that you're lying about. I don't automatically assume Hillary or Bernie are bad, neither Rubio or Kasich, I suppose Cruz is the one I had significant preconceived notions about, but I try to eliminate that as much as I can.
He has received endorsements from white supremacist and refused to denounce them until backed into a corner to do so. Specifically with David Duke, Trump claimed not to know who he was, even though he has previously called Duke a racist.
I'm thinking there's no way he could have handled that that would have satisfied you.
Denounce it instantly upon hearing that Duke is a white supremacist and follow up by change any messaging that would have lead Duke to believe Trump was the guy to support. EzPz.
How reasonable do you think it is to expect someone to change themselves every time the "wrong" person compliments them?
Pretty reasonable. If a politician is attracting the support of the worst people around, I would expect them to try and stop that. More importantly, I would expect them to do so simply because they don't want the support. But Trump has done neither. His son has done interviews with white supremacist. Trump has invited homophobic pastors on stage with him. Trump doesn't give a shit, he is happy to accept support from people like David Duke if it gets him the nomination.
As far as I can tell, Trump's son agreed to do an interview with James Edwards (probably racist) without properly vetting who he was, missed it due to scheduling luck, did an interview for "Liberty Roundtable" with Sam Bushman (who surreptitiously had James Edwards present), and this is pushed as Trump, Jr., or therefore Trump, sympathizing with white supremacy. This is what it's like dealing with the reality distortion field.
Anyway, if you would indulge me, do you think Hillary is not doing enough to distance herself from, say, someone she's married to and campaigns for her who blew up a drug factory in Sudan, or to disavow Henry Kissinger?
Nah, its fine. Both of those people had some more hawkish views that I don’t agree with, but beyond that they are fine. They don’t want to take peoples rights away, deport people or force all Muslims to register for a data base. Neither wanted to limit the press’s access or said things like “My critics are going to have a tough time when I am in office.”
Lets be clear, I think Trump wants to take people’s rights away if they criticize him. He wants to limit the press. He has said so several times. This is on top of everything else, including wanting protesters being taken away in a stretcher. No reality distortion field there, its just him talking.
The reason I asked is those people both have actual records of causing deaths and I was wondering what priorities you held.
One of them was impeached, if you recall - the one who was president. I guess you're letting the white supremacist bit go. You shouldn't be worrying about Trump and freedom of the press. It's not in the president's power.
There are plenty of people who know Trump and don’t like him. People can rail against the media, but CNN could put Trump’s quotes on loop and it would make the case for them.
Why would you assume that a billionaire businessman has a world of people that hates him? Of people he knows even? I mean what the fuck, that makes no sense testie. Obviously people are more likely to be positively inclined towards a billionaire friend.
It's also a very lenient qualifier - 'who knows the man' - everybody who 'knows me' loves me as well, that is, everyone who kinda knows me but doesn't love me just doesn't know me well enough.
On March 16 2016 01:33 Plansix wrote: [quote] And as always pointed out, head to head polls are wildly inaccurate and a lot of polling does not accurately represent how the population will vote. And apparently freedom to decide and vote means freedom from criticism by the media and population.
But there will always be a section of the US population that is racist and politicians willing to listen to them.
But the criticisms are often not factual. What the media and other politicians are doing to Trump is just dirty. Instead all I see time and time again is quote taken out of context with a pose of Trump in a not so friendly position. Trump doesn't have these attack ads - Trump insults the opposition in his speeches, but not like what is currently being campaigned by the democrats and republicans.
Tell people to watch the debates, to view their opinions on important issues, don't tell people Trump is bad because of something that you're lying about. I don't automatically assume Hillary or Bernie are bad, neither Rubio or Kasich, I suppose Cruz is the one I had significant preconceived notions about, but I try to eliminate that as much as I can.
He has received endorsements from white supremacist and refused to denounce them until backed into a corner to do so. Specifically with David Duke, Trump claimed not to know who he was, even though he has previously called Duke a racist.
I'm thinking there's no way he could have handled that that would have satisfied you.
Denounce it instantly upon hearing that Duke is a white supremacist and follow up by change any messaging that would have lead Duke to believe Trump was the guy to support. EzPz.
How reasonable do you think it is to expect someone to change themselves every time the "wrong" person compliments them?
