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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What do you mean both of the nominees are seriously flawed candidates? Only one of them is.

Every reservation you have about Hillary Clinton is the result of 20 years of relentless right-wing propaganda. Her only "flaw" is not being a particularly good orator in front of crowds. But on matters of policy and general competence, she's more than qualified to be president.

I am voting for HRC, but don't kid yourself. She is seriously flawed, too. As much as Trump has a PR problem, so does Hillary. That's why Sanders was so popular. But, I agree, she is way more qualified than Trump is or ever could be.

Wait a second. I was a huge Bernie supporter, but it wasn't because I thought Clinton was so flawed. I am more progressive than Hillary. I also thought she was running 1996 campaign in 2016. Don't kid yourself. We were running away from Hillary, we were running to Bernie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I really don't think the female leadership of some of these countries should be over-emphasized.

Pakistan had Benazir Bhutto but her father was a former prime minister who was hanged by the army chief who took over in a coup.

Park Geun-hye, the first female president of South Korea was the daughter of former South Korean President Park Chung-hee.

India had Indira Gandhi whose father was the first prime minister of India

Sirimavo Bandarnaike, Sri Lanka's first female prime minister, was the wife of the prime minister of Sri Lanka who was assassinated and she succeeded him. Subsequently her daughter became prime minister.

Khaleda Zia was the first female prime minister of Bangla Desh and her husband was a former president of that country.

Corazon Aquino was the first female president of the Phillipines after her husband who was the president and was assassinated.

I have cited Muslim and non-Muslim majority countries to illustrate a point.

Notice the common factor in all these cases? In each instance they succeeded a male relative who was the leader of the country. So we have some good old fashioned nepotism and family influence in play in these cases.

I don't think female leadership is indicative of equality for women in most of these countries.

But then it looks like we are headed in the same direction given that Hillary Clinton is married to a former president of the US.

So? The US has had this too.. Bush, Adams, Roosevelts, and now they are saying a Trump dynasty (eeg gads).

Plus, you think Ivanka Trump could've become VP of a large company at such a young age without nepotism?

Of course there is nepotism in politics and other fields. My point is that citing female leaders of some of these countries is not indicative of equality in those countries. It has been argued repeatedly that Hillary Clinton, accomplished as she is, would most likely never have reached the position she is in today as the first female nominee of a major party, if she had not been married to Bill Clinton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let it go, let it go....Can someone sing that to Trump?
Really!!!

He can't. It's not in his nature. He's had a 30 yr feud with the editor of Vanity Fair about his small hands.

[jsteele]

Today in Ohio, Trump said that he expects the election will be rigged. Combined with his opposition to the debate scheduling -- which he also considers rigged -- it is clearly setting the stage to claim the election was stolen from him. While that might simply be his way of dealing with a loss, I wonder how his supporters will react?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Today in Ohio, Trump said that he expects the election will be rigged. Combined with his opposition to the debate scheduling -- which he also considers rigged -- it is clearly setting the stage to claim the election was stolen from him. While that might simply be his way of dealing with a loss, I wonder how his supporters will react?

If the election was rigged he would not be the GOP Nominee. They would have found a way to keep him out.

I pray this election is not close and there is no election type fraud and no voter machines are mysteriously hacked so we can be done with him either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You are such an idiot. There is literally nothing in Islam about a wife not being able to speak in "that type of situation". No, there is nothing in the Muslim law that says, "should your husband be invited to speak about your dead son, you, the wife, should stand still and not talk".

If she was not allowed to speak, don't you think she'd just stay home?

PP here. Despite your unnecessary name-calling, I'll respond to your comment. I know very little about Muslim laws but do know that there are religious customs of other religions that discourage women from speaking. I simply asked if the same might be true in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think where Trump is screwing up is in not recognizing that he needs to improve how the public perceives him - something that he can do because the views about him are not that crystallized except among the liberals who hate him.

OTOH, Hillary is intensely distrusted and it is a distrust that is deeply embedded - and she would find it difficult to change the public's perception of her.

