Trump says he can't recall using insults he's made often

[CMNightRider]

The anti Trump mob will seize on any excuse to attack him. It's obvious to any one with a brain that he wasn't referring to menses. He's not that stupid

You think because he parlayed daddy's fortune into a heavily leveraged property "empire" and steamrollers any opposition with lawsuits that he's too clever to make an ar$e of himself with comments like the "blood" one?

I disagree.

But it hasn't done him any harm, because the Fox audience of angry old white men probably all nodded in agreement.

I think the majority of "angry old white men" you talk about are right here in Thailand, and are sitting behind their computers in their underwear anxiously waiting for the next person to post on Thai Visa. I suspect one of them has an avatar of an old white man with curlers on his head.

I don't watch Fox News only because it isn't offered on True TV but I do watch CNN. When Trump announced his plans to run as a candidate for the presidential race, CNN news commentators all had a big laugh. The commentators that thought Trumps decision to run was funny, are now standing in line to interview him. Every time Trump speaks, CNN broadcasts it.

The only news I see about Hillary on CNN, seems to be in regards to her handing over her private e-mail server to the FBI, and how most people don't trust her. It's an interesting contrast.

[Linky]

The anti Trump mob will seize on any excuse to attack him. It's obvious to any one with a brain that he wasn't referring to menses. He's not that stupid

You think because he parlayed daddy's fortune into a heavily leveraged property "empire" and steamrollers any opposition with lawsuits that he's too clever to make an ar$e of himself with comments like the "blood" one?

I disagree.

But it hasn't done him any harm, because the Fox audience of angry old white men probably all nodded in agreement.

I think the majority of "angry old white men" you talk about are right here in Thailand, and are sitting behind their computers in their underwear anxiously waiting for the next person to post on Thai Visa. I suspect one of them has an avatar of an old white man with curlers on his head.

I don't watch Fox News only because it isn't offered on True TV but I do watch CNN. When Trump announced his plans to run as a candidate for the presidential race, CNN news commentators all had a big laugh. The commentators that thought Trumps decision to run was funny, are now standing in line to interview him. Every time Trump speaks, CNN broadcasts it.

The only news I see about Hillary on CNN, seems to be in regards to her handing over her private e-mail server to the FBI, and how most people don't trust her. It's an interesting contrast.

Of course they are all standing in line to interview him, its called entertainment. He is not taken seriously its just the laugh value of seeing an ego think some consider him a contender.

I hope he stays in the race longer, not only will it be a laugh a minute but also means no other republican will have a chance.

The Dems dont need any air time at all, just sit there and say nothing, watch the train wreck, have a beer and move into the White House again.

[impulse]

Of course they are all standing in line to interview him, its called entertainment. He is not taken seriously its just the laugh value of seeing an ego think some consider him a contender.

I hope he stays in the race longer, not only will it be a laugh a minute but also means no other republican will have a chance.

The Dems dont need any air time at all, just sit there and say nothing, watch the train wreck, have a beer and move into the White House again.

He'll drop out and throw his support behind a mainstream candidate right after he's negotiated what he wants from the Repubs (Or maybe from the Dems- wouldn't that be a plot twist). What that may be, I do not know.

But they have been and will continue to be fun to watch...

Edited August 12, 2015 by impulse

[CMNightRider]

You are what you think, Ladyboy

Well, I have had some bizarre thoughts enter my mind over the years but I can assure you none have anything to do with transvestites (ladyboys). In the future, please send your man love messages along with your smily face icon to one of many Thai Visa posters who I'm certain would enjoy the attention.

This site is infested with those people.

The last sentence is a disgraceful use of words..regardless.

Thanks. Which word did you find to be disgraceful?

[thaibeachlovers]

^^

My expressed admiration was not for British rule in India, but for the kind of general British genteelness that you seemed to have decried. I am acutely aware of the various British atrocities carried out in India and elsewhere. The elimination of nuance and ability to see things at multiple levels are some of the hallmarks of the Fox-created culture.

As to the issue of Trump's behaviour towards women, you continue to confuse forthrightness with uncouthness. Trump the billionaire is living proof that you cannot buy class.

T

Hmmmmm. I grew up at the end of the age of "British genteelness" that you admire, but I only remember that it was a facade they put on while treating people very badly. Politeness in my British modelled school was acompanied by a regime of cruelty and thrashing young children for minor infractions of the rules.

BTW genuinely polite people don't massacre people because they are an "inferior race".

[CMNightRider]

The anti Trump mob will seize on any excuse to attack him. It's obvious to any one with a brain that he wasn't referring to menses. He's not that stupid

You think because he parlayed daddy's fortune into a heavily leveraged property "empire" and steamrollers any opposition with lawsuits that he's too clever to make an ar$e of himself with comments like the "blood" one?

I disagree.

But it hasn't done him any harm, because the Fox audience of angry old white men probably all nodded in agreement.

I think the majority of "angry old white men" you talk about are right here in Thailand, and are sitting behind their computers in their underwear anxiously waiting for the next person to post on Thai Visa. I suspect one of them has an avatar of an old white man with curlers on his head.

I don't watch Fox News only because it isn't offered on True TV but I do watch CNN. When Trump announced his plans to run as a candidate for the presidential race, CNN news commentators all had a big laugh. The commentators that thought Trumps decision to run was funny, are now standing in line to interview him. Every time Trump speaks, CNN broadcasts it.

The only news I see about Hillary on CNN, seems to be in regards to her handing over her private e-mail server to the FBI, and how most people don't trust her. It's an interesting contrast.

Of course they are all standing in line to interview him, its called entertainment. He is not taken seriously its just the laugh value of seeing an ego think some consider him a contender.

I hope he stays in the race longer, not only will it be a laugh a minute but also means no other republican will have a chance.

The Dems dont need any air time at all, just sit there and say nothing, watch the train wreck, have a beer and move into the White House again.

Trump is doing so well, there is little mention of Hillary or Sanders. It appears the "train wreck" you are referring to is Hillary. As we speak, the FBI are sifting through her private e-mail server.

Trump may well end up becoming the Republican candidate but if not, there are several people right behind him that are prepared to blow Hillary or Sanders out of the water.

"Entertainment" is reading ridiculous posts written by the liberal minions on this site.

[thaibeachlovers]

Of course they are all standing in line to interview him, its called entertainment. He is not taken seriously its just the laugh value of seeing an ego think some consider him a contender.

I hope he stays in the race longer, not only will it be a laugh a minute but also means no other republican will have a chance.

The Dems dont need any air time at all, just sit there and say nothing, watch the train wreck, have a beer and move into the White House again.

He'll drop out and throw his support behind a mainstream candidate right after he's negotiated what he wants from the Repubs (Or maybe from the Dems- wouldn't that be a plot twist). What that may be, I do not know.

But they have been and will continue to be fun to watch...

I doubt he ever intended to see it through to the end. Yes, if he achieves what he wants he will probably go back to what he actually enjoys doing.

IMO only a power hungry narcisist or a statesman would willingly subject themselves to the American scum media frenzy, and there aren't any statesmen running, on either side.

[Thakkar]

^^

My expressed admiration was not for British rule in India, but for the kind of general British genteelness that you seemed to have decried. I am acutely aware of the various British atrocities carried out in India and elsewhere. The elimination of nuance and ability to see things at multiple levels are some of the hallmarks of the Fox-created culture.

As to the issue of Trump's behaviour towards women, you continue to confuse forthrightness with uncouthness. Trump the billionaire is living proof that you cannot buy class.

T

Hmmmmm. I grew up at the end of the age of "British genteelness" that you admire, but I only remember that it was a facade they put on while treating people very badly. Politeness in my British modelled school was acompanied by a regime of cruelty and thrashing young children for minor infractions of the rules.

BTW genuinely polite people don't massacre people because they are an "inferior race".

Maybe "genteelness" isn't the correct word. I can't think of a better word. The point is, in India's struggle for independence, if it had been against another colonial power (say, France or Belgium), the bloodbath would likely have been far worse. In the context of colonial powers of the day, Britain, even with all its condescension and brutality (and there was lots of that) was the least worst of the lot.

Your arguments are all over the place, but distinctly getting further and further away from defence of Trump's boorish comments.

T

[cantplay]

"Trump is doing so well, there is little mention of Hillary or Sanders. It appears the "train wreck" you are referring to is Hillary. As we speak, the FBI are sifting through her private e-mail server. Trump may well end up becoming the Republican candidate but if not, there are several people right behind him that are prepared to blow Hillary or Sanders out of the water.

"Entertainment" is reading ridiculous posts written by the liberal minions on this site."

That's laughable. Joe 6 pack is a never ending source of entertainment for the Superpacs

Edited August 12, 2015 by cantplay

[thaibeachlovers]

^^

My expressed admiration was not for British rule in India, but for the kind of general British genteelness that you seemed to have decried. I am acutely aware of the various British atrocities carried out in India and elsewhere. The elimination of nuance and ability to see things at multiple levels are some of the hallmarks of the Fox-created culture.

As to the issue of Trump's behaviour towards women, you continue to confuse forthrightness with uncouthness. Trump the billionaire is living proof that you cannot buy class.

T

Hmmmmm. I grew up at the end of the age of "British genteelness" that you admire, but I only remember that it was a facade they put on while treating people very badly. Politeness in my British modelled school was acompanied by a regime of cruelty and thrashing young children for minor infractions of the rules.

BTW genuinely polite people don't massacre people because they are an "inferior race".

Maybe "genteelness" isn't the correct word. I can't think of a better word. The point is, in India's struggle for independence, if it had been against another colonial power (say, France or Belgium), the bloodbath would likely have been far worse. In the context of colonial powers of the day, Britain, even with all its condescension and brutality (and there was lots of that) was the least worst of the lot.

Your arguments are all over the place, but distinctly getting further and further away from defence of Trump's boorish comments.

T

To get back to Trump then.

Trump doesn't need defending. He doesn't care about people that slag him off.

It's ironic that you are criticising Trump for bad manners on a forum that is full of bad mannered people slagging other people off.

Incidentally, it is obvious that none of the thousands of Mexicans and women that work/ed for Trump have had a problem with him. Had any done so they would have been paraded through the streets by Trump's opponents of both parties. The best they managed to come up with was something Ivana said during their divirce decades ago.

[Thakkar]

^^

My expressed admiration was not for British rule in India, but for the kind of general British genteelness that you seemed to have decried. I am acutely aware of the various British atrocities carried out in India and elsewhere. The elimination of nuance and ability to see things at multiple levels are some of the hallmarks of the Fox-created culture.

As to the issue of Trump's behaviour towards women, you continue to confuse forthrightness with uncouthness. Trump the billionaire is living proof that you cannot buy class.

T

Hmmmmm. I grew up at the end of the age of "British genteelness" that you admire, but I only remember that it was a facade they put on while treating people very badly. Politeness in my British modelled school was acompanied by a regime of cruelty and thrashing young children for minor infractions of the rules.

BTW genuinely polite people don't massacre people because they are an "inferior race".

Maybe "genteelness" isn't the correct word. I can't think of a better word. The point is, in India's struggle for independence, if it had been against another colonial power (say, France or Belgium), the bloodbath would likely have been far worse. In the context of colonial powers of the day, Britain, even with all its condescension and brutality (and there was lots of that) was the least worst of the lot.

Your arguments are all over the place, but distinctly getting further and further away from defence of Trump's boorish comments.

T

To get back to Trump then.

Trump doesn't need defending. He doesn't care about people that slag him off.

It's ironic that you are criticising Trump for bad manners on a forum that is full of bad mannered people slagging other people off.

Incidentally, it is obvious that none of the thousands of Mexicans and women that work/ed for Trump have had a problem with him. Had any done so they would have been paraded through the streets by Trump's opponents of both parties. The best they managed to come up with was something Ivana said during their divirce decades ago.

My problem isn't with Trump per se. I'm really more worried that this nonsensical, megalomaniacal, misogynistic, racism-spewing (though himself not necessarily racist) bombastic blowhard has a 23% approval rating among registered republicans, which translates to about 6% approval rating among all American adults. That's about 15 million people--15 million irrationally angry people, many of whom likely have guns.

Anger, if rational and well-defined is very good because it leads to positive political action, direct involvement in one's community, organising and getting organised to address various issues and getting the right people elected, and once elected, continue the pressure to ensure they do what they promised.

But if the anger is irrational/I'll-defined, the politicians speaking to that anger, reflecting that anger, stoking that anger are bound to expound irrational, I'll-defined, impractical policies that not only fail to address the real problems, but make things worse.

At some point, these angry, armed people, when they see no "solutions" in sight, will lash out in violent, irrational ways.

Here is an example of the irrationality of some such Trump supporters. And remember, you cannot address anger issues or solve problems when you eschew facts and data and thus are unclear about the real parameters of the problems, how they came to be, and thus how to solve them.

They want to shut down Planned Parenthood (PP) because they think it uses federal funds to perform boatloads of abortions at their conveyor belt abortion complexes. The facts are that PP don't use federal funds for abortions, that only 3%of their work involves abortions, that they provide health services for both men and women including health checkups, prenatal services, diet advice, etc. In many areas, PP is the only place to go for health services. But the GOP Pitchfork brigade don't care about the facts. They are just angry, and irrationally so.

Now you might say that Trump, to his credit, has recently said that PP provides some useful, non-abortion services and that he'd look into only defunding the abortion part (or something to that effect). But he is being disingenuous. Surely he knows the truth that NO fed funds go towards abortions, that abortions are a minuscule part of what PP does. Why doesn't he just tell his supporters that you cannot defund something you are not funding?

They are angry about the bankers that nearly tanked the world economy, but are against the kinds of regulations and federal oversight that would prevent such malpractices that led to the collapse.

They are angry about the deficits and want a balanced budget but are against defence cuts. The Pentagon is one of the most resources-hogging, inefficient arm of the government. And the pentagon will need even more money if these people have their way because they eschew diplomacy as weakness and see armed posturing as strength.

They are angry about job cuts but vote for politicians who support trade deals that make it easier for American companies to send jobs overseas.

All this irrationality can be dispelled and anger assuaged with sound, non-ideologically based policies. But instead many politicians choose to pander to, or, even worse, stoke this angry irrationality for the sake of short term gain--to get elected so they can go to work for their real masters, the big donors and the people who will give them cushy jobs on retirement.

Trump is harnessing this angry energy, but what is he doing with it? He could just be feeding his megalomania, but perhaps that view is too simplistic. As of now though, I really don't see him doing anything constructive for the good of America, or for the good of the world.

He is both stoking and feeding off this irrational anger, but to what end, is not entirely clear to me. What is clear is that he has so far done little to nothing to promote calm, informed, rational political discourse. He is feeding the 15-million strong monster and smearing our airwaves with the resulting sh!t.

T

[thaibeachlovers]

Hmmmmm. I grew up at the end of the age of "British genteelness" that you admire, but I only remember that it was a facade they put on while treating people very badly. Politeness in my British modelled school was acompanied by a regime of cruelty and thrashing young children for minor infractions of the rules.

BTW genuinely polite people don't massacre people because they are an "inferior race".

Maybe "genteelness" isn't the correct word. I can't think of a better word. The point is, in India's struggle for independence, if it had been against another colonial power (say, France or Belgium), the bloodbath would likely have been far worse. In the context of colonial powers of the day, Britain, even with all its condescension and brutality (and there was lots of that) was the least worst of the lot.

Your arguments are all over the place, but distinctly getting further and further away from defence of Trump's boorish comments.

T

To get back to Trump then.

Trump doesn't need defending. He doesn't care about people that slag him off.

It's ironic that you are criticising Trump for bad manners on a forum that is full of bad mannered people slagging other people off.

Incidentally, it is obvious that none of the thousands of Mexicans and women that work/ed for Trump have had a problem with him. Had any done so they would have been paraded through the streets by Trump's opponents of both parties. The best they managed to come up with was something Ivana said during their divirce decades ago.

My problem isn't with Trump per se. I'm really more worried that this nonsensical, megalomaniacal, misogynistic, racism-spewing (though himself not necessarily racist) bombastic blowhard has a 23% approval rating among registered republicans, which translates to about 6% approval rating among all American adults. That's about 15 million people--15 million irrationally angry people, many of whom likely have guns.

Anger, if rational and well-defined is very good because it leads to positive political action, direct involvement in one's community, organising and getting organised to address various issues and getting the right people elected, and once elected, continue the pressure to ensure they do what they promised.

But if the anger is irrational/I'll-defined, the politicians speaking to that anger, reflecting that anger, stoking that anger are bound to expound irrational, I'll-defined, impractical policies that not only fail to address the real problems, but make things worse.

At some point, these angry, armed people, when they see no "solutions" in sight, will lash out in violent, irrational ways.

Here is an example of the irrationality of some such Trump supporters. And remember, you cannot address anger issues or solve problems when you eschew facts and data and thus are unclear about the real parameters of the problems, how they came to be, and thus how to solve them.

They want to shut down Planned Parenthood (PP) because they think it uses federal funds to perform boatloads of abortions at their conveyor belt abortion complexes. The facts are that PP don't use federal funds for abortions, that only 3%of their work involves abortions, that they provide health services for both men and women including health checkups, prenatal services, diet advice, etc. In many areas, PP is the only place to go for health services. But the GOP Pitchfork brigade don't care about the facts. They are just angry, and irrationally so.

Now you might say that Trump, to his credit, has recently said that PP provides some useful, non-abortion services and that he'd look into only defunding the abortion part (or something to that effect). But he is being disingenuous. Surely he knows the truth that NO fed funds go towards abortions, that abortions are a minuscule part of what PP does. Why doesn't he just tell his supporters that you cannot defund something you are not funding?

They are angry about the bankers that nearly tanked the world economy, but are against the kinds of regulations and federal oversight that would prevent such malpractices that led to the collapse.

They are angry about the deficits and want a balanced budget but are against defence cuts. The Pentagon is one of the most resources-hogging, inefficient arm of the government. And the pentagon will need even more money if these people have their way because they eschew diplomacy as weakness and see armed posturing as strength.

They are angry about job cuts but vote for politicians who support trade deals that make it easier for American companies to send jobs overseas.

All this irrationality can be dispelled and anger assuaged with sound, non-ideologically based policies. But instead many politicians choose to pander to, or, even worse, stoke this angry irrationality for the sake of short term gain--to get elected so they can go to work for their real masters, the big donors and the people who will give them cushy jobs on retirement.

Trump is harnessing this angry energy, but what is he doing with it? He could just be feeding his megalomania, but perhaps that view is too simplistic. As of now though, I really don't see him doing anything constructive for the good of America, or for the good of the world.

He is both stoking and feeding off this irrational anger, but to what end, is not entirely clear to me. What is clear is that he has so far done little to nothing to promote calm, informed, rational political discourse. He is feeding the 15-million strong monster and smearing our airwaves with the resulting sh!t.

T

getting the right people elected

IMO there are no good politicians. They are all milking the system. Only an outsider can change anything.

the politicians speaking to that anger, reflecting that anger, stoking that anger are bound to expound irrational, I'll-defined, impractical policies

Like the "black lives matter" movement perhaps.

shut down Planned Parenthood (PP) because they think it uses federal funds to perform boatloads of abortions at their conveyor belt abortion complexes.

Actually it's more about abortion Drs saying they want to buy expensive cars with the proceeds of the body parts for sale fiasco, and being disrespectful.

They are angry about the bankers that nearly tanked the world economy, but are against the kinds of regulations and federal oversight that would prevent such malpractices that led to the collapse.

More that taxpayer money was used to rescue corrupt bankers, none of which have ever been imprisoned.

against defence cuts

While they know the military industrial complex is corrupt and incompetent, the thought of being defenceless against real enemies is more of concern.

but vote for politicians who support trade deals that make it easier for American companies to send jobs overseas.

But who is there to vote for that doesn't? The whole bunch of self serving greedy politicians serve their money masters.

I really don't see him doing anything constructive for the good of America, or for the good of the world.

Trump has said he wants to build a wall to keep out criminals, terrorists and illegals. He says he wants to return jobs to America, He says he wants to make America great. Is he a liar?

It's not his job to look after the rest of the world.