jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (37 posts)

Has Donald Trump Crossed the Line of Etiquette

  1. Stacie L profile image89
    Stacie Lposted 15 months ago

    Donald Trump tweeted over the weekend that Jeb Bush was obligated to like illegal Mexicans so much because his wife is Mexican.
    He later deleted that tweet.
    Has he crossed the line,looking for publicity, or lost his mind?
    Attacking an opponent is fine but their family members?

    1. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 15 months ago in reply to this

      Trump is relying on the baser elements of our societal psyche to fuel his campaign. How many times do we have to have this ridiculous distraction called Trump?

    2. Perspycacious profile image73
      Perspycaciousposted 15 months ago in reply to this

      Mr. Trump reminds me of a Gandhi quote I saw here on HP:
      "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
      This man is not someone to just write off 16 months ahead of the election.

      1. teamrn profile image79
        teamrnposted 15 months ago in reply to this

        I so much agree. As much as Donald Trump is not my choice because he's rough around the edges, maybe he's what we need. There's that old saying, "You don't always get what  you want; but if you try sometime, you get what you need."

        The US has tried politicians who are only too happy to be there for ever and a day (I call them the suits) and that has gotten us where we are today, at the precipice. I'm inclined to try a different approach.

        Donald Trump could fit the bill, but he's more of a lose canon than I think we need; maybe he'll soften over the months. Right now, I'm liking Carly Fiorina. But, I think anyone who writes off 'the Donald' this soon, does so at his/her own peril.

        He doesn't need the money of lobbyists. "I'M RICH!" There's a certain freshness in that-THE MAN CAN'T BE FINANCIALLY BOUGHT.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 15 months ago in reply to this

          When did a rich man ever say "I don't need any more money?"

          1. teamrn profile image79
            teamrnposted 15 months ago in reply to this

            When did a rich man ever say that? The last time I heard, The Donald said it. He's seen business bankruptcy (I think personal bankruptcy) and if that doesn't humble you, I don't know what will. I'm thinking he's learned that there are more meaningful things in life than money and he's come to grips with more than his share of demons and knows how to handle a dollar or two or BILLIONS!

    3. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 15 months ago in reply to this

      Donald Trump is an embarrassment to the GOP and to the nation. I hope he keeps up the foolish banter. It might make him go away faster. Maybe not. He seems to think money whitewashes everything and makes it acceptable.

    4. aguasilver profile image87
      aguasilverposted 15 months ago in reply to this

      My wife is Danish, how sweet do you think my life would be if I said I did not want to like Danish people? (I do anyway like Danish folks, for the record!)

      Secondly, who would entrust ANOTHER Bush with the job?????

      Trump has a hideous haircut, but when I read his books, I found him an interesting character.... would he make a good POTUS?

      Well he could not go far wrong considering your last few elected morons, and he does run a tight ship business wise, plus he is obviously not afraid of the political correct squad.

      Perhaps he just points out truths that others find hard to fathom or speak about?

      1. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 15 months ago in reply to this

        Unless you are implying that all Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers you might point out what truths he may be sharing.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image26
          Castlepalomaposted 15 months ago in reply to this

          Trump said some Mexicans are not murderers and rapist.

          He needs a kick in the balls, metaphoricaily speaking.

          1. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 15 months ago in reply to this

            I will agree to agree if you remove the part that says 'metaphorically speaking'.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image26
              Castlepalomaposted 15 months ago in reply to this

              Might do him phyical harm if I did it. Would not want him to be right in any way, shape or form.

              On the behalf of my Ex Mexican wife and the love of my life, half Mexican daughter.

    5. breakfastpop profile image85
      breakfastpopposted 15 months ago in reply to this

      Trump didn't disparage Bush's wife, here merely pointed out that she is Mexican. The problem today is that many Americans just can't stomach the truth. Trump's initial discussion about who is crossing into our country was true. Nothing will ever be solved until we act like adults and smell the roses.

    6. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 15 months ago in reply to this

      We have as much a chance of witnessing Donald Trump in civilized discourse with the American people as asking a grizzly to use a toilet.

      I bet most of the GOP folks see Trump as a curiosity, as just a more abrasive voice within the chorus of GOP candidates for President.

      They assume to their error that they can offend large and growing sectors of the electorate with impunity . While, Trump, like the proverbial monkey, throws his poop around, much of it is hitting the other GOP candidates, resulting in a soiling of the brand.

      Maybe, Trump can afford to P.O. hispanic and other demographics with his statements and not be concerned, but the Party had better be. It is a mistake not to present yourself to those who are not die hard but can be persuaded in favor of your candidate and policies. Because if you 'write off' too many groups, you may find that there is no one left to vote for you.

