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.

Melania has never spoken before the convention. She comes like a doll(which she is) sits, claps, smiles and goes away. And the convention speech was plagiarized. Ghazala Khan spoke very well on CNN. You have the same problem Trump has. If your mother lost someone she loves(maybe not you), would she be able to give a speech without breaking up?

No one forced them to come to the DNC convention and launch an attack on Trump. They did that all by themselves.

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.

Melania has never spoken before the convention. She comes like a doll(which she is) sits, claps, smiles and goes away. And the convention speech was plagiarized. Ghazala Khan spoke very well on CNN. You have the same problem Trump has. If your mother lost someone she loves(maybe not you), would she be able to give a speech without breaking up?

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.

Anonymous wrote:I think part of this issue is the media's exaggeration of everything Trump says...

They make a huge deal out of everything if they think it can be used to make fun of or attack Trump.

I generally agree with the points Trump is making and if you actually listen to him, what he says is not nearly as mean or crazy as the media makes it out to be...

That said, I think Trump needs to be extra cautious because the media always attacks him so maybe he shouldn't even comment on certain things. (Although the media asks him these type of gotcha questions at press conferences.)

Trump is more accessible to the press than Hillary. She avoids the press so that is another reason she doesn't have these brouhahas so much. (She did get in trouble for her Fox interview this weekend.)

I still like Trump so much more than Clinton.

Trump lives by media and he will die by the media. Its a double edged sword that he cant control. He wants publicity and he gets it. Trump is a man with personality disorder and sociopathic tendencies. Check the link below and see how many he can check off. He is a text book case. Below are the traits that are associated with sociopaths and I have marked the ones that fit him IN BOLD.

http://www.minddisorders.com/Flu-Inv/Hare-Psychopathy-Checklist.html

The twenty traits assessed by the PCL-R score are:

glib and superficial charm - This is how he gets the naive supporters who believe whatever he says.
grandiose (exaggeratedly high) estimation of self - All things are Yuuge and he is super smart
need for stimulation - His constant need to be appreciated. Putin has said nice things about me syndrome.
pathological lying - lying for simple things as NFL sent letter, reference to "people said". I wonder the people are in his mind.
cunning and manipulativeness - This is obvious in how he manipulated his voters, poor trump U students etc
lack of remorse or guilt - No apologies or backing down , a feature for his "poorly educated" voters
shallow affect (superficial emotional responsiveness) - He says stuff without any feelings and emotions
callousness and lack of empathy - When people got killed he was gloating he was right. No empathy for dead people.
parasitic lifestyle - Running a fake U on money swindled from poor Americans, not paying contractors
poor behavioral controls - Self Explanatory
sexual promiscuity - His history and proud gloating about his prowess with women
early behavior problems - His biographer has called him a sociopath. If anyone knows about trump it should be him.
lack of realistic long-term goals - So many failed businesses tells he is not strategic.
impulsivity - Cant stop tweeting
irresponsibility - Totally doesn't care about the results of his actions.
failure to accept responsibility for own actions - Spews hatred without knowing how much this country will be affected.
many short-term marital relationships - Proven many times.
juvenile delinquency - He was dumped in a boarding school because of this.
revocation of conditional release - All or nothing gamble
criminal versatility - The guy keeps changing everything he says, characteristic fibber.

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: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.

This is so over the top and obnoxious that I'm wondering if Trump has a form of "buyers remorse" and has realized he doesn't really want to SERVE as president, so he is making himself even more unelectable.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The only thing Trump got going for him is voters. I hope he can weather the attacks in the next 100 days. The Clinton machine is well oiled.

That reminds me of the pundits comments on Rubio "He ran the perfect campaign -- the only thing that was missing was the voters"

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Jobs have been created for those with degrees as unemployment for that segment is less than 3%. But those that are affected are disproportionately "poorly educated". They have not lost as many jobs to mexicans as they have to machines. Today cars are made by machines. manufacturing can go from CAD/CAM design engineers to finished product without much human involvement. Computers do the machining based on specs and errors are very low with the elimination of human error. I went to a winery for wine tasting and the entire winery was run with 10 people. The same winery had 50 people 2 years back according to the tour guide. It was basically, sensors, machines and computers running the whole shop.

No amount of blaming trade deals will stop machines from taking over. Soon there are driverless cars that will kill truckers income. We are entering the age of the machines and our 20th century thinking will not solve our 21st century problems. There has to be better income distribution, retraining, a guaranteed basic income and other novel ideas.

+1 I keep saying the same thing.

My dad was a machinist in the 80's. He saw the writing on the wall before he retired in the early 90's... everything was becoming automated.

This is the 21st century folks. Accept that machines and computers are here to stay, and those jobs Trump keeps promising are not really ever coming back. 3rd world countries don't use as much automation because they can't afford it. So, unless you want this country to go back several decades in our innovation and technology, those jobs just aren't coming back.

Trump should be telling his unemployed supporters to get training on jobs that are in high demand and can't be outsourced. Electricians, plumbers, etc... An electrician friend is looking to hire more people. He can't keep up with the demand, but he can't seem to find anyone who has a brain and/or is willing to be trained.

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 the most offensive thing was when he was asked what he had sacrificed for the country, he said he sacrificed by working hard and creating jobs. This insulted not just the Khans, but every family that has lost someone in a war. Then Trump being Trump, rather than either ignoring or admitted the error, continued the attacks.

I heard the Gold Star families have demanded an apology from Trump for those comments about sacrifice. No response from Trump yet.

I'm just here laughing at America. Really! 2017 and your presidential candidates are Hilary and Trump!!

God help you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Quite honestly, I know of several people who are not racist, not anti-immigrant, not anti-Muslim who had the same reaction about Mrs Khan not saying a word when her husband was talking. They assumed it was cultural although they did not feel a need to disparage her because she did not talk.

Having had a fair amount of interaction with Muslims from different countries both here as well as in their own countries there is a strong sense of family and so Trump's comments about Mrs Khan would have evoked a certain feeling of revulsion especially since Trump was pretty explicit in suggesting that she was not allowed to talk.

The Khan parents are originally from Pakistan and, again, in the context of society there, the husband would probably be the main spokesperson in a situation like this.

Not sure who your friends are, but that is silly. I have a lot of very outspoken female Pakistan journalist friends. And clearly if it was that oppressive, why would she even be on stage? Why would she show her face and some of her hair? Just stupid.

I have no idea what you are going on about. What specifically did I state that you disagree with based on your experience?

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.

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?

Trump said Khan had "no right" to speak of Trump as he did. Really? What is this, a f*ing dictatorship? Last I heard, the point of democracy is that people can publicly criticize their leaders and engage in free discourse about elections.

Beyond stating that Khan had "no right" to criticize him, which was widely discussed on all the major networks, he also implied that Khan hadn't written his own speech. More subtle xenophobia. The guy has a degree from Harvard Law, and more importantly seems to have 1,000,000,000x the intellectual and moral capacity as Trump. What an idiot for calling him out after Melania plagiarized her speech. The guy is a total trainwreck. America needs to get off and save themselves while they can.

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.