The exchange (from CNN, with my comments):
Questioner (in Trump T-shirt): We have a problem in this country. It’s called Muslims. You know our current president is one. You know he’s not even an American.
Trump (chuckling): We need this question. This is the first question.
Questioner (Who appears to be the human incarnation of “The Family Guy”): Anyway, we have training camps growing where they want to kill us. That’s my question: When can we get rid of them?”
Trump: We’re going to be looking at a lot of different things. You know, a lot of people are saying that and a lot of people are saying that bad things are happening. We’re going to be looking at that and many other things.
This is a character test that John McCain passed in 2008, when he sharply interrupted and corrected a woman who stated in a question that Obama was a Muslim, and that Bill Clinton aced by reprimanding a Truther during a post-9-11 appearance. Not Trump. He let a scurrilous accusation stand as well as the bigoted assertion that we should “get rid” of all Muslims. He displayed, as he often does, cowardice, common cause with bigots, and later, dishonesty, as he allowed his campaign to explain he “hadn’t heard the question.”
How pusillanimous, how low, how measly and pathetic. Yeccch, pooey, ick ick ick retch.
Of course, this is just throwing chum in the water for Democrats. How many Republicans will prove that they have the integrity and decency that this slime of a man so proudly lacks? Let’s keep score.
Ethics Alarms 
Not that it changes anything, but the anti-Muslim guy had to have been a plant. Its just too perfect…
I agree.
Plant by whom? If he was a Democratic plant, or one by, say, Jeb, how could they know that Trump wouldn’t take that softball toss and launch it over the fences, rather than whiff?
There are people like that, you know. Wearing Trump T-shirts. Putting their hands down disposals….
It was, as you mentioned, an ethics test with a predictable result. The guy was wearing a Trump t-shirt and seemed more interested in being heard than asking a real question. It was entirely foreseeable that a narcissist would not put down a guy wearing his t-shirt. Obviously I don’t know for sure whether he was a plant, much less who planted him, but it was just a little bit too perfect.
The “anti-Muslim” guy sounds a lot like a guy who has been on Imus’ show (see link below to video to compare voices). Both say they are from White Plains. Sorry — the guy is not some grassroots right-wing yahoo. I think we will know for sure soon.
http://twitchy.com/2015/09/18/hmmm-greg-gutfeld-chris-hayes-and-laura-ingraham-are-asking-the-same-questions-about-the-guy-at-trumps-town-hall/
Why? Do you really think there are no Republicans who hold such stupid and bigoted beliefs, or that they’re unwilling to express them? Because that’s demonstrably untrue.
Jack, I know you’ll never accept war as it actually must be fought, but I’ll say it anyway, and rest my case as one “bigot” fighting the bigotry of other bigots:
We should “get rid of all Muslims.” (The whole world should get rid of Islam.)
I mean it.
You should know I mean it. Charles Green should know it, too.
No apologies.
I hope you live long enough to see the truth and danger that so many are ignoring. Trump or no Trump (I oppose him, too), the truth stands.
You’re disgusting.
Okay then, go ahead and fight on the side of the enemy, if it makes you feel better, you useful idiot.
The enemy is hatred wherever it occurs. I know many Muslims who are much less an “enemy” of peace and freedom than you are.
Yeah right, you know many Muslims. Like Barack Obama knows many golf course groundskeepers. Careful, don’t hate anyone or anything now.
What? (No, really. I have no idea what your comment is supposed to mean.)
That defines the enemy too widely.
You of all people should know better than that.
Cripes apparently CNN and FOX carrying Hillary demanding Trump apologize to Obama for not defending his honor.Look a squirrel! I think Hillary had her doubts at one time. Alas, the media in Canada is no better.
I’ll take it over McCain’s high-minded loserism.
For “high-minded loserism,” read basic ethics and honesty.
This is an unethical comment, and also attitude.
HOW is what Steve-O said (and his attitude) unethical in any way?
Ends justifies the means.
YOU get THAT from what Steve-O said? Wow.
You don’t? Wow.
Now that we’ve gotten that out of our system.
