Trumped
- Thread starter cloudsurf
- Start date
- Status
The reason it was said is that many of those groups are saying the same thing. They never have a single good thing to say about their President. They group an entire religion with a small group of extremists who've managed to successfully manipulate and brainwash some of that religion's followers. But the religion itself is a religion of peace and is not to blame. The radicals and extremists are to blame, not the religion. Millions of muslims around the western world are law-abiding citizens and have not had trouble adapting with 'the rest of civilization'. They are our brothers and fellow citizens. And most important of all, we need them in the ongoing fight against radicalism. The battle will never be won without our muslim brothers on our side of history.
And that is why President Obama refuse to utter the words 'radical islam'. It would only make matters worse and infuriate our muslim brothers, the ones we need to keep on our side. There are other reasons of course. But please remember my brother that if the President and other Democrats would indeed use the words 'radical islam', the Rethuglicans would not hesitate a second to admonish them for doing so. It's all political, of course. One said white, the other says black. One says no, the other says yes. One side wants something, the other side opposes him. And that's one of the big reasons why your country has been steadily going off the cliff over the past decade or so. And unfortunately, the current outlook is very bleak.
Did you know......
As of this 163rd day of the year, currently there have been 173 mass shootings committed this year in the United States. No other civilized country even comes close to that number.
Of course, the US doesn't have a gun problem.
Of course not.
As of this 163rd day of the year, currently there have been 173 mass shootings committed this year in the United States. No other civilized country even comes close to that number.
Of course, the US doesn't have a gun problem.
Of course not.
Will Trump be dumped at GOP convention?
by Alan Fram, Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- Dumping Trump at next month's Republican national convention? Highly dubious, but not prohibitively implausible.
The GOP was already distressed by Donald Trump's comments about Hispanics, women, the disabled and others. Now, it's been driven to near-despair over his belittling of a Mexican-American judge as incapable of fairly handling a Trump lawsuit.
That's fed talk of using the party's July gathering in Cleveland to find a different presidential nominee.
So far it's just limited chatter, at least publicly. But with party leaders already flashing mixed messages about the billionaire's candidacy -- House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., belatedly endorsed him but labeled his comments "racist" -- any more rhetorical bombs that Trump tosses could cause opposition to him to snowball.
Here's how the party could derail Trump and why it's improbable, at least now:
THE MATH
Trump has 1,542 delegates, according to The Associated Press' count, including 1,447 pledged under current GOP rules to vote for him at the convention. That's well above the 1,237 delegates needed for the nomination and more than double the 559 of his nearest rival, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.
Measured another way, Trump has amassed 13.4 million votes in primaries, well above Cruz' 7.7 million.
Those numbers add up to one word: Winner.
THE PROBLEM
Some Republicans think Trump can't win, will drag down the party's congressional candidates with him and inflict long-term damage to the party's appeal to women and minorities. Control of the Senate, and less likely the House, are at also stake in November's election.
But while open talk of finding a different nominee is limited, it's out there.
Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., said this week that Trump's denigration of the judge "might spur" talk of finding another candidate. He noted that Trump's 70th birthday is approaching and said, "It's tough to change. And he certainly hasn't shown any signs that he's going to."
"What does Trump have to do or say for the party to disassociate itself from him?" asked Rory Cooper, senior adviser to the Never Trump political committee.
And conservative talk radio host Hugh Hewitt said on his show that Trump should be dropped because "the plane is headed toward the mountain."
THE CURE
One way to stop someone from winning a game is to change the rules.
Mechanically, if not politically, that's possible in Cleveland next month. The procedures governing the convention will be whatever a majority of its 2,472 delegates approve.
Current rules, which they seem likely to adopt, give the nomination to whoever wins a majority of their votes.
GOP rules experts say that to block Trump, one option is to set a higher threshold than he currently can reach, such as requiring a two-thirds margin.
That would only be needed for the first ballot. If no candidate wins the nomination by then, most delegates are free to vote for anyone in the second and succeeding rounds of voting.
Another option: Let all delegates immediately support whoever they'd like.
Though it's widely disputed, some say current rules already let delegates back anybody. That would mean no changes would be needed.
"The primaries are baloney" and award candidates "bragging rights," not committed delegates, said Curly Haugland of North Dakota, a member of the Republican National Committee.
