Trump vs. Military? . . . Seriously?


prisonchaplain
 Share

Recommended Posts

The Democrats and moderate Republicans are, once again, falling into Trump's trap.  This feud the media's reporting on, between Trump and the Kahn family, is built on a silly narrative. The argument is that Kahn's son died serving our country, so, since Trump is blaming the father for his criticism of Trump's immigration policies, Trump must be anti-vet, anti-military, and, of course, completely anti-Muslim.

This foolishness is likely to help Trump for two reasons.  #1.  Nobody is talking about Hillary Clinton.  Even President Obama is focused on Trump.  Don't forget Trump's key strategy in the primaries--all news coverage--even 'bad'--is free advertising.  #2.  Does anyone seriously believe that Hillary Clinton will be more pro-military, pro-vet, and pro-American greatness than Trump?  How many vets are seriously considering voting for HRC, because Trump allegedly disrespected a vet's family?

The narrative in a few weeks will be how amazing it is that Trump recovered from this mess.  Many moderate and liberal pundits will also be shaking their heads at why Hillary has gained no traction.  Never mind the obvious--nobody is listening to her or talking about her, because the news is all about Trump.

Oh...and however obnoxious people think he is, he sure comes across strong. Isn't that his rap--he may be a jerk, but he's one that will fight for us (the working man, the American nation, etc.)?

BTW--I'm not endorsing anyone this year.  I'll cast my vote, and get reconstructive surgery to re-attach my nose the next day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'll certainly be interesting to see how Trump's antics play out in the general election. My personal theory is that it will ultimately blow up in his face when the Bernie supporters realize that HRC is a much better option and moderate Republicans turn to Gary Johnson out of spite. I don't think he can carry the entire country on free press the way he did in the GOP primaries. He has zero appeal among non-Republican voters and is far more off-putting to his GOP detractors than HRC is to her Democrat detractors.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Godless  You may be spot-on. HRC might win in a landslide. However, I've given up trying to figure this year out. Trump could win in a landslide too. We may all be underestimating just how angry people are. Some of those Sanders supporters are not Democrats. They are just anti-elite. Trump could get them with his protectionism and nativism. So, I'm at a loss.  A 3rd Party candidate actually winning--that's a scenario that would blow my mind.  How about we get a tie, and the House puts someone in who is sane and relatively felony-free??? (We can always hope...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
12 minutes ago, Godless said:

It'll certainly be interesting to see how Trump's antics play out in the general election. My personal theory is that it will ultimately blow up in his face when the Bernie supporters realize that HRC is a much better option and moderate Republicans turn to Gary Johnson out of spite. I don't think he can carry the entire country on free press the way he did in the GOP primaries. He has zero appeal among non-Republican voters and is far more off-putting to his GOP detractors than HRC is to her Democrat detractors.  

The democrats could run the Affluenza kid combined with Casey Anthony and still win 49 states. It's going to be a rout like McGovern had in 1972. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

The democrats could run the Affluenza kid combined with Casey Anthony and still win 49 states. It's going to be a rout like McGovern had in 1972. 

Only 47.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
19 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Only 47.

I think it shows how little Trumpers understand about politics. You can't blame them. They just don't know any better. 

And that's a a funny line! Affluenza kid and Casey Anthony....oh come on!  

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was out of internet service when this thing blew up.  I'm seeing lots of reports about Trump "going after" the family, but I can't find specifics on what exactly he said (other than some snarky comment about maybe the reason the mom was quiet during the convention speech was because she couldn't say anything--the inference being that as a woman she was cowed into silence for religious reasons, or somesuch thing).  Did I miss anything?

It's probably worth noting that Cindy Sheehan's antics were pretty darned effective--arguably, because (as I recall) then-President George W. Bush elected to take the high road and--if he mentioned her at all--treated her with extreme politeness.  Trump has apparently decided to take a different tack in responding to a similar sort of attack, and it will be interesting to see whether it is more effective. 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Just_A_Guy  I think it was that remark, plus that he didn't back down, when he was chastised for daring to blame the grieving parents of a son who died in combat. Then Trump's Vietnam deferrals were brought up. Then, some vets supposedly tried to confront him (and today Pence), and were booed (booing vets--how dare they???).  So, yeah, the media and Democrats are hyping this big time.

I stand by my contention that, no matter what, the media cycle's been all about Trump--with even President Obama weighing in.  His supporters will see this as the elites pretending to care about vets, and pig-piling on the one guy who will stand up for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I think it shows how little Trumpers understand about politics. You can't blame them. They just don't know any better. 

And that's a a funny line! Affluenza kid and Casey Anthony....oh come on!  

Yeah, it was pretty funny.  So, I gave you a "like".  Happy, Mr. Humorless?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"he has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution" 
-Trump, on his own website

Dang.  I was a Trump supporter until I read that quote on his own dang press release on his own dang website.  Well, crap. What the heck am I going to do now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

"he has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution" 
-Trump, on his own website

Dang.  I was a Trump supporter until I read that quote on his own dang press release on his own dang website.  Well, crap. What the heck am I going to do now?

