Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Ouze wrote: This is the first time in my life I've ever seen Republicans so concerned with a woman's health.
Thats what Rocky Marciano would call, a cheap shot.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I keep hearing the "she's old"...very relative and subjective, btw...comment, but I think there needs to be some distinguishing between old and infirm. Her schedule, in and out of hotels, airplanes, shaking hands, hugging strangers, kissing babies, etc. would knock the majority of people half her age on their ass. I used to travel internationally for business when I was younger and I really started feeling it when I reached my early 40's and my trips, which weren't by any means leisurely in their pace, were nothing compared to the bullet train schedule of a POTUS candidate in the last couple months of the election. This woman was SoS, she's tough. She can take it. Godspeed on her recovery.
Ouze wrote: This is the first time in my life I've ever seen Republicans so concerned with a woman's health.
Well if it is a female baby for the first 9 months they do
Uh... what?
Just ignore it, we've already had the red text on the issue.
Anyway, from a coldly political standpoint, I can see why many Republicans are concerned. If she suddenly keeled over, Trump could actually win the election. Because a Hillary presidency unites the Republican party, but a Trump presidency divides it, and that's why GOP leadership would be worried for her.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/12 18:55:15
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
I think this health situation could win Trump the presidency. It sounds to me like momentum is on Trump's side at the moment, and if the US has the same 'shy Tory factor' as we do people could be in for a surprise on election night when it turns out Trump has a lot of supporters not keen to make their voting intentions known. Who knows? It's a far more interesting US election to follow than the last two
BigWaaagh wrote: I keep hearing the "she's old"...very relative and subjective, btw...comment, but I think there needs to be some distinguishing between old and infirm. Her schedule, in and out of hotels, airplanes, shaking hands, hugging strangers, kissing babies, etc. would knock the majority of people half her age on their ass. I used to travel internationally for business when I was younger and I really started feeling it when I reached my early 40's and my trips, which weren't by any means leisurely in their pace, were nothing compared to the bullet train schedule of a POTUS candidate in the last couple months of the election. This woman was SoS, she's tough. She can take it. Godspeed on her recovery.
Honestly if FDR could run the country for 15 years riddled with Polio, I think HRC can handle some fluid in her lungs.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/12 19:13:58
BigWaaagh wrote: I keep hearing the "she's old"...very relative and subjective, btw...comment, but I think there needs to be some distinguishing between old and infirm. Her schedule, in and out of hotels, airplanes, shaking hands, hugging strangers, kissing babies, etc. would knock the majority of people half her age on their ass. I used to travel internationally for business when I was younger and I really started feeling it when I reached my early 40's and my trips, which weren't by any means leisurely in their pace, were nothing compared to the bullet train schedule of a POTUS candidate in the last couple months of the election. This woman was SoS, she's tough. She can take it. Godspeed on her recovery.
Honestly if FDR could run the country for 15 years riddled with Polio, I think HRC can handle some fluid in her lungs.
Well, he wasn't "riddled" with Polio during his Presidency. Polio itself only lasts for a couple of months. It's effects are permanent though, hence FDR's lifelong paralysis.
BigWaaagh wrote: I keep hearing the "she's old"...very relative and subjective, btw...comment, but I think there needs to be some distinguishing between old and infirm. Her schedule, in and out of hotels, airplanes, shaking hands, hugging strangers, kissing babies, etc. would knock the majority of people half her age on their ass. I used to travel internationally for business when I was younger and I really started feeling it when I reached my early 40's and my trips, which weren't by any means leisurely in their pace, were nothing compared to the bullet train schedule of a POTUS candidate in the last couple months of the election. This woman was SoS, she's tough. She can take it. Godspeed on her recovery.
Honestly if FDR could run the country for 15 years riddled with Polio, I think HRC can handle some fluid in her lungs.
Well, he wasn't "riddled" with Polio during his Presidency. Polio itself only lasts for a couple of months. It's effects are permanent though, hence FDR's lifelong paralysis.
BigWaaagh wrote: I keep hearing the "she's old"...very relative and subjective, btw...comment, but I think there needs to be some distinguishing between old and infirm. Her schedule, in and out of hotels, airplanes, shaking hands, hugging strangers, kissing babies, etc. would knock the majority of people half her age on their ass. I used to travel internationally for business when I was younger and I really started feeling it when I reached my early 40's and my trips, which weren't by any means leisurely in their pace, were nothing compared to the bullet train schedule of a POTUS candidate in the last couple months of the election. This woman was SoS, she's tough. She can take it. Godspeed on her recovery.
