RUCKER: I have to ask you because this has been the story now for four days: the Khan family. I’ve seen the statements you’ve put out and what you had to say last night on Fox News. First of all, does it bother you that they continue to do interviews and sort of drive the —Unfair media — said 3 times. That's exactly what he wants to say.
TRUMP: Just unfair media. Just the unfair media. It’s purely and simply the unfair media.
RUCKER: What do you mean by that?Again: repetition. These are clear statements, said twice. He knows what he wants to say. He was attacked, and when attacked he defends himself.
TRUMP: They want the story to stay alive as long as possible.
RUCKER: Do you think they’re somehow trying to, the Khan family, are they on TV to try to help Hillary?
TRUMP: People have to form their own opinion. I’ve said everything I can say about it. I was viciously attacked from the stage, and I have a right to answer back. I’ve said everything I could say. I was viciously attacked on the stage, and I have a right to answer back. That’s all I have to say about it.
RUCKER: Do you understand why some people would say that you lack some sort of common decency?He doesn't take the bait and discuss his own "decency." He repeats the points already repeated: the media is unfair to him and he was responding to an attack.
TRUMP: I think frankly a lot of people agree with what I’m saying. I was viciously attacked on the stage. All I did was respond to it. Pure and simple. It should’ve been a one-hour story and they make it a longer story.
RUCKER: It’s a four-day story.Why did Rucker say that? I think he's prodding Trump to say he should have handled it differently, that it stayed in the media so long because he wouldn't agree with any of the outrage over his remarks. But Trump won't deviate:
TRUMP: I mean fine. So, I have no further thing to say other than I have a right to answer back.Why won't Trump even concede that he could have handled it better? I think it's because if the media get him to step back on this one, they will only come up with the next one — I'll bet there are 3 or 4 lying there in the Rucker interview alone — and the media will dog him about that until he steps back. Every day, it will be a game of getting Trump to step back on something, and Trump's style and flow will be wrecked. He can see that's the game and he knows he can't play their game.
Just unfair media. Just the unfair media. It’s purely and simply the unfair media.ADDED: Two issues I see in the Rucker interview — readymade as the new Outrage of the Day — are: 1. Where there's no voter ID law, people are just "voting and voting and voting" — "like 10 times." 2. When women experience sexual harassment in the workplace, they can choose to get a different job.
There's also the way Trump watches TV all the time and might have an attention deficit disorder. WaPo's Chris Cillizza analyzes the Rucker interview and notes this:
[Trump looks at a nearby television, which was tuned to Fox News.] Oh, did they have another one of these things go down? It’s terrible that crash. Never liked that plane, structurally. I never thought that plane couldCillizza's take:
This is Trump. The dude watches a LOT of cable TV. And he appears to never be concentrating on any one thing for very long.My take on that is: 1. Trump gave Rucker an interview but handled it in an alpha-male, dismissive way: He's also watching TV. 2. Trump can handle many things at once without losing his place. 3. Trump seems to have some depth of knowledge about the structural soundness of various planes.
Why didn't Rucker jump on #3 and test him? If that vignette about the plane is evidence of an inability to concentrate, as Cillizza would have it, why not test him, suddenly, on the spot, and smoke out the bullshit? I'd speculate: 1. Rucker failed to see his opportunity, or 2. Rucker had to worry that Trump actually could speak with impressive knowledge about the structural soundness of planes and didn't want to give Trump an opportunity.
Posts
337 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 337 of 337Even Sarah Palin's son in law?!
Washington (CNN)Sarah Palin's son-in-law, Dakota Meyer, who received the Medal of Honor in 2011, said Tuesday Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump should apologize to the Khan family for comments he made about the Muslim parents of a slain US soldier.
"If @realDonaldTrump wants to be the Commander in Chief, he needs to act like one. And that cant start until he apologizes to the Khans," Meyer tweeted.
Yes, Althouse is right- Trump doesn't back down to the media, and he doesn't for the very good reason that it wouldn't help him to do so. I am amazed that high level Republicans and Conservatives still don't get this- a concession is chum to the media. If you are going to get attacked anyway, then don't give in- standing up for yourself is infinitely better.
I think one of the reasons people underestimated Trump's chances all along was that they think the media still has the influence it had 30 years ago- so they imagine missteps that media go ape-shit crazy over is the straw that breaks Trump's campaign, but they don't understand that the only people who even pay attention to this shit are people who would never vote for anyone but Clinton, and the hapless Republicans in D.C. who keep getting baited into retreating in the face of criticism.
Maybe DJT can poll his Alt Right followers to see who they recommend as a Pence replacement. Maybe one of them is available.
Are any Althouse commenters certified w/ the Alt Right? If so, throw your hat in the ring for the Pence replacement.
People are beginning to notice the asymmetric treatment of Gold Star families by partisans. The same people and media expressing total outrage over the Khans have been the same ones to trash Patricia Smith or to demonize Taya Kyle. It's all politics.
Khan stepped into this political arena with his eyes open. He can take a few shots in return for delivering a few. All military families get respect. Those that put there heads over the political wall can expect some return fire.
Hillary directly lied to the face of Patricia Smith. But Smith has been trashed while Khan is being celebrated.
Trump has merely advocated policies that might be bad for Khan's immigration lawyer business.
Does Khan really feel it is an outrageous sin to differentiate between his son and Nidal Hasan? Isn't that all Trump is saying... that we need a policy to be smarter and to differentiate better? And to not ignore clear warning signs due to political correctness? Trump is not saying all Muslims are bad. He is saying we need to do a better job in vetting immigrants. This idea makes sense to many Americans. I would hope it would make sense to all American Muslims too.
America is the greatest country in the world. We should not allocate our finite spaces to those most willing to break the law and cross borders to get here. Immigrants need to follow our rules and the process. We want immigrant entrepreneurs who can start businesses and new industries. Do you see Harvard opening up its freshman class to the first 1500 that can jump the wall in Harvard Yard and grab a bunk? Of course not, they have an elaborate holistic admissions method. Why can't America do what Harvard does? Living here is an incredible privilege and must be earned…. just like at Harvard.
The Clinton/Obama policies will give us more Nadal Hasans.
This is a tempest in a teapot. I am grateful to the Khan son. I feel for both Patricia Smith and Father Khan. Khan hasn't gotten anything from Trump that Clinton hasn't given to Smith… Let's see the media make a big flaming 24x4 stink about Clinton and let's see Hillary apologize to Smith,
If you want a preview of November, watch Paul Ryan's primary next Tuesday. If Nehlen comes within 5% of unseating Ryan, it will be one more confirmation this election is outsiders vs insiders. If Ryan loses, it is the closing argument.
Sarah Palin's son-in-law didn't see the news regarding Khan the Muslim traitor and Hillary stooge. He'll feel differently when he does. In the meantime, you should still KYA.
