Trump and Megyn Kelly

Post Reply New Topic

No misogynist or racist thinks of themselves a such. I prefer just to say Donald is not very nice. It's more difficult to counter that accusation since even Trump's supporters will concede that he is not always as polite as he could be.

Anyway he did assault Ivana. I'm sure he pressured her to minimize the accusations after the fact.

The comment about blood coming out of her "wherever" was pretty low and not something most respectful men or women would say. The comment about Hillary spending too much time in the bathroom was also pretty low. The "schlonged" comment is rather difficult to explain (who uses that word anyway). Just a few examples Plenty more I'm sure.

"Schlong" is Yiddish slang for penis. Yiddish slang was often was mixed in with English in the New York area back in the day. If you grew up Jewish or in New York back then as Trump did the expression is familiar to you.

Yiddish speakers hit out at 'disgusting' Donald Trump for claiming Hillary Clinton got 'schlonged' by Obama in 2008

If a person is prejudiced he or she may deny employment to someone. If a political movement that is based on prejudice or group blaiming gains influence a lot of people will be denied jobs they would have gotten otherwise. I think that is extremely important.

I can not scientifically prove what Trump thinks or his intentions are or what the result of the Trump phenomenon will ultimately be. If to you want to use those standards you will win every argument you engage in because every statement in these threads you disagree with is are invalid. It is utterly impossible for anybody that disagrees with you to prove what they say is right. This is not a peer reviewed journal but an internet forum. It is all just opinions.

I am thinking this. The Trump phenomenon did not come of nowhere. You had an depression recently that screwed over a lot of people permently. The people that caused that did not get punished but bailed out. Similtaniously you had a culture of political corectness that made people fearful of saying anything that even vaguely hints at bieng direct. Anger and frustration has been building a long time especially amoung people the working to middle class or that is bieng destroyed. Add to that dermographic changes. The climate was ripe for a blunt speakling candidate. That in itself is not bad and could be a good thing. It is also a climate that is ripe for a demagouge who encourages people to act out of anger to hurt other people. I do not care at this point what he personally thinks, but I do see a smart man taking advantage of a situation using most of the techniques that have been discussed that have worked for other demoguoges that gained power. He could have chosen to be blunt speaking about the issues and who specifically to blame. but he decided to attack people based on personal characteristics "little Mark". He has given a wink and a nod to supporters who use violence. How can thinking about paying about paying for legal fees be intepreted any other way?. Any of his statements he makes can be interepted innocently. When I look at his statements as a whole I come from a very different conclusion about intent. Do I see something like a military takeover? No. Do I see Nazi Germany part 2? No. I do see us slipping into a situation where a lot innocent people in the blamed groups get hurt in a varity of ways and intimidation becomes a lot more prominent. This is happaning and will continue to evolve regardless if Trump becomes President.

Did I conclude the above because I read a few newspapers or WP posts? Come on. I have studied how demogogues gain power and how group stigmatization to group cleansing happens for years. I see so many parallels with this Trump phenomenon. People thought I was out of my mind when I said last fall Trump is no joke, he has a chance of doing well.

So the super-rich establishment pseudo-royals will struggle to find work?



Perhaps I'm being generous, but I'm trying to decide whether or not you're being serious. The problem I'm facing here is that I'm finding it hard to believe that, having asked for something more concrete than "because I say so" your immediate reaction is to imply I'm demanding scientific evidence.

In case you are being serious, and are of the mistaken opinion that you were actually making anything resembling a point in the first instance, allow me to clarify:

It is not enough to state "OMG people are going to LOSE THEIR JOBS!" without providing what a high school math teacher would refer to as your 'working out'. It is not enough to state that "Trump is deliberately appealing MISOGYNISTS!" and therefore "THE SKY IS FALLING" sans a rational justification.

From where I sit, it appears that you are engaged in nothing more than asinine scaremongering. What I requested was that you explain the rationale behind your thinking. I find it bizarre that you seem to think this is unreasonable of me.



A simplistic but not inaccurate assessment so far.



Rather than explaining why the label "demagogue" is inapt for Trump, I'll provide a link that does the job for me. Read it and let me know what you think.

Is Donald Trump a demagogue?

For a genuine example of a modern demagogue, look no further than Glenn Beck.



I certainly won't deny that Trump is a shark.



How? With consummate ease when you put events in their proper context. What he actually said was that he had "instructed my people" to look into the incident. It's pretty safe to assume that his intention was to ascertain whether or not it would be in his political interests to show solidarity with the guy who threw the punch. Simply put, he was thinking like a politician, not inciting or supporting violence.



Because a candidate was considering whether or not to pay the legal fees of someone who punched a protester? That's quite the slippery slope.



Then provide your rationale. You've yet to even mention a single group that is being unfairly stigmatised by Trump.

I do not know your neurology but to understand where I coming from. I am not interpreting his statements not literaly but with an understanding that Trump and most of his supporters are NT because that is what 98 percent of the population is. When Trump says I am looking into paying the legal fees of the supporter he might mean literally that. When he says back in the day protesters like that were carried out in stretchers he might mean literally that. I interpret these things as him saying to his supporters if you want to beat up protesters go ahead I have your back. These coded messeges of I am literally saying one thing but you and I know I really mean something else is how NT's communicate. Politics and marketing which is what political campaigns are specilize in doing this effectively.We can go through every statement he has made and i can say why i think it fits a pattern but why repeat what has been written in the numerous simultaneous threads about Trump. I do agree with the CNN article that he is not a classic demagogue.

Since I do not fully understand what you want out of me why don't you tell me what you think of his campaign and back it up however you like. So far this conversation for the most part has not been a two way conversation it has mostly you damanding things from me and me failing to deliver. I feel like the defendent at the end of a television procedural when at the end the suspect has been exposed and he has been proven guilty. ASPartOfMe claimed a view of the Trump phenominon, but he has been exposed as just another SJW, que the dramatic music.

Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 22 Mar 2016, 10:41 am, edited 2 times in total.

I'm already there. It's not so bad.


Why is this attribute immaterial in this scenario?

I'm planning to tour as many rabbit holes as I can in my dotage.



Which attribute? The only one I named was the only necessary one, viability.



I've been very clear with my requests for clarity of the rationale behind your rhetoric, which comes across as unqualified fearmongering to me. I believe that for a reasonable discussion to take place, it is absolutely imperative that both sides are willing to explain the thought processes that lead to their conclusions when called upon to do so. If that's something you're either unwilling or unable to do, then I see little value in continuing - especially in light of how unnecessarily evasive your responses are, along with your melodramatic allusion to cross-examination. If you're not here to engage in discourse of the ideas you put forward, what exactly is the point of posting them here?

Trump is playing the networks against each other to get better treatment, he's such a ratings draw and the other networks in CNN and MSNBC are desperate to catch up with Fox News which has faced unprecedented attacks from conservative voters since they went all in against Trump. FNC is just the same as any other MSM outlet, they're desperately trying to make Megyn Kelly their new star and Trump isn't having any of it. Trump wears his emotion's on his sleeves and will compliment people that mean him well, he'll hit back when he has to hit back, that's a big part of the reason he's winning.