What's new
By:

Donald Trump

LOL


CdPFMZgXIAEw6SN.jpg
 
Given Trump's encouragement of violence against protesters at his rallies, we should expect this aspect of his campaign to only grow worse should he actually win the nomination. There is no question this is a scary development.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/03/donald-trump-protesters-rally-violence

No doubt emboldened by getting away with it, and being cheered for it, the protester who sucker punched the black protester suggests "next time we may have to kill him":

https://www.theblaze.com/stories/20...comments-next-time-we-might-have-to-kill-him/

And a Trump spokesman expresses admiration for the sucker punch:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/artic...trump-supporter-punching-black-protester.html

And the NY Times calls protesting at Trump rallies "the riskiest political act of 2016":

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/...testing-at-rallies-for-donald-trump.html?_r=0

At the Fayetteville rally Wed. night, reacting to the several protests that erupted, this leading candidate for POTUS said:

He's spoken fondly of the "good old days" when police could rough protesters up without fear of backlash. "But today," he said Wednesday in Fayetteville, "they walk in and they put their hand up and they put the wrong finger in the air ... and they get away with murder. Because we've become weak."

Trump also spoke about one past protester, "a real bad dude," who punched people. "And we had some people - some rough guys like we have right in here - and they started punching back. It was a beautiful thing."

Of course, every witness interviewed has repeatedly stated they have never seen protestors throwing the first punches.
 
I seriously cannot see how so many people are voting for him. Makes me genuinely frightened for the future of this country, if that's who so many people want as their leader.
 
From CNN:

Grades from the last debate:

Donald Trump: F

Where to begin.

I know a lot of people will give Trump credit for not mudslinging. They'll heap praise on him for not interrupting and not name-calling. How pitiful is it that it's come to this? You know what? I don't give points for debate performances that meet the minimum for civility. Trump may have played nice this time, but that's not the same as debate excellence, especially with the mean, rude behavior of previous face-offs so close in memory.

In fact, Trump's policy weaknesses were on display in this debate, since without the name-calling, all that was left was for him to explain his positions.
As it turns out, he only had two: negotiate better and make better deals. Wait, that's the same, so he only had one position. This fools no debate judge. It comes off as if Trump thinks negotiation, by itself, will solve the nation's problems, and that he is the only person who's ever thought of it. And if simply negotiating is enough, then why can't Trump tell us how he would negotiate, and for what? Cruz did. Rubio did. Kasich did. But not Trump.

Saying over and over that you'll do something is not persuasive in a debate.

How would Trump reverse Obama's policy with Cuba? A "better deal." How would Trump make China pay potentially economy-damaging tariffs? His high tariffs would only be used as a threat (I'm assuming for negotiations), and he offered no proof that this would work.

How would Trump solve the Israel-Palestinian dispute? "I'm a negotiator." Unfortunately for Trump, he then contradicted himself, saying that he would announce that he was "pro-Israel... I would like to at least have the other side think I am at least somewhat neutral to them" to get a deal done. Wait, what? These debates are televised, right?
Trump was incoherent in many of his answers. When asked how he'd save Social Security, since, as debate moderator Dana Bash pointed out, cutting waste and fraud won't be nearly enough to close a funding gap, Trump responded with nonsense answers about a stronger military, Japan, North Korea, and China. How this answered the problem of Social Security for seniors was beyond reason.

When asked what was wrong with Common Core state standards in education, he blamed Washington D.C. and said politicians weren't interested in taking care of our children. But it's states which developed the Common Core and manage their own curricula. Trump didn't seem to understand it.

When quizzed about why he called Vladimir Putin "strong," and also China's leaders "strong" when they put down the Tiananmen Square protests, Trump said "strong does not mean good." Since he often characterizes his own approach as strong, it was another outright contradiction.
Two even more frightening things came from Trump in the debate. Questioned by CNN's Jake Tapper about his earlier comment that "Islam hates the United States" he made the weak claim: "I mean a lot of them." This was rebutted by everyone else on stage.

And language matters. Tapper raised the question of whether Trump's rhetoric at his rallies inspires violence, such as the attack this week on a protester, who was punched in the face by a Trump supporter. Trump's very poor debate strategy was to lie and claim that protesters are some, "bad dudes, swinging, doing damage to people..."

You are failing at a debate when you bring on the bull.


What an idiot
 
Last edited by a moderator:
fishonjazz said:
Grades from the last debate:

Donald Trump: F

Where to begin.

I know a lot of people will give Trump credit for not mudslinging. They'll heap praise on him for not interrupting and not name-calling. How pitiful is it that it's come to this? You know what? I don't give points for debate performances that meet the minimum for civility. Trump may have played nice this time, but that's not the same as debate excellence, especially with the mean, rude behavior of previous face-offs so close in memory.

In fact, Trump's policy weaknesses were on display in this debate, since without the name-calling, all that was left was for him to explain his positions.
As it turns out, he only had two: negotiate better and make better deals. Wait, that's the same, so he only had one position. This fools no debate judge. It comes off as if Trump thinks negotiation, by itself, will solve the nation's problems, and that he is the only person who's ever thought of it. And if simply negotiating is enough, then why can't Trump tell us how he would negotiate, and for what? Cruz did. Rubio did. Kasich did. But not Trump.

Saying over and over that you'll do something is not persuasive in a debate.

How would Trump reverse Obama's policy with Cuba? A "better deal." How would Trump make China pay potentially economy-damaging tariffs? His high tariffs would only be used as a threat (I'm assuming for negotiations), and he offered no proof that this would work.

