or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Trump is #2 in GOP Field - Page 304

post #4546 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

What the actual fuck are you talking about?


The ambassador wasn't killed during the military intervention. Why did you bring it up, since it's not related?

Sorry I misunderstood your point. Were you saying it is relatively safe to be in US military during ground or air campaign in which we don't participate?
If that is your point , I have to say ; you are correct again.
post #4547 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennglock View Post

Trump needs to stop making me like him. His response to the Khans has been spot-on.

Do you like it when your leaders fall for a transparently political emotional con (khan?) Apparently the people who've given power to the GOP establishment over the last 5 years do... I like it when someone has the balls to push back against it, knowing he wont have cover from leftist media.


The sheer mental bandwidth required to spin an anti-trump identify-politics narrative out of the Khan affair is breathtaking:

"Some Muslim parents are upset because their Muslim child was killed by Muslims in a war we're fighting because Muslims attacked Americans. Let's turn this into an anti-Trump message. By the way pops is an immigration lawyer. And there is this inconvenient fact that fewer Muslim service members have been killed in action (appx 13) than the number of service members that have been killed by their Muslim colleagues when they went full jihadi (appx 15.) Also, Trump was and is against the war that got Khan Jr killed."

"None of that shit will stick with soccer mom swing voters in Ohio. They are concerned about Trumps mean words. Push the narrative!"

You should not delete your account. icon_gu_b_slayer[1].gif
post #4548 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Medwed View Post

Sorry I misunderstood your point. Were you saying it is relatively safe to be in US military during ground or air campaign in which we don't participate?
If that is your point , I have to say ; you are correct again.

You should probably read conversations before commenting on them.
post #4549 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennglock View Post

Trump needs to stop making me like him. His response to the Khans has been spot-on.

Do you like it when your leaders fall for a transparently political emotional con (khan?) Apparently the people who've given power to the GOP establishment over the last 5 years do... I like it when someone has the balls to push back against it, knowing he wont have cover from leftist media.


The sheer mental bandwidth required to spin an anti-trump identify-politics narrative out of the Khan affair is breathtaking:

"Some Muslim parents are upset because their Muslim child was killed by Muslims in a war we're fighting because Muslims attacked Americans. Let's turn this into an anti-Trump message. By the way pops is an immigration lawyer. And there is this inconvenient fact that fewer Muslim service members have been killed in action (appx 13) than the number of service members that have been killed by their Muslim colleagues when they went full jihadi (appx 15.) Also, Trump was and is against the war that got Khan Jr killed."

"None of that shit will stick with soccer mom swing voters in Ohio. They are concerned about Trumps mean words. Push the narrative!"


Only electro-shock therapy will make you stop liking him.  It's really easy here - Trump has attacked millions of Americans on the basis of their religion.  This Muslim family lost their son, who was serving America.  Trump attacks the family again on the basis of their religion.  Most 4 year olds are able to figure this one out but you may lack the sheer mental bandwidth of those 4 year olds.

post #4550 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennglock View Post

Trump needs to stop making me like him. His response to the Khans has been spot-on.

Do you like it when your leaders fall for a transparently political emotional con (khan?) Apparently the people who've given power to the GOP establishment over the last 5 years do... I like it when someone has the balls to push back against it, knowing he wont have cover from leftist media.


The sheer mental bandwidth required to spin an anti-trump identify-politics narrative out of the Khan affair is breathtaking:

"Some Muslim parents are upset because their Muslim child was killed by Muslims in a war we're fighting because Muslims attacked Americans. Let's turn this into an anti-Trump message. By the way pops is an immigration lawyer. And there is this inconvenient fact that fewer Muslim service members have been killed in action (appx 13) than the number of service members that have been killed by their Muslim colleagues when they went full jihadi (appx 15.) Also, Trump was and is against the war that got Khan Jr killed."

"None of that shit will stick with soccer mom swing voters in Ohio. They are concerned about Trumps mean words. Push the narrative!"

Trump had an opportunity to make those arguments. But, in typical Trump fashion, he couldn't help himself and made an idiotic attack on Ghazala Khan.

It doesn't really take a lot of mental gymnastics to find the message in "I wonder if she's allowed to speak," when talking about a Muslim woman. It's just a stupid thing to say, and it gets to a very obvious and relevant point about Trump's leadership abilities. He just can't help himself. He's going to keep making idiotic unforced errors, and he's going to do it if people are dumb enough to elect him too. Except then, he's going to be representing the nation when he says stupid unprompted things off the cuff.
post #4551 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by budapest12 View Post


Only electro-shock therapy will make you stop liking him.  It's really easy here - Trump has attacked millions of Americans on the basis of their religion.  This Muslim family lost their son, who was serving America.  Trump attacks the family again on the basis of their religion.  Most 4 year olds are able to figure this one out but you may lack the sheer mental bandwidth of those 4 year olds.