THE PROBLEM WITH BLOCKING TRUMP
Though the GOP is already torn, many believe booting Trump is politically unrealistic because it would deepen the party's rifts and is probably impossible anyway. Ignoring the millions who've voted for him is politically unthinkable, they say.
"The American people have spoken on this, and I think, as a party, we better listen to them," said Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb.
Trump campaign senior adviser Ed Brookover said Friday there's enough delegate support to block any rules changes that would deny Trump the nomination. He provided no specific figures.
"We have stopped counting" the number of delegates supporting Trump "because of the control we believe we have," he said.
BUT WAIT
If Trump has a majority of delegates, does he really have to worry about rules changes that could deny him the nomination?
Probably not. But maybe.
That's because by party bylaws, delegates are free to vote however they want on the rules, platform and challenges to delegates' credentials. The only thing most must do is support the candidate they are pledged to, and only on the first round of votes.
The danger for Trump: Many of his delegates -- the numbers are unclear -- actually prefer Cruz or perhaps other alternatives. If they're persuaded to do so, perhaps by additional intemperate Trump comments, they can vote for rules changes that would open the door for a replacement.
Kendal Unruh, a Cruz delegate and Trump opponent from Colorado, said Friday she's seeking support for one such proposal. It would let delegates abandon their candidate if there have been "grievous acts of conduct" and cast "a vote of conscience, either personal or religious" for anyone.
Brookover said some Cruz delegates really back Trump, and rated the chances the convention will avert Trump's nomination at "virtually zero." He said the Trump campaign opposes any rules changes that would affect the Cleveland convention.
by Alan Fram, Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- Dumping Trump at next month's Republican national convention? Highly dubious, but not prohibitively implausible.
The GOP was already distressed by Donald Trump's comments about Hispanics, women, the disabled and others. Now, it's been driven to near-despair over his belittling of a Mexican-American judge as incapable of fairly handling a Trump lawsuit.
That's fed talk of using the party's July gathering in Cleveland to find a different presidential nominee.
So far it's just limited chatter, at least publicly. But with party leaders already flashing mixed messages about the billionaire's candidacy -- House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., belatedly endorsed him but labeled his comments "racist" -- any more rhetorical bombs that Trump tosses could cause opposition to him to snowball.
Here's how the party could derail Trump and why it's improbable, at least now:
THE MATH
Trump has 1,542 delegates, according to The Associated Press' count, including 1,447 pledged under current GOP rules to vote for him at the convention. That's well above the 1,237 delegates needed for the nomination and more than double the 559 of his nearest rival, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.
Measured another way, Trump has amassed 13.4 million votes in primaries, well above Cruz' 7.7 million.
Those numbers add up to one word: Winner.
THE PROBLEM
Some Republicans think Trump can't win, will drag down the party's congressional candidates with him and inflict long-term damage to the party's appeal to women and minorities. Control of the Senate, and less likely the House, are at also stake in November's election.
But while open talk of finding a different nominee is limited, it's out there.
Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., said this week that Trump's denigration of the judge "might spur" talk of finding another candidate. He noted that Trump's 70th birthday is approaching and said, "It's tough to change. And he certainly hasn't shown any signs that he's going to."
"What does Trump have to do or say for the party to disassociate itself from him?" asked Rory Cooper, senior adviser to the Never Trump political committee.
And conservative talk radio host Hugh Hewitt said on his show that Trump should be dropped because "the plane is headed toward the mountain."
THE CURE
One way to stop someone from winning a game is to change the rules.
Mechanically, if not politically, that's possible in Cleveland next month. The procedures governing the convention will be whatever a majority of its 2,472 delegates approve.
Current rules, which they seem likely to adopt, give the nomination to whoever wins a majority of their votes.
GOP rules experts say that to block Trump, one option is to set a higher threshold than he currently can reach, such as requiring a two-thirds margin.
That would only be needed for the first ballot. If no candidate wins the nomination by then, most delegates are free to vote for anyone in the second and succeeding rounds of voting.
Another option: Let all delegates immediately support whoever they'd like.
Though it's widely disputed, some say current rules already let delegates back anybody. That would mean no changes would be needed.
"The primaries are baloney" and award candidates "bragging rights," not committed delegates, said Curly Haugland of North Dakota, a member of the Republican National Committee.