  2. BruceDPrice profile image87
    BruceDPriceposted 15 months ago

    I am not so much concerned with etiquette as I am with the truth or falsity of a statement. in general, I'm glad to have Trump in the race because he says a lot of provocative things. If he steps over the line now and then, I think it's a good trade. The country wins.

    1. teamrn profile image79
      teamrnposted 15 months ago in reply to this

      He does say things to make one think, to bring up topics of conversation and to prompt dialog. Before this election cycle is over, I think he'll get us to talking about things we've never talked about before.

      1. Anderson265 profile image60
        Anderson265posted 15 months ago in reply to this

        I agree, it isn't a good idea to write him off.  I think he says a lot of things that people are thinking, regardless if they're right or wrong.  He has enough money to cover his own campaign and speaks his own truth, without trying to win a certain populations vote (which may help him or may hurt him).  Either way, I'm glad he's running, he is quite interesting.

      2. PrettyPanther profile image86
        PrettyPantherposted 15 months ago in reply to this

        I'm curious, what has he said that has made you think?

        1. Perspycacious profile image73
          Perspycaciousposted 15 months ago in reply to this

          Some questions many are considering; (1) do drugs get smuggled (caravaned is more like it) across our SW and W border? (2) are people (regardless of natinality) who enter the US without legal authority to do so criminals? (3) are come of the coyotes who smuggle people illegally into the US also guilty of raping some of those they smuggle in?  (4) do we actually know who is entering the United States of America illegally? (5) do we actually know that no persons kidnapped in the U. S. are being sold into slavery elsewhere across our porous border?  (6) is there a solution other than work permits and "paths to citizenship" for stopping illegal immigration?

          1. PrettyPanther profile image86
            PrettyPantherposted 15 months ago in reply to this

            Those are hardly new questions.  They've been debated and legislated for decades.  I'm curious what new and innovative ideas Trump has introduced that you find so compelling.

          2. rhamson profile image77
            rhamsonposted 15 months ago in reply to this

            These are concerns that should be voiced and debated by an impartial Congress for anything to change. "President Trump" (the thought should make us shudder), would have no affect on it as he has alienated the corrupt Congress we have in place and continue to re-elect to be there.

            The real problem is the corruption of our three branches of government that "DO NOT" represent us. The executive branch that is elected through donations and backroom deals to gain the position, the legislative that is elected the same way yet remains in power far longer with much longer ramifications and the judicial that is appointed according to their political and societal leanings either liberal or conservative. The last is at the behest of the flavor of the office of the presidency. That it should be impartial as it applies the issues presented has been lost for far to many years. They are all in essence serving their masters which give them the money they need to satiate their lust for power and greed.

            Term limits, publicly financed campaigns and lobby reform is the only answer. Sign the petition and join the fight.


            1. Au fait profile image94
              Au faitposted 15 months ago in reply to this

              You can sign all the petitions you like, but SCOTUS determined quite a while ago that term limits for elected federal offices are unconstitutional.  The Constitution of the United States spells out term limits.  If you really want to make a difference, learn about gerrymandering and how you can manipulate that.  I've written a hub about it.  People need to understand what it is and how it works.  To add term limits to Federal elective offices you will have to literally change the Constitution.  Changing the gerrymandering rules is much more within possibility.

              1. rhamson profile image77
                rhamsonposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                I take it you did not go to the link because if you did you would not have given the answer you did. As we did with the term limits of the presidency in the twenty second amendment we can do with the Congress and without their permission.

                Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and subsequent ratification.[1]
                Amendments may be adopted and sent to the states for ratification by either:
                    Two-thirds (supermajority) of both the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States Congress;
                   By a national convention assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (at present 34) of the states.
                To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be ratified by either (as determined by Congress):
                    The request of legislatures of three-fourths (at present 38) of the states;
                     State ratifying conventions in three-fourths (at present 38) of the states.

                Changing the gerrymandering rules will take cooperation between the corrupt entities that are trying to change them. They never give back what power they have taken.

                Go to the link to better understand the movement and participate. Unlike other term limit organizations this one is focused solely on the one item.

                1. Au fait profile image94
                  Au faitposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                  Appreciate your tutorial on how to amend the Constitution, though I have read it and had several classes about it, and relating to it, in which I received A's. 

                  No, I didn't go to the link.  I am aware of the process for amending the Constitution, but it never sounded quite so simple and easy before as the way you describe it.  Good luck with that. smile  It's such a simple, quick, easy, process that really, it's a wonder, if you think about it, that we don't have thousands of amendments.  One for every time someone is unhappy because their team, I mean their preferred party/candidate, lost.

