Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

[dudalb]

You know, I WAS going to vote for Trump, because he has a reputation of being a straight shooter who says what he means, and means what he says. But now, I can't in good conscience vote for a guy who employs a spokes-woman who doesn't actually mean what she says when she said what she didn't mean.

Friendly advice:The first thing any good Con Man learns is how to look like a "straight Shooter".

 

[NoahFence]

How do you spin it? If he still believes the Central Park Five are guilty, he's unhinged and delusional. If he doesn't, he's a grade A racist monster. He's left his surrogates with no good choices.

How do I spin it? Who knows?? I would have no clue.

Make no mistake, it WILL be spun though. Lets just see. Should be fun!

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Fine. I completely disagree and am surprised that somebody could, upon reflection, think as you do, but I get that, ultimately, interpretation is subjective. I guess some people also have a hard time backing down from a position. I get that too.

The problem is not that Pierson said something horrible. I've seen the clip. The problem is what she said slides up against horribleness, and required explanations and dialing back, because she's such an idiot. The actual underlying problem is the trump campaign is required to follow trumps gibberbibble and attempt to communicate sense from it. And she isn't smart enough to play it very well.

 

[Cleon]

How do you spin it? If he still believes the Central Park Five are guilty, he's unhinged and delusional. If he doesn't, he's a grade A racist monster. He's left his surrogates with no good choices.

Sunmaster will find a way.

 

[Bob001]

Here's speculation that the hurricane could affect the election:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...evastating_consequences_for_the_election.html

 

[quadraginta]

If I may make a slight tangent here, this reminds me about something I read last week about some Muslim Trump supporters. It was in an article about the Koch brothers but that's sort of a side point. You might think why on earth would a Muslim support Trump. And maybe they're the only ones but they exist.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.news...david-koch-donald-trump-afp-503496.html?amp=1



Isn't that weird? "A gut feeling"?

I have more respect for the Kochs and their principles though. Even though I don't agree with their ideology at least they can recognize how odious Trump is and they want nothing to do with him. As for Mary Khalef though, I have no idea what she's thinking. Gut feelings aren't always the best thing to follow in my experience.

How can you say that.

Gibbs always goes with his gut feelings. What more confirmation could you ask for?

 

[dudalb]

Here's speculation that the hurricane could affect the election:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...evastating_consequences_for_the_election.html

Most political experts are pretty much dismissing this;the whole article does sound like a journalist trying to tie the Hurricane and the election together.

 

[quadraginta]

I have a hard time believing that assertion. (1) How could his handlers be foolish enough to think that making him watch a recording of the debate would force him to realize that he performed poorly? (2) Even if they did convince him, he would not think the solution would be to learn facts or to prepare in any other formal manner. We are talking about a guy who is so clueless as to actually believe the claim that the practice townhall meeting was not debate prep.

<snip>

I have to agree with this. Like self-avowed conservatives everywhere (not that I think he is the least bit honest about his political beliefs) the way he would try to fix something that didn't work would be to do more of it, even harder.

Kinda like the "War On" ...drugs, crime, etc.

It's an integral part of the 'keep digging' philosophy of handling error.

 

[acbytesla]

You know, I WAS going to vote for Trump, because he has a reputation of being a straight shooter who says what he means, and means what he says. But now, I can't in good conscience vote for a guy who employs a spokes-woman who doesn't actually mean what she says when she said what she didn't mean.

I'm guessing that this is all sarcasm. I grant you that Trump sounds like a straight shooter but the truth is that his actual reputation has been that he has been anything but a straight shooter.

That's what bothers me the most about his supporters. It's not that they are racists and bigots or sexist misogynists, it's that they are DUPES. It's that they can look at a man who they know had no qualms about lying to condo customers in Florida that he cheated, or students at Trump University or vendors or creditors. Here is a man who has taken multiple positions on pretty much every issue sometimes changing that position as many as 4 times in 48 hours.

How many times must someone break the trust of others to be deemed untrustworthy? And if someone with Donald's history hasn't reached that point doesn't that mean that PT Barnum underestimated how many suckers are out there?

 

[Bob001]

Here's speculation that the hurricane could affect the election:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...evastating_consequences_for_the_election.html

 

[dudalb]

I repeat that sounding like a straight shooter and somebody who tells it likes it is is the first thing any good con artist/huckster learns. If you can't learn that,find another area of crime to work in.

 

[pgwenthold]

Trump tells CNN he still considers Central Park 5 guilty: "They admitted they were guilty. police in original investigation say they were"​

Let me repeat what I said earlier this morning:

He's in a tough position. Note they've taken a full on attack on Kaine because he was a defense attorney, and therefore defended murderers and rapists. If he admits that the Central Park 5 were innocent, then it wound be an admission that even rape suspects need good representation in order to ensure justice.

This completely neuters their attack on Kaine. "He defended rapists and murderers!!!" "You mean, like the Central Park 5?"

