GOP ramps up attacks on front-runner Donald Trump in wake of KKK endorsement

[Tekk]

 

[Deleted member 196663]

In this thread I already mentioned why discussing these sorts of endorsements are actually reasonable topics of discussions. Moreover, you're the one that made an assertion (i.e. that disavowing is ludicrous).

Where is this phantom post?

 

[Deleted member 196663]

You're making an assertion and are expecting others to defend the opposite position without supporting your own. Cool.

Do you understand what an assertion is in an argument? The assertion was that Trump should disavow support from a KKK member. Asking for justification does not qualify as an assertion. So I don't need to defend shit. You need to go back and understand the basics of argument.

 

[panamaican]

It's been said and it bears repeating. The GOP spent all of those Obama years trying to subtly play identity politics. But Obama, while not a conservative candidate, didn't have an objectionable identity issue except for race. He was male, tall, relatively good looking, well-educated, charming, etc. The same things that we used to elect every other male President since the television era began.

Once the GOP decided that attacking Obama purely on the merits of his platform wasn't enough, they opened the door for the type of person who could object to Obama on the "intangibles", hint hint, wink wink, nudge nudge.

That previously silent group has spent the last 8 years working themselves up into a lather and the GOP has worked very hard to assist them. They hoped it would turn into an anti-Democrat fervor that would capsize the "Hillary is a woman!!!!!!" campaign the Dem's were planning to run.

The problem is they didn't realize that they had slowly turned over the control of the party to the closet bigots that every always said made up part of the party but had previously been under control. Those people respond to Trump's image and the GOP has finally realized that identity politics when based on negative stereotypes is a hard genie to put back in the bottle. People who are motivated by hate are rarely equally motivated by rationality.

 

[7437]

Why? The burden is on you. Why does it matter? That's a question you have to answer before making accusations.

But the position is simple. If I support certain ideas, what is the value in vetting each individual that supports those ideas? If one of those individuals has questionable values, what difference does it make. That's number one. Number two, what the fuck does disavowing support even mean?? Do you want him to clarify he is not a member of the KKK? Do we want to ensure that he doesn't share the same beliefs as the KKK? Shouldn't those be the primary questions. Again, what the fuck is disavowing?

The issue is that people said that trump was racist, supported klan ideas, etc before his endorsement by david duke. It looks bad when you get called racist, claim not to be, and then the Klan shows up to support your ideas.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

Yeah its shocking. It's also absurd to suggest that Trump is a white supremacist or likes David Duke. Trump has a Jewish daughter after all, grandkids, has jewish friends and I believe one of his sons married a jew. All things Duke might dislike.

More interesting is the GOP attacks against him are something I'd expect from the Dems but not his own party. From what I have seen though it isn't working people are now seeing Trump in an even better light amidst these often baseless attacks.

 

[Deleted member 196663]

The issue is that people said that trump was racist, supported klan ideas, etc before his endorsement by david duke. It looks bad when you get called racist, claim not to be, and then the Klan shows up to support your ideas.

Maybe I need to catch up, but when was he supporting Klan ideas??

 

[Madmick]

The dems are just laughing at all of this. They want trump to win this nomination. Once he does, the media will unleash and people will hate him, giving hilary a free ride to the white house

You hear what the Republican leaders like McConnell are saying? They're saying that if he wins the vote to secure the delegate count nomination that they'll undercut him and back the Democratic candidate: even if that's Hillary Clinton. He is already petitioning, successfully, many Republican delegates to "drop him like a bag of hot rocks".
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-party.html
Already we've seen Republican senators come out and say they won't afford Trump their vote (such as the Tea Party senator who stumbled into a bitter bickering session with Morning Joe earlier today).

That would seem to be it. He can't win because the Republicans are willing to forfeit the White House if he does (and this is with a freaking Supreme Court appointment possibly riding on this election, although I strongly suspect that Obama will fill the seat). That was Trump's "leverage". He loves referencing this concept in the abstract where it basically means nothing. His strong front was to say, "If they don't treat me with respect, if they try to lock me out, I'll run as an independent." The presumption, naturally, is that even Trump is preferable to a Democrat. So the RNC would do ANYTHING to avoid dividing the conservative vote. That was Trump's great bluff.


Well, the RNC called it. Cards down, Trump. Game over.

 

[Higus]

Trump goes into convention with the delegate lead, even if he doesn't have 1237, and he comes out of it running for president whether it's as a repub or indy.

