"Sacrifice" means to give up something of value to obtain some higher value, and it's interesting to think about when we use that word — in religion, in baseball — but Khan used it in a way that's conventional in wartime: to elevate death.
There are reasons — good and bad — for using a word that makes it seem as though the dead person chose to die in exchange for a higher good rather than to say that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. A good reason is that it eases the pain of those who loved the person who died. A bad reason is that it cuts off the line of responsibility that runs to those in power who made the decision that put the person in the place where he died.
But Khan went further than to say that his son sacrificed. He went on the attack — attacking a presidential candidate (and not the one who had anything to do with putting the son in the place where he died) — and antagonized Trump, telling him, in a statement that purports to have knowledge that Khan could not possibly possess: "You have sacrificed nothing and no one."
It was memorable rhetoric, and it was not surprising that George Stephanopoulos used it to question Trump:
STEPHANOPOULOS: He said you have sacrificed nothing and no one.Trump did not say, yes, I have. He examined the question:
TRUMP: Well, that sounds -- who wrote that? Did Hillary's script writer write it? Because everybody that went out there....And then he didn't complete his thought, but I think he meant everybody who went out there on the convention stage. I guess he was considering saying that Khan's speech didn't sound like a private individual's personal thoughts, but like part of the convention rhetoric, that is, the Party's propaganda.
Trump switched to talking about General Allen, who "went out... ranting and raving." It's much better to attack the general than the private citizen. The DNC wanted you to empathize with the father, not to question the warmakers, so Trump re-aimed the question well. When Stephanopoulos brought up Hillary's line "you don't know more than the generals," Trump lit into the generals:
TRUMP: Well, I tell you, the generals aren't doing so well right now. Now, I have a feeling it may be Obama's fault. But if you look at ISIS, General MacArthur, and General Patton, they're spinning in their graves. The generals certainly aren't doing very well right now.See my Patton quote above, in italics. Stephanopoulos refocused on sacrificing: "How would you answer that father? What sacrifice have you made for your country?" And this time, Trump offered an answer:
TRUMP: I think I have made a lot of sacrifices. I've work[ed] very, very hard. I've created thousands and thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs, built great structures. I've done -- I've had tremendous success.Stephanopoulos needled him: "Those are sacrifices?" Is hard work a sacrifice? Trump seems to have swapped in the idea of doing good in this world. He makes no mention of giving anything up to pursue his line of work, though he could have. When people work long hours, they sacrifice leisure time. That's what the word means — giving up something of value for a higher value — but it's not politically wise to say that in response to a man who seems to be saying my son sacrificed his life for the greater good.
But there's something else Trump might have said, and it's something he says frequently, something that was expressed at the GOP convention — by Ivanka Trump:
In his own way, and through his own sheer force of will, he sacrificed greatly to enter the political arena as an outsider.And Here's Trump himself (last May): "I’ve given up a tremendous amount to run for president. I gave up two more seasons of Celebrity Apprentice." And how many times has he said — at rallies — I didn't have to do this. I had a great life?
I'm not surprised Trump didn't deploy this theory when Stephanopoulos asked him the "sacrifice" question, but I'm rather sure he thought of it and chose not to say it. A lot of people seem to think he just blurts out everything that pops into his head, but it's hard to notice unsaid things like this one, and I want to give him some credit for restraint.
Posts
202 comments:
1 – 200 of 202 Newer› Newest»If sacrifice is the defining element of a presidential candidate, what has Hillary sacrificed? (N.B. Vince Foster and John Christopher Stevens don't count)
He's a boob, and Ann, so are you.
"A bad reason is that it cuts off the line of responsibility that runs to those in power who made the decision that put the person in the place where he died."
Hear, Hear.
Sweet Jesus Althouse... thanks for reminding us of the many Trump sacrifices... and that Trump finally REFRAINED from saying something... I guess it's in the thing not said that shows Trump's true mettle...
That so-loved-the-world-that-He-gave claim in Sunday school never made sense to me. I mean, the guy's God. He can do whatever he wants and doesn't have to pay anybody to do it. And then again, Jesus was supposed to be God, right? So he begat himself? What?
Anyway, that whole I-made-a-sacrifice-you-didn't shtick is just so much begging. Like when they pin a flower on you at the airport so you'll feel like you now owe them something.
Buy into it if it makes you feel good. Then it's a fair exchange, properly viewed.
Best Trump answer (too bad he's not as ruthless as I am): "I have not sacrificed an ambassador and his body guards to a harebrained foreign adventure."
Then imagine Georgie's head exploding. ABC would kill your dog with razor blades to get that scene on the air!
A lot of people seem to think he just blurts out everything that pops into his head, but it's hard to notice unsaid things like this one, and I want to give him some credit for restraint.
You may be right about Trump holding back that particular comment, but Trump is losing this issue. Trump has been invincible up to this point (even making fun of a disabled reporter's actual disability) because Trump has always been on offense. Now he's playing defense, and holding his tongue, and it's causing him to lose on this issue.
I don't see restraint, even when decorum mandates it's the right thing to do, as a winning strategy for Trump.
What has that fat bitch Hillary sacrificed?
Next Scott Adams blogpost: "I told you the Clinton campaign had at least one Master Persuader on staff, and it turns out I was right. The Khan Gambit has paid off, bigtime, for the Clinton campaign, not by what it's forced Trump to say, but by what it has prevented Trump from doing."
Ugh.
Read Senator John McCain's statement today. It will make you embarrassed for yourself.
Benghazi mothers should be ignored but through the death of his son this guy's opinions must be respected and revered.
Trump had it right to attribute the scam to Hillary's speech writers but he should have recognized the other actors in the play starting with Stephanopolous.
Have you ever been to Arlington Cemetery? Go look at the graves of brave patriots who died defending the United States of America. You will see all faiths, genders and ethnicities.
You have sacrificed nothing and no one.
This game can be played by everyone.
Everyone can say ....
Hillary Clinton has sacrificed nothing and no one.
Tim Kaine has sacrificed nothing and no one.
... and so forth and so on.
Curious George said...
What has that fat bitch Hillary sacrificed?
She sacrificed divorcing her lying, cheating husband. Of course, she made that sacrifice in the pursuit of political power, not for the good of the country. But it was still a sacrifice.
Tim Kaine has sacrificed nothing and no one
I thought he sacrificed his job leading the Democratic Party so Debbie Wasserman-Schultz could take over and steer everything Hillary's way -- until her corruption made her resign and be hired by the Clinton Campaign.
Changing jobs is a big sacrifice.
He shrewdly switched it from "sacrificed for" to "did for". As AA notes, the soldier who makes the enemy die for his country sacrifices less than his fallen comrade, but does that mean he did less?
what has Hillary sacrificed?
Uhhhmm, her self-respect by hanging with Bill all those years?
This is the problem with the HRC campaign's mud-slinging technique --- HRC is absolutely the wrong candidate to use negative campaigning with. She simply has too much baggage. Every time an accusation comes out of her mouth --- boom! --- the Trumpites reply "Tu Quoque?"**
**But in English, since the vulgarian Trump campaigns in the vulgar tongue, & not in dead classical languages.
Maybe he didn't mention the huge sacrifice if giving up two or more seasons of Celebrity Apprentice because that sounds so damn petty compared to giving up ones life for one's country. Maybe even he realized this, think?or maybe he didn't think of it because he in his ADHD way was distracted and ran off to the subject of General Allen.
What so many here seem to miss in this whole thing between the Khan's and Trump is the fact that despite most American Muslims being good loyal decent patriotic Americans, some of which who have made the ultimate sacrifice of losing heir son, they are insulted and demeaned by Trump and other Islamaphobes daily.That is the insult and that is why the Khans were upset. It is the putting of Muslim's on a Registry, the banning of all Muslims from entering the country as he originally said, which is insulting and upsetting to them. It's a distraction and a false notion to suggest they were upset by the government that sent their son to Iraq in service of his country. They have indicated that they are patriotic Americans not against service to one's country. Again it's the insult and innuendo toward American Muslims by Trump, a presidential nominee that upsets them, not their son's service in the military.
Don't worry Ann, only 100 days left where you have to make a fool out of yourself defending Trump.
Yes, Mr. and Mrs. Khan lost their son. So did the Benghazi mothers. They are called liars and worth nothing. The Khan's are elevated because they are supporting Hillary.
Both should be treated equally but that will never happen.
The imminent Khan is a professional Muslim Immigration influence broker with close ties to The Muzlim Brotherhood and, through Huma Abedin, directly to Hillary's Campaign. His son volunteered to get into a Special Forces Unit in the middle of the Iraq operation, but he was killed by a Muslim suicide bomber attack 12 years ago.
Daddy repeats every strategic Propagand Meme of the Muslim claims to privileges in the entire Earth, over and over.
Thank God, in Trump we have a leader who doesn't surrender to these guys.
The 'what did you sacrifice?' meme draws on the religious dimension of life -- it's root is the 'greater love than this ...' idea, with the love-object being the nation. It's especially odd at the Dem convention, since that idea goes hand in hand with 'my country right or wrong,' not a sentiment the Dem crowd would likely endorse. However odd it may be, it's often effective in politics as an attack. One could ask the same of Obama or Slick Willie or W -- but Stephanopoulos isn't likely to go there (except maybe with W).
Making a "sacrifice" is not the only way to contribute to society. This is the coneit of liberals in that people must sacrifice and they equate their working in government as a public service "sacrifice" Does Bill Gates have to make a sacrifice to contribute to society? he most certainly has contributed to society through his capitalist ventures. Does George Clooney have to make a sacrifice to be considered to have made a contributed to society? His work as an entertainer in a capitalist endeavor has certainly contributed to society through valued entertainment.
How about asking Hillary Clinton what she has sacrified? Are we now moving to the point where people must make "sacrifices to be considered valued voices in society? Are then sacrifices to be measured and ranked in order of importance?
How medieval.
Trump's mistake was to allow them to use Captain Khan's death to frame his position on Middle Eastern refugees as being anti-Muslim rather than anti-terrorist. Trump's never going to win a 'who sacrificed more' competition against a man who lost his son in war.
