I just can't figure out what the hell Trump is doing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to know -- precisely and exactly -- what it was that Trump said about Khan that was so offensive.

As I understand it, this all started when he simply said that maybe the mother wasn't allowed to speak at the convention. Is there more to it than that? What am I missing?

I think it was the comment about Mrs Khan not saying anything - and then suggesting that she was not allowed to talk. If Trump had confined his comments to recognizing the son as a hero - which he did - and then added a comment, if he wished to do so, that Mr Khan not knowing him (Trump) was in no position to judge his knowledge of the constitution and what sacrifices he had made. He should have said this in a statement and not agreed to any interview.

End of matter.

Then this whole episode is, of course, being blown way, way out of proportion. What is so bad about the comment about Mrs. Khan not being able to speak? Frankly, many people probably wondered the same thing. It's no secret that women are considered second class citizens in the Muslim world. It's wasn't PC of him to say it, maybe, but it was the truth.

And once again, that is what his supporters like about him.

+1

Like him even more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Trump is a master manipulator. That's a hallmark of an NPD and sociopathic personality.

I really think one should refrain from armchair psychoanalysis whether it is Trump or Hillary.

FYI, I faulted the description of Hillary as a pathological liar on another thread because that is a medical condition and we don't have the background or expertise to evaluate.

The same holds true with Trump's personality and any alleged disorder.

I don't know about that. Even the worst of Clinton's behavior appears to simply the same as what people think of other politicians only more so- lying, corrupt, bad judgement and so. But Trump's behavior appears to be truly bizarre. We could use other negative descriptors - demagogue, crazy, fascist, but none of them really seem to fit his style as well as NPD.

Kim kardashion -ism? Plays the media like a violin. He is trying to stir the lower classes into action. Numbers wise, there are more lower class, working class people than there are educated Liberal people, at least in the swing States.

Well the minorities(of all classes) are not voting for him. So his target audience is a minority. But his hateful rhetoric is driving away moderate republicans, women and independents. He can't win with his base. But he doesn't seem to care or he is just delusional.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then this whole episode is, of course, being blown way, way out of proportion. What is so bad about the comment about Mrs. Khan not being able to speak? Frankly, many people probably wondered the same thing. It's no secret that women are considered second class citizens in the Muslim world. It's wasn't PC of him to say it, maybe, but it was the truth.

And once again, that is what his supporters like about him.

Trumpeters who believe Muslim women should be quietly subservient are probably confused why the Khans are supporting the notably not quietly subservient Hillary Clinton over the He-Man Donald Trump. I suppose such posters might ask the quietly subservient Mike Pence or Chris Christie, but they might not be allowed to speak.

Who said Trump supporters believe that? If anything, Trump supporters are the ones who (rightly) abhor radical Islam and the subservience of women is yet another reason why.

The poster above indicated that. But, to clarify, I meant that Trump supporters believe that Muslims think women should be quietly subservient. Many, like Trump, seemed to think that Mrs. Khan was quiet because she wasn't allowed to speak due to her religion. Were that true, it would be inconsistent with an endorsement of the clearly not quiet Hillary Clinton.

Asking a sincere question...is it possible that Mrs. Khan does admire and endorse the clearly not quiet HRC but, as a Muslim wife, is not allowed to speak in that type of situation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think part of this issue is the media's exaggeration of everything Trump says...

They make a huge deal out of everything if they think it can be used to make fun of or attack Trump.

I generally agree with the points Trump is making and if you actually listen to him, what he says is not nearly as mean or crazy as the media makes it out to be...

That said, I think Trump needs to be extra cautious because the media always attacks him so maybe he shouldn't even comment on certain things. (Although the media asks him these type of gotcha questions at press conferences.)

Trump is more accessible to the press than Hillary. She avoids the press so that is another reason she doesn't have these brouhahas so much. (She did get in trouble for her Fox interview this weekend.)

I still like Trump so much more than Clinton.

I'm with you 100%!

+3! Voting for Trump because I'd rather have a beer with him!

Trump doesn't drink beer, moron.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Actually 51% of Americans are middle class and 20% are upper class, so if he is just going for the lower classes, he loses in a landslide.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/11/are-you-in-the-american-middle-class/

Interesting link: it says we are upper class.