High minded loser ism can only mean “playing the game ethically even if you don’t win” is literally the definitional opposite of “ends justifies the means” or “do what you have to to win, even if it means saying unethical things like what Trump does”. Or you know “I’ll take that over high minded loser ism”
Steve-O has to say something, from this point, before I go on. I interpret his “high-minded loserism” differently. To mean something along the lines of “principled irresoluteness,” “stylish disengagement,” “clever cowardice,” and/or “obstinate obliviousness.”
Well, don’t say “righteous pigheadedness”, because there is a level of that quality that is good.
Trump was under no obligation to go to bat for Obama. He didn’t endorse what the guy said, and that was enough.
He absolutely did endorse what the guy said:
“We need this question.”
He is not obligated to go to bat for Obama. He is ethically obligated to correct bigotry and lies, and to stand up for all citizens, regardless of religion. If he does not feel any such ethical obligation, he has no business being president.
Exactly.
As you well know, “Silence connotes assent.”
Trump was being sarcastic when he said “We need this question.”
“Trump was being sarcastic when he said ‘We need this question'”
After watching the clip again, I am actually inclined to agree with that assessment. But that still doesn’t alleviate the fact that he gives credence to the assertion when he moves on to the “substantive question” about supposed Jihadist training centers on our soil.
There’s fact, there’s opinion, then there is blatant anti-fact, you know, lie. When a blatant anti-fact is stated, there is an obligation (in this context) for a person to correct the lie and an absence of such correction lends legitimacy to the assertion. Trump failed the obligation, and no, a sarcastic “we need this question” doesn’t cut it.
The coupling of a blatant and ridiculous lie alongside what would be a legitimate concern (though currently farfetched…yet not as far-fetched as we would like) also makes me inclined to agree with Dan Abrams about the questioner being a likely plant.
After watching the clip several times, I am further convinced that the questioner got the Jack-said-rape treatment. He was asking about getting rid of THE CAMPS in the U.S. where jihadists are training and being trained in their violent ways – not getting rid of all Muslims. _I_ said THAT.
Pure, pure spin. BAD spin. Desperate spin. Come on. This is embarrassing.
He said: “We have a problem in this country. It’s [the PROBLEM] is called Muslims. You know our current president is one [of THEM]. You know he’s not even an American. Anyway, we have training camps growing where THEY want to kill us. That’s my question: When can we get rid of THEM?”
The implied THEY, the spoken THEY and the spoken THEM all refer to the same thing, the problem, defined at the start as MUSLIMS. Not camps. The guys doesn’t say Obama is a camp, and he doesn’t say camps are trying to kill us.
Moreover, Trump had two statements he was obligated to rebuke: the statement that the President wasn’t an American, and the statement that we have to get rid of Muslims.
Rationalization #22 Comparitive Virtue – Whether McCain’s comments were “high minded loserism” or not doesn’t effect whether or not Trumps comments were acceptable. There’s also a hint of a false dichotomy and a whiff of strawman.
If there is any strawman, it is the creation of Trump’s opponents. That strawman suddenly, conveniently, is popular in the proglibprop outlets lately. It’s the strawman of the non-ideal candidate, or more generally, the suboptimal (to the all-knowing critics) public figure and taker of questions from the audience, who is alleged to fail in some way. That strawman’s alleged failure is the failure to fulfill the suddenly, conveniently, supposed obligation to correct the questioner – whether the correction involves some “lie” or some un-truthy assertion inherent in the question, and/or some presumed impugning of a third party. No such obligation exists; it is the question-taker’s opportunity to exploit the question and questioner as he sees fit. Neither Donald Trump nor any other candidate is ethically obligated to scold someone who asks a question, no matter what Trump or anyone else thinks of the question.
Huh?
Did you miss the part where John McCain is a real person and not a “strawman?”
Huh? Of course it exists. The obligation exists any time someone or something is impugned or accused unfairly in public. The leader has the first obligation to provide ethical leadership. “That’s unfair and wrong, and here is why.”
Even aside from the bigotry, what DOES that last paragraph mean? It has no content, but pretends to care about the problem. How is that different than the weaselly words from any large corporation when there’s a service problem and doesn’t want to do anything? I don’t want that to lead our country.
Exactly. It’s blather, it’s a fake, non-answer, a duck. This guy is admired for being direct and not talking like a politician, and he’s as bad as the worst of them.
