Trump's First 100 Days

[hollodero]

(02-19-2017, 03:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Shabby, but not racist.

I already admitted as much. That the beginnings might very well be just a shabby move, I said that repeatedly.

Going there in 2011 (three years into the presidency), hence elevating a fan base that cried Kenyan muslim all over the internet, however, can and, as I would say, should be seen as using people's racial hatred to gain support. Which is not just shabby (although it also is incredibly shabby).

There is a distinct difference. If you don't think that Mr. Trump is racist (just the least racist person you've ever met), fine. If you don't think that he deliberately chose racist people's open racism as the core of his fanbase by sitting atop the movement from 2011 on, fine. But please do not even try to belittle those who see it differently based on these instances.

(02-19-2017, 03:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It was brought up for the exact same reason that Trump brought it up. Her and the birther thing was actually a pretty big deal, because Trump suggested in a debate when he was being painted a racist by his birth certificate remarks (surprise) that Hills and her folk actually started the birther movement. 

I think the outcome was they most likely didn't start it, but there is no question they brought it up. 

Yeah I heard that one. If that is true (and I did not look into it because it was not important to me), then sure, maybe this Hillary staffer that went that way was intending to go shabby. Hillary never said publicly anything about birth certificates though. If you can show she actually talked about that on the political stage, please prove me wrong.

"Birth certificate remarks" is funny though. He used all means to drag it onto the political arena, including offering 5 million dollars, it was more than just the occasional mention. He rode that movement alright, that especially at the time he started doing it and afterwards mainly consisted of openly racist folk.

[GMDino]

He sure is misunderstood.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/09/16/donald_trump_s_birther_tweets_in_order.html

[Dill]

(02-19-2017, 03:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Shabby, but not racist. It was brought up for the exact same reason that Trump brought it up. Her and the birther thing was actually a pretty big deal, because Trump suggested in a debate when he was being painted a racist by his birth certificate remarks (surprise) that Hills and her folk actually started the birther movement. 

I think the outcome was they most likely didn't start it, but there is no question they brought it up. 

Actually there is a question whether they brought it up if by "they" you mean Hillary Clinton and her campaign.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/was-hillary-clinton-the-original-birther/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/05/05/fact-check-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-birther-movement-obama/83968036/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/16/donald-trump/fact-checking-donald-trumps-claim-hillary-clinton-/

Nothing racist about delegitimating the first black president, the one right wingers always claimed represented "foreign" values.
Just thoughtful Americans making sure. . . .

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Trump-s-First-100-Days?pid=346099#pid346099

Point taken. One person. From Ausria. On a football message board. In 2016. Then clarified his statement. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-19-2017, 03:44 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, I do not know about that one, honestly. If they did it, it also was a shabby thing to do on their part. So what now?

That's because it is another Trump lie that gullible Trump defenders, not to be confused with Trump supporters, promulgate in order to defend Trump's birther involvement 

[hollodero]

(02-19-2017, 04:47 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: That's because it is another Trump lie that gullible Trump defenders, not to be confused with Trump supporters, promulgate in order to defend Trump's birther involvement 

Maybe so. 
But even if it were true, how would it make Mr. Trump any less shabby.

And actually, how would a gullible Trump defender defend that he said "the media is the enemy of the American people". Break the silence on that one.

(02-19-2017, 04:39 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Trump-s-First-100-Days?pid=346099#pid346099

Point taken. One person. From Ausria. On a football message board. In 2016. Then clarified his statement. 

Actually, it was in 2017. So dishonest.

[GMDino]

(02-19-2017, 04:39 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Trump-s-First-100-Days?pid=346099#pid346099

Point taken. One person. From Ausria. On a football message board. In 2016. Then clarified his statement. 

Well that's it then.  A man admitted his mistake and clarified his position so Larry can now claim he was right and everyone else is wrong.

[Dill]

(02-19-2017, 04:07 PM)hollodero Wrote: Going there in 2011 (three years into the presidency), hence elevating a fan base that cried Kenyan muslim all over the internet, however, can and, as I would say, should be seen as using people's racial hatred to gain support. Which is not just shabby (although it also is incredibly shabby).