Am I missing some sarcasm, or are you serious that this quote changes your view entirely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay.  This is crunch time.  General Election.  This is not about anything done directly by the Clinton campaign, although it is quite telling how a Muslim Gold Star parent gets air time in the DNC... do you think he would have had airtime if he wasn't Muslim?  The Democrat Party Playbook in action - Identity Politics is the name of the game.  Identity Politics gives you the full playing field to launch attack after attack and if you get attacked back you get shielded by your special Identity victim card... BY THE PRESS.  The campaign can just sit on their high chairs and let the press wage the war for you.

By the way, it's interesting that you just figured this out... this has been happening since JUNE 2015.  You just saw that in the past year REPUBLICANS played this Identity Politics playbook.  To a T.  It's amazing how they perfectly executed the Democrat playbook against their own candidate.  Trump shrugged it all off, doubled down when needed, and won anyway.

Unfortunately, I don't think Trump's resilience to these kinds of attacks is enough to get him the Presidency.  And the reason I say this is because... Republicans may have perfectly played the playbook but the Republican voters are used to fending off these kind of stuff.  It's harder to convince a Republican through mass media.  Whereas, Democrats and Independents are used to trusting the opinions of the mass media talking heads and when you got Republicans like Ryan and McCain taking the opportunity to bash their own to try to wrest the Republican Party out of its voter-base (that they've been trying to do since the Tea Party became vocal)... Dems and Independents get turned off by it.  Trump is a one-man press.  He needs more press like Brietbart who is willing to wage war against the ginormous liberal media on his behalf.

So... this is a PRESS war.

Here's Brietbart's ammo on the whole thing.

Here's Khan-lies that the press doesn't find controversial:  http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/02/khan-see-no-evil-controversy-repeats-five-big-lies-left/

Here's Khan-liberal bias:  http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/01/just-joking-media-apoplectic-khizr-khan-attack-donald-trump-goes-flames/

Here's the real Khan-trovery:  http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/01/clinton-cash-khizr-khans-deep-legal-financial-connections-saudi-arabia-hillarys-clinton-foundation-connect-terror-immigration-email-scandals/

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/02/khizr-khan-deletes-law-firm-website-proving-financially-benefits-pay-play-muslim-migration/

 

By the way, I just want to state this again... I like Ryan, I don't like McCain.  McCain is a corruptible politician that has gotten a lot of pass because of his POW status.  Ryan is a wonk.  But he is in trouble in Wisconsin re-election campaign and his strategy is to immediately reject any Trump controversial statements banking on Wisconsin people to want him to be the "taming" factor to a Trump Presidency.  Paul Nehlen, his opponent, is a Trumpster.  Ryan's mistake is that in his desire to not be tainted by Trump controversy, he is doing too much knee-jerking which Nehlen is getting maximum benefit out of.  See here:  https://www.paulnehlen.com/paul-ryan-again-misrepresents-trump-position-this-time-on-religious-test-brouhaha/ as an example of Nehlen's quick response to Ryan's knee-jerk on the Khan-brouhaha.  I really want Ryan to remain as Speaker because of his adherence to legislative procedure.  His clashes with Trump is a good thing.  I want vigorous discussions over policies with Trump's GIT 'R DONE attitude to push those discussions to legislation.

Please don't let Hillary win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

@Just_A_Guy  I think it was that remark, plus that he didn't back down, when he was chastised for daring to blame the grieving parents of a son who died in combat. Then Trump's Vietnam deferrals were brought up. Then, some vets supposedly tried to confront him (and today Pence), and were booed (booing vets--how dare they???).  So, yeah, the media and Democrats are hyping this big time.

I stand by my contention that, no matter what, the media cycle's been all about Trump--with even President Obama weighing in.  His supporters will see this as the elites pretending to care about vets, and pig-piling on the one guy who will stand up for them.

PC, I'm not sure I'm understanding this correctly... "daring to blame the grieiving parents..." do you mean that is the Liberal Press tried to spin what he said as blaming the grieving parents?

Anyway, the Khan/Trump clash started well before the DNC.  Khan was one of the personalities that went after Trump's "Muslim ban" statement from way back earlier this year.  Trumpsters went after Khan's controversial relationship with Clinton as stated in Clinton Cash (a book that Trump heavily referenced in his anti-Hillary speech).

The DNC chose Khan to speak at the convention viciously attacking Trump and mocking his knowledge of the Constitution.

Trump went on counter-punch (like he always does) on several DNC speakers including Khan.  He, of course, showed a lot of respect for Khan's son and offered sympathies for their loss - a lot of times.  Then in Trump-fashion, he makes a serious point through a flippant remark about Khan's wife in hijab standing silently behind Khan on the podium... Now, this is classic Trump - he knows (and he expects us to know) that the DNC put Ghazala on that stage behind Khan in hijab outfit to provide the optics for Identity Politics.  Do you see Bill standing behind Hillary on her speech?  Do you see Patty Smith's husband standing behind her on her speech?  Ghazala did - in hijab - saying nothing... full optics.  Trump mocks the DNC on that optic by flippantly saying she probably didn't speak because Sharia law doesn't let women speak.

