• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US Election: 2016

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
330
Points
1,130
All Trump asked was if the wife had something to say.

For reference to the discussion,

July 30, 2016.

The Washington Post

Donald Trump responds to the Khan family: ‘Maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/30/donald-trump-responds-to-the-khan-family-maybe-she-wasnt-allowed-to-have-anything-to-say/?tid=pm_politics_pop_b

 

Baloo

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
tomahawk6 said:
Wasnt she criticised as well ?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-republican-convention-hillary-clinton-benghazi-perspec-0720-md-20160719-column.html

Patricia Smith was criticized by those in the public sphere that took exception to Hillary Clinton being held personally responsible for the death of her son at Benghazi.

Ghazala Khan was being mocked by a candidate for President of the United States on her refrain from speaking at the DNC about the death of her son in Afghanistan.



 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
214
Points
710
Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar. Leaving Trump aside for a moment, how can anyone with a single moral fibre support her for POTUS? Why would anyone defend her after her email debacle. Especially when she proved to the country that she is above the law. All the while, Obama has meddled in the whole election process more than any sitting president in history. The DNC has proven their willingness to fix the primary election, what other illegal things are they willing to break the law on?

Anyone defending Clinton is as morally bankrupt as she is.
 

PPCLI Guy

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
334
Points
910
recceguy said:
Anyone defending Clinton is as morally bankrupt as she is.


Anyone defending Trump is as uneducated, small-minded, racist, and duplicitous as he is.

See what I did there?  I cast anyone who defends Trump (ie makes up their own mind, based on the available facts) in an extremely negative light, which added very little to the discussion.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
214
Points
710
author=PPCLI Guy link=topic=108210/post-1447372#msg1447372 date=1469995822]

Anyone defending Trump is as uneducated, small-minded, racist, and duplicitous as he is.

See what I did there?  I cast anyone who defends Trump (ie makes up their own mind, based on the available facts) in an extremely negative light, which added very little to the discussion.

Point taken. It doesn't answer the question though. Neither does listing Trump's characteristics.

So, without trying to change the convo to Trump, what kind of person would back Clinton knowing the facts that are out there about her massive dishonesty and the Clinton Foundation? What kind of person can look beyond her immoral judgment and still think she should be POTUS?
 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
61
Points
530
Someone fact checked Hillarys acceptance speech and found she had made up an anecdote she told.

http://wbsm.com/hillarys-anecdotal-in-convention-acceptance-speech-is-yet-another-lie/

From The New Bedford Standard Times April 17, 2015 in an article by Steve Urbon:
The idealistic young woman with the long hair and huge eyeglasses had just graduated from Yale Law School, the future holding nothing but potential. But instead of shipping off to a New York or Washington law firm, she joined Marian Wright Edelman’s fledgling Children’s Defense Fund (which Edelman, Yale Law Class of 1963, still leads).

Hillary Rodham Clinton apparently would have you believe that, in 1973 she had forgone a career at a lucrative Washington D.C. law firm to instead, serve the public at Yale University’s Children’s Defense Fund (CDF). Not exactly the truth..but that’s not the whopper I speak of yet. While she did indeed work at the CDF in New Bedford in 1973, it seemed more like Plan B than her passion, but this was her fate and it served her well.

Hillary Rodham actually went for the big bucks at that dreamy law firm in D.C….but she failed to pass her bar exams in the District of Columbia, instead eventually passed them in Arkansas.
In last night’s acceptance speech, Secretary Clinton told a story of her experience on the South Coast of Massachusetts in the City of New Bedford as an attorney for the CDF that didn’t all add up according to my radio colleague Chris McCarthy:

 

cupper

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I was going to throw my  :2c:  in on the latest, but having listened to this crap play out for two days while driving from Nova Scotia to Virginia my mind is fried.

But I do want to make one observation I had while listening to the Trump - Khan debacle play out.

Lets remember that Trump, if he is elected, WILL be sending troops into harms way.