Pretty reasonable. If a politician is attracting the support of the worst people around, I would expect them to try and stop that. More importantly, I would expect them to do so simply because they don't want the support. But Trump has done neither. His son has done interviews with white supremacist. Trump has invited homophobic pastors on stage with him. Trump doesn't give a shit, he is happy to accept support from people like David Duke if it gets him the nomination.
As far as I can tell, Trump's son agreed to do an interview with James Edwards (probably racist) without properly vetting who he was, missed it due to scheduling luck, did an interview for "Liberty Roundtable" with Sam Bushman (who surreptitiously had James Edwards present), and this is pushed as Trump, Jr., or therefore Trump, sympathizing with white supremacy. This is what it's like dealing with the reality distortion field.
Anyway, if you would indulge me, do you think Hillary is not doing enough to distance herself from, say, someone she's married to and campaigns for her who blew up a drug factory in Sudan, or to disavow Henry Kissinger?
Nah, its fine. Both of those people had some more hawkish views that I don’t agree with, but beyond that they are fine. They don’t want to take peoples rights away, deport people or force all Muslims to register for a data base. Neither wanted to limit the press’s access or said things like “My critics are going to have a tough time when I am in office.”
Lets be clear, I think Trump wants to take people’s rights away if they criticize him. He wants to limit the press. He has said so several times. This is on top of everything else, including wanting protesters being taken away in a stretcher. No reality distortion field there, its just him talking.
The reason I asked is those people both have actual records of causing deaths and I was wondering what priorities you held.
One of them was impeached, if you recall - the one who was president. I guess you're letting the white supremacist bit go. You shouldn't be worrying about Trump and freedom of the press. It's not in the president's power.
I think its very clear there is not a lot Trump can do to lose your support, so I am glad you found someone you can believe in.
On March 16 2016 01:33 Plansix wrote: [quote] And as always pointed out, head to head polls are wildly inaccurate and a lot of polling does not accurately represent how the population will vote. And apparently freedom to decide and vote means freedom from criticism by the media and population.
But there will always be a section of the US population that is racist and politicians willing to listen to them.
But the criticisms are often not factual. What the media and other politicians are doing to Trump is just dirty. Instead all I see time and time again is quote taken out of context with a pose of Trump in a not so friendly position. Trump doesn't have these attack ads - Trump insults the opposition in his speeches, but not like what is currently being campaigned by the democrats and republicans.
Tell people to watch the debates, to view their opinions on important issues, don't tell people Trump is bad because of something that you're lying about. I don't automatically assume Hillary or Bernie are bad, neither Rubio or Kasich, I suppose Cruz is the one I had significant preconceived notions about, but I try to eliminate that as much as I can.
He has received endorsements from white supremacist and refused to denounce them until backed into a corner to do so. Specifically with David Duke, Trump claimed not to know who he was, even though he has previously called Duke a racist.
I'm thinking there's no way he could have handled that that would have satisfied you.
Denounce it instantly upon hearing that Duke is a white supremacist and follow up by change any messaging that would have lead Duke to believe Trump was the guy to support. EzPz.
How reasonable do you think it is to expect someone to change themselves every time the "wrong" person compliments them?
Pretty reasonable. If a politician is attracting the support of the worst people around, I would expect them to try and stop that. More importantly, I would expect them to do so simply because they don't want the support. But Trump has done neither. His son has done interviews with white supremacist. Trump has invited homophobic pastors on stage with him. Trump doesn't give a shit, he is happy to accept support from people like David Duke if it gets him the nomination.
As far as I can tell, Trump's son agreed to do an interview with James Edwards (probably racist) without properly vetting who he was, missed it due to scheduling luck, did an interview for "Liberty Roundtable" with Sam Bushman (who surreptitiously had James Edwards present), and this is pushed as Trump, Jr., or therefore Trump, sympathizing with white supremacy. This is what it's like dealing with the reality distortion field.
Anyway, if you would indulge me, do you think Hillary is not doing enough to distance herself from, say, someone she's married to and campaigns for her who blew up a drug factory in Sudan, or to disavow Henry Kissinger?
Nah, its fine. Both of those people had some more hawkish views that I don’t agree with, but beyond that they are fine. They don’t want to take peoples rights away, deport people or force all Muslims to register for a data base. Neither wanted to limit the press’s access or said things like “My critics are going to have a tough time when I am in office.”