So who should I be voting for?

[Anonymous]

I agree with others that he has a personality disorder that leads him to these behaviors, but I think there's a tactical reason as well. Trump doesn't know very much about either domestic or foreign affairs and he knows that. As long as he is on offense, talking about the latest outrageous thing he said, he doesn't have to answer detailed questions on policy proposals or complicated events around the world. This is the ultimate deflection.

Far from being turned off, his followers, most of whom also don't know that much about policy, are perfectly fine to feel like winners by identifying with this bully.

The whole thing is beyond sad and scary at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to know -- precisely and exactly -- what it was that Trump said about Khan that was so offensive.

As I understand it, this all started when he simply said that maybe the mother wasn't allowed to speak at the convention. Is there more to it than that? What am I missing?

I think it was the comment about Mrs Khan not saying anything - and then suggesting that she was not allowed to talk. If Trump had confined his comments to recognizing the son as a hero - which he did - and then added a comment, if he wished to do so, that Mr Khan not knowing him (Trump) was in no position to judge his knowledge of the constitution and what sacrifices he had made. He should have said this in a statement and not agreed to any interview.

End of matter.

Then this whole episode is, of course, being blown way, way out of proportion. What is so bad about the comment about Mrs. Khan not being able to speak? Frankly, many people probably wondered the same thing. It's no secret that women are considered second class citizens in the Muslim world. It's wasn't PC of him to say it, maybe, but it was the truth.

And once again, that is what his supporters like about him.

+1

Like him even more.

But have you read the Bible lately? It's no secret that women are second-class citizens among evangelical Christians too. They're supposed to pop out babies, please their husbands sexually, and shut up -- accept with grace their lack of economic independence and reproductive rights. Another tension between Trump's base and Pence's base here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think part of this issue is the media's exaggeration of everything Trump says...

They make a huge deal out of everything if they think it can be used to make fun of or attack Trump.

I generally agree with the points Trump is making and if you actually listen to him, what he says is not nearly as mean or crazy as the media makes it out to be...

That said, I think Trump needs to be extra cautious because the media always attacks him so maybe he shouldn't even comment on certain things. (Although the media asks him these type of gotcha questions at press conferences.)

Trump is more accessible to the press than Hillary. She avoids the press so that is another reason she doesn't have these brouhahas so much. (She did get in trouble for her Fox interview this weekend.)

I still like Trump so much more than Clinton.

I'm with you 100%!

+3! Voting for Trump because I'd rather have a beer with him!

Trump doesn't drink beer, moron.

He doesn't eat food with his hands, either. Bizarre. Who never eats with their hands? We're talking pizza, hot dogs, etc.

Tim Kaine is the one of the four of them that every American wants to have a beer with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to know -- precisely and exactly -- what it was that Trump said about Khan that was so offensive.

As I understand it, this all started when he simply said that maybe the mother wasn't allowed to speak at the convention. Is there more to it than that? What am I missing?

I have thought about what happened here and coming to a interesting realization.

This was a brilliant move by DNC/Khan family. The question Mr. Khan posed was an ultimate bait and Trump swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Trump has been wrong about his Anti-Muslim rhetoric for a long time. Mr. Khan's speech was against this rhetoric with an example of an ultimate sacrifice any American can do by a Muslim American. By taking this bait Trump has fallen into a Chakravyuh (look up the word and its origin, https://www.facebook.com/notes/ancient-indian-ufo/mahabharata-what-was-the-right-strategy-for-abhimanyu-to-defeat-the-padmavyuha-f/488026304622433/ ). Once he has gone into this, he cannot trace himself back unless he issues an unconditional apology about his anti-Muslim rhetoric (which is not going to happen)! I hope this does Trump in!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
But have you read the Bible lately? It's no secret that women are second-class citizens among evangelical Christians too. They're supposed to pop out babies, please their husbands sexually, and shut up -- accept with grace their lack of economic independence and reproductive rights. Another tension between Trump's base and Pence's base here.

Go to Saudi Arabia and some other Muslim countries and you will find the same mindset.

In Saudi, women are not allowed to drive either so they are totally dependent on male members of the family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to know -- precisely and exactly -- what it was that Trump said about Khan that was so offensive.

