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.

Anonymous wrote:

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First, let me make it clear that I am not a Trump supporter but I find this election fascinating and worrisome given that both the major nominees are seriously flawed candidates.

There is something bizarre about how Trump has reacted to the Khan controversy. He just seems to be digging himself into a deeper hole when he should have just left it with praise for the son who died serving his country. He was baited into the attacking the Khans and just fell for it and even now he will not let it go when there are so many other issues that he could focus on where the Clinton is vulnerable whether it is jobs, trade, the economy or how she lied in the interview with Wallace.

Having said this, I am cautious because he seems to have a certain instinctive feel for the sensitivities of many Americans as evidenced by how he has overcome so many other screw ups which would have killed anyone else's campaign. I once heard Jeff Greenfield when Trump was into the primaries and leading to everyone's surprise that Trump had what Greenfield referred to as a "feral instinct" for the aspirations and sensitivities of many Americans.

The so-called experts have been just completely wrong on so many occasions. I remember after the RNC convention and Trump's speech the talking heads on CNN were ranting about how Trump's speech was "dark" and pessimistic and had been a disaster. About an hour later, CNN's own instant poll showed that 75% of those polled thought the speech was very good or good! The talking heads criticizing Trump then shut up about his speech.

So despite what seems a fiasco by Trump in how he is dealing with the Khans, I wonder if his approach, given how he has fared in the past with other controversies, may be successful despite all the odds and despite what conventional wisdom would suggest.

The fact that people "can't figure out" what Trump is doing makes me lol. He appeals to the uneducated voter who is afraid that his/her lifestyle is no longer supportable, and will be gone in the future (or has already left). This isn't rocket science. That is Trump's base. The scary thing is that this base will likely come out and vote for Trump, while Hillary's base of educated voters may not come out and vote for her.

Anonymous wrote:He's basically running as a f*ck you to everyone who said he couldn't. His words and actions don't surprise me at all. What depresses me is that he's found so much enthusiastic support.

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?

Anonymous wrote:First, let me make it clear that I am not a Trump supporter but I find this election fascinating and worrisome given that both the major nominees are seriously flawed candidates.

There is something bizarre about how Trump has reacted to the Khan controversy. He just seems to be digging himself into a deeper hole when he should have just left it with praise for the son who died serving his country. He was baited into the attacking the Khans and just fell for it and even now he will not let it go when there are so many other issues that he could focus on where the Clinton is vulnerable whether it is jobs, trade, the economy or how she lied in the interview with Wallace.

Having said this, I am cautious because he seems to have a certain instinctive feel for the sensitivities of many Americans as evidenced by how he has overcome so many other screw ups which would have killed anyone else's campaign. I once heard Jeff Greenfield when Trump was into the primaries and leading to everyone's surprise that Trump had what Greenfield referred to as a "feral instinct" for the aspirations and sensitivities of many Americans.

The so-called experts have been just completely wrong on so many occasions. I remember after the RNC convention and Trump's speech the talking heads on CNN were ranting about how Trump's speech was "dark" and pessimistic and had been a disaster. About an hour later, CNN's own instant poll showed that 75% of those polled thought the speech was very good or good! The talking heads criticizing Trump then shut up about his speech.

So despite what seems a fiasco by Trump in how he is dealing with the Khans, I wonder if his approach, given how he has fared in the past with other controversies, may be successful despite all the odds and despite what conventional wisdom would suggest.

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.

But it wasn't the truth, it was just a wrong assumption about her. Nothing to do with PC, it simply was not true. But somehow Trump "speaks the truth." I guess some people just see what they want to see.

Even if his wife wasn't able to speak in some twisted Trump worldview, guess what? It does not diminish anything her husband had to say!

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.

But it wasn't the truth, it was just a wrong assumption about her. Nothing to do with PC, it simply was not true. But somehow Trump "speaks the truth." I guess some people just see what they want to see.

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:

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?