Trump vs. Military? . . . Seriously?

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I get what you're saying.  And I agree with the principle.

Something I really admire about #6 is that even when I disagree with her she always makes a good point and you can totally see where she is coming from. 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I really admire about #6

How is it she keeps getting raised on the numerical scale. At least now she can compare herself to Tricia Helfer.  Soon, she can compare herself to Jeri Ryan.

[Guest MormonGator]

32 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

How is it she keeps getting raised on the numerical scale. At least now she can compare herself to Tricia Helfer.  Soon, she can compare herself to Jeri Ryan.

She made a few accounting mistakes and now I'm being investigated by the SEC. We had to demote her. 

[Just_A_Guy]

I mistrust Khan; and I, too, am tired of this nonsensical idea that once you lose a child in military service you can enter the realm of politics and have any statement--however outrageous--go unanswered.

But regarding the notion of Trump's statement that Khan had "no right" to make these statements because they were slanderous:  The thing about slander is, legally speaking, truth is a defense.  Look at the text of Khan's actual speech.  Which of the following statements about Trump is demonstrably, unequivocally false?

• If it was up to Donald Trump, he [Khan's son] never would have been in America.
• Donald Trump consistently smears the character of Muslims.
• He disrespects other minorities -- women, judges, even his own party leadership.
• He vows to build walls and ban us from this country.
• Go look at the graves of the brave patriots who died defending America -- you will see all faiths, genders, and ethnicities.
• You [Donald Trump] have sacrificed nothing and no one.

As reprehensible a little parasite as Khan is--his statements were true.  Or at least, not provably false in a court of law. 

A plague o' both their houses, I say . . .

Edited August 3, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[LeSellers]

52 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

If it was up to Donald Trump, he [Khan's son] never would have been in America.

This is demonstrably false.

Trump did not say he wanted to ban all Muslims forever. He said we have to stop immigration of Muslims until we can understand what is going on. If the elder Khan didn't pass muster (and I'd hope, given his links to terrorists, he would not), then he would not have been allowed in, and he should not have been. But as for his son, there is no evidence that he would have failed the critical "what do you bring of value" test.

53 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

He disrespects other minorities -- women, judges, even his own party leadership.

Also false.

He has "denigrated" some women, some specific minority people, one judge (and with good reason — the judge who's hearing the case in question ought to recuse himself because of his demonstrated biases).

55 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

He vows to build walls and ban us from this country.

False  yet again.

He does want to "build a wall", but a wall with a "beautiful front door". His point, clearly is to allow a lot of people in, but make them enter legally.

Most of what Trump "says" isn't what he said. He's in Yogi Berra's camp on that one. 

Quote

“I really didn’t say everything I said,” Berra said, creating another original.

Lehi

[Hemisphere]

actually, what makes me wonder as someone who spend a good time in the US but being European is, why do you actually all content with crooks and proven liars and cheaters ? I mean one of them is the very epitome of corruption in congress by making darling deals and the other one is a person that wantonly uses the privileges to her own advantage, enriching herself and lining her pockets while mocking the law. And neither actually ever did a days work in their life that would do your confidence in them justice. Just saying along with the congressmen and senators actually almost never doing a days work in their life more receptive to corporation than their voters ... wouldn´t it be better to clean and correct your systems. Heavens we EU have a desperate need for it as well.  "CLUMP" is a choice between pest and cholera. 

so ... it makes one wonder what will come of it. I for one think that you guys gonna have another war on your hands and if DC is stupid enough with the Chinese or the Russians involving a lot of people not fancying a war... so, your choice affects everyone.

[zil]

5 minutes ago, Hemisphere said:

so ... it makes one wonder what will come of it.

My personal hope is that the world will end.  Quickly.  I suspect I'll be disappointed.

[Hemisphere]

Amen Brother, this world needs a reset. I would love to get my gear beforehand though =) 

[Just_A_Guy]

15 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Most of what Trump "says" isn't what he said. He's in Yogi Berra's camp on that one. 

Wasn't it Berra who also said, of a reporter, that "He should have printed what I meant, not what I said"? 

[Hemisphere]

Fact is though that Trump can play on the tribulations and frustation of the people who have no say in their own country. 