There is a distinct difference. If you don't think that Mr. Trump is racist (just the least racist person you've ever met), fine. If you don't think that he deliberately chose racist people's open racism as the core of his fanbase by sitting atop the movement from 2011 on, fine. But please do not even try to belittle those who see it differently based on these instances.ns to drag it onto the political arena, including offering 5 million dollars, it was more than just the occasional mention. He rode that movement alright, that especially at the time he started doing it and afterwards mainly consisted of openly racist folk.

But Hollo, Trump assured us he was the "least racist person" ever. . . . EVER! 

Just firing up racial hatred to draw voters doesn't make Trump a racist--at least
to all those other Trump voters who really don't care whether he is or not.

And false equivalences like "Hillary did it first" make that Trump vote seem less like what it was--
a choice between a race-baiter and someone who wouldn't stoop to that.

[hollodero]

(02-19-2017, 04:56 PM)Dill Wrote: But Hollo, Trump assured us he was the "least racist person" ever. . . . EVER! 

I already stated it, but I want to underline that I think he truely believes that.
Everyone else is even more racist than him because he's greater than everyone. Someone should tell him that other people actually, for realsies, are not racist.

Then again he also told an orthodoxe jew that he is the most anti-semitic person he will ever meet in his life. Including, well, probably a bunch of other orthodoxe jews and such.

[*bfine32*]

(02-19-2017, 04:33 PM)Dill Wrote: Actually there is a question whether they brought it up if by "they" you mean Hillary Clinton and her campaign.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/was-hillary-clinton-the-original-birther/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/05/05/fact-check-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-birther-movement-obama/83968036/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/16/donald-trump/fact-checking-donald-trumps-claim-hillary-clinton-/

Nothing racist about delegitimating the first black president, the one right wingers always claimed represented "foreign" values.
Just thoughtful Americans making sure. . . .

I should know you can't stop a liberal from yelling racist once he gets his teeth sunk in and when you get more than one chanting it; forget about rationality. He simply tried to de-legitimize the President he didn't care what the reason. I've brought it up before, but he did the same thing with Cruz; but he's not Black, so that one don't count. 

As to your links: I've already said Hills and her crew didn't start it; however, they did kick it down the road; as your articles show. But for some reason it wasn't racist when she did it because she didn't ask for a birth certificate. As we know, Candidates are defined by their supporters, or have we changed that again? 

[*bfine32*]

(02-19-2017, 05:05 PM)hollodero Wrote: I already stated it, but I want to underline that I think he truely believes that.
Everyone else is even more racist than him because he's greater than everyone. Someone should tell him that other people actually, for realsies, are not racist.

Then again he also told an orthodoxe jew that he is the most anti-semitic person he will ever meet in his life. Including, well, probably a bunch of other orthodoxe jews and such.

This!!!!! He is a narcissist as I have said numerous times. This doesn't make him racist or anti-semtic; as he has no motivation to be either. We've kicked the racist can down the road far enough. As I am sure no one who thought he was a racist before waking up this morning has or will change their opinion, just as I won't accept the lazy moniker of Trump's a racist 

[hollodero]

(02-19-2017, 05:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This!!!!! He is a narcissist as I have said numerous times. This doesn't make him racist or anti-semtic;

as it doesn't make him non-racist. One bad trait doesn't automatically overlay other (possible) bad traits.

Taking advantage of a racist fanbase is being racist in my book, even though the motive might be just self-elevation, as it indeed always seems to be.

But when the can is kicked enough for you, care to comment on the "the media is the enemy of the American people"-tweet? I repeatedly asked now and will keep asking that.

[GMDino]

(02-19-2017, 05:30 PM)hollodero Wrote: as it doesn't make him non-racist. One bad trait doesn't automatically overlay other (possible) bad traits.

Taking advantage of a racist fanbase is being racist in my book, even though the motive might be just self-elevation, as it indeed always seems to be.

But when the can is kicked enough for you, care to comment on the "the media is the enemy of the American people"-tweet? I repeatedly asked now and will keep asking that.

Bingo.

But "hot sauce".  

[*bfine32*]

(02-19-2017, 05:30 PM)hollodero Wrote: But when the can is kicked enough for you, care to comment on the "the media is the enemy of the American people"-tweet? I repeatedly asked now and will keep asking that.

Oh, that's obviously because he's racist.......