I'd like a list of names, of "open-border Republicans." Define "open borders."
Interesting LAT article on David Brocks social media operation.
Probably not the only one running right now, there is huge money in this thing and more in the pipeline.
David Brock, is that you?
Trump has nothing to do with the alt-right. Lefties do have a lot in common, though. Didn't they just beat a Trump supporter in a public park? As Hillary's people say "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!" Soros money does big things.
It's good for cons to note the David Brock types who make a living being a lib.
Gosh, I wonder if there are any well paid professional cons? Nah.
"I'd like a list of names, of "open-border Republicans." Define "open borders.""
Oh, that's easy--if you think we need an actual immigration policy that clarifies how we prevent illegal entry, and who we allow in legally, you're "open border". If you think screeching about a "fabulous wall" and vague musings about how our country is being invaded is a policy, then you're one of the "good guys".
Until you point out how inconsistent Trump has been on the issue. Then you're a bad guy again, because the one true consistency is that you're either nice to Trump or you're terrible.
Chuck: "And in the event of such a loss, the Trump crowd is going to have hell to pay."
In the event of such a loss, the elite will own us, no outsider will challenge again, the Hillary SCOTUS will destroy what's left of public morality for a generation, we will be overrun with, and terrorized by, immigrants and my grandchildren will be oppressed by a national debt they have no means to pay.
Oh. I almost forgot, Chuck will have his revenge against Trump and the Trumpkins
What do you think he hasn't seen that you have Darrell? I'm sure he's privy to all the right wing crap you are reading.
"Trump has nothing to do with the alt-right. "
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-alt-right-2016-7
"In the event of such a loss, the elite will own us, no outsider will challenge again, the Hillary SCOTUS will destroy what's left of public morality for a generation, we will be overrun with, and terrorized by, immigrants and my grandchildren will be oppressed by a national debt they have no means to pay."
That's pretty much what would happen with a Trump victory as well. Or do you think he's not part of an "elite"?
The chance to fix those problems is long gone. Time to sit back and enjoy the downslide.
PB&J: "Gosh, I wonder if there are any well paid professional cons? Nah."
Yeah, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Levin, Coulter, etc., are barely getting by.
hombre:
Indeed; Hillary is a terrible prospect for the nation. She's not even a good candidate. She should have been easy to beat in a general. By anybody but a true ignoramus. A loser. A disaster.
buwaya: You aren't dealing with a PR contest anymore.
Its not about policies or slices of the pie or anything manageable within a political process.
This is a propaganda campaign between warring powers, between which there is no possibility of either goodwill or restraint. And it is not about Trump, other than incidentally.
None of the inside baseball types around here ever seems to show any interest, any time you state this home truth. They just keep nattering. Do they think what you say isn't true, or do they just not understand what you're talking about?
Trump the billionaire is just a "common man".
Heh, I'm most likely voting for Gary Johnson
His views on religious freedom could scarcely be less Libertarian.
"Indeed; Hillary is a terrible prospect for the nation. She's not even a good candidate. She should have been easy to beat in a general. By anybody but a true ignoramus. A loser. A disaster."
Bill Clinton's plan to throw the Trump monkey wrench into the GOP machine may pay off more than he imagined. We can't really even call it a dirty trick, as this happened in broad daylight.
Oh, a Lefty said Trump is connected to the alt-right, so it must be true? Get lost, loser. Hillary is connected to a lot worse.
Oh, that's easy--if you think we need an actual immigration policy that clarifies how we prevent illegal entry, and who we allow in legally, you're "open border". If you think screeching about a "fabulous wall" and vague musings about how our country is being invaded is a policy, then you're one of the "good guys".
In defense, these sorts of things always seem to have "Well, we'll legalize the ones here now AND THEN we'll secure the border"...but they never secure the border.
I'm all on board with border first.
"His views on religious freedom could scarcely be less Libertarian."
True, but the alternatives are Hillary who we can pretty safely bet will not stand up for religious freedom, and Trump who is completely unreliable on that issue. On that, I'd say it's a push.
@Yancey Ward I think one of the reasons people underestimated Trump's chances all along was that they think the media still has the influence it had 30 years ago- so they imagine missteps that media go ape-shit crazy over is the straw that breaks Trump's campaign, but they don't understand that the only people who even pay attention to this shit are people who would never vote for anyone but Clinton, and the hapless Republicans in D.C. who keep getting baited into retreating in the face of criticism.
You totally get it!
Chuck logic: Cruz couldn't beat Trump but he'd beat Hillary.
"In defense, these sorts of things always seem to have "Well, we'll legalize the ones here now AND THEN we'll secure the border"...but they never secure the border."
You could easily promote a policy that doesn't even address illegals currently, but manages legal immigration levels and border controls (as well as visa overstay controls) and deal with the illegals after that's been implemented.
[cue cartoon cuckoo sound]
"Chuck logic: Cruz couldn't beat Trump but he'd beat Hillary."
Darrell, you could disagree with that but it's not necessarily illogical to assume that a person who couldn't win the primary might have been a better general election candidate. For example, Ed Muskie might have done better against Nixon in '72 than McGovern did (which is why Nixon's team did everything they could to sabotage Muskie in the primaries and left McGovern alone).
Whether that's the case with Cruz is another matter.
Darrell said...
Chuck logic: Cruz couldn't beat Trump but he'd beat Hillary.
Cruz couldn't beat TrumpandBushandKasichandChristieandHuckabyandRubio.
Honestly, Darrell, I don't have all the answers. I don't understand how Trump got any votes.
Ooooops, a split between Pence and Trump. How will the egomaniac Trump deal with this? Will Pence join the Republicans who will be conducting the intervention? Such interesting times ahead.
As Donald Trump holds off endorsing House Speaker Paul D. Ryan in Wisconsin's Republican primary, his running mate enthusiastically endorsed Ryan on Wednesday, calling him a “longtime friend” and “strong conservative leader.”
“I strongly support Paul Ryan, strongly endorse his reelection,” Indiana Gov. Mike Pence said during an interview on Fox News on Wednesday afternoon. “I believe we need Paul Ryan in leadership in the Congress of the United States to rebuild our military, to strengthen our economy and to ensure that we have the kind of leadership in this country that will make America great again.”
WaPo
The fact that Trump doesn't bow to pressure from the media and the establishment, while commendable, is not enough of a reason to completely absolve his other failings:
- His continuously sloppy responses to interview and debate questions (This mess being just the latest example).
- His stubbornness and complete inability to let things go. Yeah, I get it he counter-punches. The problem is, he often does more damage to his brand than good in the eyes of the wider electorate when he does this.
I understand that Trump true believers don't regard these as failings. But you have to at least realize that there's a ton of potential Trump voters who may not view things as you do. Just because you personally think Trump is wonderful and brilliant and can do no wrong doesn't mean everyone else does. And don't assume that you can convince people the wonders of Trump by insulting them for voicing their concerns.