Just mentioning "super delegates" what better way to spit the people in the face. nonetheless what everyone has in common that they will support the killings of palastinians in israel or the very least keep quiet which is even almost worse

Edited August 3, 2016 by Hemisphere

[zil]

5 minutes ago, Hemisphere said:

Amen Brother, this world needs a reset. I would love to get my gear beforehand though =) 

Sister, but whatever.

[Hemisphere]

my apologies.

[Guest Godless]

On 8/3/2016 at 7:48 PM, anatess2 said:

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.

Personally, I don't care about Khan's connections to Clinton and Saudi Arabia (and to be clear, I am far from being a Clinton fan). The night of his speech, all I saw was two grieving parents who had lost a child to war. Learning Khan's background doesn't change that for me. Yes, the DNC was absolutely playing identity politics when they chose him to speak, because the American people need to know that there are Muslim Americans who have fought and died for this country. I can't justify the fact that Obama and HRC seem to downplay the role of religious extremism in the global war on terrorism, but at the same time it's vitally important that we recognize and embrace our fellow citizens who follow the Islam faith.  Trump has spent too much airtime feeding into the anti-Muslim sentiment that runs rampant in his voter base. Someone needs to show those voters that there are good, patriotic Muslims in this country, and it's pretty clear that Trump isn't going to do that.

As for Trump's so-called resiliency to attacks, I don't buy that for a second. True, the attacks on him didn't seem to hurt him in the GOP primaries (though I can't help but wonder how/if the result would have been different if the field hadn't been so diluted at the beginning). However, the way he handles those attacks on a personal level reveals volumes about his character, and it ain't pretty. He has had numerous opportunities to take the high road in instances like this. Instead, he resorts to bullying and smear tactics. With the Khan situation, Trump had a golden opportunity to be the bigger man and offer condolences to a grieving father who had just attacked him. Instead, he threw a fit, took a jab at Mrs. Khan, and tried to compare his sacrifices to those of military service members and their families. He does this every time someone goes after him. His response to Bloomberg's speech was beyond juvenile, and you want to give this man an army? He seems utterly incapable of taking criticism with any kind of grace or rationality, and you want to give him our nuclear launch codes? The criticism he's getting as a presidential candidate is child's play compared to what he'll face if he actually wins in November. Do you trust him to keep a cool head in the face of such adversity? Because I sure don't.

 

 

Edited August 4, 2016 by Godless

[LeSellers]

16 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

29 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Most of what Trump "says" isn't what he said. He's in Yogi Berra's camp on that one. 

Quote

“I really didn’t say everything I said,” Berra said, creating another original.

Wasn't it Berra who also said, of a reporter, that "He should have printed what I meant, not what I said"? 

Cute enough, but I am not seeing how it relates to this topic.

Lehi

[Just_A_Guy]

32 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Cute enough, but I am not seeing how it relates to this topic.

Lehi

Frankly, Lehi; the Trump quotes are out there to support what Khan's saying.  What your apologia for Trump largely does is either to misrepresent Khan's own statements; or to give priority to later statements by Trump (or, your own interpolations of what you hope/wish Trump meant) which often contradict the plain meaning of the extant quotation.  Examples:

59 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

This is demonstrably false.

Trump did not say he wanted to ban all Muslims forever. He said we have to stop immigration of Muslims until we can understand what is going on. If the elder Khan didn't pass muster (and I'd hope, given his links to terrorists, he would not), then he would not have been allowed in, and he should not have been. But as for his son, there is no evidence that he would have failed the critical "what do you bring of value" test.

Khan didn't say Trump wanted to ban them forever; he simply said that Trump's policies would have kept Khan's son out of America.  You yourself acknowledge that Khan had terrorist connections--so how can you say that Trump's policies would have allowed Khan's own son to freely immigrate to the United States (let alone, walking around carrying a gun on the government's dime)?

Quote

Also false.

He has "denigrated" some women, some specific minority people, one judge (and with good reason — the judge who's hearing the case in question ought to recuse himself because of his demonstrated biases).

This is frankly semantics.  It is not clear from the text of Khan's speech whether he is accusing Trump of disrespecting entire classes, or merely multiple members of a particular class.  So no, Trump doesn't win a slander lawsuit on this statement.

