Most of the poll was taken before his comments. Importantly, almost a third of republican voters said they would not support him in the general if he got the nomination.
And the crazy train that is Donald Trump barrels along...
- Thread starter TheOriginalHappyGoat
- Start date
That's good...just saw a blurb, not the specifics. I'm not concerned that he is going to get the nomination. I'm concerned at the number of people that think like he does.
Trump would make me vote for the Democrat for the first time in a POTUS race.
That just shows that Republicans are smarter than Democrats
This yahoo says stupid stuff all the time and he is heart-beat way.
It's funny you and Van both mention other people saying stupid stuff. No doubt people say things. That's not remotely the same as Trump. You comparing both Biden and Obama to Trump just shows your irrational hatred and partisanship. Neither are an accurate analogy. If I recall, you were a fan of the intellect of Sarah Palin too, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised .
An interesting twist on your "but, Obama sucks!" schtick. You are no longer a one trick pony. More like one and a half.
You should read better
I compared Trump to Obama, not the other way around. I also suggested Trump would be an awful president for all the reasons Onama is, plus more. I don't think you've gotten past the comb-over.
You should think better. Starting with the incorrect premise that Obama is an awful President. Sorry, but just because you say it doesn't make it so. I've noticed the progressive victories in the last month and now the outing of the large number of extremists in the GOP ( which is now impossible to deny) has made some of ya'll really grumpy. The attacks on Obama are getting sillier and sillier.
Good grief
Do you really believe Trump is an extremist? He is a simple narcissistic blowhard with no discernible political views.
Me thinks anybody who disagrees with you is an extremist.
The 24% that Trump is getting are the people that don't like the current state of politicians. At this point in the process, those that are different can stand out. There are a dozen of candidates that are all saying similar things. There is one person that is new and different.
The GOP won't support someone that has attacked a hero in the way Trump did. They also won't stand behind someone that is as crude and unpolished as Trump. There are a lot of people that don't want to elect another polished PC politician. Trump doesn't have the right temperament to be the leader of the free world, or try to recover that title.
John Kerry is very polished IMO. Has worked hard but needs to stay away from those bikes, lol.
Once again , think better. There are many people that disagree with me that aren't extremists.
The GOP won't stand for attacking a war hero unless they are doing it themselves. Then it's all cool. Remember those Purple Heart band aids that were so cute when Kerry was running?
There is no excuse making fun of any soldier even though Kerry's first Purple Heart was caused by his actions and requiring a band-aid. It qualified because it happened in combat. I guess someone thought the band-aids were funny.
Slightly shorter iubud: "There is no excuse making fun of any soldier even though Kerry was a pussy."
One key difference there is that Kerry was, as I recall, being called out by some of his own mates...people who were actually there with him.
Donald Trump wasn't in the Hanoi Hilton with McCain. And the notion that being captured isn't true heroism is, in keeping with Trump's general theme thus far, preposterous.
There was one person that served on his boat that was part of the Swift Boaters. That person apparently was not serving on the boat when Kerry earned his commendations.
You can read the response from the people that served with him here:
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/FINALPICKENSLETTERFROMCREW.pdf
Your words, not mine. There were some fair and mostly unfair criticism of his military record. According to some, the relatively light injuries he received Purple Hearts for was common. I don't blame him for it. They had to be awarded. He didn't give them to himself.
He got shrapnel wounds from an engagement with the enemy. Why even bring up the issue of how "light" the wounds were? What is wrong with you?
Okay, minor injuries. Is that better? Under the rules, the Purple Heart doesn't distinguish between losing a limb and getting a piece of shrapnel from a grenade you fired in combat. One could say a single small piece of shrapnel is minor and losing a leg is a major injury. What is your problem?
The bigger picture is he was there, he fought, he was injured. Many others didn't go or fight.
No, the issue is people like you can't even defend him on an internet message board without adding qualifiers. It's like you're afraid you'll lose your GOP membership card if you don't slip some snide remark in.
You won that election already. Stop disparaging the man.
