Donald Trump under fire for mocking disabled reporter

[1crazybusydad]

Yeah, that’s the second time you said that.

Lets see. The Nazis had a database for Jews…Trump wants one for Muslims.
The Nazis had Stars of David for Jews…and so Trump wants something similar for Muslims.
The Nazis practiced torture…and Trump approves of torture.
The Nazis roughed up dissenters…and so do Trump supporters.
Both Hitler and Mussolini were loud demagogues…and so is Trump.

You want to address these comparisons or just keep spouting ‘Godwin’s Law’?

Actually, I only said Godwin’s Law once. The rest of your hysterics are not worth commenting on.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

Actually, I only said Godwin’s Law once. The rest of your hysterics are not worth commenting on.

I’m not going to violate forum rules by responding to that, you can just learn the hard way.

 

[DeniseNY]

Yeah, that’s the second time you said that.

Lets see. The Nazis had a database for Jews…Trump wants one for Muslims.
The Nazis had Stars of David for Jews…and so Trump wants something similar for Muslims.
The Nazis practiced torture…and Trump approves of torture.
The Nazis roughed up dissenters…and so do Trump supporters.
Both Hitler and Mussolini were loud demagogues…and so is Trump.

You want to address these comparisons or just keep spouting ‘Godwin’s Law’?

Congratulations on having successfully jumped the shark

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Yeah, that’s the second time you said that.

Lets see. The Nazis had a database for Jews…Trump wants one for Muslims.
The Nazis had Stars of David for Jews…and so Trump wants something similar for Muslims.
The Nazis practiced torture…and Trump approves of torture.
The Nazis roughed up dissenters…and so do Trump supporters.
Both Hitler and Mussolini were loud demagogues…and so is Trump.

You want to address these comparisons or just keep spouting ‘Godwin’s Law’?

Let’s see:

The U.S. government has a database on us all - and we’d likely be shocked at what they know about us.

Democrat-controlled government agencies keep pressing for a “national I.D. Card.”

The government can and does arrest and kill U.S. citizens without benefit of trial in the name of “national security.”

Any kind of outspoken opposition to the current presidential regime results in a great deal of administrative “roughing-up” at the hands of the IRS and other regulatory agencies.

And who could be more of a demagogue than . . . . . Well, I rest my case.

 

[1crazybusydad]

Let’s see:

The U.S. government has a database on us all - and we’d likely be shocked at what they know about us.

Democrat-controlled government agencies keep pressing for a “national I.D. Card.”

The government can and does arrest and kill U.S. citizens without benefit of trial in the name of “national security.”

Any kind of outspoken opposition to the current presidential regime results in a great deal of administrative “roughing-up” at the hands of the IRS and other regulatory agencies.

And who could be more of a demagogue than . . . . . Well, I rest my case.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

Let’s see:

The U.S. government has a database on us all - and we’d likely be shocked at what they know about us.

Democrat-controlled government agencies keep pressing for a “national I.D. Card.”

The government can and does arrest and kill U.S. citizens without benefit of trial in the name of “national security.”

Any kind of outspoken opposition to the current presidential regime results in a great deal of administrative “roughing-up” at the hands of the IRS and other regulatory agencies.

And who could be more of a demagogue than . . . . . Well, I rest my case.

I agree, but it’s not a contest to say ‘my fascist is nicer than your fascist.’ Trump is just more blunt about it.
BTW, I didn’t bring fascist into the equation, RA did. I just defended his statement when he was accused of saying something not relevant to the topic.

 

[Good_Tidings]

I agree, but it’s not a contest to say ‘my fascist is nicer than your fascist.’ Trump is just more blunt about it.
BTW, I didn’t bring fascist into the equation, RA did. I just defended his statement when he was accused of saying something not relevant to the topic.

Once again it is not the so called liberal media bringing the subject of fascism up:

Why some conservatives say Trump talk is fascist
cnn.com/2015/11/24/politics/donald-trump-fascism/

Rubio and Bush advisors call Trump a fascist

Read more: americanthinker.com/blog/2015/11/rubio_and_bush_advisors_call_trump_a_fascist.html#ixzz3sp3n8QJP
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

[MarcoPolo]

First, let me say clearly I endorse no candidate of either of the “2 big parties” at this time.

That being said - I ask of Trump critics: If Trump is an insensitive jerk, does that disqualify him from being President? What has voting for sensitive nice people gotten the country?

 

[mafh]

First, let me say clearly I endorse no candidate of either of the “2 big parties” at this time.

That being said - I ask of Trump critics: If Trump is an insensitive jerk, does that disqualify him from being President? What has voting for sensitive nice people gotten the country?

Well, international diplomacy is one of the tasks a president performs. If his behavior shows that he’d have a serious deficiency in this area (I’d call insensitive jerkiness a serious problem in a diplomat), then this is very relevant to evaluating his fitness for the office.

 

[1crazybusydad]

Well, international diplomacy is one of the tasks a president performs. If his behavior shows that he’d have a serious deficiency in this area (I’d call insensitive jerkiness a serious problem in a diplomat), then this is very relevant to evaluating his fitness for the office.

I think he would be mixed in international diplomacy. On the one hand, he would probably do better than most at negotiating with other heads-of-states. Negotiating is his strong suit. On the other hand, he would be ridiculed by the populace of those states, and it would be another chance to therefore ridicule Americans, in general.