How would Trump solve the Israel-Palestinian dispute? "I'm a negotiator." Unfortunately for Trump, he then contradicted himself, saying that he would announce that he was "pro-Israel... I would like to at least have the other side think I am at least somewhat neutral to them" to get a deal done. Wait, what? These debates are televised, right?
Trump was incoherent in many of his answers. When asked how he'd save Social Security, since, as debate moderator Dana Bash pointed out, cutting waste and fraud won't be nearly enough to close a funding gap, Trump responded with nonsense answers about a stronger military, Japan, North Korea, and China. How this answered the problem of Social Security for seniors was beyond reason.

When asked what was wrong with Common Core state standards in education, he blamed Washington D.C. and said politicians weren't interested in taking care of our children. But it's states which developed the Common Core and manage their own curricula. Trump didn't seem to understand it.

When quizzed about why he called Vladimir Putin "strong," and also China's leaders "strong" when they put down the Tiananmen Square protests, Trump said "strong does not mean good." Since he often characterizes his own approach as strong, it was another outright contradiction.
Two even more frightening things came from Trump in the debate. Questioned by CNN's Jake Tapper about his earlier comment that "Islam hates the United States" he made the weak claim: "I mean a lot of them." This was rebutted by everyone else on stage.

And language matters. Tapper raised the question of whether Trump's rhetoric at his rallies inspires violence, such as the attack this week on a protester, who was punched in the face by a Trump supporter. Trump's very poor debate strategy was to lie and claim that protesters are some, "bad dudes, swinging, doing damage to people..."

You are failing at a debate when you bring on the bull.


What an idiot
Click to expand...
I agree with everything said in this post, but it's very non-fish like (and very CJ like) to post someone else's work without giving them credit.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/11/opinions/debate-coach-gop-miami-graham/
 
fishonjazz said:
Thanks for the link. Ya, definitely not my words.

I don't think I have ever made a post in all my time on jazz fans that approaches the length of that one.


Well maybe a post about Burks
Click to expand...
That's one of several reasons that I knew you hadn't written it. But you're definitely one of my favorite posters on this site.
 
fishonjazz said:
Grades from the last debate:

Donald Trump: F

Where to begin.

I know a lot of people will give Trump credit for not mudslinging. They'll heap praise on him for not interrupting and not name-calling. How pitiful is it that it's come to this? You know what? I don't give points for debate performances that meet the minimum for civility. Trump may have played nice this time, but that's not the same as debate excellence, especially with the mean, rude behavior of previous face-offs so close in memory.

In fact, Trump's policy weaknesses were on display in this debate, since without the name-calling, all that was left was for him to explain his positions.
As it turns out, he only had two: negotiate better and make better deals. Wait, that's the same, so he only had one position. This fools no debate judge. It comes off as if Trump thinks negotiation, by itself, will solve the nation's problems, and that he is the only person who's ever thought of it. And if simply negotiating is enough, then why can't Trump tell us how he would negotiate, and for what? Cruz did. Rubio did. Kasich did. But not Trump.

Saying over and over that you'll do something is not persuasive in a debate.

How would Trump reverse Obama's policy with Cuba? A "better deal." How would Trump make China pay potentially economy-damaging tariffs? His high tariffs would only be used as a threat (I'm assuming for negotiations), and he offered no proof that this would work.

How would Trump solve the Israel-Palestinian dispute? "I'm a negotiator." Unfortunately for Trump, he then contradicted himself, saying that he would announce that he was "pro-Israel... I would like to at least have the other side think I am at least somewhat neutral to them" to get a deal done. Wait, what? These debates are televised, right?
Trump was incoherent in many of his answers. When asked how he'd save Social Security, since, as debate moderator Dana Bash pointed out, cutting waste and fraud won't be nearly enough to close a funding gap, Trump responded with nonsense answers about a stronger military, Japan, North Korea, and China. How this answered the problem of Social Security for seniors was beyond reason.

When asked what was wrong with Common Core state standards in education, he blamed Washington D.C. and said politicians weren't interested in taking care of our children. But it's states which developed the Common Core and manage their own curricula. Trump didn't seem to understand it.

When quizzed about why he called Vladimir Putin "strong," and also China's leaders "strong" when they put down the Tiananmen Square protests, Trump said "strong does not mean good." Since he often characterizes his own approach as strong, it was another outright contradiction.
Two even more frightening things came from Trump in the debate. Questioned by CNN's Jake Tapper about his earlier comment that "Islam hates the United States" he made the weak claim: "I mean a lot of them." This was rebutted by everyone else on stage.

And language matters. Tapper raised the question of whether Trump's rhetoric at his rallies inspires violence, such as the attack this week on a protester, who was punched in the face by a Trump supporter. Trump's very poor debate strategy was to lie and claim that protesters are some, "bad dudes, swinging, doing damage to people..."

You are failing at a debate when you bring on the bull.


What an idiot
Click to expand...

Welcome aboard fish, I've never seen you so heated and post about a politician since ever. I especially like the following line:

"How would Trump solve the Israel-Palestinian dispute? "I'm a negotiator." Unfortunately for Trump, he then contradicted himself, saying that he would announce that he was "pro-Israel... I would like to at least have the other side think I am at least somewhat neutral to them" to get a deal done."

I couldn't agree more. I would like to know what he means by being pro-Israel, this is a very vague label that could mean many different things. Is he implying that he's anti-Palestine? What exactly does being pro-Israel mean? The only thing I find appealing about Trump is that for some reason some voices in the Republican establishment (Romney for instance) do not want him to be the party's nominee by any means. Maybe they think that out of his outrageous character he might make decisions on his own that are contrary to the establishment's interests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top