Political correctness and radical Islamic terrorism

Eh its been bubbling for awhile ever since the SJWs and Black Lives Matter got on a steamroll at Universities. Plus Cruz has been talking about Islamic terrorism years before Trump did :P

I don't see why it's relevant how many times he's been married or whether he sometimes curses.

Because he's trying to be leader of our entire country. Morality matters. Respectability matters. Dignity matters. How can I trust him to build relationships with world leaders if he can't even keep a marriage together. May as well let Kim Kardashian become president...I mean she's done FANTASTIC in the private sector.

And by the way, Trump is an excellent speaker.

lol wut? He rambles, doesn't finish a thought, talks about his poll numbers for half the time, recycles his same one liners ("We are losing", "We're gonna make this country great again", "We're gonna build a wall and its gonna have a beautiful door right in the middle of it"), and jumps between topics randomly. How did this guy get into the Wharton School of Finance (is that what his small loan of million dollars was used to pay for?).

Bill Clinton. Morality didn't matter for him.

In regards to speaking- that is the cause of several different factors.

Eh its been bubbling for awhile ever since the SJWs and Black Lives Matter got on a steamroll at Universities. Plus Cruz has been talking about Islamic terrorism years before Trump did :P

Have they gotten anything done? They've been talking about illegal immigration since Reagan gave them amnesty, but nothing has been done. Other Republicans are too timid when talking about these subjects, afraid of offending the ever-offended leftist press. Trump, on the other hand, has mobilized huge crowds on these issues. He's the only reason anyone bothers to watch Republican debates.

Because he's trying to be leader of our entire country. Morality matters. Respectability matters. Dignity matters. How can I trust him to build relationships with world leaders if he can't even keep a marriage together. May as well let Kim Kardashian become president...I mean she's done FANTASTIC in the private sector.

Well, look at Obama. He has done nothing but failed internationally. Nobody respects him or his country. Russia, China and Iran walk all over him. You don't need to be a stiff to be respected.

Trump, on the other hand, has spent the least on his campaign and gotten the best results. Once he does the same internationally, there will be no need to use the US military to get what he wants.

Trump has already gotten an endorsement from Putin. Cruz cannot even get one from a notable GOP member...

lol wut? He rambles, doesn't finish a thought, talks about his poll numbers for half the time, recycles his same one liners ("We are losing", "We're gonna make this country great again", "We're gonna build a wall and its gonna have a beautiful door right in the middle of it"), and jumps between topics randomly. How did this guy get into the Wharton School of Finance (is that what his small loan of million dollars was used to pay for?).

So what if he doesn't finish all his sentences? The message is perfectly clear. I like his livid speaking style. Most of the other candidates sound like they are reading from a paper (or teleprompter). It's because of Trump that people bother to watch GOP debates. He's a good and entertaining speaker. Just think of how he demolished Cruz on New York values.

Just think of how he demolished Cruz on New York values.

Ted Cruz was perfectly in line when he said that. But yes, Trump knows how to play the 9/11 card.

Cruz was speechless after Trump's retort.

And I don't think Cruz' statement was particularly insulting, as Trump claimed, but the point is that Trump is very good with words. It was not just that he played the 9/11 card, but how he played it.

Trump is a fantastic speaker. Easily and by far the best out of all the nominees. The point of a speech is rarely to convince someone of a point of view. Usually someone who attends a Trump rally will already be a Trump supporter, and how many times has a speech by someone changed your world view? Speeches are mainly to satisfy someone's confirmation bias, to make them feel more enthusiastic about something they already support.

His answers are often waffly and not on point, but they work to his advantage. He avoids treading in murky topics , avoids saying something wrong and then getting badgered by the press. His colloquial tone gives the impression he's speaking off the top of his head and unscripted, and thats part of his appeal. Although I do suspect that many of the aspects are deliberate and made for effect, but it doesn't matter, since it keeps his supporters happy.

He refrains from getting too technical to not bore into his audience, he usually just talks about simple thoughts and aims rather than elaborate on specific details of policy. He jumps around topics, interjecting points or stories throughout, then continues and keeps his audience interested.

Ultimately, people's will be more persuaded by first impressions, empathetic and emotional appeals rather than through logic and reason.

Trump is a fantastic entertainer and comedian on that we agree, because Trump is a real clown.

If you want to elect a clown, so be it, I seriously hope that people are more clever than you Pulsey, because after all the most important thing is what the candidate offers in terms of reforms, political program, etc, to his country, and Trump would be a catastrophic president. Welcome in Idiocracy! (btw I advise you to watch this movie)

Koala western civilization is doomed. There is nothing you can do to prevent it. Its too late now. Who we elect will have a negligible impact upon our ultimate fate as a civilization.

Yes well, Koala, as usual you are naively insistent that you live in a perfect world and remain completely oblivious to human nature.

Besides, I never said Trump was the best man for the job, I just said he was the best speaker. His campaign has obviously offered many ideas, political programs on the table and has opened a lot of discussion and dialogue, which I think is much more than some other campaigns.