                  Personally, I think there is more likely to be change if we get rid of the Electoral College and gerrymandering, relying on popular vote instead.  Current technology makes that possible. 

                  Without the stated institutions, the Electoral College and gerrymandering, all votes would carry the same weight or value.  No votes would be made irrelevant.  As a result more people would vote thereby utilizing the term-limiting factors built into the Constitution.

                  Personally, I like the old fashioned term limits where qualified citizens vote people out of office when they are dissatisfied with their performance -- or impeach them if there is cause. 

                  Keeping good people in office long term is a benefit to the district/state they represent because with the years comes clout and power to bring the bacon home to their constituents.

                  Lots of people objected to Ted Kennedy holding his office for decades, but the man got the votes.  Not the complainer's votes because often they didn't even live in MA.  He took care of his district and his district took care of him -- much to the chagrin of Republicans everywhere who were screaming like psychos for term limits whenever the man's name and/or face was seen/mentioned.  His constituents continued to return him to office because they were happy with his performance.  He looked out for them and they voted for him again and again.  Nope, gerrymandering didn't hurt him either, and I'm sure it played a part, though Kennedy usually won by a wide margin.

                  I have observed that Democrats always want to institute a different form of term limits than our Constitution spells out when Republicans are in power. Likewise, when Democrats are in power, Republicans scream for term limits. 

                  Frankly, I don't believe term limits will satisfy most people who say that's what they want.  I think what people demanding term limits really want, and in this regard Republicans and Democrats are just alike, is to always have their own way and never allow any deviation from their own way.  Nothing will accomplish that end.  No one gets their own way all of the time and indefinitely.

                  I don't believe attempting to amend the Constitution to change term limits from the way they are already set in the Constitution on this subject is practical.  I think making changes that would assure that every person's vote counts equally would be a huge improvement and would encourage more people to vote.  Even then every person will not get their own way all of the time -- maybe none of the time. 

                  Then you will no doubt hear people demanding that the Electoral College and gerrymandering be brought back, imagining that to be the magic solution to getting their own way.  There is no magic solution and no person regardless of how the law is twisted and turned, will always get their own way, and when they don't, the complaining begins.

                  Making every vote equal and having an informed electorate will do much more for our political system than trying to change term limits.  Most people who want term limits don't know the issues and definitely don't understand them.  Most people, IMHO are not qualified to vote much less scream for term limits when they don't get their way.

                  1. rhamson profile image77
                    rhamsonposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                    I am sorry if you were offended by my description of the amendment process as most do not bother reading the links. I don't know where I intimated that it would be an easy process. I only responded to your post that "people need to understand how it works" with regards to amending the Constitution. I absolutely agree that this is a seemingly impossible undertaking fraught with all kinds of shortcomings. One being that getting an apathetic and ill informed electorate to participate is at it's core. Not an easy task to say the least.

                    Your idea of ending the gerrymandering and eliminating the electoral college relies on Congress which is daunting to say the least. They like it just the way it is. Their corruption and insulation from the consequences precludes them from ever changing anything. Term limits by the election process has not and will not work in a compromised system such as ours. With legislation such as Citizens United the money flowing into the politicians pockets is the bribe that eliminates the impartiality in which the vote is reliant.

                    Your reference to Kennedy who was a master politician is not a good example as he had many years in Congress to achieve what he was after. In a limited role without the bribery much more could be accomplished as the need to be re-elected goes away and the work becomes the key. Slime bags like Robert Byrd and Strom Thurmond who was about as relevant as a bowl of soup are who I am really talking about.

                    Good luck with getting any legislation through that could even remotely make everybody's vote count equally because the current crop will never allow it. It is not to their advantage. Nobody would get their way all of the time but we would be better represented by who we vote for than allowing the corporations to do the choosing for us.

                    Taking the deception out of the process is the most important thing we could possibly accomplish. The current system is all about it and the continual support of it only cements it into place.

                    "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched."     Thomas Jefferson, Resolutions, 1803

                    Jefferson fretted seriously over the complacency the Constitution represented to many in that it could never be changed. That is why he toiled to make it a living and breathing document that could keep up with society and it's challenges. My assertions are a result of that understanding.

            2. teamrn profile image79
              teamrnposted 15 months ago in reply to this

              Rhamson, ""President Trump" (the thought should make us shudder)"  You state, the thought should make US shudder. It sounds like it doesn't make you shudder and YOU FEEL that it should make ME shudder. Please don't presume to think for anyone other than yourself. How about speaking for YOU? Maybe that's one problem with this world. Everyone feels that they should weigh in on everyone else's everything.

