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

[bodecea]

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?

Then attack the person for what they believe, what they do, what they say......what is the point of attacking them for their gender?

Shall we attack men we disagree with NOT for their beliefs, actions, or comments...but rather because they are male? What would THAT look like?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Progressives passed the NC and MS laws. Sure. Run with that.

 

[320 Years of History]

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?

Red:
Did I stutter? I have at least since December 2015 been saying exactly that.

Am I "anti-Trump?" As someone to have lunch with or play a game of tennis with? No. As a politician who I trust to be true to his word? Yes.

...when he first announced his candidacy, I was keen on him -- businessman, charismatic, independently wealthy enough not to have to pander to "big corporate money," calling out existing politicians for their "partnership" with lobbyists and political fundraising, etc. -- but now, I just do not trust Mr. Trump because I don't see the alignment between his words/ideology and his actions, actions that he had to answer to nobody else to take.

I am now convinced that Mr. Trump's early acts/remarks that I thought boded well for him were little but him pandering to voters just to get their votes, not because he genuinely believed in and espoused the ideas and themes he articulated.

Now, with regard to his 2008 remarks, Mr. Trump has said, "the Clintons and I get along with everybody virtually, because that was -- when I needed approvals, when I needed something from Washington, I always got what I wanted." ....

Why are Mr. Trump's age, 2008 and present remarks all relevant? Because taken together, it becomes clear there's no telling what the man actually stands for. I honestly have no idea what that man will do if he becomes President.

The fact of the matter is that I can honestly say that aside from small children and adolescents (or adults now whom I knew before they were not adults), I don't know, know of, or have one person in my entire circle of friends, acquaintances, family members, or random folks on whom I've relied and about whom I can say they repeatedly say/do A and then later do/say -A.

I understand that people will lie, exaggerate, whatever you want to call material and deliberate misrepresentations of facts, facts great and small. I don't care for that either. The thing is that few people will do that in public and on the record. Even fewer are they who will will go back on their word.

I have no idea or way to anticipate what he actually will do on any given matter. Therefore I do not trust him.

...it really doesn't matter whether he's "right" IMO on "this or that" matter of policy. His demonstrated willingness to say/do X and later say/do -X tells me that I can't rely on him actively doing X (or trying to) even though he said that X was what he thinks needs to be done. Therefore, I do not trust him.

I'm not saying that those things aren't so. I'm saying that, unlike what I know or don't know about his fellow Republican candidates, I know for a fact that Mr. Trump does not reliably keep his word, and it's clear that whether he will or will not keep his word depends not on what he wants at any given time, not on whether he has stated "such and such" a course of intended action on a given matter. ....

I don't trust people who do that. Do you?

As if the above (and more) isn't bad enough, coming out of the GOP's recent Florida meeting, we hear that Trump was "playing a part." So now, not only is it his statements about his views that we cannot rely upon, we are now told that the personality we've been observing over the past nine months or so is also a charade. Puh-lease!

 

[The Great Goose]

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?

Then attack the person for what they believe, what they do, what they say......what is the point of attacking them for their gender?

Shall we attack men we disagree with NOT for their beliefs, actions, or comments...but rather because they are male? What would THAT look like?

That's actually trump all argument, proven 100% effective.

 

[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?

Red:
Did I stutter? I have at least since December 2015 been saying exactly that.

Am I "anti-Trump?" As someone to have lunch with or play a game of tennis with? No. As a politician who I trust to be true to his word? Yes.

...when he first announced his candidacy, I was keen on him -- businessman, charismatic, independently wealthy enough not to have to pander to "big corporate money," calling out existing politicians for their "partnership" with lobbyists and political fundraising, etc. -- but now, I just do not trust Mr. Trump because I don't see the alignment between his words/ideology and his actions, actions that he had to answer to nobody else to take.

I am now convinced that Mr. Trump's early acts/remarks that I thought boded well for him were little but him pandering to voters just to get their votes, not because he genuinely believed in and espoused the ideas and themes he articulated.

Now, with regard to his 2008 remarks, Mr. Trump has said, "the Clintons and I get along with everybody virtually, because that was -- when I needed approvals, when I needed something from Washington, I always got what I wanted." ....