Trump could have re-framed the discussion to point out that Khan was killed trying to protect good people from bad and dangerous people. He could have said we must honor Khan's sacrifice by following his example and making certain the people we welcome to our shores are not bad and dangerous people who would love to create more grieving fathers.
I think I remember some essay by Stephen Jay Gould where some lizard sacrifices its tail to a predator. It detaches somehow and flops around and the lizard can make its escape. The lizard loses the tail but keeps its life. And the kicker is: The lizard stores fat in its tail so the predator gets a choice meal with less effort.
How freaking nifty is that?
Do we really want to have the discussion as to whether the presence of Muslim Americans in the military has been a net positive or negative since 9/11? Because we can.
- Nidal Hasan (13 KIA (inc one civilian DoD employee) and 32 WIA)
- Hasan Karim Akbar (2 KIA, 14 WIA)
Capt. Khan is one of only 14 U.S. Muslims killed in action since the war on terror began in 2001. In that time, 2 Muslim members of the military killed more Americans.
I think it's a great idea to have our politicians die in battle for their country before they can run for office.
I'll sign that petition. Just get me a copy.
Well, what has George Stephanopoulos sacrificed? What did George Bush the W, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, or, for that matter, Hillary, sacrifice?
Until last week I was unaware of the "sacrifice clause" in the constitution.
Trump was a complete idiot to allow himself to be interviewed by George. George still works for the Clintons.
Ann Althouse in this piece inserts the usual Trump qualifier, "but I think he meant . . ." I've done this myself when contemplating his potential presidency, and certainly it's often done by intelligent supporters of Trump (yes, they exist). That is, I and they interpret Trump's often outrageous words by what we suspect he meant to say or truly believes rather than what the words actually say.
At some point this has to stop: his words are his words, and while we may tell ourselves, Oh, he won't really deport all this people; or Oh, he won't really ban Muslims, or coddle Russia, or abandon NATO, etc - if can't be responsible enough to craft and modulate his message, then we have to quit interpreting that message in a positive light just because it eases our consciences in the event we actually stoop to voting for him.
Perhaps I should add: Is the point being made that Trump thinks things he does not say?
Sounds pretty unremarkable to me.
Trump: chicken dove.
Here is a better Patton youtube that actually be heard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH9l1Cko0Ps
Stephanopoulos: ... there was a man named Khizr Khan speaking at the Democratic Convention .... His son, Captain Humayun Khan, was killed serving in Iraq. ... He said you wouldn't have even let his son in America.
The logic here seems to be that every foreigner should be let into America, because any foreigner might sacrifice his life while serving in the US military many years later.
This ex post facto game too can be played by everyone.
The Tsarnaev brothers blew up the Boston Marathon, but Hillary Clinton would have let them into the USA.
Nidal Hassan shot 43 US soldiers, but Hillary Clinton would have let him into the USA.
... and so forth and so on.
Hey Ann, "If you're not jumping ship now, don't pretend jumping ship when he's down by 10+ preserves your integrity."
Trump needs to take a vacation in August. He's 70.
"You may be right about Trump holding back that particular comment, but Trump is losing this issue."
If he's losing, he's sacrificing, and that's a good thing, right?
The Democrats have found their new Cindy Sheehan. Pretty soon he will be camped outside of Trump tower and receiving 24/7 news coverage.
He has absolutely moral authority, unless he is critical of Clinton and, you know, the actual people responsible for killing his son. Which Trump had nothing to do with.
Bob Boyd said... Trump could have re-framed the discussion to point out that Khan was killed trying to protect good people from bad and dangerous people. He could have said we must honor Khan's sacrifice by following his example and making certain the people we welcome to our shores are not bad and dangerous people who would love to create more grieving fathers.
Unlike many practiced politicians, Trump doesn't excel at nuanced rhetorical re-framings. His speciality is what I like to call the argument bomb. Basically he is able to redirect a discussion by saying something provocative but only tangential to the original topic. The Democrats carefully laid out some landmines, and I think Trump did OK here but not ideally.
I believe Mr. Khan actually used Hillary's motto "stronger together" in his speech. To me, that suggests he did not write his speech all by himself.
As much as I can see the media's double standard, I still think Trump is making an unforced error. It was smart of him to draw attention to the weird Muslimness of the Khans, but this ridiculous back-and-forth with grieving Gold Star parents is diminishing Trump. He should just ignore them from now on.
Anyway, it's pretty ridiculous that the Democrats get away with weaponizing the grief of these parents who suffered a loss in 2004, back when Trump was not in politics but Hillary was (and voted for the Iraq War). At least Mrs. Smith, the mother of a Benghazi victim, actually met Hillary personally and said Hillary lied to her. Hillary's conduct in that whole sordid affair is highly relevant. What did Trump have to do with Capt. Khan's death? Nothing at all. Why do the Khans get to be immune from criticism of their unhinged attack on Trump? Because their son died a hero? Ridiculous.
Hillary is not famous for her altruism and years of sacrifice. It's hard to top the Clintons in a venality contest. Also, one can't imagine Stephanopoulos doggedly asking questions about Hillary's response to the Benghazi mother......My takeaway is that the Clintons are selfish, and that the media is biased. Too much stagecraft ruins the illusion.
Sacrificing or rather losing one's life for the greater good is notable.
Saving or perhaps enabling people's lives through productive employment and wealth creation is notable.
The life of Khan's son was prematurely aborted and the father is responding emotionally. He deserves a patient audience but consider carefully what he is saying.
Principles matter, especially in a society with an established pro-choice religious/moral philosophy.
McCain is attacking Trump again over McCain's usual schtick. McCain is a man of great personal honor that attaches to completely random things, which is how he winds up a nutball. The good of the country always comes in second, after whatever McCain's latest deal is.
The country has always been screwed up on honor, thanks to veterans' groups that form to acquite continuing adulation and the power that goes with it. They're an interest group like all the others.
Andy Rooney said it right - the veterans already got what they deserve, namely a free country.
What he honor, originally, is the movement of ethics itself: you are called, and you go. It has nothing to do with dying to get honor. Everybody who goes gets the same.
The parents ought to have praised their son's going, not his dying, and they'd have the argument they want against Trump.
What they have instead is soap opera and political correctness vs Trump, which one hopes Trump will win again.
"You have sacrificed nothing and no one."
So what?
Just in case it becomes relevant, The Muslim Brotherhood is at War with the USA and all countries temporarily not ruled by Muslims under sharia law.
And Nazir Khan's entire life is dedicated to winning that War. The assertion that his son's death makes any difference is standard psyops against the USA.
So far on this blog i've seen one contributer insist that he can translate Trump for the rest of us so that we can understand what he means... and now we are giving Trump credit for not saying things... what a guy... If he had just said we appreciate the sacrifice of your family he would have been home free...but true to his incredible narcissism he just had to compare his 'sacrifices' to the Khans... i guess i was hoping for a higher level of discussion from this blog..
Of course an instance of an honorable Muslim doesn't prove it's not a severely losing proposition to let them into the country, which it seems to be.
Ann, you must be so proud that you have gotten your Althouse Hillbillies back on your porch.
Author, etc. is right. When will some people stop trying to translate what Trump says? Should America have a President that can be understood clearly or one that sounds so disjointed and ignorant that he must be translated daily? When will some people take him at his word? How do they know he won't do exactly as he has said? Maybe because they continually translate his comments into something softer, more acceptable to decent people, then they believe their own version of his hateful comments. Is Trump some incompetant that needs people to explain or clean up, or walk-back his comments whenever he says them, which is every time he opens his mouth.
C'mon guys. If the Khan's practice so strict a brand of Islam that Mrs Khan feels bound by custom not to speak in public on a matter like the death of her son, it's only a matter of time before some nastier aspects of the Khan's brand of Islam start to creep out of the woodwork (see e.g. tradguy 9:47 above for a taste of what's to come). It's looking good now, but I suspect the Dems wiill soon regret pulling the pin on this grenade.
Strange how the Dems, always on the outlook for the rights of woman, fail to comment on this muzzling right in front of their noses. At least the Republicans let their gold start mothers speak in public.
Trump is a clown and shows it, AA defense notwithstanding.
But:
1. Khan is a tool. 2. Khan ignorantly cites the Constitution against Trump. 3. Khan and handlers misstate US law, which gives the president the authority to keep out unwanted foreigners. 4. Hill is partly responsible for his son's death, not Trump 5. Other Muslims are responsible for his son's death, not Trump 6. The GOP Trump ran against is partly responsible for his son's death, not Trump. 7. Khan doesn't tell us how we distinguish between good Muslims like his son and bad ones like his son's killer. 8. Comey just predicted big terrorist diaspora -- how do we prevent it, if not the Trump way? 9. Does Khan in fact support the Constitution rather than sharia? (Not clear from publications that have come to light so far.)
Of course, no arguments really matter here.
Blogger Once written, twice... said... "He's a boob, and Ann, so are you."
8/1/16, 9:33 AM
Whereas Hillary is a grifter enabled by amoral rubes like this one.
The old "Esquire" had a short-story about a "Gold Star Mother" (WWI). I have been allergic to the term ever since.
As for the Khans, I would have to know the motivations of the younger Khan to know whether he "sacrificed his life" or not. He may have enlisted for idealistic reasons, but he also may just have chosen a military career, a hazard of which is to be killed by the enemy.
As for the elder Khans, did they prevail upon their son to join the U.S. military and fight "the forces of darkness" in the Middle East, and if so, what was their motivation? Revenge, the welfare of humanity, or what?
The argument seems to be that my son served in the armed forces of the United States and was killed by a Muslim suicide bomber, so any talk of restricting Muslim immigration or scrutinizing Muslims for ties to terrorism is wrong because it hurts my feelings.
Instead we should be like the U.S. was during WWI and II, bring in large numbers of German immigrants, mostly physically fit males between the ages of 18 - 35. Which we did, even though the German government stated that it was slipping sleeper agents and saboteurs in among them. And guess what?
NOTHING BAD HAPPENED!
So there, you bunch of racists.
Why was Trump talking to George Stephanopolous in the first place? He should publicly announce that since George was a former Clinton employee and Democrat political operative that he, Trump, will not appear on ABC unless and until George is laid off.
