Democratic Party Convention General Thread

[dmelosi]

abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-wanted-hit-couple-dnc-speakers-hard/story?id=40974703

So since Mr. Trump says that he would like to hit some of the speakers at the Democratic convention, what would he do if he were president and a foreign leader said something that made him angry? Would he drop a bomb on them? Threatening violence against people one disagrees with does not seem like a quality I would want to see in a potential president.

I am curious if you read the entire article or just picking and choosing what you want to hear.

He also said ““Well, they don’t all hit me but some of them do and they try to hit me as hard as possible and it’s mostly false stuff, but I get it,” Do you think he meant physically hit? or did he mean two different things? That he would physcially hit them and they would verbally hit him?

 

[Good_Tidings]

Both Chelsea’s and Hillary’s speeches last night were bad even from a linguistic perspective. Most of the speeches consists of simple sentences. Did anyone else notice that? Chelsea said, “she is amazing!” Sounded like a kindergartener.

I hate to tell you this but experts agree Trumps speeches are at the 4th grade level. His lack a vocabulary is partly the reason. Trust me.

From a cursory google search:
Donald Trump talks at a fourth-grade level. Maybe that’s why the Fox …
www.salon.com/…/donald_trump_talks_at_a_fourth_grade_level_maybe_thats_…
Salon
Jan 10, 2016 - The culture of anti-intellectualism in America is fueling hateful, racist demagogues – in politics and on TV.
Donald Trump Talks Like a Third-Grader - POLITICO Magazine
www.politico.com/magazine/…/donald-trump-talks-like-a-third-grader-12134…
Politico
Aug 13, 2015 - Donald Trump isn’t a simpleton, he just talks like one. … grade-level test, his text of responses score at the 4th-grade reading level. For Trump …
Donald Trump Talks Like a 4th Grader: Report - Newsweek
www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-hello-you-people-know-lot-about-trucks-363077
Aug 14, 2015 - Republican presidential front runner Donald Trump talks like a 4th grader, according to a linguistic analysis performed by Politico’s Jack Shafer.
Trump’s Speeches Are At A Middle-School Reading Level, Study Says
www.huffingtonpost.com/…/trump-speeches-reading-level_us_5…
The Huffington Post
Mar 16, 2016 - Cruz’s and Clinton’s speeches were at about an 8th-grade level, while … speeches are at a grade 10th-grade level means he is “speaking in a way … placed Trump’s campaign announcement speech at a fourth-grade level, …
At a fourth-grade level, Donald Trump connects to voters | The Seattle …
www.seattletimes.com/…/donald-trump-connects-at-a-new-level-a-four…The Seattle Times
Feb 26, 2016 - Donald Trump is said to be tapping into some primal feelings among the electorate, such … Donald Trump is speaking to us as a fourth-grader.
Donald Trump Speaks at a 4th Grade Level - Election 2016 Speeches
www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a39031/trump-fourth-grade-level/
Esquire
Oct 21, 2015 - A new study cracks Trump, Ben Carson, Hillary Clinton, and other candidates’ language to find out what grade-level they’re speaking to.
Donald Trump speaks like a fourth-grader | New York Post
nypost.com/.../donald-trump-speaks-at-a-fourth-grade-reading-level/
New York Post
Mar 17, 2016 - Donald Trump connects with voters by using simple, commanding language that even a fourth-grader could understand, a report says — and …
How Donald Trump Answers A Question - YouTube
Video for trump talks at a 4th grade level▶ 6:54
youtube.com/watch?v=_aFo_BV-UzI
Dec 30, 2015 - Uploaded by Nerdwriter1
Jack Shafer, “Donald Trump Talks Like a Third-Grader” (via Politico) … You think that because people read or …
Donald Trump Speaks At A 4th Grade Level - YouTube
Video for trump talks at a 4th grade level▶ 7:06
youtube.com/watch?v=LtbTQBx4FDQ
Oct 22, 2015 - Uploaded by Secular Talk
When Donald Trump announced his presidential campaign, he decried the lack of intelligence of elected …
For presidential hopefuls, simpler language resonates - The Boston …
bostonglobe.com/…trump…speak-grade…level…/story…
The Boston Globe
Oct 20, 2015 - Candidates speaking at the lowest level of education are doing best in the … Trump tops GOP field while talking to voters at fourth-grade level.
Searches related to trump talks at a 4th grade level
number talks 4th grade
book talks for 4th grade
donald trump linguistic analysis
trump talks like a third grader
trump flesch-kincaid
obama speech grade level

 

[dmelosi]

I hate to tell you this but experts agree Trumps speeches are at the 4th grade level. His lack a vocabulary is partly the reason. Trust me.