Religion is a belief and isn't much of politics about attacking those with different beliefs than yours? Don't take that as a defense of Trump but rather treating religion just like any other belief system.
post #4552 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Trump had an opportunity to make those arguments. But, in typical Trump fashion, he couldn't help himself and made an idiotic attack on Ghazala Khan.

It doesn't really take a lot of mental gymnastics to find the message in "I wonder if she's allowed to speak," when talking about a Muslim woman. It's just a stupid thing to say, and it gets to a very obvious and relevant point about Trump's leadership abilities. He just can't help himself. He's going to keep making idiotic unforced errors, and he's going to do it if people are dumb enough to elect him too. Except then, he's going to be representing the nation when he says stupid unprompted things off the cuff.

There was no error in his statement as it was a question. He allowed to ask it, it is 100% fine to wonder if this muslim Sharia scholar is subjugating his wife. They chose to make idiotic statements at DNC convention no less and inject themselves into political circus, too late to play victims.
Hillary is snickering at all the shitstorm she has created while trying to squeeze political gravy out of these shills.
As disgusting as this stunt is it is very correctly calculated that majority will go with simple emotions instead of rational.
post #4553 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post


Religion is a belief and isn't much of politics about attacking those with different beliefs than yours? Don't take that as a defense of Trump but rather treating religion just like any other belief system.


Religion is a set of beliefs but I think you will agree that the traditional political discourse in the United States, until now, has been to treat peoples' religious beliefs with some measure of respect (obvious we are not talking about radical Islamic terrorists --- oh, there, I said it!) and not to go singling out entire religions for increased police scrutiny, chastisement, etc... 

 

Do I agree with this tradition?  I do.  As a bleeding-heart liberal (not really, just here) I see something perverse and stupid about inciting religious discrimination.  I think this used to be a widely-held sentiment.  Maybe not anymore.

post #4554 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by budapest12 View Post


Religion is a set of beliefs but I think you will agree that the traditional political discourse in the United States, until now, has been to treat peoples' religious beliefs with some measure of respect (obvious we are not talking about radical Islamic terrorists --- oh, there, I said it!)
Treat subjugation of women in islamic families and countries with respect..??? Do not question it!!!

That is exactly the failure of Western liberalism and that is why reform is not possible among muslims. The Western liberals are systematically betraying their high faluting principles of justice and equality and wail" "Islamophobia!!!!!!!" at anyone who dares to criticize or even question muslim apartheid system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by budapest12 View Post

and not to go singling out entire religions for increased police scrutiny, chastisement, etc... 
... cause that would be wrong, right. No profiling cause all cultures are equal and all religions are the same. facepalm.gif
Edited by Medwed - 8/1/16 at 8:26am
post #4555 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

Whereas Hills wants to befriend Michael "Ban large size sodas" Bloomberg. Yeah, much better.

Freedom to consume giant drinks while smoking menthols!
post #4556 of 8748

I don't know what I just watched or why I watched so much of it.

post #4557 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

I don't know what I just watched or why I watched so much of it.
post #4558 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Trump had an opportunity to make those arguments. But, in typical Trump fashion, he couldn't help himself and made an idiotic attack on Ghazala Khan.

It doesn't really take a lot of mental gymnastics to find the message in "I wonder if she's allowed to speak," when talking about a Muslim woman. It's just a stupid thing to say, and it gets to a very obvious and relevant point about Trump's leadership abilities. He just can't help himself. He's going to keep making idiotic unforced errors, and he's going to do it if people are dumb enough to elect him too. Except then, he's going to be representing the nation when he says stupid unprompted things off the cuff.

Sure, I'd prefer we elect someone that doesn't make any errors in judgement, but that won't happen. I'll take Trump hurting people's feelings over Obama calling a global terrorist threat "the JV team." One mistake is seemingly harmless, the other represents pathological denial and naivete that likely costed people their lives. But Trump is lowbrow and Obama is our intellectual superior.
post #4559 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by budapest12 View Post


Religion is a set of beliefs but I think you will agree that the traditional political discourse in the United States, until now, has been to treat peoples' religious beliefs with some measure of respect (obvious we are not talking about radical Islamic terrorists --- oh, there, I said it!) and not to go singling out entire religions for increased police scrutiny, chastisement, etc... 

Do I agree with this tradition?  I do.  As a bleeding-heart liberal (not really, just here) I see something perverse and stupid about inciting religious discrimination.  I think this used to be a widely-held sentiment.  Maybe not anymore.

I would say that's a very myopic and goes against US history. When JFK ran one of the issues was would he put the US over the edicts of the Pope and he ended up making a pledge to do so. Imagine that, a presidential candidate making a pledge he would not put his religion first. The anti-Catholic rhetoric was pretty strong among both secularists and the more fundie Protestants.
post #4560 of 8748
Also, I would not exactly call how Romney's Mormonism was treated as "respectful."
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field