CDZ What is the real deal with Trump's Klan history

[The Great Goose]

So his father was 100% for sure a klansman. Donald was never part of the klan? And Donald has a decent history with minorities.

Donald loves "the blacks". And...."the blacks" love Donald.

Hes never said anything agaist blacks in this campaign.

David Duke never mentions them either btw.

 

[LoneLaugher]

So his father was 100% for sure a klansman. Donald was never part of the klan? And Donald has a decent history with minorities.

Donald loves "the blacks". And...."the blacks" love Donald.

Hes never said anything agaist blacks in this campaign.

David Duke never mentions them either btw.

Hello. You don't know that Donald has said that he loves "the blacks"?

Let me help you understand.

Donald Trump believes that he can divide black Americans and Latino Americans by making black Americans fear that Latino Americans and immigrants are going to steal their jobs. He is banking on two of our least affluent demographic groups fighting one another.......and one of them ( "the blacks" ) choosing him because he will expel the other.

It will not work. But it's an awesome try.

 

[The Great Goose]

So his father was 100% for sure a klansman. Donald was never part of the klan? And Donald has a decent history with minorities.

Donald loves "the blacks". And...."the blacks" love Donald.

Hes never said anything agaist blacks in this campaign.

David Duke never mentions them either btw.

Hello. You don't know that Donald has said that he loves "the blacks"?

Let me help you understand.

Donald Trump believes that he can divide black Americans and Latino Americans by making black Americans fear that Latino Americans and immigrants are going to steal their jobs. He is banking on two of our least affluent demographic groups fighting one another.......and one of them ( "the blacks" ) choosing him because he will expel the other.

It will not work. But it's an awesome try.

Blacks ARE under threat from latinos.

America is very overcrowded. Dont you want to stop the hardship?

 

[320 Years of History]

This branding people with gang association is so right wing.

I was on the verge of creating a thread for this general topic, but this one has appeared, so I'm posting some of my remarks here. I had something more comprehensive and potentially enlightening to say, but I'll hold off on that for now.

My views re: how Mr. Trump handled Mr. Tapper's inquiry about David Duke's endorsement notwithstanding, I agree with that.

The thing that is clear to me and that I honestly don't think is clear to Mr. Trump is that by and large racism is one of those things about which the objects of racism's negative impacts have to trust that the historic perpetrator of racism have truly forsaken. Trust is something that like love, and more so than money, is earned, and the only persons who can say whether it has been earned are the ones called to give it.

If one has ever cheated on one's spouse or lover, one will immediately understand that. If one has ever experienced someone's misrepresenting the truth to oneself and one relied on what one was told, only to be let down later, one will immediately understand that. One will understand exactly what's going through the hearts and minds of minorities with regard to Mr. Trump's refusal to of late be less that patently clear on this matter of the KKK, David Duke and racism.

We know, just as Mr. Trump does, that having been married three times, having raised multiple children, having been many people's boss, there is no way in hell he doesn't understand what it means to trust someone and what it means to have that trust betrayed. And we know it doesn't matter what side of the situation he was on in those situations. He should absolutely know from square one what trust all about. Yet his way of handling this issue suggests that maybe he does not...this even while the very thing he's asking literally millions of Americans to give him is our trust in him as our President.

Well, I'm sorry, but "I disavow" doesn't cut it. Why not? What exactly is he disavowing? I don't know. I know what I can assume he's disavowing, but I don't know that my assumption is accurate. Why leave me and everyone else with the need to presume what he's disavowing?

Here is just one example of a very clear statement on the matter:

"Although I cannot stop racists, white supremacists, the KKK, David Duke or anyone from voting for me or supporting my candidacy, I want to be clear: I do not want or seek anything of any sort from any of those folks. If elected, I will do nothing to purposefully aid in achieving anything -- not general policies, not specific laws, not portions or provisions of laws -- that racists want to see achieved. If they get anything they like or want during the term of my Presidency, it's purely coincidental; their interest will not ever be a consideration in designing, enacting or enforcing any policies I support, propose or enforce. Period."​

Now Mr. Trump can plagiarize my words above if he wants to. He can create is own. The key is that whatever statement he makes must be one that leaves no "wiggle room" whatsoever. From that point forward, all Mr. Trump would have to do is live up to his words.

Mr. Trump has "wiggle roomed" himself up and down the campaign trail since the day he announced his candidacy. He knows that just as surely as everyone does. Well, the matter of racism is one topic whereof there is no national tolerance for equivocation; thus there is no need for it. It is the one topic on which one has to take a stand, make a stand, and leave not one iota of doubt where one stands.

Now I realize that for some political candidates, the stand they would make may land somewhere between flat out racist and the polar opposite of flat out racist. I don't cotton to support or encourage middle-ground positions on this matter, but if that's where they stand, and someone else stands at a slightly different place in the middle-ground, then it just is. I have no control over that; all I can do is say what I think of it, and say it I will. Regardless of the place whereupon either of them stands, everybody and their brother, their worst enemy, their best friend, even their housecat, had best be able to tell with nary a shadow of doubt how those two middles differ. And the reason for that is this: ain't nobody gonna trust neither one of 'em on that or much else if they aren't perfectly plain and clear about where they stand. For a political office seeker, it's that simple.