Anyone can flippantly say experts. Are these so called experts die hard pro abortion party supporters?

 

[gracepoole]

I did check your claim and you did not tell the truth, misled. Perhaps not intentional, but very obvious mistruth.

So…no response to why Republicans should ignore those in their own party who see Trump as the worst possible candidate? You can focus on me all you like, of course, and you can also deflect to Democrats who hate Clinton. Neither of these approaches comes close to answering the central question I posed.

 

[gracepoole]

I am curious if you read the entire article or just picking and choosing what you want to hear.

He also said ““Well, they don’t all hit me but some of them do and they try to hit me as hard as possible and it’s mostly false stuff, but I get it,” Do you think he meant physically hit? or did he mean two different things? That he would physcially hit them and they would verbally hit him?

You’re kidding, right? Is it really possible to justify this? Or the crowd’s reaction to it?

“I was gonna hit one guy in particular, a very little guy,” he said. “I was gonna hit this guy so hard his head would spin and he wouldn’t know what the hell happened.”

 

[Thorolfr]

I am curious if you read the entire article or just picking and choosing what you want to hear.

He also said ““Well, they don’t all hit me but some of them do and they try to hit me as hard as possible and it’s mostly false stuff, but I get it,” Do you think he meant physically hit? or did he mean two different things? That he would physcially hit them and they would verbally hit him?

It’s hard to say for sure that Mr. Trump is speaking only about some kind of “verbal” hit. From earlier this year at a Trump rally:

LAS VEGAS — Donald Trump wished grievous bodily harm on a protester at his rally here on Monday night, saying he’d like to punch the man in the face and see him carried out on a stretcher.

“The guards are being very gentle with him,” Trump said. “I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell you that.”

politico.com/story/2016/02/donald-trump-punch-protester-219655

So in this case at the rally, is Mr. Trump just saying that he’d like to “verbally” punch this protester in the face and see him carried out on a metaphorical stretcher? It sounds more like he’d really have liked to physically harm this protester.

 

[dmelosi]

So…no response to why Republicans should ignore those in their own party who see Trump as the worst possible candidate? You can focus on me all you like, of course, and you can also deflect to Democrats who hate Clinton. Neither of these approaches comes close to answering the central question I posed.

I am also well aware of the republicans that don’t like trump. I wanted to make sure that your post was corrected as it was untruthful.

I personally don’t agree with everything he says, but Trump is a breath of fresh air in the sense that he doesn’t have to say everything politically correct and worry about the liberals getting away with crucifying him for it.

You simply cannot deny that Clinton will appoint only the extreme pro abortion judges. Trump has listed his pro life judges.

 

[Ridgerunner]

abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-wanted-hit-couple-dnc-speakers-hard/story?id=40974703

So since Mr. Trump says that he would like to hit some of the speakers at the Democratic convention, what would he do if he were president and a foreign leader said something that made him angry? Would he drop a bomb on them? Threatening violence against people one disagrees with does not seem like a quality I would want to see in a potential president.

Well, Trump isn’t the first. Bill Clinton, as president, threatened to punch reporter William Safire. Clinton defended his statement by recalling when President Truman did the very same thing.

nytimes.com/1996/01/10/us/white-house-says-president-would-like-to-punch-safire.html

I would say this is a tempest in a teapot except they don’t make teapots small enough.

 

[gracepoole]

You simply cannot deny that Clinton will appoint only the extreme pro abortion judges. Trump has listed his pro life judges.

There is no Pro-Life Case for Donald Trump

 

[ComplineSanFran]

He also said ““Well, they don’t all hit me but some of them do and they try to hit me as hard as possible and it’s mostly false stuff, but I get it,” Do you think he meant physically hit? or did he mean two different things? That he would physcially hit them and they would verbally hit him?