Let George experience what so many other Americans have experienced during the Era of Obama.
There is no reason to believe Mr.Khan didn't write his own speech. He's appeared on many different news outlets and programs in recent days and is very well spoken, as is his wife. We can only wish for Trump to be so articulate.
By my count this is the 47th time Trump has "committed political suicide". So, what is the real fallout here? The Democrats and the media have made a Yuuuge deal out of this by what? Defending the honor of a Muslim. That's probably not what they want the public thinking about at this stage of the campaign.
This election has got me thinking we're in the middle of a Roadrunner cartoon.
HW Bush and JFK were the last presidents who had notable miltary service. Dole and McCain were the last presidential candidates who had notable military service.
I like this idea of sacrifice being a qualification for president. It would certainly cull the field of candidates
Mr.Khan correctly cited the Constitution regarding Trump's rhetoric against American Muslims. It is unconstitutional to discriminate against people based on their religion. To suggest putting American Muslims on some sort of Registry is clearly unconstitutional.
You're joking, right? We should give Donald Trump credit for not saying he's sacrificed two seasons of Celebrity Apprentice (but probably thinking that)? What kind of credit should we be giving him? Frankly, it didn't even occur to me, until you brought it up, that he would be even thinking that, because it makes him more idiotic than his worst critics could possibly have imagined. And no, I don't think there's any sacrifice whatsoever of the kind that Ivanka mentioned. Nobody runs for President because - despite it being a great personal sacrifice - they feel compelled to do it for the good of the country. That's the worst kind of campaign blarney that every candidate in history has tried to feed us. I'm surprised you're taking it seriously, especially from Donald Trump.
If we can get everyone talking about this, then they won't talk about the abject failures of the Obama/Clinton regime. Keep talking about it, until something else can be brought up. It's not like the press has any intention of doing its job.
I am sure Trump will say and so other stupid things. I also am certain no one other than trump will bring up hrc and obama's terrible and costly errors.
Are we going to vote for the person who sacrificed the most now, because Hillary has sacrificed far more than Trump has. She sacrificed four men and an embassy in Benghazi, respect for law and especially protecting national security secrets. She sacrificed stability throughout the middle east, and she sacrificed her dignity on numerous occasions over the years. Her sacrifices are legion, and she did it all for us, for a chance to serve us as President of The United States. Have some respect. She has given so much and only wants to give more, if we will just let her.
To suggest putting American Muslims on some sort of Registry is clearly unconstitutional.
Really, because we are already doing it. No-fly and terror watch lists, ever heard of them?
No due process whatsoever to be put on one.
Young Hegelian, Mrs. Khan said she was overcome with grief on that stage at the convention, that she chose not to speak there. She since has spoken several times on various news programs. To suggest she wasn't allowed to speak by her Muslim husband is specious.
"I like this idea of sacrifice being a qualification for president. It would certainly cull the field of candidates"
-- Yeah, except it is only a qualification when it can be used against Republicans instead of for them. It was considered no benefit to McCain when he ran, if I recall.
Unknown 8:46: "...despite most American Muslims being good loyal decent patriotic Americans, some of which who (sic.) have made the ultimate sacrifice of losing heir (sic.) son, they are insulted and demeaned by Trump and other Islamaphobes daily.
There are two assertions here, neither of which the author can support with evidence.
Hillary the Grifter an her enablers are incapable of playing it straight.
It's interesting how all these "thoughtful" commenters have come out of the woodwork just in time for the election. And how they all think pretty much what Hillary Clinton would think, if Hillary Clinton did any thinking. Someone at Clinton Inc has noticed this little blog getting quoted in the MSM. Congrats, Althouse, you've made the bigtime. I'm thinking this blog makes a lot more for the likes of "once written, twice ..." than it does for you.
Well, being a Trump defender must be tying your head into knots. I don't know whether you're doing this as a mental exercise or you're really entered the dark spot where nihilistic Trump defense takes you.
The fact is, there was a perfectly good response to the whole Khan thing that (1) would have helped Trump among a lot of voters and (2) would not have given this story (of him attacking Gold Star parents and coming across like a complete douchebag) additional life. The response would have been "I'm sorry for their loss, but they were very misguided in their statements. And shame on Hillary, who supported the very war that their son died needlessly in, for exploiting their tragedy and using them this way. And let me point out that my proposed vetting process would enable good people like the Khans to come to this country while keeping out the dangerous people that we've seen turn on their new homes with terrorism." Why is that so hard?
The dumb speculation about Ms. Khan's silence, the mental gymnastics of trying to pretend he has any sacrifices to compare with losing a son who died to save his fellow soldiers--this is a sign of a very damaged man. Go on defending him, he'll keep finding new lows to sink to until you Trump defenders find yourselves either in a black hole of denial or the supreme embarrassment of realizing what a skunk you've sided with.
Captain Khan sacrificed his life for his country. His dad didn't do jack squat.
Winkleheimer,
American Muslims are not indiscriminately being put on no fly lists and terror watch lists, got proof?
"You're joking, right? We should give Donald Trump credit for not saying he's sacrificed two seasons of Celebrity Apprentice (but probably thinking that)? What kind of credit should we be giving him? Frankly, it didn't even occur to me, until you brought it up, that he would be even thinking that, because it makes him more idiotic than his worst critics could possibly have imagined. And no, I don't think there's any sacrifice whatsoever of the kind that Ivanka mentioned. Nobody runs for President because - despite it being a great personal sacrifice - they feel compelled to do it for the good of the country. That's the worst kind of campaign blarney that every candidate in history has tried to feed us. I'm surprised you're taking it seriously, especially from Donald Trump."
I'm going to give Althouse the benefit of the doubt and assume she is doing this "defense of Trump" act as a mental exercise, to get debate going. I have a hard time believing she's taken in by such utter nonsense.
"Mr.Khan correctly cited the Constitution regarding Trump's rhetoric against American Muslims. It is unconstitutional to discriminate against people based on their religion. To suggest putting American Muslims on some sort of Registry is clearly unconstitutional."
Trump's "rhetoric" is unconstitutional? Which of Trump's policies does Khan believe violates Equal Protection and/or the First Amendment? You do realize, do you not, that as far as the Constitution is concerned, almost anything goes when it comes to the border and immigration? Go ahead and try to assert your Fourth Amendment rights at a border check and see what happens.
Please support your assertion that Trump suggested putting American Muslims on some sort of registry. I notice you use the weasel words "suggest" and "some sort of" - I think I know what you are really saying. A reporter once floated the idea to Trump that Muslims should be monitored or registered and Trump failed to conclusively shut him down. Trump never brought it up or advocated the position, but the media does not care. They have enough for a story.
"Captain Khan sacrificed his life for his country. His dad didn't do jack squat."
Losing his son doesn't count for anything?
How far Republicans have fallen.
Just love how the Trumpkins defend the billionaire draft dodger. Emperor Trump's idea of a soldier is one who doesn't get caught (re John McCain) and one who doesn't get killed (re: Gold Star families).
There are tens of thousands of Gold Star families, many still alive from the Vietnam War. Every mother of a fallen son or daughter will have been horrified by Emperor Trump's attack. Soldiers of every race and faith have fought for the USA for hundreds of years.
The cemetries in France and elsewhere are full of soldiers from around the world of every race and faith who fought in WW1 and WW2 against the Nazis.
Trump is worshipped and enabled by Trumpkins.
dbp,
Captain Khan was his son. It's pretty low to say it wasn't a sacrifice to the family to lose their son in the service of his country. Military parents and families make real sacrifices when their loved one is serving their country. Do you always insult the parents of military members this way?
It's interesting how all these "thoughtful" commenters have come out of the woodwork just in time for the election. And how they all think pretty much what Hillary Clinton would think, if Hillary Clinton did any thinking.
If you know how to become paid shill for Hillary, could you let me know. I am tired of doing this for free.
I remember a popular meme from the 2008 election. It was called a WORM. What Obama Really Meant.
Remember when Obama said he was experienced enough to be president because he had run presidential campaign? He actually said something very much like what the Professor gives Trump credit for not saying. Except Obama was a Democrat, so he got away with it.
@unknown,
It is unconstitutional to discriminate against people based on their religion.
Oh, bullshit. In time of war, the President can in the cause of national security, do all sorts of nasty stuff. Nobody likes Korematsu, but ya know what? It's still on the books as settled law, decided by the highest court in the land. Lincoln invaded Maryland before it seceded & imprisoned the legislature, which he then followed up by removing the right of habeas corpus. The question is: how much is this "War on Terror" truly a "war", from the standpoint of legislative vs executive action.
As for immigration, would-be immigrants not yet on American soil have no constitutional rights. We can keep out the people who have the letter "R" in their name if we want to. If we want to keep out Muslims, it's perfectly "legal", until Congress explicitly declares it otherwise.
Freder Frederson said...
If you know how to become paid shill for Hillary, could you let me know. I am tired of doing this for free.
Contact her campaign headquarters. Most of her volunteers have to be paid. Why shouldn't you get half the $15/hour she thinks you deserve?
I noticed that DJT didn't say that he suffered because terrorists killed his friends on 7-11. For you normal, dopey people it's hard to notice unsaid things like this one, and I want to give him some credit for restraint.
Can I please get one, solitary, unalloyed reason to vote FOR Hillary Clinton?
Would some of you resident Leftists answer my pleading?
Also, I'm not sure why this is getting any traction. Sheehan's been ignored since Obama became president, and the mother that spoke at Trump's convention was so effectively ignored I don't even know her name.
The precedent has been set: Whatever complaint Khan has is immaterial and NOT news worthy. So, I see no reason to give him any attention.
"Why shouldn't you get half the $15/hour she thinks you deserve?"
Trump pays better. He paid folks $50 to watch him come down the escalator as part of the announcement of his POTUS run.
The basic problem is the notion that Khan senior "sacrificed" anything at all.
That's an un-American concept. His son gave his life for America. He, Khan senior, gave nothing.
It's a very Islamic concept, though. You give your sons, your daughters, your tribe, whatever, to get something done, usually to gain money or power or camels or something.