Why are Mr. Trump's age, 2008 and present remarks all relevant? Because taken together, it becomes clear there's no telling what the man actually stands for. I honestly have no idea what that man will do if he becomes President.

The fact of the matter is that I can honestly say that aside from small children and adolescents (or adults now whom I knew before they were not adults), I don't know, know of, or have one person in my entire circle of friends, acquaintances, family members, or random folks on whom I've relied and about whom I can say they repeatedly say/do A and then later do/say -A.

I understand that people will lie, exaggerate, whatever you want to call material and deliberate misrepresentations of facts, facts great and small. I don't care for that either. The thing is that few people will do that in public and on the record. Even fewer are they who will will go back on their word.

I have no idea or way to anticipate what he actually will do on any given matter. Therefore I do not trust him.

...it really doesn't matter whether he's "right" IMO on "this or that" matter of policy. His demonstrated willingness to say/do X and later say/do -X tells me that I can't rely on him actively doing X (or trying to) even though he said that X was what he thinks needs to be done. Therefore, I do not trust him.

I'm not saying that those things aren't so. I'm saying that, unlike what I know or don't know about his fellow Republican candidates, I know for a fact that Mr. Trump does not reliably keep his word, and it's clear that whether he will or will not keep his word depends not on what he wants at any given time, not on whether he has stated "such and such" a course of intended action on a given matter. ....

I don't trust people who do that. Do you?

As if the above (and more) isn't bad enough, coming out of the GOP's recent Florida meeting, we hear that Trump was "playing a part." So now, not only is it his statements about his views that we cannot rely upon, we are now told that the personality we've been observing over the past nine months or so is also a charade. Puh-lease!

SO, who do you support instead that you think is more trustworthy?

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

Feather in his cap.

 

[Correll]

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.

Feather in his cap.

That did not address my point.

 

[320 Years of History]

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

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...

Right now, nothing. He's not -- AFAIK -- changed it yet. When Trump discovers his and the GOP electorate's isn't the same, or when he discovers that it's costing him votes -- you'll notice he didn't state it until after the primaries held in states where Republican voters are likely to take issue with it -- I suspect he'll shift it or begin to "wiggle" away from his stance on transsexuals and restrooms. I have to wait and see.

 

[Camp]

News reports today indicate there is a recording of Trump advisors telling Republican leadership that Trump has been projecting positions to gain support specifically for the first phase of his campaign, but will change as the campaign advances. His rally speeches and interview positions have been a scam. His whole life has been as a moderate or liberal Rockefeller-type Republican. He is far more liberal than the establishment or Rhino Republicans he attacks to gain fan support.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Of course he does.

He's running for the General now, trying to move to the center.

 

[OldLady]

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.

Only if his campaign team tells him that position is unpopular. That's what happened with his abortion stance. It will be very interesting to see if Trump does need to alter his position. If not, it means this bathroom debate is only a Big Deal to a small, insignificant number of the voting electorate.

 

[Stephanie]

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.

Look at that nobody Junior Senator Obama they put in for an example of EGO. and now they whine about Trump. how pathetic

 

[Pogo]

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.
.

Generally we call that "just making it up" or "throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks".

I think the point is voters faced with choices want to know where each choice stands, not which politically correct lines he's able to recite like an actor, only to then ad lib its opposite during Act Two if it didn't get applause in Act One.

Even if it is kind of a horror movie.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Those are not sexual attributes.
Guess this isn't sinking in, and will never.

 

[Pogo]

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. "

Now (finally) you're more accurate, though still off topic.
The topic is related to your second line, what his platform is -- "platform" or empty "platitudes"?
Considering how often and how readily his own "platform" contradicts itself, it seems the latter prevails.

Here's another way to look at it:
I went to a concert once in an arena that had this huge revolving turntable stage. So at one point the Grateful Dead are facing you. A few minutes later the same Grateful Dead are facing away from you.

The end effect was that nobody really got a concert -- they got snippets of one that was then literally turned away. The arena didn't try that again.