Hes just stubbornly refusing to be politically corrected.

Some people find being politically corrected, soul destroying. Hes not a hater. He just cant stand being dominated.

Red:
He doesn't need to be politically correct in making his statement. Nobody's asking for that. Where he stands on the matter is where he stands. He just needs to be unwaveringly clear about where that is. WTH? "Politically correct" and "unwaveringly clear" couldn't be more diametrically polar opposites.

Blue:
He's willfully asking to be the #1 servant of the people. He'd better come to grips with it soon.

 

[The Great Goose]

This branding people with gang association is so right wing.

I was on the verge of creating a thread for this general topic, but this one has appeared, so I'm posting some of my remarks here. I had something more comprehensive and potentially enlightening to say, but I'll hold off on that for now.

My views re: how Mr. Trump handled Mr. Tapper's inquiry about David Duke's endorsement notwithstanding, I agree with that.

The thing that is clear to me and that I honestly don't think is clear to Mr. Trump is that by and large racism is one of those things about which the objects of racism's negative impacts have to trust that the historic perpetrator of racism have truly forsaken. Trust is something that like love, and more so than money, is earned, and the only persons who can say whether it has been earned are the ones called to give it.

If one has ever cheated on one's spouse or lover, one will immediately understand that. If one has ever experienced someone's misrepresenting the truth to oneself and one relied on what one was told, only to be let down later, one will immediately understand that. One will understand exactly what's going through the hearts and minds of minorities with regard to Mr. Trump's refusal to of late be less that patently clear on this matter of the KKK, David Duke and racism.

We know, just as Mr. Trump does, that having been married three times, having raised multiple children, having been many people's boss, there is no way in hell he doesn't understand what it means to trust someone and what it means to have that trust betrayed. And we know it doesn't matter what side of the situation he was on in those situations. He should absolutely know from square one what trust all about. Yet his way of handling this issue suggests that maybe he does not...this even while the very thing he's asking literally millions of Americans to give him is our trust in him as our President.

Well, I'm sorry, but "I disavow" doesn't cut it. Why not? What exactly is he disavowing? I don't know. I know what I can assume he's disavowing, but I don't know that my assumption is accurate. Why leave me and everyone else with the need to presume what he's disavowing?

Here is just one example of a very clear statement on the matter:

"Although I cannot stop racists, white supremacists, the KKK, David Duke or anyone from voting for me or supporting my candidacy, I want to be clear: I do not want or seek anything of any sort from any of those folks. If elected, I will do nothing to purposefully aid in achieving anything -- not general policies, not specific laws, not portions or provisions of laws -- that racists want to see achieved. If they get anything they like or want during the term of my Presidency, it's purely coincidental; their interest will not ever be a consideration in designing, enacting or enforcing any policies I support, propose or enforce. Period."​

Now Mr. Trump can plagiarize my words above if he wants to. He can create is own. The key is that whatever statement he makes must be one that leaves no "wiggle room" whatsoever. From that point forward, all Mr. Trump would have to do is live up to his words.

Mr. Trump has "wiggle roomed" himself up and down the campaign trail since the day he announced his candidacy. He knows that just as surely as everyone does. Well, the matter of racism is one topic whereof there is no national tolerance for equivocation; thus there is no need for it. It is the one topic on which one has to take a stand, make a stand, and leave not one iota of doubt where one stands.

Now I realize that for some political candidates, the stand they would make may land somewhere between flat out racist and the polar opposite of flat out racist. I don't cotton to support or encourage middle-ground positions on this matter, but if that's where they stand, and someone else stands at a slightly different place in the middle-ground, then it just is. I have no control over that; all I can do is say what I think of it, and say it I will. Regardless of the place whereupon either of them stands, everybody and their brother, their worst enemy, their best friend, even their housecat, had best be able to tell with nary a shadow of doubt how those two middles differ. And the reason for that is this: ain't nobody gonna trust neither one of 'em on that or much else if they aren't perfectly plain and clear about where they stand. For a political office seeker, it's that simple.

Hes just stubbornly refusing to be politically corrected.

Some people find being politically corrected, soul destroying. Hes not a hater. He just cant stand being dominated.

Red:
He doesn't need to be politically correct in making his statement. Nobody's asking for that. Where he stands on the matter is where he stands. He just needs to be unwaveringly clear about where that is. WTH? "Politically correct" and "unwaveringly clear" couldn't be more diametrically polar opposites.

Blue:
He's willfully asking to be the #1 servant of the people. He'd better come to grips with it soon.

Do you really think he's a bigot?

 

[LoneLaugher]

So his father was 100% for sure a klansman. Donald was never part of the klan? And Donald has a decent history with minorities.

Donald loves "the blacks". And...."the blacks" love Donald.

Hes never said anything agaist blacks in this campaign.

David Duke never mentions them either btw.

Hello. You don't know that Donald has said that he loves "the blacks"?

Let me help you understand.

