quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

he did say he could shoot someone on 5th ave.

Nope. He never said that either.

Correct.

Listen to the original video of that speech in which he was reading from an article responding to the National Review criticism of him and how loyal his supporters are. What he said was, “They say I could shoot …,” [emphasis added]. Virtually every source that reported on his comments left off the “They say” part, and thereby completely changed the meaning of the statement. The only place I found the “They say” part included was—mirabile dictu!—in the headline of a Washington Post article.

If you’re not getting your information about Republican candidates directly from the original source, you’re probably getting it wrong. It’s just like the supposed statement by Sarah Palin and being able to see Russia from her house. That was from a Saturday Night Live satirical comedy skit, and yet countless people still believe she said it herself.

I want to get this straight. Is this in reference to the National Review article titled Against Trump or is there another article where National Review printed the "He could shoot someone on 5th ave quote?

I read the Against Trump National Review editorial and while it is rather scathing in it's assessment of Trump I find no such quote or reference to his followers.

Trump was reading from a rebuttal article about the National Review criticism of him. While reading, he commented, “They say I could shoot ….” It wasn’t clear whether that was something in the article he was reading from, or in the National Review article, or just something he added on his own, possibly in reference to some other source. I tried to determine where it came from, but had no luck.

My point isn’t whether it was the National Review said Trump could shoot someone and not lose any supporters or if it was someone else. It’s that during the speech his full comment was, “They say I could shoot someone …,” and yet the critical “They say” part is being left off.

"Nothing wrong with a little shooting, as long as the right person gets shot" -- Harry Callahan

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
I don't think you're helping, Ackks.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Trump was reading from a rebuttal article about the National Review criticism of him. While reading, he commented, “They say I could shoot ….” It wasn’t clear whether that was something in the article he was reading from, or in the National Review article, or just something he added on his own, possibly in reference to some other source. I tried to determine where it came from, but had no luck.

My point isn’t whether it was the National Review said Trump could shoot someone and not lose any supporters or if it was someone else. It’s that during the speech his full comment was, “They say I could shoot someone …,” and yet the critical “They say” part is being left off.

Wasn't in the National Review article not even a mention of his followers so maybe the Review is being dumped on a bit unfairly here.
Part of Trumps DNA is to overstate and embellish but if he didn't say it I don't want to unfairly attribute it to him

quote:

Wasn't in the National Review article not even a mention of his followers so maybe the Review is being dumped on a bit unfairly here.
Part of Trumps DNA is to overstate and embellish but if he didn't say it I don't want to unfairly attribute it to him

He said it. The words came out of his mouth. It just wasn't quoted in full context.

I don't understand why it's hard to believe that Trump could have an ulterior motive when he gives money. He says as much, himself. Isn't that his whole explanation for why he gave money to Democratic candidates? Basically says he was buying influence with them, right?

Why is it different when he gives money to other people? What am I missing, here, that others are seeing? I don't get it. Honest question.

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:

quote:

The problem is Trump has NO ideological principles at all.

When you say "ideological principles" I think you are talking about conservative talking points that someone like George Will would swear by, along with all the other GOPe types that have stood by with their thumbs up their butts the last 7 years. "Committed to smaller government!" "Lower taxes!" "Strong on the Second Amendment!" "Limit presidential power!" Yada yada yada.

No, that's not what I mean.

quote:

Trump does not talk abstractly. He is not a philosophical type. He thinks specifically and concretely. The border must be secured. How will he close the border? He will build a wall, that's how. (And all the GOPe types chortle and mock... "ho ho ho... how simple minded and crude. The problem is so complex!") And Mexico will pay for the wall. ("Haw haw haw, ridiculous!")

Yes, he's absolutely correct. We should build the wall. No, I don't associate myself with the GOPe types. I've always said that the value of Trump being in the race was to knock out the GOPe candidate. JEB! has been defeated, largely by Trump.... which makes me very happy.

quote:

I love him politically. He is exactly what we need right now-- and need desperately.
He is America's last chance. Wake up to that fact.

I'm not that desperate. I refuse to worship the guy or to think that he's "America's last chance". If you think I'm asleep, so be it.

quote:

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:
Wasn't in the National Review article not even a mention of his followers so maybe the Review is being dumped on a bit unfairly here.

I’ll try this once more:
It isn’t about dumping on the National Review. It’s about what Trump said versus what most of the reports claim that he said.

I don’t know who are the “they” in his reference to, “They said I could shoot someone.” He was talking about things in the NR article while reading from a rebuttal and while adding his own commentary; his reference is therefore unclear. Who he was referring to, however, is immaterial.

The person who is being dumped on unfairly is Trump in this instance because of how truncating his statement changes its meaning. Perhaps a different example will make it clear enough to understand. Consider the difference between the following statement and how the news media might choose to report it:

Mr. Jones denied the allegations today. He said I, “I am being falsely accused. The prosecutor claims that I watch child pornography. That is an utter lie.”
Mr. Jones said, “I watch child pornography.”
See it now?

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:
One way to judge a persons true character is to look at their kids. From what I've seen of the Trump kids, they seem to have been raised well and admire their dad. But I've only seen them on TV a few time. We got any dirt on the kids?

Donald Jr. used to hit on my (now ex) wife while she attended some classes at Wharton while we were both at Penn Law. She wasn't too impressed with him. She wound up dating and marrying some other gun nut goofball when she graduated in 2000.

-Tom
(he was a big boozer, but as a charter member of the 21st Ammdt Society I don't hold it against him)

Wow, RT, he sounds like a real devil!

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Wow, RT, he sounds like a real devil!

