Maybe you'd be the press' bitch, but some people don't roll that way.
Does Trump believe white supremacists should be condemned? Yes. Did they ask him to say exactly that? Yes. Did you say right there in that quote that if he said it, it made him a bitch? Yes, yes you did.
Don't tell me I'm putting words in your mouth just because you realize you said something stupid.
Let me spell this out for you:
THIS is not what I meant:
"He's a bitch if he says what he believes."
THIS is what I meant:
"People, whether or not they are the President, would be the "press' bitch" if when explicitly or implicitly asked to do something do so without hesitancy (and do this often), like in the game of Simon Says. This is independent upon whether or not they believe said thing, but based on the fact that they are re-affirming something that the press already knows and doing so upon request repeatedly."
The meaning of your quoted sentence has a VERY different meaning than what I just wrote. You are missing several assumptions that I'd put in my comment.
The fact remains that a presidential debate is about reaffirming the core beliefs of a candidate's platform. The entire excercise exists to do what you are saying he shouldn't have done.
This is independent upon whether or not they believe said thing, but based on the fact that they are re-affirming something that the press already knows and doing so upon request repeatedly
Maybe this will help it make sense to you. I love my wife. My wife knows I love her because I say I love her and I show her I love her all the time. But if she asks me if I love her, I still say it every time because it's important. Similarly, racism is the only weapon the Dems have to use against Trump. It isn't true, we know it isn't true because he has said and shown that he abhors racism many times. But it's important when pleading your case for election to the American people that they know, so whether it's the first time, the tenth time, the thousandth time, or the millionth time, you reiterate that you don't support racism. Saying it again only takes away their ammunition. Not saying anything as a matter of principle leaves them room to turn moderates, it leaves them room to assert their own truths in place of the truth. Just look at how much success they had playing Charlottesville against him. Now imagine how much worse it would have been if he chose not to condemn them because it went without saying? Never ever give the lying media an inch, and his silence at the debate gave them a mile.
Well I've already suggested (in a way) that I didn't think his answer was perfect, else why would I have said "perhaps he was distracted" &etc reasons why he answered the way he did?
In fact I think Trump should have said something like "Wallace, you asked me this same question four years ago and of COURSE the answer is the same, I condemn X, Y, Z today just as I have before. This is getting tiresome with you media people. Do you seriously think the answer would change? What about you Wallace, do you condemn X, Y, Z too or has that changed and now you're a racist?" I.e. in a perfect world Trump would have shown a light on what they're doing while condemning "X, Y, Z" and throwing it back at their face so now THEY are forced to do their own "loyalty oaths".
I'm just not going to change my mind about defending him for his answer. IMO he has the right to not mindlessly repeat himself for soulless journalists and if I was in his place I probably would have thrown my shoe at the press pool YEARS ago.
Does Trump believe white supremacists should be condemned? Yes. Did they ask him to say exactly that? Yes. Did you say right there in that quote that if he said it, it made him a bitch? Yes, yes you did.
Don't tell me I'm putting words in your mouth just because you realize you said something stupid.
Let me spell this out for you:
THIS is not what I meant:
"He's a bitch if he says what he believes."
THIS is what I meant:
"People, whether or not they are the President, would be the "press' bitch" if when explicitly or implicitly asked to do something do so without hesitancy (and do this often), like in the game of Simon Says. This is independent upon whether or not they believe said thing, but based on the fact that they are re-affirming something that the press already knows and doing so upon request repeatedly."
The meaning of your quoted sentence has a VERY different meaning than what I just wrote. You are missing several assumptions that I'd put in my comment.
The fact remains that a presidential debate is about reaffirming the core beliefs of a candidate's platform. The entire excercise exists to do what you are saying he shouldn't have done.
Maybe this will help it make sense to you. I love my wife. My wife knows I love her because I say I love her and I show her I love her all the time. But if she asks me if I love her, I still say it every time because it's important. Similarly, racism is the only weapon the Dems have to use against Trump. It isn't true, we know it isn't true because he has said and shown that he abhors racism many times. But it's important when pleading your case for election to the American people that they know, so whether it's the first time, the tenth time, the thousandth time, or the millionth time, you reiterate that you don't support racism. Saying it again only takes away their ammunition. Not saying anything as a matter of principle leaves them room to turn moderates, it leaves them room to assert their own truths in place of the truth. Just look at how much success they had playing Charlottesville against him. Now imagine how much worse it would have been if he chose not to condemn them because it went without saying? Never ever give the lying media an inch, and his silence at the debate gave them a mile.
Well I've already suggested (in a way) that I didn't think his answer was perfect, else why would I have said "perhaps he was distracted" &etc reasons why he answered the way he did?
In fact I think Trump should have said something like "Wallace, you asked me this same question four years ago and of COURSE the answer is the same, I condemn X, Y, Z today just as I have before. This is getting tiresome with you media people. Do you seriously think the answer would change? What about you Wallace, do you condemn X, Y, Z too or has that changed and now you're a racist?" I.e. in a perfect world Trump would have shown a light on what they're doing while condemning "X, Y, Z" and throwing it back at their face so now THEY are forced to do their own "loyalty oaths".
I'm just not going to change my mind about defending him for his answer. IMO he has the right to not mindlessly repeat himself for soulless journalists and if I was in his place I probably would have thrown my shoe at the press pool YEARS ago.