Lets be clear, I think Trump wants to take people’s rights away if they criticize him. He wants to limit the press. He has said so several times. This is on top of everything else, including wanting protesters being taken away in a stretcher. No reality distortion field there, its just him talking.
The reason I asked is those people both have actual records of causing deaths and I was wondering what priorities you held.
One of them was impeached, if you recall - the one who was president. I guess you're letting the white supremacist bit go. You shouldn't be worrying about Trump and freedom of the press. It's not in the president's power.
Hey, I'll gladly say it. Kissinger is on the same level of bad as pretty much anyone. I think the single moment of Sanders' campaign that I loved the most was when he attacked Kissinger for the bombing of Cambodia. And I would have loved if Hillary distanced herself from him, because the one real big issue I have with Hillary on policy is her hawkishness, and Kissinger is pretty much the embodiment of that, beak-nose included. (just to be clear, that's not a jew-joke. )
But the criticisms are often not factual. What the media and other politicians are doing to Trump is just dirty. Instead all I see time and time again is quote taken out of context with a pose of Trump in a not so friendly position. Trump doesn't have these attack ads - Trump insults the opposition in his speeches, but not like what is currently being campaigned by the democrats and republicans.
Tell people to watch the debates, to view their opinions on important issues, don't tell people Trump is bad because of something that you're lying about. I don't automatically assume Hillary or Bernie are bad, neither Rubio or Kasich, I suppose Cruz is the one I had significant preconceived notions about, but I try to eliminate that as much as I can.
He has received endorsements from white supremacist and refused to denounce them until backed into a corner to do so. Specifically with David Duke, Trump claimed not to know who he was, even though he has previously called Duke a racist.
I'm thinking there's no way he could have handled that that would have satisfied you.
Denounce it instantly upon hearing that Duke is a white supremacist and follow up by change any messaging that would have lead Duke to believe Trump was the guy to support. EzPz.
How reasonable do you think it is to expect someone to change themselves every time the "wrong" person compliments them?
Pretty reasonable. If a politician is attracting the support of the worst people around, I would expect them to try and stop that. More importantly, I would expect them to do so simply because they don't want the support. But Trump has done neither. His son has done interviews with white supremacist. Trump has invited homophobic pastors on stage with him. Trump doesn't give a shit, he is happy to accept support from people like David Duke if it gets him the nomination.
As far as I can tell, Trump's son agreed to do an interview with James Edwards (probably racist) without properly vetting who he was, missed it due to scheduling luck, did an interview for "Liberty Roundtable" with Sam Bushman (who surreptitiously had James Edwards present), and this is pushed as Trump, Jr., or therefore Trump, sympathizing with white supremacy. This is what it's like dealing with the reality distortion field.
Anyway, if you would indulge me, do you think Hillary is not doing enough to distance herself from, say, someone she's married to and campaigns for her who blew up a drug factory in Sudan, or to disavow Henry Kissinger?
Nah, its fine. Both of those people had some more hawkish views that I don’t agree with, but beyond that they are fine. They don’t want to take peoples rights away, deport people or force all Muslims to register for a data base. Neither wanted to limit the press’s access or said things like “My critics are going to have a tough time when I am in office.”
Lets be clear, I think Trump wants to take people’s rights away if they criticize him. He wants to limit the press. He has said so several times. This is on top of everything else, including wanting protesters being taken away in a stretcher. No reality distortion field there, its just him talking.
The reason I asked is those people both have actual records of causing deaths and I was wondering what priorities you held.
One of them was impeached, if you recall - the one who was president. I guess you're letting the white supremacist bit go. You shouldn't be worrying about Trump and freedom of the press. It's not in the president's power.
I think its very clear there is not a lot Trump can do to lose your support, so I am glad you found someone you can believe in.
I don't consider myself a supporter of anyone, now that you ask.
On March 16 2016 02:49 wei2coolman wrote: Trump probably doesn't even know who he was, nor had any reason to believe the journalist.
August 2015:
Heilemann: "Would you repudiate David Duke?" Trump: "Sure, I would do that if it made you feel better. I would certainly repudiate. I don’t know anything about him.
Hey, at least he "doesn't know anything about him", right?
