CDZ As if anyone needs more evidence that Trump cannot be relied upon....transsexuals and bathrooms

[320 Years of History]

What reason would he have for doing it, unless he actually cared?

Doing what "it?"

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

I'm not being obtuse at all. I asked the question because I'm uncertain of what "it" you referred to.

 

[320 Years of History]

Less than .3% of the population.

Unless one peeps in stalls, one will never know if a transgender person is in there.

What is it with RWNJs and their constant Peeping Tom? Why are they so obsessed with other people's pee pees?

They need to grow up and MYOB

This whole bathroom obsession is kinda weird. Where did these asshats think trannies have been going to the bathroom for the last 40 years?

"Conservatives"react. This bathroom thing was invented by the progressives. They pretty much set the conservative agenda. It must be great fun for Soros and his mates.."lets see if we can get them to do...this!" Then they all snicker and roll about.

This thread isn't about what bathrooms transsexuals use or have been using. It's not even about transsexuals, or bathrooms, or what anyone thinks about transsexuals in any way shape or form, or why transsexuals use the bathrooms they use, or even why what bathrooms anyone uses has come to be a political topic. It's about Trump's being unreliable and untrustworthy; it's about the observed fact that the man changes his positions too often for voters -- GOP or Democrats or Independents, or anyone else -- to trust that he'll stick to his stated positions for the duration of any Presidential terms he may obtain.

If you have something on topic to contribute to the discussion, by all means, please do so. If you instead only care to discuss transsexuals, there are at least two current CDZ threads for doing so:

• CDZ - Transgender propaganda
  
• CDZ - Do we really need laws about what restroom transgender people use?

Thank you in advance for respecting the topic of this thread by refraining from discussing the politics of transsexuality.

 

[The Great Goose]

What reason would he have for doing it, unless he actually cared?

Doing what "it?"

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

I'm not being obtuse at all. I asked the question because I'm uncertain of what "it" you referred to.

Running for President!

 

[FA_Q2]

On the Today show, Trump says transsexuals should be permitted to use whatever bathroom they want to use.

Now this is the first time I've heard of him making any statement on that topic. He may have said something about it in the past. I don't know.

What I do know is his position and that of the GOP overall aren't at all the same things. I also know the man has had diametrically opposed positions or behaviors on multiple topics, sometimes all in one day. So the question in my mind is this, "how long will it be before he has a new position on the matter of transsexuals and restrooms?"

But of course the bigger issue is that nobody, not Republicans, not Democrats, can rely on what Trump says at any point in time. The man has time and again shown that he is as likely to change his mind as a teenager is to change boyfriends/girlfriends. That, of course, is one of the two biggest issues I have with Trump.

What does his position on bathrooms have to do with flip flopping - the overall point of the OP unless I am reading it incorrectly...

 

[FA_Q2]

He's not changing his mind. He's never had anything against gays or blacks or legal immigrants or poor people, welfare recipients, disabled..

The issue and point of my OP isn't whether he's for or against LGBT folks. It's also not whether you or I are for or against them. The issue is that Trump's position today is as likely as not to not be his position at sometime within the foreseeable future.

I may agree but you brought in the bathroom shtick and I fail to see how that bolsters your point.

 

[Mac1958]

If I have this right, Trump supporters don't mind if he's not conservative on individual issues.

His attraction appears to be that he'll say absolutely any thing at any time to anyone for any reason.

This is considered anti-establishment and a positive attribute.
.

 

[Correll]

NOte that when you try to make the case he is an anti-woman bigot that you cite three specific women who were his enemies.

Almost as though he was engaged with them as individuals, and you leftist tried to spin it into a problem with women in general.

I did no such thing.

Megyn Kelly was a debate moderator; Carly Fiorina was a candidate. Rosie O'Donnell, I don't even know who she is. What they have in common is that he attacked them all on the basis of gender. And that very much IS about women in general. Actually I could have cited his own daughter as well, same thing. None of those are "enemies", depending on who Rosie O'Donnell is.

I can't believe you want to sit on the internet and pretend that point flew over your head.

And incidentally, we generally form plurals in English by adding the letter S. It's a French thing.

Megan Kelly was a moderate who took sides and targeted Trump. Trump was right to fight back.

Carly Fiorina was a competing candidate. Trump was very harsh with her.

Rosie O'Donnell is a rabid far left partisan. She deserves far worse than she got.

They were all people who opposed Trump, and he focused on them individually because of their individual actions.


Oh, you don't like that he didn't address them seriously and honestly on matter of policy in a civil and polite manner?

Sorry, as a leftist you have no credibility to complain about that.

Wwwhhooooosssshhh.