Political statements aside. Is this really what you would expect from the potential Commander in Chief, the man who will be sending young men such as Capt. Khan into a situation where they may well not be coming home alive?

Ask yourselves, is this the kind of temperment you want in the oval office. One that would disrespct the families of service men and women who he will be sending into some crappy situations?

 

cupper

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I'll throw my  :2c:  in on the rest tomoorrow after I have had a chance to get some US currency.  [:D
 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
61
Points
530
cupper said:
I was going to throw my  :2c:  in on the latest, but having listened to this crap play out for two days while driving from Nova Scotia to Virginia my mind is fried.

But I do want to make one observation I had while listening to the Trump - Khan debacle play out.

Lets remember that Trump, if he is elected, WILL be sending troops into harms way.

Political statements aside. Is this really what you would expect from the potential Commander in Chief, the man who will be sending young men such as Capt. Khan into a situation where they may well not be coming home alive?

Ask yourselves, is this the kind of temperment you want in the oval office. One that would disrespct the families of service men and women who he will be sending into some crappy situations?

Same old argument the left peddled with Reagan and we didnt go nuclear.Nor was he unstable.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3411215/posts

 

cupper

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
You have the wrong takeaway from my comment. The point I was trying to make was the fact that he disrespected the family of a fallen soldier.

Reagan was criticized as being provocative and potentially trigger happy. But one thing he was not was disrespectful of the people he would ultimately command, and the families they were serving to defend.

Trump's hot headedness and thin skin are one thing, and there are checks and balances in the system. But it'rs the disrespect of a family of a fallen soldier that sets him apart.
 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
I have to agree, he was totally disrespectful of the family.  Not POTUS type of behavior whatsoever.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
877
Points
860
jollyjacktar said:
I have to agree, he was totally disrespectful of the family.  Not POTUS type of behavior whatsoever.

Yep. I'm starting to think that now that he is officially the nominee, that this kind of thing won't fly anymore.  He needs to change tact a bit. This kind of thing will be damaging come debate time. 

Even the most die hard partisan is looking uncomfortable defending this. 
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
30
Points
560
While the media is mostly quiet about the rifts in the Democrat party, this is going to cause lots of issues both in November and downrange. It is also worth doing the math to see just how many potential voters have been driven from the Democrat ranks into the Independent and GOP ranks due to the radicalization of the Democrat party:

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/party-724083-democrats-economic.html

What happened to my party?
July 31, 2016 Updated 12:00 a.m.
By JOEL KOTKIN / STAFF COLUMNIST

The nomination of Hillary Clinton has been secured, but the future of the Democratic Party is far from certain. Despite the patina of unity at the end, the Democrats, like their GOP adversaries, seem divided as to their future direction. Each party is being pulled to the extremes by an increasingly unruly base which regards its own establishment as a cesspool of corruption, influence-peddling and naked opportunism.

The devolution of the parties is reflected generally in the record distaste among the electorate toward the two nominees. Nebraska Republican Sen. Ben Sasse recently remarked, “There are dumpster fires in my town more popular than these awful candidates.” Count me among those looking for some smoldering garbage.

For virtually all of my adult life, I have been a registered Democrat. But as the party has abandoned critical commitments to color-blind racial equality, upward mobility and economic growth, I have moved on to become a registered independent. This makes me part of the fastest-growing “party” in America – the politically homeless.

From economic growth to cronyism and socialism

Historian Michael Lind suggests in his magisterial “Land of Promise” that, generally, all political parties have embraced the gospel of economic growth. Jacksonians in the early 19th century focused heavily on “producerism,” seeking to help those who actually created goods. The original progressives, in both parties, adopted policies favoring modern industry, from infrastructure to education and training. Herbert Croly, the influential early 20th century progressive journalist, described these as “economic agents” leading to greater prosperity.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, with its panoply of price supports and infrastructure projects, was, if nothing else, aimed at restoring prosperity. These policies may have had debatable impact, but certainly by the 1940s – in large part due to World War II – the economy was fully stoked. Later, Democrats from Harry Truman to Bill Clinton generally embraced growth as a means to improve the conditions of most Americans, including the working- and middle-class families with whom the party identified itself.

