25
   

"Until this moment I think I never really gauged your cruelty"

 
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2016 06:34 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
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.

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.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2016 06:37 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:
The thing is, Hillary wasn't asked because Hillary didn't disrespect gold star parents for the whole world to see.

Responding to the guy's over-the-top attacks was hardly disrespect.

The anti-gunners try the same nonsense. They get the parents of some shooting victim to make outrageous attacks against people, and then they react in feigned horror when people defend themselves.

It's really goofy.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2016 06:41 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
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.

I think Mr. Trump is only advocating a temporary halt to Islamic immigration until a much more thorough vetting process can be set up.
snood
 
  3  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2016 09:08 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

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.

Noted. I'm sure that chronology is important for accuracy's sake, if not to the content of my argument that Hillary didn't deserve to be asked that and Trump did.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2016 10:09 pm
@snood,
Yeah, agreed that it doesn't change the central thrust of your point. More than the chronology I wanted to highlight the reason why: that they had a specific reason to trot out a Muslim, because Trump wants to ban them.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2016 10:10 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
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.


Your statements are not mutually incompatible. The core could be white anger, while there can be many other constituencies.
Leadfoot
 
  3  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2016 10:15 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
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.

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. Getting carried away with emotion serves no good purpose and causes us to miss the underlying dynamic of what's going on.

I think you got it right.

snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2016 10:16 pm
Jesus. Trump CRUSHES any murmurings of unions. "For the working class"? Are you from the goddam moon?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2016 10:17 pm
@snood,
He's an alien from an unknown planet.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  5  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2016 10:22 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
I've not heard any playground insults from Mr. Trump.


You have. You just don't identify them as such due to different standards for discourse. I consider this automatic gainsay as fit for a playground and not a presidency. It's a "I know you are but what am I" approach to being the leader of America.

Quote:
He noted the wife's silence, and speculated that it was because of Islamic patriarchy.


And this was pretty damn stupid. He could have done so many more presidential things. Just off the top of my head right now he could have:

1) ignored it, or merely said that he does not agree with their criticism but they have the right to say it. He would have appeared a bigger man than his reflexive put down
2) he could have merely stated that he felt for their loss but it was not his doing and the wars of the next president's predecessors
3) he could have tried to defend the outlandish proposal that they were refuting in the first place, the notion of banning people from the country on the basis of their religion. This would have been the most intellectually honest approach, to address the central thrust of the argument. Instead Trump is more of a "yeah but you have a big butt" (or ugly wife) kind of guy.
4) he could have walked back his proposal as he has sometimes hinted to, which would be the most reasonable thing to have done. Even just tweaking his proposal to say we would not restrict people on the basis of their religion but would restrict all travel (regardless of religion) between certain countries (and he could even further walk it back by making the list of countries war zones). This would have made one of his disqualifying proposals palatable to American values.

Quote:
For the Democrats to engage in histrionics over that is pretty silly in my view.


It's not about how offended the poor family is. They have been disrespected but will be fine. 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 (and he repeated it on more than one occasion, it wasn't just one off the cuff reply it was the tack he mindlessly stuck with), 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.

Quote:
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.


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.
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2016 10:24 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
Responding to the guy's over-the-top attacks was hardly disrespect.


Responding isn't the problem, it was the nature of the response. A "how long has it been since you hit your wife" and a continued slur to the man's religion. The woman is obviously allowed to speak and if he cared to know he could have seen for himself that she had on other occasions.

Instead of responding to the content of the criticism he just attacked the man's wife who was silent from grief. This is a disrespectful approach. Not just to this family but to the entire nation that deserves better from its purported leaders.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2016 10:28 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
I think Mr. Trump is only advocating a temporary halt to Islamic immigration until a much more thorough vetting process can be set up.


Temporarily doing something idiotic is better than permanently doing it but doesn't change that it is idiotic in the first place.

A blanket ban on a religion is fundamentally Un-American and just won't fly except in the small minds of him and his followers.