Donald Trump believes that he can divide black Americans and Latino Americans by making black Americans fear that Latino Americans and immigrants are going to steal their jobs. He is banking on two of our least affluent demographic groups fighting one another.......and one of them ( "the blacks" ) choosing him because he will expel the other.

It will not work. But it's an awesome try.

Blacks ARE under threat from latinos.

America is very overcrowded. Dont you want to stop the hardship?

That's bullshit. We need immigrants for our economy to survive.

Try harder.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

His father was a Grand Kleagle Beagle.

You're thinking of Democrat Robert Byrd, the Conscious of the Senate

 

[The Great Goose]

So his father was 100% for sure a klansman. Donald was never part of the klan? And Donald has a decent history with minorities.

Donald loves "the blacks". And...."the blacks" love Donald.

Hes never said anything agaist blacks in this campaign.

David Duke never mentions them either btw.

Hello. You don't know that Donald has said that he loves "the blacks"?

Let me help you understand.

Donald Trump believes that he can divide black Americans and Latino Americans by making black Americans fear that Latino Americans and immigrants are going to steal their jobs. He is banking on two of our least affluent demographic groups fighting one another.......and one of them ( "the blacks" ) choosing him because he will expel the other.

It will not work. But it's an awesome try.

Blacks ARE under threat from latinos.

America is very overcrowded. Dont you want to stop the hardship?

That's bullshit. We need immigrants for our economy to survive.

Try harder.

lol

 

[320 Years of History]

This branding people with gang association is so right wing.

I was on the verge of creating a thread for this general topic, but this one has appeared, so I'm posting some of my remarks here. I had something more comprehensive and potentially enlightening to say, but I'll hold off on that for now.

My views re: how Mr. Trump handled Mr. Tapper's inquiry about David Duke's endorsement notwithstanding, I agree with that.

The thing that is clear to me and that I honestly don't think is clear to Mr. Trump is that by and large racism is one of those things about which the objects of racism's negative impacts have to trust that the historic perpetrator of racism have truly forsaken. Trust is something that like love, and more so than money, is earned, and the only persons who can say whether it has been earned are the ones called to give it.

If one has ever cheated on one's spouse or lover, one will immediately understand that. If one has ever experienced someone's misrepresenting the truth to oneself and one relied on what one was told, only to be let down later, one will immediately understand that. One will understand exactly what's going through the hearts and minds of minorities with regard to Mr. Trump's refusal to of late be less that patently clear on this matter of the KKK, David Duke and racism.

We know, just as Mr. Trump does, that having been married three times, having raised multiple children, having been many people's boss, there is no way in hell he doesn't understand what it means to trust someone and what it means to have that trust betrayed. And we know it doesn't matter what side of the situation he was on in those situations. He should absolutely know from square one what trust all about. Yet his way of handling this issue suggests that maybe he does not...this even while the very thing he's asking literally millions of Americans to give him is our trust in him as our President.

Well, I'm sorry, but "I disavow" doesn't cut it. Why not? What exactly is he disavowing? I don't know. I know what I can assume he's disavowing, but I don't know that my assumption is accurate. Why leave me and everyone else with the need to presume what he's disavowing?

Here is just one example of a very clear statement on the matter:

"Although I cannot stop racists, white supremacists, the KKK, David Duke or anyone from voting for me or supporting my candidacy, I want to be clear: I do not want or seek anything of any sort from any of those folks. If elected, I will do nothing to purposefully aid in achieving anything -- not general policies, not specific laws, not portions or provisions of laws -- that racists want to see achieved. If they get anything they like or want during the term of my Presidency, it's purely coincidental; their interest will not ever be a consideration in designing, enacting or enforcing any policies I support, propose or enforce. Period."​

Now Mr. Trump can plagiarize my words above if he wants to. He can create is own. The key is that whatever statement he makes must be one that leaves no "wiggle room" whatsoever. From that point forward, all Mr. Trump would have to do is live up to his words.

Mr. Trump has "wiggle roomed" himself up and down the campaign trail since the day he announced his candidacy. He knows that just as surely as everyone does. Well, the matter of racism is one topic whereof there is no national tolerance for equivocation; thus there is no need for it. It is the one topic on which one has to take a stand, make a stand, and leave not one iota of doubt where one stands.

Now I realize that for some political candidates, the stand they would make may land somewhere between flat out racist and the polar opposite of flat out racist. I don't cotton to support or encourage middle-ground positions on this matter, but if that's where they stand, and someone else stands at a slightly different place in the middle-ground, then it just is. I have no control over that; all I can do is say what I think of it, and say it I will. Regardless of the place whereupon either of them stands, everybody and their brother, their worst enemy, their best friend, even their housecat, had best be able to tell with nary a shadow of doubt how those two middles differ. And the reason for that is this: ain't nobody gonna trust neither one of 'em on that or much else if they aren't perfectly plain and clear about where they stand. For a political office seeker, it's that simple.

Hes just stubbornly refusing to be politically corrected.

Some people find being politically corrected, soul destroying. Hes not a hater. He just cant stand being dominated.

Red:
He doesn't need to be politically correct in making his statement. Nobody's asking for that. Where he stands on the matter is where he stands. He just needs to be unwaveringly clear about where that is. WTH? "Politically correct" and "unwaveringly clear" couldn't be more diametrically polar opposites.

