Trump mirrors Hitler

[yellowstone123]

Huckleberry wrote:

"Yellowstone, I am puzzled by your post. I think Moska's characterization is extreme and communication is generally better leaving off such exaggerated flourishes .
Is your observation exaggerated? After all CBS editing the interview hardly seems like a big coverup. I suspect she fumbled some answers. So what? You make is sound like she made some crushing mistake like admitting she doesn't like dogs. You know something that could loose the election.

But for exaggeration you seem to be making a comparison to well known bad decisions in ww2. You realize that FDR was not a leader of American antisemitic policies. He failed to stand against them which is a black mark on his memory. I am not seeing the connection here."

Thank you for your post, Huckleberry.

A thought did leap into my mind regarding FDR and Jews while reading your post which was that Germany had a big issue with how many Jews FDR had in his administration. Also, Ellis Island wasn't turning away Jews from Eastern Europe. But then why turn that ship away or say it can't be docked. Maybe it was at a time of War.

Maybe some people that influenced him thought that the genocide committee by the Bolsheviks on the Ukrainian people were Jews. If so, Stalin took them out in his purges/show trials in the late 30's and it's arguable if they were communists. My conclusion is that authoritarian regimes like the Nazis and Bolsheviks want two things: land and slaves and will murder millions to get it.

My question regarding interviews with those seeking political office is, is it balanced? For example: would they do the same thing for Donald Trump that they did for Vice-President Harris, and given today's political environment, I would say no.

As to dogs, America loves her dogs. Kristi Noem found that out.

[Morley]

Yellowstone, first you speculate, without evidence, that the Harris interview must have been cleaned up--that she must have given a worse performance than the one that was broadcast. Then, treating your own assumption as fact, you decry (again, without evidence) that the network would not given Trump with the same deference. Do you see any holes in your own argument?

[yellowstone123]

Yellowstone, first you speculate, without evidence, that the Harris interview must have been cleaned up--that she must have given a worse performance than the one that was broadcast. Then, treating your own assumption as fact, you decry (again, without evidence) that the network would not given Trump with the same deference. Do you see any holes in your own argument?

Here is another point of view on what happened:

https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2024/10 ... ntroversy/

[Morley]

Yellowstone, first you speculate, without evidence, that the Harris interview must have been cleaned up--that she must have given a worse performance than the one that was broadcast. Then, treating your own assumption as fact, you decry (again, without evidence) that the network would not given Trump with the same deference. Do you see any holes in your own argument?

Here is another point of view on what happened:

https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2024/10 ... ntroversy/

Does 60 Minutes typically provide transcripts of its interviews?

[yellowstone123]

Here is another point of view on what happened:

https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2024/10 ... ntroversy/

Does 60 Minutes typically provide transcripts of its interviews?

l’m not sure of that but here is one:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/full-trans ... w-economy/

[Morley]

Does 60 Minutes typically provide transcripts of its interviews?

l’m not sure of that but here is one:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/full-trans ... w-economy/

Thanks.

In that case, you may have a point.

[huckelberry]

I gather but may not have complete information that Harris was asked what control does the US have over Israels war decisions. Obviously Israels actions are problematic and it is hard not to have curiosity about the question but the government is deep in difficult negotiations on that very subject making answering the question treacherous to the very goals of the question.

I suspect respect for the problem has more to do with the editing than any alarming coverup of Harris's hidden long green tail.

[Res Ipsa]

Yellowstone, first you speculate, without evidence, that the Harris interview must have been cleaned up--that she must have given a worse performance than the one that was broadcast. Then, treating your own assumption as fact, you decry (again, without evidence) that the network would not given Trump with the same deference. Do you see any holes in your own argument?

Trump claimed, soon after the video was released, that Harris gave a horrible answer to a question that CBS cleaned up through editing. (His actually claim varied, as is always true with Trump.) Of course, right wing CT crowd vaulted into action, flyspecking every frame of the interview and proclaiming all kinds of speculative conclusions. And that led to episode 2,568,296,290 of JAQing off.

Meanwhile, we’ve seen Harris in numerous live interviews, including an extremely hostile Fox News interview, where she has been just fine. At the same time, Trump has been canceling interview after interview and, in those he hasn’t canceled, he wanders and rambles in an incoherent fashion, just like the senile old man he is.

What the Trump fanatics completely ignore is that Trump held a woman’s town hall the next day for which Fox, without telling its TV audience, packed the hall with Trump supporters. The fangurl audience was so extreme that Fox had to edit out the tongue bathing parts of questions and crowd responses to create the appearance of a more balanced crowd. Again, Fox didn’t disclose the editing to its viewers.

So, given the context, why are we talking about this at all?

[canpakes]

What the Trump fanatics completely ignore is that Trump held a woman’s town hall the next day for which Fox, without telling its TV audience, packed the hall with Trump supporters. The fangurl audience was so extreme that Fox had to edit out the tongue bathing parts of questions and crowd responses to create the appearance of a more balanced crowd. Again, Fox didn’t disclose the editing to its viewers.

So, given the context, why are we talking about this at all?

The funny thing is, that even with the friendliest, softest, and safest possible venue and hand-selected audience of Trump sycophants, he still (in my opinion) put in a crappy performance. Just about every one of those softball questions had him return nothing better than rambling word salads that failed to address the meat of the subject.

When I watched this, I wondered how many within that audience could make it through that entire town hall, having carefully listened to each of his answers, and not conclude that Trump either has nearly no idea of what he is talking about, or no clue how to address any issue.

At the end of it all, what it comes down to for Trump - and apparently his supporters - is that immigrants are the cause of every problem, and that getting rid of them will bring about a utopian renaissance that will thrust MAGA into instant, worry-free economic and social bliss. Even if nothing changes, or actually gets worse.

Then all that MAGA will have to worry about will be getting rid of the schools that keep sending kids to lunchtime gender re-assignment clinics. That isn’t happening anywhere except within the headspace of MAGA voters, so if Trump stops talking about it, that problem will instantly disappear.

[Res Ipsa]

What the Trump fanatics completely ignore is that Trump held a woman’s town hall the next day for which Fox, without telling its TV audience, packed the hall with Trump supporters. The fangurl audience was so extreme that Fox had to edit out the tongue bathing parts of questions and crowd responses to create the appearance of a more balanced crowd. Again, Fox didn’t disclose the editing to its viewers.

So, given the context, why are we talking about this at all?

The funny thing is, that even with the friendliest, softest, and safest possible venue and hand-selected audience of Trump sycophants, he still (in my opinion) put in a crappy performance. Just about every one of those softball questions had him return nothing better than rambling word salads that failed to address the meat of the subject.

When I watched this, I wondered how many within that audience could make it through that entire town hall, having carefully listened to each of his answers, and not conclude that Trump either has nearly no idea of what he is talking about, or no clue how to address any issue.

At the end of it all, what it comes down to for Trump - and apparently his supporters - is that immigrants are the cause of every problem, and that getting rid of them will bring about a utopian renaissance that will thrust MAGA into instant, worry-free economic and social bliss. Even if nothing changes, or actually gets worse.

Then all that MAGA will have to worry about will be getting rid of the schools that keep sending kids to lunchtime gender re-assignment clinics. That isn’t happening anywhere except within the headspace of MAGA voters, so if Trump stops talking about it, that problem will instantly disappear.

He is the best example of the Emperor's New Clothes that I have ever seen. Without this cult of personality that has formed around him, he'd have been laughed out of the race long ago.