Honestly if FDR could run the country for 15 years riddled with Polio, I think HRC can handle some fluid in her lungs.
Well, he wasn't "riddled" with Polio during his Presidency. Polio itself only lasts for a couple of months. It's effects are permanent though, hence FDR's lifelong paralysis.
Well post polio syndrome is no joke
It isn't, but we don't really know if he had that, as it's even debatable if he had Polio, or another similar disease.
At any rate, drawing a comparison between the two is kinda silly. Hillary is currently 5 years older then FDR was when he died, let alone took office. I will say, she's pretty spry for her age, though I am concerned about her ability to stand up to the rigors of the job, especially as she is going to be 69 when she'd take office. The only other President in the history of our nation who was her age when they took office was Reagan. She'd be the 2nd oldest in the history of the nation.
Neither here nor there though. There isn't an age disqualifier. I just hope it's really worth the risks to her.
Ouze wrote: This is the first time in my life I've ever seen Republicans so concerned with a woman's health.
Well if it is a female baby for the first 9 months they do
Uh... what?
Just ignore it, we've already had the red text on the issue.
Anyway, from a coldly political standpoint, I can see why many Republicans are concerned. If she suddenly keeled over, Trump could actually win the election. Because a Hillary presidency unites the Republican party, but a Trump presidency divides it, and that's why GOP leadership would be worried for her.
I actually think Kaine, or Biden subbed in case Hillary steps out would be a game changer and would clobber Trump.
However, it would be a logistical nightmare.
The 1st debate is two weeks away. The best thing for Clinton is to simply slow down, prepare for the debate and get rested.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/12 20:02:12
Hmm, maybe she should do like Jack Palance and come out doing one armed pushups at the debate.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
sebster wrote: ulgurstasta, your changes are terrible and show you have absolutely no idea how politics works. You don't get your dreamboat candidate. No-one ever does. Let's go through your list and see how your confusion has played out...
Voted for the invasion of Iraq
Along with 77 out 100 senators, including 29 out of 50 Democrats. And of course, Trump also gave his support, so if we include it in this then we have to add to his list above. It is very strange that only Clinton is criticised for this.
Was instrumental in the invasion of Libya
Describing Libya as an invasion is beyond silly. There was an air campaign, and the meltdown that's happened since is due in large part out of a reluctance to put ground troops in the region. Clinton played her part in that, no doubt, but fething who where the people calling for US troops in Libya? So again Clinton is the one given responsibility for taking the
Voted for the PATRIOT Act
98 senators voted for the patriot act, with 1 nay, and one abstaining. But let's focus in on Clinton, because nothing even has to pretend to make sense anymore.
Voted for the 2006 reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act
The vote was carried 89 to 11 in the senate. Truly Clinton stands alone in her support of the Patriot Act.
Voted for the 2001 Bankruptcy Legislation which would have made it harder for struggling Americans to declare bankruptcy, after expressing her opposition to the bill when she was First Lady
That's a nonsense description of the bill. It made Sect 7 harder (which allows for a one and done part payment) and instead requires a Sect 13 (where payment plans are more likely. It isn't too hard to see the merits in making sure it isn't too easy to
There is legitimate criticism of Clinton on this, and that's that she flips back and forth on the issue - she didn't like the measures, then she was okay with them as long as other reforms were in there, and then in 2005 she was opposed the measures once again. But in the scheme of things, holy gak going back and forth on minor reforms to which kind of bankruptcy people can apply for? This is a thing people think is important?! How in the name of any form of reason on this planet or any other does it compare to the issues Trump backflips over on a daily basis?
We are actually at the point where Trump has gone from calling Mexican illegal immigrants rapists, to saying many have made big contributions and its a difficult issue, back to saying he'll deport 11 million of them, over the course of a couple of months.. And it's being compared to going back and forth on a minor bankruptcy over the course of five years, with her last change of position more than a decade ago.
Believed that marriage was defined as between a man and woman and reversed her position only in 2013 when it became politically convenient
So did Obama. But it is Clinton that must be blamed for this, because.
Has received close to $100,000 in donations from the defense industry, more than any other candidate
Actually Clinton's total is a tick over $400,000. Of course,Bernie Sanders has got $397,000 and the criticism of him over this is... yeah.
And meanwhile donations to Republicans total $14m, compared to Democrats overall at $8m.
And here you are singling Clinton out, because.
