TRUMP - Some people think......... How do you feel?

[Mendalla]

Of course Trump is not responsible if anyone takes what he has said in the wrong way and based on that misunderstanding does something wrong. That must be perfectly clear.

To be frank, one does not make casual remarks that can be easily misinterpreted in a presidential campaign (or when one is in the White House for that matter. Witness Ronnie's famous ""My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."). One sticks to one's script and if one has something that one thinks is witty to say, you say it to your wife, or in a private meeting, or, if you really must say it publicly, you vet it with your campaign staff before you say it. Off the cuff remarks are dangerous in and of themselves in politics and international relations. Can you imagine him dropping some kind of off the cuff bombshell in front of the leader of a very protocol-sensitive country like China or Japan? It leaves the impression that he doesn't really give a flying f**k what he says and national leaders, by definition, must be constantly giving a flying f**k about what they say.

This is the kind of thing people mean when they say that Trump is not presidential material. It is all very well and good to say what you want, when you want when you're a reality TV star but the rules are different when you're the chief executive of the most powerful country on the planet. And, yes, being president does not mean that there are no rules. In fact, there are more than there are for reality TV stars and brash property developers. He has to learn those rules or he has no business being in the White House.

As I've said many times, I'm not fond of Hillary either and I'm not sure I'd vote for either of them if I was an American, but at least she knows how a politician in a leadership position needs to speak and act in public.

 

[revsdd]

I'm surprise nobody has commented on the oddity of 50 senior civil servants (espionage, dirty tricks and assassinations) and military brass have openly supported Hillary, and slammed Trump. i don't think I've ever heard of that in a democracy, I've known some very senior civil servants - and it was understood that we never discussed partisan matters.
The is so highly improper that they probably should be fired. But the press simply reports this as if it were a perfectly normal story.
(Oh, thanks for the reminder that Trump has the intelligence and morality of a cartoon bunny. I think maybe I'll skip VBS this year.)

Generally speaking, they weren't civil servants in the proper sense of the term. They were former Cabinet members (like two former Secretaries of Homeland Security - Michael Chertoff & Tom Ridge) and other political appointees in the national security and foreign policy apparatus - Republican officials of various Republican administrations, none of whom, as far as I know, hold office now, because the Republicans don't hold the White House. What they were not is non-partisan civil servants. The oddity of the thing is that 50 senior supporters of a political party spoke out so openly against that party's candidate. I've never heard of that happening.

 

[Northwind]

Could this be it?

Thanks Innana. I'll have to look at it later.

 

[Graeme Decarie]

Whether Trump and Clinton are intelligent has nothing to do with it. Politics requires a person of moral values, someone with a philosophy of morality that touches all areas of life. Medicare is a moral issue. Pensions are a moral issue. War is a moral issue.
I see not a trace of morality in either Clinton or Trump or, for that matter, most of the political leaders in the U.S. - and certainly none in the big business sector.
Yes. I know they all go to church.
The churches don't show much interest in moral values, eighter, unless they are very, very abstract.
How many churches said a word about the morality of the mass slaughters in Vietnam, Guatemalal, or Iraq? Or the daily murder by drones? or the rapid shift in money from the poor to the rich?

 

[Graeme Decarie]

No, I've never heard of so many senior people in a party attacking its leader. That's not necessarily a sign of virtue. It's a sign of the collapse of a party that has never shown much sense of virtue. (No. Not even Lincoln. He did no go to war to free the slaves.) Fifty leaders of the party are speaking against Trump. How is their opinion more suggestive than that of the tens of millions of Americans who support him.
This is like arguing over whether it was a nice day when Hiroshima was bombed. It doesn't matter. What mattered in 1945 is that the world changed (for the worse). Trump or Clinton, that is what is happening now in the U.S.)

 

[Waterfall]

Whether Trump and Clinton are intelligent has nothing to do with it. Politics requires a person of moral values, someone with a philosophy of morality that touches all areas of life. Medicare is a moral issue. Pensions are a moral issue. War is a moral issue.
I see not a trace of morality in either Clinton or Trump or, for that matter, most of the political leaders in the U.S. - and certainly none in the big business sector.
Yes. I know they all go to church.
The churches don't show much interest in moral values, eighter, unless they are very, very abstract.
How many churches said a word about the morality of the mass slaughters in Vietnam, Guatemalal, or Iraq? Or the daily murder by drones? or the rapid shift in money from the poor to the rich?

