Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

[SezMe]

I wasn't clear. The only reason. Hee unfavorables haven't sunk her campaign is because Trump is the only person with worse. Since that was not predicted, she ran with the greatest general election unfavorables. That is irresponsible to a disqualifying level.

If having an significant defect prevented people from becoming a candidate for prez, you'd be the only one on the ballot.

 

[Firestone]

Yeah, I saw that. Now that Christie is not going to be the VP, why is he being such a toady? Does he think that will buy him the AG slot?

Might well be.
Christie as AG, Giuliani at Homeland Security.

Doesn't beat the nightmarish prospect of DJT in the White House.

 

[SezMe]

If you attribute the birther idea to Clinton, everything anyone on Trump's campaign staff ever said is fair game to attribute to him.
This is not a game Trumpettes should play.

Absolutely. One could put on a bio-hazards suit and romp through the comments section of WND and find enough material for 500 Trump candidacies.

 

[NoahFence]

Arguably, it's worse. Not being a natural born citizen is a mere technicality, which has nothing to do with race. For example, if Obama's mother had been a year older when he was born, his place of birth would have been moot. Mark Penn outlined a strategy for painting Obama as un-American simply because of his background (and, presumably, race).

It truly is laughable to call Trump racist for the birther stuff, and, at the same time, give Clinton's campaign a pass.

Clinton's "campaign"?
Wasn't it one dude that immediately got fired?

 

[catsmate]

Wtf?

It's libertarian "thinking" at it's finest.

 

[catsmate]

Honestly, if it takes him five years to confirm the birth nation of one man, this whole mass deportation thing is gonna be mad slow.​

The last time the USA engaged in mass deportations of suspected Mexicans they weren't that picky.

 

[newyorkguy]

Clinton's "campaign"?
Wasn't it one dude that immediately got fired?

The arguments from the right have gotten so completely partisan it is almost impossible to have a serious discussion.

Fine. I think it is the least interesting part but I will answer it. New York state Senate Democrats had a wish list including gun confiscation...

Some New York State senate Democrats had a wish list that included:

Confiscation of all firearms labeled “assault weapons” Link to right-wing website

Characterizing the banning of assault weapons to include confiscation of existing assault weapons as "gun confiscation," is misleading at best and dishonest at worst. The fact is, this proposal was made in the emotional aftermath of the Newtown shootings and the New York State senate did not adopt it.

 

[BobTheCoward]

A ammo capacity limit being enforced is hardly "banning all guns."

Maybe we need to go back and review, but wasn't the question gun confiscation?

 

[BobTheCoward]

The arguments from the right have gotten so completely partisan it is almost impossible to have a serious discussion.



Some New York State senate Democrats had a wish list that included:


Characterizing the banning of assault weapons to include confiscation of existing assault weapons as "gun confiscation," is misleading at best and dishonest at worst. The fact is, this proposal was made in the emotional aftermath of the Newtown shootings and the New York State senate did not adopt it.

Saying the confiscation of guns is gun confiscation is misleading? By that standard, you would be arguing Australia did not engage in confiscation.

It doesn't have to be "all" guns. When people advocates encroaching on free speech, it is only on the speech they don't like. When people wish to shred the eigth amendment, it is often only against people they don't like. None of these apply apply everyone equally and they are never total.

 

[JPK]

Good morning. CNN is reporting a bit of a timeline as to when the NYC explosion took place and when the candidates made their opening remarks about it.

Trump made the statement before local officials had publicly confirmed details of the incident or what caused the explosion. Typically, national political figures use caution when describing unfolding situations and law enforcement actions.

A law enforcement source told CNN that the explosion occurred around 8:40 p.m. ET -- about 30 minutes before Trump took the stage here -- at 23rd Street and 6th Avenue in Manhattan. New York authorities said 29 people were injured in the explosion.
"We've got to get very tough," Trump said. "It's a terrible thing what's going on in our world, what's going on in our country, but we are going to get tough and smart and vigilant and we are going to end it."
Trump did not immediately exit his plane as he landed for his rally at an airplane hanger here. He was being briefed on the explosion in New York before he took the stage, a campaign aide told CNN.

Trump's Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, spoke to reporters in White Plains nearly two hours after the explosion and similarly called the incident a "bombing."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/17/politics/donald-trump-new-york-city-explosion/index.html

When did the officials at the scene announce that it was a bomb and not just some unknown type of explosion?

 

[phiwum]

Good morning. CNN is reporting a bit of a timeline as to when the NYC explosion took place and when the candidates made their opening remarks about it.





http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/17/politics/donald-trump-new-york-city-explosion/index.html

When did the officials at the scene announce that it was a bomb and not just some unknown type of explosion?

According to the same article, about two hours after Trump's statement, de Blasio called it intentional. Since Clinton spoke a little less than two hours after the explosion, she did so more than half an hour before de Blasio said that. (And the commissioner said at the time the "nature and cause" were undetermined at that time.)