Okey Doke: It's a stupid tweet; as are a great number that he has made. He's petty and must strike back. He feels the media has treated him unfairly (they are not as fair as most in this forum) and he has to retaliate. As I said, he's learning on the job; perhaps he'll get it, perhaps he won't. Personally I hope he does even though his moves thus far have had a direct negative affect on me personally. There are those whose sole motivation is to see him fail and will bring up EVERYTHING and then try to suggest they are only bringing up the important stuff.

He had a rally recently, this rally hurt no one and those that attended were happy to be there; however, to some this is a big deal, just as many other trivial things he has done.

It's OK to think he's a "terrible" person; hell, he might be, but the pettiness that has been displayed by both sides is unprecedented.  

[hollodero]

(02-19-2017, 05:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Okey Doke: It's a stupid tweet;

Alright, respect fully restored.   

(02-19-2017, 05:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: as are a great number that he has made. He's petty and must strike back. He feels the media has treated him unfairly (they are not as fair as most in this forum) and he has to retaliate. As I said, he's learning on the job; perhaps he'll get it, perhaps he won't. Personally I hope he does even though his moves thus far have had a direct negative affect on me personally. There are those whose sole motivation is to see him fail and will bring up EVERYTHING and then try to suggest they are only bringing up the important stuff.

He had a rally recently, this rally hurt no one and those that attended were happy to be there; however, to some this is a big deal, just as many other trivial things he has done.

It's OK to think he's a "terrible" person; hell, he might be, but the pettiness that has been displayed by both sides is unprecedented.  

I even agree up to some part with this. Save the outrage for the important things.
But some things are important for me, like the enemy of the American people tweet.
You call the tweet stupid, and fair enough, that is one possible evaluation. I, however, also call it dangerous and unacceptable in a democracy.
Mainly because it's part of a greater pattern for me.
It's an authoritarian stance, and not the first one. I throw in, with different levels of importance,  "so-called" judge, the Stephen Miller "his power is not to be questioned" saying, stirring up the masses with factual lies about murder rates and unemployment, threatening to send the Feds, immediately drawing the national security card, claiming that three millions voted illegally without any kind of hard evidence, using his platform of POTUS to slam Nordstrom for not selling Ivankas clothes, replacing diplomats with confidantes and Bannon on the NSC comes to mind. Russia ties need to be investigated fully, his business ties look shady (like increased Mar-a-Lago fees and letting diplomats stay in his hotels) and also need to be investigated (I think)... all that is the pattern. Of actively going for a leader cult to whom the rules no longer apply. Oh, and there's the constant, shameless lieing (tax returns?) and agitating (massacres, bad hombres and such). The rally itself looks strange, the implying something happened last night in Sweden is more than just strange.

While Trump defenders, in my view, seem to ignore any pattern and regard the instances as strictly singular, using their singularity as grounds to offer alternative interpretations for each individual cause. I didn't mean that "alternative" as a Kellyanne slam. I merely take the stance that "benefit of the doubt" is a principle that only applies so many times.

Am I overdoing the tweet's importance? I don't know, I only can say that the awareness of that particular one is very high in foreign countries. But maybe there's no danger and he's just even more stupid than I thought. Or maybe it's a danger that can't be averted. Or maybe he could get impeached.


Honest question, from your standpoint: Wouldn't you think both the country and your cause would be better served if Pence took over and Trump got impeached at some point?

If I had to design a politician that doesn't support my stances in the most distinct way legitimately possible, he would look a lot like Mike Pence. So there's no real political motive for me when rooting for this to happen. I still do, though. For it sure looks like the best defense Trump can get at this point (imho, imho) is that he is just utterly stupid, and that would not be a good thing for a president as well. Only in this case one might hope that things get better in time (and I wouldn't know how, but well).
If he is not just utterly stupid, then I have to assume he is laying the ground for something leading to some kind of authoritarianism. And next thing there suddenly are emergency decrees and government oversight over information. That doesn't make things less dangerous. For me.

[GMDino]

(02-19-2017, 06:34 PM)hollodero Wrote: Alright, respect fully restored.   