LAUER: When you say the Party is self-destructing, what do you see as the biggest problem with the Reform Party right now? Mr. TRUMP: Well, you've got David Duke just joined--a bigot, a racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/trumpout.html Statement of Donald J. Trump: "Now I understand that David Duke has decided to join the Reform Party to support the candidacy of Pat Buchanan. So the Reform Party now includes a Klansman, - Mr. Duke, a Neo-Nazi - Mr. Buchanan, and a Communist - Ms. Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep."
February 19th, 2000: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/19/opinion/what-i-saw-at-the-revolution.html New York Times article by Donald J. Trump: "Although I am totally comfortable with the people in the New York Independence Party, I leave the Reform Party to David Duke, Pat Buchanan and Lenora Fulani. That is not company I wish to keep,"
I am convinced that a lot of people who stump for Trump either can't use google or just don't bother to read anything.
Yes, because Trump is supposed to remember a name he mentioned 15 years ago. I couldn't even recall majority of my elementary school teachers either. Your point?
It's not a 'name he mentioned'. It's a significant person whom he has had a very clear opinion on in the past. It's basically like a basketball commentator being asked about Charles Barkley and then going 'I don’t know anything about him, he played basketball'?
I read an analysis on CNN that I would largely agree with on this. While it is possible that he forgot who Duke was, even in the event that he didn't, would it really prove anything? At most it would imply that he wants to get as many votes as possible, including the vote of racists, in order to win the nomination. It could easily just be a political game he's playing to win certain southern states (without openly embracing racism; i.e. saying "i love david duke"), even though he may not be a racist or support racist policies.
Is it wrong to court the racist vote to get into office, if you have no intention of implementing racist policies? I'm not sure I see any *real* harm in that. Sure you may encourage racist people somewhat by not disavowing them, but I highly doubt that will lead to anything. Of course it could be that Trump is secretly racist, but to assume as much is just smearing him, and its what makes his supporters protect him even more because it looks like an injustice is being perpetrated by the media at large.
On March 16 2016 03:48 Liquid`Drone wrote: Why would you assume that a billionaire businessman has a world of people that hates him? Of people he knows even? I mean what the fuck, that makes no sense testie. Obviously people are more likely to be positively inclined towards a billionaire friend.
It's also a very lenient qualifier - 'who knows the man' - everybody who 'knows me' loves me as well, that is, everyone who kinda knows me but doesn't love me just doesn't know me well enough.
The media is intentionally doing massive character assassination. They've done multiple interviews intentionally trying to get people to say bad things about him. It hasn't worked, which was hilarious because when they found out it wasn't going to work they often tried to shut down the interview.
The media is showing that they really are "bought and owned" and they are the ones doing all the inflammatory rhetoric.
Trump says something true, and gets called racist. Should Presidents talk about those issues? Well, we know that Obama, Hillary, and Bernie would not only not talk about those issues but would say the opposite of what is true. Which is sad. Because I really like Obama.
Here's the things he's said that are "racist". I don't believe he's a racist, nor do I think the things he's said are racist. Despite knowing friends of all colours, doing deals with people all over the world, and having hundreds of successful businesses employing a tonne of people.
Illegals commit more crime. Rape, murder, and drugs. They are over-represented. - Very true Blacks commit more crime and are responsible for way more of their deaths than police, 92% to less than 1% - True Muslims should temporarily not be allowed into the country & Islam hates us - I'd very much argue that Islam is not your friend. And to pretend otherwise is kicking a can down the road for future generations. Build wall - Illegal immigration is a massive problem. In Mexico 99% of murders go unsolved and it's highly corrupt and full of shanty towns. There may be as much as 11 million to 30+ million Illegal immigrants. That's several small countries worth of people.
He has literally not incited violence. Making a few jokes at his rallies to his supporters and having that blown up is stupid beyond belief. Trump protesters are not at other candidates rallies attempting to silence them. Trump protesters have been by far the most mature group except for one old man that clearly is not representative of his base. Trumps base thinks Trump is the best for the economy and resolving their social issues.
The whole #disavow thing was ridiculous as well. Racists have supported other candidates in the past. Hillary was endorsed by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd before he died and spoke at his funeral. Disavow that endorsement Hillary!
The thing that Trump has said of everything which is "scariest" was his brief comment on maybe censoring certain things like the Internet. That's where my ears perked up and thought, "Oh hell no".