Nah, he had good taste in women. Lol.

He doesn't look like his Dad. Used to see him at the New Deck Tavern all of the time.

-Tom

quote:

Originally posted by Bigboreshooter:

quote:

Originally posted by Ackks:
That’s awesome

The problem is the Founders intentionally created our government so one man couldn’t exalt himself above the Constitution. We all look at the guy in office and say, “stop drilling holes in our boat”. Someone isn’t going to restore our country to greatness by switching from a Black & Decker to a Makita. The end result is going to be a further erosion of our rights.

Please list instances of Trump "exhalting himself above the constitution". Please be specific.

Otherwise, STFU about it.

beat me to it!

It is fine to dislike the guy, but it would be really nice if people who dislike/hate him would actually keep to the facts.

Check out all the great things he has done for needy or suffering people in his life, and without ANY publicity. Millions of dollars given to needy people or causes. And all without fanfare.

Is he perfect? Of course not, but which human is? Compared to the other candidates, IMO, he stands head and shoulders above them.

We truly need someone who will take no shit from any foreign power, who has the experience, and the brass ones, to get done in the country what really needs to be done.

I would truly love to see America great again, and I am not convinced that anyone other than Trump can do it.

I hear/see people babbling about how it is impossible for him to do many of the things he says he will do. Why is it not possible? Because there might be some constitutional issues? The GDCAIC has set the stage for that, all Trump would have to do is follow the example set by obummer. Let his enemies protest, file suit, etc. By the time it gets to SCOTUS (if ever) it will be too late.

quote:

Why is it different when he gives money to other people? What am I missing, here, that others are seeing? I don't get it. Honest question.

You seem to be missing the giving to charitable causes and needy individuals! Sure he donated to politicraps. All big businesses do it. Does not make him a bad person. He freely admits that he did it, and also that it was not against any laws.

quote:

It is fine to dislike the guy, but it would be really nice if people who dislike/hate him would actually keep to the facts.

Here ya go. I like you all and hate having discussions that resort to bleep off and shut up. Maybe his heart is in the right place, but this is how I feel and it's concerning. This isn't a place where people are going to change their votes, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss things.

quote:

Since he announced his candidacy, Trump has threatened to ignore those who are carping about free speech and shut down parts of the Internet; he has promised to summarily deport those who are suspected of being illegal immigrants, without due process of law; he has endorsed extensive campaign-finance regulations that fly directly in the face of the First Amendment; he has vowed to restrict the Second Amendment rights of those on the terror watch list, again without due process; he has praised Franklin Roosevelt’s internment of American citizens, suggested that natural-born Americans can be deported against their will, and proposed that American Muslims be barred from reentering the country; he has described as “wonderful” a Supreme Court ruling that obliterated the “public use” limitations on the invocation of eminent domain; and he has refused to rule out registering Americans on the basis of their faith. Worse still, he has responded to the criticism that these positions have generated by channeling his inner Nancy Pelosi: “Are you serious?”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/...an-charles-c-w-cooke

quote:

I would truly love to see America great again, and I am not convinced that anyone other than Trump can do it.

I hear/see people babbling about how it is impossible for him to do many of the things he says he will do. Why is it not possible? Because there might be some constitutional issues? The GDCAIC has set the stage for that, all Trump would have to do is follow the example set by obummer. Let his enemies protest, file suit, etc. By the time it gets to SCOTUS (if ever) it will be too late.

Exactly. Obama set the stage for Trump.
And if you can't see that as a problem, I can't help you.
At least Cruz understands the Constitutional limitations of the office of the president. His job isn't to make the law, it's to enforce it.
We are electing a president, not an emperor or a Caesar or a czar.

I don't understand why some people don't like Trump...I think he's a fun guy, very likeable. Cruz is my guy, but I think Trump in the White House would be a refreshing change.

We are electing a POTUS, not an emperor-- and not a pastor or Pope. Cruz in the final stretch has apparently been pitching an evangelical message in Iowa, and while it is perfectly fine for him to have such Christian faith, and to talk about it in certain contexts, it should not be part of his political message. "We must awaken the body of Christ" is not what I want to hear from the president, or president wanna be, unless it is his personal religious message to his church group. Not any more than I would want to hear him come into a State of the Union chanting the Veda, or shouting "Allahu Akbar". The meaning of "separation of church and state" is that the government does not stipulate, or advocate for, any particular religion.

This website is funky, but it is what Drudge links:
http://www.kwwl.com/story/3109...uz-pitches-to-voters

quote:

Originally posted by Czechvar:
I don't understand why some people don't like Trump...I think he's a fun guy, very likeable. Cruz is my guy, but I think Trump in the White House would be a refreshing change.

This isn't American Idol, men.

It would certainly be a change. Whether it would prove refreshing or not is an open question, and one that likely will have a variety of answers if we live to see it.

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:
You seem to be missing the giving to charitable causes and needy individuals! Sure he donated to politicraps. All big businesses do it. Does not make him a bad person. He freely admits that he did it, and also that it was not against any laws.

Of course, and I'm not faulting him for giving to politicians. But all big businesses give money to charities, too. Are they all just great altruists with big hearts? Or maybe they do it for a reason. It doesn't have to be with a lot of fanfare, though I will note that the vast majority of what we know about Trump's donations is through media outlets, often quoting him directly.

So, please don't misunderstand me. I'm sure there are times when Trump gives money because he wants to and thinks it's a worthy cause. But I'm also quite sure there are many more times that he gives money because there's a benefit to him and his brand. And even more times, he simply uses his brand to raise money for worthy causes, which helps his brand and costs him relatively little.