[quote=“Drew1411, post:1122, topic:218984, full:true”]
The mother said NOTHING. He attacked her. So even if your logic was ok (it’s not, a good politician gets attacked all the time and doesn’t go into twitter rants), it doesn’t apply in this situation.[/quote]
She’s up there on the podium with him. Stay off the stage if you can’t handle the heat.
Both
So? You said she attacked him. How is standing there and saying nothing attacking him? (I’ll give you a hint, it’s not)
I’m not talking about how she’s handling the heat, whatever that means. I asked how it is a good tactic for Trump. (another hint, it’s not)
Because you said so? I mean how? How is this a discussion of gender equality? When did he do anything other than attack a grieving mother? I haven’t heard anybody talking about gender equality, which is a problem for muslim countries and something that could be discussed (again, the type of spin a normal politician can do from one sided questions and attacks as pat and Max mentioned). Maybe that’s because Trump didn’t discuss it, he attacked a gold star mother and is rightfully getting called on it.
To summarize, your rationlization for Trump’s attack is that he was attacked, yet can’t prove that happen. You also are using Trump’s attack on a gold star family as Trump’s way of discussing gender equality even though nothing of that was actually discussed. Do you just make this up as you go along?
Trump has built his base by going on the offensive, it’s really congruent with his past behaviour. I thought this was obvious?
I thought you were upset mostly by his comments on his mother.
Secondly, if this is a bad move then I’m sure you’re overjoyed he said it and hurt himself.
I asked you how attacking a gold star mother who said nothing to you is a good tactic. You end up with “isn’t it obvious, he’s on the offensive”. Duh, I know he’s attacking her, I’m pointing out that he has nothing to gain from doing so and is making himself look like an idiot (which is probably an accurate reflection of him, so it will probably keep happening) Do you have anything other than blind faithfullness to Trump and your right-wing buddies?
Also, feel free to ignore that this is the general election, he has to go beyond the base and get more voters.
I said it was a stupid tactic and it is working bad for him. You attempted to defend the statements as a discussion of gender equality… which you have not proven. You also attempted to defend the statments as a counter attack…which you again have not proven.
You think I’m happy with this dumpster fire candidate and the train wreck that he keeps bringing on himself? We’re not even getting into how in an interview Trump said Russian President Vladimir Putin wouldn’t make a military move into Ukraine, even though Putin has already done that by seizing the Crimean Peninsula in 2014.
My only hope now is that he’s so bad Republicans abandon him as the nominee. At some point I had hoped that he might act presidential and be willing to convince non right-wing voters to his side. Instead he proves that he is nothing more that a racist buffoon who can’t take any critisism, take advice, discuss policy, or really do anything that a president would be asked to do.
Just wow. Of all the ridiculous posts you’ve made this one takes the cake.
Thanks, Aragorn.
You’re right. I certainly don’t want to downplay the makeup of the SCOTUS, for sure.
VERY interesting thing that you brought up to ponder. With Millennials (mostly) downplaying party affiliation and loyalty; how WILL that play out in the future? Will the loudest and/or the greater demagogue be the one who mobilizes them as they age?
Something to really think about.
I also agree with Pat.
These pollsters, pundits and Media Outlets are delusional if they think that for one instant they can predict this Presidential Race. TRUMP HAS DEFIED ANY AND EVERY TRADITIONAL METRIC THROWN HIS WAY.
Will “Electoral Math” and demographics finally catch up with him?
I think that only time will tell.
Oh, well, nevermind… 
To some extent this is true – nobody thought Trump would get this far, mainly because we all gave the primary voters far too much credit.
But it is a myth that Trump has done much to defy the metrics. He underperformed as often as he overperformed his polling numbers, and in a very real way guys like Nate Silver were wrong on Trump precisely because they pundited themselves away from the picture painted by the hard data.
Robert Kagan, a pillar in the conservative foreign policy community, is at his best here.