Blue:
He's willfully asking to be the #1 servant of the people. He'd better come to grips with it soon.

Do you really think he's a bigot?

I don't want to believe that he is a racist. Until his interview last Sunday, I would have said, "I do not think Donald Trump is a racist." I'm no longer willing to say that, however, as a consequence of the ambiguous manner in which he handled Jake Tapper's question. His equivocation, and his key national team members making excuses for why he equivocated and trying to convince me that his earlier remarks on the matter should have been enough, have together resulted in my being uncertain as to whether he is, isn't or to what degree is may be or may not be.

I'm no fool. I know equivocation when I see it. He and his team can try all they want to convince me I'm mistaken about his having vacillated with the answer he gave Mr. Tapper. I know better. That dog won't hunt. Period.

Mr. Trump already has a reputation for waffling and changing his positions and not taking a firm stance one way or the other on all manners of things. On what credible basis can one rely on his stance on the KKK and racism and David Duke's endorsement not being among them?

One new example: he literally just now announced he's changed his mind on torture. Now why did he do so? Largely it seems because he didn't know that torture is illegal and the military, as he was told, would not follow his order to do so. Duh! The man is either supremely arrogant or clueless about the limits of Presidential power. I realize there's a good deal of "wiggle room" as goes Presidential power, but on torture? Give me a break. At this point, I don't even care which it is; he's not ready to be President.

At some point, no matter how much hope one places in them, one must demand of Presidential aspirants that they be factually correct about objectively discernable details. Torture is one of those details. Whether Planned Parenthood performs abortions is one of those things. Both are easy things to know. Whether any of his appendages are large or small -- something that he's not stopped talking about since the debate -- is not. That is something that, regardless of whether we can know or nor, we don't give a damn anyway what the truth really is.

Even though torture and racism aren't the same things, they share one thing in common: neither is a topic around which one dances. Little is binary insofar as how a politician can opt to be a bit vague or crystal clear. Torture and racism, however, are two issues on which there's no play.

 

[LoneLaugher]

This branding people with gang association is so right wing.

I was on the verge of creating a thread for this general topic, but this one has appeared, so I'm posting some of my remarks here. I had something more comprehensive and potentially enlightening to say, but I'll hold off on that for now.

My views re: how Mr. Trump handled Mr. Tapper's inquiry about David Duke's endorsement notwithstanding, I agree with that.

The thing that is clear to me and that I honestly don't think is clear to Mr. Trump is that by and large racism is one of those things about which the objects of racism's negative impacts have to trust that the historic perpetrator of racism have truly forsaken. Trust is something that like love, and more so than money, is earned, and the only persons who can say whether it has been earned are the ones called to give it.

If one has ever cheated on one's spouse or lover, one will immediately understand that. If one has ever experienced someone's misrepresenting the truth to oneself and one relied on what one was told, only to be let down later, one will immediately understand that. One will understand exactly what's going through the hearts and minds of minorities with regard to Mr. Trump's refusal to of late be less that patently clear on this matter of the KKK, David Duke and racism.

We know, just as Mr. Trump does, that having been married three times, having raised multiple children, having been many people's boss, there is no way in hell he doesn't understand what it means to trust someone and what it means to have that trust betrayed. And we know it doesn't matter what side of the situation he was on in those situations. He should absolutely know from square one what trust all about. Yet his way of handling this issue suggests that maybe he does not...this even while the very thing he's asking literally millions of Americans to give him is our trust in him as our President.

Well, I'm sorry, but "I disavow" doesn't cut it. Why not? What exactly is he disavowing? I don't know. I know what I can assume he's disavowing, but I don't know that my assumption is accurate. Why leave me and everyone else with the need to presume what he's disavowing?

Here is just one example of a very clear statement on the matter:

"Although I cannot stop racists, white supremacists, the KKK, David Duke or anyone from voting for me or supporting my candidacy, I want to be clear: I do not want or seek anything of any sort from any of those folks. If elected, I will do nothing to purposefully aid in achieving anything -- not general policies, not specific laws, not portions or provisions of laws -- that racists want to see achieved. If they get anything they like or want during the term of my Presidency, it's purely coincidental; their interest will not ever be a consideration in designing, enacting or enforcing any policies I support, propose or enforce. Period."​

Now Mr. Trump can plagiarize my words above if he wants to. He can create is own. The key is that whatever statement he makes must be one that leaves no "wiggle room" whatsoever. From that point forward, all Mr. Trump would have to do is live up to his words.

Mr. Trump has "wiggle roomed" himself up and down the campaign trail since the day he announced his candidacy. He knows that just as surely as everyone does. Well, the matter of racism is one topic whereof there is no national tolerance for equivocation; thus there is no need for it. It is the one topic on which one has to take a stand, make a stand, and leave not one iota of doubt where one stands.