Don't try to think for me or pretend you know me well enough to read my thoughts. There were no snide remarks intended. There is no excuse to make disparaging comments about any soldier doing his duty and being injured in the process. I don't know how you can say "people like me". I said there was no excuse for the band-aid. I was only stating he wasn't seriously injured and his injuries were minor. He received Purple Hearts for injuries that others also received. He never missed duty with his 3 injures. They were either minor, or he was a tough SOB. I make no claim either way.
Why don't you go back and read my comments without prejudice? I am not GOP. I am not Democrat. I vote based on the person and not the party. I voted once for Obama, but I corrected my error. I read these posts based on the content. I don't assume what I think the writer is feeling.
Sure, let's go back and read your original comment to see why this is BS.
You seem to be condemning his critics, but can't even do that without simultaneously agreeing with them. Everything after "even though" is always unnecessary and undermines what came before it. Zeke is right, it's okay for you guys to attack war heroes...when they are democrats.
And don't give me the "I'm an independent" bullshit. Everyone claims to be an independent. It's rarely true.
Hey bud, how are those swiftboaters for "truth" doing these days? Oh, that's right, it's been found out that they were completely full of shit and smeared a real veteran so they could get an alcoholic national guard pilot reelected along with his draft dodging VP. Mission Accomplished.
Right. The point is: Donald Trump was thousands of miles away from John McCain, living increasingly comfortably, during the 5 years McCain spent at the Hanoi Hilton.
I never said that the Swiftboater folks' claims weren't disputed by other first person accounts. I'm simply pointing out the obvious difference between those guys sliming Kerry and Trump sliming McCain.
Personally, I think Kerry made a big blunder by allowing his feathers to get all ruffled by that noise. That's the kind of thing a campaign (not the candidate himself) should deny tersely and firmly and then ignore. By reacting the way he did, he unwittingly gave fuel to a smear campaign that otherwise would've gone on by like any other oppo offensive.
His campaign set a terrific example for what not to do when under that kind of fire. Even if it really offends you and pisses you off, it's the kind of thing you just need to say "Sorry, not true. Next issue."
You are reading too much into my comment. I guess that is your thing. I didn't say I was independent. I have certain things I look for in a candidate. If a Dem, like Evan Bayh would run, I would likely vote for him.
I'm only responding to what you actually wrote. The only reason to make the comment you did was to insult Kerry while defending him. There is not other possible purpose for slipping those words into your post.
I think a lot of Democrats believe that Kerry would've won in '04 had it not been for the Swiftboaters. I think that's delusional, personally. I do think it did him some harm, but only because he dealt with it so stupidly. But the notion that it was dispositive in the election is pretty fanciful.
Kerry, on a lot of levels, just wasn't a very good candidate. I think Bush was relatively vulnerable that cycle, as far as incumbent presidents go. But the Dems really didn't attract a very strong list of challengers. It kind of resembled 2012 -- where the incumbent was no particular shoo-in (like Clinton in '96 or Reagan in '84) -- but the other party couldn't muster any better than a mediocre challenger. As it is, I still think Kerry was the best among the Dems who sought the nomination in 2004....as Romney was the best choice the GOP had in 2012. But neither were very compelling as candidates.
cCain
In conclusion and I hope this is clear, a person also doesn't deserve to be dishonored for being taken prisoner, beaten, and refusing to go home early.
I only reported what happened. I suppose "even though " could have been taken differently by someone looking to start an argument. It was meant to describe that the severity, or origin, of the injury doesn't matter in battle conditions. He caught shrapnel that was the result of him firing on the enemy that required removal, antibiotic, and a band-aid. There were many others that received a similar injury and received the same Purple Heart. If you were there fighting, you don't deserve to be dishonored. Wartime John Kerry is a hero and off limits.
In conclusion and I hope this is clear, a person also doesn't deserve to be dishonored for being taken prisoner, beaten, and refusing to go home early.
I guess I have a different view. I don't care if any of them were serving five miles from Kerry or five thousand miles away. They weren't there. They are, in some ways, worse than Trump. Trump is a blowhard and an ass. Kerry fought and was decorated by the military at the time. These people served in Vietnam. They understood the chaos, the uncertainty and played off of that to attack Kerry with hearsay and conjecture. Trump knows nothing about it. He can't even remember which foot his bone spur was in. No one should be listening to him about military matters.
In reality, much of the SBs were angry because Kerry spoke out against the war after he served. They wanted to believe any story that could impugn his image.
