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.
There. Fixed it.
Of course they would. They are making a point. Using a principle of The Art of the Deal. Trying to show they have something to bargain with, even if it's the fate of the American people.
Steve is lucky Ailes is not letting him go. I imagine it’s because it would look bad and would be hard to explain.
Steve has been most fair I believe (I don’t watch F&F or any television) from the YouTube clip links sent to me.
I saw one clip of Steve interviewing Trump and he looked nervous. I expect Steve’s job could be in trouble.
Good outlook for him I believe is that he will make an excellent press secretary for President Trump.
First they had the rooftop tailgate style parties, then the beheadings and genital mutilations, then the dancing in the streets.
It was a Muslim three act play.
You really need to keep up.
ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies)
0bama threw a pdf forgery up on the WH website and called it a Birth Certificate.
0bama needs to prove his past history is legit
Wow you are delusional! Get a grip on that TDS, it’s really festering!
Here is a WSJ article that mentions the private meeting with Trump, but makes it clear that there is no clue how many of the 100 will endorse:
An Internet search doesn’t turn up any links to anything from the Trump campaign saying the 100 will endorse him.
Some here take a headline and run with it like it is Divine truth.
/johnny
It happened all over the muzzie world, I remember the clips on the news, along with the liberal hand wringing constantly asking "why do they hate us?" and them thinking and saying it was our fault. It's that kind of anti PC attitude that endears many to Trump, it's why a lot of us, including me, are willing to excuse his lack of consistent conservatism; he has latched on to some very important issues and has brought them up unapologetically and stood by them. It's why he is first and has been for months on end.
Unfortunately the poster of this thread appears to hate Trump more than truth. I think he was correct in saying what he said about muzzies who celebrated, yet here she is, seemingly defending the assault by the MSM on truth by posting this article.
She appears VERY bitter about Walker not making it very far, and blames Trump. She says she doesn't have a preferred candidate yet, and posts lots of anti-Trump stuff.
I much preferred her stance on Walker (who I liked), that she would defend him against misinformed people on this forum. She did that well.
Her hatred of Trump is making her akin to the poster known as pissant, posting memes from the left (and sometimes the misguided right) against another candidate because her candidate lost. I know she won't like what I'm saying, but it's an attempt at a constructive critique.
I would rather she would put forth a viable candidate, support him or her fervently, and go back with her better angels. Having made the same mistake myself a few times, I think that's the better course.
Cincinatus' Wife posts a Sharles "Chuckie" C. W. Cooke column.
Didn't we slap the little Brit Libertarian punk around enough last time you posted some of his Naturally Revolting vomit?
FURTHERMORE - what's with the "e" at the end of your name "Cook", Chuck? Is that to let us Merkuns know that you were born in Cambridge, and went to Oxford? Affectations like that have always bothered us peasantry, though you are to be commended for using Latin in your screed. It's a friendless language, and nobody uses it much these days.
Huzzah for you, Chuck! Too bad your argument in the article is full of wind - the gaseous excretory kind.
Perhaps this is why Sharles harbours a secret grudge against Trump...
Hawthorn has pinwheels-for-eyes when it comes to Trump.
Charles C. W. Cooke Charles C. W. Cooke is an atheist (see this link - 1) who recently |
If Trump get elected, he’s going to have to create a National Safe Space for the GOPe.
If Trump gets elected, he’s going to have to create a National Safe Space for the GOPe.
Now That is what I am talking about!
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.