In America, they are not yours to give.
The only reference in the Constitution is that there shall be no religious test for holding office.
American Muslims are not indiscriminately being put on no fly lists and terror watch lists, got proof?
https://www.rt.com/usa/338575-american-muslims-sue-terror-watch-list/
http://michiganradio.org/post/lawsuits-allege-innocent-us-muslims-ensnared-terror-watchlist#stream/0
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/08/five-american-muslims-sue-fbi-attorney-general-over-travel-watchlist/
But its OK, the President is a Democrat.
Young Hegelian,
So you think the President can put people who belong to a certain religion on a National Registry. Noted. So did Hitler. No one likes the Hitler comparisons, but sometimes it's fitting.
"I'm going to give Althouse the benefit of the doubt and assume she is doing this "defense of Trump" act as a mental exercise, to get debate going. I have a hard time believing she's taken in by such utter nonsense."
Okay, I'll buy that. I'm always up for a good dialectical exercise. As you said, the alternative of believing that Althouse is taken in by Trump's brazen nonsense is too awful to contemplate.
"So, I see no reason to give him any attention."
According to DJT, this guy doesn't have the right to criticize DJT. Trump, as a good American, needed to point out that this Muslim dude didn't have the right to criticize Trump.
"Can I please get one, solitary, unalloyed reason to vote FOR Hillary Clinton?
Would some of you resident Leftists answer my pleading?"
And good luck getting anyone to name a Hillary accomplishment other than getting elected. Flying around the world over and over isn't an accomplishment, its an activity.
So did Hitler
Hitler also ate food and breathed air, JUST LIKE YOU!
Why are you a Nazi?
Unknown: "Mr.Khan correctly cited the Constitution regarding Trump's rhetoric against American Muslims. It is unconstitutional to discriminate against people based on their religion. To suggest putting American Muslims on some sort of Registry is clearly unconstitutional." 8/1/16, 10:16 AM
Seriously? How stupid are you?
American Muslims may lawfully be put on a "registry" along with any American Christians, Jews, Rastafarians, etc., who are potential terrorists.
And who is suggesting a "registry" anyway? Besides you?
The DNC's class diversity mongering (e.g. racism, sexism) is a matter of public record. Their attempt to reduce Americans to second class citizens in their own country has been a progressive process. Americans should recognize the risk and sacrifice of their soldiers, compensate them for their service, provide service for rehabilitation, but should not deny their own dignity in a class war or to construct idols.
That said, did Democrats note the sacrifice of Americans to "immigration reform" including illegal immigration and refugee crises?
Did Democrats note the sacrifice of people through the Middle East, Eurasia, really, to Obama and Clinton's progressive wars and opportunistic regime changes?
Have Democrats ended their advocacy for the abortion industry and Planned Parenthood?
I wonder if the Left (in America, Europe) will, once again, succeed to steer the conversation away from their anti-native policies.
As for Khan's son, his life was lost in vain with Obama's removal of honest brokers from Iraq, followed by his and Clinton's progressive wars and anti-native policies across the Middle East, Europe, and America.
Why on earth are we even treating Stephanopoulos other than a Hillary/DNC shill? At least Trump wasn't stupid enough to be surprised at his hostile treatment and acted accordingly.
"As for Khan's son, his life was lost in vain with Obama's removal of honest brokers from Iraq, followed by his and Clinton's progressive wars and anti-native policies across the Middle East, Europe, and America."
There may be a timeline problem here.
Full statement from John McCain.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/01/politics/john-mccain-statement-khan-family/index.html
Hope all the Trumpkins feel good about themselves as they continue to worship and enable their Emperor Trump.
There may be a timeline problem here.
Not at all. Khan was aborted in 2004. However, the cause he served was not lost until later.
@Unknown,
Mrs. Khan said she was overcome with grief on that stage at the convention, that she chose not to speak there
I guess we'll have to take her word on that, won't we? After this embarrassing fact was pointed out, she decided to speak publicly.
I'm sorry, I don't believe it. What I think we have here is the Islamic equivalent of "pulling a man's ox out of a well on the Sabbath", i.e. disobeying the letter of sharia in order to advance a perceived greater moral good. I'm sure if I knew my Sharia technical Arabic terms better, there's no doubt a word for this (& no, it's not taqiyah..).
Trump stands up to incoming BS barrages from the Media and the rest of the Globalist Dems and Globalist GOPs that are imitating American politicians , but actually are selling out their cooperation to erase the old USA that would defend itself. This is the last stand for that free country.
Pretending being a leader who fights that fight makes Trump into a Narcissist is so dumb that it astounds.
Meanwhile wiki leak releases proof of Clinton taking bribes by the multi millions from Russians and Saudis and that goes ignored.
"Hope all the Trumpkins feel good about themselves as they continue to worship and enable their Emperor Trump."
Way back in the primaries it was suggested that DJT appealed to folks who were into following authoritarians. At the time that seemed like psycho-babble, but at this point it's hard not to see the writing on the wall.
The "sacrificed no one" part reminds us that presidents sacrifice other people. I'm not sure we should be talking about that as a virtue, even if it's sometimes a necessity.
The knights who say Ni demand a sacrifice!
It's just political leverage. Throw another baby on the barbie... this is not a serious conversation. The Democrats have a pro-choice problem that will not be settled through stage plays.
Why are the Khan's now asking to be left alone?
Is it because suddenly we are going to learn things about them that they wish to have covered up?
Hombre,
How stupid are you? You know that people of all faiths are put on a GOVERNMENT Registry, based on what religion they belong to? Are you insane?
Trump's Muslim Database
"NEWTON, Iowa — Donald Trump "would certainly implement" a database system tracking Muslims in the United States, the Republican front-runner told NBC News on Thursday night.
"I would certainly implement that. Absolutely," Trump said in Newton, Iowa, in between campaign town halls.
"There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases," he added. "We should have a lot of systems."
When asked whether Muslims would be legally obligated to sign into the database, Trump responded, "They have to be — they have to be.""
How quickly Trump's words are conveniently forgotten.
Full statement from John McCain.
Well, that would be the final word then. McCain is, after all, the final arbitrator on all matters pertaining to the military, Constitution, and morality. Except for when he is running for office against a Democrat that is. Then he's a war mongering maniac with a ditzy blond socialite wife.
n.n.,
Okay, now that even most cons are of the opinion that the Iraq war based on misjudgments it's easy to forget that there are still holdouts singing the praises of this failed exercise in nation building. Carry on.
@Unknown,
So you think the President can put people who belong to a certain religion on a National Registry.
We put commies & anarchists on lists. Is radical Islam a religion or an ideology?
If you think that religious faiths get a pass on matters of national security, then I'm sure you're fine with religious faiths getting a pass to discriminate against LGBTQ folks, right? Or, does your problem with religious persecution only extend to Muslims.
Oh, by the way, the only religion I know of that Hitler persecuted as a religion was Jehovah's Witnesses, and only then because they were pacifists & refused service in the military. His persecution of Jews was completely racial. Many a German Jew didn't even know he was a racial Jew until the police showed up at his door to arrest him. So, there's no Hitler analogy here. Try again....
Unsaid things are common among septuagenarians like me and like Donald Trump. The vocal response doesn't always process immediately in old brains and once even a small amount of time has passed, it is usually better to make no conclusive response. BTW, I cannot believe that I am making excuses for The Donald.
Khan says the Constitution says "equal protection of the laws" but he doesn't note that the prime document, not the 14th Amendment, calls for providing for the "common defense" and that means military forces which Captain Khan voluntarily joined and then lost his life in combat.
This whole episode is way-over-the-top rhetoric from the campaign of the in-charge official over the Benghazi gun-running operation. Hillary sacrificed a US Ambassador, a Foreign Service Officer and two CIA contractors. And while we are asking, what did Mr. Khan sacrifice? If sacrifice implies a ritual killing to assuage a demigod, doesn't the use of the word result in an undeniable put-down of the religion of Muhammad?
"Hillary sacrificed a US Ambassador, a Foreign Service Officer and two CIA contractors."
But it's different when Reagan sacrificed hundreds in Lebanon. And, W (ignoring a warning re AQ) sacrificed thousands.
A sacrifice is by definition intentional. The mother and father did not sacrifice their son.
But it's different when Reagan sacrificed hundreds in Lebanon. And, W (ignoring a warning re AQ) sacrificed thousands.
So your saying Hillary is just like Reagan and George W? Cause for a Democrat that would seem to be ...... strange.
Trump must recognize that he is not running as "The Donald," but as the "not Hillary."
Every challenge must be turned into, and limited to, an attack on Hillary, not some whinging self defense giving the Democrat mediaswine ammunition against him.
E.g., "I am deeply sorry for the Khan's loss. There is only one candidate in this race who voted to put Captain Khan in harm's way - Hillary Clinton. She is the same candidate whose reckless immigration policies would subject Americans to the risks being faced in France and Germany today." Repeat. Repeat. The questions don't matter.
@PB&J,
And, W (ignoring a warning re AQ) sacrificed thousands.
There was no "actionable" intelligence re 9/11. The only folks who claim there was are called "Truthers". Apparently, according to various polls, about 1/3 of Democrats are "Truthers".
You one out of three, PB&J?
It's a very Islamic concept, though. You give your sons, your daughters... In America, they are not yours to give.
It reminds me of how, during the Iraq war, Michael Moore and various other idiots went around demanding that Congressmen somehow "send" their own children to fight.
McCain's daughter on Emperor Trump:
https://twitter.com/MeghanMcCain/status/759590690548350977
"I would ask what kind of barbarian would attack the parents of a fallen soldier, but oh yeah it's the same person who attacks POW's."
Holy crap! Barbarian Trump or Emperor Trump - which one is best? Shucks, you choose Trumpkins.
If you know how to become paid shill for Hillary, could you let me know. I am tired of doing this for free.
And you do it so well.
McCain's daughter on Emperor Trump:
McCain's daughter! Wow, that's some absolute moral authority there!
She's going to be the next Pope. I just know it.
Trump's attack on the quiet mother really misses the point.