It doesn't sound to me like your view is all that different than mine: in that it's a bad analogy because of who was doing the sliming.
I'm not really making a judgment about who was better or worse. I'm just saying that Trump is nothing more than a clown whose words about McCain's heroism carries little weight with anybody. You can't compare Trump as a critic to Kerry's fellow Swift Boat vets -- whether the particular vets in question served right next to him or never so much as laid eyes on him.
This is not to suggest anything so far as credence or veracity. It's just about the respective bios of the folks making charges. If it had been GWB himself leveling the charges at Kerry, then we'd have an apt comparison.
I didn't pay much attention to the swift boat people. It reminded me that Kerry was in Vietnam and in command of a small naval craft. Bush was in the US where nobody was shooting at him. Yes, I know flying military aircraft can be dangerous, but which one would you rather do? I didn't think the military record of either made a difference. The swift boat people appealed to those that had other reasons to not vote for him.
I agree. That's why I referred to it as "noise." Kerry would've been well-served to shrug it off as you (and I) did.
I would guess that the reason he didn't is because national security was a big issue in that election and he was fighting off being painted as "weak" during wartime. I understand that -- but I think the only reason it got much sustained attention at all is because Kerry blew a gasket.
I just think it was a textbook way for other campaigns to learn how not to deal with a smear campaign. And, let's be straight here: every candidate (if they have any chance at winning, anyway) is going to be the subject of a smear campaign.
I think my view is quite different than yours. When people that understand how things work but have no specific knowledge of a particular situation comment on that situation, they lend credence to credibilty.
Let me use a different example. During the Terry Schiavo debate Bill Frist commented that a videotape he viewed showed that Schiavo responded to stimuli. Frist is a doctor. A will regarded doctor, a well regarded heart specialist. He was not a neurologist. He reviewed a vidoe edited by people that had an agenda. There was no direct contact between Schiavo and Frist.
That energized the Schiavo supporters. Frist, a wll respected doctor albeit not a neurologist and having never seen the patient personally, came to the conclusion that she responded to stimiuli. Supporters were heartened. The fight continued.
We now know the truth. Schiavo could not react to stimuli. She had irreverable brain damage.
Frist had given credence to the idea that she could again be aware.
The Swift Boat supporters knew how the boats worked in Vietnam. None of them were present when any of the combat situations for which Kerry was decorated occured. They provided credence to allegations that had no direct knowledge of.
Trump is a blowhard and an ass. (How often must I repeat that.) His opinion of what McCain went through is worthless. The Swift Boaters have knowledge on how they operated but had no knowledge of what happened. They are more dnagerous that Trump.
In that, we disagree.
First of all, the Bush campaign looked up the Swift Boaters to attack his record. Second, it's his fault because of the way he responded? No. It was reprehensible that the GOP had a candidate that served a cushy National Guard position that daddy got him and they attacked the candidate that actually fought in the war.
Last edited:
More dangerous? As in....presenting some kind of danger? Really? OK, I guess we do disagree -- because I don't really see any "danger" in any of this. It's chatter. You could probably convince me that Edward Snowden is dangerous. You might also convince me that his critics are actually the dangerous ones. But people in the political circus saying bad things about other people in the political circus -- not sure I see any danger there.
And, again, I'm not saying anything about the veracity of the Swiftboaters' claims. I get that you're convinced that they were all wet. Maybe they were. If you pay close enough attention to my words, you'd see that I'm neither agreeing with nor disputing that. It's beside the point.
The only point I'm making is that comparing Trump's words about McCain to that situation is a bad comparison -- because the Swiftboaters had a relevant connection to Kerry (whether their claims were true or not). Trump, on the other hand, has never stayed in any "Hilton" that wasn't actually a luxury hotel.
I'm saying Kerry and his campaign handled their charges poorly -- very poorly. It's the kind of thing that you brush away with a single released statement. Taking them on as he did only fueled the fire.
But, in the end, I strongly doubt it had a material impact on the outcome of the race.
Anyway, that was a coordinated campaign. Trump made a single, off-hand, ridiculous comment about people being captured not being "his kind of hero."
It's just not a very apt comparison. And I can't imagine that McCain is worrying about it harming him politically.