More intervention nonsense.
[cue more cartoon cuckoo sounds]
"Conservatives got the shaft this year, more so than ever before. Their fight was lost long before November."- Brando
When I raised the issue at another blog about many Trump positions not being conservative I was informed that "Nationalism is the new Conservatism".
What we're seeing is a realignment from conservative-liberal to nationalism-globalism. This is the new battleground driving Trump supporters, IMO.
Even inside the conservative tent-- the social conservatives and fiscal conservatives don't share the same goals. It's just that enough of the issues aligned that a uneasy peace was established some years ago.
Without borders, you no longer have a nation. Very few conservative politicians-- at least the ones in GOP leadership are willing to recognize that. Of course racist is the argument thrown against that position. It's such a shopworn epithet I think it's losing it's impact.
"I understand that Trump true believers don't regard these as failings. But you have to at least realize that there's a ton of potential Trump voters who may not view things as you do. Just because you personally think Trump is wonderful and brilliant and can do no wrong doesn't mean everyone else does. And don't assume that you can convince people the wonders of Trump by insulting them for voicing their concerns."
Exactly my point. It's not about "hey why not apologize and suck up to the media" which I'm not sure anyone on the right has suggested, and may be another Althouse Straw Man (at least in her current role of Trump-bot). It's about coherent and intelligent response.
Hell, the Khan guy made some specific attacks on Trump, notably questioning whether Trump read the Constitution. (And considering Trump vowed to GOP Congressmen to "protect Article IX and Article XII, it's a fair question!) Instead of reassuring those who might wonder if Khan had a point, Trump decides now is a good time to talk about the guy's wife. So, no sense that Trump has in fact read the Constitution, and reinforcing that he sees gold star parents as Muslims first and foremost, and therefor innately suspect.
Who needs media bias when you have the guy fulfilling what the Dems have been saying about him?
Ok Brando,
But realistically, policy would be hammered out with congress. Maybe making the issue central to the campaign will at least move things in a better direction.
I think you need to defang the obstructions before you can enact any change.
Conversely, Hil makes zero pretense of curtailing illegal immigration..won't even use the term.. cackles how we should build bridges not walls..increase "migrants" from ME etc.
Some people don't realize that the Media can make anyone look smart or stupid anytime they like. That's their superpower. It's works on low-information voters that don't take the time to look for unedited video. Trump's responses are a heck of a lot better than Hillary's book-of-lies responses.
What if Trump drops out?
Republican officials are exploring how to handle a scenario that would be unthinkable in a normal election year: What would happen if the party's presidential nominee dropped out?
ABC News has learned that senior party officials are so frustrated — and confused — by Donald Trump's erratic behavior that they are exploring how to replace him on the ballot if he drops out.
So how would it work?
First, Trump would have to voluntarily exit the race. Officials say there is no mechanism for forcing him to withdraw his nomination. (Trump has not given any indications that he no longer wants to be his party's nominee.)
Then it would be up to the 168 members of the Republican National Committee to choose a successor, though the process is complicated.
One Republican legal expert has advised party officials that, for practical reasons, Trump would have to drop out by early September to give the party enough time to choose his replacement and get the next nominee's name on the ballot in enough states to win.
Khzir Kahn: FOH?*
If I were a reporter, I'd like to ask him: hey, effendi--how does your liking for sharia law square with your vaunted love of the US Constitution?
*Friend of Huma
" the Khan guy made some specific attacks on Trump, notably questioning whether Trump read the Constitution."
Has Kahn? In the sense of a pre-ciizenship immigration scenario?
"But realistically, policy would be hammered out with congress."
Absolutely--but you have to know what you'll be willing to live with in any changes to the deal.
"Conversely, Hil makes zero pretense of curtailing illegal immigration..won't even use the term.. cackles how we should build bridges not walls..increase "migrants" from ME etc."
No doubt about that. She has no policy either, and far as I can tell (at least today) does not think illegal immigration is a problem.
"Has Kahn? In the sense of a pre-ciizenship immigration scenario?"
I should hope as a practicing lawyer he has some familiarity with it. But then, Khan isn't on the ballot. Trump can discredit him as much as he wants, it doesn't help Trump against Hillary.
@unknown,
his is not your run of the mill misunderstanding and disagreement between the candidate and the Party/support team he/she belongs to. This is not merely the press spinning, this is serious, far more serious than you folks want to admit.
And you are privy to this inside information exactly how?
From the same sources that feed you your articles & links?
See what happens when you get pegged as a shill, Unknown? You become a Cassandra of the blogosphere -- telling the truth that no one hears.
Hillary is toast.
What you are seeing are the death throes. You're next compliant Media.
CNN has jumped the shark so high that they have gone into orbit attacking Trump at hyper speed. They attack him for any stray thoughts or words that can be taken deliberately out of context, and then they attack him for their attacks leaving no air time left over for even a smidgen of bad news about Hillary.
I seriously suspect the CNN talking heads are all on Meth.
@Brando 1330 Don't we have an immigration policy, unenforced but I believe we have one. It's the lack of enforcement at all levels that is causing the backlash. Trump overstates his case, you're right, but agreeing that something should be done doesn't make us evil.
If Huma wasn't recognized by Muslims as one of their plants or agents, how many Fatwas would there be on her life? What would her security detail look like?
Anglelyne
You're being rather literal-minded about mockturtle's comment, no?
No more literal minded than mockturtle was in using such language. I don't buy your excuses for our debased political discourse. But your assumption is dead wrong that I might be among those who think the political elites are okay. I think they bear the greatest responsibility for the rage and paranoia out there. But that does not excuse the citizens from bearing their share. Between the elites and the masses, I see no reason to choose sides. There are plenty of times and have been when one, the other, and both are wrong.
Brando said..."But realistically, policy would be hammered out with congress."
Absolutely--but you have to know what you'll be willing to live with in any changes to the deal.
--
Maybe he does know..see off the record NYT discussion.
"I should hope as a practicing lawyer he has some familiarity with it."
Or..being a practicing lawyer, he knows waving the constitution around implies what he's saying is congruent.
Y Hegelian that no one here at Althouse is at all interested in the truth, well, that makes y'all look mighty dumb. The shit is hitting the fan Trumpsters, duck!
But you are right, Trump need only frame Capt. Kahn's valor against the reckless calculation of Hil.
Real Republican Chuck says there's going to be hell to pay. You're so damned sexy as an Internet tough guy! I'll bet you're going to get some tonight, aren't you big boy -- watch out ladies!
Conservatives got the shaft this year, more so than ever before. Their fight was lost long before November.