Pulsey, as usual you are the main hypocrite here, I am not as much as gullible as you are, as you are blinded by mere comedian prowesses and some rhetorical tricks. You are here just stating that to be a successful candidate the only thing which really matters is that you have to be a clown and make your totally lobotomized audience happy? If you still do not get the utterly stupid statement you made, this shows how much brainwashed you are.

"avoids saying something wrong and then getting badgered by the press."
Oh yeah, like his really realistic and demagogic project of banning all the muslims? Could you please stop contradicting yourself everytime?

"He avoids treading in murky topics "
Well the thing is he's just avoiding any serious debates, and again many politicians most of the time far right leaders, use the same very strategy. Nothing to be proud of.

Oh and please tell me more about his own program? Did you even ever read it? Or are you only listening to his speeches naively believing everything he says is the only and unique truth?
Give me which are according to you these "many ideas" he offered? I am really curious to know them.

I sometimes wonder if you even read some of the things I write in my previous posts and threads...

I'm not sure why you are saying I'm gullible, since funnily enough I was the one that pointed out his speech techniques. I'm saying he is effective in connecting with his audience. He has run a great campaign so far speaking simply but effectively. Ultimately it is the American Public that will vote the President into office, and the majority of the public is not interested in the fine details of politics. You seem unable to realize this.

Its not just Trump really. Look at Bernie Sanders. His biggest appeal is his ideas of healthcare and college education, his war on the so called 1% and a honest and consistent character. I think most of Bernie Sander's supporters will be hard pressed to detail on the spot the exact ways Bernie will carry out his reforms or quote his past political record, all they care about is they like the ideas he's putting on the table and their impressions of him.

Edited 1/26/2016 12:35:57

"I sometimes wonder if you even read some of the things I write in my previous posts and threads..."

I do, the thing is I actually believe the same about you, since you cannot stop truncating my own comments, as the first time I saw you here posting I truly never see you having any objective opinions, your main weakness is that you cannot conceive you are wrong sometimes, it never happened.
This is the main factor that shows how biased you are everytime when we are debating about some topics here... That's really sad tbh, because I am sure you could be a very nice debater if you could only listen to other people's opinions instead of purposely blinding yourself in your own dogmatic and twisted judgments.

"the majority of the public is not interested in the fine details of politics. You seem unable to realize this."

You see, it perfectly confirms what I said earlier, you are truncating or inventing words I never stated, I am perfectly aware that the majority of the public is sadly not interested about the fine details of politics, I already told you about the dangerousness of such personalities as Trump or Marine Le Pen (see previous threads), and that people are slowly perverted by their nauseating ideas. You see you are not even able to have a good debate with me, because all you are looking for is confrontation. Even if we agree on many things, you will skip this.

I truly never see you having any objective opinions, your main weakness is that you cannot conceive you are wrong sometimes, it never happened

Right, because you are objective all the time, and when was the last time you conceived you were wrong?

I have not conceded anything because I rarely get any arguments from you, all I get is accusations that I invent words out of you, which conveniently you don't elaborate on.

I am sure you could be a very nice debater if you could only listen to other people's opinions instead of purposely blinding yourself in your own dogmatic and twisted judgments.

Right, and every time you don't have a response to what I'm saying you accuse me of 'truncating' or 'inventing' words.

I am perfectly aware that the majority of the public is sadly not interested about the fine details of politics, I already told you about the dangerousness of such personalities as Trump or Marine Le Pen (see previous threads), and that people are slowly perverted by their nauseating ideas.

You see you are not even able to have a good debate with me, because all you are looking for is confrontation. Even if we agree on many things, you will skip this.

Good, so you are indeed aware. Funnily enough you don't respond or agree with my point about Bernie Sanders and his supporters then... but is that because he says what you want to hear? I only mention this because you are accusing me of 'skipping' things.

I have said many times, it is pretty pointless arguing with you. Your arguments have little content in them, they are mainly personal attacks and straw man accusations you pull out of nowhere. Accusing someone of 'inventing' words is easier than actually responding to arguments or conceding your own point of view, isn't it?

Edited 1/26/2016 13:17:35

Right, because you are objective all the time, and when was the last time you conceived you were wrong?

I have not conceded anything because I rarely get any arguments from you, all I get is accusations that I invent words out of you, which conveniently you don't elaborate on.

Nope, I recognise that I am not objective all the time, this is impossible anyway. And about how many times I conceived I was wrong, you should read more carefully my posts, you would see I indeed conceived I was wrong in many topics.
Well as you just avoid the arguments I usually post, so yeah it is not that difficult from you to concede nothing. You are the first one to not elaborate anything, you see, you skipped again to give me any good explanations about Trump's program, the one not able to elaborate or properly debate with solid arguments and sources is you dear Pulsey. And the fact you NEVER conceded anything is because you are just unable to do so with anyone here disagreeing with you, and even the ones proving you the blatant truth, you will keep saying that they are wrong.

Right, and every time you don't have a response to what I'm saying you accuse me of 'truncating' or 'inventing' words.