On March 16 2016 03:28 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
On March 16 2016 02:49 ticklishmusic wrote: the tomato patent is for the entire plant with a very specific characteristic developed in a very specific way, not for tomatoes in general. i'm okay with it from that angle. on the other hand, it does seem like a dumb thing to patent for because it describes a pretty generalized way of identifying a virus resistant variety. dunno how that would stand up in court. IANAL.
People look for genes naturally existing in tomato's, they use GMO to create that tomato where breeding would require a lot and lot of crosses to get a shot of getting the right gene combination.
Then, they patent that specific phenotype. Then, no one can breed the same tomato, GMO or not.
In fact, people breed tomato's that are great. They do not patent them. Then a big multinational comes in and patents their work, because traditional plant breeders/academics are principially against patenting.
And them being patented doesn't mean you can't sell them for profit. It means you can't use them in your own breeding.
It is just stupid and hugely damaging against innovations, as are all patents.
All we need to do is ban all patents and make sure all scientists that now have jobs can get paid to do research. Believe me, scientists aren't in it for the profit. The people that hire and pay them are. You just need to hire and pay the scientists as a public works programme. And do that effectively. Because right now, those scientists that do need to vie for grants often spend half of their time applying for several grants they have a 1% shot to get. Complete waste of time. Even more so as you realize that the criteria do not do anything for giving more money to the best scientists.
And I say this as a biophysist/structural biologist.
The patent says they inoculate a bunch of tomato plants with the virus, pick the ones that survive and then use those to grow virus resistant tomato plants. It's a super generalized principle and I find it kind of ridiculous that (from my understanding) you can patent plants created with the process.
I have a pretty solid bio background (I know the struggles 100%), and it's baffling you can patent something so simple. Like imagine if antibiotic-based gene selection in a general form was patented (it is, but with some pretty specific protocols and reagants), that would be absolutely ridiculous.
yea there is no economic analysis of the value added or w/e of the feature they created. it's very legalistic formula filling. a lot of monopoly rent in the process.
Heilemann: "Would you repudiate David Duke?" Trump: "Sure, I would do that if it made you feel better. I would certainly repudiate. I don’t know anything about him.
Hey, at least he "doesn't know anything about him", right?
LAUER: When you say the Party is self-destructing, what do you see as the biggest problem with the Reform Party right now? Mr. TRUMP: Well, you've got David Duke just joined--a bigot, a racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/trumpout.html Statement of Donald J. Trump: "Now I understand that David Duke has decided to join the Reform Party to support the candidacy of Pat Buchanan. So the Reform Party now includes a Klansman, - Mr. Duke, a Neo-Nazi - Mr. Buchanan, and a Communist - Ms. Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep."
February 19th, 2000: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/19/opinion/what-i-saw-at-the-revolution.html New York Times article by Donald J. Trump: "Although I am totally comfortable with the people in the New York Independence Party, I leave the Reform Party to David Duke, Pat Buchanan and Lenora Fulani. That is not company I wish to keep,"
I am convinced that a lot of people who stump for Trump either can't use google or just don't bother to read anything.
Yes, because Trump is supposed to remember a name he mentioned 15 years ago. I couldn't even recall majority of my elementary school teachers either. Your point?
It's not a 'name he mentioned'. It's a significant person whom he has had a very clear opinion on in the past. It's basically like a basketball commentator being asked about Charles Barkley and then going 'I don’t know anything about him, he played basketball'?
I read an analysis on CNN that I would largely agree with on this. While it is possible that he forgot who Duke was, even in the event that he didn't, would it really prove anything? At most it would imply that he wants to get as many votes as possible, including the vote of racists, in order to win the nomination. It could easily just be a political game he's playing to win certain southern states (without openly embracing racism; i.e. saying "i love david duke"), even though he may not be a racist or support racist policies.
Is it wrong to court the racist vote to get into office, if you have no intention of implementing racist policies? I'm not sure I see any *real* harm in that. Sure you may encourage racist people somewhat by not disavowing them, but I highly doubt that will lead to anything. Of course it could be that Trump is secretly racist, but to assume as much is just smearing him, and its what makes his supporters protect him even more because it looks like an injustice is being perpetrated by the media at large.
That is a lot of “ifs”, “buts” and “maybes”. I don’t know why people are really surprised that a lot of black and other minorities are not willing to take the risk.
Someone who comes to an event to protest is actually against free speech. Someone who tells his supporters that he will pay their legal fees if they punch protesters is not inciting violence, he's making a joke.
