I think this is why so many people are backing him... if he fixes things even though he "has a mouth on him"... does it really matter? Things would be fixed. I do wish there would be more morals and values showing, but if it's either him or Hillary... I mean come on! Was it Tucker Carlson who wrote the article you referred to, perchance? If so, it was a stinky trick bringing it up now.
In Diane's defense, she was well within the topic of discussion because the title does say, "Trump is vulgar". So I tried to find proof of this accusation….there is only Tucker Carlson's vague recollection posted on a site biased against Trump. Tucker Carlson said, "About 15 years ago, I said something nasty on CNN about Donald Trump’s hair. I can’t now remember the context, assuming there was one. In any case, Trump saw it and left a message the next day." No other website picked up on this.
Okay......in @Mari North 's defense.........I do not think that she was saying that Diane was doing anything wrong, or off-topic. I am pretty sure that what she meant was that if Trump had made this remark as described to the reporter (way back when) and HE (the reporter) is now writing an article calling Trump vulgar, and using this as an example, then it is indeed a "stinky trick" , as Mari called it. From the description of the whole incident, and just the fact that the reporter had been poking fun at Trump as he interviewed him; it makes sense to me that Donald Trump would have very well shut this guy up with a comeback like he did. While it might not be considered proper, it seems to me that must have been appropriate under the circumstances. Obviously, if the reporter is still trying to get even almost 20 years later, that shows poor sportsmanship on his part, in my opinion.
Oh, whew. Thank you Yvonne. I totally read that wrong. I was wondering about it for sure. I reread it your way and I see it now…that makes a whole lot more sense
Wowzers! Bizarre turn of events here. First, thank you to my brilliant defense attorney, @Yvonne Smith ... can't say I've ever needed one before in my whole life! I can't really see what Lara read wrong, but whatever it was, I was just trying to save The Donald's vote for him that Lara threatened to revoke if he said that. I merely answered that yes, he said it, and yes, it was vulgar, but it was a long time ago, classic Trump, and not worth losing a vote over. So I'm still baffled. If it's what I'm seeing now on my 4th read-through, of course I was saying that Carlson's choice of timing (it is an election year, after all, and it's been 15 years!) was stinky. Nothing about @Diane Lane 's post... I enjoyed the discussion, as I enjoy all her posts. Hope you understood that, Diane! Well now... the things that go on while Mari sleeps! Yvonne, please tell me you don't charge as much as Gloria Allred because I'd hate to have to take out a loan or sell all my earthly belongings!
I love this thread for all the wrong reasons, it's an excellent example of how communication gets so mixed up and confused, no matter how much we try to be clear. My take on it is that none of you have said anything derogatory about anyone else, just some mistaken interpretations taken out of context. Regarding Trump I have learnt a lot more about the man from reading some comments on this and other threads, and can see he is pretty clever at getting free publicity by appearing to make outrageous statements. Whether he would make a good president I have no ideas about, and I generally have a pretty poor view of politicians in general, certainly the bunch of inept ones we have here in the UK, who are all education and no experience of real life at all..
Wow, simmer down, folks . Haha @Terry Page exactly, it's like a game of Telephone. Yes, the reference was in my initial post, there's a link to the article. You're all right, hehe. I don't have one candidate I'm set on voting for. None is perfect, but then no one is. More than likely, Trump's comment was off the cuff and just tit for tat, and as mentioned above, it was a long time ago. I don't care for the language used, even though I do have a potty mouth. The point is though, that sometimes someone who is plain spoken, regardless of how blustery, is better than the most seasoned well-spoken person, which is what most career politicians are known for being. I really liked the article, not for the title, but because it points directly at the establishment Republicans and clearly states that although they seem to hate Trump, or at least him being a presidential candidate, they are they reason he's doing so well and is so popular.
If you watch Fox News, you are probably aware that Trump said, at a rally, "We’re going to have businesses that used to be in New Hampshire, that are now in Mexico, come back to New Hampshire. And, you can tell them to go (blank) themselves." For the sake of public decency (and FCC regulations), Fox News bleeped out the F-word. Even if you don't watch Fox News, you probably saw the video on other news networks. What you may not have known is that Trump didn't use the F-word at all. Fox News inserted a bleep in there to give the impression that he had. Yes, the fair and balanced news network is once again guilty of lying to us and passing it off as news. Then they doubled down by repeatedly discussing his vulgarity on all of their talking heads shows. Trump Calls out FOX After They Doctor Video to Make it Look Like He Said "F*ck" at Rally This is the same news network that has been all but ignoring Trump's commanding win in New Hampshire and instead discussing Kasich getting second place, and even heralding Rubio's fifth place as a big win for him. In fact, during one of the Fox programs I just watched, they discussed how New Hampshire was a win for everyone but Trump, who they didn't mention at all.
