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

[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?

It was rigged against Romney. Ask Reid

Why would this be different?

[Anonymous]

You know why Khan's speech was so powerful? Because his son willingly went towards a suicide bomb van while telling his soldiers to stay back. And the Khans said, maybe he learned something from the values of this country.

They went on to defend America in the strongest terms. They clearly believe, as many Americans do, that Trump would literally destroy the fabric of values on which this country stands.

It's their right to criticize him when he's advocated for totally un-American values and policies. Trump shows himself as a dictator when he says that they have "no right" to speak their minds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's nice, but do you think she would have? I think she was something like 24 when she became EVP of one of Trump's company. Even she admitted that nepotism got her in the door.

[Anonymous]

Trump is just crazy. All this "election is rigged" stuff is to prepare for the fact that he is too unstable to stop mouthing off and making simple factual errors.

And, it was not rigged agaisnt Romney, Romney was just running against a really strong candidate. If he had waited to run against Hillary this year, he might have had a chance at winning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's nice, but do you think she would have? I think she was something like 24 when she became EVP of one of Trump's company. Even she admitted that nepotism got her in the door.

So what? Do you think Chelsea Clinton is wondering how they are going to be able to afford shoes for the baby?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes it will be successful. A lot of Americans love the "never back down" mentality. Right or wrong, Trump stands by what he says and doesn't back down. People respect that, believe it or not.

Not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The media narrative on Trump is way overdone and inaccurate. The MSM thinks they have a pass to editorialize on Trump rather than report facts in an un-biased way. And it is all for ratings. It makes me want to defend Trump because he is being treated unfairly. Mostly-liberal here.

I am in the same boat - liberal on most issues but I find myself defending Trump occasionally because the media is so biased against him.

You are right: I do not understand why the media is giving him free press on the idiotic bubbling. They should completely ignore him. It is not like he has anything I want to hear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump is just crazy. All this "election is rigged" stuff is to prepare for the fact that he is too unstable to stop mouthing off and making simple factual errors.

And, it was not rigged agaisnt Romney, Romney was just running against a really strong candidate. If he had waited to run against Hillary this year, he might have had a chance at winning. [/quote

The election was Romney's to lose and he poked it off with aplomb by virtue of his utter disdain for half of America. I'm sure the LDS baggage didn't help with some evangelicals.

[Anonymous]

I knew he would start it, because he's Donald Trump and he can't help himself, but accusations of election rigging are a very dangerous game to play. He has no idea what he might unleash in this current climate, nor does he care. One of the principal features that has sustained us over the past 250 years (1861-65 excepted) and differentiates American/Western democracy from the unstable imitation seen in third world banana republics is a smooth transfer of power. The loser concedes and life moves on, as opposed to sparking mass civil unrest and/or attempting a coup. American politics has been going down the toilet since the mid '90s but at least we've maintained this one standard so far. If that pillar gets knocked loose, we should all be very afraid of what might happen.

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

You appear "blinded" to the truth as well since you only mention the "poorly educated" and "racists in the south."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

No the scary thing is I do see it. Fear. Of. The. Other.

[Anonymous]

Trump is the political arsonist who's busy pouring out the gasoline. He's too self-involved to appreciate or care about the broader implications of the words he uses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I knew he would start it, because he's Donald Trump and he can't help himself, but accusations of election rigging are a very dangerous game to play. He has no idea what he might unleash in this current climate, nor does he care. One of the principal features that has sustained us over the past 250 years (1861-65 excepted) and differentiates American/Western democracy from the unstable imitation seen in third world banana republics is a smooth transfer of power. The loser concedes and life moves on, as opposed to sparking mass civil unrest and/or attempting a coup. American politics has been going down the toilet since the mid '90s but at least we've maintained this one standard so far. If that pillar gets knocked loose, we should all be very afraid of what might happen.

Trump being a narcissistic ignoramus, has no such qualms and his supporters don't understand how institutions are built or how they can be destroyed. It is the responsibility of people like us to protect our institutions for another century or more. Hopefully there are more responsible and educated people. Or this will be the beginning of the end of a golden era. Every good thing comes to an end, hopefully not in our lifetime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes it will be successful. A lot of Americans love the "never back down" mentality. Right or wrong, Trump stands by what he says and doesn't back down. People respect that, believe it or not.

Angry Caucasian males respect that. Fixed it for you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump is just crazy. All this "election is rigged" stuff is to prepare for the fact that he is too unstable to stop mouthing off and making simple factual errors.

And, it was not rigged agaisnt Romney, Romney was just running against a really strong candidate. If he had waited to run against Hillary this year, he might have had a chance at winning.

I agree!! I always wondered why the Rep. wasted their best guy to run against the re-election of Obama. Obama still had high approval ratings after his first term. I don't blame Romney for not running again when he was preferred by the GOP. The party failed him by putting him out there too early. He would have won this election against Hillary. So upsetting. There is NO way in hell that I will vote Trump. Romney yes, Paul Ryan yes, not Trump. Also, it's really interested that the Rep. on this board blame another repeat of Obama. Look the Rep. control the House and the Senate and they still couldn't get anything accomplished. They will need to revamp the party after this election before I vote Rep. again. 4 years to fix the party!!!