When you're not limited by reality, it's wonderfull all the things you can think.
Heilemann: "Would you repudiate David Duke?" Trump: "Sure, I would do that if it made you feel better. I would certainly repudiate. I don’t know anything about him.
Hey, at least he "doesn't know anything about him", right?
LAUER: When you say the Party is self-destructing, what do you see as the biggest problem with the Reform Party right now? Mr. TRUMP: Well, you've got David Duke just joined--a bigot, a racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/trumpout.html Statement of Donald J. Trump: "Now I understand that David Duke has decided to join the Reform Party to support the candidacy of Pat Buchanan. So the Reform Party now includes a Klansman, - Mr. Duke, a Neo-Nazi - Mr. Buchanan, and a Communist - Ms. Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep."
February 19th, 2000: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/19/opinion/what-i-saw-at-the-revolution.html New York Times article by Donald J. Trump: "Although I am totally comfortable with the people in the New York Independence Party, I leave the Reform Party to David Duke, Pat Buchanan and Lenora Fulani. That is not company I wish to keep,"
I am convinced that a lot of people who stump for Trump either can't use google or just don't bother to read anything.
Yes, because Trump is supposed to remember a name he mentioned 15 years ago. I couldn't even recall majority of my elementary school teachers either. Your point?
It's not a 'name he mentioned'. It's a significant person whom he has had a very clear opinion on in the past. It's basically like a basketball commentator being asked about Charles Barkley and then going 'I don’t know anything about him, he played basketball'?
I read an analysis on CNN that I would largely agree with on this. While it is possible that he forgot who Duke was, even in the event that he didn't, would it really prove anything? At most it would imply that he wants to get as many votes as possible, including the vote of racists, in order to win the nomination. It could easily just be a political game he's playing to win certain southern states (without openly embracing racism; i.e. saying "i love david duke"), even though he may not be a racist or support racist policies.
Is it wrong to court the racist vote to get into office, if you have no intention of implementing racist policies? I'm not sure I see any *real* harm in that. Sure you may encourage racist people somewhat by not disavowing them, but I highly doubt that will lead to anything. Of course it could be that Trump is secretly racist, but to assume as much is just smearing him, and its what makes his supporters protect him even more because it looks like an injustice is being perpetrated by the media at large.
IMO it was just a good political move, if you watch the interview he says something along the lines, "I don't know anything about white supremacy, nor their group, nor their movement"; completely feigning ignorance. Pretty good, not even addressing he acknowledges them, pretty smart move imo.
Then he goes on to say, "I'm not going to disavow a group I have no idea what they're about, it would be unfair to them if I don't know what they're about and I disavow them."
Probably played it near perfect tbh.
On March 16 2016 04:03 Nebuchad wrote: You heard it here first, guys.
Someone who comes to an event to protest is actually against free speech. Someone who tells his supporters that he will pay their legal fees if they punch protesters is not inciting violence, he's making a joke.
When you're not limited by reality, it's wonderfull all the things you can think.
Meanwhile:
"Trump needs to get his supporters in line!" *1 minute later* "I'm not responsible for all of the millions of my supporters."
On March 16 2016 03:57 SK.Testie wrote: He has literally not incited violence. Making a few jokes at his rallies to his supporters and having that blown up is stupid beyond belief. Trump protesters are not at other candidates rallies attempting to silence them. Trump protesters have been by far the most mature group except for one old man that clearly is not representative of his base. Trumps base thinks Trump is the best for the economy and resolving their social issues.
The thing that Trump has said of everything which is "scariest" was his brief comment on maybe censoring certain things like the Internet. That's where my ears perked up and thought, "Oh hell no".
So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell— I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise.
Link with Source video Sorry but that counts as inciting violence and there is no way your going to spin that as anything else.
But the criticisms are often not factual. What the media and other politicians are doing to Trump is just dirty. Instead all I see time and time again is quote taken out of context with a pose of Trump in a not so friendly position. Trump doesn't have these attack ads - Trump insults the opposition in his speeches, but not like what is currently being campaigned by the democrats and republicans.
Tell people to watch the debates, to view their opinions on important issues, don't tell people Trump is bad because of something that you're lying about. I don't automatically assume Hillary or Bernie are bad, neither Rubio or Kasich, I suppose Cruz is the one I had significant preconceived notions about, but I try to eliminate that as much as I can.