Now I realize that for some political candidates, the stand they would make may land somewhere between flat out racist and the polar opposite of flat out racist. I don't cotton to support or encourage middle-ground positions on this matter, but if that's where they stand, and someone else stands at a slightly different place in the middle-ground, then it just is. I have no control over that; all I can do is say what I think of it, and say it I will. Regardless of the place whereupon either of them stands, everybody and their brother, their worst enemy, their best friend, even their housecat, had best be able to tell with nary a shadow of doubt how those two middles differ. And the reason for that is this: ain't nobody gonna trust neither one of 'em on that or much else if they aren't perfectly plain and clear about where they stand. For a political office seeker, it's that simple.

Hes just stubbornly refusing to be politically corrected.

Some people find being politically corrected, soul destroying. Hes not a hater. He just cant stand being dominated.

Red:
He doesn't need to be politically correct in making his statement. Nobody's asking for that. Where he stands on the matter is where he stands. He just needs to be unwaveringly clear about where that is. WTH? "Politically correct" and "unwaveringly clear" couldn't be more diametrically polar opposites.

Blue:
He's willfully asking to be the #1 servant of the people. He'd better come to grips with it soon.

Do you really think he's a bigot?

I don't want to believe that he is a racist. Until his interview last Sunday, I would have said, "I do not think Donald Trump is a racist." I'm no longer willing to say that, however, as a consequence of the ambiguous manner in which he handled Jake Tapper's question. His equivocation, and his key national team members making excuses for why he equivocated and trying to convince me that his earlier remarks on the matter should have been enough, have together resulted in my being uncertain as to whether he is, isn't or to what degree is may be or may not be.

I'm no fool. I know equivocation when I see it. He and his team can try all they want to convince me I'm mistaken about his having vacillated with the answer he gave Mr. Tapper. I know better. That dog won't hunt. Period.

Mr. Trump already has a reputation for waffling and changing his positions and not taking a firm stance one way or the other on all manners of things. On what credible basis can one rely on his stance on the KKK and racism and David Duke's endorsement not being among them?

One new example: he literally just now announced he's changed his mind on torture. Now why did he do so? Largely it seems because he didn't know that torture is illegal and the military, as he was told, would not follow his order to do so. Duh! The man is either supremely arrogant or clueless about the limits of Presidential power. I realize there's a good deal of "wiggle room" as goes Presidential power, but on torture? Give me a break. At this point, I don't even care which it is; he's not ready to be President.

Even though torture and racism aren't the same things, they share one thing in common: neither is a topic around which one dances. Little is binary insofar as how a politician can opt to be a bit vague or crystal clear. Torture and racism, however, are two issues on which there's no play.

The only "ist" word that describes Trump is "opportunist".

 

[320 Years of History]

I was on the verge of creating a thread for this general topic, but this one has appeared, so I'm posting some of my remarks here. I had something more comprehensive and potentially enlightening to say, but I'll hold off on that for now.

My views re: how Mr. Trump handled Mr. Tapper's inquiry about David Duke's endorsement notwithstanding, I agree with that.

The thing that is clear to me and that I honestly don't think is clear to Mr. Trump is that by and large racism is one of those things about which the objects of racism's negative impacts have to trust that the historic perpetrator of racism have truly forsaken. Trust is something that like love, and more so than money, is earned, and the only persons who can say whether it has been earned are the ones called to give it.

If one has ever cheated on one's spouse or lover, one will immediately understand that. If one has ever experienced someone's misrepresenting the truth to oneself and one relied on what one was told, only to be let down later, one will immediately understand that. One will understand exactly what's going through the hearts and minds of minorities with regard to Mr. Trump's refusal to of late be less that patently clear on this matter of the KKK, David Duke and racism.

We know, just as Mr. Trump does, that having been married three times, having raised multiple children, having been many people's boss, there is no way in hell he doesn't understand what it means to trust someone and what it means to have that trust betrayed. And we know it doesn't matter what side of the situation he was on in those situations. He should absolutely know from square one what trust all about. Yet his way of handling this issue suggests that maybe he does not...this even while the very thing he's asking literally millions of Americans to give him is our trust in him as our President.

Well, I'm sorry, but "I disavow" doesn't cut it. Why not? What exactly is he disavowing? I don't know. I know what I can assume he's disavowing, but I don't know that my assumption is accurate. Why leave me and everyone else with the need to presume what he's disavowing?

Here is just one example of a very clear statement on the matter:

"Although I cannot stop racists, white supremacists, the KKK, David Duke or anyone from voting for me or supporting my candidacy, I want to be clear: I do not want or seek anything of any sort from any of those folks. If elected, I will do nothing to purposefully aid in achieving anything -- not general policies, not specific laws, not portions or provisions of laws -- that racists want to see achieved. If they get anything they like or want during the term of my Presidency, it's purely coincidental; their interest will not ever be a consideration in designing, enacting or enforcing any policies I support, propose or enforce. Period."​

Now Mr. Trump can plagiarize my words above if he wants to. He can create is own. The key is that whatever statement he makes must be one that leaves no "wiggle room" whatsoever. From that point forward, all Mr. Trump would have to do is live up to his words.

Mr. Trump has "wiggle roomed" himself up and down the campaign trail since the day he announced his candidacy. He knows that just as surely as everyone does. Well, the matter of racism is one topic whereof there is no national tolerance for equivocation; thus there is no need for it. It is the one topic on which one has to take a stand, make a stand, and leave not one iota of doubt where one stands.