Wants a "Manhattan Project" to break encryption and force tech companies to plant backdoors in their products
Actually, Clinton's 'Manhattan Project" was a fairly meaningless thought bubble, she just wanted govt agencies and tech companies to form working groups to improve co-operation. When she was asked if she wanted to 'backdoor' to bypass encryption she said she didn't.
Supports the TPP
Except now she doesn't. There is reasonable grounds to criticise her for TPP is shamefully badly understood by the activist left, who seem to use it basically a a proxy for international trade in its entirety, and remain utterly ignorant of the actual terms of the deal.
Seriously, don't just use boogie words, actually read the deal. You know what you'll find in it? It's a deal that includes all of China's neighbours, and not China. The deal is there to hem China in, stop its more dubious practices, and eventually force it to return to the table to join TPP in terms more favourable for other countries.
Received millions in shady donations for her foundation while she was Secretary of State... the same foundation whose donors got weapons deals when she was Secretary of State
This is total, shameful crap. You've fallen for a whisper campaign, in which exciting headlines cover over the complete non-story that actually happened. There's been dozens of these stupid articles written now, and every single one is along the lines of "Clinton caught in another Foundation scandal"... and then if you go and read the story you'll find it says that a foundation donor made a request, and that request was totally normally and approved along standard protocols, or it was not okay and was not granted.
Seriously, don't just read headlines.
Takes millions in speaking fees from Wall Street while pretending to speak for the little people
There isn't a single major politician or business leader in the US who doesn't make money from talking fees. And yes, the fee per talk can be staggeringly high to most of us, but that's the rate you can command, then that's the money you take. Clinton is far from alone in talking to Wall St and other groups, in fact it'd be just fething weird if the Senator from NY didn't engage with Wall St.
And yet it is Clinton alone who is single out for complaint.
Took donations from federally registered lobbyists or PACs for private prison companies until October 2015
This is actually a new one for me, and I had to look it up. So credit there. It turns out its a warmed up bit of nonsense from the primary. Sanders made one of his big claims, and the kids lapped it up. Clinton said me too. It's all nonsense. Obama has taken the good and actually achievable step of the fed no longer using private contractors. Anything more than that would involve writing federal law that told the states how they were to run their own prisons. Getting that through congress is a pipedream, getting it approved by the Supreme Court would probably need the use of magical powers.
But yes, in 2015 Clinton took $133k from private prisons. So far in 2016 she's raised $436 million, so there's no way she'll ever buck against such an important contributor.
FTFY
Don't do that. It isn't clever.
Anyhow, the list above is basically stuff that is just common place. but somehow only gets mentioned as a Clinton thing, because a lot of people have gone more than bit loopy just recently. There's also a couple of dishonest smears, and a couple of okay points that Clinton has flipflopped on over the course of a decade or so. To try and equate that with Trump is to be ridiculous.
To be fair to Whem' he also disagrees on her policy, which could make her "just as bad in a different way" in his eyes. Whereas a good amount of Trump's stuff appears to be nicked from mainstream republicans.
Sure, Trump has taken a bunch of his policy stuff from the standard list of GOP boilerplate stuff. But he's shown a lot of times that he has no interest in just following GOP practice - anyone who thinks they'll end up with a generic Republican in the whitehouse is kidding themselves.
Whembly and I have talked a lot about this stuff. He knows my opinion of the modern GOP, and I know he's a conservative who still shows a lot of loyalty to the GOP. I think we're both cool with that.
But Trump is something else entirely. We are actually talking about the guy who said this;
"“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”"
And as of today, 13-09-2016 that man has a real chance to win the Whitehouse. That should make people very fething angry, and very determined that it doesn't happen. But too many have convinced themselves Clinton is just as bad (which is obviously false), or that Trump cannot win (which is unfortunately not true either, 528 puts him at about 30%, and trailing in key states by 3 to 5%).
This is fething serious, people.
So you're whole argument is "Obama/Trump did it too!"? Not much of an argument for us who dislike both candidates.
I was visiting family and driving through the nothingness that is western Oklahoma with only conservative talk radio on the dial, and now I have this question:
When someone that is being protected by the Secret Service faints/collapses/becomes weak/whatever, what exactly is the Secret Service supposed to do.
Based on footage of previous incidents with the Secret Service, I always assumed that the correct response to having a protectee become incapacitated would be for the Secret Service to rush in and surround the person, protect them from further threats and shield them, load them up quickly, and get the hell out of there. You don't know why they collapsed, but you don't stick around to find out in case something bad is going on.
But based on talk radio today, the Secret Service is helping Hillary hide her secret because they surrounded her and made sure that nobody else could see her or get to her, and loaded her up before anybody could ask questions.
Sean Hannity also wants to know why she put a poor child at risk by hugging it knowing she has pneumonia, which is a deadly disease that can be spread by hugging.
Sean Hannity also wants to know why she put a poor child at risk by hugging it knowing she has pneumonia, which is a deadly disease that can be spread by hugging.
I honestly think that the sound of the engine and of tires on pavement would be preferable than the ignorant blather of Hannity.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Sean Hannity also wants to know why she put a poor child at risk by hugging it knowing she has pneumonia, which is a deadly disease that can be spread by hugging.
I honestly think that the sound of the engine and of tires on pavement would be preferable than the ignorant blather of Hannity.
Agreed. Listening to Hannity is bad for your health. If I could tamp down my morbid curiousity about just what arguments a Trump supporter could make I wouldn't even listen to him for the scant minutes I do.
You're talking about this post (scroll down a little, it's locked and you can't link directly the post) from the old, old, politics page. And yes, the video is from Right Wing Watch YouTube page (which is a thing, apparently, I only follow modelers and video game streamers on YouTube), but the website I linked this blog, which is run by a non-bible thumping "Never Trump" conservative. So, theoretically one your guys.
Thanks for playing, though.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/13 11:04:03
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
BigWaaagh wrote: I keep hearing the "she's old"...very relative and subjective, btw...comment, but I think there needs to be some distinguishing between old and infirm. Her schedule, in and out of hotels, airplanes, shaking hands, hugging strangers, kissing babies, etc. would knock the majority of people half her age on their ass. I used to travel internationally for business when I was younger and I really started feeling it when I reached my early 40's and my trips, which weren't by any means leisurely in their pace, were nothing compared to the bullet train schedule of a POTUS candidate in the last couple months of the election. This woman was SoS, she's tough. She can take it. Godspeed on her recovery.
Honestly if FDR could run the country for 15 years riddled with Polio, I think HRC can handle some fluid in her lungs.
That was a major point Democrats used in attacking McCain during his run for the Presidency. Time and again his age was brought into discussion as a reason he shouldn't be elected. Ironically, Clinton, I believe is older than he was at the time of his run.
That was a major point Democrats used in attacking McCain during his run for the Presidency. Time and again his age was brought into discussion as a reason he shouldn't be elected.
That was a significantly less important point than "Why did you nominate Palin?" which dovetailed into "Are you going to be Bush 3?"
d-usa wrote: Sean Hannity also wants to know why she put a poor child at risk by hugging it knowing she has pneumonia, which is a deadly disease that can be spread by hugging.
Cooties: The Silent Killer
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
d-usa wrote: Sean Hannity also wants to know why she put a poor child at risk by hugging it knowing she has pneumonia, which is a deadly disease that can be spread by hugging.
Cooties: The Silent Killer
"Circle circle dot dot shots give children autism!"- Sean Hannity probably
whembly wrote: By the holy Emprah, that's one of the worst whitewash attempt on Clinton malfeasance.
It is exactly what it is. She used a server to bypass record keeping.
Really the question is how many more times you're going to fall for this nonsense. Swiftboat veterans as plainly dishonest attack on Kerry, that was believed just long enough, until November. Then there was Obama's claimed links to terror, either through a pastor, or because he had a lecturer that been part of Weather Underground, it was obviously stupid, and disappeared as soon as the election was done and there was no point pretending such stupid nonsense anymore.
And now with Clinton we've got about 45 to 50m people pretending it is a grave and serious offence, even a federal crime, despite the law, the statements of officials, and common fething sense.
At what point do you start realise that you're being played?
Yes, Trump is bad... but, please don't insult my intelligence that Clinton isn't remotely as bad as Trump.
Except she isn't. She's just a run of the mill, centre left politician. She is business as usual.
Trump is the least qualified, least capable person to run for president in living memory.
Indeed... she opened up a barn-door attack...
Its funny how an argument can stand or fall on a slight change. I wonder if Romney had said 'there are many people' instead of 47%... if he might have run Obama much closer than he actually did.
Keeping the internet free (because, somehow, only the U.S. uses the internet and nobody else should have any say in it, ever) is pretty rich coming from the jackass that said net neutrality is Obamacare for the internet.