How convenient it must be to plug in your own points because you can't deal with the ones actually made.
Are you afraid?

You mentioned three women who Trump attacked, "on the basis of gender".

Yet they were not just random women that were innocently walking along that he ambushed.

THey were individuals who were his enemies.

He has real reasons to attack them.

Is he playing hard ball? Yes.

Megan Kelly betrayed her professional responsibility to be an impartial MODERATOR. She deserved what she got.

Rosie O'Donnell is a vile person. She deserves what ever he said about her.

I can't believe you're STILL willing to play dumb on this.

Let's break it down into simplistic analogies.
Did Rump attack any of his male rivals on the basis of what he looks like?
Did Rump attack any other moderator or interviewer on the basis of his bodily functions?
Did Rump suggest that if he wasn't his father, he might be dating his son?

Let us know when this starts to sink in. If ever.

/offtopic

The first two, yes.

He's made fun of Rubio's hair and being sweaty and short. He called Jeb Bush, low energy.


Let me know when this starts to sink in. If ever.

 

[Correll]

If I have this right, Trump supporters don't mind if he's not conservative on individual issues.

His attraction appears to be that he'll say absolutely any thing at any time to anyone for any reason.

This is considered anti-establishment and a positive attribute.
.

Trump is not a conservative. He is a nationalist and a populist.

HIs platform is about defending and advancing American interests.

Which is long overdue and badly needed.

THAT is considered "anti-establishment and a positive attribute. "

 

[Mac1958]

If I have this right, Trump supporters don't mind if he's not conservative on individual issues.

His attraction appears to be that he'll say absolutely any thing at any time to anyone for any reason.

This is considered anti-establishment and a positive attribute.
.

Trump is not a conservative. He is a nationalist and a populist.

HIs platform is about defending and advancing American interests.

Which is long overdue and badly needed.

THAT is considered "anti-establishment and a positive attribute. "

Okay - now, each of the "major" parties has a relatively long list of issues that might be considered their "platform".

Would it be safe to say that Trump's list is shorter (certainly not a bad thing) and more focused, with everything else secondary, tertiary, or irrelevant?
.

 

[Correll]

And to support that you pick an issue he did not have a previous public position on and....


Err, what?

Holy FS....

REAL simple here -- the OP's question is how long is it before Rump's position changes yet again according to what works in the moment.

Like it did on the Iraq war.... like it did on abortion.... like it did on David Duke... etc etc etc.

REal simple here. THe OP is what I said. HE attempts to make his point with an example that doesn't show what he claims.

Duke? THat's another one where there was no reversal.

Fine well you can bury your head in the sand and pretend it never happened. That's what Rump does when it turns out he should have said something different.

Dismissed.

You are not angry with Trump because he is NOT taking a stand against Trannies in women's restrooms.

YOu are angry because he has seriously challenged Political Correctness, which you lefties rely on to avoid having to defend your political positions and policies on just their merits.

Which you generally CAN'T do because they are generally bad for America and Americans.

I'm not "angry" about either. I don't actually give a flying fart about bathrooms --- actually I think it's hilarious that some of y'all are melting down over it. And in keeping with that I've made a total of no posts whatsoever on it.

This thread is about Donald Rump (not bathrooms) and his ever-shifting positions.
Weird how you don't get that.

You're not angry, and yet you can't even type his name correctly and you claim he didn't repudiate David Duke?

 

[Correll]

If I have this right, Trump supporters don't mind if he's not conservative on individual issues.

His attraction appears to be that he'll say absolutely any thing at any time to anyone for any reason.

This is considered anti-establishment and a positive attribute.
.

Trump is not a conservative. He is a nationalist and a populist.

HIs platform is about defending and advancing American interests.

Which is long overdue and badly needed.

THAT is considered "anti-establishment and a positive attribute. "

Okay - now, each of the "major" parties has a relatively long list of issues that might be considered their "platform".

Would it be safe to say that Trump's list is shorter (certainly not a bad thing) and more focused, with everything else secondary, tertiary, or irrelevant?
.

I couldn't say, I don't follow everything Trump says, mostly the stuff I care about, ie Immigration and Trade.

I haven't "heard" him focus much on other issues, but that could be because I didn't care that much about other issues and thus didn't listen or at least care enough to retain the information.

But I'm willing to accept your premise for purposes of discussion.

 

[Correll]

He's not changing his mind. He's never had anything against gays or blacks or legal immigrants or poor people, welfare recipients, disabled..

The issue and point of my OP isn't whether he's for or against LGBT folks. It's also not whether you or I are for or against them. The issue is that Trump's position today is as likely as not to not be his position at sometime within the foreseeable future.

And to support that you pick an issue he did not have a previous public position on and....