The second may be true. Civilization is historically degenerative. Liberal ideology is unprincipled or deviant, and progressive liberalism is degenerative. However, the opiates, including: wealth, pleasure, leisure, and narcissistic indulgence, are unreasonably tempting.
The first, not really. The real issue is progressive corruption and efforts to mitigate it. For example, arbitrary wage standards is an issue, but especially when decoupled from economic development, to reward long-term unproductivity, to compensate for outsourcing/insourcing, etc. Unfortunately, liberal fiscal policies, and anti-native policies, have created large, if not yet catastrophic, misalignments.
As for the shaft, I don't defer to the truth in prophecies.
Has anyone here stopped to ponder how a Republican party that is supposed to be reasonably professional and organized wound up with Trump? I mean that in an historical sense. Forget, for the moment, specific current issues and try to identify what has thrust a man like Trump into the position he is. I have not had much success with my theorizing other than 75% of those polled think the country is headed in the wrong direction; there is a tremendous amount of rage at the"establishments"for failure to heed the common man; and that very few believe that the economy is working in their favor.
Whatever the underlying reason is has to be big - and one would think obvious - to have blown the entire Republican roster out of the water.
From the talented Buzzsawmonkey at PJmedia.
The entire country should be singing this:
This Old Hag
—apologies to Stuart Hamblen, and “This Old House”
This old hag once was a lawyer
This hag worked on Watergate
This old hag was fired from that job
‘Cause ethical she ain’t
This old hag bought cattle futures
That were cover for a bribe
But she managed to skate on that
Because evidence she’d hide
But to everybody’s wonder
She is now a candidate
And to hear her people tell it
She’s right next door to a saint
Every where she goes she’s followed
By a foul corruption scent
She’s the Democrats’ front runner
Wants to be the president
This old hag attacked the women
Her husband abused and raped
She worked as her man’s enabler
Helped to get him out of scrapes
She likes to pose as a champion
Of women’s equality
But the only woman that
She truly cares about is she
But to everybody’s wonder
She is now a candidate
And to hear her people tell it
She’s right next door to a saint
Everywhere she goes she’s followed
By a foul corruption scent
She’s the Democrats’ front runner
Wants to be the president
This old hag worked for Obama
As Secretary of State
She set up the Ambassador
And she left him to his fate
She ran all her email business
On a private server, too
Which is why our security
Is now well and truly screwed
But to everybody’s wonder
She is now a candidate
And to hear her people tell it
She’s right next door to a saint
Everywhere she goes she’s followed
By a foul corruption scent
She’s the Democrats’ front runner
Wants to be the president
This old hag has a foundation
That collects cash everywhere
The Chinese or the Islamists
What’s the source? She doesn’t care
If they want to give her money
She believes that it’s all good
And her assistant is a honey
From the Muslim Brotherhood
But to everybody’s wonder
She is now a candidate
And to hear her people tell it
She’s right next door to a saint
Everywhere she goes she’s followed
By a foul corruption scent
She’s the Democrats’ front runner
Wants to be the president
Everything is under control, don't panic.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-reaches-new-level-of-panic-over-trumps-candidacy/2016/08/03/de461880-5988-11e6-831d-0324760ca856_story.html
A new level of panic hit the street,” said veteran operative Scott Reed, chief strategist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “It’s time for a serious reset.”
Former House speaker Newt Gingrich, one of Trump’s most loyal defenders, warned that his friend was in danger of throwing away the election and helping to make Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton president unless he quickly changes course.
Do any of the paid Hillbot shill kick back any of that Hillary money to Althouse? Have they ever used her Amazon portal even? I personally wouldn't allow it, but hey. . .
No more literal minded than mockturtle was in using such language.
Nonsense. Go back and read what I actually said.
@Unknown,
Hegelian that no one here at Althouse is at all interested in the truth,
And the problem with you & yours is that you guys think you own it.
unknown doesn't realize that the Republicans being quoted are a couple of days late on the uptake. Khan is now a known asshole, days away from total exposure. The guys going by Sunday's news are assholes--useful idiots of the Hillary Left. They are going to be the sorry ones.
did trump ever vote for george w bush, or any other congressman who voted for the iraq war? i think that can possibly viewed as an endorsement of the iraq war.
@Unknown,
A new level of panic hit the street,” said veteran operative Scott Reed, chief strategist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “It’s time for a serious reset.”
Yoo-hoo, the CofC has hated Trump from the get-go. No news there.
Former House speaker Newt Gingrich, one of Trump’s most loyal defenders, warned that his friend was in danger of throwing away the election and helping to make Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton president unless he quickly changes course.
Because, of course, there's no one, no one, who's more of an expert in running a winning presidential campaign than Newt Gingrich. George W, I'd listen to. But, Newt? Newt overestimates himself as a font of political wisdom.
"Do they think what you say isn't true, or do they just not understand what you're talking about?"
I teach new engineers that they are all heirs to Princess Cassandra of Troy. Everything they say will come true, but no-one will believe them till it happens.
YHegelian, don't you read even right wing publications that are saying the same things, I've linked to? Is everybody lying? Epistemic closure for real. Don't think out of your self imposed group think, just don't do it!
One thing to recall is that there are still three months to the election. In politics, I am told, that's close to a lifetime. Trump will only get better ......or worse! Regardless of what he does ( I think he is smarter than he appears at the moment), I will NOT vote for Hillary - she is the worst of all possible choices; nor will I vote third party. I have committed myself to a possible agent of change and I am sticking with that commitment come hell or high water. As Randy Newman sang about Lester Maddox " He may be a fool, but he's our fool!"
I don't recall as much debate about the Pro-Choice Church advocating for the "final solution" (e.g. abortion rites) and defending clinical cannibalism (e.g. Planned Parenthood). Not to mentions class diversity schemes (e.g. racism, sexism), female chauvinism or euphemistically "feminism", etc. Also, social justice adventurism, and progressive wars, are good... to spill politically inconvenient blood and for democratic leverage. I guess selective or arbitrary principles are in fashion again.
So far in this campaign, Trump has been right and the GOP establishment and the media have been wrong. This kerfuffle is no exception.
Let's be honest. The problem isn't Trump's repetitiveness. It's the timing. When you repeat yourself several times in the same paragraph, it's "being repetitive." When you repeat yourself several times over the course of several interviews with different outlets, it's "staying on message."
It'd be nice if Trump could master the art of repeating himself several times in the same paragraph by saying the same thing using different words, the way leftists do. He might even get some wordsmith cred for oratory skill, the way the vacuous Obama did. But it's not a requirement. It's vastly more important not to let the media define the rules of the game. That Trump's refusal to play the game their way comes with a strong aspect of FU is just the icing on the cake.
"He may be a fool, but he's our fool!"
He sure is. However the rest of us have a say in who we want as president and it isn't him.
@Unknown,
don't you read even right wing publications that are saying the same things, I've linked to?