              Donald Trump speaks for Donald Trump, not for the Republican party. He is one of many voices in the GOP right now, all singing to a different tune. Some sing to his tune, others march to their drummer.

              I'd venture a guess that the things he speaks of are so UN-PC that they wouldn't be tolerated by the mainstream-GOP or libs. But the GOP (ALL OF US should listen to what he says and take some ideas from what he says.)

              But, when you think about it, WHEN, has what he said been wrong? Oh, I'm pretty certain that someone will find me wrong, but the only person who should care is DONALD TRUMP. When has he said something so inaccurate that your head spins or it is not-politically correct (PC), but 100% bold face NOT TRUE?

              He embellishes for theatrical impact, but he didn't call Mexicans, murderers and rapists. He DID say it in a way as to suggest that that wasn't outside the realm of possibility. He said that the majority of people that come from Mexico, "I'm sure are good people." But he also commented on others who came through that they might not be the best that Mexico had to offer.

              We had substantiation of that fact that the borders ought to be secure, when that young gal was murdered by someone who had been shipped back to Mexico 4 or 5 time and returned to SF, a sanctuary city.

              1. rhamson profile image77
                rhamsonposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                Trump is a clown show. He makes stuff up to incite people to believe he has a solution to their problems. The many sponsors and others who are distancing themselves from him is all the proof I need. His whimsical claims such as the birther "expose'" he had a whole group rallying behind him did what? He was shot down with a real copy of it which he still did not accept as he never can be wrong in his own mind. He is a proud, pompous phony who just appeals to simpler solutions for very complex issues while stomping about making more unsubstantiated claims.

                Don't get me wrong, I believe the illegal immigration problem cannot be solved with amnesty for all or any without a plan for the anchor babies. A wall is ridiculous. A severe penalty to employers who hire them should make them go home. Why is it do you think that your precious Trump doesn't promote that?

              2. Castlepaloma profile image26
                Castlepalomaposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                To this day and age, Trump said. Mexican bring their crime,drugs and rapist to our country. I assume their are some good ones.

                A little kinder than saying the only goog indian is a dead indian.Yes we have come a littke ways.

                Trump assume, ASS(of)U&Me

                Has Trump or his family ever lived here
                before the Mexican?

    2. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 15 months ago in reply to this

      I think he should save it for Fox Snooze where bad ideas are sent to make your brain numb. He was appearing there on a regular basis as the curvy couch idiots slurped up his pontificating on all issues idiotic. These are the people he wants to reach as reason and critical thought is on hold while knee jerk reactions to their "facts" is spread like manure.

  3. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 15 months ago

    When was Trump every within the lines?  He is a free-range buffoon.  If rampant bigotry makes him like Gandhi I must have really misunderstood Gandhi.

    1. Au fait profile image94
      Au faitposted 15 months ago in reply to this

      Psycheskinner, Perspycacious did NOT say that Trump was LIKE Ghandi.  He said Trump reminded him of a Ghandi quote -- which he quoted for us in his above response.

      You don't seem to have misunderstood Ghandi, but you did misunderstand Perspycacious. 

      Scanning, rather than actually reading what someone has written will give you a wrong interpretation every time. Perspycacious's comment seemed pretty straight forward to me, so I don't see how you got it so wrong,

      1. Castlepaloma profile image26
        Castlepalomaposted 15 months ago in reply to this

        Trump/Ghandi  lolo
        What an oxymoron

      2. PrettyPanther profile image86
        PrettyPantherposted 15 months ago in reply to this

        LOL, he is so unlike Ghandi that to use a Ghandi quote to describe his "struggle" is just, well, FUNNY.

        He is this season's Sarah Palin, only louder and angrier.

    2. Perspycacious profile image73
      Perspycaciousposted 15 months ago in reply to this

      I didn't say he was like a Gandhi.  The quote is what Gandhi told his followers about how the British would react to his campaign.  He was right.
      So far we have had the "ignore him" about Trump, and now we are having the "laugh at" him about Trump.  That will continue for awhile until he settles down and gets even more serious.  Then it will be the time when serious candidates "fight" him, or lose and watch him "win."

  4. Stacie L profile image89
    Stacie Lposted 15 months ago

    There should be some subjects off limits for political candidates to spout off about....i.e. opponents family members and children(that are not criminals),calling certain ethnic groups disparaging names, cursing or telling people to "shut up, I'm rich."  A rich buffoon will always have some admirers, but mark my words, he or she is not looking out for the good of the country; only themselves.
    he would start a war in a heartbeat ,shooting off his mouth if he were POTUS. hmm