Either way, Mr Trump is using the wrong language. When he says, “I was gonna hit this guy so hard his head would spin and he wouldn’t know what the hell happened”, it brings up images in MY mind of a cartoon character punching the ‘little guy’ and his head spins, stars appear, and is knocked down. Schoolyard bully is triumphant. Is that really the image he wants to portray?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Either way, Mr Trump is using the wrong language. When he says, “I was gonna hit this guy so hard his head would spin and he wouldn’t know what the hell happened”, it brings up images in MY mind of a cartoon character punching the ‘little guy’ and his head spins, stars appear, and is knocked down. Schoolyard bully is triumphant. Is that really the image he wants to portray?

Was that the image Bill Clinton wanted to portray when he threatened to punch William Safire in the nose? Was it the one Harry Truman wanted to portray when he threatened to punch reporters in the nose?

As a critique of Trump, this one is just silly. He no more intended to punch the guy literally than he thought the guy’s head would spin literally.

Do Democrats have no better way to defend Hillary Clinton than to resort to things like this?

Guess not.

 

[dmelosi]

There is no Pro-Life Case for Donald Trump

Here is the list who he said he would consider nominating. Steven Colloton of Iowa, Allison Eid of Colorado, Raymond Gruender of Missouri, Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, Joan Larsen of Michigan, Thomas Lee of Utah, William Pryor of Alabama, David Stras of Minnesota, Diane Sykes of Wisconsin and Don Willett of Texas. Do a search on how pro life they are.

The top 10 searchs on who he would nominate show otherwise. Please answer the type of judges that Clinton will nominate. Do you think there will be any doubt they will be staunchly pro abortion? Any doubt at all?

 

[Good_Tidings]

Either way, Mr Trump is using the wrong language. When he says, “I was gonna hit this guy so hard his head would spin and he wouldn’t know what the hell happened”, it brings up images in MY mind of a cartoon character punching the ‘little guy’ and his head spins, stars appear, and is knocked down. Schoolyard bully is triumphant. Is that really the image he wants to portray?

I think it’s the hat. It always reminds me of Elmer Fudd. But I can’t picture Elmer punchin’ anyone. He was always mad a someone. Wasn’t he? And there is always the “be afwaid, be very very afwaid” aspect to it.

 

[DeniseNY]

Do Democrats have no better way to defend Hillary Clinton than to resort to things like this?

No

 

[Padres1969]

Don’t know if I’d qualify this as good or bad per se for the Democratic party, it probably depends on who you are and your view on getting these kind of “endoresements.” But it seems bad for the GOP that several stalwart Republican and conservative individuals who were highly placed or are highly placed are praising the Democratic convention for it’s content and tone and decrying their own party’s convention last week.

Editor of the Conservative National Review

Why this convention is better: It’s about loving America. GOP convention was about loving Trump. If you didn’t love Trump, it offered nada.

twitter.com/JonahNRO/status/758836064278548481?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Dick Cheney’s Former Press Sec

How can it be that I am standing at my kitchen counter sobbing because of the messages being driven at the DNC? Where has the GOP gone?

twitter.com/richgalen/status/758839042829983744?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Ted Cruz’s former spokesperson

I am sure hearing a lot more about God and faith at the DNC than the RNC.

twitter.com/amandacarpenter/status/758497882420961280?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Washington Post’s conservative commentator

@stuartpstevens agree, it is much more American in spirit and tone than his

twitter.com/JRubinBlogger/status/758859162977566720?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

These are just some examples out there from the right decrying how the Democratic convention in the end seemed the more “American”, “Patriotic”, etc… convention. Oddly enough, it seems many on the traditional Democratic side are actually not entirely comfortable with their convention being described in those terms by folks on the right.

 

[gracepoole]

Here is the list who he said he would consider nominating. Steven Colloton of Iowa, Allison Eid of Colorado, Raymond Gruender of Missouri, Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, Joan Larsen of Michigan, Thomas Lee of Utah, William Pryor of Alabama, David Stras of Minnesota, Diane Sykes of Wisconsin and Don Willett of Texas. Do a search on how pro life they are.

The top 10 searchs on who he would nominate show otherwise. Please answer the type of judges that Clinton will nominate. Do you think there will be any doubt they will be staunchly pro abortion? Any doubt at all?

For one, the argument treats treats gaining conservative justices as so important that they trump to any other end or goal. The reasons for this judicial myopia are deep and important within the pro-life world. No pro-lifer can say that Supreme Court opinions simply do not matter, for reasons that are obvious. But ironically, shouting “The Judges!” as a political clincher deepens the very doctrine of judicial supremacy that Roe and other similarly bad rulings have exacerbated. Pro-lifers should play a role in deflating the Supreme Court’s singular power over American political life: The use of such power to enact social change has exacerbated tensions in American society, and undermined the conditions for long-term stability and peace.