Yes, I do. But, they, like you, & like a lot of the punditry are missing the political seismic shifts that are occurring in the 1st world. Trump & Bernie are not causes, they are symptoms of a profound distrust between the rulers & the ruled. Many of the ruled think, with good reason, that their interests are being ignored by the ruling classes.
Replacing a Democratic dimwit like Obama with an even more corrupt Democratic dimwit like Hillary isn't going to fix this societal problem. They can't even admit it exists. It'll just put off the day of reckoning, but that day will come.
You think I don't take this seriously? I do, very much so. I expect there to be massive vigilante violence, perhaps even revolution, in some first world countries, perhaps even us.
But the Democratic & Republican Party hierarchies, and their shills like you? You have no idea of the tsunami that's coming towards shore.
"It'd be nice if Trump could master the art of repeating himself several times in the same paragraph by saying the same thing using different words, the way leftists do."
Unfortunately, his ADHD gets the better of him every time. He can't stay on message even in the same sentence.
YHegelian,
Don't lump Bernie in with Trump. Bernie sees the menace that Trump is and has been exceedingly clear as to what he thinks of a Trump presidency.
"Has anyone here stopped to ponder how a Republican party that is supposed to be reasonably professional and organized wound up with Trump?"- Khesanh0802
I'll take a stab at this.
"The tax-cut deal inked by President Obama and House Speaker Paul D. Ryan last month has put a major dent in the federal budget, helping send the deficit soaring by 24 percent, the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday.
The $544 billion deficit projected for 2016 marks the first year since 2009 that the red ink has grown, and it powers the deficit back up over the half-trillion mark, where it had been for most of Mr. Obama’s tenure.
And the rest of the decade will only get worse, the CBO said, with Social Security beginning to draw down its trust funds in 2018, and overall deficits surging back above the $1 trillion mark by 2022."- Washington Times
I don't remember any of the Republican candidates making the looming fiscal cliff the number #1 priority for Americans.
I was a Kasich supporter since he had done a good job reducing the deficit spending when in Congress, but even he didn't make it THE issue. And it was overwhelmed by the #1 issue Americans are interested in - uncontrolled immigration.
And Trump was the only candidate willing to ignore the PC crowd and say what he would do. Those two characteristics-- his willingness to ignore political correctness and being on the right side of American's concern about the future of the country with the continuing uncontrolled invasion.
@Unknown,
Don't lump Bernie in with Trump. Bernie sees the menace that Trump is and has been exceedingly clear as to what he thinks of a Trump presidency.
You really are an idiot, aren't you? Have you ever read any history or philosophy of history?
What Bernie Sanders or Trump thinks of his movement or of the other's movement is immaterial. Their personal consciousness of what they are is immaterial. There are political & societal changes afoot, & they transcend any political actor's attempt to control them.
If Marx was alive, he would sit & weep for what buffoons the modern Left has become.
In terms of style and being "presidential", it's fun to imagine any other politician barking like a dog.
Is that another glass ceiling broken?
Everyone is trapped within a more and more constrained economic/cultural space.
More and more artificial means have to be used to keep the illusion of prosperity and progress going, in the face of actual stagnation, or regress.
Hence Trump, and the response to Trump. The old politics, policies, formulas, speech were fine while on the meadow path, but now the path is along the cliff edge. There is an edge of desperation to everything everyone does, even those with wealth. It is incredibly vulnerable. That is why so much of it is liquid, not invested in tangibles, or flowing so strongly to where it seems - seems - safe. It is why politics everywhere is becoming frantic. There are many "Trumps".
More than a few have made the analogy of Poe's Masque of the Red Death. We are, most of us, so far, amusing ourselves in the palace of Prospero, fearing the Red Death without. Thats the case in the bubbles of Northern California. The aristocrats pretend to jollity, and indulge in every vice while inventing new ones, but in the back of their minds there is apprehension, so much so that few reproduce. That is primal fear. There are no children in the palace of Prospero.
Y Hegelian, funny I was thinking the same thing about you. Trump does not represent any positive societal change, that you would see what he espouses as some sort of legitimate societal movement or change tells me you are a fool. Bernie, yes, Trump absolutely no. Wise up dummy.
"Trump overstates his case, you're right, but agreeing that something should be done doesn't make us evil."
Nothing evil in wanting something done--most people do.
The trick here is whether Trump can extricate himself from this stupid story without apologizing. If he is able to do that, he might actually come out ahead. There is enough time for the undecideds who were offended to forget about being offended, and Trump gets to maintain his alpha male status because he never backed down. Refusing to ever apologize to liberals and coastal elites is a big part of his appeal.
You could say this story accomplished two important things for Trump: (1) Islam and its backwardness became a topic and (2) people were reminded of Benghazi and Hillary's shameful conduct.
The MSM will do everything they can to keep the Khans in the spotlight. If he's smart, Trump will do everything he can to dismiss the controversy as old news and maybe say something nice about their son. He's playing with fire, though. The military is probably the most beloved government institution in this country, so he has to be careful.
RUCKER: Do you think they’re somehow trying to, the Khan family, are they on TV to try to help Hillary?
Well, DUH!
The Khan family appeared on the DNC stage, and specifically called out Donald Trump, in order to cause him political damage, in service to Hillary. Their continued media presence, and the media's continued focus on them, only serve to further that service to Hillary.
@unknown,
hat you would see what he espouses as some sort of legitimate societal movement or change tells me you are a fool.
Tell that to all the voters who made him the Republican candidate. Tell that to the Brexit voters. Tell that to the voters for the Le Pens. Or, on & on.
We're done here. I suggest you wear your water wings for when the wave comes ashore.
LOL! Hegelian, your candidate has feet of clay, anything you try to build on that, will crumble and hurt a lot of people. Arrivederci!
I still insist that the more that is known about Mr. Khan, the more it will play to Trump's advantage, just like so many of these supposed 'gaffes'.
The people have an instinct for this.
If you want an explanation for all these guns and ammo being bought - by at least 50 million people, about, since 2005/6 when the trend started, these aren't fools or crazies in these numbers - this is something in the air, which most everyone seems to want to deny. This was not about crime, crime having stayed low until very recently. This certainly wasn't about sport or hunting.
People feel enemies around them, and they are right.
People feel that the Red Death is coming. Most of these people can't huddle in Prospero's palaces. They are doing something, probably ineffectual.
Jon Burack:
No more literal minded than mockturtle was in using such language.
Lol. Is that supposed to make sense? Beyond a toddler's "I know you are but what am I" kind of sense, that is.
I don't buy your excuses for our debased political discourse.
So people who have an opinion differing from your own about what's going on are just "making excuses", eh? What was somebody just saying about debased discourse?
But your assumption is dead wrong that I might be among those who think the political elites are okay.