A ban based on country of origin is compatible with American values, even if still idiotic (we lose more value than we spare ourselves harm, Islamic terrorism is a negligible threat to the homeland statistically while such isolationism is a non-negligible threat to us economically etc). This is the kind of approach that an individual of presidential calibre would take if this were a legitimate risk and Trump clumsily latched onto the religion instead of using regions as the defining factor because he lacks the mind needed to be the president.

The proposal is patently absurd, and should be the kind of thing even proposing would disqualify a candidate.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2016 10:58 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
Your statements are not mutually incompatible. The core could be white anger, while there can be many other constituencies.

White anger I can agree with as the core of his constituency. That would be all the union guys who are looking to Mr. Trump to protect/restore their jobs.

The core of his constituency is not white supremacy however. That is just a stereotype that the Left has about working class white people.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2016 10:59 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:
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.

What exactly did he say about this Khan person that you find to be dumb?
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2016 11:01 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:
"For the working class"?

Mr. Trump means to create protectionist measures that will restore union jobs.

I don't actually agree with him doing this (I see it as an economic disaster). But I can understand why it is popular with the working class.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2016 11:04 pm
@oralloy,
You are right about his proposed policies being economically unsound, but if you think it is an economic disaster why do you support the man? Partisanship should have its limits.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2016 11:13 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
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.

To me, a leader who can't handle criticism would be someone who has critics dragged off to jail merely for criticizing him.

A leader who merely criticizes his critics doesn't seem very bad at all.


Robert Gentel wrote:
I think you confuse what you want with what will happen,

I don't. I am an extremely fact-based person.

This doesn't mean my predictions can't be wrong. I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again. (I've also been right before and will be so again.) But my predictions are not based on wishful thinking.

And the Democrats' attacks against Trump do strike me as becoming increasingly ludicrous.


Robert Gentel wrote:
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.

We'll see if I'm right. I actually have two predictions now.

First, that the 2013 gun control debacle will sweep the Republican candidate into office.

And second, that if Trump becomes president, he will reform the Republican Party into something that will dominate for 20 years minimum, with the Democrats only eventually winning again when they start nominating "Trump-lite" candidates (sort of like Bill Clinton won by becoming "Reagan-lite").

If my first prediction fails, my second prediction will never be tested. But both predictions look sound to me so far. I remain confident in both.
Real Music
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2016 11:26 pm
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2016 11:46 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
if you think it is an economic disaster why do you support the man?

Hillary means to violate my rights. Trump means to defend my rights.

My freedom is everything to me.

I also believe that Trump will end up taking the US to war with China (not deliberately like the 2003 Iraq invasion, but accidentally like World War I). And I believe that there is a real chance of that escalating to a full nuclear war.

I'm also not terribly eager to have Chinese nukes striking our cities. Ten of China's nukes have a 5 megaton yield. Those are going to do some serious damage if they hit large cities.

If there is a nuclear war it will almost certainly mess up my life. I may not live in a city, but I would likely have to leave my home (which I like) due to fallout and end up spending my remaining life in a refugee camp somewhere. And if the war is bad enough to cause a nuclear winter I'll be starving to death along with most of the rest of humanity.

But Hillary means to take my guns away and Trump will protect me.

Why can't the Democrats just respect my rights? It would make voting a lot more straightforward.


There is actually one thing (and one thing only) that Hillary could do to get my vote. If Hillary made it clear that as Secretary of State, she convinced Italy to put Judge Hellmann in charge of Amanda Knox's trial in 2011, I would feel compelled to reward her for that even though I would be voting against my own interests.

The 2011 trial was scheduled to be heard by some other judge, and then suddenly without any explanation he was swapped out and replaced by a maverick judge with a history of freeing innocent people who are caught up in the system.

If I knew that Hillary's diplomacy did that, I'd vote for her even if she poisoned me and I was dying.

Otherwise, Hillary means to take my guns away and Trump will protect my freedom. And that is the only thing that matters.
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2016 11:51 pm
@oralloy,
You are almost looking like a deliberate caricature here man, you say you think Trump will cause war with China, and worry about thermonuclear war, yet think Hillary taking your guns away is likely enough to be even more concerned about? Even if she wants to there is no chance of her doing that.

You have a very odd fixation on this single issue.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 03/02/2021 at 05:23:29