Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Trump’s David Duke Denials
David Suderman, Senior Editor at Reason Magazine, is wondering why Trump pretends to not to have any knowledge of supporter David Duke, when in 2000 Trump specifically pointed Duke out as the reason why Trump wouldn’t ever run on a ‘Reform Party’ ticket.
Trump supporters: What say you?
Donald Trump Repeatedly Refuses to Disavow Support From Former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke
Trump claims he doesn’t know who Duke is. He did in 2000.
Over the course of his campaign, Donald Trump has managed to attracted openly racist supporters, including, most recently, David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan (KKK) grand wizard who declared last week that voting against Trump would be “treason to your heritage.”
So how does Trump feel about Duke’s endorsement? Asked by CNN’s Jake Tapper this morning whether he would disavow Duke’s endorsement and the KKK, the GOP [frontrunner – FIFY Suderman] repeatedly declined to do, saying, instead, that he just didn’t know much about David Duke.
Here’s what Trump said:
I don’t know anything about David Duke, OK? I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So I don’t know. I mean, I don’t know — did he endorse me or what’s going on? Because I know nothing about David Duke. I know nothing about white supremacists. And so you’re asking me a question that I’m supposed to be talking about people that I know nothing about.
When Tapper followed up, clearly noting Duke’s connection to white supremacy and the Ku Klux Klan, Trump again responded that he would “have to look at the group” before weighing in further.
But Trump certainly knew who David Duke was in 2000. As The New York Times reported at the time, Trump declined to be a presidential candidate on the Reform Party ticket explicitly because of Duke’s Klan connections:
Published in GeneralMr. Trump painted a fairly dark picture of the Reform Party in his statement, noting the role of Mr. Buchanan, along with the roles of David Duke, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, and Lenora Fulani, the former standard-bearer of the New Alliance Party and an advocate of Marxist-Leninist politics.
“The Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. Fulani,” he said in his statement. “This is not company I wish to keep.” [via Justin Green]
Indeed, Trump seemed to know who David Duke was last Friday, when he gave a flip disavowal of the former Klansman’s support: “David Duke endorsed me? OK, alright. I disavow, OK?”
Since then, Trump appears to have decided to play dumb about Duke and the Klan, and to pretend that he knows nothing about them at all. That’s a lie, and it’s a lie that tells you plenty about the kind of campaign that Trump is running.
Trump might not be Mussolini but he likes retweeting his quotes.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/26/donald-trump-threatens-to-sue-media-outlets-as-president-with-me-theyre-not-protected/
Is it really that hard to not see the similarity?
So what? David Duke and the KKK. Which may of not be affiliated with these protesters calling themselves the KKK that were attacked by anti-protester. Claim to speak to for all white race, but I feel no compelling reason to disavow him or to avow him. Nor do I see why the media should be able to require people to.
I do find it interesting that the KKK set up a protest, the antiprotesters seem to rolled up and attacked them, and everybody seems happy about it.
So I ask you Claire. Do you believe in taking away a persons 1st amendment rights by beating the crap out of them if you disagree with them?
Here is the video of Trump on Friday, ‘disavowing’ the endorsement of David Duke. He says “I didn’t even know he endorsed me. David Duke endorsed me? OK. Alright. I disavow. OK?”
Good job, Donald!
Today, on CNN, he appeared:
*
Whoops.
And for those of you who think the KKK’s time has come and gone, any time a presidential candidate is asked a question like “Hey, Donald, what do you think about these white supremacist groups endorsing you, and do you disavow them?” only a fool would say something other than, “Look, I disavow all hate groups, and I welcome the support of freedom-loving people who believe in equality of opportunity for all.” Even if you have no idea what the questioner is talking about. And then you move on. The fact that Trump managed to get through this on Friday, then bungled it so utterly today is mind-boggling.
And by the way, it is absurd to think that Donald Trump doesn’t know what the KKK stands for or what it is. He’s even older than Hillary Clinton. Of course he does.
^What She said. A thousand times.
She for President.
I can’t answer for Claire. But I do not.
Apparently, though, Donald Trump isn’t on my side on this, as on many things. For those of you who can’t read the whole thing, Donald Trump, on a protester: “I’d like to punch him in the face.”
This is not the only example of Trump saying things like this about people he disagrees with. He’s said that perhaps protesters at his rallies ‘should be roughed up,’ more than once, and he’s in favor of “closing the internet up in some ways . . . somebody will say, ‘oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech. These are foolish people.'”
Finally, since you mentioned the First Amendment, don’t forget that Donald would also like to abridge freedom of the press once he’s elected.
For those of you who can’t read the whole thing, Donald Trump on freedom of the press:
I believe in the first amendment.
In light of Trump’s proclivities in these areas, I’m not quite sure I understand the thrust of your question.
Sal Padula: Trump is Spode.
___________________
Sal, you nailed it (and I can’t believe I missed a Wodehouse reference the first time around). Now I have to back and re-read “The Code of the Woosters.”
Who. Is. Gussie?
Perhaps he didn’t get enough of a beauty sleep last night. He did look a little ragged around the edges. Ignore the goggle-shaped pink flesh tone area around his eyes that contrast with his otherwise orange-tinged complexion. (An un-retouched photo).
Why on Earth are we still talking about low-level, red neck po’boys in the 21st century?
Two words for David Duke: who cares?
It would have been a strategic error for Trump to disavow* Duke. Whatever negative press he avoided would have won him an endless barrage of demands that he disavow schmuck after schmuck after schmuck. The best move is to play it cool, let the left have a temper tantrum, and change the subject to something more favorable.