I wasn't really talking about you personally, or your opinion of "elites", but of a general observation illustrating a contrast with my own view of the state and future of our political system. But you seem to be in a cranky solipsistic mood today, so s'alright.
I think they bear the greatest responsibility for the rage and paranoia out there. But that does not excuse the citizens from bearing their share. Between the elites and the masses, I see no reason to choose sides. There are plenty of times and have been when one, the other, and both are wrong.
What a load of empty verbiage. "Choosing sides" about what? Wrong about what? "Mobs or nobs, sometimes one is in the wrong, sometimes the other!" Well that certainly clears things up. Very noble stance there, Jon, wherever "there" is.
(Nothing left to do here but demonize those demonizers, et voilà ! - a healthy civil society is in the bag...)
@buwaya,
Man, if you & me ever meet & talk in a bar, we're going to depress the other patrons to death, you know that.
"Man, if you & me ever meet & talk in a bar, we're going to depress the other patrons to death, you know that."
Which is why I never talk about this stuff in bars.
Mike the Mag makes a good point. I read this whole interview, and it was a total puff piece w/ softballs. From the lame-stream lib wapo!
Anywho, it's cool how Trump kept wanting to push the interview to points where he could take revenge shots at folks who he thought had done him wrong. The endorsement stuff has made news, but I don't think folks have picked up how Trump spent a lot of time threatening to fund PACs against Cruz and Kasich.
Althouse, thinks she sees a missed follow-up regarding the plane. But, I thought the interviewer got close to, but missed, DJT describing the logistics of a sitting POTUS funding anti-R PACs when his two enemies are up for election. And, other than spending tens of millions of dollars, would sitting POTUS Trump do anything else to retaliate?
But, evil WaPo is to blame for giving Trump softballs, which Trump decided to chuck at Rs.
There is probably a good reason they never make kids read Poe in high school these days. OK, there are several reasons.
mockturtle said...
I still insist that the more that is known about Mr. Khan, the more it will play to Trump's advantage
--
Hence the deleted website. Wiped..like with a cloth.
mockturtle said...
I still insist that the more that is known about Mr. Khan, the more it will play to Trump's advantage, just like so many of these supposed 'gaffes'.
Your "gaffes" in sarcasm-quotes are what is keeping millions of Republicans -- votes that Trump desperately needs now -- away from Trump support. The gaffes are driving lots of highly visible Republican leaders in private life to actually support Hillary Clinton. (I am not one of them.)
It was Trump's own gaffe in proposing "a ban on Muslims entering" the U.S. that prompted the Khans' attack on Trump.
These things represent nothing so much as one unforced error after another by Trump himself.
Mainstream Media: 'Trump Boots Baby From Rally!' Non-Media Witnesses: 'That's Pure Propaganda'
Father figure Trump creates reasonable doubt. The Press is left standing hold their bait.
Chuck..
You do realize he meant that as as temporary measure pending better vetting, right?
It's controversial enough without submitting to the media's style of rounding error.
Chuck, if you believe we should allow unlimited and unvetted Muslims to enter the US, you are even more naive than I had thought. Mr. Khan is a Sharia lawyer whose entire career involves getting visas and citizenship for Muslims.
buwaya puti said...
The Khans have a background as part of the Democrat machine. You are dealing with people who feed off that spigot, Brando.
Confirmed by all history. Would the Ds put an honest, sane man or woman up on stage? Would they dare?
How to deal with such an issue I don't know, I am no expert in PR. But you are not dealing with persons of good will, you are dealing with enemy people in an enemy system.
One thing Trump needs is a war room, or at any rate an oppo research team who analyzes any D broadcast (prominently including the DNC), identifies any participants, and looks to see what's wrong with them. And with their arguments, but let's not kid ourselves, ad hominem is fair game these days.
Trump's instincts were correct but he would have been better served to be armed with facts for presentation. Trump is always right in the end, but most emphatically, in the end - i.e., three days late.
It stands to reason that any D broadcast will be efficiently loaded with attacks. It's really tough to process them on the fly. All the people like Brando with their pinky-lifting Butbutbut would do no better without time and information which Trump doesn't have, and, in fairness, should be getting.
Would also be nice if Trump's organization could be piping lines of inquiry to interviewers. Oh, wait, that privilege is reserved for Ds.
the more that is known about Mr. Khan, the more it will play to Trump's advantage
Khan's mistake, and the Democrat ploy, was to exploit his son's death as exemplary and even redemptive of a philosophy. The Press's mistake is that Americans don't recognize them as a special interest, and that they will accept the equivalence of provocation and response. The Pro-Choicers (aka Twilighters), of course, don't get it, because their principles are selective and often arbitrary. At the far right/far left nexus, the liberals without benefits, also don't get it, for the same reason as progressive liberals don't.
Khan has the same conflict of interest as the Mexican-American judge presiding over Trump's trial as the transgender/homosexual judge who overrode the Democrats as Obama, Clinton et al have with exporting refugees of their social justice adventurism and progressive wars to Europe and America.
buwaya: If you want an explanation for all these guns and ammo being bought - by at least 50 million people, about, since 2005/6 when the trend started, these aren't fools or crazies in these numbers - this is something in the air, which most everyone seems to want to deny. This was not about crime, crime having stayed low until very recently. This certainly wasn't about sport or hunting.
People feel enemies around them, and they are right.
And this isn't just in "gun nut" America. Gun sales (hunting rifles, whatever's legal) are way up in Europe, too. (France, Germany, and Austria, to my knowledge. I assume elsewhere, too.)
Apropos of which, I came across a discussion the other day that really surprised me. Background: I enjoy and follow several French and anglophone francophile ladyblogs (style, the arts of housekeeping, perfume, that sort of thing). The venues are usually mercifully devoid of politics, and on the rare occasion when politics makes an intrusion, the denizens reveal themselves as eye-rollingly correct, multi-culti true-believin', orthodox liberals. (I ignore this. I don't go to ladyblogs to argue politics.)
So I was astonished when one day recently the discussion of the day wasn't about the best way to get stains out of fine linens, or the most luxe Japanese sunscreen lotions, but whether one really ought to learn how to use one's husband's hunting rifle, and how all the neighbor men were buying up all the rifles and ammo available locally (locally being somewhere in la France profonde). And whether one had a duty to move with one's children to a safer country, or if duty demanded one stay and fight. (The answer: stay and fight.)
But, mon Dieu, the comments! I thought I had clicked over to one of my alt-right reads by mistake. Comments along the lines of, "things are spiralling out of control, we must get better leaders to stop migration and deport all of them (I can't believe I'm saying this but enough is enough)", "God I hope you Americans elect Trump, he's the only hope" ( (I can't believe I'm saying this but enough is enough)", etc, etc, etc.