But the claim also rests upon a highly contentious and narrowly selective account of the consequences of getting the justices we want.

What do I mean? Let us think for a moment about the effects of a Trump/pro-life alliance beyond the Courts. For one, supporting Trump means that every Republican candidate going forward need only offer the thinnest of overtures to pro-lifers to win their support, and that there will be nothing conservatives can do if such candidates do not deliver. If Trump were to be nominated and fail to appoint conservative justices, the logic of the “Dumb and Dumber” argument would mean that there could be no reprisals. The idea that there is a chance the Republican nominee elects better justices because he says he will do so is impervious to any kind of falsification, and as such, eliminates any kind of meaningful political reprisal against the party that fails in its pro-life duties.

To put the point differently, it is reasonable in our political system for minority factions to offer their support only in exchange for meaningful attention to their interests and concerns. By supporting Trump, pro-lifers make it astoundingly clear what kind of price the party has to pay to win their votes. The value of the pro-life vote has plummeted, given that Trump’s nominal outreach efforts seem to have worked. But the only way to raise that price and extract more meaningful concessions from Republicans in the future is by refusing to do business with them. If pro-lifers really believe that the Republican party is the only vehicle that they have in American political life to reach their ends — which is what the “Dumb and Dumber” argument rests upon — then they should absolutely refuse to support this candidate on the grounds that abstention is the only way of keeping the value of their vote up in every subsequent election.

…]

This case is clearly different. Trump is a walking-anecdote for the various cultural ideologies and trajectories that the pro-life movement opposes. Specifically, by voting for Trump, they endorse someone who in his personal life has not merely lived in, but reveled in the moral atmosphere and commitments that stand beneath our abortion culture.

If abortions happen because of the breakdown of marriage, then there is nothing ‘pro-life’ about electing someone who is at best a serial monogamist. If the abortion culture has anything to do with the wider degradation of our society’s sex and morals — as pro-lifers have argued it does for as long as I have been alive — then there is nothing pro-life in endorsing a candidate who has bragged about the number of his sexual partners. It matters that Trump is unwilling to answer whether he personally has funded abortions. It matters a great deal.’

…]

Paying for conservative justices means being saddled with and further mainstreaming Trump’s moral corrosiveness. (What happens if he pulls a version of the ‘Claire Underwood’ and admits while President that he paid for an abortion, and that he doesn’t regret doing so?) Repudiating such cultural degradation by not supporting its political representative might mean more abortions in the near term: But even if Roe were to be repealed in the next President’s term, where will people turn for political guidance if pro-lifers have deemed Trump’s decadence as acceptable? Dividing the political and cultural logics of the pro-life movement by treating Trump’s character as an acceptable side-effect undermines the integrity of the movement and will eviscerate its ability to speak with power on cultural matters for long into the future.

As I see it, the choice pro-lifers face is whether they are willing to sacrifice their political lives in order to save their cultural and moral soul.

mereorthodoxy.com/no-pro-life-case-donald-trump/

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

mereorthodoxy.com/no-pro-life-case-donald-trump/

I see his points, but the fact is do you agree with him that a third party is your only option, or a write-in? He isn’t making a case for a Democrat, but making the case that neither Hillary or Trump are good for those who espouse pro-life values.

 

[gracepoole]

I see his points, but the fact is do you agree with him that a third party is your only option, or a write-in? He isn’t making a case for a Democrat, but making the case that neither Hillary or Trump are good for those who espouse pro-life values.

Yes, that is the case he is making. If people are set on voting Trump, they should vote Trump. But for all the reasons cited by Anderson, they shouldn’t count their votes as inherently pro-life.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

Yes, that is the case he is making. If people are set on voting Trump, they should vote Trump. But for all the reasons cited by Anderson, they shouldn’t count their votes as inherently pro-life.

You didn’t answer though

It seems disingenuous to post this article as some font of knowledge when it says up front why they also can’t vote for Hillary, which I assume you would; correct me if I am wrong.

 

[meltzerboy]

How troubling that the enemies of the U.S. probably have the emails, but that the FBI does not and cannot. It’s all so crazy. But crazier still is the idea this woman may become president of the United STates.

But there is something even crazier than this, namely, that another candidate may become President of the United States.