Warren calls Trumps bluff, proves native american heritage.

[Mountain Man]

We need to change the title of this thread:

"Warren calls Trump's bluff but mistakes her pair of jokers for a Royal Flush"

[oxmixmudd]

Jim he literally just showed you are wrong with video evidence and you just repeated your assertion. Have you been taking lessons from Tassman?

Since we can produce quotes with Trump denying he knew who Duke was from after time he claims he would disavow Duke, it's clear no single video or quote can define what actually happened surrounding the Duke endorsement. Since Trump changes positions at will, statements from decades ago have little in any intrinsic value. Indeed, that lack of clarity and obfuscation of his own position by Trump himself defines the problem.

The quotes I placed in this post come from an interview with Tapper shortly after he had 'disavowed' Duke in MM's quotes.

You can't just ignore what was said in the Tapper interview. That is part of the context of 'hemming and hawing'. To say "I disavow" which is positioned as a 'if you want me to say this I will' sort of response, and then follow that with the insanity of the Tapper interview where he says he doesn't know who Duke is (clearly a lie) and then implies there might be 'decent people in 'these groups') nullifies any implications of any previous comments, even implies he's rescinding the previous weak comment or doubling back. It's just a jumble. He needed to make a clear statement and stick with it. Which is exactly what I said. He hemmed and he hawed and took a long time to be clear on his position, too long. All the while building the impression in Duke's crowd that he 'really' was with them through his reticence to make a clear statement.

There is more to these things than one interview or one video. And one can't go back to what he said in 1990 and say that clarifies it when you have what he said in the Tapper interview as the most recent comment on the issue. Indeed, Trump was FOR abortion before he was against it. So are you going to claim we should take that declaration and supporting actions from when he was pro-choice over his more recent position?

You,MM etc are not taking in the full context. You are cherry picking this or that and saying that 'proves' he rejected the endorsement. That simply isn't the case.

He was not clear during the time frame of the endorsement. And it took several days for him to clearly reject it, and then only because the push back was beginning to cause him trouble.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

The quotes I placed in this post come from an interview with Tapper shortly after he had 'disavowed' Duke in MM's quotes.

Already addressed that...

I'll let Trump speak for himself:

TRUMP: First of all, he talked about David Duke and other groups, he talked about other groups…

GUTHRIE: But you said three times ‘I don’t know who David Duke is’

TRUMP: No, no, well, I know who he is, but I never met David Duke, so when you talk about it, I’ve never met David Duke.

GUTHRIE: But in 2000 you refused to run on the Reform Party platform because David Duke was a member of it.

TRUMP: I disavowed him a day before in a major press conference, and I’m saying to myself, how many times do I have to continue to disavow people, and the question was asked about David Duke and various groups, and I don’t know who the groups are … he was unable to tell me that.

GUTHRIE: He said he was just talking about David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan here, and you said, ‘Honestly, I don’t know David Duke.’

TRUMP: Well, let me tell you, I’m sitting in a house in Florida with a very bad earpiece they gave me, and well, what I heard was various groups. And I don’t mind disavowing anybody, and I disavowed David Duke, and I disavowed him the day before at a major news conference … now I go and I sit down again, and I have a lousy earpiece that is provided by them, and frankly, he talked about groups, and I have no problem disavowing groups, but I have to know who they are. It would be very unfair to disavow a group if the group shouldn’t be disavowed. But I disavowed David Duke … I disavowed David Duke all weekend long, on Facebook and Twitter, and it’s not enough.

You,MM etc are not taking in the full context. You are cherry picking this or that and saying that 'proves' he rejected the endorsement. That simply isn't the case.

Talk about blatant hypocrisy.

[oxmixmudd]

Already addressed that...

No - you didn't. Not only didn't you, your refusal to acknowledge the obfuscation of the facts he created in the Tapper interview is a problem shows once again you have little concern for the truth. Much as we ended up in the debate over the inauguration photos where you plowed you face in the sand and refused to see.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

oxmixmuddle ...




Talk about blatant hypocrisy.

All you have MM are names to call people. You'll notice I don't call you names. I just put forward my arguments for what I think defines the problem or supports the point.

That is because when one is interested in real debate, when on is interested in what the truth is, there is no need to call people names.


Jim

[Bill the Cat]

No - you didn't. Not only didn't you, your refusal to acknowledge the obfuscation of the facts he created in the Tapper interview is a problem shows once again you have little concern for the truth. Much as we ended up in the debate over the inauguration photos where you plowed you face in the sand and refused to see.

