Media Outraged: Trump Tricks Them To Cover Endorsements From Military Heroes

[Ben]

And you really think someone should be, or would be, banned for saying "Take away the Secret Service's guns, and see what happens to her"? 

Did I say banned? And there's also something called context.

At any rate, I'm done here. November 9th can't come soon enough, whoever wins.

[230RN]

Well, since Ben is off the thread now, I can talk behind his back... right?

On the one hand, I kinda wanna vote for him just because he pisses off liberals. On the other hand, when I see this "Clever Donald can do no wrong and only stupid people misunderstand him and you're stupid" cult of personality stuff, it makes me want to go back to a write-in.

I hope Ben takes the first choice.  As I've said before,
"voting for unviable 3rd party candidates or not voting 'in protest' is handing Ms. Clinton the winning ticket, and thank you very much.  Principles are one thing, who nominates SCOTUS candidates in the next 4 years is another."

Terry

[dogmush]

Principles are one thing, .......

Terry

Not just in elections but just in life in general, I've found that when you make this statement with the implied "but",  It's time to stop and take a real long, hard look at what you're about to do.

[Scout26]

I don't think Donald was saying "Hey Folks, It's open season on Hillary."   I took it to mean:  She wants to take away your guns, but is protected by folsk with guns.  Take those away from protecting her, and I'd bet that the next Lee Harvey Oswald(s) or John Hinckley(s) will come crawling out of the woodwork.

 

[roo_ster]

There are some concepts that those who would rule us have deemed un-thinkable.  Examples include deporting 11-30 million illegal aliens, the effect of legal immigration since 1965 on the nation and polity of America, and conscious white self-interest similar to that of other races and ethnicities in America. 

Another is getting at the root of ruling class antipathy to easy access to firearms.  The nub: "Goodwhites" (ruling class white and jewish folk) are morbidly afraid of black and hispanic violence, want it abolished by any means, but dare not speak the reality of their fear.  So they displace their animosity on to those it is socially acceptable to hate (Badwhites and especially Christian whites) and agitate for them to be disarmed (thereby disarming* all to include those they truly fear).  Really, NYC is the town where "stop and frisk the scary black and brown people" was allowed to continue for ~20 years, thereby incarcerating so many blacks and puerto ricans that populations of both have declined in Manhattan over those 20 years.  And let us not forget that Goodwhites have been slyly hinting at Trump's assassination for many months.  Or maybe not so sly, since it someone already tried to off Trump...and got a slap on the wrist for the attempt and then deportation**.

The point being...
...Trump's particular wording was immaterial.  Merely broaching the unthinkable concept of Goodwhite gun hypocrisy was gay-run-gawddam-teed to result in the DNC-MSM taking the worst construction on his words. It is especially sensitive because all of Goodwhite (perception of) safety is in the mix, not just HRC's.  NYC was made relatively safe by denying firearms to common Badwhite & minority folk, allowing Goodwhites access, and using the NYPD to target scary black and brown people for "walking while black (in Manhattan)."

About the only topic Trump could have zinged Goodwhites on that would cause even more Goodwhite rage would be for Trump to attack the Goodwhite hypocrisy of deviously arranging for their children to go to NYC public schools mysteriously devoid of violent black and puerto rican children.  While Goodwhites vigorously impose "diversity" on Badwhite children in flyover country with Section 8 housing, housing vouchers, lawsuits, and executive branch action. 

Trump plays THAT card, and DNC-MSM Goodwhitopia goes flipping nuclear.









* Yes it won;t work as there are too many guns, but actual reality is something the "reality based community" has but a tenuous grasp upon.

** "Come to America and try to kill Trump.  If you fail you get three hots and a cot for 2 years and then we send you home."

[MechAg94]

I think Ron hit my view already.  If we ever want politicians to speak their mind instead of reading carefuoly worded speeches off a Teleprompter, we must realize they will occasionally put their feet in their mouth or use poorly chosen words.  IMO, I don't think he meant anything by the comments, so I don't care.  Trump seems to be sticking to his base issue messages without getting too mushy when pressed.  Better than a lot of past R candidates so I am not inclined to get too critical.

[HankB]

. . . Trump uses the innate perfidy and corruption of the DNC-MSM to get free air time.  

Beautiful.  

Once your recognize the media's perfidy - you can USE it.

Case in point: During Desert Storm, Gen. Schwartzkopf had a "secret" briefing for reporters, swore them to secrecy, told them that American lives were at risk, and then informed them that Coalition forces were going to smash right through Iraqi defenses in a frontal assault.

Of course, this was IMMEDIATELY reported by virtually all media outlets, which were of course being monitored by Saddam's generals, who prepared for it.

Everyone was caught off guard when Coalition forces did an end run.

When the media later challenged Stormin' Norman, he said he DELIBERATELY misinformed them, because a US media sworn to secrecy was the BEST way to distribute disinformation to the enemy - he could DEPEND on their perfidy.  