Now I realize that for some political candidates, the stand they would make may land somewhere between flat out racist and the polar opposite of flat out racist. I don't cotton to support or encourage middle-ground positions on this matter, but if that's where they stand, and someone else stands at a slightly different place in the middle-ground, then it just is. I have no control over that; all I can do is say what I think of it, and say it I will. Regardless of the place whereupon either of them stands, everybody and their brother, their worst enemy, their best friend, even their housecat, had best be able to tell with nary a shadow of doubt how those two middles differ. And the reason for that is this: ain't nobody gonna trust neither one of 'em on that or much else if they aren't perfectly plain and clear about where they stand. For a political office seeker, it's that simple.

Hes just stubbornly refusing to be politically corrected.

Some people find being politically corrected, soul destroying. Hes not a hater. He just cant stand being dominated.

Red:
He doesn't need to be politically correct in making his statement. Nobody's asking for that. Where he stands on the matter is where he stands. He just needs to be unwaveringly clear about where that is. WTH? "Politically correct" and "unwaveringly clear" couldn't be more diametrically polar opposites.

Blue:
He's willfully asking to be the #1 servant of the people. He'd better come to grips with it soon.

Do you really think he's a bigot?

I don't want to believe that he is a racist. Until his interview last Sunday, I would have said, "I do not think Donald Trump is a racist." I'm no longer willing to say that, however, as a consequence of the ambiguous manner in which he handled Jake Tapper's question. His equivocation, and his key national team members making excuses for why he equivocated and trying to convince me that his earlier remarks on the matter should have been enough, have together resulted in my being uncertain as to whether he is, isn't or to what degree is may be or may not be.

I'm no fool. I know equivocation when I see it. He and his team can try all they want to convince me I'm mistaken about his having vacillated with the answer he gave Mr. Tapper. I know better. That dog won't hunt. Period.

Mr. Trump already has a reputation for waffling and changing his positions and not taking a firm stance one way or the other on all manners of things. On what credible basis can one rely on his stance on the KKK and racism and David Duke's endorsement not being among them?

One new example: he literally just now announced he's changed his mind on torture. Now why did he do so? Largely it seems because he didn't know that torture is illegal and the military, as he was told, would not follow his order to do so. Duh! The man is either supremely arrogant or clueless about the limits of Presidential power. I realize there's a good deal of "wiggle room" as goes Presidential power, but on torture? Give me a break. At this point, I don't even care which it is; he's not ready to be President.

Even though torture and racism aren't the same things, they share one thing in common: neither is a topic around which one dances. Little is binary insofar as how a politician can opt to be a bit vague or crystal clear. Torture and racism, however, are two issues on which there's no play.

The only "ist" word that describes Trump is "opportunist".

I can't buy the "only" aspect of that comment, but otherwise, absolutely.

 

[The Great Goose]

I was on the verge of creating a thread for this general topic, but this one has appeared, so I'm posting some of my remarks here. I had something more comprehensive and potentially enlightening to say, but I'll hold off on that for now.

My views re: how Mr. Trump handled Mr. Tapper's inquiry about David Duke's endorsement notwithstanding, I agree with that.

The thing that is clear to me and that I honestly don't think is clear to Mr. Trump is that by and large racism is one of those things about which the objects of racism's negative impacts have to trust that the historic perpetrator of racism have truly forsaken. Trust is something that like love, and more so than money, is earned, and the only persons who can say whether it has been earned are the ones called to give it.

If one has ever cheated on one's spouse or lover, one will immediately understand that. If one has ever experienced someone's misrepresenting the truth to oneself and one relied on what one was told, only to be let down later, one will immediately understand that. One will understand exactly what's going through the hearts and minds of minorities with regard to Mr. Trump's refusal to of late be less that patently clear on this matter of the KKK, David Duke and racism.

We know, just as Mr. Trump does, that having been married three times, having raised multiple children, having been many people's boss, there is no way in hell he doesn't understand what it means to trust someone and what it means to have that trust betrayed. And we know it doesn't matter what side of the situation he was on in those situations. He should absolutely know from square one what trust all about. Yet his way of handling this issue suggests that maybe he does not...this even while the very thing he's asking literally millions of Americans to give him is our trust in him as our President.

Well, I'm sorry, but "I disavow" doesn't cut it. Why not? What exactly is he disavowing? I don't know. I know what I can assume he's disavowing, but I don't know that my assumption is accurate. Why leave me and everyone else with the need to presume what he's disavowing?

Here is just one example of a very clear statement on the matter:

"Although I cannot stop racists, white supremacists, the KKK, David Duke or anyone from voting for me or supporting my candidacy, I want to be clear: I do not want or seek anything of any sort from any of those folks. If elected, I will do nothing to purposefully aid in achieving anything -- not general policies, not specific laws, not portions or provisions of laws -- that racists want to see achieved. If they get anything they like or want during the term of my Presidency, it's purely coincidental; their interest will not ever be a consideration in designing, enacting or enforcing any policies I support, propose or enforce. Period."​

Now Mr. Trump can plagiarize my words above if he wants to. He can create is own. The key is that whatever statement he makes must be one that leaves no "wiggle room" whatsoever. From that point forward, all Mr. Trump would have to do is live up to his words.