THE PROBLEM WITH BLOCKING TRUMP
Though the GOP is already torn, many believe booting Trump is politically unrealistic because it would deepen the party's rifts and is probably impossible anyway. Ignoring the millions who've voted for him is politically unthinkable, they say.
"The American people have spoken on this, and I think, as a party, we better listen to them," said Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb.
Trump campaign senior adviser Ed Brookover said Friday there's enough delegate support to block any rules changes that would deny Trump the nomination. He provided no specific figures.
"We have stopped counting" the number of delegates supporting Trump "because of the control we believe we have," he said.
BUT WAIT
If Trump has a majority of delegates, does he really have to worry about rules changes that could deny him the nomination?
Probably not. But maybe.
That's because by party bylaws, delegates are free to vote however they want on the rules, platform and challenges to delegates' credentials. The only thing most must do is support the candidate they are pledged to, and only on the first round of votes.
The danger for Trump: Many of his delegates -- the numbers are unclear -- actually prefer Cruz or perhaps other alternatives. If they're persuaded to do so, perhaps by additional intemperate Trump comments, they can vote for rules changes that would open the door for a replacement.
Kendal Unruh, a Cruz delegate and Trump opponent from Colorado, said Friday she's seeking support for one such proposal. It would let delegates abandon their candidate if there have been "grievous acts of conduct" and cast "a vote of conscience, either personal or religious" for anyone.
Brookover said some Cruz delegates really back Trump, and rated the chances the convention will avert Trump's nomination at "virtually zero." He said the Trump campaign opposes any rules changes that would affect the Cleveland convention.
I was listening to something several days ago where some experts on Republican election rules cited one ( can't remember the number ) where ultimately delegates are free to vote their conscience.
Congrats Doc. You were right. Trump is exploiting the massacre in Orlando.
[h=1]Donald Trump Makes Worst Mass Shooting in U.S. History All About Him[/h]http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/12/trump-makes-worst-u-s-shooting-about-him.html
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don't want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!
12:43 PM - 12 Jun 2016
While the body count was still being updated in Orlando, the Republican nominee-to-be tweeted that he was right about ‘radical Islamic terrorism.’
Donald Trump couldn’t resist making the deadliest mass shooing in American history all about him.
The presumptive Republican nominee tweeted that Omar Mateen’s slaughter of 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, proves he was right about the threat of Muslim terrorists and that the ban he proposed on all Muslims entering the country—something he later referred to as a suggestion—would have somehow prevented Mateen (a U.S. citizen) from committing this atrocity.
Of course! He's a fucking scumbag!
Now he's giving a speech and talking the same nonsense again about banning all muslims from entering the country. Does he think people are that stupid and don't realize that the mass murderer was born and raised in the States??? He's nuts!
Of course! He's a fucking scumbag!
Now he's giving a speech and talking the same nonsense again about banning all muslims from entering the country. Does he think people are that stupid and don't realize that the mass murderer was born and raised in the States??? He's nuts!
Fear and paranoia are the seeds of these nutjobs gaining more political capital. We saw it in Germany, Italy, Yugoslavia and in many other countries. The worst thing that could happen to the great American people and their even greater country is if this sociopath ever gets elected!!
Of course! He's a fucking scumbag!
Now he's giving a speech and talking the same nonsense again about banning all muslims from entering the country. Does he think people are that stupid and don't realize that the mass murderer was born and raised in the States??? He's nuts!
1. Donald Trump isn't a scumbag.
2. But if you think Trump is a scumbag then Hillary Clinton is a much bigger scumbag than Donald Trump can ever be. Hillary Clinton disregarded both State Department Rules and Espionage Laws (Felonies to be exact).
3. Hillary Clinton is a scumbag. That is fact. CORRUPT Hillary and her former Husband Bill Clinton have gotten extremely wealthy disregarding Charity laws with their Clinton Foundation.
4. If you don't give a damn about Hillary Clinton's CORRUPTION, then you are just as bad as they are and you will deserve what happens when the crap hits the fan. Don't blame your bad fortune on Trump or the Republican party because you were the ones who supported the Corruption which lasted the last 8 years.
Funny how leading Republicans think he is.
