• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trump is being credited with...not having the same anti-gun positions Hillary Clinton has. (I guess.) I saw Bill Clinton recently state that if people want to have guns for hunting or one in the house for protection, most Americans support that. I don't know how different Hillary's positions are. She seems pretty moderate to me.


Fudbucker said:
...states that have extreme gun restrictions are always blue states.
Click to expand...
Just for the record, which states and what extreme restrictions are you referring to?
 
Firestone said:
You just did.

No, really, that's all there is to it.

I saw Christie earlier today on CNN. It was painful. He claimed that Trump ceased to be a birther 5 years ago, and excused his attacks on Gates and Powell.

(Tapper did refute his claim about the birther issue in real time, though.)
Click to expand...

Like Iraq, this is another Trump liability Clinton can't fully exploit. Back in 2007, Clinton's senior strategist, Mark Penn, wrote a detailed memo about portraying Obama as an "other":

"The idea of going after Obama’s otherness dates back to the last presidential election—and to Democrats. Long before Trump started in, Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist, Mark Penn, recognized this potential vulnerability in Obama and sought to exploit it.

In a March 2007 memo to Clinton (that later found its way to me), Penn wrote: “All of these articles about his boyhood in Indonesia and his life in Hawaii are geared toward showing his background is diverse, multicultural and putting it in a new light,” he wrote. “Save it for 2050. It also exposes a very strong weakness for him—his roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and his values.”

Penn also suggested how the campaign might take advantage of this. “Every speech should contain the line that you were born in the middle of America to the middle class in the middle of the last century,” he advised Clinton. “And talk about the basic bargain as about [sic] the deeply American values you grew up with, learned as a child, and that drive you today.” He went on: “Let’s explicitly own ‘American’ in our programs, the speeches and the values. He doesn’t … Let’s add flag symbols to the backgrounds [of campaign events].”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-05-30/the-democratic-roots-of-the-birther-movement

The fact that Penn would write this memo to Clinton implies Penn thought there was some chance she would go along with it. I bet they had some interesting discussions about it.
 
newyorkguy said:
Trump is being credited with...not having the same anti-gun positions Hillary Clinton has. (I guess.) I saw Bill Clinton recently state that if people want to have guns for hunting or one in the house for protection, most Americans support that. I don't know how different Hillary's positions are. She seems pretty moderate to me.



Just for the record, which states and what extreme restrictions are you referring to?
Click to expand...

Well, they're not always blue states, but the trend is pretty obvious:
http://gunlawscorecard.org/
 
Fudbucker said:
Like Iraq, this is another Trump liability Clinton can't fully exploit. Back in 2007, Clinton's senior strategist, Mark Penn, wrote a detailed memo about portraying Obama as an "other":

"The idea of going after Obama’s otherness dates back to the last presidential election—and to Democrats. Long before Trump started in, Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist, Mark Penn, recognized this potential vulnerability in Obama and sought to exploit it.

In a March 2007 memo to Clinton (that later found its way to me), Penn wrote: “All of these articles about his boyhood in Indonesia and his life in Hawaii are geared toward showing his background is diverse, multicultural and putting it in a new light,” he wrote. “Save it for 2050. It also exposes a very strong weakness for him—his roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and his values.”

Penn also suggested how the campaign might take advantage of this. “Every speech should contain the line that you were born in the middle of America to the middle class in the middle of the last century,” he advised Clinton. “And talk about the basic bargain as about [sic] the deeply American values you grew up with, learned as a child, and that drive you today.” He went on: “Let’s explicitly own ‘American’ in our programs, the speeches and the values. He doesn’t … Let’s add flag symbols to the backgrounds [of campaign events].”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-05-30/the-democratic-roots-of-the-birther-movement

The fact that Penn would write this memo to Clinton implies Penn thought there was some chance she would go along with it. I bet they had some interesting discussions about it.
Click to expand...

I don't think the case for your inference is very strong.
 
Fudbucker said:
A reporter asks about Trump calling it a bomb and Clinton replies that it's wiser to wait before reaching conclusions. How do you not grasp the implication? Obviously Clinton was chiding Trump for jumping to conclusions.
Click to expand...
What could Clinton have said which couldn't be taken to have that implication? The reporter is the one who tries to get this going, not Clinton. She has to say something, even if it's "words fail me", and she produces bland homilies.

What we presumably can agree on is that Clinton didn't use this an opportunity to launch into Trump. You read her slapping him down, I don't. It's not terribly important in the scheme of things.
 
acbytesla said:
The problem though is THAT HE TALKS BEFORE HE KNOWS. Hell, everyone immediately thinks it's a terrorist attack. A responsible leader waits until he KNOWS.
Click to expand...
"I must tell you that just before I got off the plane a bomb went off in New York and nobody knows what's going on."