Socialist states want the government to be their Mommy and Daddy.......if you want change it's not just about who you elected.

 

[revsdd]

No, I've never heard of so many senior people in a party attacking its leader. That's not necessarily a sign of virtue. It's a sign of the collapse of a party that has never shown much sense of virtue. (No. Not even Lincoln. He did no go to war to free the slaves.) Fifty leaders of the party are speaking against Trump. How is their opinion more suggestive than that of the tens of millions of Americans who support him.
This is like arguing over whether it was a nice day when Hiroshima was bombed. It doesn't matter. What mattered in 1945 is that the world changed (for the worse). Trump or Clinton, that is what is happening now in the U.S.)

Graeme, my friend, you keep going off on tangents.

I never said the 50 were virtuous.

I'm quite well versed in the life, presidency and policies of Abraham Lincoln. No, he did not go to war to free the slaves, nor did he ever claim that he went to war to free the slaves.

The opinion of the 50 aren't necessarily more suggestive than the millions who voted for Trump.

I'm not arguing anything in particular. I'm just noting that it's interesting because I've never heard of so many senior members of a party (and it's not only these 50) coming out publicly against their own candidate. You agree with that. I believe we also agree that both Trump and Clinton are terrible candidates, and the fact that two candidates who are both so unpopular came out of the primaries as the candidates of their respective parties demonstrates something terrible wrong with the American political system.

Unfortunately, you're also right about the fact that - like it or not - Trump or Clinton is what's happening in the US right now.

 

[Waterfall]

Amen to that last line.

 

[GordW]

When it comes to Benghazi, N. Libya, Donald J. Trump never ignored security requests, never intentionally cut security, never lied about "a video," never silenced witnesses, and never lied to congress.

And then again after multiple congressional investisgatons Hillary has been convicted of????

 

[GordW]

Of course Trump is not responsible if anyone takes what he has said in the wrong way and based on that misunderstanding does something wrong. That must be perfectly clear.

Acctually as a public figure making a public statemnte that is very reasonably intrerpreted in such a way I believe he IS responsible.

 

[Jaebius]

And then again after multiple congressional investisgatons Hillary has been convicted of????

Huh? I don't follow Gord. I was speaking of Trump.

 

[Jaebius]

Acctually as a public figure making a public statemnte that is very reasonably intrerpreted in such a way I believe he IS responsible.

"Very reasonably interpreted" - by whom? The ones I've heard interpreting it that way are the Democrats (especially Clinton's campaign), and the liberal-biased media.

 

[Northwind]

Liberal biased media again? You yourself posted a YouTube video of the man saying what he did. It is not just the media interpreting what he said. I agree with Gord. It is reasonable to "misinterpret" what Trump said. He is responsible for what he said. It is very irresponsible to say what he did.

 

[Jaebius]

It is reasonable to "misinterpret" what Trump said. He is responsible for what he said. It is very irresponsible to say what he did.

He's responsible for what he said. He isn't responsible for the spin-doctoring of what he said done by others. He isn't responsible for any and all misrepresentations and misunderstandings of what he said.

 

[GordW]

'

"Very reasonably interpreted" - by whom? The ones I've heard interpreting it that way are the Democrats (especially Clinton's campaign), and the liberal-biased media.

Context matters.

Given that a) US foreign policy over the years has routinely used the death of opponents as a goal and tool (most recently though the use of unmanned drones); b) the US has a founding story based on the "Wild West" mythology which includes teh High Noon style shootout; c) the "2nd Amendment people" routinely advocate for vigilante justice ["the only thing that stops a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun"] and d) someone in the Republican camp has already called for Hillary to be taken out and shot by a firing squad YES I mean exactly what I said.

Context matters. And those 4 things shape the context into which Trump spoke

 

[GordW]

Huh? I don't follow Gord. I was speaking of Trump.

