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

[Anonymous]

The pp who suggested that Trump was baited with the speech by Khan is probably on the mark.

They probably knew that Trump being as thin skinned as he is would react strongly to Khan's criticism. They probably did not expect it to work out so well in terms of the blow back he received.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The pp who suggested that Trump was baited with the speech by Khan is probably on the mark.

They probably knew that Trump being as thin skinned as he is would react strongly to Khan's criticism. They probably did not expect it to work out so well in terms of the blow back he received.

Fiendishly clever and kudos to the Clinton aide who hatched this plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The site just updated with latest CNN poll. Based on the majority of polls since the DNC, Clinton got about a 7 point bounce, compared to Trumps 2 to 3 point bounce. If Clinton is still leading by mid-August, she is likely to be the winner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The site just updated with latest CNN poll. Based on the majority of polls since the DNC, Clinton got about a 7 point bounce, compared to Trumps 2 to 3 point bounce. If Clinton is still leading by mid-August, she is likely to be the winner.

Still shocking that it's this close, since he's viewed by so many as a terrible candidate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The site just updated with latest CNN poll. Based on the majority of polls since the DNC, Clinton got about a 7 point bounce, compared to Trumps 2 to 3 point bounce. If Clinton is still leading by mid-August, she is likely to be the winner.

Still shocking that it's this close, since he's viewed by so many as a terrible candidate.

Well, the Democrats have nominated an equally repugnant person so much so that although I have consistently voted Democrat over the years, I will not vote for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The site just updated with latest CNN poll. Based on the majority of polls since the DNC, Clinton got about a 7 point bounce, compared to Trumps 2 to 3 point bounce. If Clinton is still leading by mid-August, she is likely to be the winner.

Still shocking that it's this close, since he's viewed by so many as a terrible candidate.

Well, the Democrats have nominated an equally repugnant person so much so that although I have consistently voted Democrat over the years, I will not vote for her.

That will surely show the Democrats!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The site just updated with latest CNN poll. Based on the majority of polls since the DNC, Clinton got about a 7 point bounce, compared to Trumps 2 to 3 point bounce. If Clinton is still leading by mid-August, she is likely to be the winner.

Still shocking that it's this close, since he's viewed by so many as a terrible candidate.

Well, the Democrats have nominated an equally repugnant person so much so that although I have consistently voted Democrat over the years, I will not vote for her.

Repugnant maybe, equally? Don't agree.
I think Trump wins that context.

Anyhow, remember how kindly George W Bush address the case of that mom, Cindy Lee Miller Sheehan, who tied herself on his ranch or something like that?
He was way more compassionate. He said he disagreed but he was compassionate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which is the most terrifying part of this election.

And no low is too low-there is still a defense or excuse

Could this be because there are Americans who feel they have been taken for a ride by establishment politicians from both parties over the last several decades?

For example, the trade deals were sold as creating millions of new jobs in the US. What we have seen is the decimation of manufacturing jobs in the US.

Have the chickens come home to roost?

That would be me.

And I'm also not one who gives a crap about niceties. I don't respect people trying to blow sunshine up my ass

[Anonymous]

He's a mentally ill narcissist / bully / paranoid .... That about covers it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

True. Case in point: http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/01/politics/sally-bradshaw-jeb-bush-donald-trump-florida/index.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump is egomaniacal bully who people like my brother will vote for because they secretly admire that take no shi* somewhat racist attitude. Love my brother but as a youth he was a bit of a shi* himself. He also lives in a 1950s throwback Virginia town.

You really don't see it, do you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the reality is that we are in a huge period of social change on par with the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's, only this time it is on a global scale. Demographics and social mores are changing at an extremely rapid pace. Global trade and communication are changing our economies and our relationship to the entire human race at an extremely rapid pace. The internet had rendered truth relative. There is way too much information available and too little ability to make sense of it. From a psychological perspective all of this change is challenging, and many people all over the world are proving incapable of handling it. It is much easier to keep the other out, to maintain the long-held status quo, so the world is simpler and easier to understand. Look at Brexit. Look at the rise of far-right movements in France, Germany, Poland, Hungary. They are all based on nationalism and keeping out the "other." Trump has an instinct for all of this and has tapped into people here who are feeling the same thing. They want a strongman. They want someone to tell them it is all going to be okay. That's what he's doing. It doesn't matter if the result is that the people being "otherized" are motivated to retaliate.

This entire dynamic is terrifying and I don't see an end in sight. With each passing day I am trying to wrap my head around the reality of Trump as President, because I honestly do think we are repeating the cycle of the early 20th century all over again.

You kind of forgot to mention the killing by the 'others', now didn't you...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With the Khan episode though, Trump has finally crossed a line of decency and propriety even with the low bar set in this election. I cannot recall another instance where there was near-universal condemnation of a candidate. The Republicans usually march in lockstep behind their nominee.

His base is loving it, I'm sure, since they share his biases against Muslims.

Too true. But the comments about the mother, who then went on national TV to implore Mr Trump to feel her pain, are in tension with their worldview. Strong men don't need to attack women and they certainly don't need to cause greater pain to grieving mothers.

I think he picked the wrong battle here, to be honest. Khan is from a culture of honor and strength as well. He hits Trump where it hurts -- on his leadership, his citizenship, his character. Plus the family has the clear moral high ground. It's very effective. Trump is frightened and therefore became nasty.

I thought Khan was a cheap trick -- get the widow on the set.

Especially after hearing what Jazs's father said about his death at the hands of an illegal alien - that at first media and politicians were surrounding him because his black son had been murdered, then when they found out the murderer was an illegal Mexican, they deserted him.

[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.

Hillary will continue Obama's inclusion of the Muslim Brotherhood in our politics. She's a useful pawn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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?

My nephew became VP of a Wall Street tech firm at 35 without nepotism. So. Yes.