Top Republicans join Obama in condemning Trump’s words
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ondemning-trump’s-words/ar-AAh3yoj?li=BBnb7Kz
Top Republicans joined with President Obama and other Democrats Tuesday in sharply condemning Donald Trump’s reaction to the nightclub massacre in Orlando, decrying his anti-Muslim rhetoric and his questioning of Obama’s allegiances as divisive and out of step with America’s values.
Trump — who just a week ago signaled an intent to snap his campaign into a more measured tone for the general election — showed no sign of backing down from his suggestions that Obama was somehow connected to or sympathetic with terrorists, telling the Associated Press that the president “continues to prioritize our enemy” over Americans.
In separate appearances, both Obama and his potential successor, likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, blasted Trump’s proposal to ban foreign Muslims from the United States as dangerous and contrary to the nation’s traditions.
A visibly angry Obama also dismissed Trump’s repeated demands for him to use the term “radical Islam” when speaking about the Orlando shootings and other attacks. “Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away,” Obama said. “This is a political distraction.”
Clinton described Trump’s response to Orlando as rife with “conspiracy theories” and “pathological self-congratulations.”
The remarkably bipartisan outcry over Trump’s positions — coming at a moment of national mourning after the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history — set off a new wave of alarm within the GOP over whether the mogul’s promised pivot to the general election would ever materialize. The rift also highlighted the enduring tensions between establishment figures who want to be more inclusive and the bulk of the party, which backs Trump’s proposed Muslim ban and has rallied around him as the presumptive nominee.
Some of Trump’s most ardent backers defended his response to the Orlando attack, saying drastic measures were needed to keep the nation safe. But most Republicans on Capitol Hill tried to distance themselves from Trump’s comments following the terrorist attack on a gay nightclub in Orlando that killed at least 49 people. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) refused to respond to questions about Trump at his weekly news conference.
Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.) denounced Trump for trying to rally support for his anti-Muslim policies, while others castigated Trump for the accusations he has lobbed at Obama.
“I do not think a Muslim ban is in our country’s interest,” Ryan told reporters. “I do not think it is reflective of our principles, not just as a party but as a country.” He called for “a security test, not a religious test” for immigrants.
In a speech Monday, Trump had reiterated his calls for such a ban and expanded its potential reach to include any country with “a history” of terrorism against the United States and its allies. He blamed the Orlando attack — which authorities say was carried out by a man born in America to Afghan parents — in part on a system that “allowed his family to come here.”
“We have to screen applicants to know whether they are affiliated with or supporting radical groups and beliefs,” Trump said in the speech delivered at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, N.H. “We have to control the amount of future immigration in this country, and we have to prevent large pockets of radicalization from forming inside America.”
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who has praised Trump at times for his willingness to shake up politics and recently met with the mogul, expressed serious unease Tuesday with how Trump responded to a national tragedy.
“Traditionally, it is a time when people rally around our country, and it’s obviously not what’s occurred, and it’s very disappointing,” Corker said.
Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a leading national security hawk, said he had “run out of adjectives” for Trump. “I don’t think he has the judgment or the temperament, the experience to deal with what we are facing,” said Graham, who does not currently support the mogul.
Graham, like other Republicans, took issue with Trump’s apparent suggestions in Monday interviews that Obama may identify with the radical Muslim terrorists. Obama “either is not tough, not smart, or he’s got something else in mind,” Trump told Fox News.
Trump expanded on that line of criticism Tuesday, saying in an emailed response to questions from the Associated Press: “President Obama claims to know our enemy, and yet he continues to prioritize our enemy over our allies and, for that matter, the American people.”
Graham said that Trump “seems to be suggesting that the president is one of ‘them.’ I find that highly offensive. I find that whole line of reasoning way off base. My problems with President Obama are his policy choices.”
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who faces a challenging reelection bid, also called Trump’s insinuations about the president “offensive.”
Speaking after meeting with his National Security Council, Obama dismissed Trump’s many calls for him to change the way he talks about terrorism.
“That’s the key, they tell us. We can’t get ISIL unless we call them ‘radical Islamists,’ ” Obama said, referring to the Islamic State militant group. “What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is: none of the above.”
At a campaign event in Pittsburgh, Clinton excoriated Trump and challenged Republicans to repudiate him. Clinton said Trump — whom she called “Donald” — failed to demonstrate an ability to deliver a “calm, collected and dignified response” to the Orlando attack.