Mr. Trump has "wiggle roomed" himself up and down the campaign trail since the day he announced his candidacy. He knows that just as surely as everyone does. Well, the matter of racism is one topic whereof there is no national tolerance for equivocation; thus there is no need for it. It is the one topic on which one has to take a stand, make a stand, and leave not one iota of doubt where one stands.

Now I realize that for some political candidates, the stand they would make may land somewhere between flat out racist and the polar opposite of flat out racist. I don't cotton to support or encourage middle-ground positions on this matter, but if that's where they stand, and someone else stands at a slightly different place in the middle-ground, then it just is. I have no control over that; all I can do is say what I think of it, and say it I will. Regardless of the place whereupon either of them stands, everybody and their brother, their worst enemy, their best friend, even their housecat, had best be able to tell with nary a shadow of doubt how those two middles differ. And the reason for that is this: ain't nobody gonna trust neither one of 'em on that or much else if they aren't perfectly plain and clear about where they stand. For a political office seeker, it's that simple.

Hes just stubbornly refusing to be politically corrected.

Some people find being politically corrected, soul destroying. Hes not a hater. He just cant stand being dominated.

Red:
He doesn't need to be politically correct in making his statement. Nobody's asking for that. Where he stands on the matter is where he stands. He just needs to be unwaveringly clear about where that is. WTH? "Politically correct" and "unwaveringly clear" couldn't be more diametrically polar opposites.

Blue:
He's willfully asking to be the #1 servant of the people. He'd better come to grips with it soon.

Do you really think he's a bigot?

I don't want to believe that he is a racist. Until his interview last Sunday, I would have said, "I do not think Donald Trump is a racist." I'm no longer willing to say that, however, as a consequence of the ambiguous manner in which he handled Jake Tapper's question. His equivocation, and his key national team members making excuses for why he equivocated and trying to convince me that his earlier remarks on the matter should have been enough, have together resulted in my being uncertain as to whether he is, isn't or to what degree is may be or may not be.

I'm no fool. I know equivocation when I see it. He and his team can try all they want to convince me I'm mistaken about his having vacillated with the answer he gave Mr. Tapper. I know better. That dog won't hunt. Period.

Mr. Trump already has a reputation for waffling and changing his positions and not taking a firm stance one way or the other on all manners of things. On what credible basis can one rely on his stance on the KKK and racism and David Duke's endorsement not being among them?

One new example: he literally just now announced he's changed his mind on torture. Now why did he do so? Largely it seems because he didn't know that torture is illegal and the military, as he was told, would not follow his order to do so. Duh! The man is either supremely arrogant or clueless about the limits of Presidential power. I realize there's a good deal of "wiggle room" as goes Presidential power, but on torture? Give me a break. At this point, I don't even care which it is; he's not ready to be President.

Even though torture and racism aren't the same things, they share one thing in common: neither is a topic around which one dances. Little is binary insofar as how a politician can opt to be a bit vague or crystal clear. Torture and racism, however, are two issues on which there's no play.

The only "ist" word that describes Trump is "opportunist".

We won't know unless he's elected.

 

[Toronado3800]

I am not sure I would vote Trump for President, but if you all vote me into office I would like to have Donald in my cabinent. He will not be a yes man and will have his own ideas. Maybe I can inspire him to go simplify and re-regulate our home loans and zoning / rezoning systems.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Hes just stubbornly refusing to be politically corrected.

Some people find being politically corrected, soul destroying. Hes not a hater. He just cant stand being dominated.

Red:
He doesn't need to be politically correct in making his statement. Nobody's asking for that. Where he stands on the matter is where he stands. He just needs to be unwaveringly clear about where that is. WTH? "Politically correct" and "unwaveringly clear" couldn't be more diametrically polar opposites.

Blue:
He's willfully asking to be the #1 servant of the people. He'd better come to grips with it soon.

Do you really think he's a bigot?

I don't want to believe that he is a racist. Until his interview last Sunday, I would have said, "I do not think Donald Trump is a racist." I'm no longer willing to say that, however, as a consequence of the ambiguous manner in which he handled Jake Tapper's question. His equivocation, and his key national team members making excuses for why he equivocated and trying to convince me that his earlier remarks on the matter should have been enough, have together resulted in my being uncertain as to whether he is, isn't or to what degree is may be or may not be.

I'm no fool. I know equivocation when I see it. He and his team can try all they want to convince me I'm mistaken about his having vacillated with the answer he gave Mr. Tapper. I know better. That dog won't hunt. Period.

Mr. Trump already has a reputation for waffling and changing his positions and not taking a firm stance one way or the other on all manners of things. On what credible basis can one rely on his stance on the KKK and racism and David Duke's endorsement not being among them?