[Perd Hapley]

When even The Federalist congratulates Trump, you know he did something right. 

[roo_ster]

When even The Federalist congratulates Trump, you know he did something right. 

When both the Federalist and the New York Times congratulate Trump, you know he did something wrong.

[230RN]

When both the Federalist and the New York Times congratulate Trump, you know he did something wrong.

By "wrong," of course you mean, "naughty-naughty," as in "Ohhh, you baaaad-baaad boy, you."

Quote from: 230RN on September 17, 2016, 05:26:21 PM
Principles are one thing, .......

Terry

Not just in elections but just in life in general, I've found that when you make this statement with the implied "but",  It's time to stop and take a real long, hard look at what you're about to do.

And, in principle, I agree about the "but."  But when one is facing an unprincipled antagonist, one must reconsider one's options regarding one's own principles with a view toward what's "practical."

Thus, my rigid opinion which I ain't changing:
 
Voting for unviable 3rd party candidates or not voting "in protest" is handing Ms. Clinton the winning ticket, and thank you very much.  Principles are one thing, who nominates SCOTUS candidates in the next 4 years is another.

Terry

[230RN]

Content from here incorporated into the above post.

[MechAg94]

I tend to agree with practical voting.  It is pretty much how I have always looked at it.  We are in a representative republic and since none of you seem to want to select me as the dictator for life, I have to settle for voting for candidates that I don't 100% agree with.  Some match my ideals more than others.  I am forced to choose the best of the available options.  Just because you decided you don't want to play the game, doesn't mean you aren't still in it. 

[Hawkmoon]

Voting for unviable 3rd party candidates or not voting "in protest" is handing Ms. Clinton the winning ticket, and thank you very much.  Principles are one thing, who nominates SCOTUS candidates in the next 4 years is another.

^^^ This.

A couple of decades ago I made a "principled" decision that I was through with voting against candidates, and that henceforth I would only vote for someone -- which meant that if I didn't like either candidate, I would write in my own name. Which I have done in more than one election.

However, the prospect of Hillary Clinton being afforded the opportunity to reshape the Supreme Court in a liberal, globalist, anti-constitutional framework is sufficiently terrifying that this election I will set aside my principled decision, and I will vote against Hillary Clinton. And the ONLY effective way to vote against her is to vote for Trump.

So... yea, Trump!

[Scout26]

^^^ This.

A couple of decades ago I made a "principled" decision that I was through with voting against candidates, and that henceforth I would only vote for someone -- which meant that if I didn't like either candidate, I would write in my own name. Which I have done in more than one election.

However, the prospect of Hillary Clinton being afforded the opportunity to reshape the Supreme Court in a liberal, globalist, anti-constitutional framework is sufficiently terrifying that this election I will set aside my principled decision, and I will vote against Hillary Clinton. And the ONLY effective way to vote against her is to vote for Trump.

So... yea, Trump!

No, your principles are you outlined in your second paragraph.

[230RN]

MechAg94 spake thus:

Just because you decided you don't want to play the game, doesn't mean you aren't still in it.

Golden words.

Terry

[freakazoid]

Optics?

How anyone can misconstrue what he said to mean he is calling for an assassination is completely beyond me. The only way is if that is just what they have been hoping he would say. Same thing with the whole Russian hacking. Same thing when I think it was the NRA that put out a picture of anti-gun politicians using bullet holes to mark them off. You have to be purposely taking it that way to even come close to such a conclusion.

[Perd Hapley]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/media-reject-trumps-birther-switch-after-media-asked-for-it/article/2602295

"It matters not a whit," the paper said, "that Mr. Trump has finally, for blatant political purposes, admitted that the president was born in the United States; large numbers of his partisans, and of Republicans generally, still don't believe Mr. Obama has a legitimate claim to the office he has held for nearly eight years. ... The cancer of corruption perpetuated by Mr. Trump's dazzling dishonesty has infected not only his campaign but also the Republican Party, which falls in line, sheeplike, to defend his every lie."

OK, besides the obvious irony of a left-wing press organ attacking the Republican Party for allegedly doing what the Democratic Party does quite blatantly; it's rather amusing that they just can't get over the fact that a politician's place of birth was questioned. 'Tis a sacrilege never to be forgiven - unless your name is Clinton. Why it should matter, in 2016, whether someone doubted Obama's place of birth, no one can satisfactorily explain.

And now that questions about a brown person's citizenship have been established as racist, they get to play that angle, too. 

[MechAg94]

Optics?

How anyone can misconstrue what he said to mean he is calling for an assassination is completely beyond me. The only way is if that is just what they have been hoping he would say. Same thing with the whole Russian hacking. Same thing when I think it was the NRA that put out a picture of anti-gun politicians using bullet holes to mark them off. You have to be purposely taking it that way to even come close to such a conclusion.

It is the standard Republican behavior.  A candidate says something that liberals misinterpret and blow out of proportion.  Republican voters don't blame the idiot liberals.  They blame the candidate saying he should be more careful.