“Instead, yesterday morning, just one day after the massacre, he went on TV and suggested that President Obama is on the side of the terrorists,” Clinton said. “Just think about that. Even in a time of divided politics, this is way beyond anything that should be said by someone running for president.”
Trump has also said Obama should “resign” because of his refusal to utter the words “radical Islamic terrorism.” But one of the mogul’s top backers on Capitol Hill said Trump doesn’t expect that to happen.
“What I think Trump’s saying is: You need to get in the game and start leading, or get out of here,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.). “That’s just his way of expressing it. And I think people understood that. He doesn’t expect President Obama to resign, but he’s saying you can’t do this job effectively if you don’t understand the nature of the threat we face.”
Sessions said there was no discussion at a 90-minute Senate GOP lunch of Trump specifically; instead it focused on terrorism.
Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), an Air Force major and leading House GOP voice on national security issues, broke sharply with Trump.
“I guess I appreciate Mr. Trump’s fieriness in talking about it, but you don’t do it by alienating the very people that we need, and those are moderate Muslims,” he said. “We have to use the folks that frankly are not radicalized, which is the vast majority of Muslims, to win this war.”
Nationally, 64 percent of Republican voters said in a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll that they approve of Trump’s Muslim ban — as did 45 percent of independents — while 26 percent of Democrats said they approve.
Last week, Trump delivered a subdued speech that celebrated his primary wins and looked ahead to a matchup with Clinton. His campaign told allies that Trump was strategizing for a new phase of the campaign.
But by this week — after a series of fiery rallies in which he called out enemies by name and then his response to Orlando — many Republicans were left scratching their heads.
Lanhee Chen, a respected GOP foreign policy expert who served as policy director on Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign, called Trump’s Monday speech a “huge wasted opportunity.”
“What he has said overall about foreign policy is very troubling,” said Chen, who said he has many issues with the mogul but does not consider himself part of the “Never Trump” wing of the GOP.
Chen said Trump needs to “start defining what his presidency would look like” in “more than just a few sound bites.” But he added: “I’m not holding my breath.”
trump is a rich punk who has made a career out of bullying people- nowhere near qualified to be president. a complete joke. this reactionary, shoot from the hip, go with your gut is exactly what we dont need. it was bush's modus operandi and is exactly what started the iraq war- the worst mistake in my lifetime. we need presidents who can think a few moves ahead. trump has given voice to the ugly underbelly of the american public and made it okay to racist and sexist. no more code words or political correctness. maybe it is good to get all the true feelings out there and have a public debate on this. in the end, i think trump will be soundly defeated and take down the senate with him. the ultra right will find out that it is a fringe group within the american electorate
Trump may not be the ideal but he will stand up for America. Clinton has too many scandals behind her and is untrustworthy. The country was not in great shape after Bush but its in a hell of a worse standing now. It cannot go on like it has amassing more and more debt. Allowing more and more illegals while Veterans and school / college leavers cannot find work. Trump will bring in a Running mate who has political savvy and the Republicans will have to unite behind him if they don't they are finished.
Trump doesn't have scandals?? His ex-wife even accused him of rape once! He's an arrogant compulsive lying racist rapist scumbag who filed for bankruptcy at least four times and who will run the country like a banana republic if he ever wins the election and it wouldn't surprise me if he uses nuclear weapons which could lead to the end of humanity. You want to live in a nuclear holocaust? I doubt you'd live very long!
Anwyays, there's not a chance in hell he'll get elected. I'm still not 100% certain the Republicans won't kick him out of the party by the end of summer and nominate someone else. They all hate him!!! He's pissed off every single group except racists and bigots. His unlikeability is at an all-time high (71% today) and there's no fucking way Americans are stupid enough to vote for this prick! I'd vote for Mickey Mouse and Tarzan's monkey instead!
What the hell does that mean stand up for America? How does one do that?
Those two things are largely unrelated. Most illegals take jobs that are also illegal that pay below minimum wage. Recent college grads can't get jobs because they've been outsourced to countries with cheap labor or been completely automated. A service economy needs to have an extremely well educated and skilled workforce but the US doesn't have a system setup to develop that.
He's an egotistical nut case who thinks he's omnipotent and won't listen to any other view. Do we need to list the psychotic dictators this describes.
Ahem. He took us into our longest most expensive war ever because of 911 against someone who had not been involved. He also got us into the 2008 crash that wiped out 30 to 40% of all 401Ks not to mention all the other economic damage.