His views are very much crystallized by more than half the GOP not endorsing him or attending Trump Convention. Do you think when so many recognized name GOP leaders are not voting for TRUMP it has no effect on their followers. Kasich and Rubio cleaned up the educated GOP voters. You think these voters like trump's antics? Cruz cleaned up the evangelicals. You think true christians agree with Trump's bombastic name calling? This is already reflected in Hillary having a lead among white women in general, when previous democrat candidates only had a lead with educated, single and younger white women. Hillary is also in a tie with white men with a degree when typical democrat candidates lagged behind.

Trump spews on a daily basis and his gift of the gab is giving Hillary the presidency.

The CBS poll released today shows that 78% of Republicans are supporting Trump no matter what endorsements he has received. When push comes to shove, what motivates most Republicans is an intense dislike of Hillary Clinton - and so that 78% will go up because some of those who are sitting on the fence will likely vote for Trump because they sure as hell will not vote for Hillary.

But the election will ride on moderates and independents and who they vote for. Hillary's massive negatives have been there a while and has gotten worse. Unless Trump blows it with making nonsensical comments, he has a better chance of improving on how the public perceives him and particularly the moderates and independents.

Trump's worst enemy is himself and he is capable of blowing it because he feels the need to react to every situation.

Hillary's negatives have improved in the same CBS poll while Trumps have worsened. He needs over 90% of republican voters. Hillary is getting over 85% of dem voters after Sanders endorsement. She will get over 95% in the end. There is lil separating Sanders voters and Hillary policy wise.

Trump can't stop spewing. He is suffering from a sociopathic personality disorder. He can't change it even if he wants. No way women are going back to him. No way many of my educated fiscal conservative family members are going back. Besides, the electoral college is loaded against GOP as it is. Now with TRUMP on board, he is losing independent, moderate GOP and women voters. How do you think the situation can be improved?

Trump needs to win all 4 states of OH, FL,PA and NC. Hillary needs only one of the 4. She also has the option to open another front in GA or AZ. You got to understand, a challenger has to run up the score and then play defense. Instead Hillary has the lead, money, team, strategy and the entire might of the Democratic team(Sanders, Warren, Bill, Biden, Obamas, Reid, Schumer etc.). What has Trump got? Nobody from the GOP even wants to be seen with him. He has exhausted his appeal to his base. He has no money for field operations, no strategy other than twitter(which helps Hillary) and no team behind him in a difficult terrain to begin with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You are such an idiot. There is literally nothing in Islam about a wife not being able to speak in "that type of situation". No, there is nothing in the Muslim law that says, "should your husband be invited to speak about your dead son, you, the wife, should stand still and not talk".

If she was not allowed to speak, don't you think she'd just stay home?

Oh, please.

If you knew anything about Islam (obviously you don't) you would know that women are considered subservient and inferior to men. Or do you think they just enjoy dressing in burkas in 100 degree heat? That doesn't fit your narrative, I understand, but just because you want to believe that it's "just another beautiful religion" doesn't make that true.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Today in Ohio, Trump said that he expects the election will be rigged. Combined with his opposition to the debate scheduling -- which he also considers rigged -- it is clearly setting the stage to claim the election was stolen from him. While that might simply be his way of dealing with a loss, I wonder how his supporters will react?

The same as their "fearless" leader.

Plus, maybe it is rigged since Gore "lost" to Bush. Turn about is fair play?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You are such an idiot. There is literally nothing in Islam about a wife not being able to speak in "that type of situation". No, there is nothing in the Muslim law that says, "should your husband be invited to speak about your dead son, you, the wife, should stand still and not talk".

If she was not allowed to speak, don't you think she'd just stay home?

Oh, please.

If you knew anything about Islam (obviously you don't) you would know that women are considered subservient and inferior to men. Or do you think they just enjoy dressing in burkas in 100 degree heat? That doesn't fit your narrative, I understand, but just because you want to believe that it's "just another beautiful religion" doesn't make that true.

? You know that not all Muslim women wear burqas, right? Many Muslim women are more fashionable than American women.

what about those extremist "Christian" women who are only allowed to wear dresses? Sure, not as oppressive as burqas but it's the same type of subservience that is required. Are the Amish a terrible group, too? Heck, they are not even allowed to use electricity.

