Trump hates babies

Post Reply New Topic

Tim Kaine says about this: "Sometimes you wonder who the baby is."

he must have skipped his political candidate 101 classes. if you're campaigning, and there's a baby, no matter what the situation is, you stop what you're doing, and you make sure that there'll be pictures taken of you kissing that baby. that's what you're supposed to do

i believe he was joking and then joking again. to be honest i thought it was funny. and that's the problem. that clown actually is funny sometimes. he should be a comedian. he'd be a good one. i'd pay to watch him

he's like andy kaufman gone extreme

Last edited by anagram on 02 Aug 2016, 8:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I don`t care.

people these days... today you don't care about trump making a joke about a crying baby. tomorrow you won't even care if he farts in public. that's alarming

unless it's an odorless fart. then i would agree

Every time Trump says or does something doesn't warrant a thread

Do you work for CTR? Literally have 8 threads on the first page of this forum with Trump in the title, that's just you by the way as there are a bunch of other Trump threads too. It's getting totally ridiculous at this point.

But you cared enough to post! That's a bit misleading or something.

Maybe the Donald is out to get votes from people who can't stand noisy babies--aren't there some forum members who have issues with loud noises and would like to say what he said?

People can post whatever they want It's up to the moderators to ban them if they feel necessary.

I saw this "joke" as a little bit mean-spirited. Also his comment about "people dont' understand" is vague. What? "People don't understand that I'm insulting babies to ruin my chances of actually beccoming president because I dont want the job? One has to seriously wonder if he wants the job when he attacks crying babies and dead soldiers. I really don't think he wants to be president. I don't want a president who doesn't want the job.

I don't expect Trump to watch every little thing he says or does to avoid giving the press ammunition against him. You can't be effective that way.

I do agree that he needs to stop getting distracted and keep hammering his points. Take Bernie's example- every time you get any kind of opportunity to talk, you drive home your talking points. If he gets on somewhere and they ask him if he likes babies, he should reply with something about Iran, the emails, or Benghazi. Or about setting us up to wage war against Russia. Why is no one talking about that?? I mean, hello? Hasn't anyone seen Red Dawn?

I am a conservative who is not a Trump fan.
This one is minor unless you are the one speaking.

Over the years I have had many distractions during my humor or mental health presentations.
As a fan and user of improv I can understand his words.
Of course I'm not running for president.

No one is talking about that because it's rubbish.

Red Dawn was fiction.

NATO is not preparing to invade Russia. Clinton has not been secretly preparing for war with Russia.

The US is still the dominant global superpower. The bolstering of NATO forces on Russia's periphery are very obviously defensive in nature, and the Russians know this perfectly well. By the numbers alone, this obvious to anyone who cares to look into it. Consider the much larger troop movements and force used by Russia to gain the eastern areas of the Ukraine. The idea that NATO would launch an attack on Russia with a few thousand soldiers is only plausible to people who know nothing about war or logistics.

The Tiny Nato forces in Poland and the Baltic states are somehow supposed to pose a threat of invasion to Russia? Sorry, but no. No one who knows anything about it believes this. The people who are either ignorant or lying.

The role of the NATO troops in Poland is to die in the event of a Russian invasion, thus ensuring a vigorous Article 5 defense by the NATO nations that supplied them. They are a tripwire defense, not an invasion force.

As for Red Dawn, the logistical challenges against a Russian invasion of the US, with or without assistance from allies somewhere in the hemisphere, are insurmountable. Given the US tracking of targets in its ADIZs, the forward basing of many of our forces in bases around the world, and our electronic and space based surveillance programs, an airborne surprise attack on the US is just not possible and neither is massing of troops on our southern border.

EMP is a threat, but not a more serious threat than any other kind of nuclear attack. The US military has been using radiation hardened equipment for this contingency. Our response to an EMP attack would result in the total annihilation of the enemy that launched it and they know this. No sane state leader is going to try this.

Neither Russia nor China are even close to being in a position to invade the United States. It's just nonsense.