A lone dissenter (spouting PC boilerplate) was brought down by the pack. Trumpkins? On my ladyblogs?
I found this more unsettling than any of the apocalyptic ranting encountered a thousand times over on poli-blogs.
mockturtle said...
Chuck, if you believe we should allow unlimited and unvetted Muslims to enter the US, you are even more naive than I had thought. Mr. Khan is a Sharia lawyer whose entire career involves getting visas and citizenship for Muslims.
I never wrote that I favor "unlimited and unvetted Muslims to enter the U.S." I don't know of any Republicans who do. Earlier in this comments thread I demanded that the Republican critics name all of the "open borders" Republicans, and to define "open borders." Nobody manned up.
I don't think too much of the current visa system. Nobody in politics today has made more advantageous use of it, than Donald and Melania Trump.
Nice blog I must share this page to all my friends .
LETSHTML - Learn to Code
walter said...
Chuck..
You do realize he meant that as as temporary measure pending better vetting, right?
It's controversial enough without submitting to the media's style of rounding error.
I do realize that Trump has been walking back his broadly, blandly stupid comment for months now, in varying and increasingly substantial ways throughout this campaign.
This should have been the headline and important topic today: Obama Pays Ransom to Iranians. This should be a no-brainer. This is big shit. Yet if you wait for it on NBCBSABCNN, you'll never know it happened. The State just took on ransoming. Obama's administration has made paying ransom a government program. So...all Americans: you should know this. Obama's team just told the leading terrorist nation that, if you kidnap Americans, we'll pay you big bucks for their return.
But, hey- Trump.
Wait a minute. Why does neutral Chairman Debbie Wasserman Priebus take sides in a Republican Primary against the 100% Trump supporter named Nehlen while expecting Trump's endorsement for a 10% Trump supporter named Ryan.
It seems as if the GOP's Wisconsin boys are still Koch owned.
"how all the neighbor men were buying up all the rifles and ammo available locally (locally being somewhere in la France profonde)."
!
Yes indeed, that all is disturbing. Who knew?
And who reports on this in the "official" media?
No such stuff in Spanish language blogs, that I know of.
I also apologize for the apocalyptic ranting.
He has to stop following his gut instincts, and start listening to people who are more knowledgeable in these matters.
How has that worked out for Republicans? Bush barely won due to Clinton fatigue and Gore's incredibly high negatives. Trump is doing well precisely because he isn't following the dopey, losing GOP script.
(I wasn't a McCain fan, but he did exactly this and it failed. To repeat, the GOP doesn't know shit about how to get a president elected and the faster the tired, dead, idiotic wood can be cleaned from the GOP, the better off it will be.)
Angelyne - link? Or hint?
I just want to extract text.
Blogger Chuck said...
walter said...
Chuck..
You do realize he meant that as as temporary measure pending better vetting, right?
It's controversial enough without submitting to the media's style of rounding error.
I do realize that Trump has been walking back his broadly, blandly stupid comment for months now, in varying and increasingly substantial ways throughout this campaign.
Chuck is one reason that Trump is the obvious choice this November.
Does anyone believe the leftists on this website would hold Hillary accountable?
Hillary will have the media and the Democrats as enablers. The only people opposing her will be Republicans and Conservatives and the media and Democrats will excuse this by saying, "It's because she is a woman."
On the other hand, Trump will have the media, the Democrats and all those Republicans like Chuck out there holding him accountable. And there are a lot of Chucks.
BDNYC
You just don't get it. Either do many Trump supporters. This business between Trump and Khan cannot be compared to Hillary and Patricia Smith. Trump went out of his way to tweet about Khan and then in interviews kept the thing alive - even speculating that Khan's wife was silent because of Sharia Law or some such nonsense. While Hillary said absolutely nothing about Patricia Smith's RNC speech. Not a thing, in public anyway. The only time she said anything about her was at a Democratic debate last fall and she simply said she was wrong about the Obama administrations reaction to the attacks. But Hillary did not criticize her on a personal level. This is why the media has covered the story as they have. Trump is tone deaf and his supporters seem to be as well.
McCain not only failed to unite people, but he betrayed his running mate, Palin, to be savaged by female chauvinists. And, of course, the Press offered the chauvinists aid and comfort. Chauvinists 1. Women 0.
Anglelyne, your recent post was very refreshing, as most Europeans I know are still clinging nobly to the fantasy of 'inclusiveness'. I do hope they will stand and fight for their nationalities and cultures!
Blogger Matt said...
BDNYC
You just don't get it. Either do many Trump supporters. This business between Trump and Khan cannot be compared to Hillary and Patricia Smith. Trump went out of his way to tweet about Khan and then in interviews kept the thing alive - even speculating that Khan's wife was silent because of Sharia Law or some such nonsense. While Hillary said absolutely nothing about Patricia Smith's RNC speech. Not a thing, in public anyway. The only time she said anything about her was at a Democratic debate last fall and she simply said she was wrong about the Obama administrations reaction to the attacks. But Hillary did not criticize her on a personal level. This is why the media has covered the story as they have. Trump is tone deaf and his supporters seem to be as well.
You're right. They can't be compared.
Khan died 12 years ago. Smith's son died 4 years ago. To pretend like the Khan's are still upset at Donald Trump for something that happened 12 years ago thanks to Hillary and having nothing to do with Trump is ridiculous. Trump had nothing at all to do with Khan's death, he wasn't even a politician (Unlike Hillary).
So, Hillary is responsible for Smith's death, Trump isn't responsible for Khan's.
You hit the nail on the head. Can't be compared. Hillary is evil.
So, the media do their part to enable her.
And they will continue to do so during a Hillary presidency.
But clearly, from examples like this one, they won't enable a Trump presidency.
And this is the sort of relationship we need in the Presidency. One where the media doesn't enable our President and our government.
In a written statement late Monday afternoon, the Trump campaign said the Republican frontrunner wanted a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.” As backing, Trump cited a controversial six-month-old survey from the right-wing Center for Security Policy finding that one-quarter of U.S. Muslim respondents believed that violence against Americans was justified as part of global jihad and that a slim majority “agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah.”
That was from the right wing rag, The Atlantic.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/donald-trumps-call-to-ban-muslim-immigrants/419298/
Now..Chuck..go ahead and rip on it..but no need to misrepresent.
eric:
As a Republican, Trump stood a chance of winning my vote.
As a Democrat, Mrs. Clinton never did.
One where the media doesn't enable our President and our government
The need for accountability is probably the best reason to vote for the candidate who is disfavored by the Press and traditional watchdogs. Government provides oversight and it requires oversight to mitigate their potential to run amuck. Republicans seem to have less freedom than their Democrat counterparts. Also, their principles are right, even if their practice is individual.
I have no need to misrepresent, walter; and I haven't.