As for the judge in the Trump University suit--those "biases", as elucidated by Trump in his original WSJ interview which was written about in early June--were limited to the judge's ethnic background and his membership in a Latino lawyers' association.

Quote

False  yet again.

He does want to "build a wall", but a wall with a "beautiful front door". His point, clearly is to allow a lot of people in, but make them enter legally.

Most of what Trump "says" isn't what he said. He's in Yogi Berra's camp on that one. 

Such clarifications are, of course welcome; but the bottom line is that Khan's statement as-worded wasn't wrong:  Trump does want to build walls, and he does want to ban foreign-born Muslims from the country.  Again, on a slander case--Trump loses; because all the things Khan said about him are defensible conclusions/allegations based on Trump's actual public statements to date.

Generally speaking, Trump is free to push back against Khan; and I am glad--in the abstract--that he is doing so.  But with regard to the actual statements Khan made:  The simple fact is that Trump made his own bed on this one; and he's not going to be able to sue Khan into shutting up.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

On 8/3/2016 at 3:46 PM, Godless said:

Personally, I don't care about Khan's connections to Clinton and Saudi Arabia (and to be clear, I am far from being a Clinton fan). The night of his speech, all I saw was two grieving parents who had lost a child to war. Learning Khan's background doesn't change that for me. Yes, the DNC was absolutely playing identity politics when they chose him to speak, because the American people need to know that there are Muslim Americans who have fought and died for this country. I can't justify the fact that Obama and HRC seem to downplay the role of religious extremism in the global war on terrorism, but at the same time it's vitally important that we recognize and embrace our fellow citizens who follow the Islam faith.  Trump has spent too much airtime feeding into the anti-Muslim sentiment that runs rampant in his voter base. Someone needs to show those voters that there are good, patriotic Muslims in this country, and it's pretty clear that Trump isn't going to do that.

As for Trump's so-called resiliency to attacks, I don't buy that for a second. True, the attacks on him didn't seem to hurt him in the GOP primaries (though I can't help but wonder how/if the result would have been different if the field hadn't been so diluted at the beginning). However, the way he handles those attacks on a personal level reveals volumes about his character, and it ain't pretty. He has had numerous opportunities to take the high road in instances like this. Instead, he resorts to bullying and smear tactics. With the Khan situation, Trump had a golden opportunity to be the bigger man and offer condolences to a grieving father who had just attacked him. Instead, he threw a fit, took a jab at Mrs. Khan, and tried to compare his sacrifices to those of military service members and their families. He does this every time someone goes after him. His response to Bloomberg's speech was beyond juvenile, and you want to give this man an army? He seems utterly incapable of taking criticism with any kind of grace or rationality, and you want to give him our nuclear launch codes? The criticism he's getting as a presidential candidate is child's play compared to what he'll face if he actually wins in November. Do you trust him to keep a cool head in the face of such adversity? Because I sure don't.

 

 

Okay, here I'm going to demonstrate to you liberal media at its finest.

 

Exhibit #1:  You say - "Someone needs to show those voters that there are good, patriotic Muslims in this country, and it's pretty clear that Trump isn't going to do that."

You can go ahead and skip to the 45th second.  He was very clear that A VAST MAJORITY of Muslims are wonderful people but that NEVER EVER hits cycling airtime in liberal media.  This is an interview at the Christian Broadcast Network.  Hardly a "mass media" event.  Mass media have used this interview to paint Trump as anti-Muslim, snipping only the parts where he states there's a bad vibe in the Q'uran but cutting out the part where he says he doesn't really know much about the Q'uran and the part in the end where he says there are lots of people that interpret the Q'uran as full of love and there are lots of people that interpret the Q'uran as hate with him not taking any position one way or the other.

Now, after watching that 2:40 minute video, do you really think Trump is "feeding into the anti-Muslim sentiment" or that you just think he is because you are not used to somebody speaking very pragmatically about the "Muslim problem"... or worse, that most people think he is because the liberal media tells them he is?

 

 

 

Exhibit #2:  You say - " Trump had a golden opportunity to be the bigger man and offer condolences to a grieving father who had just attacked him. Instead, he threw a fit..."