What the elder Mr. Khan was criticizing was Trump's blanket condemnation of Muslims implied by the religion-based immigration ban. Khan's point was that many American Muslims have shown great loyalty to the US by paying the ultimate "sacrifice." His "you have sacrificed nothing" line was meant to say, "why do you denigrate all who share my religion when many of us have proven with blood our love of country. You have sent no children to fight nor have you fought yourself and yet you show disrespect to those who have." His line about the Constitution and "equal protection" was to reinforce this point implying that some American Muslims revere the principles for which the country stands more than Trump and that those principles include an aversion to religion-based tests.
How does Trump respond? He goes after the man's quiet wife. She, in grief and perhaps modesty, said nothing as she stood next to her husband. Her expression, however, spoke sad but determined pride in her son. Trump attacked the woman based on her religion implying her failure to speak before millions was due to a defect of her faith. Can you see how this fails on many levels to address the criticism of the Khan family?
Now, a group of gold star vets have come out demanding an apology from Trump, which you can read here: http://www.votevets.org/press/gold-star-letter
@unknown,
You quote Meghan McCain as if she has any weight with conservatives? Meghan McCain?
Next, you're going to send us a link from that historically conservative publication called The Village Voice, right?
McCain's statement to the Khans.
"The Republican Party I know and love is the party of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan....."
What happened?
PBandJ_LeDouanier:
A rogue dictator was brought to trial. The nation needed honest brokers to negotiate between the diverse factions. There were three questions. One, should we have responded to Iraq's invasion of a sovereign nation. Two, should Clinton have settled the repeated violations of the ceasefire agreement. Three, what were the consequences of Obama's premature withdrawal of the honest brokers.
And now back to Obama and Clinton's progressive wars, opportunistic regimes changes, refugee crises, and generally anti-native policies.
Unknown: "Hombre, How stupid are you? You know that people of all faiths are put on a GOVERNMENT Registry, based on what religion they belong to? Are you insane?"
Regardless of what I know, your previous post claimed such a registry was unconstitutional. Now you say one already exists.
Whatever works in the moment, right, Hillary? Lol.
There is this.
"According to a new report Khizr Khan, the angry Muslim father of a US soldier killed in Iraq, who spoke at the DNC last week is connected to the Islamic terrorist organization – The Muslim Brotherhood.
Khan wrote articles regarding OPEC – the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries – (OPEC) and Sharia Law. The members of OPEC are primarily Muslim countries. In one of Khan’s writings he shows his appreciation for an icon of the Muslim Brotherhood, Said Ramadan. Ramandan is a known as a Muslim Brotherhood agent and was the son-in-law of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Muslim Brotherhood is known as the parent to all terrorist groups, including ISIS.
Khan currently runs a law office in New York City that specializes in immigration services. Another website tells us that Khan used to work for Hogan & Hartson and Lovells, which has ties to the Clinton Foundation"
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/dnc-angry-muslim-father-trump-basher-khizr-khan-reportedly-ties-muslim-brotherhood-terrorist-organization/
The families of 11 service members who died fighting for the U.S. demanded an apology from Donald Trump on Monday, accusing him of "cheapening the sacrifice made by those we lost."
""When you question a mother's pain, by implying that her religion, not her grief, kept her from addressing an arena of people, you are attacking us," the letter added. "When you say your job building buildings is akin to our sacrifice, you are attacking our sacrifice.""
"Regardless of what I know, your previous post claimed such a registry was unconstitutional. Now you say one already exists."
Excuse me, just where have I suggested that such a Registry already exists? Do you also have dyslexia as well as being insane? It's amazing how people on the right make their own truth.
YH,
I do think it was a lack of Presidential leadership for W to respond to the warning by telling the briefer that they'd covered their ass.
Is it too much to ask for W to have reacted, followed up, to at least make some sort of effort other than making a prissy comment? If the warning had something to do w/ Iraq, W would have been all over it, as O'Neil found out.
Someone may have said it above, but was Stephanopoulos coached by the DNC as to what questions to ask Trump? My guess is that he was. He is nothing more than a shill for the D party.
While I'm sympathetic to the Muslim father's loss of his son, I don't think that gives the Worthy Oriental Gentleman the right to come on stage waving a copy of the US Constitution and claiming some special privilege.
I'm a proud mongrel American--my ancestors initially iimigrated to this country in 1610 (yes the folks who came to Virginia beat the Pilgrims to Plymouth Rock by some ten years time). More came later, but by and large all of my family's ancestors were in this country by 1695. And my various American ancestors wandered all over this country and fought and died in the American Revolution and on both sides of the Civil War. Unlike Khizr Khan my brother and I both served in the US military (although we didn't serve in combat as his son did).
But I don't think that gives me any particular cachet to go up on stage in a political convention and be a stooge for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.
Let's just say that my family has paid more dues for this country than Khizr Khan's family--and this Johnny Come Lately is being presumptuous in the extreme.
I think the whole Khan thing smells like rotten fish.
I wish he would go back to the hole he crawled out of and leave us alone.
His son died because he invaded a foreign country in an undeclared war. We nuked a country for doing that shit to us.
Like the Japanese invaders, he deserved to die. If not in battle, be hung at the war crimes trial.
"I think the whole Khan thing smells like rotten fish.
I wish he would go back to the hole he crawled out of and leave us alone."
I wish Trump would go back into the hole he crawled out of and leave America alone.
@PB&J,
I do think it was a lack of Presidential leadership for W to respond to the warning by telling the briefer that they'd covered their ass.
If you have a source that states that W. had actionable intelligence about 9/11 & failed to act on it, post the source. I've seen no responsible sources make that claim.
YH,
If a briefer tells you that AQ has the American homeland in the cross hairs w/ a finger on the trigger, I'd say that that intelligence deserves more action than sending the briefer on their way and only telling them that they've covered their ass.
So yes, that intelligence briefing was more than enough to illicit action rather than snark from the POTUS.
Stephanopoulos needled him: "Those are sacrifices?"
Unasked question: What has Hillary sacrificed?
What did the dead soldier's father sacrifice? You cannot sacrifice the life of another adult. Hell, Hillary sacrificed his son as much as he did.
What so many here seem to miss in this whole thing between the Khan's and Trump is the fact that despite most American Muslims being good loyal decent patriotic Americans, some of which who have made the ultimate sacrifice of losing heir son, they are insulted and demeaned by Trump and other Islamaphobes daily.
The victims in San Bernadino couldn't be reached for comment.
Nor the victims at Fort Hood.
I'll sacrifice a good soldier to keep terrorists out. The cost/benefit ratio for Islamic immigrants is pretty badly out of whack.
At some point this has to stop: his words are his words, and while we may tell ourselves, Oh, he won't really deport all this people; or Oh, he won't really ban Muslims, or coddle Russia, or abandon NATO, etc - if can't be responsible enough to craft and modulate his message, then we have to quit interpreting that message in a positive light just because it eases our consciences in the event we actually stoop to voting for him.
Pointing out that NATO is hardly a mutually beneficial group now is hardly stupid. If we're attacked, what --- precisely --- is NATO going to do? Diddly and squat.
Should America have a President that can be understood clearly or one that sounds so disjointed and ignorant that he must be translated daily?
You're holding up Hillary as being "clearly understood"? The Clintons are the most guilty people of using parsing of phrases to make them utterly meaningless. Hillary STILL claims she was honest in discussing her emails, when she was anything but.
Note: She couldn't be bothered to sacrifice her privacy --- which she had no right to even claim with her job --- to protect the country.
rhhardin: Of course an instance of an honorable Muslim doesn't prove it's not a severely losing proposition to let them into the country, which it seems to be.
Precisely the point. Is allowing significant Muslim immigration into Western nations a net benefit to those nations? (Or even a wash?)
The burden of proof ought to be on the Muslim-immigration enthusiasts to disprove what all empirical evidence thus far indicates - that it's a really bad idea.
The sacrifice of Mr. Khan's son isn't a proof, it's a data point among a thousand other facts.
Roy Lofquist: By my count this is the 47th time Trump has "committed political suicide".
Yeah, along with the endless "firestorms" and "outrages" that he's supposed to be igniting every other day among a heretofore favorably-inclined electorate which is no doubt finally going to been awakened into recognizing the glory that is Hillary Clinton.
I assume that the demographic comprising people who believe that foreigners have a "constitutional right" to migrate to the United States, and are persuaded by sob-stories rather than sober analysis of things as they are, would never in a million years vote for Trump, anyway. But watching the MSM desperately flog nothing-burgers day after day, month after month (with breathless headlines adhering to the "retarded millenial" style guide), at least makes for an entertaining newsfeed every morning.
@PB&J,
f a briefer tells you that AQ has the American homeland in the cross hairs w/ a finger on the trigger, I'd say that that intelligence deserves more action than sending the briefer on their way and only telling them that they've covered their ass.
The American homeland is a mighty big place. To say the Homeland is targeted is not to say a group of terrorists is going to attack such & such target on such & such a day. That's actionable intelligence.
I can't change your mind about W, but my point stands -- there was no actionable intelligence & you haven't provided any. I'm done with this topic.
The issue in this context is class diversity. The Left thinks that people should be judged in class diversity schemes including: race, sex, skin color, etc. Their principles are infamously selective. The Right thinks that people should be judged as individuals based on the "content of their character", and that classes can only be legitimately constructed based on commonly held principles (e.g. religious/moral philosophy, ideology) or uniform behavior.
I remember how big a deal it was back in 2008 to compare the personal sacrifice (for country) of candidate McCain with the personal sacrifice of candidate Obama.
Yes sir, no bias here.
In Hil/Bill's (and Palin's, Malkin's to a far lesser degree) world of commanding ridiculous sums for speechifyin', the term is "opportunity costs". Lots of people,if having the option, will take "early retirement" if it allows them to live reasonably comfortably without dealing with work. So you can make a valid case for work as a sacrifice of our limited time here..why it's called work.
But that's no comparison to giving your life in the military.
I heard that general on the radio. I imagined him white knuckling the podium [Altparse correction].."lectern"..and wanting very bigly to demand the viewing audience "Drop and give us Hillary!"
It's high time. She wants it.