Today, this is changing. Liberals now constitute roughly three in five Democrats, a share twice as large as in 1992, when we elected the first Clinton. Increasingly, liberals, or progressives, are at best ambivalent about economic growth, particularly in such blue-collar fields as fossil fuel energy, manufacturing, agribusiness and suburban homebuilding. Bill Galston, a former close advisor to Bill Clinton, notes that party platform “is truly remarkable – for example, its near-silence on economic growth.” In 2012, for example, Democrats touted the environmental and economic benefits of natural gas. This year’s party platform endorses ever-stricter regulation of the industry, while Sen. Bernie Sanders’ faction demands a quickly decarbonized economy.

Ironically, such steps will hurt precisely the blue-collar workers Sanders and his minions allegedly care most about. But the Vermont socialist’s base is not blue-collar production workers, but rather millennials, low-paid service workers and academics with few ties to tangible industries. Suspicious of broad-based economic growth’s impact on the environment, they logically favor redistribution of wealth over seriously growing the pie – in effect, contradicting nearly a half-century of mainstream Democratic thinking. The Bernie Bros and Gals think that higher taxes and more generous welfare benefits can turn America into a kind of mega-Scandinavia. They ignore the fact that, as author Nima Sanandaji has pointed out, the Nordic welfare state drew from generations of rapid growth built on small government, free markets and cultural factors, and that, in more recent years, countries such as Sweden have embraced a stronger free-market stance in order to pay for their generous welfare systems.

The Sanders campaign has been right about one thing: the nature of the Clinton coalition. Due in part to the awful candidacy of Donald Trump, Hillary is likely to be the most Big Business-backed candidate in American history – five of the world’s 10 richest people favor Clinton. Long the belle of Wall Street, she has secured overwhelming support from increasingly powerful tech, entertainment and media oligarchies. These may acquiesce to the Left on social and environmental issues, but the new oligarchs will be happy to see the back of Bernie’s “soak the rich” platform. They can feel confident that Hillary will not threaten the tax and regulatory regime favorable to them, and some cronies, like Elon Musk or Google, can expect another flood of energy-related subsidies to enhance their already massive wealth.

The class divide

Bernie Sanders and his supporters long have argued that the Clintons, even as they denounced greed, got rich themselves, largely by prostituting themselves to some of the most powerful and disreputable moguls on the planet. Of course, there have always been ultra-rich Democrats, as historian G. William Domhoff documented in his 1972 “Fat Cats and Democrats.” These tended to come from outside the old Eastern WASP establishment – notably, Jews on Wall Street and in Hollywood, as well as Texas entrepreneurs like George Brown. Some pro-Democratic Wall Streeters were also involved in municipal finance, which benefited from the expansion of government.

Yet even then, the rich did not dominate “the party of the people,” particularly in comparison with the big business shills of the Republican Party. The party coalition included everyone from small farmers, including those from the South, to Main Street businesses to industrial workers to highly educated professionals. Today, only the professionals remain as a reliable segment of the party base, as Thomas Frank and others have noted.

The white working class is now the bulwark of the GOP, along with small-scale entrepreneurs. Both have struggled under the Obama administration. Indeed, Trump’s only real hope to win in November is to mobilize millions of these voters – many of them traditional Democrats – in swing states like Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan. These voters have little reason to trust the Democrats, notes former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, since Democrats, increasingly dependent on the same donor base as the mainstream GOP, have done little to help them.

The inherent contradiction between the Bernie faction’s populism and Hillary’s crony capitalism could rile party politics in the coming years. The growth delivered by Obama’s economic policies has been wonderful for the investor class but not very good for a rapidly proleterianized middle and working class. How Hillary tries to appease the Left populists while maintaining her financial backers may provide a true test of her political skills.