Err, what?

I did because I've already got plenty of posts discussing/identifying the others.

I really don't care that much what position he takes on the transgender issue. I care that whatever position he articulates now, he holds true to it during his Presidency. My problem with Trump is that I don't think he can be trusted. I've seen so many contradictions from that man that I haven't even gotten to the point whereby what be his actual positions on the issues even matter.

Is that really your problem with him?

If someone was to magically brainwash you into trusting him, would you really then be open to the idea of being a Trump supporter?

 

[Mac1958]

If I have this right, Trump supporters don't mind if he's not conservative on individual issues.

His attraction appears to be that he'll say absolutely any thing at any time to anyone for any reason.

This is considered anti-establishment and a positive attribute.
.

Trump is not a conservative. He is a nationalist and a populist.

HIs platform is about defending and advancing American interests.

Which is long overdue and badly needed.

THAT is considered "anti-establishment and a positive attribute. "

Okay - now, each of the "major" parties has a relatively long list of issues that might be considered their "platform".

Would it be safe to say that Trump's list is shorter (certainly not a bad thing) and more focused, with everything else secondary, tertiary, or irrelevant?
.

I couldn't say, I don't follow everything Trump says, mostly the stuff I care about, ie Immigration and Trade.

I haven't "heard" him focus much on other issues, but that could be because I didn't care that much about other issues and thus didn't listen or at least care enough to retain the information.

But I'm willing to accept your premise for purposes of discussion.

If I'm correct about that, the implications are pretty far-reaching. There is clearly a battle for control of the party right now, going in three directions: Moderate, conservative and populist/nationalist. A narrowing of the breadth of the platform would, theoretically, attract more people.

However, the risk here is that the messenger is so unattractive outside of his base that he could do damage to the idea of populism/nationalism on a wider, long term scale. I'd argue that has already happened to a significant degree.

I admittedly don't have a dog in this hunt, but the nature of the party that remains after this mess is important to the country, which needs two strong opposing parties.
.

 

[Correll]

He's not changing his mind. He's never had anything against gays or blacks or legal immigrants or poor people, welfare recipients, disabled..

The issue and point of my OP isn't whether he's for or against LGBT folks. It's also not whether you or I are for or against them. The issue is that Trump's position today is as likely as not to not be his position at sometime within the foreseeable future.

And it's a fair question, fueled by much history. Such as repudiating David Duke one day, and then the next day not being able to figure out who he is. Rump just makes it up as he goes along. He has no plan for anything except how to attract attention. If somebody gives him blowback for the present comment he'll just deny having said it. Perhaps try to blame a "lousy earpiece".

He has no principles. He just blurts out whatever he thinks will win him attention and adulation from the gullible in the moment.

How many times does one has to repudiate David Duke before you libs stop asking about him?

It's almost as though, you don't care about the answer and are just using the question to smear someone unfairly...

Red:
Unequivocally and unambiguously once during the 2016 Presidential campaign would be sufficient.

I don't like and should not need to infer what a Presidential candidate means when they say something. When a candidate is asked a question answerable by "yes" or "no," I expect them to say "yes" or "no." If after doing so, they want to qualify their response, fine, but still if the preponderance of their stance corresponds to yes, they need so say "yes." If it's mostly no, they need to say "no."

Why should we whose votes they solicit need to figure out which way they lean or what they "really meant?" Is it expecting too much of them to just be clear? I think it is not and unquestionably clear is not what Trump was re: repudiating David Duke's endorsement.

Donald Trump and David Duke: For the record

"
NBC’s Matt Lauer: “When you say the [Reform] party is self-destructing, what do you see as the biggest problem with the Reform Party right now?”

Trump: “Well, you’ve got David Duke just joined — a bigot, a racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party.”

—remarks on NBC’s “Today Show,” Feb. 14, 2000"



"2015
Bloomberg’s John Heilemann: “How do you feel about the David Duke quasi-endorsement?”

Trump: “I don’t need his endorsement; I certainly wouldn’t want his endorsement."

 

[Correll]

If I have this right, Trump supporters don't mind if he's not conservative on individual issues.

His attraction appears to be that he'll say absolutely any thing at any time to anyone for any reason.

This is considered anti-establishment and a positive attribute.
.

Trump is not a conservative. He is a nationalist and a populist.

HIs platform is about defending and advancing American interests.

Which is long overdue and badly needed.

THAT is considered "anti-establishment and a positive attribute. "

Okay - now, each of the "major" parties has a relatively long list of issues that might be considered their "platform".

Would it be safe to say that Trump's list is shorter (certainly not a bad thing) and more focused, with everything else secondary, tertiary, or irrelevant?
.

