Has Trump Gone Too Far?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-09-2016, 09:51 AM)fredtoast Wrote: All of the legal immigrants that I have discussed this with have been from Mexico/South America.

Where were the people you talked to from?  How do you know they are all legal?

And what the hell kind of parties do you go to where most of the people are immigrants and you speak in large groups about who they are going to vote for?  I have never been to a single party where I talked to over forty people in depth about their immigration status and who they are going to vote for, yet you did it three nights in a row?  Who was hosting these parties?  Who is bringing all of these people together?  I am guess that the selection proces for these parties ensures that there is not a wide variaty of legal immigrants in the crowd.  Kind of like the way FoxNews brings together its focus groups to prove what they want to prove.

Philippines, Asians make up 6% of the total population of the US, 4.5% of those are Filipino. Chinese-Asian makes up the next biggest at 1.3%.
Both of those groups are very supportive of Trump.

How do I know they are Legal? Technically I don't, but quite a few are married to Americans using the k-1 visa and whom have become USC's.  

As far as talking about Politics? I never came out and questioned or queried them about it, but most are willing to talk about it once someone gets them going and some I've known some of them for a while and already know their stance. So I'm mainly looking at the people that I don't know to find out their stance. Which is how I find someone voting for Gary Johnson (Native American - Navajo specifically) and the two of us had some great discussions about the Great 5 Tribes, Pow-Wows, Cars, education growing up on the Reservation in Arizona and I talked about how I grew up with many Cherokee friends in Oklahoma.

The first party was a Church Party all day Saturday Event.
The next 2 were private birthday parties amongst friends.

I have read is some media that Legal Immigrants (Hispanics) are starting to show support in strong numbers for Trump, despite what the media says.

[McC]

(08-09-2016, 09:51 AM)fredtoast Wrote: All of the legal immigrants that I have discussed this with have been from Mexico/South America.

Where were the people you talked to from?  How do you know they are all legal?

And what the hell kind of parties do you go to where most of the people are immigrants and you speak in large groups about who they are going to vote for?  I have never been to a single party where I talked to over forty people in depth about their immigration status and who they are going to vote for, yet you did it three nights in a row?  Who was hosting these parties?  Who is bringing all of these people together?  I am guess that the selection proces for these parties ensures that there is not a wide variaty of legal immigrants in the crowd.  Kind of like the way FoxNews brings together its focus groups to prove what they want to prove.

They got that idea from MSNBC.

[BmorePat87]

What exactly are his "bold ideas"?


If you want to know why he's falling, it's because he's incapable of shifting into the general election fight. He spends as much time fighting Hillary as he does fighting parents of a dead soldier and Republicans in Congress. He takes the bait every time and has to respond to anything that he sees as a slight against him. The end result is America seeing a man more concerned about fighting anyone who disagrees with him than someone who seems interested in explaining why he has the best plan to lead this country.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-10-2016, 11:27 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: What exactly are his "bold ideas"?


If you want to know why he's falling, it's because he's incapable of shifting into the general election fight. He spends as much time fighting Hillary as he does fighting parents of a dead soldier and Republicans in Congress. He takes the bait every time and has to respond to anything that he sees as a slight against him. The end result is America seeing a man more concerned about fighting anyone who disagrees with him than someone who seems interested in explaining why he has the best plan to lead this country.

I didn't think Obama was allowed to run again?

[BmorePat87]

(08-10-2016, 11:31 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I didn't think Obama was allowed to run again?

huh?

[*PhilHos*]

(08-10-2016, 12:09 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: huh?

He was basically saying that your last post applied to Obama. 

[BmorePat87]

(08-10-2016, 12:12 PM)PhilHos Wrote: He was basically saying that your last post applied to Obama. 

Yea, I got that, I just didn't understand how it did. He seemed pretty focused on attacking McCain and tying him to the Bush presidency in 2008. I'm guessing it was Mike's way of deflecting away from criticism against Trump.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-10-2016, 12:34 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yea, I got that, I just didn't understand how it did. He seemed pretty focused on attacking McCain and tying him to the Bush presidency in 2008. I'm guessing it was Mike's way of deflecting away from criticism against Trump.

I'm just learning from the masters at Deflecting.

[*wildcats forever*]

Stay on topic please.

[GMDino]

Trump CAN'T go too far.  He's a one trick pony and he'll ride that to the end.

[Belsnickel]

So has nobody brought up his comments about the SA crowd and how that is all playing out? Kind of surprised. The spin machine on the Trump Train went into overdrive trying to explain that one away, but it's not very convincing at all. If someone else had made that comment they would have been having a nice chat with the feds. Who knows, though, he may be having that chat. I just find it funny how naive his surrogates think the public is.

[BmorePat87]

(08-10-2016, 02:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So has nobody brought up his comments about the SA crowd and how that is all playing out? Kind of surprised. The spin machine on the Trump Train went into overdrive trying to explain that one away, but it's not very convincing at all. If someone else had made that comment they would have been having a nice chat with the feds. Who knows, though, he may be having that chat. I just find it funny how naive his surrogates think the public is.

Those behind him laughed as if he was suggesting using guns. I'm not 100% convinced he was, though. 

[GMDino]

(08-10-2016, 02:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So has nobody brought up his comments about the SA crowd and how that is all playing out? Kind of surprised. The spin machine on the Trump Train went into overdrive trying to explain that one away, but it's not very convincing at all. If someone else had made that comment they would have been having a nice chat with the feds. Who knows, though, he may be having that chat. I just find it funny how naive his surrogates think the public is.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/us/politics/24clinton.html?_r=0

Quote:Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton defended staying in the Democratic nominating contest on Friday by pointing out that her husband had not wrapped up the nomination until June 1992, adding, “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”


Her remarks were met with quick criticism from the campaign of SenatorBarack Obama, and within hours of making them Mrs. Clinton expressed regret, saying, “The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy,” referring to the recent diagnosis of Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s brain tumor. She added, “And I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive.”