Trump issued a stupid statement about Muslim entry into the U.S. It was poorly conceived, and poorly drafted. And since then, he's walked it back. He had to. It was indefensible, the way that he first issued it.
Blogger Chuck said...
eric:
As a Republican, Trump stood a chance of winning my vote.
As a Democrat, Mrs. Clinton never did.
I'm not sure what you're responding to.
My point is, you're the reason everyone should vote for Trump. Everyone who believes our politicians ought to be held accountable, anyway.
Do you think Hillary is going to be held to account by the Democrats? By the liberals? By the media?
Who is going to keep on eye on Hillary? Republicans. Who else?
Who is going to keep an eye on Trump? Democrats, the Media, Republicans, etc.
See my point? You're the reason we can rest assured that Republicans won't be a rubber stamp for Trump.
Chuck,
When you exclude the temporary nature of it, you misrepresent..bigly.
walter:
Oh, so when Trump said that he proposed to ban all Muslims entering the U.S. "until our representatives can figure out what the hell is going on", that made it okay?
Yes, Chuck, that DID make it okay.
Thank you @Anglelyne for that perspective.
eric;
I think that any person occupying the White House is going to be scrutinized. "Held accountable" is another matter. Obama hasn't been held accountable. The nation, stupidly, gave him a second term.
Some partisans who occupy a very different place from me might say that the Bush-Cheney war criminals were never held accountable. Whatever.
I have a terrible fear of what Democrats could do to the federal judiciary in another four years. Trump should have been able to start there, and work to win my vote. As the lesser of two evils. But he's barely lifted a finger. I truly think the guy is unbalanced.
and work to win my vote
Chuck, are you still fantasizing that Trump wants your vote?
Blogger Chuck said...
eric;
I think that any person occupying the White House is going to be scrutinized. "Held accountable" is another matter. Obama hasn't been held accountable. The nation, stupidly, gave him a second term.
Some partisans who occupy a very different place from me might say that the Bush-Cheney war criminals were never held accountable. Whatever.
I have a terrible fear of what Democrats could do to the federal judiciary in another four years. Trump should have been able to start there, and work to win my vote. As the lesser of two evils. But he's barely lifted a finger. I truly think the guy is unbalanced.
Did Bush/Cheney have the sort of internal Republican opposition Trump has?
I don't see how you can compare Trump to Bush. And yes, they didn't hold Obama accountable and the same will be true for Hillary. They didn't even hold her accountable during her time as SEC State.
Trump refuses to play stupid media games. His campaign is about the idea that we MUST stop playing stupid media games. We MUST break through the orthodoxy that declares that disagreement with the CW is the crime of heresy rather than disagreement. What he is claiming in his campaign is that we must do this because the world has changed and we must adapt to that change in order to put this country on a sounder footing.
And, sympathetic as I am to the Khans for the loss of their son, the truth is that this does not make any claim of theirs rationally untouchable.
Near the time when the Khan son sacrificed his life for his fellow soldier while in the service of the US, another Muslim fragged a bunch of his fellow soldiers (in Europe, awaiting deployment). It is as invalid an argument to claim that the existence of the Muslim fragger directs that we should bar all Muslims from immigration as it is to argue that the existence of the Muslim hero directs that we should not limit Muslim immigration. Now, that is.
Since the media will not report nuance nor report on the argument itself, Trump is left only to say "No".
The French have so overburdened their military with the constant internal security deployment that they have decided to create a national guard to take the load off. Within two years they want to have about 80,000 of them - they are planning to get the first groups up and running this summer. The Bavarian state (one of the German Laender) is hiring thousands of police and planning to equip many more of their police units with military-style weaponry, due to recent bloody events.
It is that sort of change for which we do not hope, but we are headed there. And unless we can break the orthodoxy, we will continue to admit self-confessed jihadis such as the San Bernadino woman, and despite the fact that many people report individuals like the Orlando murderer or the Boston Bomber Boys or the Fort Hood Shrink From Hell, the FBI will continue to investigate them and CLEAR them.
Yes, the Fort Hood shootings were 'workplace violence', after all. They had 'nothing to do with Islam'.
You and most people have different definitions:
"alpha male" = "selfish denialism expert"
"repetition" = "hypnosis"
"unfair media" = "reality"
mockturtle:
No, I am not fantasizing about Trump wanting my vote. I don't think Trump really wants my support, any more than he wants his trailer trash electorate to wander into Mar a Lago, or Trump National Bedminster. He's got security staff to deal with that.
This may be a good time to go over some really great all-time Hillary scams, like the time she made $100,000 trading cattle futures. In case you wonder how that one was pulled off and why, it all started with old man Tyson – the chicken king - needing a favor from Bill Clinton. Favors cost about six figures and rather than taking a chance delivering a pile of cash in a paper bag he calls his old friend “Red” Bone, a futures trader. He has Red set up an account for Hillary, she signs some papers and deposits about a thousand bucks and the fun begins. “Red” puts on some trades; one makes money if cattle prices go up and the exact opposite one if they go down. At the end of the day one makes money and one loses money and “Red” assigns the winning trade to Hillary and the loser to old man Tyson. A few more trades like that and Hillary is up about $100,000 and old man Tyson settles with “Red.”
Hillary explains her good fortune to reading the Wall Street Journal and despite her insight into cattle futures – interestingly enough – never goes near the futures market again. Old man Tyson in in good with the governor, “Red” Bone has made some good commissions and Hillary is on her way to the Presidency. It’s a win, win, win.
So, has any Hillary supporter bothered to name a single, unalloyed, positive reason to vote FOR Hillary Clinton?
I wait.
Khan is a political operative. It was a hit piece from a Clinton supporter. He has ties to Clinton through his law firm. He also has some really interesting ideas on shariah law, and I'd love to be able to interview him about which ME countries who practice shariah get it wrong.
Also, he's a proponent of pushing visas that allow Muslims to essentially purchase citizenship by donating a lot of money.
And yet because his son died the dens think he can't be questioned or attacked (even if from a self defensive stand point). It's Cindy Sheehan 2.0. The dens and media trot these people out every election.
I'm amazed that the American people feel they have the luxury of voting for Obama's 3rd term considering Islamofascism is literally in full swing now. I guess unless it's literally in Joe Public's face, he doesn't care and won't vote for that 'nasty' Trump.
The MSM will do everything they can to keep the Khans in the spotlight.
Amazing how many people are just falling hook, line & sinker for the Clinton propaganda machine. I guess next thing is take in a few million Muslim 'migrants' for the hell of it. After all, wouldn't want to be 'bigoted'.
Blogger Birkel said...
So, has any Hillary supporter bothered to name a single, unalloyed, positive reason to vote FOR Hillary Clinton?
I wait.
She's got a vagina!
I think.
Hillary(give me a dolla I make holla)Clinton
Corruption you can take to the bank!
Post a Comment