I couldn't say, I don't follow everything Trump says, mostly the stuff I care about, ie Immigration and Trade.

I haven't "heard" him focus much on other issues, but that could be because I didn't care that much about other issues and thus didn't listen or at least care enough to retain the information.

But I'm willing to accept your premise for purposes of discussion.

If I'm correct about that, the implications are pretty far-reaching. There is clearly a battle for control of the party right now, going in three directions: Moderate, conservative and populist/nationalist. A narrowing of the breadth of the platform would, theoretically, attract more people.

However, the risk here is that the messenger is so unattractive outside of his base that he could do damage to the idea of populism/nationalism on a wider, long term scale. I'd argue that has already happened to a significant degree.

I admittedly don't have a dog in this hunt, but the nature of the party that remains after this mess is important to the country, which needs two strong opposing parties.
.

Trump is not a danger to the concept of nationalism.

If anything has been weakening American Nationalism it has been generations of anti-american lib propaganda.

The American Left will demonize anyone who challenges the Leftist Agenda and/or Political Correctness, and the bigger the threat the more the push back.

And Trump is the biggest threat for a long time.

That is the real source of his "unattractiveness".

Populism? Is a method, not really an ideology.

 

[hadit]

On the Today show, Trump says transsexuals should be permitted to use whatever bathroom they want to use.

Now this is the first time I've heard of him making any statement on that topic. He may have said something about it in the past. I don't know.

What I do know is his position and that of the GOP overall aren't at all the same things. I also know the man has had diametrically opposed positions or behaviors on multiple topics, sometimes all in one day. So the question in my mind is this, "how long will it be before he has a new position on the matter of transsexuals and restrooms?"

But of course the bigger issue is that nobody, not Republicans, not Democrats, can rely on what Trump says at any point in time. The man has time and again shown that he is as likely to change his mind as a teenager is to change boyfriends/girlfriends. That, of course, is one of the two biggest issues I have with Trump.

He's not changing his mind. He's never had anything against gays or blacks or legal immigrants or poor people, welfare recipients, disabled..


He's just not a bigot.The only group he's against are illegal immigrants and Thought Police (who happen to be feminist so they accuse him of "misogyny").

Oh he's absolutely a bigot. Not so much on race, beyond the "black guys counting my money" thing, but misogyny --- absolutely. What was that he said about Carly Fiorina? And Megyn Kelly? And Rosie O'Donnell?

Then there's the disabled --- hard to believe you actually typed that considering...

​

Technically it's not so much "bigotry" as "arrested development".

So because he said stuff about individual women, he "hates" women?

Simpletons have a simple, black/white view of things. Trump's primary problem is that he is running as a Republican, which allows simpletons to hate. If a politician is a Republican, he/she is automatically accused of hating women, minorities, the poor, and wearing white after Labor Day. It's just what simpletons do.

The bottom line with this year's election is, it looks like we get a crap shoot with Trump or just plain crap with Hillary.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

So, here you have Trump taking a position consistent with liberal ideology, and the leftists are doing nothing but trashing him. I'd say that is about par for the course here.

As to the issue, itself, I can come up with one possible argument that would actually be consistent with conservative talking points, however, and that would be to remind them of the arguments they put forward on guns. Conservatives argue that law abiding people should be able to have guns and that we should focus on punishing the actual criminals, don't they? In that, they are distinguishing between the potential for a crime and the crime, itself.

When it comes to transgender people using a restroom, they are actually taking the opposite approach in that they are arguing for restriction based upon potential instead of focusing on actual crime. ALL the conservative radio pundits are hammering home the same theme, namely, that they want to prevent a straight guy wearing a dress from entering a women's bathroom. They do NOT focus on the nature of the actual transgenders who identify as a women, live their lives as a woman, have had gender reassignment surgery and pose no innate threat to other women.

It's really a case of their thinking it is weird and icky-poo and constructing specious arguments that serve their reactions.

 

[320 Years of History]

What reason would he have for doing it, unless he actually cared?

Doing what "it?"

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

I'm not being obtuse at all. I asked the question because I'm uncertain of what "it" you referred to.

Running for President!

Feather in an egomaniac's cap.

 

[Stephanie]

Like I'm going to decide my vote over a stinking remark about a Bathroom. man on man how STUPID

 

[Correll]

What reason would he have for doing it, unless he actually cared?

Doing what "it?"

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

I'm not being obtuse at all. I asked the question because I'm uncertain of what "it" you referred to.

Running for President!

Feather in an egomaniac's cap.

Every person running for president thinks they are qualified to be the most powerful person in the world.


A Presidential Candidate, by definition, has a tremendous ego.

Some just hide it better.