oralloy wrote:This Khan guy made an over the top attack against Trump, and Trump was well within his rights to hit back at him.
"Within his rights" is to set a pretty low bar, he is within his rights to do many stupid things.
And not all attacks and criticisms are created equal, there are many legitimate criticisms he could have used but he went for the mindless playground insults as per usual.
The thing is, Hillary wasn't asked because Hillary didn't disrespect gold star parents for the whole world to see.
They were asked to the convention for an obvious reason: to counter Trump's proposed policy of excluding such people from our country merely on the basis of their religion. The notion that they were "tricked" into criticizing Trump is nonsensical and it was a powerful way to refute Trump's idiotic (by even the rest of the GOP's opinion) idea to bar Muslims from entering the country.
Nit picking here but Trump was asked what he has sacrificed before he attacked the family, not afterwards. The Khans were making the point that their family as Muslims had made a significant sacrifice to the country while he had not.
In that context it's probably also true that Hillary hasn't made a similar sacrifice but the point they were making is that these folks who have made such a sacrifice were people who he wanted to exclude from the nation. And because Hillary does not it would not make sense to ask her that question in that context.
So my nit pick is that the question was made to Trump vs Hillary because of Trump's proposal to bar Muslims from the country, and his disrespect of the Gold Start family came after that.
maxdancona wrote:The core of Trump support is White Supremacy
Nonsense. People support Trump for many reasons. They may be union workers, for example, and like that Trump supports the working class.
Dunno, I think the media has covered him largely negatively and that it's his supporters, who actually see his bullying as a "refreshing" contrast to "PC" culture, who are to blame. They actually like that he "hits" others and doesn't have a "filter" etc.
I've not heard any playground insults from Mr. Trump.
He noted the wife's silence, and speculated that it was because of Islamic patriarchy.
For the Democrats to engage in histrionics over that is pretty silly in my view.
I think the Democratic leadership can now foresee the same devastating loss looming for them that I can foresee, and they are grasping at increasingly silly arguments out of desperation.
Responding to the guy's over-the-top attacks was hardly disrespect.
I think Mr. Trump is only advocating a temporary halt to Islamic immigration until a much more thorough vetting process can be set up.
Your statements are not mutually incompatible. The core could be white anger, while there can be many other constituencies.
It's really hard to resist the urge to 'pile on' when someone says something as dumb as what Trump did about Khan but resist we must.
"For the working class"?
Fundamentally it is about the man not having anything near the temperament needed to represent the country.
To repeat his fellow Republican's criticism: it is beyond unacceptable for a man who seeks the nation's highest office to be unable to handle criticism. In a few minutes I was able to come up with many approaches better than his, if even for his own goals of securing the presidency, yet he consistently lashes out after criticism with whatever he thinks might be offensive to his target, versus substantial to the debate the nation is having over its direction and leadership.
I think you confuse what you want with what will happen,
your rationale behind the absolutism of your prediction reveals a poor understanding of predictions in the first place. People who do this are relying on inordinate strength of conviction and fundamentally do not understand probabilities and the inherent level of unpredictability of life.
if you think it is an economic disaster why do you support the man?