It is unconstitutional to discriminate against people based on their religion.
With immigration, it very much is not. We can say "No Muslims can immigrate her" and there is no law anywhere in existence to stop it.
To suggest putting American Muslims on some sort of Registry is clearly unconstitutional.
But to do so to limit gun rights is a demanded piece of legislation by Democrats. I guess registries are wrong now. Hard to keep up with the Democrat position du jour.
Really, because we are already doing it. No-fly and terror watch lists, ever heard of them?
Hell, Dems wanted to expand those to limit the Constitutional rights of Americans just recently. Do the Dems NOW want to pretend that "sit in" bullshit never happened?
American Muslims are not indiscriminately being put on no fly lists and terror watch lists, got proof?
It's not JUST Muslims, no. John Lewis was put on the list as well.
Just love how the Trumpkins defend the billionaire draft dodger.
The military service of the Clintons is legendary.
Also, I'm not sure why this is getting any traction. Sheehan's been ignored since Obama became president, and the mother that spoke at Trump's convention was so effectively ignored I don't even know her name.
Politico reporters wanted to beat her to death. Then whined when people called them on that.
Way back in the primaries it was suggested that DJT appealed to folks who were into following authoritarians.
Hillary projection is mighty.
Okay, now that even most cons are of the opinion that the Iraq war based on misjudgments it's easy to forget that there are still holdouts singing the praises of this failed exercise in nation building. Carry on.
They support Hillary in this election. Just like the people who hate the corrosive impact of money on elections tend to be for the woman spending hundreds of millions more than Trump has to date.
"The burden of proof ought to be on the Muslim-immigration enthusiasts to disprove what all empirical evidence thus far indicates - that it's a really bad idea."
Precisely! Look at Merkels current troubles now. This is what hrc wants more of.
Growth is flat, deficits increasing with dire projections going forward. Lets just spend more.
Crazy
f a briefer tells you that AQ has the American homeland in the cross hairs w/ a finger on the trigger, I'd say that that intelligence deserves more action than sending the briefer on their way and only telling them that they've covered their ass.
And those ACTIONS would be what? ACTIONABLE intel is useful. "Al Qaeda wishes to attack the US" is, mind you, STILL intel to this day.
You could argue that they were scoping out federal buildings in NYC and none were hit, so they did all of the intel said was going to happen.
Increased scrutiny of likely AQ members at airports? There's protests about that now, after the attack already happened. Ban them from flight schools? Shut down air travel, nationally, forever? What are the ACTIONS possible from the intel?
The anti-Trump faction again misses the forest for the trees- the electorate distrusts the media more than any time in history. Consider this- Clinton faction is doubling down on the argument that Islam has nothing at all to do terrorism- that it is a religion of peace. That is the entire point of the Khizr Khan gambit- to put a face on that ideal, and to defend that ideal one has to double down again.
It is hard, I suppose, to consider how this might sound to someone who isn't already firmly in Clinton's camp on this issue- the argument is that it is wrong, evidence of a black soul, to apply extra strict criteria to Islamic immigrants and refugees because of the death of Khan's son in a war. It is a non sequitur and can only be seen as such by people who are worried about terrorist acts by Islamic radicals. Do Democrats really think it is going to cost Trump for being a bit cold-hearted on this particular issue? I don't think this plays politically the way a lot of Clinton supporters and NeverTrump supporters think.
Khan didn't sacrifice anything either. His son did and he has no right to claim that for his own.
It is actually very telling that Mr. Khan is making these assertions and Mrs. Khan, who actually gave birth to the boy, is relegated to the background. Is she pleased that her dead son is being exploited by her husband?
Moreover, understand that Mr. Khan has business and financial relationships with the Clintons AND Trump never mentioned this kid until Mr. Khan brought it up, so this isn't an angry father, but someone deliberately exploiting his dead son for purely political reasons. Those defending Khan are as vile as he is.
" He's a good-timing guy, and life is good in his world right now.."
Save for, perhaps, his signature piece of "comprehensive" legislation.
Suskinds' "Confidence Men" laid that out pretty well.
PB&J,
I have it on very good evidence that somebody out there is determined to murder you.
You would be wise to take note and respond appropriately.
Who was the poster here who was aghast at the RNC having the Benghazi victim's mom on stage?
Any comment?
When they means test Social Security, which they will, all of you suckers who sacrificed leisure time to work harder, and sacrificed momentary pleasure to put money by for retirement, are going to be shown to be fools. Basically means testing Social Security will be one more wealth transfer from those who believe in working to those who don't.
Maybe Clinton feels guilty?
This would actually be a point in her favor.
I am human. I make mistakes. This is what I have learned and would change.
Tim,
Same goes for those who alternated working years for college years or worked heavy hours while in college to get through without a mountain of debt.
Those that went into trades or worked their way up in retail or service sector get to watch that wealth transfer as well.
(If Dems get their dream)
The eminent Khizer Khan has long been running a legal scam under a law passed by Saudi's paid politicians in Congress that accepts wealthy Saudis who invest in some shell company in America that pretends to employ people to purchase in exchange an automatic immigration privilege. Khan's original employer in this scam was a law firm working for Clinton, Inc.
The dead son became a casualty of Muslim murderer's suicide attack 12 years ago.
Trump is supposedly attacking Khan because 12 months ago Trump called for a temporary stop of Muslim Immigration of millions of refugees from dangerous battle zones in and around Syria until Congress figures out what is going on. He means the Jihadist communities being set up and populated here by Saudi paid Jihadist recruiters using new Mosques paid for by Saudi Cash.
Making insulting Gold Star Mothers a pretense issue for 24/7 of Hate Trump Broadcasts on cable and network TV is so phony that it makes one laugh....oops we cannot laugh...no, we never we must never laugh when a Gold Star Mother is listening.
Everyone here who calls BS on Khan is correct. Everyone here who thinks Trump has a point in limiting Muslim entry is also correct. Everyone here who thinks the MSM are just working hard to mobilize anti-Trump sentiment is also correct. But it is also beside the point. Trump has the Achilles/tradguy vote wrapped up; the question is who else will move his way. The Dems and MSM are trying to turn this into a no-decent-person-would-vote-for-Trump election. It's the dynamic of all populist revolts: the left and "respectable" center-right gang up agains the upstart challenger -- see France, Austria, etc. We already see it in GOPe teeth-gnashing. Now the good-Muslim-with-dead-soldier is framed as fighting the good fight against the evil "sacrificing" NY tycoon. By responding the way he has, Trump is playing defense in their game. Which he cannot win.
It's Kabuki theater with this guy waving around a tattered copy of the constitution. So embarrassing that nothing in the constitution has anything to do with what he says. And in the end Donald Trump ends up dominating the news cycles about the DNC convention. I don't know why they continue to bait him, except to distract from their own candidate.
In the meantime, I know the RNC was hoping to bait Hillary with Benghazi mom. But Hillary wouldn't take the bait, because she was afraid to go there.
Hillary has sacrificed the Rule of Law in favor of her own political ambitions.
"But it is also beside the point. Trump has the Achilles/tradguy vote wrapped up; the question is who else will move his way. The Dems and MSM are trying to turn this into a no-decent-person-would-vote-for-Trump election. It's the dynamic of all populist revolts: the left and "respectable" center-right gang up agains the upstart challenger -- see France, Austria, etc. We already see it in GOPe teeth-gnashing. Now the good-Muslim-with-dead-soldier is framed as fighting the good fight against the evil "sacrificing" NY tycoon. By responding the way he has, Trump is playing defense in their game. Which he cannot win."
And that's the rub. Making someone like Achilles or TradGuy more eager to vote for Trump than ever before has limited benefit--they can only vote once, after all. And those guys were in Trump's corner for a while now.
If he's going to beat Hillary, there are a few narrow routes to do it--by keeping the focus on Hillary so the election is a referendum on her, or by making Trump and his policies (to the extent he has any--you could at least say he is for restriction of Muslims from this country and investigating the ones already here, plus restricting immigration generally) more palatable to those "on the fence" voters who right now are wary of voting for a crazy bigot but are also wary of voting for an incompetent crook.
And choosing this ground to fight on--fighting for Pete's sake with the Khans and not his actual opponent!--does nothing for those goals. Hell, the Khan's speech wasn't even in a prime (post 10 PM EDT) slot, and could have been forgotten so people could get back to the horse race. If you're going to elevate it by talking about it at all, make a coherent case to put Hillary on the defensive for exploiting them after supporting the war that got their son killed! THAT would be "fighting back" effectively.
He's sticking with his pattern. Attention is back on him, and not good attention. He'd better hope the third party candidates have a surge and pull Hillary below Trump's 45% ceiling.
My takeaway is, "If you love Muslims, vote the Democratic Ticket".
Doesn't sound like a winner to me.
Muslim atrocities seem to have slowed down or, more likely, are off the front page. Hmm, if Russia is for Trump, is Islamofascism for H? (Nonsense. Just ask Huma!)
Sebastian: Now the good-Muslim-with-dead-soldier is framed as fighting the good fight against the evil "sacrificing" NY tycoon. By responding the way he has, Trump is playing defense in their game. Which he cannot win.
Oh, I agree, I thought his response was lame. (But I've thought that about a lot of his responses.) Don't know who's left to peel off with an even more jacked-up "no decent person would vote for Trump" offensive, though. Is there really a significant number of people out there who would consider voting for Trump, but who are still, at this point, susceptible to having their "well I never" response triggered?
Honest question; I sure don't know. I would have thought the "well I never meanie Hitler bigot" campaign would have reached its saturation point by now, but perhaps there's still a sizable number of probable voters out there who are just tuning in.
Danny K wrote -
"In the meantime, I know the RNC was hoping to bait Hillary with Benghazi mom. But Hillary wouldn't take the bait, because she was afraid to go there."
She didn't have to take the bait because the MSM was too busy chiding the RNC to get around to asking her for a reaction. As long as the megaphone poins in only one direction, it's all tree falls in a forest with no one around territory.