I even agree up to some part with this. Save the outrage for the important things.
But some things are important for me, like the enemy of the American people tweet.
You call the tweet stupid, and fair enough, that is one possible evaluation. I, however, also call it dangerous and unacceptable in a democracy.
Mainly because it's part of a greater pattern for me.
It's an authoritarian stance, and not the first one. I throw in, with different levels of importance,  "so-called" judge, the Stephen Miller "his power is not to be questioned" saying, stirring up the masses with factual lies about murder rates and unemployment, threatening to send the Feds, immediately drawing the national security card, claiming that three millions voted illegally without any kind of hard evidence, using his platform of POTUS to slam Nordstrom for not selling Ivankas clothes, replacing diplomats with confidantes and Bannon on the NSC comes to mind. Russia ties need to be investigated fully, his business ties look shady (like increased Mar-a-Lago fees and letting diplomats stay in his hotels) and also need to be investigated (I think)... all that is the pattern. Of actively going for a leader cult to whom the rules no longer apply. Oh, and there's the constant, shameless lieing (tax returns?) and agitating (massacres, bad hombres and such). The rally itself looks strange, the implying something happened last night in Sweden is more than just strange.

Whiloe defenders seem to ignore any pattern and go for the singulary instances, using their singularity as grounds to offer alternative interpretations. I didn't mean that "alternative" as a Kellyanne slam.

Am I overdoing the tweet's importance? I don't know, I only can say that the awareness of that particular one is very high in foreign countries. But maybe there's no danger and he's just even more stupid than I thought. Or maybe it's a danger that can't be averted. Or maybe he could get impeached.


Honest question, from your standpoint: Wouldn't you think both the country and your cause would be better served if Pence took over and Trump got impeached at some point?

If I had to design a politician that doesn't support my stances in the most distinct way legitimately possible, he would look a lot like Mike Pence. So there's no real political motive for me when rooting for this to happen. I still do, though. For it sure looks like the best defense Trump can get at this point (imho, imho) is that he is just utterly stupid, and that would not be a good thing for a president as well. Only in this case one might hope that things get better in time (and I wouldn't know how, but well).
If he is not just utterly stupid, then I have to assume he is laying the ground for something leading to some kind of emergency decrees and government oversight over information. That doesn't make things less dangerous. For me.

But you're missing the point.

We have to "give him a chance" ™

He's gonna change and start acting real presidential any time now.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-19-2017, 05:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I should know you can't stop a liberal from yelling racist once he gets his teeth sunk in and when you get more than one chanting it; forget about rationality. He simply tried to de-legitimize the President he didn't care what the reason. I've brought it up before, but he did the same thing with Cruz; but he's not Black, so that one don't count. 

As to your links: I've already said Hills and her crew didn't start it; however, they did kick it down the road; as your articles show. But for some reason it wasn't racist when she did it because she didn't ask for a birth certificate. As we know, Candidates are defined by their supporters, or have we changed that again? 

Okay show me where Hillary kicked it down the road, tweeted, snap chatted, instagramed, facebooked, or stated on television Obama's birth certificate was fake. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-19-2017, 04:52 PM)hollodero Wrote: Maybe so. 
But even if it were true, how would it make Mr. Trump any less shabby.

And actually, how would a gullible Trump defender defend that he said "the media is the enemy of the American people". Break the silence on that one.


Actually, it was in 2017. So dishonest.

Well, Hillary did it first. So Trump is better because he isn't alone anymore because of the false claims Hillary was a birther first. 

You see, one douche's douchiness sticks out like a sore thumb. But, if you get enough douches together then their douchiness becomes the norm. Thus the first douche is no longer the douche. Even better, accuse your opponent of being the first to be the douche and you subsequently ended all the douchiness you helped promote for years. 

As to the 2016 comment; you can't trust the enemy!

[hollodero]

(02-19-2017, 06:34 PM)hollodero Wrote: The rally itself looks strange, the implying something happened last night in Sweden is more than just strange.

I take this particular one off the table since Trump clarified on twitter, which was a decent thing to do.

Not saying that my confidence is particularly growing considering he obviously gets his opinion from news networks he likes, including some "Alex Jones" guy. Yeah I admit, John Oliver showed me that particularly troubling one.

[NATI BENGALS]

Bashes the media. But allows the original fake news machine, you know the one where you cant even get past their slogan without being lied to, to shape his world views.