Stop saying bullshit would you, when I say you invented words, it is because you are actually really commenting in my name, whereas most of the time I never stated anything like this.
The last example here about me being naive and not knowing that people aren't interested about fine politics is the best example, I was here totally agreeing with you, furthermore I also many times pointed out this fact with my comments about Le Pen, as she has not any solid programs, the main source of her votes is the outstanding qualities of speech and the way she is able to pervert people's mind thorough fear and hatred, Trump is perhaps a lighter form of Le Pen, nevertheless he is quite the same, using the same strategy, about how he attracts his own audience and electorate. That's why they are both equally dangerous.

Good, so you are indeed aware. Funnily enough you don't respond or agree with my point about Bernie Sanders and his supporters then... but is that because he says what you want to hear? I only mention this because you are accusing me of 'skipping' things.

I have said many times, it is pretty pointless arguing with you. Your arguments have little content in them, they are mainly personal attacks and straw man accusations you pull out of nowhere. Accusing someone of 'inventing' words is easier than actually responding to arguments or conceding your own point of view, isn't it?

About Bernie Sanders I wasn't skipping it, I just have nothing to say, because I know little about him, if I said nothing it is not because I was against what you said or ignored your comment, this is the contrary here, I am just not pretending to debate like you when I know nothing about one topic.

Pulsey, again in total hypocrisy you are saying I am not responding to your arguments, whereas 90% of what I posted was ignored. So yes, you are indeed truncating my comments and you keep doing it. The only time I said you were "skipping" something, it was about something we agreed on together. Again you are looking for pointless confrontation at any cost, which is a truly pathetic way of debating with someone.

you see, you skipped again to give me any good explanations about Trump's program

I hate to pick on this, but you said, and I quote 'Give me which are according to you these "many ideas" he offered? ' I couldn't understand your broken English. With your follow up I'm guessing you are asking me to list proposals Trump has put on the table and discuss its merits.

But are you really asking me to list some of Trump's campaign ideas? Build a wall along Mexico border, temporary ban on Muslims, these are just 2 of the most discussed policies he's brought to the table, and there are many others. I've pointed out the flaws in the plan and defended its merits in a previous post with you, but then you just kept accusing me of the same 'truncating' and 'inventing', so... meh.

And about how many times I conceived I was wrong, you should read more carefully my posts, you would see I indeed conceived I was wrong in many topics.

No... I don't.

And the fact you NEVER conceded anything is because you are just unable to do so with anyone here disagreeing with you, and even the ones proving you the blatant truth, you will keep saying that they are wrong.

And before your comment, where in this entire page have you accused me of being 'wrong'? I can't admit I'm wrong if you don't accuse me of being wrong!

pervert people's mind thorough fear and hatred, Trump is perhaps a lighter form of Le Pen, nevertheless he is quite the same, using the same strategy, about how he attracts his own audience and electorate.

I have never denied that. Indeed, a large part of Trump's appeal is his ability to say what many people see and want and are afraid to say, which is why I said on the first page he wouldn't have stood a chance 10+ years ago. But perhaps the appeal to pathos is justified today in 2016, when you have people swarming into borders and some committing fatal terrorist attacks, a ten thousand strong worldwide group threatening to wage terror in your country, the rise of China and Russian military presence, declining American industries, jobs shifting offshore, maybe there is something to fear after all? I don't know much about Le Pen to comment on her.

Edited 1/26/2016 14:39:58

As a bernie supporter,what Jai about democrats playing the immigrant and race cards are pretty accurate. Minorities are going to be very important this election. Oh how I wish that I could vote in this election.

Pulsey, indeed my question was very badly formulated, and as you may know I'm not a native nor fluent English speaker, I usually try to correct myself before posting it, but right now as I am on my phone, I did not really paid attention to it. I will never take it bad if you correct me as one of the reasons I joined this forum, is also to improve my English. Anyway you got the idea of it, I wanted to know if you ever read Trump's program, and excepted these demagogic suggestions he made about Muslims and Mexicans people, are there any serious campaign ideas? Judging from your evasive answer "many others" it seems you do not know at all any other campaign ideas rather than the Mexican wall and the Muslim ban.

Trump is playing a very dangerous game, playing with people's fears and paranoia. This always proved to lead to catastrophic paths and tends to worsen the situation instead of improving it. Trump is conveying messages of fear and hatred, much more like any far right political leaders, so tell me how this can be respectable?

Edited 1/26/2016 16:17:10

Either way it doesn't matter to me. I'm still voting Rand Paul even if he drops out of the GOP race. And if Trump is the nominee I'll go third party. Our country is doomed either way if Trump or Hillary or Bernie get's elected.

I don't know how I feel about Trump. On the one hand he's got no economic sense, no coherent foreign policy, he has a liberal past and he's an un-substantive demagogue. On the other, he seems to be genuinely patriotic and has a strong stance on illegal immigration. However, Cruz is by far my first choice, and then Paul of Carson

I would argue Trump understands more about economics and foreign relations than the other candidates on either side. His success in the private sector and in the GOP nomination show that. Also I prefer someone who supports common-sense policies rather than just agreeing with everything their party establishment says. All those attack ads are doing is "exposing" Trump as a man of reason.