Friday, December 18, 2015

Trump Has No Problem With Putin's Apparent Human Rights Abuses: "at least he's a leader"...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

This site was seriously thinking about turning its spotlight off Donald Trump. That is no big deal because FOX Snooze, rightwing radio, and the rightwing blogs constantly afford him almost 24/7 exposure. However, after The Donald opened the gaping hole in his head called his mouth and came out with the following on on Morning Joe it was determined another "point out the sordid mentality and flawed character"of Trump was most definitely in order. After all, every decent, ethical, and liberty loving American should being doing everything possible to ensure Trumps bit for the presidency is a dead end road. Shouldn't they?

Brzezinski: Do you like Vladimir Putin's comments about you?

Trump: Sure. When people call you brilliant, it's always good, especially when the person heads up Russia.

Scarborough: Well, I mean, also, it's a person that kills journalists, political opponents, and invades countries. Obviously, that would be a concern, would it not?

Trump: He's running his country, and at least he's a leader, you know, unlike what we have in this country.

Scarborough: Yeah. But, again, he kills journalists that don't agree with him.

Trump: Well, I think our country does plenty of killing also, Joe, you know.

Scarborough: What do you mean by that?

Trump: There's a lot of stupidity going on in the world right now, Joe. A lot of killing going on. A lot of stupidity. And that's the way it is. But you didn't ask me the question. You asked me a different question. So that's fine.

It's not really surprising that someone who voiced support for shutting down mosques, forcing all Muslims to register with the government, and banning Muslims from entering the US wouldn't care much about Putin's human rights record. But seemingly shrugging off another country's alleged human rights abuses — especially when the country in question is a rival like Russia — is still very strange for a presidential candidate.


Via: Memeorandum


  1. Seems like the opposite of anything like libertarian, correct?

    1. Certainly with respect to the live and let live social and civil liberties part of of Libertarianism.

      He'd be fine with the market and economic part of Libertarian thought as long as his billions are protected with continued insured growth potential.

    2. Not sure he'd be fine with the market and economic part of Libertarian thought. It seems like he is a corporatist, steeped in crony capitalism....

    3. According to David Koch "I'm basically a libertarian [however] He chides special interests that have successfully lobbied for special favors claiming crony capitalism is much easier than competing in an open market. But in reality, the focus of the Koch political machine is geared toward crony capitalism - corrupting government to make Charles and his brother David Koch richer" (REPORT: How Koch Industries Makes Billions By Demanding Bailouts And Taxpayer Subsidies).

      As I recall dmarks said "things go better with Koch" - which I'd interpret as him saying "things go better with crony capitalism". Did dmarks change his mind?

    4. Whether or not I have changed my mind on something in another blog that has nothing to do with the subject of this post, and whether or not wild conjectures/assumptions concerning statements someone has supposedly been obsessing over for more than 3 years, is far afield from the conversation Rational Nation started and intends in this post.

      If Rational Nation decides to devote a future post here to the Koch Bros and/or personal obsession grudge matches (or if he indicates that he welcomes such a diversion in this post), I will be consider addressing this.

    5. First a clarification: This weblog is Called Rational Nation USA, named as such because six years ago when I started the name was selected because at that time I believed our nation to in fact be a rational and reasonable nation. Whether that is true or not is of course open for discussion. With the Tea Party antics and the rise of the Trumpf one must begin to question the premise that it is indeed still a rational nation.

      That aside, Les (that would be me) may or may not do a future post on the Koch Brothers. One thing Les is not interested in is pursuing grudge matches or hijacking a threat, ie diverting discussion away from the point of the post topic. However, if a comment from anyone has some relevancy to the post subject then it is fine. If not, the best course is to ignore it.

      After all we don't want RN USA to become like the Stench Trench, aka The Sh*t Pit, aka The Smut Hut now do we?

    6. dmarks referenced "Libertarian thought", implying it is in opposition to crony capitalism. I gave an example of two well known individuals who call themselves Libertarians, yet benefit from crony capitalism. The (IMO false) assertion that Libertarianism is opposed to crony capitalism was what I was addressing. Is it an RNUSA rule that commenters may respond to the post only and never respond to other commenters? In any case, me remembering prior comments only amounts to an "obsession" in the imagination of some.

      As for writing something that has nothing to do with the post or anyone's comment... Why is dmarks bringing up Lisa's blog?

  2. By the way, wasn't it Jersey who said,when Trump started out, that he'd be lambasted for ridiculous things he said for years on Howard Stern and other venues?

    Well, turns out Jersey is flat out wrong on this... this time.... Because Trump has been saying so many ridiculous things NOW that his opponents have neither the time nor need to dig up old statements.

    1. I don't recall for sure. You might be right.

      Since I am not Jersey, contrary to Will's erroneous assertions, you'll have to find out from him.

    2. And it is not a criticism of Jersey's prediction. The take-away from it should be that it turned out worse than Jersey imagined.

      Instead of someone who is trying to be an upright statesman with a lot of recorded record of him being a blithering idiot in the past, Trump is filling a modern record of him being a blithering idiot NOW.

    3. Wasn't it Will Hart who said he'd eat his hat (as well as other articles of clothing) if Trump ran?

      As for Trump, as Shaw of Progressive Eruptions has pointed out, "Conservatives... love and admire Putin". So... Trump is playing to the Conservative base (again) with his pro-Putin comments.

    4. I was similarly incorrect in my prediction that Trump wouldn't run.

  3. Well, dmarks, you got me on that. It really doesn't seem to matter what Trump says, or said. In this, he's a novel thing, frightening to realize, but novel.

    The Putin thing with Trump I get. Trump knows the right wing in America has a crush on Putin. They wish they had a Putin to run for President, some old Cold War action character. We're talking about the sorts of conservatives who think Batman movies are deeply incisive metaphors for terrorism, and Obama. Trump counts many of these folks among his admirers. He's practically a comic book character himself.


    1. Yes. Jersey. Xenophobia has never been part of my conservatism. Trump is one who, if nominated, I'd have no problem voting for any of the known actual Democratic candidates to oppose him. I'd not join the "Libertarians for Trump" side and throw my vote away on Johnson.

    2. dmarks would vote for Hillary or Bernie? There are Libertarian voters who say a Hillary or Sanders presidency scares them just as much as a possible Trump presidency.

      In any case, I think Libertarians like "others" in that they can be paid low wages. The more others the further wages can be driven down.

    3. Dervish S.... If Trump were running on the Republican ticket? I would vote for HRC or Bernie against him.

      The idea of his presidency scares me a lot more than that of the main Democrats, or Trump's Republican rivals.


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.