How was he personally attacking Khan?
So, you're saying Trump was wrong in the way he decided to criticize and correct Mr. Khan rather than Trump criticizing and being critical of Mr. Kahn?
So you're ascribing your argument to political correctness? That there is a certain - official way to handle this situation and Trump didn't do that? Hum?Trump claimed that Khan did not even have the right to criticize him. He engaged in stereotyping them as Muslims by suggesting that the wife was forbidden to speak in public. He sent out his minions to try to smear Khan first as a Muslim Brotherhood plant, as a money-grubbing liar, and then as someone associated with 9/11.
I'm saying that Trump was wrong in that he decided to personally go after Mr Khan instead of doing something that is so basic in decency that even Hillary ****ing Clinton can manage it. You honor the family, you thank them for their sacrifice, you say you respectfully disagree with their argument.
If the GOP candidate has sunk to a moral low that even Hillary Clinton can claim to be the better moral person in something, that's mind-blowing.
How does Trump attacking (or counterattacking) gold star parents help his campaign exactly? The answer to your second question is that I don't think the Khan's speech at the DNC is "crap." That word better defines Trump's response to the speech.How does this distraction help Hillary? Are you comfortable with Hillary being able to use this crap to avoid addressing her horrible record?
I'm going with the pot head. Worst there is that prices of snack foods explode. lol
It's not actually a bad choice, Johnson is the only tried-and-true small government candidate out there.
If Clinton is smart she'll keep her yap shut and let Trump drive the bus.
Which Democratic leaders attacked Patricia Smith for speaking to the RNC or speaking out in general? They deserve nothing but condemnation, as does Trump. The Khans had every right to speak at the DNC, full stop.Exactly. Democrats furious about the Trump reaction to Khan studiously ignored their own side acting atrociously towards Patricia Smith. Republicans who felt that Patricia Smith spoke with total moral authority think it's totally disrespectful of the Democrats to put up the Khans like that. :roll:
How does Trump attacking (or counterattacking) gold star parents help his campaign exactly? The answer to your second question is that I don't think the Khan's speech at the DNC is "crap." That word better defines Trump's response to the speech.
We need strong leadership...Sorry, I don't think Johnson projects that.
Well he very well as Governor of New Mexico. So "projects" or no, he gets things done. Trump doesn't project strong leadership, that's for sure.
New Mexico? I think any big city has as much population as NM doesn't it?
This may be a good article for you....
Gary Johnson's Problematic Libertarianism | The Daily Caller
Well of course you don't....being a liberal partisan, you are all about what ever playground cheap shots your side can muster to attack Trump....I am not a fan of the "irrefutable source" Alinsky tactic your side so loves to employ...It is dishonest at best....Hillary sticks Kahn up there as an emotional appeal, a fallacy in itself....True enough that Trump shouldn't have given it the time of day, but he did, and defended himself against this dishonest attack...
The bottom line is that your progressive side has already lost this election....People are downright pissed off....Regardless of the rosy glasses demo progressives want to put on the last 8 years, it sucks out there, and is largely due to progressive policies that were rammed down the country's throat in that time....
Maybe, maybe not. If he were allowed in the debated, he'd really raise that number. But the Republcrats don't like challenges to their power base. So in the end, we'll be left with either Hillary or Trump and worse off for it.
You might be right about limiting the debate participation.
It's very clear. The last non-Republocrat allowed into the debates was Ross Perot. He ended up with almost 19% of the popular vote. Right after that, the Republocrats removed the League of Women Voters from their long-term role as handlers of the Presidential debates and started putting restrictions on participation. I think it's 15% now. Something so artificially high that it's unlikely that another third party candidate will achieve it. You need to press exposure to really get that high, but you cannot get the press exposure until you poll that high. It's the Catch 22, and it's entirely purposeful.
I agree that participation would open the door for third parties. The question then becomes will Americans walk though that door and vote Libertarian. And both you and I know what my feelings are about that.
But I am all in favor of the Libertarian candidate being on the first debate.
So you're ascribing your argument to political correctness? That there is a certain - official way to handle this situation and Trump didn't do that?
I don't recall party leadership - mostly media figures.Which Democratic leaders attacked Patricia Smith for speaking to the RNC or speaking out in general? They deserve nothing but condemnation, as does Trump. The Khans had every right to speak at the DNC, full stop.
I'm saying that Trump was wrong in that he decided to personally go after Mr Khan instead of doing something that is so basic in decency that even Hillary ****ing Clinton can manage it. You honor the family, you thank them for their sacrifice, you say you respectfully disagree with their argument.
We are just getting started on the real campaign....Clinton is so flawed, she won't have to speak, we can let her corrupt 40 year record speak for her.
Well said.
Then factor that there is a good probability, the Republican Party- or Trump's campaign had identified that there could well be a Democratic counter to Patricia Smith at the Convention and that a sacrificing Moslem could make an excellent counter. Heck, an internet search could probably even identify who the Democrats were more likely to approach.
Staffers probably even prepared a response in advance that reads very similar to the concepts you illustrated. All Trump needed to do was follow the scripted response. But..... no, he cant do that. Like you said, Hillary can and did.
Are you even a little bit surprised? I'm hearing that even his own kids are at the end of their ropes with him.
Donald Trump doesn't want to be President. He did this to increase his own brand and to get Hillary Clinton elected.
He will manage to succeed at #2, but I hope his brand is forevermore tarnished and ruined.
Nobody who has 4 working brain cells can look at what that man has done and said over the last year and support him, and not see what the man is up to. Even a sleaze like Manafort knows what's really going on here.
Are you even a little bit surprised? I'm hearing that even his own kids are at the end of their ropes with him.
Donald Trump doesn't want to be President. He did this to increase his own brand and to get Hillary Clinton elected. He will manage to succeed at #2, but I hope his brand is forevermore tarnished and ruined. Nobody who has 4 working brain cells can look at what that man has done and said over the last year and support him, and not see what the man is up to. Even a sleaze like Manafort knows what's really going on here.
Now THAT would be the ultimate in campaign strategies and would be discussed in political circles for many decades ... and might very well be the only way Hillary could get herself elected.
I know that renowned political analyst [sarcasm added] Donny Deutsch said that's what Trump is doing.