Race and identity

The Democratic Party’s embrace of racial equality in the 1960s represented an enormous step forward for both the country and the party, whose past was mired in slavery and segregation. Yet the Democrats leading the civil rights charge, like Hubert Humphrey, did not endorse the institutionalization of racial quotas. Old-line liberals preferred the notion, advanced by Martin Luther King, that discrimination on the basis of race is always wrong, and that people should instead be judged primarily on “the content of their character.”

Yet as the party has alienated its old white working- and middle-class base, racial and gender identity politics have become more important to Democrats. Older white women and minorities essentially saved Hillary’s campaign as she lost badly to Sanders among both the young and the remnants of white Democratic working- and middle-class voters. Now Hillary and the Democrats are likely to double down on racial identity politics. This can be seen in the courting of the Black Lives Matter activists and Latino nationalists and the stepping away from Bill Clinton’s embrace of tough policies on crime.

Hillary’s campaign website, as Oren Cass recently pointed out in a City Journal column, expends many more words talking about racial redress than about the economy. Clinton’s policy agenda, he notes, focuses more on “framing issues as who instead of what” in a way that divides people by gender, race, age and sexuality. This applies also to feminist politics that are intrinsic to her appeal. She has already talked about having a cabinet that is half female. Women certainly deserve more seats at the table, as they now outperform men in many areas, but chromosomes should not trump character in a democratic society.

But this kind of categorical imperative seems to have won over the Democratic Party, so much so as to render it unrecognizable to some of its old adherents. Similarly, it’s hard to see how more regulations, concessions to well-connected cronies and ever-higher taxes will revive the middle class. Since the awful alternative of Donald Trump makes the GOP even more noxious, can someone please point me to the closest dumpster fire?

Joel Kotkin is an R.C. Hobbs Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University and executive director of the Center for Opportunity Urbanism in Houston. His newest book is “The Human City: Urbanism for the Rest of Us.”
 

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
282
Points
1,130
jollyjacktar said:
I have to agree, he was totally disrespectful of the family.  Not POTUS type of behavior whatsoever.
And, maybe because of that, the roll-back begins ...
Republican vice presidential candidate Mike Pence says he and presidential candidate Donald Trump believe a Muslim American soldier killed by a suicide bomber in Iraq in 2004 is a hero and families like his "should be cherished by every American."

The statement late Sunday followed intense criticism of Trump's reaction to an appearance by U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan's parents at last week's Democratic National Convention. Khan was killed by a suicide bomber in Iraq in 2004 ...
More via Pence's FB page:
STATEMENT FROM REPUBLICAN VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, GOVERNOR MIKE PENCE

Donald Trump and I believe that Captain Humayun Khan is an American hero and his family, like all Gold Star families, should be cherished by every American.

Captain Khan gave his life to defend our country in the global war on terror. Due to the disastrous decisions of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, a once stable Middle East has now been overrun by ISIS. This must not stand.

By suspending immigration from countries that have been compromised by terrorism, rebuilding our military, defeating ISIS at its source and projecting strength on the global stage, we will reduce the likelihood that other American families will face the enduring heartbreak of the Khan family.

Donald Trump will support our military and their families and we will defeat the enemies of our freedom.

- Governor Mike Pence
stock-illustration-29622146-picking-up-dog-poo.jpg
 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
61
Points
530
The media and others want to destroy Trump much like they did with Palin.Sadly Trump isnt helping his cause shooting from the lip.The Khan has sacrificed a son for the country and deserves respect for the memory of his son.However,more is coming out about Mr Khan.He is an immigration lawyer with questionable ties to the democrat power structure.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/khan-specializes-in-visa-programs-accused-of-selling-u.s.-citizenship/article/2598279?custom_click=rss

The father of a Muslim American soldier killed in Iraq who is caught up in a war of words with Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is an immigration lawyer who specializes in a highly controversial program accused of letting immigrants buy their way into the U.S.

Khizr M. Khan's website notes that he works to help clients with the E-2 and EB-5 programs that let overseas investors buy into U.S. companies and also provides green cards for family members.