Hmm, but Donald Trump is banned in some countries! There was a petition to ban Donald Trump from UK with many signatures article: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/09/politics/uk-donald-trump-ban-petition/index.html Donald Trump is to me a person living the American Dream of trying to become a President of America and not a politician. What would happen to America with this kind of very strong feedback from the UK?
@Krissttina Isobe , The UK didn't ban Trump. The petition was thrown out. It was just a petition that was signed by a bunch of people who misunderstood what Trump said because they only watch and listen to the manipulative News Reporters instead of Trump's actual speech (see next paragraph). Also, these petition signers wanted Trump to allow Muslims because the ones that signed the petition don't want too many Muslims in their own country (UK)….which would happen if the US doesn't take any. Furthermore, Trump never said he would ban all Muslims…he said he would TEMPORARILY ban Muslims UNTIL the government knows what they're doing with regard to checking their background papers (which many don't have and thus the dilemma). Many countries, like Canada, will not allow any Felons to cross their borders. So Trump has every right to want that for our country. He's just being cautious because ISIS is nothing to be light about.
Trump is using this campaign as an advertising venue. I wonder after all of this noise if he should win the election what type of president and country leader would he really be? You can't see what he really stands for because he aims to shock and get attention. To me this is duplicitous and serves him much more than it serves the country.
There's no doubt that Trump want's attention and has an annoying personality but in every election I've ever voted in there was always something wrong with every candidate. This election is no different. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that Trump is only interested in his own advertising venue. Trump has been talking about wanting to fix this country since he was very young. Someone posted a video in here of a 30 year old Oprah Show where he spoke of how to fix this countries problems and Oprah asked him if he ever thought of running for President. The other night, Lester Holt of NBC asked him if he would say rude things when he's President. Trump said, "No I'd be totally different because the President is a whole other thing". I've always thought that from the beginning because I've seen Trump in numerous interviews one on one (not campaigning at a podium fighting to win) and he's always a different person in interviews. He's focused, serious, smart, answers questions very well, makes sense, and is respectful. I just don't think he handles other people being disrespectful to him…he fires back with a vengence. As President, the position alone would demand respect from others so I think he'd do quite well. Trump is used to people showing him respect because he's always been the boss. This is what I do….I like both Bernie Sanders and Trump because they both are leaders for a political revolution we need here. So what's the thing I like least about Trump…his braggadocio personality laced with shocking insults. What's the thing I like least about Bernie Sanders…his view on abortion and questionable ability to fix our scary debt situation by spending more. Some aren't going to like my answer but please keep in mind that this is just my personal view. Allowing unborn babies to be killed is much less acceptable to me than insults or vulgar comments. All I'm saying if that you have to decide for yourself which is most important to you and which is worse.
To be quite frank, unless a candidate has the vocabulary of an unschooled sociopath I really do not care so much what one says as opposed to what someone does or has accomplished. Everyone thought it was funny when Obama said a few months ago in a speech that he has a "bucket list" but when he leaves the White House he will then have a "rhymes with *bucket* list.". Does anyone have any doubts that Bill Clinton has a streak of vulgarity in him? I am sure he didn't tell Monica that he "was in definite need of oral gratification in a lascivious manner". Further, after Hillary found out about Bill's escapades does anyone doubt that she said more than just throw lamps at him? Matter of fact, does anyone doubt that her basic language is riddled with more than a few colorful adjectives and only when she gets angry? Theodore Roosevelt had a Macaw (who is still alive I believe) which had copied the good president's bad language so well that it has to be sequestered whenever visitors arrive. Grant was known not only for his propensity toward drunken stupors but his colorful language as well. Those are only a few examples I can give but if people gauge the temperment and academic worth of a person based on a few expletives then anyone who (according to Biblical teachings) has thought it, has said it and therefore not worthy of any goodly and prominent position they may hold.
Wow, I had no idea they'd inserted an unnecessary bleep. How ridiculous, not to mention slanted. Profanity doesn't bother me, unless it's really egregious, and I have no doubt that Trump would be able to temper his comments if elected. I'm seeing people on Twitter taking his words out of context (this is taken from Bret Baier's Twitter account) "Donald Trump asked tonight about his language --"I will be changing very rapidly. I'm capable of changing to anything I want to change to"" and claiming it means he has no principles. Apparently they have no understanding about self-determination and the ability to set goals and make positive changes, which is how I interpret his words.