As I understand it, this all started when he simply said that maybe the mother wasn't allowed to speak at the convention. Is there more to it than that? What am I missing?

I think it was the comment about Mrs Khan not saying anything - and then suggesting that she was not allowed to talk. If Trump had confined his comments to recognizing the son as a hero - which he did - and then added a comment, if he wished to do so, that Mr Khan not knowing him (Trump) was in no position to judge his knowledge of the constitution and what sacrifices he had made. He should have said this in a statement and not agreed to any interview.

End of matter.

Then this whole episode is, of course, being blown way, way out of proportion. What is so bad about the comment about Mrs. Khan not being able to speak? Frankly, many people probably wondered the same thing. It's no secret that women are considered second class citizens in the Muslim world. It's wasn't PC of him to say it, maybe, but it was the truth.

And once again, that is what his supporters like about him.

Thanks for proving you are bigoted as Trump by assuming you know something about a couple's marriage and religion when you don't know anything about them.

What he (Trump) said was, and I quote from the scholars here in DCUM, "MAYBE she wasn't allowed to speak." Well, maybe she wasn't. I think that is a very reasonable guess -- or just assumption -- based on the culture and the fact that she was standing there beside her husband wearing a burka.quote]
Just an aside, but she wore a hijab, not a burka.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
He doesn't eat food with his hands, either. Bizarre. Who never eats with their hands? We're talking pizza, hot dogs, etc.

Tim Kaine is the one of the four of them that every American wants to have a beer with.

The Brits - when I lived there and that was a very long time ago - rarely used their fingers to eat. The exception was fish and chips!

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Asking a sincere question...is it possible that Mrs. Khan does admire and endorse the clearly not quiet HRC but, as a Muslim wife, is not allowed to speak in that type of situation?

Clearly just about anything is possible. But, if you heard her MSNBC interview, it is much more likely that she simply didn't want to speak. Kind of lost in this discussion is the Mother of the Orlando shooting victim. She had two men supporting her during her speech. Neither of them talked. But, nobody questions that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But have you read the Bible lately? It's no secret that women are second-class citizens among evangelical Christians too. They're supposed to pop out babies, please their husbands sexually, and shut up -- accept with grace their lack of economic independence and reproductive rights. Another tension between Trump's base and Pence's base here.

Go to Saudi Arabia and some other Muslim countries and you will find the same mindset.

In Saudi, women are not allowed to drive either so they are totally dependent on male members of the family.

Um, ok. Bothers me more that this is a norm in America though. The majority of voters do not want Pence legislating their morality according to his religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then this whole episode is, of course, being blown way, way out of proportion. What is so bad about the comment about Mrs. Khan not being able to speak? Frankly, many people probably wondered the same thing. It's no secret that women are considered second class citizens in the Muslim world. It's wasn't PC of him to say it, maybe, but it was the truth.

And once again, that is what his supporters like about him.

Trumpeters who believe Muslim women should be quietly subservient are probably confused why the Khans are supporting the notably not quietly subservient Hillary Clinton over the He-Man Donald Trump. I suppose such posters might ask the quietly subservient Mike Pence or Chris Christie, but they might not be allowed to speak.

Who said Trump supporters believe that? If anything, Trump supporters are the ones who (rightly) abhor radical Islam and the subservience of women is yet another reason why.

The poster above indicated that. But, to clarify, I meant that Trump supporters believe that Muslims think women should be quietly subservient. Many, like Trump, seemed to think that Mrs. Khan was quiet because she wasn't allowed to speak due to her religion. Were that true, it would be inconsistent with an endorsement of the clearly not quiet Hillary Clinton.

Asking a sincere question...is it possible that Mrs. Khan does admire and endorse the clearly not quiet HRC but, as a Muslim wife, is not allowed to speak in that type of situation?

Islam is not monolithic. Sunnis and Shi'a have been at odds for centuries. There are more variants of Islam than there are of Christianity, in part, because of the underlying societal and cultural norms. Muslim women can't drive in the Saudi Kingdom and yet they have ruled in Turkey, Indonesia, Kyrgystan, Bangladesh, Mauritius, Senegal and elsewhere.