Regarding Gorbachev and Tienanmen Square, Trump’s analysis was 100% correct. Gorbachev lost his empire and China is stronger than ever. That doesn’t mean that what China did was right, but it means that Trump has a good grasp on reality.
*What is this, Pee-wee’s Playhouse’s word of the day?
The old schmuckery slope argument…
Naw, David Duke is big-time trouble for Trump. He’ll gently and disingenuously disavow Duke tomorrow. It’ll be a terrific disavowal — a disingenuous disavowal that will satisfy the press while Trumpsters snicker among themselves.
It is the word that Donald Trump, unprompted, came up with when asked how he felt about David Duke’s endorsement on Friday. (This was when he appeared to know who David Duke was, and before he forgot that he had (to use Donald Trump’s own word) “disavowed” David Duke (after he’d forgotten who he was again), on Sunday morning.
So, if you don’t like the fact that this word is being used in this context, blame the Donald.
Ever hear of Fichte? Or Kant, for that matter?
Trump is a liberal. That you can’t see this is the real problem.
I don’t mind. It’s just an uncommon word and I have seen it all over the news today, which is typical of an organized media pile-on.
Trump is successful, overtly aggressive, experienced, and has a particularly impressive fiscal acumen. That you can’t see this reflects an entire political party’s problem.
I’m investing in Kool-Aid. Just a hunch.
The problem really isn’t David Duke. The problem is Donald Trump.
We would not be talking about David Duke’s endorsement of Donald Trump at all, had The Donald managed to remember that, 48 hours before he spoke with Jake Tapper, he’d been told that David Duke endorsed him, and that Trump at the time, although surprised, seemed perfectly cognizant of David Duke, and said he ‘disavowed’ the endorsement. He handled it quite well (those of you who think I suffer from terminal TDS, please take note), and clearly recognized that the endorsement of a loathsome throwback like David Duke, with all it implies to those with a sense of history, is not something a political candidate embraces if he knows what’s good for him.
That was on Friday.
Less than 48 hours after handling the matter quite well, Trump was interviewed by Jake Tapper, in a rather lengthy clip, where he was given numerous opportunities to expound on the subject, and he appeared
*
None of this says anything about David Duke. But it says something rather troubling about Donald Trump.
And it is not something which can be explained away by dismissing David Duke as old news, or by asserting that Trump was exactly right to say what he said this morning on CNN. You have to account for both pieces of information, and the fact that Trump said two mutually exclusive and contradictory things, without seeming to realize that he’d done so.
Subsequently, he tweeted out (today, after the Tapper interview), that “As I stated at the press conference on Friday regarding David Duke–I disavow.”
I really could not care less about David Duke. Unlike Donald Trump, he has no chance of being elected President of the United States.
But I think it’s only reasonable to look at the scenario I’ve described above, and wonder how an intelligent man not too far removed from the highest office in the land can behave this way. And then tweet out, without any explanation or acknowledgement of the egg-on-his-face CNN interview, just “as I stated . . . on Friday–I disavow.”
Sheesh, was this interview held on the grassy knoll?
Sorry; double post.
Which response to Tiananmen Square would you prefer?
“What China did was an affront to the universal human rights for which the United States has always stood – the right of people to live their lives in freedom without the boot of the state on their neck. It wasn’t a coincidence that the students had a model of the Statue of Liberty in Tiananmen Square, after all. These ideas are more powerful than tanks, and they have always led to a better society and a safer world.”
Or:
“When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak … as being spit on by the rest of the world –”
BTW, those comments were made in 1990, after the fall of the Berlin Wall. And we were seen as the weak, spat-upon country?
Absolutely right.
This is incredible.
People who deal with him–and I have worked with a few people like this–have to get everything in writing. No writing, Donald, no deal. There is no other way to work with him.
No one can count on him to keep his word unless it is in writing.
[That’s probably why he is so good at deal making–probably everyone who knows him negotiates in writing. He probably has no clue why. :) :) :) ]
Is this after the four bankruptcies, the $1 million fine for contracting illegal alien construction workers, the bilking of investors in Trump Baja, the bilking of students at the prestigious Trump University, the failures of his numerous branded products, and the failures of his casinos?
I just want to know how much we’re supposed to ignore in order to keep this meme going about how successful he’s been.
Please. Many of us made those arguements against Obama multiple times. We stood side by side against El Raza, and the new black supremacist movement. We did it to fight for a color blind society, based on the ideals of liberty. We didn’t do it because we are fearful for “the white race”. David Dukes ilk is a problem, and should be dealt with.
Frankly I don’t care about the white race. I care about the liberty movement, and restoring the republic.
Had Trump simply invested his money in index funds he would have even more wealth then he has now. He’s gone bankrupt four times with wild speculations, and has largely built his wealth based on his entertainment value. Without his father though, he’d likely be your everyday salesman. Being a good marketer is all he is.
Of course this also assumes he actual is valued at $4 billion dollars as he claims to be.
In your case, you just ignore all of Trump’s successes, his $4 billion net worth, and the fact that he has almost completely dominated the Republican primaries. Aside from all that, you’re right: Trump is a complete failure.
If millions of people do a stupid thing…it’s still a stupid thing.
What Trump has proven is that he cannot be trusted. Ask his investors, workers who were let go when his various business ventures went belly up, and the husbands of wives he slept with. The man is a charlatan.