It also said that he helps in the purchase of U.S. real estate and businesses. The website lists his ability to practice in New York, though it gives a Washington phone number for the lawyer who lives in Virginia. A man who answered the phone said the website was correct, though he would not identify himself.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
545
Points
1,060
Trump may be going "all in" on the disaffected American.

I think that Hillary is toxic enough that a lot of voters that might swing in the center can't bring themselves to support her even when the alternative is Trump.
Equally Trump is also toxic. 

The result is that many "mainstream" voters may be inclined to sit this one out and join that ever increasing pool of voters that wish a pox on both their houses.

But Trump is playing to that pool and engaging those people that: don't recognize themselves in either of the mainstream parties, or their platforms; that have seen their concerns and their opinions ignored and; that feel themselves disrespected and often times vilified.  He is offering carrots to people that have been driven with sticks.

I think the demographics of the non-participating voters may be taking a swing.  Trump as Huey Long, as Richard Daley, as Boss Tweed (peculiarly all Democrats).
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
877
Points
860
Chris, you are certainly right on the toxicity factor.

I'm not sure that Trump is going all in though on disaffected voters.  He already has the support of his base.  They were never going to vote for Clinton, regardless of any factors. She's Clinton and she's a Democrat.  That's all they need to not vote for her.

The problem with Trump and disaffected voters from the Democrats' side, is that he isn't endearing himself to them.  At all.  That's fine, but those that might of voted for Trump as a protest vote or are likely going to vote for a third option might just go back to the Hillary camp out of fear that trump might actually become the POTUS.  Trump needs these voters to stay home or vote green or whatever.  By making callous statements or fear mongering too much he will eventually drive these voters to come out and take the bad medicine in order to not have the worst medicine.  And at the same time force Republicans to stay home as well who can't stomach Clinton but would hate Trump as President.  A double whammy against him. 

If they have to choose mountain dew or crab juice, they might just opt for the crab juice.  (obscure Simpson reference).
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
330
Points
1,130
Chris Pook said:
Trump as Huey Long, as Richard Daley, as Boss Tweed (peculiarly all Democrats).

Trump as .... Rob Ford?

Ford Nation - Trump Nation?

Globe and  Mail

Why is Donald Trump so popular? Look no further than Rob Ford
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/why-is-donald-trump-so-popular-look-no-further-than-rob-ford/article26482893/

“Rob [Ford] could commit murder on the steps of city hall and they would still vote for him”: Doug Ford
Oct., 2010

"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters.": Donald Trump
Jan., 2016

Trump vows to 'stop the gravy train' 
Republican rolls out Rob Ford slogan during speech
http://www.winnipegsun.com/2016/05/06/trump-vows-to-stop-the-gravy-train

“Who would you rather have negotiating with Iran — President Obama or Toronto Mayor Ford? My money is on Ford,” Trump tweeted.
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/11/25/donald-trump-picks-rob-ford-over-barack-obama

Edited.





 

Attachments

  • rob.png
    rob.png
    409.9 KB · Views: 57
  • robf.jpg
    robf.jpg
    23.1 KB · Views: 37
  • trump-nation.jpg
    trump-nation.jpg
    60 KB · Views: 37
  • ford-nation.jpg
    ford-nation.jpg
    62.5 KB · Views: 35

cupper

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
mariomike said:
Trump as .... Rob Ford?

“Rob [Ford] could commit murder on the steps of city hall and they would still vote for him”: Doug Ford
Oct., 2010.

"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters.": Donald Trump
Jan., 2016

Again, another example of the Trump campaign plagerizing. When will this stop? ;D
 

Rocky Mountains

Full Member
Reaction score
1
Points
180
jollyjacktar said:
I have to agree, he was totally disrespectful of the family.  Not POTUS type of behavior whatsoever.

They dug up their dead son and beat Trump over the head with him.  The attack on Trump was a total set-up and a shameful and cowardly political act.  These parents should be hanging their heads in shame.  They've had 11 years to get used to their son being dead.  I mistrust the emotion.
 
Top