This is why all the Trump coulda shoulda said advice offered by well meaning commenters is irrelevant, if not in fact useless. The offered statements sound like "killer" replies but ignore that any of them can and will be spun negatively either by selective quoting, misrepresentative paraphrasing, or simply ignoring them. I once asked a commenter I otherwise respect for what someone "should" have said. He complied and I "spun" his killer reply right back at him as to what the MSM would do with it. His reply was a weak no one would believe the spin. In his defense, that was before "binders full of women" had been spun into an effective attack on Romney.
When those holding the megaphone are against you, it would appear that the only counter is to have a louder megaphone of your own, and keep both the MSM and your formal opposition off balance.
So Hillary calls a grieving mom a liar and nothing. In fact, the press attacked the mom. Cannot understand why people hate the press.
"This is why all the Trump coulda shoulda said advice offered by well meaning commenters is irrelevant, if not in fact useless. The offered statements sound like "killer" replies but ignore that any of them can and will be spun negatively either by selective quoting, misrepresentative paraphrasing, or simply ignoring them."
Let's look a little closer at that, because that's often used to explain away what Trump does (i.e., no matter what the media will spin it against you so it doesn't matter what you say). There's really only so much the media can do with some statements (or lack of statements), particularly considering the media isn't just three channels and no Internet these days. If Trump had respectfully disagreed with the Khans without going after the guy's wife with no basis (and this from a guy who apparently loses it when it comes to his own wife, except of course when his own staff gives her plagiarized speech, then he's all forgiveness), and the media tried to take his words out of context or headlined it "Trump goes after grieving parents!" anyone could have seen through it--particularly the persuadable voters (which in current polls looks like a high 20%). The right wing media would have had a field day, rather than half of them wondering what is wrong with this guy and the other half offering lame defenses like Althouse's.
You also suggest Trump staying silent--and you know what? That wouldn't have been a bad idea either. Khan would have had his 15 minutes, and with no response from Trump that would have been that. Then, back to his attacks on Hillary and other themes of his campaign.
Opposing media bias exists, but it isn't the all-powerful thing conservatives seem to think it is, and it certainly is not an excuse for hand-feeding your enemies plenty of ammunition in the campaign. If nothing else, this took the campaign off-message, and with less than 100 days of campaigning left, you don't need to waste even a day.
"So Hillary calls a grieving mom a liar and nothing. In fact, the press attacked the mom. Cannot understand why people hate the press."
Couldn't Trump have found time to hammer her on that and make more of an issue out of it, instead of reiterating the Cruz's dad conspiracy theory, suggest the Russians interfere in our elections, and give the Khan story an extra week of life?
it's not about grief, it's about money,
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/khan-specializes-in-visa-programs-accused-of-selling-u.s.-citizenship/article/2598279
Brando,
I'm not defending Trump. Repeat. I'm not defending Trump. I'm simply observing, much to my surprise, that his punching back twice as hard regardless of coherence, seems to be thrice more effective for an "R" than playing nice and appealing to the independent voters' sense of reason and fair play. It's nuts, but we've seen what nice and reason gets you. Over the last 25 years it gets you at best a 700 vote surplus in Florida unless America has a war on terror to wage and an embarrassingly weak opponent in 2004. Then it gets you a nail biter in Ohio.
Brando, you have a belief that there is a block of independents out there sufficiently large to be swayed by reasonable statements from "R's" to swing a national election. If there was, we'd be seeing President Romney running for his second term. And before anyone focuses on Romney's faults as a candidate, I would simply ask why this hypothesized block of intelligent reasonable independents failed go see the unfairness directed against this good man, but was supposed to be swayed by one of more "killer" replies.
CWJ: 'This is why all the Trump coulda shoulda said advice offered by well meaning commenters is irrelevant, if not in fact useless. The offered statements sound like "killer" replies but ignore that any of them can and will be spun negatively....'
The print mediaswine can, and do, spin ongoingly. It is very difficult to do that with video if the answers are prepared, short and to the point. It is Trump's rambling ad libs the provide ammunition.
I suppose we offer advice out of frustration or in the hope that the sheer weight of it on many sites will somehow get thru to his campaign.
And before anyone focuses on Romney's faults as a candidate, I would simply ask why this hypothesized block of intelligent reasonable independents failed go see the unfairness directed against this good man, but was supposed to be swayed by one of more "killer" replies.
Romney is, legitimately, the first time I was thoroughly bummed that a guy lost an election. He was the best choice we've ever had for President and they still sided with jug-eared Jesus.
So losing your son to war is equivalent to working late at the office.
I'm beginning to see what generation the rot starts at.
hombre,
See my reply to Brando immediately above.
I respect both you and Brando plus the many others wishing Trump were more reasoned and circumspect in his conduct and responses. However, I disagree with your belief that video is somehow less susceptible to spin than print. As we saw with Planned Parenthood, when the video is "killer," they simply don't show the video and televise a talking head quoting someone else saying the video was edited.
So it comes down to "eyeballs." How many voters were exposed to the unmediated truth versus the spin. That PP is still federally funded suggests the answer to me.
Blogger Lilac Haze said..."So losing your son to war is equivalent to working late at the office. I'm beginning to see what generation the rot starts at." 8/1/16, 4:00 PM
No. The former is a tragedy, not a sacrifice. The latter is a sacrifice, not a tragedy.
It does require an advanced kind of stupidity to suppose Captain Khan's death in a war Hillary voted for has something to do with Trump.
Who was the poster here who was aghast at the RNC having the Benghazi victim's mom on stage?
Any comment?
Yes, sure, I'll bite.
Both are cynical ploys -- sending out an unassailable speaker with "absolute moral authority" to sandbag one's opponent, the ways the D's did with Cindy Sheehan back in the day until she was of no more use to them (i.e., ran against Nancy Pelosi in a primary).
Difference being, Sean Smith's death actually happened on Mrs. Clinton's watch, literally as she watched the assault over a drone feed and did nothing. Then lied over his coffin to his family afterward.
Other than those not a sliver of daylight between them.
That's actually worth repeating: It does require an advanced kind of stupidity to suppose Captain Khan's death in a war Hillary voted for has something to do with Trump.
Obama confirmed that the mediaswine are partisan hoes and Democrats are largely gullible nimrods. Hillary is taking it to new levels.
It does require an advanced kind of stupidity to suppose Captain Khan's death in a war Hillary voted for has something to do with Trump
... to suppose that individual performance is exemplary of a philosophy. Principles precede the individual, but the individual does not speak for the principles. Khan's testimony is anecdotal evidence of his son's convictions and nothing more.
Pro-choice notwithstanding, which is a religious/moral philosophy pulled from the twilight zone.
Meanwhile, progressive wars, opportunistic regimes changes, mass exodus (e.g. refugee crises), anti-native policies, progressive debt, class diversity schemes, abortion rites, etc.
GWB showed how it's done:
" Now contrast Trump's view with President George W. Bush, who was asked about Cindy Sheehan, the mother of Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, who was killed the same year in Iraq as Capt. Khan. As Sheehan held an anti-war vigil outside Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, in 2005, he told reporters:
"I sympathize with Mrs. Sheehan. She feels strongly about her position, and she has every right in the world to say what she believes. This is America. She has the right to her position. And I thought long and hard about her position — I've heard her position from others, which is 'get out of Iraq now.' And it would be a mistake for the security of this country and the ability to lay the foundations for peace in the long run if we were to do so."
---------------------------------
While visiting a dying soldier at Walter Reed that year, Bush was even berated by a devastated mother, as his press secretary, Dana Perino, recounted. He tried to offer comfort, but eventually, he just stood there and took it.
Bush knew that, at the end of the day, it was ultimately his fault that that mother's son was in a hospital bed. Though he believed that the Iraq War was just, his decision to invade in 2003 was one that was his alone.
"I don't blame her a bit," he told Perino.
He had the dignity to let a grieving family vent. Why can't Trump? "
Apparently like your idol Teh Donald, you just don't get it.
Love,
A (recent) ex-Republican
He had the dignity to let a grieving family vent. Why can't Trump? "
Uhhhm, because the mother was venting privately & not at the national convention of the opposition party?
One does not vent & grieve on national TV as a featured speaker in the middle of a political event. One comes with an agenda & an ax to grind.
The Khan's have their right to free speech & assembly as do we all, but, after the smoke clears, Donald Trump had nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with their son's death.
Hillary kinda did.
@beducated: Paid troll joins mediaswine in partisan promulgation of non sequiturs forwarded by a handful of people pretending to represent larger groups that are likely disgusted by the politicization of once Nobel causes.
and they still had cindi sheehan basically stalk him at the crawford ranch for four years, same with the jersey girls, only their opinions mattered about terrorism,
Oh, & let's not kid ourselves about the Khans.
If you're a Muslim from Pakistan, & are in Saudi Arabia, not as some contract worker peon, but as a Muslim scholar like Khan was, you're a Salafist nutjob. The Saudis don't go around funding Islamic liberals, okay? They only fund their own special brand of Muslim nutjobbery.
Every Muslim knows this, & every Muslim who wants to avoid Salafist extremism steers clear of Saudi money & influence, which is no easy task.
Sorry, Trump lost this battle. End of story. He is just waaaaay to thin skinned. He needs to learn to toughen up, learn to take the high road or he needs to go home. Anyone has a right to say ANYTHING they will about him. And they will. That is the right of every American. Look at all the stuff said about Obama or Bush or Clinton or Reagan. Did they go into meltdown or freak out because of it? Nope. Hopefully the voters understand a vote for Trump is a losing proposition.
Does this mean that there is a renewed respect for people serving in the military, the police, the border guard?
As the party of war for more than a century, of anti-native policies for several decades, and of abortion rites during the same period, the Democrats have a lot of explaining to do.
Will the Twilighters apologize for every human life lost in abortion chambers for causes of wealth, pleasure, leisure, and narcissistic indulgence?
Will the Democrats apologize for every human life cannibalized and harvested in Planned Parenthood offices?
Will Obama apologize to Mr. Khan and other parents of corpse-men for opportunistically destroying the significance of their sons' deaths?
Will Obama and Clinton apologize to Europeans, Americans et al for the lives lost during their social justice adventurism and the subsequent global humanitarian disasters?
