Trump claims he "knows nothing" about David Duke or the KKK

How old are you? Duke was very nationally politically active from 1988 to 2000. A little less so since then but surely noticeable to a political junkie.
Duke ran for president twice, there is zero chance Trump didn't know who he was.
 
i honestly hate this kind of tabloid journalism. republicans did this with obama and bill ayers.

trump is actually being very smart and just refusing to acknowledge the question in the slightest. you also don't need some fuckface from cnn pretending to be a journalist to know trump is a sack of shit baiting the most xenophobic and fear based emotions out of ignorant white folk.

that's just called paying fucking attention.
I agree people have no control over who endorses them and it's tabloid journalism to try to infer a link.
 
I thought this story was going to be about this....................

Trump rivals call for release of NY Times editorial board tape
By Reuters

Published: 19:32 EST, 29 February 2016 | Updated: 19:32 EST, 29 February 2016

By Emily Stephenson

SAN ANTONIO, Feb 29 (Reuters) - Donald Trump's rivals for the Republican presidential nomination urged him on Monday to ask the New York Times to release a recording of his recent interview with its editorial board, following a report he told it he was not serious about his immigration proposals.

News website BuzzFeed reported on Monday that Trump had suggested to the Times' editorial board in an off-the-record briefing that he would likely not stand by his immigration proposals if elected president.

Trump, the Republican front-runner, has called for deporting all illegal immigrants and has said he would get the Mexican government to pay for building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

"Donald Trump should ask The New York Times to release the audio of his interview with him so we can see exactly what it is he truly believes about this issue that he has made the cornerstone of his campaign," U.S. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida said in a statement.

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas called on Trump to do so before this week's Super Tuesday, the biggest single day of state-by-state presidential nominating contests for the Nov. 8 presidential election.

"There's one of two instances: It is either false ... (or) he actually now is telling the New York Times editorial board: 'Pay no attention to what I'm saying on immigration because I, Donald Trump don't intend to do anything I'm saying,'" Cruz said at a campaign rally in San Antonio.

BuzzFeed quoted New York Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal as saying he would not comment "on what was off the record at our meeting with him."


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/re...Times-editorial-board-tape.html#ixzz41cBuzGm1
 
How so? Do you have any proof? At any point did he have any dealings with him? Duke was barely heard of even in Georgia. You think Trump really knows every fucking hillbilly politician in the south ffs??? Why would he? Trump was never even in politics before.

But of course you have no proof and you just spout off stupid shit as usual.

edit: so it seems he disavowed him just now. so this would lead me to believe he did not know about david duke and what he was about. Trump is about doing what makes him popular and liking duke would not accomplish that goal plus I don't think trump has ever been tied to a white supremacist group.
Wow. I bet this felt like a smart, strong play at the time you posted it.

Bet you feel pretty fucking wizard 24 hours later. Literally everything is wrong-- even the edit. You're a competent little storm trooper. You're quite good at mimicking your closet racist hero, I suppose.
 
What I'd say is that lifting median incomes is a really, really hard task. You can focus on closing the gap between average and the median by promoting more equality, though that won't work with a Republican Congress (and it's a hard task even if you can do whatever you want). You can try to aggressively promote full employment (meaning first appointing a Fed chair willing to let unemployment fall and then fiscal stimulus if necessary--but that's impossible with a Republican Congress). You can also try to focus on increasing overall growth, through infrastructure and R&D investments (Republicans have expressed willingness to go along with that in principle, though they've blocked actual attempts). Allowing more immigration would help there (though, you know--also, I think some people genuinely think that it would have the opposite effect). I wouldn't expect those things to be a magic bullet that dramatically raises living standards for the median American even if they could pass, though. I'd think expecting all that to lead to a one-time 10% boost would be realistic though a little optimistic.

That's all just looking at the economy. I think the peace of mind that comes from at least near-universal healthcare is big for everyone, and climate change is, to me, probably the single most important quality of life political issue.

The results aren't always the same, and they'll continue to be different going forward. Though, as you can see, Congress really matters. Obama was able to do so much because he had a Congress that agreed with him on a lot in his first term, and conversely, Trump or Rubio will be able to do a lot of what they want if they win. If Clinton wins, she will probably provide most of her value (from my perspective, at least) in vetoing crazy bills.

Perhaps if they would focus less on Israel and more in their own backyard, they could make a more of a difference.

I can't really disagree with your strategy, cause I don't know enough, but I suspect people will disagree with you about immigration, health care, and climate change.

I'd like to see Trump in office just to confirm my suspicions that it doesn't matter who the POTUS is. I would have said the same of Bernie (since he espouses socialism ideals), but I think Obama already proved as much. Despite what you say, I don't see the differences. Obamacare is not exactly my idea of free health care, or at least those who object would have me believe.
 
Wow. I bet this felt like a smart, strong play at the time you posted it.

Bet you feel pretty fucking wizard 24 hours later. Literally everything is wrong-- even the edit. You're a competent little storm trooper. You're quite good at mimicking your closet racist hero, I suppose.

Problem is he's a Trump supporter, so he's just going to ignore this post and keep on believing the dumb shit he currently believes.
 
How so? Do you have any proof? At any point did he have any dealings with him? Duke was barely heard of even in Georgia. You think Trump really knows every fucking hillbilly politician in the south ffs??? Why would he? Trump was never even in politics before.

But of course you have no proof and you just spout off stupid shit as usual.

edit: so it seems he disavowed him just now. so this would lead me to believe he did not know about david duke and what he was about. Trump is about doing what makes him popular and liking duke would not accomplish that goal plus I don't think trump has ever been tied to a white supremacist group.
There is video of Trump saying David Duke is a bigot in 2000. And it was explained to Trump who he was in this pages instance. He pretended not to know who he was, and worse, not to know who the KKK was. So I can infer some things from this. Trump is full of shit, and only disavowed Duke after he determined that it was the best PR move, but did so reluctantly.
 
Rather than create a new discrete thread reminding everyone about this, since it's become such a hot topic the past few days, I thought I'd TTT this thread as a historical reminder.
 
Nice, serious threads which don't violate any WR rules get dumped meanwhile shit threads like this get necro bumped by mods.

giphy.gif


Also, I'd say it's pretty relevant considering....

 
Back
Top