Posted on 11/30/2015 12:09:57 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
On Meet the Press this morning, Donald Trump insisted that:
he was "100 percent right" when he said he saw thousands of Muslims in Jersey City, New Jersey, cheering the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, even though fact-checkers have debunked his assertion.
In a phone interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Trump said he has heard from "hundreds of people that agree" that there were televised Muslim celebrations of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, which he used as evidence to show his remarks were true.
"I saw it. So many people saw it," said Trump, who, in the race for the November 2016 election, has been among the most vocal of the Republican candidates in expressing skepticism about Muslims in the United States. "So, why would I take it back? I'm not going to take it back."
When NBC anchor Chuck Todd suggested the people Trump heard from are supporters and might want to agree with him, Trump interrupted to note the "huge Muslim population" New Jersey has. >
"Why wouldn't it have taken place?" he said of a celebration there. "I've had hundreds of people call in and tweet in on Twitter, saying that they saw it and I was 100 percent right."
This affair serves as the perfect illustration of the ugly manner in which the Trump phenomenon now works. That there is no evidence of "thousands" of American Muslims cheering 9/11 from New Jersey is, frankly, immaterial. Why? Well, because Trump is playing a character on TV, and his script includes no room for error. By the rules he has set out for himself, whatever Trump says he is, he must be. As such, he can't possibly have misremembered what happened after 9/11 - as might any human being - because he has the World's Greatest Memory, and the guy with the World's Greatest Memory doesn't misremember.
This rule applies consistently. If Trump says he's a conservative - despite holding positions that usually make conservatives shriek - then he's a conservative. If that requires redefining conservatism, so be it. If he says he wasn't mocking a journalist whom he was quite obviously mocking, then he wasn't mocking that journalist. If that requires his admirers to suspend disbelief beyond all possible limits, then so be it. And if he says that he saw something of which there really is no evidence, then he must have seen it. Worse still: If you like him, then you must have seen it too.
In this late stage, Trump's whole campaign has become a ghastly feedback loop from which there is no hope of escape. Typically, we do not accept "why wouldn't it have happened?" as much of an argument for anything. Customarily, we would privilege the ancient principle of ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies) above an appeal to the mob. Not here, though. There's a SuperTrump to prop up. If 2+2 has to equal 5 to annoy Chuck Todd or to stick one in the eye of the politically correct, then 2+2 is 5.
Is this true?
And does saying so mean that Donald Trump is "being treated unfairly?"
What is off limits, "unfair," in a primary?
Does reporting and posting on articles about Donald Trump and his politics (past and present) cross the acceptable line?
Did Donald Trump sign the Pledge as a ploy, with no expectations of abiding by it?
Trump: 'Many, Many People Think That I'm Not Being Treated Fairly' By The GOP
"...Trump repeated, "I have no opinion right now." However, "I can say that many, many people think that I'm not being treated fairly. ..".."But the mainstream media and you know the Republicans, I have no, I have no real feeling as to whether or not I'm being treated fairly. But I promise you,I will let you know at some point. I hope I'm being treated fairly because honestly Chuck, that was my deal. My deal, I signed a pledge. My deal was that I would be treated fairly and I hope that's going to be the case."
Feedback loop? Just listen to Rushs montage of lame stream reportage. Same exact words, over and over...
The National Review
Charles C. W. Cooke
And ... a title that insults Trump supporters!
Oh for joy!
I sure am going to spend my life’s precious moments reading that treasure .....NOT !!!!!!!!!
Gee, loyalty in the GOPee doesn’t run very deep!
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/261227-gop-donors-wrestle-with-possibility-of-trump-nomination
A story that circulated after the lunch was that the donors engaged in a hypothetical question: “If it was Donald Trump running against Hillary Clinton, who would you vote for?”
One version has it that most of the Republicans at the table put their hands up for Clinton.
Schnabel disputes that account and said in a telephone interview Tuesday that it was just banter among friends and that he is confident that all the Republicans at the table would support the final GOP nominee for president, whomever that turns out to be.
Schnabel called back later on Tuesday afternoon to clarify what he meant. “My only caveat would be that ... I assume that the Republican we’ll nominate will be somebody that would make a great president,” he said. “That’s not a conversation we’ve had to have in the past, but obviously there are some we would be concerned about.”
The four Republican donors sitting at that lunch table — Schnabel, Freeman, Spogli and Riordan — have between them contributed more than $2.7 million to candidates and political action committees over their careers.
All have donated to former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign, and Freeman and Spogli have given $1 million and $50,000, respectively, to the pro-Bush super-PAC Right to Rise.
And they’re not “biased” or anything like that; right? LOL
Still hating on Trump?
Still no defense of Trump’s politics/behavior?
Which is exactly what COMMIE...errrrrrrrrrrrrrrr COMMON CORE does in math and what the GOPEs do when they talk politics and about Trump; 2+2 = jebbie, or whomever the flavor of that day is, to crush Trump.
At least he is still in it and leading, unlike Walker.
"If it was Donald Trump running against Hillary Clinton, who would you vote for?"I'm pretty sure you could put Cincinatus' Wife in that camp of warped minds.One version has it that most of the Republicans at the table put their hands up for Clinton.
Writers at, “National Review”, and “Weekly Standard” remind me of the Siamese cats in the movie, “Lady and the Tramp”
That’s it?
“Walker isn’t in the race?”
??????
Is that the best comment you can muster in support of Trump?
From his bio it looks like Cooke is a charter member of the GOPe, so his drivel is expected.
Well, you’re wrong (I will vote for a conservative) - but your comment brings up a good point begging for debate, “what is the difference between Hillary and Trump - two old friends, and political allies?
Yes. I think that is the cause of your obvious full blown TDS. GOP-E plan C (Walker) is out and good riddance.
How convenient for your non-response mode.
OH!
Whatever. Walker 2012! YAY!
What publications/outlets/blogs/sites do you like for their coverage of Donald Trump?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.