Jim

Jim... in the Tapper interview, Trump pretty clearly says what he means "I don’t believe I have ever met him". That is the context you seem to be missing. Trump isn't talking about knowing who he is, he is talking about knowing him PERSONALLY.

[seer]

No - you didn't. Not only didn't you, your refusal to acknowledge the obfuscation of the facts he created in the Tapper interview is a problem shows once again you have little concern for the truth. Much as we ended up in the debate over the inauguration photos where you plowed you face in the sand and refused to see.

Jim

And Obama didn't obfuscate over Rev. Wright? Did that bother you as much as this?

[Sparko]

Since we can produce quotes with Trump denying he knew who Duke was from after time he claims he would disavow Duke, it's clear no single video or quote can define what actually happened surrounding the Duke endorsement. Since Trump changes positions at will, statements from decades ago have little in any intrinsic value. Indeed, that lack of clarity and obfuscation of his own position by Trump himself defines the problem.

The quotes I placed in this post come from an interview with Tapper shortly after he had 'disavowed' Duke in MM's quotes.

You can't just ignore what was said in the Tapper interview. That is part of the context of 'hemming and hawing'. To say "I disavow" which is positioned as a 'if you want me to say this I will' sort of response, and then follow that with the insanity of the Tapper interview where he says he doesn't know who Duke is (clearly a lie) and then implies there might be 'decent people in 'these groups') nullifies any implications of any previous comments, even implies he's rescinding the previous weak comment or doubling back. It's just a jumble. He needed to make a clear statement and stick with it. Which is exactly what I said. He hemmed and he hawed and took a long time to be clear on his position, too long. All the while building the impression in Duke's crowd that he 'really' was with them through his reticence to make a clear statement.

There is more to these things than one interview or one video. And one can't go back to what he said in 1990 and say that clarifies it when you have what he said in the Tapper interview as the most recent comment on the issue. Indeed, Trump was FOR abortion before he was against it. So are you going to claim we should take that declaration and supporting actions from when he was pro-choice over his more recent position?

You,MM etc are not taking in the full context. You are cherry picking this or that and saying that 'proves' he rejected the endorsement. That simply isn't the case.

He was not clear during the time frame of the endorsement. And it took several days for him to clearly reject it, and then only because the push back was beginning to cause him trouble.

Jim

Has Trump ever said anything that gives you the idea that he supports David Duke or the KKK? Any ACTUAL positive evidence? Like Trump at a KKK rally?

You are trying to backdoor your opinion of Trump through a series of claims that he didn't deny it vehemently or timely enough. That's silly.

[Mountain Man]

No - you didn't. Not only didn't you, your refusal to acknowledge the obfuscation of the facts he created in the Tapper interview is a problem shows once again you have little concern for the truth.

The truth is that Trump had a bad earpiece during the interview and was answering the best he could without being able to clearly hear the questions.

Think about it, Jim: Trump has, for years, explicitly and unequivocally disavowed David Duke and denounced racism and white supremacy. Then you have a single interview where he seems to hesitate and carefully choose his words, and we're supposed to toss out years of public disavowals just because of that one interview where Trump later said he was struggling to even hear the questions?

Yeah, sure, whatever you say.

[Mountain Man]

All you have MM are names to call people.

That's just the follow-up punch after I lay you on your back with a roundhouse kick to the face.

Rhetorically speaking, of course.

[rogue06]

What is the problem if she self-identifies as an American Indian? You are so small minded bro!

Sort of like when Sen. Richard Blumenthal self-identifies as having "served in Vietnam"?

[Jedidiah]

Warren NEVER made it it an issue, Trump with his relentless "Pocahontas" crap made it an issue. Just as he did with his 'birtherism' crap re Obama.



"President Donald Trump offered to donate $1 million to a charity of Sen. Elizabeth Warren's choice if she would take a DNA test to demonstrate that she had Native American ancestry". "TRUE".

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tr...ion-offer-dna/

You and Trump are liars to pretend otherwise. So what's new?

Can you give me a link to the actual words Trump used?

[seer]

Sort of like when Sen. Richard Blumenthal self-identifies as having "served in Vietnam"?

Wait Dicky has proof!

z5kkzxyronp11.jpg

[oxmixmudd]

That's just the follow-up punch after I lay you on your back with a roundhouse kick to the face.

Rhetorically speaking, of course.

You see what you want to see ...

[Mountain Man]

You see what you want to see ...

What I'm seeing right now is a hypocritical coward who lacks the integrity to admit he's wrong.