A lot of people, including myself, were shitting on the concept of Super Delegates in the DNC. I have to imagine it's not looking like such a bad idea to the GOP these days.

 

[Hogey]

Trump looked like an idiot trying to defend himself.

 

[panamaican]

Already we've seen Republican senators come out and say they won't afford Trump their vote (such as the Tea Party senator who stumbled into a bitter bickering session with Morning Joe earlier today).

That was an awful session btw. I felt like Joe was looking for a fight no matter what. And I'm getting tired of him referencing his time in Congress from ages ago.

 

[Ayin]

You hear what the Republican leaders like McConnell are saying? They're saying that if he wins the vote to secure the delegate count nomination that they'll undercut him and back the Democratic candidate: even if that's Hillary Clinton.

Although I don't really wish the worst to happen to any party, it would be EXTREMELY interesting to just see what happens if Trump wins the nomination and see who holds true to what they've said and who doesn't. The potential is there for some absolutely crazy events if some of these people follow through on their pronouncements.

 

[Madmick]

Although I don't really wish the worst to happen to any party, it would be EXTREMELY interesting to just see what happens if Trump wins the nomination and see who holds true to what they've said and who doesn't. The potential is there for some absolutely crazy events if some of these people follow through on their pronouncements.

Oh yeah, and can you imagine the power wiggling? Which guys break from ranks to stake their bet on the highly unlikely gamble that Don could be relevant in a general election?

The reward boner would be too much for some risk-takers to ignore no matter how long the shot. Not everybody goes to casinos who have that gambling bug driving their brain response impulses.

 

[Ayin]

And as hard as some protest I still feel that if Trump is the nominee they'll cave and support him. I can't imagine the voters supporting the party would look kindly on any party members in positions of power not supporting their own party's nominee, or even (nearly unthinkably) supporting the opposition party's.

Regardless of what anyone says, if Trump is the voted for nominee, until I see otherwise I have to assume the party will fall in line behind him. Maybe quietly, maybe without much media presence, but certainly not actively working against him.

 

[7437]

Maybe I need to catch up, but when was he supporting Klan ideas??

Directly. he wasnt. A lot of people interprited his calls for a wall on the southern border as racism against mexicans. His call to stop immigration was taken the same way. Wanting to ban muslims was seen as religious bigotry. An endorsement from the Klan makes those policies look more like racism and bigotry than rational ideas, as that is what they stand for.

 

[Madmick]

And as hard as some protest I still feel that if Trump is the nominee they'll cave and support him. I can't imagine the voters supporting the party would look kindly on any party members in positions of power not supporting their own party's nominee, or even (nearly unthinkably) supporting the opposition party's.

Regardless of what anyone says, if Trump is the voted for nominee, until I see otherwise I have to assume the party will fall in line behind him. Maybe quietly, maybe without much media presence, but certainly not actively working against him.

The Republicans simply don't have numbers to count a congealed compromise candidate to pull a general election. Not a fucking chance in hell. It is handing the White House to the Democrats. That's why this whole imbroglio exists in the state it does.

 

[Lead]

Trump isn't a difference in values/character, he's the embodiment of what the GOP has been pushing over the last 8 years--as is Cruz.

Aside from being cutthroat and ambitious, I think Cruz and Trump have very little in common. You only see them blended in together because of their immigration stances and if Trump didn't run. Cruz would've stayed far broader on the all out deportation stance he had to clarify last week.

 

[Madmick]

That was an awful session btw. I felt like Joe was looking for a fight no matter what. And I'm getting tired of him referencing his time in Congress from ages ago.

OMFG it was painful, right? Joe was more defensive than I've ever seen. It's pretty clear that he hasn't emotionally recovered from that audio leak of him cozying up to Trump. He's just transparently flailing against that since it broke. Everything about this was about him trying to show that he isn't beholden to bias, and how he can ask the hardball questions.

 

[IDL]

It would be technically very difficult to not have overlap with any given group, which is why guilt by association quickly becomes absurd.

It is an effective political strategy to work to establish as many negative associations as possible though, so it's part of the game. Repetition repetition repetition.

 

[Deleted member 196663]

Directly. he wasnt. A lot of people interprited his calls for a wall on the southern border as racism against mexicans. His call to stop immigration was taken the same way. Wanting to ban muslims was seen as religious bigotry. An endorsement from the Klan makes those policies look more like racism and bigotry than rational ideas, as that is what they stand for.

So you just made up that shit. Okay.