Still, the comments touched on one of the most sensitive aspects of the current presidential campaign — concern for Mr. Obama’s safety. And they come as Democrats have been talking increasingly of an Obama/Clinton ticket, with friends of the Clintons saying that Bill Clinton is musing about the possibility that the vice presidency might be his wife’s best path to the presidency if she loses the nomination.

It was in the context of discussions about her political future that Mrs. Clinton made the remarks on Friday to the editorial board of The Sioux Falls Argus Leader. She had said that some people whom she did not name were trying to push her out of the race, but she noted that historically many races had gone on longer than hers.

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?” she said. “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”
Bill Burton, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, which has refrained from engaging Mrs. Clinton in recent days, said her statement “was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign.”

Privately, aides to Mr. Obama were furious about the remark.


...


Mrs. Clinton has cited her husband’s 1992 nominating battle in discussing her decision to stay in the race. While she said that he only wrapped up the nomination in June of that year, he was viewed as having secured it in March, when his last serious opponent dropped out.


Friday was not the first time Mrs. Clinton referred to the assassination ofRobert F. Kennedy in such a context. In March, she told Time magazine: “Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn’t wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual.”
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, defended her remarks in a telephone interview on Friday evening.

“I’ve heard her make that argument before,” Mr. Kennedy said, speaking on his cellphone as he drove to the family compound in Hyannis Port, Mass. “It sounds like she was invoking a familiar historical circumstance in support of her argument for continuing her campaign.”

Of course she owned up to it and apologized.

Trump is like the Fonz, unable to say the word "sorry" (unless he's calling someone sorry) but way less cool.  

[Belsnickel]

(08-10-2016, 02:39 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Those behind him laughed as if he was suggesting using guns. I'm not 100% convinced he was, though. 

I think he made the remark thinking about the use of firearms, but wasn't actually suggesting violence. It was one of those uncomfortable "jokes" that some people who speak before they think tend to say. Just my take on it.

Edit: Of course, some of his supporters don't see it that way:

[Belsnickel]

(08-10-2016, 02:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/us/politics/24clinton.html?_r=0

Of course she owned up to it and apologized.

Trump is like the Fonz, unable to say the word "sorry" (unless he's calling someone sorry) but way less cool.  

Different turn of phrase, so hard to compare. Though I have no doubt that if it had not been said in that context and from her then someone would have been talking to the feds. They don't play around with that stuff.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-10-2016, 02:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So has nobody brought up his comments about the SA crowd and how that is all playing out? Kind of surprised. The spin machine on the Trump Train went into overdrive trying to explain that one away, but it's not very convincing at all. If someone else had made that comment they would have been having a nice chat with the feds. Who knows, though, he may be having that chat. I just find it funny how naive his surrogates think the public is.

It was nowhere near as direct as Biden telling Obama that if he tries to fool with his Berretta, then we've got a problem.

[Belsnickel]

Was listening to an interview with a former SS agent. He said that since it wasn't a direct threat, Trump isn't in any trouble. He did say, though, that there will very likely be a discussion with him about choosing his words more carefully. He made the SS job more difficult because his words can easily be interpreted by the less stable to be a call for violence.

Already there has been a lot of activity for the SS. Apparently social media threats targeting both Trump and Clinton have been coming in regularly.

[Belsnickel]

So, Trump stated that Obama founded ISIS last evening. Apparently a conservative talk show host tried to play the spin game so many people do with Trump's comments, and he doubled down:

Quote:Washington (CNN) Donald Trump said Thursday that he meant exactly what he said when he called President Barack Obama the "founder of ISIS" and objected when a conservative radio show host tried to clarify the GOP nominee's position.

Trump was asked by host Hugh Hewitt about the comments Trump made Wednesday night in Florida, and Hewitt said he understood Trump to mean "that he (Obama) created the vacuum, he lost the peace."

Trump objected.

"No, I meant he's the founder of ISIS," Trump said. "I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton."

Hewitt pushed back again, saying that Obama is "not sympathetic" to ISIS and "hates" and is "trying to kill them."

"I don't care," Trump said, according to a show transcript. "He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, okay?"

[Au165]

(08-11-2016, 02:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, Trump stated that Obama founded ISIS last evening. Apparently a conservative talk show host tried to play the spin game so many people do with Trump's comments, and he doubled down:

Well if there is one thing you can say about the guy, he sticks to his guns no matter how stupid they may be. The guy even tried to give him an out saying "Do you mean he created the power vacuum that allowed it to form?", and of course his response was "no, he founded it".

It is easy to see why the GOP is having people in congressional races separate themselves from him. I was reading something the other day about the party being concerned a major Trump loss could lead to a massive swing in congress.

[Rotobeast]

(08-11-2016, 04:51 PM)Au165 Wrote: Well if there is one thing you can say about the guy, he sticks to his guns no matter how stupid they may be. The guy even tried to give him an out saying "Do you mean he created the power vacuum that allowed it to form?", and of course his response was "no, he founded it".

It is easy to see why the GOP is having people in congressional races separate themselves from him. I was reading something the other day about the party being concerned a major Trump loss could lead to a massive swing in congress.

Something that harsh has to have something behind it.
I think he knows what's in the next round of e-mails.

Btw... I'm not saying the Obama administration intentionally created them, just possibly inadvertently.
Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk