I can’t speak to Push’s desire not to answer that question, but I have talked to a number of Republican voters who won’t denounce Trump’s outrageous statements re: war crimes and the like. The feeling I get is that they don’t want to be on the record knowing that they will pull the lever for Trump if is he is the nominee. If they come out and agree that Trump’s positions are ghastly, unlawful, and idiotic, then they’ll have to explain why such positions are not disqualifying, if they will vote (or will have voted) for him - and they won’t be able to.
But their refusal to answer leaves a damning inference. And that is fine. It’s just as telling as answering the question directly, maybe even more so.
The wave of discontent Trump is riding (and exploiting) is real and justified. But that doesn’t convert him into a viable Presidential candidate.
The man wasn’t qualified before, and he certainly isn’t after making those idiotic claims.
A US candidate bragging about his pro-torture and civilian killing platform is worth speaking out against. Often. Couldn’t even say…Why would I? None of them look good. It’s a matter of deciding who is tolerable enough and likely to knock Trump out of the running. As I said, that’s most likely Cruz, but I’ll be watching.
I’m not near the pussy some here are when it comes to announcing who you’d vote for.[/quote]
Maybe they don’t have such a person. I don’t. My vote this year will be not “for” any on at this point - instead it will be a defensive vote or a divided government vote. That’s a perfectly rational vote, especially this year.
Trump is a dangerous idiot. Cruz is not especially impressive - even if I agreed with him 100% on policy (and I don’t, far from it), he lacks the gravitas and the skill the office needs, and he won’t accomplish anything. Rubio is too inexperienced and seems small for the task. Kasich seems reasonable, and I like his executive experience, but I’m not for him either.
There’s just not much to get excited about with these guys.
Heaven forbid that Sloth be so much as upset when a frontrunner for the most powerful station in the world is a nescient cretin who is openly calling for war crimes to be committed. Histrionic, I know. You aren’t doing your party or your country any favors by not being up in arms against the massive fucking imbecile that is Donald Trump. Yet, you defend him.
Univision put together a bush league debate last night. CNN shouldn’t have attached their brand to that mess. Even if you don’t mind substantial portions of a US presidential debate being broadcast in a foreign language, that doesn’t excuse the crappy production quality and the amateur hour moderators. The most spirited debate happened when Bern and Hill went off on their own back-and-forth while excluding the mods. The mods did ask a few tough questions, but that should be considered standard. A lot of agenda in the broadcast and they weren’t shy about it.
It was very confusing whenever they had that awful English translation being played on top of the Spanish speaking broadcasters. It was barely comprehensible, doesn’t matter what language you speak. Was this supposed to teach English speakers a lesson or something?
Also a fair bit of trite emotional manipulation. Rounding up a sorry looking central American family and have them tell a pity story in Spanish. Then several reminders from the broadcast team of just how sad it all was. Even the post-debate coverage reminded us just how sad that family was. Give me a break.
Maybe the DNC made the right call, I don’t know. I know it didn’t work for me and probably a lot of others. We have agenda driven debates now and it’s a shame.
Push said: “See if you can make a post on this thread that in no way refers to Trump. Is he the sun in the US political solar system as far as you’re concerned or sumthin? Must all discussion orbit around HIM?”