One new example: he literally just now announced he's changed his mind on torture. Now why did he do so? Largely it seems because he didn't know that torture is illegal and the military, as he was told, would not follow his order to do so. Duh! The man is either supremely arrogant or clueless about the limits of Presidential power. I realize there's a good deal of "wiggle room" as goes Presidential power, but on torture? Give me a break. At this point, I don't even care which it is; he's not ready to be President.

Even though torture and racism aren't the same things, they share one thing in common: neither is a topic around which one dances. Little is binary insofar as how a politician can opt to be a bit vague or crystal clear. Torture and racism, however, are two issues on which there's no play.

The only "ist" word that describes Trump is "opportunist".

We won't know unless he's elected.

That's comforting.

 

[Vigilante]

• Fred Trump marched in protest of Americans murdered by Socialists/Communists (NOT the KKK)
  lamecherry.blogspot.com ^ | 01/26/2016 | lame cherry
  "Fred Trump was marching in support of two Americans named Amoroso and Carisi who were Italian immigrants, and had been murdered on the streets by Anarchists, when Irish Catholic cops started beating the hell out of Protestant whites in religious hatred. The murderer arrested was Adamo Mastrangelo, again an Italian." "Look back to that year and you have 1927 and you will find decades of violence being unleashed in America by these Anarchists. The press spiked a lunatic to assassinate President Theodore Roosevelt as they did not like this outsider Republican. The Anarchist was code for MARXIST or COMMUNISTS."

 

[Syriusly]

What is considered the factual deal with Trump or Trump's family and the Klan? I am not sure what to believe anymore. Does the Donald even have a history with personal race relations good or bad?

Trump has no Klan history.

We don't judge people by their father's actions.

 

[320 Years of History]

Hes just stubbornly refusing to be politically corrected.

Some people find being politically corrected, soul destroying. Hes not a hater. He just cant stand being dominated.

Red:
He doesn't need to be politically correct in making his statement. Nobody's asking for that. Where he stands on the matter is where he stands. He just needs to be unwaveringly clear about where that is. WTH? "Politically correct" and "unwaveringly clear" couldn't be more diametrically polar opposites.

Blue:
He's willfully asking to be the #1 servant of the people. He'd better come to grips with it soon.

Do you really think he's a bigot?

I don't want to believe that he is a racist. Until his interview last Sunday, I would have said, "I do not think Donald Trump is a racist." I'm no longer willing to say that, however, as a consequence of the ambiguous manner in which he handled Jake Tapper's question. His equivocation, and his key national team members making excuses for why he equivocated and trying to convince me that his earlier remarks on the matter should have been enough, have together resulted in my being uncertain as to whether he is, isn't or to what degree is may be or may not be.

I'm no fool. I know equivocation when I see it. He and his team can try all they want to convince me I'm mistaken about his having vacillated with the answer he gave Mr. Tapper. I know better. That dog won't hunt. Period.

Mr. Trump already has a reputation for waffling and changing his positions and not taking a firm stance one way or the other on all manners of things. On what credible basis can one rely on his stance on the KKK and racism and David Duke's endorsement not being among them?

One new example: he literally just now announced he's changed his mind on torture. Now why did he do so? Largely it seems because he didn't know that torture is illegal and the military, as he was told, would not follow his order to do so. Duh! The man is either supremely arrogant or clueless about the limits of Presidential power. I realize there's a good deal of "wiggle room" as goes Presidential power, but on torture? Give me a break. At this point, I don't even care which it is; he's not ready to be President.

Even though torture and racism aren't the same things, they share one thing in common: neither is a topic around which one dances. Little is binary insofar as how a politician can opt to be a bit vague or crystal clear. Torture and racism, however, are two issues on which there's no play.

The only "ist" word that describes Trump is "opportunist".

We won't know unless he's elected.

Yes...well, it's hard to impeach and convict a sitting President....and frankly, I'd just as soon not see the country go through that for that's just more of my money wasted and more folks hopes and dreams for a better government dashed. Something we could have avoided by just reading the writing on the wall before electing the clown?

Just think of all those women on the Titanic who said, "No thank you" to desert that night. And for what?!
-- Erma Bombeck​

 

[jasonnfree]

So his father was 100% for sure a klansman. Donald was never part of the klan? And Donald has a decent history with minorities.

Donald loves "the blacks". And...."the blacks" love Donald.

Hes never said anything agaist blacks in this campaign.

David Duke never mentions them either btw.

Hello. You don't know that Donald has said that he loves "the blacks"?

Let me help you understand.

Donald Trump believes that he can divide black Americans and Latino Americans by making black Americans fear that Latino Americans and immigrants are going to steal their jobs. He is banking on two of our least affluent demographic groups fighting one another.......and one of them ( "the blacks" ) choosing him because he will expel the other.

It will not work. But it's an awesome try.

Blacks ARE under threat from latinos.

America is very overcrowded. Dont you want to stop the hardship?

That's bullshit. We need immigrants for our economy to survive.

Try harder.

We do not need more immigrants with unemployment as high as it is. I don't meant the 5. whatever, but the actual rate including those who have given up looking. But then the haves have always used immigration to skew the labor supply/demand ratio.

 

[LoneLaugher]

MOD EDIT - Looks like another poster forgot they were in the Clean Debate Zone.