As I said, he doesn't want to listen to anyone. Trump who has the temperament of a 13 year old street gang thug and a rabid dog, who would be broke if the bankruptcy system hadn't save his butt four times, think he should run the country alone. He wants absolute power not democracy.
Donald Trump to GOP: 'Be Quiet' or I’ll Lead Alone
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-gop-quiet-ill-lead/story?id=39884628
"You know, the Republicans, honestly folks, our leaders, our leaders have to get tougher. This is too tough to do it alone. But you know what, I think I’m going to be forced to. I think I am going to be forced to, our leaders have to get a lot tougher,” he began.
He added, icily, "And be quiet. Just please be quiet. Don't talk, please be quiet.”
THIS IS A MEGALOMANIAC CAMPAIGNING TO BE DICTATOR.
Trump surrogate says: "SHUT THE HELL UP"
Let it go. It's the typical angry white man rant these days. And people who live in a bubble are buying all of Trump's b.s.
So far almost no one wants to be his 'running mate' and i can't say i blame them. He's an embarrassment! Maybe his boy Chris Christy would likely take it, but he's got his own problems with Bridgegate right now. And then there's the wicked witch of Wasilla, Alaska. Sarah Palin. Oh boy!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Legendary Journalist Dan Rather Just Gave The Warning Everyone Needed To Hear About Trump
by Paige Ellis
Dan Rather has had enough of Donald Trump and his supporters. He’s so fed up that he decided to let his feelings truly be known in a perfectly worded take down of Donald and his idiot brigade on Facebook.
Not only did he classify Donald and his supporters as the ignorant simpletons they are, but he went on to make a very serious point – almost a warning in the context of our modern political discourse. The point he made was that we can’t ignore Donald anymore.
It’s very fashionable for people to say we should ignore him, or “stop making him famous” and write him off. That isn’t going to work. He’s now the Republican nominee, and if anyone calls themselves a progressive they have a duty to talk about the offensive things he says and does. Reporters need to ask the hard questions, instead of softball him to ensure continuing press access. Ignoring him is what got him to the nomination.
Dan Rather’s post from his Facebook page is below:
I felt a shudder down my spine yesterday watching Donald Trump’s fusilade against the press. This is not a moment to be trifled with. It wasn’t his first tirade and it won’t be his last.
I was reminded of my college journalism professor, the late Hugh Cunningham, who would exhort his young charges in a thundering voice to “never let them scare you.” It was his most important lesson. One of Edward R. Murrow’s favorite words was “steady.” That also bears repeating today.
This is a dirty, nasty election. And it is only going to get worse. The reporters in the trenches need no lecture from me. They are walking through daily minefields, bracing themselves against winds of discontent whose effects no one can predict.
I know what it is like to sit in those seats and feel the scorn and even wrath of politicians of all political persuasions. Attacking the press for unfair coverage has long been a bipartisan pursuit. Sometimes it works. I am happy to say that more often it doesn’t. But Trump’s brand of vituperation is particularly personal and vicious. It carries with it the drumbeats of threatening violence. It cannot be left unanswered.
This is not about politics or policy. It’s about protecting our most cherished principles. The relationship between the press and the powerful they cover is by its very definition confrontational. That is how the Founding Fathers envisioned it, with noble clauses of protection enshrined in our Constitution.
Good journalism–the kind that matters–requires reporters who won’t back up, back down, back away or turn around when faced with efforts to intimidate them. It also requires owners and other bosses with guts, who stand by and for their reporters when the heat is on.
I still believe the pen is mightier than the sword. And in these conflicted and troubled times, we should reward the bravery of the men and women not afraid to ask the hard questions of everyone in power. Our nation’s future depends on it.
Dan Rather has some experience with political violence. During the 1968 Democratic convention, he was assaulted on the convention floor for asking questions of politicians and other attendees. This was the same year that anti-war protesters were in wildcat riots with police in the city as the convention was taking place.
The choice is pretty clear. Do we continue to not take him seriously in our media, or are we going to hold him to account for his resurrection of this old evil in America?
Dan Rather gives warning about Trump
by Paige Ellis
Dan Rather has had enough of Donald Trump and his supporters. He’s so fed up that he decided to let his feelings truly be known in a perfectly worded take down of Donald and his idiot brigade on Facebook.