Now, Ghazala went on all the talk shows (except Fox - but maybe I just missed it) talking a lot countering Trump's remark... the press runs away with it giving them a loooooot of coverage to continue their Trump attack.  Khan, on his speech, and on the press, said that Trump never sacrificed for the country - pointing to his getting out of the Vietnam draft and having no children in the military.  Vets, including Allen West, wrote letters stating that service has always been voluntary and that military service is not the only way to sacrifice for the country.

Ryan and McCain, once again, go on anti-Trump mode and re-iterate their religious liberty statements against the "Muslim ban" and how you're not supposed to say anything negative to a Gold Star parent (which I disagree with - Bush did this same thing with Cindy Sheehan which gave the liberal media free reign to launch a media attack without any Bush defense... I just wanted Bush/Cheney to put Sheehan in her place!).

And etc. and etc. over and over in liberal media.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anatess...On this one I was mimicking the liberal press, and citing their exaggerated take on this story. You are more generous towards Trump than I am, but we both (probably all) agree that Trump will treat the military in general, and vets in particular, with far greater respect that HRC. I suspect the military vote will continue to weigh heavily to the right this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

Am I missing some sarcasm, or are you serious that this quote changes your view entirely?

I was kinda wondering the same thing.  But what I figured is that to say someone "has no right to say X" and then imply that one reads and understands the Constitution...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Claim: Trump has never read the constitution (which includes the right to freedom of speech.  A right.  Let me say it a third time - THE RIGHT to free speech.)

Trump's response: "he has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution"  (note - Trump claims the guy doesn't have the right to say stuff, which right is clearly identified as a right, pretty darn prominently in the thing he allegedly hasn't read.  

If he had read the constitution, he would know sayin' stuff is a right.  Therefore, when his response is 'dood has no right to say stuff', he's basically confirming dood's claim. 

I know it's a tad complicated.   But as I share this across the web I see a lot of folks just don't see it in the dark damning light that I do.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I know it's a tad complicated.   

That's fine NT. Real life is complicated. And the older you get and/or the more life experience you have the more you realize that. Don't get me wrong, I think there is a black/white and a right/wrong. But there is some gray too. A lot of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I was kinda wondering the same thing.  But what I figured is that to say someone "has no right to say X" and then imply that one reads and understands the Constitution...

I wondered the same thing, but I'm still hoping for clarification. 

 

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Claim: Trump has never read the constitution (which includes the right to freedom of speech.  A right.  Let me say it a third time - THE RIGHT to free speech.)

Trump's response: "he has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution"  (note - Trump claims the guy doesn't have the right to say stuff, which right is clearly identified as a right, pretty darn prominently in the thing he allegedly hasn't read.  

If he had read the constitution, he would know sayin' stuff is a right.  Therefore, when his response is 'dood has no right to say stuff', he's basically confirming dood's claim. 

I know it's a tad complicated.   But as I share this across the web I see a lot of folks just don't see it in the dark damning light that I do.

And there is the clarification. I guess it all depends on how seriously one takes the comment about ones "right" - while on the one hand yes it clearly is a right to freedom of speech, on the other hand hand it is extremely common for people to say "you have no right to talk to me/say such and such about/to me." From my perspective it is simply a figure of speech and not a suggestion that anyone should not have the right to free speech. 

To each there own though - the beauty of democracy is that the people will weigh in with a vote on how they perceive things. Is HRC any less concerning when it comes to freedom of speech - it seems to me that under her calling something a sin in a religious institution will be considered "hate speech," unless said religious person is a certain minority religion that the left gets voter support from some how.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

claim I have never read the Constitution

I suspect other people are focused on this piece.  The accuser presumably has insufficient knowledge to make that specific accusation (he could have safely made others, i.e. reworded this to a defensible accusation).  I suspect Trump didn't mean "he has no right to say stuff" but rather "he has no direct knowledge wherewith to make that accusation".

Yes, Trump's choice of words was poor.  So was his accuser's.  Imprecision is guaranteed to be a problem until we go back to communicating in more than 255 characters at a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zil said:

I suspect other people are focused on this piece.  The accuser presumably has insufficient knowledge to make that specific accusation (he could have safely made others, i.e. reworded this to a defensible accusation).  I suspect Trump didn't mean "he has no right to say stuff" but rather "he has no direct knowledge wherewith to make that accusation".

Yes, Trump's choice of words was poor.  So was his accuser's.  Imprecision is guaranteed to be a problem until we go back to communicating in more than 255 characters at a time.

I get what you're saying.  And I agree with the principle.  But I don't necessarily believe that is what Trump meant.  I honestly believe he has never read the Constitution.  And I honestly believe that he was really saying that "he had no right to say"...  But that's just my conjecture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share