He has received endorsements from white supremacist and refused to denounce them until backed into a corner to do so. Specifically with David Duke, Trump claimed not to know who he was, even though he has previously called Duke a racist.
I'm thinking there's no way he could have handled that that would have satisfied you.
Denounce it instantly upon hearing that Duke is a white supremacist and follow up by change any messaging that would have lead Duke to believe Trump was the guy to support. EzPz.
How reasonable do you think it is to expect someone to change themselves every time the "wrong" person compliments them?
Pretty reasonable. If a politician is attracting the support of the worst people around, I would expect them to try and stop that. More importantly, I would expect them to do so simply because they don't want the support. But Trump has done neither. His son has done interviews with white supremacist. Trump has invited homophobic pastors on stage with him. Trump doesn't give a shit, he is happy to accept support from people like David Duke if it gets him the nomination.
As far as I can tell, Trump's son agreed to do an interview with James Edwards (probably racist) without properly vetting who he was, missed it due to scheduling luck, did an interview for "Liberty Roundtable" with Sam Bushman (who surreptitiously had James Edwards present), and this is pushed as Trump, Jr., or therefore Trump, sympathizing with white supremacy. This is what it's like dealing with the reality distortion field.
Anyway, if you would indulge me, do you think Hillary is not doing enough to distance herself from, say, someone she's married to and campaigns for her who blew up a drug factory in Sudan, or to disavow Henry Kissinger?
Nah, its fine. Both of those people had some more hawkish views that I don’t agree with, but beyond that they are fine. They don’t want to take peoples rights away, deport people or force all Muslims to register for a data base. Neither wanted to limit the press’s access or said things like “My critics are going to have a tough time when I am in office.”
Lets be clear, I think Trump wants to take people’s rights away if they criticize him. He wants to limit the press. He has said so several times. This is on top of everything else, including wanting protesters being taken away in a stretcher. No reality distortion field there, its just him talking.
The reason I asked is those people both have actual records of causing deaths and I was wondering what priorities you held.
One of them was impeached, if you recall - the one who was president. I guess you're letting the white supremacist bit go. You shouldn't be worrying about Trump and freedom of the press. It's not in the president's power.
Hey, I'll gladly say it. Kissinger is on the same level of bad as pretty much anyone. I think the single moment of Sanders' campaign that I loved the most was when he attacked Kissinger for the bombing of Cambodia. And I would have loved if Hillary distanced herself from him, because the one real big issue I have with Hillary on policy is her hawkishness, and Kissinger is pretty much the embodiment of that, beak-nose included. (just to be clear, that's not a jew-joke. )
The whole Democratic process is too safe and careful. I guess part of it falls on the candidates and part of it on the environment. The field has been too small for anyone to take any risks. It's not good for the system. My problem with Sanders he's anti-interventionist to a point approaching pacifism and I think it's an ideological disconnect with reality. I like when Trump talks about reducing wasteful defense spending. But then he goes and says things like complimenting Saddam and how the Middle East was better with fascism in Iraq.
On March 16 2016 04:03 Nebuchad wrote: You heard it here first, guys.
Someone who comes to an event to protest is actually against free speech. Someone who tells his supporters that he will pay their legal fees if they punch protesters is not inciting violence, he's making a joke.
When you're not limited by reality, it's wonderfull all the things you can think.
If you take your own persecution complex and project it onto Trump, the sky is the limit.
On March 16 2016 04:03 Nebuchad wrote: You heard it here first, guys.
Someone who comes to an event to protest is actually against free speech. Someone who tells his supporters that he will pay their legal fees if they punch protesters is not inciting violence, he's making a joke.
When you're not limited by reality, it's wonderfull all the things you can think.
If you take your own persecution complex and project it onto Trump, the sky is the limit.
To be honest, I hope the media keeps trying to pile shit onto Trump.
On March 16 2016 04:04 wei2coolman wrote: Meanwhile:
"Trump needs to get his supporters in line!" *1 minute later* "I'm not responsible for all of the millions of my supporters."
And if Bernie was telling them that he will pay their legal fees if they punch Trump supporters, or was inciting violence in any remotely similar way, you would have a point. But once again, that's only important in reality. Elsewhere, you can draw all the equivalencies you want.
EPT
)