Is this your definition of throwing a fit or is it the liberal media telling you he is throwing a fit?  You can go straight to 14:35. Note that he opened with "Mr. Khan looks like he's a nice guy".  Of course, the interview was not about his son (who died TWELVE years ago - how long are you obligated to offer condolences after someone's death to be the "better man"?) but about Khan's speech at the DNC.

 

 

 

[Just_A_Guy]

23 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

 Note that he opened with "Mr. Khan looks like he's a nice guy".
 

Woulda played better in the south if Trump had immediately followed with a "bless his heart . . .".  

[Guest]

On 8/3/2016 at 2:20 PM, LeSellers said:

This is demonstrably false.

Trump did not say he wanted to ban all Muslims forever. He said we have to stop immigration of Muslims until we can understand what is going on. If the elder Khan didn't pass muster (and I'd hope, given his links to terrorists, he would not), then he would not have been allowed in, and he should not have been. But as for his son, there is no evidence that he would have failed the critical "what do you bring of value" test.

Also false.

He has "denigrated" some women, some specific minority people, one judge (and with good reason — the judge who's hearing the case in question ought to recuse himself because of his demonstrated biases).

False  yet again.

He does want to "build a wall", but a wall with a "beautiful front door". His point, clearly is to allow a lot of people in, but make them enter legally.

Most of what Trump "says" isn't what he said. He's in Yogi Berra's camp on that one. 

Lehi

Are you seriously defending Trump?  Ohters, yes.  But you?

No, this is not just about being more precise about what was actually said.  Everything here is about cherry picking words and inferring the "true" meaning of what Trump said or believed.

Example:

Quote

He has "denigrated" some women, some specific minority people, one judge (and with good reason — the judge who's hearing the case in question ought to recuse himself because of his demonstrated biases).

Yes, he has.  And it would be impossible to denigrate ALL women.  He can't meet all women.  But he has certainly shown a pattern of behavior, not only to the women most of the country knows about, but there is much more that Limbaugh never mentioned about Trump and his treatment of women throughout his life and continues to do today.  But you've only seen the few that made headlines and think, "Oh, his enemies are just cherry picking."

<sigh>

I guess you're in Anatess's camp.  A sad day when the man who showed me the wisdom of libertarian ideals abandons them.

[LeSellers]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

A sad day when the man who showed me the wisdom of libertarian ideals abandons them.

I have abandoned nothing.

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Are you seriously defending Trump?  Ohters, yes.  But you?

I wasn't "defending" Trump. I was exposing the truth. The media, obviously not Trump fans, has distorted his words, his background, and virtually everything about him. What people know isn't the problem nearly as much as what they know that just ain't so. I say the same kind of thing about the idiots who still believe that Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her front porch. She didn't say that, and while many believe it true, it simply didn't happen. I just don't like lies, especially the kind of malicious, political lies we have to wade through every day. there are enough reasons, and to spare, to oppose a Trump presidency, but to base such opposition on lies is unfair to the country.

You know I do not support DJT. He may end up getting my vote because I really, really do not want the Hildabeast and the other DemoComms. But it will happen only if the polls show a close vote in Colorado.

If Trump denigrates women so much that it's "fair" to say that he denigrates all women (as in denigrates women because they're women), why do so many women hold positions of power and authority in his companies? It's not women he denigrates, it's incompetent women, just as he denigrates incompetent men.

Lehi

Edited August 6, 2016 by LeSellers

[Hemisphere]

well, don´t the media always manipulate public opinion in the US ? I mean after all, some people may not have realized that there has been other candidates for presidency from other parties that were not democrats or republicans. 

And I agree with you LaSellers, This whole media campaign is neither fair nor partial. Not supporting any of those two but the democrats sure fight dirty and underhanded. Your political systems needs an overhaul as much as does mine. 

By the way, I liked what Clint Eastwood said about people being tired about being political correct. PC is a festering cancer that promotes injustice and lying.

[Guest]

You did a great job of quoting Limbaugh almost verbatim.  And while most of what he says is true, he also leaves out a lot so he can fit a narrative as much as liberals do.  I've come to realize this now that I live in an area where his broadcast is at a time I can listen to him.