Not only did he classify Donald and his supporters as the ignorant simpletons they are, but he went on to make a very serious point – almost a warning in the context of our modern political discourse. The point he made was that we can’t ignore Donald anymore.
It’s very fashionable for people to say we should ignore him, or “stop making him famous” and write him off. That isn’t going to work. He’s now the Republican nominee, and if anyone calls themselves a progressive they have a duty to talk about the offensive things he says and does. Reporters need to ask the hard questions, instead of softball him to ensure continuing press access. Ignoring him is what got him to the nomination.
Dan Rather’s post from his Facebook page is below:
I felt a shudder down my spine yesterday watching Donald Trump’s fusilade against the press. This is not a moment to be trifled with. It wasn’t his first tirade and it won’t be his last.
I was reminded of my college journalism professor, the late Hugh Cunningham, who would exhort his young charges in a thundering voice to “never let them scare you.” It was his most important lesson. One of Edward R. Murrow’s favorite words was “steady.” That also bears repeating today.
This is a dirty, nasty election. And it is only going to get worse. The reporters in the trenches need no lecture from me. They are walking through daily minefields, bracing themselves against winds of discontent whose effects no one can predict.
I know what it is like to sit in those seats and feel the scorn and even wrath of politicians of all political persuasions. Attacking the press for unfair coverage has long been a bipartisan pursuit. Sometimes it works. I am happy to say that more often it doesn’t. But Trump’s brand of vituperation is particularly personal and vicious. It carries with it the drumbeats of threatening violence. It cannot be left unanswered.
This is not about politics or policy. It’s about protecting our most cherished principles. The relationship between the press and the powerful they cover is by its very definition confrontational. That is how the Founding Fathers envisioned it, with noble clauses of protection enshrined in our Constitution.
Good journalism–the kind that matters–requires reporters who won’t back up, back down, back away or turn around when faced with efforts to intimidate them. It also requires owners and other bosses with guts, who stand by and for their reporters when the heat is on.
I still believe the pen is mightier than the sword. And in these conflicted and troubled times, we should reward the bravery of the men and women not afraid to ask the hard questions of everyone in power. Our nation’s future depends on it.
Dan Rather has some experience with political violence. During the 1968 Democratic convention, he was assaulted on the convention floor for asking questions of politicians and other attendees. This was the same year that anti-war protesters were in wildcat riots with police in the city as the convention was taking place.
The choice is pretty clear. Do we continue to not take him seriously in our media, or are we going to hold him to account for his resurrection of this old evil in America?
Dan Rather gives warning about Trump
Yep like banning every journalist who writes negatively about him? Trump is Berlusconi, probably worst.
Cheers,
Trump. The name is becoming another term meaning to become so odious to cause your own self-destruction.
[h=1]Dozens of GOP delegates launch new push to halt Donald Trump[/h]http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/dozens-of-gop-delegates-launch-new-push-to-halt-donald-trump/ar-AAhe50u?li=BBnb7Kz
.......
The possibility of a contested convention that replaces Trump as the Republican candidate for president is becoming more real and likely. Whatever the outcome the situation looks like a wreck for the Republican Party because of Trump and his megalomaniac irrationality and extremism. Either Trump remains the candidate splitting the party or there's a replacement also splitting the party. Neither side will be able to accept the other. No matter what the two sides seem ready to devour each other and ruin Republican chances in November. All because the current candidate has the appearance of unstable and possibly psychotic. That should be called "Trumped" or Trumping.
[h=1]Dozens of GOP delegates launch new push to halt Donald Trump[/h]http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/dozens-of-gop-delegates-launch-new-push-to-halt-donald-trump/ar-AAhe50u?li=BBnb7Kz
.......
The possibility of a contested convention that replaces Trump as the Republican candidate for president is becoming more real and likely. Whatever the outcome the situation looks like a wreck for the Republican Party because of Trump and his megalomaniac irrationality and extremism. Either Trump remains the candidate splitting the party or there's a replacement also splitting the party. Neither side will be able to accept the other. No matter what the two sides seem ready to devour each other and ruin Republican chances in November. All because the current candidate has the appearance of unstable and possibly psychotic. That should be called "Trumped" or Trumping.
- Status
Similar threads
