You're lying...or to be more accurate, I should say "you're Trumping" - trying to have it both ways, by saying two contradictory things.
Lol. What am I lying about?
I didn't say two contradictory things, but if you can point out the words that you failed to understand I will try to clarify for you in the simplest terms I can manage.
You're admitting "there's room to criticize" the dishonest crap he pulled.
Yes. There is room to criticise. He's not a polished speaker and is often caught flatfooted. I mean, that is literally the thing that he is most praised for: he's not got a political tongue, he says the 'wrong' thing all the time because he speaks off-the-cuff, but saying, "I don't know anything about David Duke," is not the same as saying, "I don't know who David Duke is." You're literal-minded, and that is not the sign of an intelligent person. Did you hear the words he said in context, or did you just read them and run with the intent pressed upon you by the article in which you read them?
I have a feeling the latter came first, at which point your mind was made up about the narrative you were going to push.
The problem is that your criticism, like a lot of the criticism against the man, is hyperbolic and dishonest. That's what I have a problem with, and it's where you undermine your own point. There is no need to exaggerate or to focus on nothings, and yet you feel the need to do exactly that. Either, I assume, because you know the criticisms you have at hand are weak, or because you're too simple-minded to have recognized the honest criticisms you could make.
He slipped up once, on an issue he's badgered about. On either side of that slip he gave the answer that you'd have to be uncritical of, but you'll ignore the stance he's consistent on, and focus on... what? This silliness is in the same league as (actually, a step below) Obama critics that say Barack Hussein is a Muslim who wants to destroy America. You're clutching at straws, and hanging your hat on weak arguments.
Literally within days on either side of the slip that you're desperate to crucify him for he denounced DD, but you'll ignore that and lunge at one fuck up. It's pathetic.
How much do you think that slip-up benefited him? You seem to be assuming that he's a very stupid man, because that would be the only possible explanation for his breaking from a twenty-year script right at a moment that he shouldn't be breaking from it. That's another problem you guys have: you keep assuming he's an unintelligent individual. He's not. He's just plain and simply spoken in an arena where you're expecting subtle duplicity.
And then out of the other side of your mouth you're claiming my criticism is "bullshit"...even though what I've said was short, to the point, and contained nothing but facts and questions (which you avoided, btw), with no subjective content.
Not out of the side of my mouth. Fully out of the front. Your criticism is bullshit. It was short, to the point, and bullshit.
You said that "
now he has no idea who Duke is."
That is not a fact. That is a lie, or an internalised denial of the actual facts.
By the way, here's another for the "Gee, why does poor Donald get associated with white supremacists?" list:
"A white nationalist super PAC paid for a pro-Trump robocall to Iowa voters that said, "We don't need Muslims. We need smart, well-educated white people who will assimilate to our culture. Vote Trump."
Yeah, he came along and 'disavowed' the ad later...before adding something designed to excuse it.
But it's sure a crazy coincidence how these groups keep identifying with him, isn't it?
That's nice. And Bernie's supporters are violent sociopaths who spray kids with mace. Are we blaming the candidates for every idiot that supports them? Trump may not have the most wholesome supporters all the time, but what disreputable actions have any of them taken?
Sorry, but I actually couldn't give that much of a shit if a group is non-violently racist, because non-violent racism is better than violent expressions of 'peace and love.'
Your entire argument boils down to, "I don't like Trump supporters and I don't understand context, so Trump is the devil."
It's just weak.
Oh, and those questions I ignored were based on a false premise, which is why I ignored them - they were stupid questions from a stupid place. He is not now pretending he doesn't know who Duke is, so I'm not sure what answers you thought you were looking for.