That said, Hillary had spoken to NYC authorities and Trump apparently had not (at least, no reports that he had). So Hillary may have jumped the gun slightly, on the basis of unofficial reports from authorities.

 

[sunmaster14]

It's certainly "arguably" worse. You'll just be, not for the first time, on the morals-free side of the argument.

There may be an argument for calling Mark Penn a racist. Like a certain Mr. Atwater, though, I'd argue that he isn't. He's just a political hack and this is the kind of **** political hacks do.

Clinton's campaign looked at the possibilities (giving the claimants the benefit of the doubt, here) and rejected them. Please show evidence that Trump looked at his news feed, read about birtherism, and rejected it. Same timeline as you're insisting for Clinton: Within A Few Days, not five years later when forced to by his campaign donors.

You're making two mistakes here. First, you're assuming that if Hillary's campaign tried to "other" Barack Obama in 2008, that there would be some sort of smoking gun tying her to a strategy piece or a leak that proves it. The proof, to the extent you have proof in these cases, is that her surrogates spread the meme of his "otherness" throughout the media, and Hillary tailored her campaign message towards those most likely to be disturbed by his non-standard American upbringing ("hard-working, white Americans"). Her campaign went on far too long too, in the hope that she could show to the Democratic Party that Obama was too "different" to be electable.

Your second mistake is in seeing birtherism as some sort of racist strategy to undermine support for Obama. Birtherism was just the usual conspiracy theory nonsense. It had nothing to do with Obama's race, or the fact that he might be "un-American." It only had to do with the fact that there were loose ends that Obama (probably as part of a deliberate strategy) refused to tie down. And Trump latched on to birtherism in the same way that an Alex Jones latched on to 9/11 trutherism. It was a way to attract attention to himself and nothing more.

 

[JPK]

According to the same article, about two hours after Trump's statement, de Blasio called it intentional. Since Clinton spoke a little less than two hours after the explosion, she did so more than half an hour before de Blasio said that. (And the commissioner said at the time the "nature and cause" were undetermined at that time.)

That said, Hillary had spoken to NYC authorities and Trump apparently had not (at least, no reports that he had). So Hillary may have jumped the gun slightly, on the basis of unofficial reports from authorities.

Too many "abouts" times to be precise. She may or may not have made the "bombings" statement before the mayor did. Trumps statement was clearly before the mayor's. The article does say that Trump was briefed about the explosion. This apies to Hillary as well, even if they were given information that it was a intentional bombing in those briefings, unless specifically told they can go public with that info, which I doubt, they should not have done so in my opinion.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Saying the confiscation of guns is gun confiscation is misleading? By that standard, you would be arguing Australia did not engage in confiscation.

It doesn't have to be "all" guns. When people advocates encroaching on free speech, it is only on the speech they don't like. When people wish to shred the eigth amendment, it is often only against people they don't like. None of these apply apply everyone equally and they are never total.

Arthwollipot argues this exact point fairly cogently.

 

[phiwum]

Too many "abouts" times to be precise. She may or may not have made the "bombings" statement before the mayor did. Trumps statement was clearly before the mayor's. The article does say that Trump was briefed about the explosion. This apies to Hillary as well, even if they were given information that it was a intentional bombing in those briefings, unless specifically told they can go public with that info, which I doubt, they should not have done so in my opinion.

I don't think the "abouts" are all that vague.

(1) The explosion occurred two hours before de Blasio's.

(2) Clinton's statement came nearly two hours after the explosion.

(3) The explosion happened before Trump's statement. (I thought I read it was a half hour before, but I can't find that statement in the article now.)

Therefore, if the article is accurate, Clinton's statement came before de Blasio's.

ETA: It sure would be nice if news sources told us the time of each statement.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Arthwollipot argues this exact point fairly cogently.

I have heard that argument before. It is unconvincing.

 

[BobTheCoward]

If having an significant defect prevented people from becoming a candidate for prez, you'd be the only one on the ballot.

Most people do not possess a significant defect that make them clearly wrong for the job. She just so happens to be one with the character defect.

 

[Ladewig]

I suggest either we move the gun stuff to another thread or we agree that there is NOTHING that people will agree on in a gun thread and abandon the topic.

Also, how much more about the origin of Birtherism needs to be discussed? Trump didn't start birtherism so discussions about its origins do not belong in a Trump thread.

 

[Dr. Keith]

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.

So the best evidence that Hillary was a birther is a memo that doesn't dispute that Obama was born in Hawaii?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Arguably, it's worse. Not being a natural born citizen is a mere technicality, which has nothing to do with race. For example, if Obama's mother had been a year older when he was born, his place of birth would have been moot. Mark Penn outlined a strategy for painting Obama as un-American simply because of his background (and, presumably, race).

It truly is laughable to call Trump racist for the birther stuff, and, at the same time, give Clinton's campaign a pass.

Because one spent years pursuing it and the other didn't?