That said, Reagan was ridiculed in such a way, as have many other presidents. We survived.

 

[on_the_hill]

First, let me say clearly I endorse no candidate of either of the “2 big parties” at this time.

That being said - I ask of Trump critics: If Trump is an insensitive jerk, does that disqualify him from being President? What has voting for sensitive nice people gotten the country?

It’s not that sensitive nice people make better presidents, it’s that Trump is showing that he lacks leadership skills. When you’re a good negotiator and have an enormous amount of personal wealth, people will follow you. But that doesn’t mean you’re a good leader.

We can’t have a leader who attacks and threatens and ridicules the people he says he wants to lead.

 

[DeniseNY]

It’s not that sensitive nice people make better presidents, it’s that Trump is showing that he lacks leadership skills. When you’re a good negotiator and have an enormous amount of personal wealth, people will follow you. But that doesn’t mean you’re a good leader.

We can’t have a leader who attacks and threatens and ridicules the people he says he wants to lead.

Referring to people as bitter clingers wasn’t ridiculing?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Well, international diplomacy is one of the tasks a president performs. If his behavior shows that he’d have a serious deficiency in this area (I’d call insensitive jerkiness a serious problem in a diplomat), then this is very relevant to evaluating his fitness for the office.

Would you say the last bunch of presidents had the diplomatic politeness to get us where we need to be?

 

[MarcoPolo]

We can’t have a leader who attacks and threatens and ridicules the people he says he wants to lead.

I don’t recall him threatening people he wants to lead. But I’ll take your word for it. Would you say the previous presidents have avoided threatening the people they want to lead and thus gotten us where we need to be?

 

[on_the_hill]

I don’t recall him threatening people he wants to lead. But I’ll take your word for it. Would you say the previous presidents have avoided threatening the people they want to lead and thus gotten us where we need to be?

Calling for surveillance of mosques, databases of Muslims sounds threatening to me.

I don’t recall a previous president or presidential candidate (at least in my lifetime) who said so many hurtful things about his fellow Americans. But that’s almost beside the point. A leader leads by building unity.
Trump quote from an interview with Chuck Todd, on the American Muslims cheering in N.J. on 9/11: “Chuck, you have a huge Muslim population over there. And that’s fine. But you have a huge Muslim population. … Why wouldn’t it have taken place?” Trump asked.

Of course, right? If they’re Muslims, there’s no reason they wouldn’t be cheering on 9/11, right? It’s only logical. Muslims are terrorists. Terrorists hate America. Therefore, Muslims hate America.

For the record, I never heard anything at all about the N.J. Muslims cheering on 9/11. Never once. Not until Trump told me it happened. I must have seen it on TV and forgotten. Yeaaaah, that’s riiiiiight… Hundreds of cheering Muslims. Or maybe it was thousands. Yeaaaah, that’s the ticket. I was watching it on TV with my wife, Morgan Fairchild.

 

[gamewell45]

Making fun of someone’s hairstyle is one thing, if you mean that; mocking someone’s congenital condition is quite different and rather grave.

It’s definitely uncharitable of Trump to make statements such as he has in the past mocking people.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I don’t recall a previous president or presidential candidate (at least in my lifetime) who said so many hurtful things about his fellow Americans.

Ok, I understand you do not like his rhetoric on Muslims. But if I can step back once more. Go beyond any one issue. If the goal is to try to get a president who is “like previous presidents,” what will that get us?

 

[on_the_hill]

Ok, I understand you do not like his rhetoric on Muslims. But if I can step back once more. Go beyond any one issue. If the goal is to try to get a president who is “like previous presidents,” what will that get us?

A standard issue president isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Some of our previous presidents had been pretty good leaders. Reagan. John Kennedy had potential. FDR. I don’t know much about LBJ but it probably fits the mold of a unifying dealmaker. Clinton and Newt Gingrich were political opponents and they worked together.

With everyone fracturing along narrower and narrower partisan lines, now would not be a good time to have a conquering corporate tycoon in office.

And I’ve noticed this about Trump: When he goes on the defensive he counter-attacks by shifting the focus away from the topic at hand. I guess it’s effective, but it seems kind of a schoolyard tactic.

Regarding the N.J. Muslims, he came out attacking the business management of the NYT. With Fiorina it was her face. With Jeb it’s his low energy.

Little Johnny Kasich: “Hey, Donny, how could you miss that throw? You’re the worst kickball player I’ve ever seen! I’m not picking you for my team anymore!”
Little Donny Trump: “Oh yeah? Who cares what you think? Your dad’s a drunk!”

 

[MarcoPolo]

A standard issue president isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

If the current system is good, then a standard issue president to maintain that system would be good. If the current system is bad, then a it may benefit from seismic fissures unlike anything prior.

 

[chero23]

It’s not that sensitive nice people make better presidents, it’s that Trump is showing that he lacks leadership skills. When you’re a good negotiator and have an enormous amount of personal wealth, people will follow you. But that doesn’t mean you’re a good leader.

We can’t have a leader who attacks and threatens and ridicules the people he says he wants to lead.

I agree with you.

The way the world is, with the tensions abroad with, at home we need a great president.

Trump does lack leadership skills. Yes I get it, he’s a billionaire, but like in sports just because you were an elite player, it does not translate into being a great coach.