"Imagine such a person as president. What we have seen in the Trump campaign is not only a clever method of stirring up the anger in people. It is also a personality defect that has had the effect of stirring up anger. And because it is a defect and not a tactic, it would continue to affect Trump’s behavior in the White House. It would determine how he dealt with other nations. It would determine how he dealt with critics at home. It would determine how he governed, how he executed the laws, how he instructed the law-enforcement and intelligence agencies under his command, how he dealt with the press, how he dealt with the opposition party and how he handled dissent within his own party. His personality defect would be the dominating factor in his presidency, just as it has been the dominating factor in his campaign. His ultimately self-destructive tendencies would play out on the biggest stage in the world, with consequences at home and abroad that one can barely begin to imagine. It would make him the closest thing the United States has ever had to a dictator, but a dictator with a dangerously unstable temperament that neither he nor anyone else can control.
One can hope it does not come to that. In all likelihood, his defects will destroy him before he reaches the White House. He will bring himself down, and he will bring the Republican Party and its leaders down with him. This would be a tragedy were it not that the party and its leaders, who chose him as their nominee and who now cover and shill for this troubled man, so richly deserve their fate"
Well, that’s what the alternate narrative could have been.
Rather than the “outrage”, it could have been view a completely different way. The media drove the outrage, naturally. But what would it look like if nobody reacted?
What if the media took the narrative a different direction? Let’s say the media directed the narrative as Trump being concerned about the treatment of women in her community. Why was she covered, standing behind the man, and not allowed to speak?
So what if the media took it as an observation and not an aggressive insult? Is it not possible that she in fact, may not have been allowed to speak?
For the record, I thought the tweet was stupid and somebody needs to get it through his skull that he doesn’t have to react to every, single little thing. But I am approaching it as a thought experiment. What if the media chose to react differently to the tweet? What would the narrative be?
My generation will gleefully trade more and more freedom, in exchange for promises of others’ belongings and protection from God’s law/natural law/whatever you want to call it. The next generation will continue this. The only thing that will interrupt this progression is a collapse, and that will be more of an “up 5, back 3” type of reset for totalitarianism…unless it’s the final collapse of man’s rule.
Yes, I’m sure Donald was talking about gender equality after having insulted Carly Fiorina’s face and insinuating Megyn Kelly was on her period.
Sure.
There’s a possibility that the next CIC will be a guy that attacked a gold star mother and thinks POWs are losers. Unfuckingreal.
I disagree pat, there is a way to bring up issues, this was not it.
You can’t blame the media on this one. They didn’t spin anything, Trump gave it to them on a silver platter. Of course they are going to take it and run with it, they woudl rather talk about this story than Hillary’s blatent lie about her emails during her Chris Wallace interview. Trump continues to miss opportunities to talk about things that would actually help him and instead brings this up.
There was no way to view attacking a gold star mother for not saying anything during her husbands speech (how was she supposed to say anything?) as Trump being concerned about the treatment of women. It’s not media bias, its just how Trump did it.
Looks like Mr Khan was up there to defend his wallet too.
Did you read the entirety of my post? I put the caveat emptor at the end of it.
Yes, what I disagree with is the potential the media could’ve reacted differently, not at your overall perspective. Sorry for the lack of clarification on my part.
I think they could have reacted differently… That does not make the tweet any better, it was a poor choice to say anything. Like I said, shutting up is a fine art that is far too little encouraged.
Personally I think if Johnson makes the national debate stage, it could get REAL interisting.
The question is, with all the leaks can the DMC and the GOP use their traditional skullduggery to keep him out?
You know what I found interesting wasn’t the story. It was the video. It was the claim that talking about ‘shutting our borders’ or painting islamists in a negative light will some how infuriate the masses and drive them into the arms of ISIS…
Isn’t this a soft bigotry of low expectations? To say that a group of people are so volatile, that any little perceived slight will turn them into a terrorist, is kind of like saying that the only thing keeping a muslim from being an islamist is a just a matter of any perceived slight. That pretty much the only thing separating a muslim from a terrorist is a matter of right wing talking points. And if we don’t want muslims to turn into terrorists, you best not say anything about them.
“So join us! We’ll obfuscate reality and suffocate honest conversation about real threats.”