 

[phiwum]

I have to agree with this. Like self-avowed conservatives everywhere (not that I think he is the least bit honest about his political beliefs) the way he would try to fix something that didn't work would be to do more of it, even harder.

Kinda like the "War On" ...drugs, crime, etc.

It's an integral part of the 'keep digging' philosophy of handling error.

With due respect, there are thoughtful, reflective conservatives. David Brooks comes to mind for me. I know that many on the left dismiss him, but I think that he's a decent man, trying to find a reasonable conservative path and appalled at the direction his party has taken.

 

[Babbylonian]

This completely neuters their attack on Kaine. "He defended rapists and murderers!!!" "You mean, like the Central Park 5?"

It is shocking to me that this kind of attack on lawyers continues to be made by anyone. How does anyone make it through even a single episode of a modern TV show about lawyers without seeing that defense attorneys are absolutely necessary. After all, one of the most common tropes is setting up a defendant who looks guilty but turns out to be innocent, then the actual guilty person is found.

In other words, people don't even have to keep track of reality to learn the lesson that everyone should have competent, vigorous representation in court.

 

[Andy_Ross]

But we all know that they wouldn't be in court if they weren't guilty.

Hang the bastards.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have a hard time believing that assertion. (1) How could his handlers be foolish enough to think that making him watch a recording of the debate would force him to realize that he performed poorly? (2) Even if they did convince him, he would not think the solution would be to learn facts or to prepare in any other formal manner. We are talking about a guy who is so clueless as to actually believe the claim that the practice townhall meeting was not debate prep.



I have a hard time believing that assertion. (1) How could his handlers be foolish enough to think that making him watch a recording of the debate would force him to realize that he performed poorly? (2) Even if they did convince him, he would not think the solution would be to learn facts or to prepare in any other formal manner. We are talking about a guy who is so clueless as to actually believe the claim that the practice townhall meeting was not debate prep.




I have a hard time believing that assertion. (1) How could his handlers be foolish enough to think that making him watch a recording of the debate would force him to realize that he performed poorly? (2) Even if they did convince him, he would not think the solution would be to learn facts or to prepare in any other formal manner. We are talking about a guy who is so clueless he might actually believe the claim that the practice townhall meeting was not debate prep.

This is a guy so out of touch that he thinks his quip bragging about not preparing for the debate and slamming Clinton is One more example of his hard-hitting style and will help him convince voters that he is a witty and smart man.

How do you triple post in a single post?

 

[Andy_Ross]

when the forum is being ****

 

[gregthehammer]

I'm guessing that this is all sarcasm. I grant you that Trump sounds like a straight shooter but the truth is that his actual reputation has been that he has been anything but a straight shooter.

That's what bothers me the most about his supporters. It's not that they are racists and bigots or sexist misogynists, it's that they are DUPES. It's that they can look at a man who they know had no qualms about lying to condo customers in Florida that he cheated, or students at Trump University or vendors or creditors. Here is a man who has taken multiple positions on pretty much every issue sometimes changing that position as many as 4 times in 48 hours.

How many times must someone break the trust of others to be deemed untrustworthy? And if someone with Donald's history hasn't reached that point doesn't that mean that PT Barnum underestimated how many suckers are out there?

It was sarcastic to the extent that there was never any chance in hell I would vote for Trump.

The point I was trying to make was the absurdity of Trump supporters trying to walk back statements made by Trump or his surrogates, when his whole initial appeal was that he was a "Straight shooter" who didn't have his hands tied by having to be "politically correct". He, after all, doesn't need outside money, therefore, he can speak the truth and tell us things as they are.

So in this case, where-in his spokes-woman stated "So what? They're Muslims", any attempt to spin those words to mean something other than what is plainly there to see, is the antithesis to his straight-shooting appeal.

 

[NoahFence]

Are we waiting for the page to flip to get away from that Central Park 5 gaffe of Trump's today?

 

[sunmaster14]

It was sarcastic to the extent that there was never any chance in hell I would vote for Trump.

The point I was trying to make was the absurdity of Trump supporters trying to walk back statements made by Trump or his surrogates, when his whole initial appeal was that he was a "Straight shooter" who didn't have his hands tied by having to be "politically correct". He, after all, doesn't need outside money, therefore, he can speak the truth and tell us things as they are.

So in this case, where-in his spokes-woman stated "So what? They're Muslims", any attempt to spin those words to mean something other than what is plainly there to see, is the antithesis to his straight-shooting appeal.

This is a pretty dumb argument. Being misinterpreted has nothing to do with being a straight-shooter. Especially if it is willful misinterpretation. In any case, many of Trump's supporters don't care if he is a straight-shooter or not (I actually don't think he is). They just don't think it's disqualifying to say stupid things. Or at least not as disqualifying as actually doing stupid things while in government.