I don't disagree that extremist Muslims are terrible, but you, and Trump, really need to learn the difference, and that we have right wing extremist groups here, too, on our very soil that subjugates women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Have you been to Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia? Lots of women driving, voting, and working. Not all Muslims are the same. You can begin with the difference between Sunni and Shia and go from there.

Been to all of those countries multiple times and even spent considerable periods of time there - and many others. Yes, all of those activities are done by women but - let us not pretend - that they are not all male dominated societies. Both Shia and Sunni societies - in most Muslim countries - are usually male dominated to varying levels. And before anyone suggests that the same is true in the US, there is no comparison.

In some ways you are correct. But, Pakistan has had a female PM - a democratically elected one at that. The US, with all it's talk of gender equality, has never had a female POTUS. Even South Korea, a very misogynistic culture, has a female president.

I think like most religions and cultures, the mostly uneducated subgroup of the culture or religion tends to subjugate women more, including those of the West. Most of the Muslim countries have a huge poor and uneducated population. What is the US' excuse?

Don't be blinded by the coastal Americans. US has just as much "poorly educated" and racists in the south. Look at how much opposition Hillary has faced most of which, if she had been a he, wouldn't have been as big of an issue. Ronald Reagan had embassy bombings during his tenure. Both bushes endured Embassy killings. George W even survived 911. But because all of them are men, they don't have to constantly prove they are strong, have good judgment and patriotic to the other men. But Hillary has to constantly face criticism FROM THE MEN even though she had fewer failings. There is a different standard to judge women by men. Hillary is no different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Today in Ohio, Trump said that he expects the election will be rigged. Combined with his opposition to the debate scheduling -- which he also considers rigged -- it is clearly setting the stage to claim the election was stolen from him. While that might simply be his way of dealing with a loss, I wonder how his supporters will react?

The same as their "fearless" leader.


Plus, maybe it is rigged since Gore "lost" to Bush. Turn about is fair play?

Ha... You think Jeb is going to sew it up for Trump?? Crazy talk. If anything, he will flip Florida just to help the Reliblicans not be utterly disgraced by this clown. The Bushes are keeping a very stiff upper lip. Their staff is coming out openly as pro-Hillary/neverTrump'ers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You are such an idiot. There is literally nothing in Islam about a wife not being able to speak in "that type of situation". No, there is nothing in the Muslim law that says, "should your husband be invited to speak about your dead son, you, the wife, should stand still and not talk".

If she was not allowed to speak, don't you think she'd just stay home?

Oh, please.

If you knew anything about Islam (obviously you don't) you would know that women are considered subservient and inferior to men. Or do you think they just enjoy dressing in burkas in 100 degree heat? That doesn't fit your narrative, I understand, but just because you want to believe that it's "just another beautiful religion" doesn't make that true.

not pp but, I am an American woman who married an Iranian Muslim 22 years ago and travel every year to Iran. I have no idea what you are talking about. I know Im not Muslim but I think I know a little about Islam and the culture.

[Anonymous]

You are quite right. that is why Trump is only 2 points behind accoroding to realclearpolitics No one will vote for Trump!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/presi...ion_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Ummm, except your link show her up 4 points? (OK, 3.9.) My guess is she picks up another point or two and hover there until Election Day. Which will pretty much mean a blow out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You are such an idiot. There is literally nothing in Islam about a wife not being able to speak in "that type of situation". No, there is nothing in the Muslim law that says, "should your husband be invited to speak about your dead son, you, the wife, should stand still and not talk".

If she was not allowed to speak, don't you think she'd just stay home?

Oh, please.

If you knew anything about Islam (obviously you don't) you would know that women are considered subservient and inferior to men. Or do you think they just enjoy dressing in burkas in 100 degree heat? That doesn't fit your narrative, I understand, but just because you want to believe that it's "just another beautiful religion" doesn't make that true.

Yo idiot, I'm married to a Muslim and raising two Muslim children so there is very little I don't know about Islam - certainly way more than your ignorant self.

To reiterate: no, there is nothing in Islam that forbids the wife to speak in public. Did you ask your boy Trump why all HIS wife did was standing behind him silently, until very recently? Or why does she have to be prodded into speaking? "Melania, say something!"