Here's another way to look at it:

Let's say an apple represents a political position.
If you have one apple, you have one apple. If you then trade the apple in for an orange, how many apples do you have?
Maybe more to the point --- if you keep trading apples and oranges back and forth and can't decide which one you want, then which one can you expect to eat?

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

Feather in his cap.

That did not address my point.

XXXXXXXX

Let me get my big blue crayon so I can spell it out for you....

I revised my earlier remark "Feather in an egomaniac's cap" to "Feather in his cap" to communicate to you that Trump's being an egomaniac isn't the point.

You asked:

What reason would he have for [running for President, unless he actually cared?

My answer, spelled out:
A reason Trump (or anyone else) might run for President is to put another feather, the ultimate feather, in his cap. The size of Trump's ego has long been understood, and with an ego as big as his, which strikes me as one that's far larger than that of his competitors, it's not at all implausible that Trump would run for President to satisfy his ego.

Back in 2004 Trump gave us plenty of clues about just how big an ego he has. Nothing has changed since then. Consider some of his remarks:

• June 2015: Trump claimed he would be "the greatest jobs president that God has ever created."
• September 2015: "We will have so much winning if I get elected that you may get bored with winning."
• “It turned out to be, probably, by everybody’s count, the biggest-selling business book of all time. There’s never been a business book that’s sold like ‘Trump: The Art of the Deal.'”
  • In whose opinion other than Donald Trumps? His book is neither on anyone else's qualitative list of "best business books" or quantitatively determined list of "top selling business books," let alone its being the one that sold like none before it or since.
    • The 25 Most Influential Business Management Books - TIME
    • The 12 best business books of all time
    • Top 50 Best Selling Management Books of All Time
    • Is Donald Trump's 'Art of the Deal' the best-selling business book of all time?
    • The 100 Best Business Books of All Time: More on The 100 Best Archives
    • 15 Best Business Books Of 2015
    • Top 10 Influential Business Books of All Time
    • 7 Incredibly Successful Business Books: Where's Donald Trump on the List?

Suffice to say that the illusory things that man has believed/said, does believe/say, and will believe/say about himself have no bounds, at least none that I can find.

 

[Pogo]

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?

It may be most accurate to say that it's ALL irrelevant, since zero of it seems to be actual committed plan, in favour of blusterfluff carefully engineered for emotional appeal. It's entirely to get a rise from the crowd in the moment. And if the next moment dictates the opposite blusterfluff, then he'll shift that gearbox without a moment's hesitation. In this way the purpose exposes itself.

Basically it's all music, with no lyrics. Or really, ad-libbed lyrics that evolve as the moment needs, like a play-party song where you just plug in whatever works for the verse itself, regardless what the other verses just said.

That's why it's so malleable --- its purpose is not to convey an idea, but entirely to manipulate emotions.
".... full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

 

[Pogo]

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?

Declining to join in the hero-worship of a madman and declining to deny factual history is not "anger". It's reality.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Aren't you comparing apples, crabapples and oranges here? Is "populism" a philosophy? Far as I understand it simply means 'appealing to the (common) people' --- it does not say how the appeal is made. We could call both Rump and Sanders "populists", yet their actual philosophies could not be farther apart.

Strictly speaking, to the extent any candidate appeals to the interests of the common people, they're all "populists". Within that, you might have a populist grounded on the left or on the right, etc.

Seems to me the topic here is a populist who has no grounding for it at all.

 

[Pogo]

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."

Correct. I know those quotes --- I posted them myself a couple of months ago.
Why did I post them?
Because on February 28 he said this:

I don't know anything about David Duke. okay? I don't know anything about what you're even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don't know.

"I don't know, did he endorse me or what's going on, because, you know, I know nothing about David Duke. I know nothing about white supremacists. And so you're asking me a question that I'm supposed to be talking about people that I know nothing about. …

"I don't know any -- honestly, I don't know David Duke. I don't believe I have ever met him. I'm pretty sure I didn't meet him. And I just don't know anything about him."
​

Again ---- whatever works in the moment. The actual content is just an inconvenience that you can run to Twitter and change retroactively if it backfires or if somebody does something outrageous like record what you just said.