Well, he does admit as much. But of course the urge to say something anyway is irresistible.
 
On the Trump side we have Christie :

“It’s because of her type of leadership over the last eight years,” he said, “along with the president, that the world is a much more dangerous place.”
Click to expand...

Trying to make political profit out of this for his boss through ********.
 
Good evening Firestone.
Firestone said:
You just did.

No, really, that's all there is to it.

I saw Christie earlier today on CNN. It was painful. He claimed that Trump ceased to be a birther 5 years ago, and excused his attacks on Gates and Powell.

(Tapper did refute his claim about the birther issue in real time, though.)
Click to expand...
Oddly enough, and I may have missed it but, I have yet to see a comment from Christie about the pipe bomb in NJ yesterday. He would rather defend Trump with a completely ridiculous statement that Trump hasn't been a birther in 5 years? Incredible. Does he really think he has a shot of being Attorney General? When is his case coming up?
ETA I found some comments from about 6 hours ago. I'm guessing he was waiting until he knew the facts before he talked.
 
Last edited:
CapelDodger said:
What could Clinton have said which couldn't be taken to have that implication? The reporter is the one who tries to get this going, not Clinton. She has to say something, even if it's "words fail me", and she produces bland homilies.

What we presumably can agree on is that Clinton didn't use this an opportunity to launch into Trump. You read her slapping him down, I don't. It's not terribly important in the scheme of things.
Click to expand...

There's a million things she could have said. She could have outright agreed with him. She could have said, "Based on what happened in New Jersey, I think there's a good chance it was a bomb". She could have ignored the question outright. She took the opportunity to get a little dig in, while she herself was characterizing it as a bombing before any officials had said anything. It wasn't one of her better moments.

In the scheme of things, this won't amount to much, but these stories are accretive. Elections are narratives, and Clinton is stuck in a narrative of secrecy, scandal, and deception. Anything which reinforces this narrative is bad for her. Ever since she claimed the FBI director said she was "truthful" with her answers to the public about the emails (Politifact Pants-on-Fire award), she hasn't been able to catch a break.

ETA: Actually, her high-water mark came a bit after that.
 
Last edited:
Ladewig said:
By having no sense of empathy.

Stacko said:
You'd think he'd be able to fake it or allow his staff to fake it. .
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You are missing the obvious: that was his best attempt at faking it.

CapelDodger said:
Ladewig nailed it, of course - no empathy.

Infants lack empathy: it's something which develops around 3 years in normal people. And infants are hateful creatures. We don't hate them, because they're infants. We make allowances. They'll grow out of it.

There are no allowances to be made for Trump. He is hateful and justifiably hated.
Click to expand...

I had thought of Trump as a ill-mannered, poorly-behaved 11-year-old boy, but now I hear more people comparing him to a toddler.
 
Fudbucker said:
There's a million things she could have said. She could have outright agreed with him. She could have said, "Based on what happened in New Jersey, I think there's a good chance it was a bomb". She could have ignored the question outright. She took the opportunity to get a little dig in, while she herself was characterizing it as a bombing before any officials had said anything. It wasn't one of her better moments.
Click to expand...
A "little dig". Not what the reporter was hoping for. Before it she made sure to mention the first reporters - but then that might have been a little dig, and a rather telling one.

In the scheme of things, this won't amount to much, but these stories are accretive. Elections are narratives, and Clinton is stuck in a narrative of secrecy, scandal, and deception. Anything which reinforces this narrative is bad for her. Ever since she claimed the FBI director said she was "truthful" with her answers to the public about the emails (Politifact Pants-on-Fire award), she hasn't been able to catch a break.
Click to expand...
How can this accrete to secrecy, scandal or deception?

It can accrete to a narrative of Trump whining about being attacked while thinking about nobody but himself. That's an angle that should be worked, but not by Clinton directly, of course. At a time like this one should rise above.

Of course Christie only rises above things in a sewer because, as the saying goes, down there the biggest ones come to the top.
 
Last edited:
newyorkguy said:
...Just for the record, which states and what extreme restrictions are you referring to?
Click to expand...

Fudbucker said:
Well, they're not always blue states, but the trend is pretty obvious:
http://gunlawscorecard.org/
Click to expand...

Instead of answering you post a link (no quote) to a Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence "scorecard" rating the effectiveness of state gun laws and how they impact (or seem to impact) gun death rates. This doesn't answer my question -- I wanted to find out what exactly you consider "extreme gun laws" to be -- but let's just let it go.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom