|
lmao "ugh I had so much proof but somebody ran and snitched so now Cruz deleted it all" like, what the gently caress man, didn't think to back that poo poo up or even screenshot it?
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 07:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 18:57 |
|
|
Epic High Five posted:lmao "ugh I had so much proof but somebody ran and snitched so now Cruz deleted it all" https://twitter.com/RWSurferGirl1/status/714342364689465344 Apparently? Yes. Yes she did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
Oiled and Ready posted:I said you better quit A staffer-fuckin' slimeballlll In the store room, rawwww And if the campaign keeps going this way we just might separate tonight This is so ripe for editing pillsburysoldier fucked around with this message at 08:03 on Mar 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:00
|
|
|
Trumps Baby Hands posted:Actually it is noteworthy every single time that a presidential candidate answers a question about putting people in camps with "No, buuuuut...." I just don't think it was a mistaken impression in the first place and was more of a "have you stopped beating your wife?" question than any serious inquiry. What Trump did was turn the question into the frame of reference that he'd actually like his policy seen in, that of vigilance and not persecution. They intentionally misread his statements in order to further some kind of authoritarian image. Trump saw it as a trap and sidestepped it. If he did what you suggested he would have walked right into it, playing into their narrative, ie he would have been on the defensive and in the line of fire for even being offended that they'd think he would do that. Give an inch and they will take a mile when one is operating in uncharted territory like Trump is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:11
|
|
dogwhistles, instead of "Excuse me, what? Of course we shouldn't put Muslims in loving concentration camps, are you insane? How could you possibly think that I would ever want something like that? Is that really the impression I'm giving off? Jesus, I need to rethink some things..."
|
Surfer Girl is a loving whacko but she's legit well connected in groups like Cruz's circles and all
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:13
|
|
No Mans Land posted:I just don't think it was a mistaken impression in the first place and was more of a "have you stopped beating your wife?" question than any serious inquiry. What Trump did was turn the question into the frame of reference that he'd actually like his policy seen in, that of vigilance and not persecution. They intentionally misread his statements in order to further some kind of authoritarian image. Trump saw it as a trap and sidestepped it. If he did what you suggested he would have walked right into it, playing into their narrative, ie he would have been on the defensive and in the line of fire for even being offended that they'd think he would do that. Give an inch and they will take a mile when one is operating in uncharted territory like Trump is. Reminder that "Do you still beat your wife?" is actually a legitimate question to ask Donald Trump. E: 
Trumps Baby Hands fucked around with this message at 08:22 on Mar 28, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
No Mans Land posted:I just don't think it was a mistaken impression in the first place and was more of a "have you stopped beating your wife?" question than any serious inquiry. What Trump did was turn the question into the frame of reference that he'd actually like his policy seen in, that of vigilance and not persecution. They intentionally misread his statements in order to further some kind of authoritarian image. Trump saw it as a trap and sidestepped it. If he did what you suggested he would have walked right into it, playing into their narrative, ie he would have been on the defensive and in the line of fire for even being offended that they'd think he would do that. Give an inch and they will take a mile when one is operating in uncharted territory like Trump is. Let's not let the means justify the ends here, at the end of the day putting Muslims in camps would still be putting Muslims in camps. You can call it a Vigilance Camp if you want but that doesn't really help.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:19
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Surfer Girl is a loving whacko but she's legit well connected in groups like Cruz's circles and all I buy it because anyone with an elite college education or knows people with ones know that's not how they act (how Cruz carries himself in the public) and Ted Cruz is just manipulating stupid people like Donald Trump but he took on the easier challenger of manipulating religious people which is like shooting fish in a barrel with an automatic shotgun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:19
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Surfer Girl is a loving whacko but she's legit well connected in groups like Cruz's circles and all Yeah she's nuts, but she's well thought of in those circles. If her "source" says no...is there ways of her to leak it with her claiming ignorance? Like "Oh I got hacked, etc".
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:20
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:Let's not let the means justify the ends here, at the end of the day putting Muslims in camps would still be putting Muslims in camps. You can call it a Vigilance Camp if you want but that doesn't really help. I am reminded of an Atwater quote on such matters and changing the labeling for the same idea to make it easier to sell....
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
Trumps Baby Hands posted:Reminder that "Do you still beat your wife?" is actually a legitimate question to ask Donald Trump. You could go that route i guess...but then quote:But even if The Donald’s First Lady is a silent partner, Ivana thinks candidate Trump will be as good a President as he keeps telling us he’ll be. http://m.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/confidential/ivana-lady-article-1.2418193 Chantilly Say posted:Let's not let the means justify the ends here, at the end of the day putting Muslims in camps would still be putting Muslims in camps. You can call it a Vigilance Camp if you want but that doesn't really help. Only the media has said anything about camps.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
i'm going to go ahead and make an appeal to *rational arguments* and say that "gently caress no, what" is the only proper response to "do you want to put muslims in camps" nth dimensional chess is acceptable when you're talking about MY FAVRIT politicians and their dogwhistles, completely unacceptable when talking about the plights of minorities and demographic electioneering
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:24
|
|
|
I really hope to wake up to the GOP in flames and cinders from the release of some substantial evidence against Cruz. In Jesus' name. Amen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:25
|
|
|
quadrophrenic posted:i'm going to go ahead and make an appeal to *rational arguments* and say that "gently caress no, what" is the only proper response to "do you want to put muslims in camps" It would be taking the bait. I have no idea how you read any political events at all if you don't see this. Example - "mr obama why do you want to take all our guns away" "Omg thats outrageous how could you say that, of course i dont want to take away anyones guns" Oops walked into a narrative No Mans Land fucked around with this message at 08:31 on Mar 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:27
|
|
|
No Mans Land posted:It would be taking the bait. I have no idea how you read any political events at all if you don't see this. tell me how to spin "HELL NO" o great talking head of the north
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
quadrophrenic posted:tell me how to spin "HELL NO" o great talking head of the north Its a defensive response. Opens you up to the same attacks but more pressing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:30
|
|
|
Man Bernie supporters really aren't equipped for their future political revolution are they..and its always going to be in the future.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:32
|
|
|
No Mans Land posted:Only the media has said anything about camps. quote:Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump told TIME that he does not know whether he would have supported or opposed the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. If you're on the record as unsure about detention camps, that's not really a proactive response. Trump's continued refusal to clarify his positions might be showing how weak he knows he really is on them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:32
|
|
|
No Man's Land, how many women did you talk to today?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:33
|
|
|
No Mans Land posted:It would be taking the bait. I have no idea how you read any political events at all if you don't see this. To be fair this probably does make sense in Trump's head--he doesn't know that no means no, so he assumes nobody else does either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:35
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:http://time.com/4140050/donald-trump-muslims-japanese-internment/ WW2 was a completely different time. His position on a past hypothetical has no bearing on todays issues. Besides, a past president was for those internment camps, and they only seem like a bad idea in hindsight. Besides, it was a time of total war. It's progress enough that Trump is on the fence about them in retrospect. If he said he ruled them out then he would get a whole new wave of attacks from critics saying "he doesn't know what the situation was like back then" and bla bla. Basically that was another attempt at a bait.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:38
|
|
|
No Mans Land posted:WW2 was a completely different time. His position on a past hypothetical has no bearing on todays issues. Besides, a past president was for those internment camps, and they only seem like a bad idea in hindsight. Besides, it was a time of total war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
No Mans Land posted:If he said he ruled them out then he would get a whole new wave of attacks from critics saying "he doesn't know what the situation was like back then" and bla bla. Yeah, people might say bad things about Donald Trump, we know he hates that and tries his best not to insult or attack others in turn.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
No Forum For No Mans Land
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
No Mans Land posted:WW2 was a completely different time. His position on a past hypothetical has no bearing on todays issues. Besides, a past president was for those internment camps, and they only seem like a bad idea in hindsight. Besides, it was a time of total war. It's progress enough that Trump is on the fence about them in retrospect. If he said he ruled them out then he would get a whole new wave of attacks from critics saying "he doesn't know what the situation was like back then" and bla bla. Hmm, I wonder if he wavers on slavery and the trail of tears too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
Has anyone probed deeply which historical period "again" refers to?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:44
|
|
|
No Mans Land posted:WW2 was a completely different time. His position on a past hypothetical has no bearing on todays issues. Besides, a past president was for those internment camps, and they only seem like a bad idea in hindsight. Besides, it was a time of total war. It's progress enough that Trump is on the fence about them in retrospect. If he said he ruled them out then he would get a whole new wave of attacks from critics saying "he doesn't know what the situation was like back then" and bla bla. mods please wordfilter this entire paragraph to "b-b-b-b-b-but b-but but"
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Hmm, I wonder if he wavers on slavery and the trail of tears too. A past president was for those forced migrations and the trail of tears only seems like a bad idea in hindsight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:46
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:Yeah, people might say bad things about Donald Trump, we know he hates that and tries his best not to insult or attack others in turn. Why stay on the defensive against people arguing in bad faith though BanjoFish posted:A past president was for those forced migrations and the trail of tears only seems like a bad idea in hindsight. This is true though. You can't judge historical decisions based on present perspectives, or if you do youre going down a rabbit hole of no return.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:46
|
|
|
To be clear I get the principle of staying vague on someone in order to have more maneuvering room later, and I get that that's a tactic that's useful in any negotiation whether business or international politics or what have you, but "should we put people into camps based on race or religion" wasn't a question in this election until Trump refused to give an opinion, so his dodge here is what makes it an issue in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:47
|
|
|
loving how much more complex does this have to be, you shouldn't vote for a dude who doesn't firmly say "NO" when asked if he would consider religious internment the american people respect resolve
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:49
|
|
|
No Mans Land posted:Why stay on the defensive against people arguing in bad faith though I don't know, why not ask him that? Declining to give an opinion on that issue is pretty defensive behavior.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:49
|
|
|
Apparently moral relativism has its limits, and we are going to find out what those are in this very thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:50
|
|
|
quadrophrenic posted:loving how much more complex does this have to be, you shouldn't vote for a dude who doesn't firmly say "NO" when asked if he would consider religious internment He did say no, what, why do you need the added emotional appeal on it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:52
|
|
|
When Trump is building a condo tower, if somebody asks him "by the way, will the plumbing from the penthouse dump raw unfiltered sewage into the cheap apartments?" I'm pretty sure his answer won't be "you know, I don't really know right now, let me check on that and get back to you."
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:52
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:When Trump is building a condo tower, if somebody asks him "by the way, will the plumbing from the penthouse dump raw unfiltered sewage into the cheap apartments?" I'm pretty sure his answer won't be "you know, I don't really know right now, let me check on that and get back to you." This is something you would assume a tower owner would not do. And any reasonable condo owner would ignore or sidestep that question if asked because of how unreasonable it is. He would assume the questioner was asking in bad faith. Maybe a Bernie supporter looking for Section 8??
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:56
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:When Trump is building a condo tower, if somebody asks him "by the way, will the plumbing from the penthouse dump raw unfiltered sewage into the cheap apartments?" I'm pretty sure his answer won't be "you know, I don't really know right now, let me check on that and get back to you." "we have the best sewage, I negotiated the best deals, those are good sewages, the best sewages coming into your apartment, they are going to help us make this apartment great again"
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:56
|
|
No Mans Land posted:He did say no, what, why do you need the added emotional appeal on it? Because it's so hosed up, dude. That's the crux of this thing: he answered it as a legitimate question and not as an insult on his character. Like, if a reporter asked 2004 George Bush whether he thought we should put American Muslims into camps, Bush would've been rightfully upset, would've probably started crying, and both the right and the left would've denounced the reporter as being unprofessional. This election has corrupted our brains so much that it's hard to remember what the normal bounds of political discourse were before it.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 18:57 |
|
|
No Mans Land posted:This is something you would assume a tower owner would not do. And any reasonable condo owner would ignore or sidestep that question if asked because of how unreasonable it is. He would assume the questioner was asking in bad faith. Maybe a Bernie supporter looking for Section 8?? If I'm asking in bad faith I can do a hell of a lot more with a non-answer to an unreasonable question than I can with a firm "no, also what are you even talking about"
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:59
|
|