It makes less than no sense to simultaneously suggest that we are being set up both to invade Russia and are vulnerable to a surprise invasion from Russia.

Russia has enough nuclear warheads to end all life on this earth, we should not be practicing brinkmanship with them as they pose no threat to United States and in fact share some of the same interests. US policy towards Russia has remained belligerent and imperialist since the end of the Cold War, they took advantage of Russia's weakened state have pushed NATO eastward despite every assurance that they wouldn't. We do not want to restart the Cold War, I have no interest in waging decades of indirect warfare with possibility of nuclear annihilation hanging over head.

People don't understand what happened in Ukraine or in Georgia some years ago, it was no example Russian aggression but rather rather reactive to the situation of the ground(an illegal coup that was rabidly anti-Russian in a country where like 50% of the country speak Russian or are Russian. Most of those in Crimea were Russian, those in eastern Ukraine were Russian. It was the EU and the US that were trying pull Ukraine out of Russia's sphere of influence so they could push Russia out of the Black Sea and it's strategic location. Read Zbigniew Brzezinski's thoughts on the area and then you'd understand. Do you think it was wrong for the US to be troubled by the Soviet's stationing of nuclear weapons in Cuba? If you can understand that then it should be easy to understand how Russia feels, I'd say they've reacted in a much more measured response compared to the US which were a phone call away from starting WWIII. Thankfully JFK was a wiser than that, then they killed him.

In this, as in so many things, Jacoby, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I don't see the US practicing brinskmanship in Europe.

I don't see the US as continuously belligerent and imperialist toward Russia.

Regardless of whether we think about it or not, the possibility of nuclear annihilation is always hanging over our heads and has been continuously since the cold war. Nothing the US has done has returned us to a Cold War and Putin's showy BS, flying bombers all over the place with their transponders off, moving tens of thousands of men on exercises clearly designed to simulate invasion of their neighbors, etc. has not actually thrown us back into the Cold War either. Putin is doing a lot for his domestic audience, and a lot because he has the instincts of a tyrant--the US did not make him that way.

There is no rational analogy between the Cuban missile crisis and events in the Ukraine today. Russia is a country, not a person and thus has no particular feeling about it. Individual Russians have a range of reactions to that situation, only some of which are approving of Putin's response.

I think it is a perfect comparison, we're are moving NATO further and further east placing nuclear weapons on Russia's doorstep so naturally they will be upset. NATO does plenty of flexing themselves as well, there are two sides to this story.

Hypothetically would you start WWIII if Russia invaded Estonia which isn't going to happen but lets say it did, are you ready to end it all? I'm not, simply it's not our problem and we should look for ways to work Russia so we don't have to have this sword constantly hanging above us. We have a common enemy in Islamic extremism and Putin is no worse than a lot of our so called allies.

This is both untrue and irrelevant. Untrue in that we have not placed nuclear weapons closer to Russia than they were before. Irrelevant in that Russia was never more than 20-30 minutes away from nuclear annihilation if the US attacked, and vice versa. Having aircraft stationed in Estonia does nothing to change that.

"On our doorstep" is an obsolete thought when technology has made our doorstep planetary in scope.

Russia isn't going to attack NATO (as long as Putin doesn't think NATO members all think like you, at any rate) and NATO isn't going to attack Russia. So this whole thing should be a non issue in this campaign. Hillary is not going to start world war three.

someone would have to be really stupid (like, really stupid) to declare war on russia

they have an imperialistic mindset, but they're not "globalistic" like the u.s. communism is over. they are probably the #1 polarizing force in eurasia on both sides of the caucasus and on many different matters between different players, having a significant role in almost every major military/political development in a very large area of the continent around them (for one thing, i believe the "cold threat" that they represent does have a major role and will keep having a major role in the development of eu politics). but that's eurasia, not the americas

and just like someone would have to be really stupid to declare war on them, they're not stupid either. they know better than to upset whatever balance that they've been stealthily promoting. that's how they operate. nuclear weapons just give them a license to do it, and that's it