52 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

If Trump denigrates women so much that it's "fair" to say that he denigrates women (as in denigrates women because they're women), why do so many women hold positions of power and authority in his companies? I's not women he denigrates, it's incompetent women, just as he denigrates incompetent men.

So, Megyn Kelly is incompetent?  
Heidi Cruz is incompetent?
Michelle Fields?
Amanda Carpenter?
Carly Fiorina?  (although I could be pursuaded that she caused HP a big headache)
Dana Perino?
Dana Loesch? (Actually, I don't like her verbal style and find it difficult to listen to her.  But her written words are ok.  So to call her incompetent...)

And this doesn't include the laundry list of quotes he's said that are unfit to post on LDS.net which were blanket statements that showed just how little he respected women in general.

He can hire all the high ability women he wants.  And he'll use them for that purpose to suit his own ends.  But that doesn't change the fact he just plain has little respect for them.

 

 

Edited August 6, 2016 by Guest

[LeSellers]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So, <list of women> is incompetent?  

From his vantage point, yes.

I agree: Trump is a bombast, and he doesn't always choose his words (or targets) well. But it's not the same thing to say "he denigrates women", cum women, and "he denigrates specific women for what he (however justified or not) sees as incompetent". Further, to say he denigrates women ignores the fact that he applies the same criteria to men: he denigrates them with the same ferocity and vehemence for the same reasons (whether good or bad, as you may judge).

Lehi

[Guest Godless]

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

He can hire all the high ability women he wants.  And he'll use them for that purpose to suit his own ends.  But that doesn't change the fact he just plain has little respect for them.

 

 

Binders full of women, perhaps? Sorry, couldn't resist. ?

[Hemisphere]

9 hours ago, LeSellers said:

From his vantage point, yes.

I agree: Trump is a bombast, and he doesn't always choose his words (or targets) well. But it's not the same thing to say "he denigrates women", cum women, and "he denigrates specific women for what he (however justified or not) sees as incompetent". Further, to say he denigrates women ignores the fact that he applies the same criteria to men: he denigrates them with the same ferocity and vehemence for the same reasons (whether good or bad, as you may judge).

Lehi

well, he is an equal opportunity jerk. I give him that, but for all his blustering, he is one of the kind of people that turned your senate and house of representatives into a den of thieves. It is quite insane that proven liars and covert thieves get to run for presidency. if it weren´t the US with a world wide influence it would be certainly something I would shake my head about but considering how it will effect everyone on this planet, it makes me shudder. 

[LeSellers]

On 8/5/2016 at 8:13 PM, Carborendum said:

He can hire all the high ability women he wants.  And he'll use them for that purpose to suit his own ends.  But that doesn't change the fact he just plain has little respect for them.

So, you're saying that is is not because they are women that he denigrates those he does, but only those he has no use for? That is not the same thing as having little respect for them because they're women. It's useless women he doesn't like.

But he has no respect for useless men, either, so it's not sexism, it's "utilitism": the useful are respected, the useless not. I am not seeing this as irretrievably wicked.

Any employer uses those he hires for his own economic purposes. (Well, not Bill "BJ" Clinton: he hires them for, er, other purposes.) He uses their talents, their skills, their abilities. If not, he's a fool.

It seems you're intent on believing every evil thing the adversarial media publishes about the man. I despise the media more than I despise Hitliary, and I trust them even less. They're willing to invent stories about their political enemies (Dan Blather, anyone?), and it's evident that  they will shade the truth without qualm. It's not what they do publish, it's what they do not; it's not what they write, it's how they write it.

The mediocre poet, but good philosopher, William Blake wrote:
A Truth that's told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent.

I usually use this quotation when responding to antis, but it fits here just as well.

Again, I do not like Trump: there are far better candidates out there. But if there is a chance he can keep O'bama II (or Clinton III, however you see it) out of the Oval Office, I'll vote for him in a tight Colorado race. I'll hold my nose and, yes, choose the lesser of two evils — because to do otherwise is to choose the greater of two evils.

Lehi

Edited August 19, 2016 by LeSellers
clarification, typos