No you were not. Your post was very clearly saying "Unlike Hillary...." So I thought I would point out that multiple partisan investigations (vendettas?) have not led to charges or convictions.

 

[Jaebius]

No you were not. Your post was very clearly saying "Unlike Hillary...." So I thought I would point out that multiple partisan investigations (vendettas?) have not led to charges or convictions.

No, I was sharing good news about Donald Trump. That you read something else into that is your doing.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Graeme, my friend, you keep going off on tangents.

I never said the 50 were virtuous.

I'm quite well versed in the life, presidency and policies of Abraham Lincoln. No, he did not go to war to free the slaves, nor did he ever claim that he went to war to free the slaves.

The opinion of the 50 aren't necessarily more suggestive than the millions who voted for Trump.

I'm not arguing anything in particular. I'm just noting that it's interesting because I've never heard of so many senior members of a party (and it's not only these 50) coming out publicly against their own candidate. You agree with that. I believe we also agree that both Trump and Clinton are terrible candidates, and the fact that two candidates who are both so unpopular came out of the primaries as the candidates of their respective parties demonstrates something terrible wrong with the American political system.

Unfortunately, you're also right about the fact that - like it or not - Trump or Clinton is what's happening in the US right now.

@Graeme, also. This is what Trump himself has to say about those 50 people (basically he doesn't take them seriously because they don't support him...big surprise.)

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57a9d201e4b0b770b1a43baf

I think if senior security experts are signing a joint letter denouncing Trump then that means they believe electing him would be dangerously dire and they felt a duty to speak out. It's unprecedented because this situation is unprecedented. I'd rather they speak out than sit on their hands because speaking out is bad protocol.

 

[Jaebius]

Given that a) US foreign policy over the years has routinely used the death of opponents as a goal and tool (most recently though the use of unmanned drones);

It has? Hmm... now let me see if I can remember who's in charge of US foreign policy... could it be one of the current candidates for #POTUS?

b) the US has a founding story based on the "Wild West" mythology which includes teh High Noon style shootout;

Okay... so they're forever bound to that?

c) the "2nd Amendment people" routinely advocate for vigilante justice ["the only thing that stops a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun"] and

You don't imagine they're speaking of self-defense there, huh.

d) someone in the Republican camp has already called for Hillary to be taken out and shot by a firing squad YES I mean exactly what I said.

Someone did? Whom? One of the millions of #Republicans in #America? I never heard of such a thing.

Context matters. And those 4 things shape the context into which Trump spoke

Do I think it matters that @realDonaldTrump is not so stupid that he'd call for the assassination of @HillaryClinton? I do.

 

[revsdd]

Someone did? Whom? One of the millions of #Republicans in #America? I never heard of such a thing.

You must not be following the news very closely.

Al Baldasaro is a Republican member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, and was a Trump delegate at the Republican convention. Here's the story. It was widely reported in the media.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...p-hillary-clinton_us_578fa150e4b07c722ebd2fd1

Baldasaro - who is an ex-Marine - later tried to say that he hadn't called for Clinton to be shot by a firing squad, that he had only said she should put on trial for treason. However, his exact words were "Hillary Clinton should be put on the firing line and shot for treason." That's not accusing her of treason. It's declaring her guilty of treason and calling for her execution. Baldasaro has also smeared (with no evidence) Khizr Khan (the man whose son was killed in action in Afghanistan) by saying that he was associated with terrorists, and he praised the audience at a Republican debate for booing a gay Marine, saying that he was "disgusted" by the man. He once referred to people who supported women's right to breast feed their babies in public as wanting to "turn our beaches into a pervert show."

A few days after Baldasaro called for Clinton to be executed, Trump introduced him at a rally in New Hampshire, saying "Al has been so great. Where's Al? Where's my vet?"

Trump's words about the Second Amendment people were ambiguous. I don't believe he was calling for an assassination, and I agree that he was referring to them taking care of Hillary with their votes and not their guns. No doubt, though, that some whackjob could be incited by the ambiguity of what he said. He has, after all, said very publicly that he believes Hillary is "the devil." So now you could have the combination of a gun-toting whackjob who's also a right wing religious nut being incited by his words.