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.

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.

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.

Until very recently, Melania Trump said even less than Ghazala Khan.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote: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 wrote:I do agree that this whole election is fascinating. I feel a writer couldn't have constructed a better premise for a novel reflecting our times than this election cycle. Both candidates are such an opposing reflection of our times, compelling foils of each other, it's bizarre.

She a product of studies and polling, carefully cultivated to be what we ask for, evolving over time to reflect the changing demands of the people, so much so that no one really knows who she is or what she stands for.

He all persona and rhetoric and no substance. Saying so much and yet standing for nothing, other than his own narcissism. It's all about likes and retweets and impressions.

Fascinating.

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.

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.

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.

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.