I think he's genuinely worse than Trump. Trump is indifferent to the realities of governing. Cruz is actively hostile to the concept, his only instinct is to cause harm.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: So, Giuliani really is trying to get into the Trump admin, huh?
That fact that we have candidates and their surrogates saying we should commit war crimes is disgusting. How have we come to this.
It doesn't even get commentary. We're at the point where Trump and his surrogates calling for war crimes has been normalised.
What a fething shameful place that half of US politics has walked in to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Snake Tortoise wrote: Who knows? It's a far more interesting US election to follow than the last two
In the sense that Russian roulette is much more interesting than playing $5 texas hold 'em.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: At any rate, drawing a comparison between the two is kinda silly. Hillary is currently 5 years older then FDR was when he died, let alone took office.
Medical technology and human life expectancy are somewhat changed from the 1940s.
I will say, she's pretty spry for her age, though I am concerned about her ability to stand up to the rigors of the job, especially as she is going to be 69 when she'd take office. The only other President in the history of our nation who was her age when they took office was Reagan. She'd be the 2nd oldest in the history of the nation.
Do you express similar concerns about Trump? He is older than Clinton, afterall.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ulgurstasta wrote: So you're whole argument is "Obama/Trump did it too!"? Not much of an argument for us who dislike both candidates.
No, I'm of the 'it is totally fething flying rodent gak to complain about Clinton being just like all other politicians when her opponent is making openly racist statements and calling for war crimes'.
You are basically saying that the steak you ordered is a little dry, like it is everytime you order steak, and so there is no difference between the steak and a plate of dog poo.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: That was a major point Democrats used in attacking McCain during his run for the Presidency. Time and again his age was brought into discussion as a reason he shouldn't be elected.
The attacks on McCain were not good. It's actually pretty damn tacky to see a person who is in reasonable health but just happens to be old person and assume they'll die soon. I guess it took on a different turn when he announced Palin as his VP. Then the age discrimination combined with a fairly understandable fear that there might be an idiot just a heartbeat away from the oval office... much like GHW Bush and Dan Quayle.
Ironically, Clinton, I believe is older than he was at the time of his run.
Nope. McCain was born 29th August 1936, he would have been 72 years and 144 days when he took the oath.
Clinton was born 26th October 1947, she'll be 69 years and 86 days.
Trump was born 14th June 1946, so he'll be 70 years and 220 days.
So McCain would have been older, then Trump, and then Clinton. But they're all around 70 so the difference is splitting hairs.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2016/09/13 03:39:08
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Just so we are clear, pneumonia generally only kills the very elderly. The ones that are unable to get out of bed. Physical activity is good for pneumonia, in fact it helps get rid of it. Resting too much and laying in bed is what will make it worse.
Either way, odds are the pneumonia will not kill her. It will be something else if she lets it progress further and her immune system is weakened. Pneumonia is not that bad, especially for Clinton, who is very active.
I get the feeling that for the next 8 weeks, there's going to be a lot of pictures of Trump in the gym pumping iron, climbing mountains with his chin, and wrestling alligators, as he attempts to milk the Clinton health issues for all its worth by proving his own fitness is far superior.
Expect to see Trump take a leaf out of Putin's book by riding bare chested on horseback and scaling Trump tower with a rope made from his own toupee
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
djones520 wrote: At any rate, drawing a comparison between the two is kinda silly. Hillary is currently 5 years older then FDR was when he died, let alone took office. I will say, she's pretty spry for her age, though I am concerned about her ability to stand up to the rigors of the job, especially as she is going to be 69 when she'd take office. The only other President in the history of our nation who was her age when they took office was Reagan. She'd be the 2nd oldest in the history of the nation.
Neither here nor there though. There isn't an age disqualifier. I just hope it's really worth the risks to her.
Trump would be even older(oldest president if elected?) plus overall he doesn't look like particularly healthy life style especially compared to HC...I would worry more about his health than HC.
I feel like the Trump campaign might be managing to shoot themselves in the foot, Pence "refuses to call people names" when asked if David Duke was deplorable.
d-usa wrote: I feel like the Trump campaign might be managing to shoot themselves in the foot, Pence "refuses to call people names" when asked if David Duke was deplorable.
To be fair, he did say this before that statement:
“I’m not really sure why the media keeps dropping David Duke’s name,” Pence said. “Donald Trump has denounced David Duke repeatedly, we don’t want his support and we don’t want the support of people who think like him.”
I believe Pence doesn't want to get into name calling business... but, Trump sure as gak revels in the name calling business.