I'm coming around to the Khan and Merk..., er, Hillary way of thinking. Why not give military age, male, Middle East refugees ready access to our country - provided they are Muslim, of course?
Where's the harm in that? Right?
I have asked for a single positive reason to vote for Clinton and have not received a single unalloyed positive reason.
And yet Democrats and Leftists will vote in great numbers for her.
It is almost as if only power matters to Democrats and Leftists.
Brando said...
"...If nothing else, this took the campaign off-message, and with less than 100 days of campaigning left, you don't need to waste even a day."
Brando, concern-trolling works better if you haven't already made several open outright attacks on the object of your supposed concern. You want Hillary Clinton to be the next President of the United States. We understand that. You have made it clear. I won't say it's alright, but it's a matter of record, so it's a bit late to play the impartial analyst. You and Stephie.
Birkel:
Pro-Choice. Think of the class diversity; the selective exclusion; the progressive wars; the sacrificial babies... A world without class defined by classes.
They serve first class opiates sufficient to suppress any cognitive dissonance that may intrude upon your enjoyment of wealth, pleasure, leisure, and narcissistic indulgence.
Praise the gods in the twilight zone and their liberal judges. Amen.
Need another reason: transgressive behaviors. It's what's next. It has to be, because: "=".
Of all the detestable things about baby boomers, their chicken hawkishness has to be the worst. Bone spurs, college deferments, and the national guard kept them out of Vietnam, but then they became warriors in business by reading Sun Tzu. Now the people who heard the call to duty are losers, cheaters, or worse. Can you all just die off before November and save us from the dumpster fire that is Donald Trump?
"Brando, concern-trolling works better if you haven't already made several open outright attacks on the object of your supposed concern. You want Hillary Clinton to be the next President of the United States. We understand that. You have made it clear. I won't say it's alright, but it's a matter of record, so it's a bit late to play the impartial analyst. You and Stephie."
Nice try, Jupiter, but I never supported Hillary. I am disgusted with both candidates and favor neither, which if anything gives me far greater impartiality than the Trump fans here (of which I presume you are one). But by all means keep defending everything the man does, so that if he gets beat this November you can truly believe the system must be rigged against him. Enjoy your cocoon.
"I'm not defending Trump. Repeat. I'm not defending Trump. I'm simply observing, much to my surprise, that his punching back twice as hard regardless of coherence, seems to be thrice more effective for an "R" than playing nice and appealing to the independent voters' sense of reason and fair play. It's nuts, but we've seen what nice and reason gets you. Over the last 25 years it gets you at best a 700 vote surplus in Florida unless America has a war on terror to wage and an embarrassingly weak opponent in 2004. Then it gets you a nail biter in Ohio."
I think we're analyzing the GOP failures at recent presidential elections differently--you (and many others) see it due to fecklessness by candidates trying too hard to be "nice" and not hitting back. I see it more as not hitting back effectively, among other things (e.g., the electoral wall, a GOP coalition that is far less able to band together than the Dem coalition, and economic conditions in election years that have been poor for GOP candidates). If someone accuses you of laziness, and you point out that you work harder than anyone else does and get better results, that's hitting back effectively. If someone accuses you of laziness and you tell them their wife is ugly, that's nonsense.
As for what brought down Romney in 2012, let me first note that considering (a) the economy was improving and far better than it was looking in 2008 (b) the incumbent had his party united behind him and (c) Romney spent up til spring 2012 fighting off attacks on his business record from wonderful GOP loyalists like Newt, the fact that he got 47% of the vote is impressive. He was also running against the Dems' best campaigner with a solid campaign operation. Maybe he could have done better by hitting Obama back with a more coherent defense of entrepreneurism and his own record. Should he have gone the Trump route, and picked up the "birther" charge? Would that have gotten him over the hump? We can't know for sure, but I just don't see the logic in it.
As for the "independents" I think a more accurate description is the "soft middle". These aren't true fence sitters, as they generally lean one way or another, but they have their reservations about each side, and maybe favor Trump but are on the verge of staying home, voting third party, or switching to Clinton (and vice versa). That's where the election will be decided--not with the sorts who today are cheering Trump's attack on two private citizens (rather than, maybe, his opponent?) or who would be voting for Clinton even if she was in a jail cell.
And I appreciate your frustration with recent GOP presidential losses--what with the gains downballot over the decade and the Dems picking their weakest candidate in a generation, it seems the GOP is due. The Candy Crowley incident still smarts so it's understandable we all want a fighter. We're just differing on what makes an effective fighter, vs. a flailing spazz which the GOP seems to have nominated this year.
Ohgoodlord. Paid troll? ROFLMAO.
And here I thought Trump supporters had no sense of humor.
@YoungHegelian - True for the story about the mom in the hospital, but not so much for Sheehan. Yet Bush maintained his equanimity.
It's sort of important for a world leader.
What an idea, giving people credit for the things they don't say. If Trump had handled this properly at the beginning, it wouldn't have developed into the media circus it has. The Khan speech was a setup and no doubt the Clinton people couldn't be more thrilled with the result. I can hear the witch cackling away now.
Trump supporters are fond of saying that he "lives in (fill in the blank's) head rent-free." Well, I think it should be rather easy to live in The Donald's head rent-free. He's that predictable. If the Clintonistas are the least bit clever, we will see lots more of this.
Now that we're in the general campaign, Trump needs to expand his support beyond the Trumpsters who don't have sufficient numbers to elect him themselves. If he's going to continue to make unforced error after unforced error, he won't stand a chance. He, as well as his campaign, needs to get smart and they need to do it yesterday.
GWB showed how it's done:
I respected Bush for his personality --- but doing that did him and the GOP no favors. His refusal to defend himself simply made the entire party complicit in all problems.
He was a terrific man. One of the more noble guys we've had. He was a poor President.
Brando, concern-trolling works better if you haven't already made several open outright attacks on the object of your supposed concern. You want Hillary Clinton to be the next President of the United States.
As somebody who has dealt with Brando for a while, nothing is close to that. I'd even wager Brando would be more likely to vote for Trump than Clinton. Both candidates suck. Noting that is simple reality. Brando has been no kinder to Clinton than to Trump.
I also am more likely to vote for Trump than Clinton, but I think he is already expecting to lose.
Look at all the stuff said about Obama or Bush or Clinton or Reagan. Did they go into meltdown or freak out because of it? Nope.
Hillary has called Smith's mom a liar for years.
Now the people who heard the call to duty are losers, cheaters, or worse. Can you all just die off before November and save us from the dumpster fire that is Donald Trump?
Do you wish to compare Trump's military service and that of the Clinton's? Neither come out well in that comparison.
And I appreciate your frustration with recent GOP presidential losses--what with the gains downballot over the decade and the Dems picking their weakest candidate in a generation, it seems the GOP is due. The Candy Crowley incident still smarts so it's understandable we all want a fighter. We're just differing on what makes an effective fighter, vs. a flailing spazz which the GOP seems to have nominated this year.
People may hate him, but Cruz would've been far better at attacking Hillary's weaknesses than Trump has been. Significantly better. And he has a track record of buying what he is saying.
People may hate him, but Cruz would've been far better at attacking Hillary's weaknesses than Trump has been. Significantly better.
Then let him do so! What, is he busy cleaning his Mannlicher-Carcano? I have no sympathy for his butt hurt. None. Let him do his part to save the nation.
Then let him do so! What, is he busy cleaning his Mannlicher-Carcano? I have no sympathy for his butt hurt. None. Let him do his part to save the nation.
Why should he?
He spelled out a compelling argument against her.
Unless he says "And I think you should vote for Trump", Trump fans will boo him mercilessly.
What would be the point?
ALSO, he cannot want this more than Trump does.
"People may hate him, but Cruz would've been far better at attacking Hillary's weaknesses than Trump has been. Significantly better. And he has a track record of buying what he is saying."
I think that's true--whatever people think of Cruz, he has been sharp and can make solid arguments, and be very disciplined. I can't think of one thing he did in the campaign that was careless (even his "non-endorsement" of Trump made sense--endorsing the guy after he smeared Ms. Cruz would make it hard for anyone to respect him later. He sort of had to do that).
And for all this talk of Trump being a "fighter" he seems to be firing wildly. Does it benefit him to have his GOP supporters constantly disavowing his statements, rather than repeating them? Does it benefit him at all to take attention away from Hillary each time she's under the gun? It's hardly asking too much to expect a GOP nominee to put an opponent as weak as Clinton under constant directed fire.
Now he's saying the election will be rigged. That's not the sort of thing you say when you expect to win.
"People may hate him, but Cruz would've been far better at attacking Hillary's weaknesses than Trump has been. Significantly better. And he has a track record of buying what he is saying."
Absolute bullshit.
Cruz had a chance and didn't do it, hence pretty concrete evidence that he sucks at it. Hell, Cruz isn't even good at talking up Cruz.
(Seriously, how would anyone make such an obviously false claim?)
"Sorry, Trump lost this battle. End of story. He is just waaaaay to thin skinned."
Only amongst the chattering classes who are desperate to pin any negatives on Trump while ignoring that Clinton is nothing but negatives. One terribly perverse aspect of this is that it's arguing that we need another spineless wimp as president. Unfortunately, this is a trend I've seen in my line of work--you are punished for speaking in imperative sentences and standing up for yourself.
Same thing here; a horrible man lashes out at Trump and he hits back. The spineless wonders of the world wring their hands. The rest of us applaud him and only wish he'd gone further (and exposed Khan's hypocrisy, double-dealing and connections with Islamic fundamentalism.)
Cruz had a chance and didn't do it, hence pretty concrete evidence that he sucks at it. Hell, Cruz isn't even good at talking up Cruz.
Cruz's RNC speech was a more thorough dissection of how God awful Hillary is than anything Trump was thrashed out to date. If you listen to the speech and then assume that "vote your conscience" means "vote Hillary", then you do not know what you're talking about.
Cruz cannot make Trump want to win this, and I have serious doubts about Trump's desire to win. He's already pulling the "loser's limp" of politics.
Will Hillary rig the election? Fuck yeah she will. Whining about rigging it is what losers do. Demanding more stringent voter verification laws is what somebody who wants to win does.
Post a Comment