Posted on 03/31/2016 12:02:43 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
It’s a reasonable argument, but it’s not what I took from it.
After the first thread was pulled, I did a little more research on what other outlets reported. They’re all reporting his response to Hillary’s question, which was about the kind of justice he would appoint to SCOTUS. She went on to include AG, but the focus of her question and the point she was making was about SCOTUS.
I give him a pass most of the time. I can’t on this one.
You can’t really make a connection between Hillary’s question and Trump’s response. There just isn’t anything out there to make the connection.
Show me an interview. Give me a transcript.
Slapped down? How do you suppose? JR can’t state his opinion without slapping me down?
The other thread was pulled for a bad source. It had some good discussion. That’s why I re-posted it. In fact, it was a pretty polite discussion.
The thing that people like a lot about him, that he’s an outsider and not a politician, is the thing that puts him at a disadvantage sometimes.
Having not run for office before, he is still learning the nuances (i.e., lying, pandering, knowing that every word will be dissected, answering indirectly) that the others have down pat.
I know what he meant by top three Fed Gov priorities and what he meant here.
The theoretical punishment for a theoretical crime question should never have been answered. But he said what makes sense. If it’s illegal, then...there’s a price to pay.
Cruz and Kasich know that every uttered sentence is a potential bombshell for the press. He needs to understand that and adjust accordingly. jmho
Whatever. The media is always right about Republicans anyway. Especially raw story and politico.
Here is the whole interview, unedited -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV6kNrZZCp0
Pay close attention to the context.
He does *not* say that he’s referring to the Supreme Court.
He’s trying to turn the question around. He says “I’ll appoint people who...” without reference to specific offices.
The point is he’d focus on prosecuting Hillary - as well he should.
The headline as it is written here is a total misquote and a purposeful misrepresentation of what he actually said.
Sure I can. That's exactly what David Muir was asking Trump to directly respond to - Hillary's comment/question.
I watched it. Several times. To me, it was clear that the point was to get his response to Hillary’s comment.
Hillary added “or for that matter Attorney General” as an additional thing to fear on top of a potential Trump pick for SCOTUS. David Muir asked Trump to respond.
Others have argued that he meant AG not SCOTUS. One could also argue that the format (a phone interview) prevented Trump from fully understanding the gist of the question. Both are reasonable arguments. I don’t accept them, but others may.
lol. Regardless of the past few days, he’s still way ahead and I’m sure Ivanka will straighten him out on the “nuances”. She’s sharp.
I agree. But the problem is Trump should have learned that lesson back in June of 2015 when he made the immigrants are rapists remarks.
He has not learned that lesson yet and he's had almost 10 months to do so. So either he's a slow learner, or he doesn't care. Either option is disconcerting but I believe it is the latter. And because I believe he doesn't care how can anyone in good conscience vote for him?
If Trump wins you will have a President whose guiding principle is based solely on his whim.
He probably never will. He’s not known as mealy-mouthed.
From the other angle, that comment pushed him to the top instantly.
One rape by a person who is not supposed to be here is horrific enough, and I’m sure the number is quite high.
Throw in the murders, DWIs, DUIs, robberies, MS13, and we let in a disaster.
I do agree that the learning curve has to take off starting yesterday!
That’s fine. You can make your own inferences.
But here’s something that’s not inference.
Take a look at the headline on this thread.
Politico has deliberately made it look as if that’s a quote from Trump.
Nowhere on that video does he say “I’d pick justices who...”
Indeed. I can’t and won’t defend Politico. They’re not to be trusted as demonstrated by the number of reporters involved with Journolist.
I wasn’t fooled by Politico’s bias. I examined the context. So did you. We came to different conclusions. So be it. This is what disagreement should look like around here. Reasoned not emotional.
Thanks for the input.
He represents the angry mob marching to administer justice that has been long delayed. I can't fault anyone for having reached the end of their rope.
Good posting with clear points!
Yes it did. I live in SoCal so I see what happens. And where I live I see the intersection of Mexican drug cartels, their MC affiliates like the Mongols and the Vagos, and the Mexican Mafia (La Eme) so I was not unhappy to hear him say it.
So I have a personal stake in seeing that particular problem is eradicated.
I noticed that. I took a break, I come back, I see all these liberal friendly sources being posted, including the enquirer.
Now if you speak out against Trump in any way, or post a negative, it seems you get thrashed and called a professional troll.
As if Trump, who thinks the government should handle housing, health care, education is somehow something we should get behind?
FR used to be a place for Conservatives.
Now it’s a Trump SJW safe zone.
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.