I think it is more amusing that clearly liberal pundits are acting as if calling someone Muslim is an insult that must be defended against. It seems to contradict their traditional stance. In Trump’s defense (and it pains me as much as it pains Jack), I am assuming Trump was at the meeting to answer questions rather than to debate and correct his audience and apparent supporters.
What needs to be defended is the President’s word, as he has every right to have his own statement on his beliefs regarding believed, as do we all. The statement was not a quibble about churches, but an accusation about the Presidents loyalty and patriotism, marking him as “the other.” That’s racist code, and that cannot be unchallenged by a candidate from either party.
Obama is, by far, the most arrogant and inept—and destructive President in my lifetime, but I do not doubt his patriotism or dedication to doing what he believes is in the nation’s best interests in any way, nor should anyone else.
“Obama is, by far, the most arrogant and inept—and destructive President in my lifetime, but I do not doubt his patriotism or dedication to doing what he believes is in the nation’s best interests in any way, nor should anyone else.”
Jack, he is DETERMINED to harm this country! He has an intolerance problem – a psychotic aversion to the country’s highest possible standing in the world, with an obsessive motivation and delusion somehow (if not by way of Islam, then by way of God-Only-Knows-what – an insatiable ego and narcissism, perhaps), that everything he does to do that harm is absolutely the right thing to do. He STRIVES to do what he can to make sure the country’s standing in the world is lowered as much as possible, and is as low as possible, and remains as low as possible permanently, while the citizens of the country suffer as much as possible. He’s Robert Mugabe with Ivy League school, Chicago slums, and extreme religious leftism in his resume’. If you don’t doubt his patriotism YET, then you are all set-up for POTUS #45, whoever that will be, to take your blog down and never again let you use an electronic device, unless you heel to the boss.
“He STRIVES to do what he can to make sure the country’s standing in the world is lowered as much as possible, and is as low as possible, and remains as low as possible permanently”
I’m curious, how do you measure our “standing in the world?”
As I understand it, this has been typically measured by global approval ratings, which have actually gone up under Obama.
“Standing in the world” and “global approval ratings” are NOT synonymous. Our role, focus, strength, activity level, and reliability are not guaranteed to be reflected in a popularity contest.
Fair point.
Total BS, Jack. This president is a proven liar, and, au contraire, his word should precisely NOT be respected until it is verified. He doesn’t merit Gorbachev’s “Trust, but verify.” I can hardly even get to “Verify, and then trust.”
The President has lied. He is not trustworthy, and have noted that repeatedly. That does not mean he isn’t an American, and every American citizen has a baseline of loyalty and respect he or she is obligated to meet. That obligation is amplified for a candidate for the office. Trump allowing this kind of ignorant, hateful slob to slander the office with hateful ignorance is inexcusable.
It’s pretty clear that those calling the president a Muslim are using the term as an insult, though, so there’s no contradiction.
If I were a Trump supporter I’d start decrying him now just to avoid being associated with these people.
Bingo.
The questioner and the answerer are both idiots.
yes and that defense of Barry Sotero (opps… there I go again), I mean barack hussein obaama, as a Christian, served Mccain so very well.
You may have missed this. Unless you are trying to put the cross hairs on your participation here…
Interestingly enough, Trump has at least paid attention to “political answers 101” and gotten his formatting right:
Political Answer Formula:
Speak positively of the question asked, follow with a non-answer that says you’ll solve the problem but don’t say how.
But in this case, that speaks of lack of attention. It’s like a guy saying “yes dear” to everything his wife says without actually paying attention.
Oh absolutely. But I think that’s partislly why the stock response was created to begin with.
Something like that once happened to me with a girlfriend of mine. I kept saying “yes, Ellen” over and over – and then I varied it by saying “yes, Debbie” and grinning. (I also once made Ellen’s mother burst out laughing by whispering to her, “isn’t it sweet, she’s trying to nag me”.)
I just watched the video. I’m usually unimpressed with Megyn Kelley but sometimes she kicks ass.
Short summary:
Panel members: Trump’s racist fearmongering was totally acceptable!
Kelley: No it was terrible you people are terrible.