Donald Trump’s Politically Stupid Attack On A Grieving Family

Of course Donald Trump responded to a Gold Star Father in the worst possible way.

donald-trump-microphone

Donald Trump responded to Khizr Khan, the Gold Star Father who lost a son in Iraq in 2005 and spoke Thursday night at the Democratic National Convention, in the most crass, insulting, and seemingly politically stupid way possible:

Donald J. Trump belittled the parents of a slain Muslim soldier who had strongly denounced Mr. Trump during the Democratic National Convention, saying that the soldier’s father had delivered the entire speech because his mother was not “allowed” to speak.

Mr. Trump’s comments, in an interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News that will air on Sunday, drew quick and widespread condemnation and amplified calls for Republican leaders to distance themselves from their presidential nominee. With his implication that the soldier’s mother had not spoken because of female subservience expected in some traditional strains of Islam, his comments also inflamed his hostilities with American Muslims.

Khizr Khan, the soldier’s father, lashed out at Mr. Trump in an interview on Saturday, saying his wife had not spoken at the convention because it was too painful for her to talk about her son’s death.

Mr. Trump, he said, “is devoid of feeling the pain of a mother who has sacrificed her son.”

Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, a rival of Mr. Trump’s in the Republican primaries who has refused to endorse him, castigated him on Twitter. “There’s only one way to talk about Gold Star parents: with honor and respect,” he wrote, using the term for surviving family members of those who died in war.

And Hillary Clinton, Mr. Trump’s Democratic opponent, said he “was not a normal presidential candidate.”

“Someone who attacks everybody has something missing,” she told a crowd at a campaign stop in Youngstown, Ohio. “I don’t know what it is. I’m not going to get into that.”

(…)

Mr. Trump told Mr. Stephanopoulos that Mr. Khan seemed like a “nice guy” and that he wished him “the best of luck.” But, he added, “If you look at his wife, she was standing there, she had nothing to say, she probably — maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say, you tell me.”

Mr. Trump also told Maureen Dowd of The New York Times on Friday night, “I’d like to hear his wife say something.”

In a statement late Saturday, Mr. Trump called Captain Khan a “hero,” and reiterated his belief that the United States should bar Muslims from entering the country.

“While I feel deeply for the loss of his son,” he added, “Mr. Khan, who has never met me, has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution, (which is false) and say many other inaccurate things.”

(…)

And when asked what he would say to the grieving father, Mr. Trump replied, “I’d say, ‘We’ve had a lot of problems with radical Islamic terrorism.'”

Mr. Stephanopoulos also noted that Mr. Khan said that Mr. Trump had “sacrificed nothing,” and had lost no one.

“I think I’ve made a lot of sacrifices,” Mr. Trump replied. “I’ve worked very, very hard. I’ve created thousands and thousands of jobs.”

Khan,who will appear on at least one Sunday morning show today, responded to Trump late yesterday:

Responding to Trump’s latest statement, Khan said, “This is faked empathy.”

“What he said originally — that defines him . . . People are upset with him. He realizes, and his advisers feel that [his original statement] was a stupid mistake. That proves that this person is void of empathy. He is unfit for the stewardship of this great country. You think he will empathize with this country, with the suffering of this country’s poor people? He showed his true colors when he disrespected this country’s most honorable mother… all the snake oil he is selling, and my patriotic, decent Americans are falling for that. Republicans are falling for that. And I can only appeal to them. Reconsider. Repudiate. It’s a moral obligation. A person void of empathy for the people he wishes to lead cannot be trusted with that leadership. To vote is a trust. And it cannot be placed in wrong hands.”

In response to Trump’s attack on his wife, Khan said the Republican nominee’s words were “typical of a person without a soul.”

Khan said his wife didn’t speak because she breaks down when she sees her son’s photograph — a huge one of which was projected onto a screen behind the stage at the convention.

“Emotionally and physically — she just couldn’t even stand there, and when we left, as soon as we got off camera, she just broke down. And the people inside, the staff, were holding her, consoling her. She was just totally emotionally spent. Only those parents that have lost their son or daughter could imagine the pain that such a memory causes. Especially when a tribute is being paid. I was holding myself together, because one of us had to be strong. Normally, she is the stronger one. But in the matter of Humayun, she just breaks down any time anyone mentions it.”

Khan said he asked his wife whether she wanted to address the convention.

“I asked her, ‘Do you want to say something? Thank you? We are glad?'” Khan said. “She said, ‘You know what will happen. I will sob.’ Would any mother be able to utter a word under those circumstances?”

(…)

Speaking of Trump’s proposed suspension of Muslim immigration, Khan said that the candidate is simply “pandering for votes.”

“This is my country too,” he said, adding that Trump “lacks understanding,” that most Muslims are victims of terrorism, not perpetrators — and they condemn it. “He lacks awareness of these issues. He doesn’t realize there are patriotic Muslim Americans in this country willing to lay their lives for this country. We are a testament to that.”

Khan said since his speech Thursday, he’s received a unexpected flood of emails from judges, lawyers and others around the country who he thinks have become emboldened since his appearance.

“What has caused this stir is how those words have strengthened the hearts of people,” he said. “These are scholars, very prominent judges, prominent lawyers — one said very clearly: ‘I have never voted Democrat. I will vote Democrat this year. I want you to know that somehow you have touched my heart.”

In the mind of a rational politician, of course, there is really only one way to respond to the parents of a fallen soldier, even one who has directly criticized you. You issue a statement making note of the loss of their son (or daughter) and leave it at that. Attacking the parents themselves is something fraught with political danger, especially among voters in a closely fought election where comments that turn off even a small category of the electorate could go a long way toward deciding the outcome of the election itself. Donald Trump, of course, is not a rational politician. Instead of letting the grief of these parents speak for itself and moving on, Trump is quite clearly a man who cannot help but respond to any attack on him in the worst possible way, and he demonstrates that quite clearly in this case. He starts out with a swipe at Mrs. Khan, who did not speak during her husband’s speech but has spoken out subsequently, and suggested that she was “not allowed to speak,” thus reinforcing the notion that the view of women that applies among jihadists and in orthodox Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Iran. Apparently, he didn’t consider the possibility that she just couldn’t speak at that point in time about something that, even a decade later, still impacts her and a her family very deeply. Besides all of that, the look on Mrs. Khan’s face as her husband spoke said more than any words possibly could have under the circumstances. Finally, Trump’s comment that he has also ‘sacrificed’ in response to a parent who lost his son is perhaps one of the most politically tone deaf responses ever uttered. What, exactly, has Donald Trump sacrificed at any point in his life that can compare to the life of a son?

Someone who had the slightest sympathy for his fellow man would consider things like this, and certainly wouldn’t attack parents who have lost their son in war. We’ve learned over the past year, though, that Donald Trump has very little empathy for anyone other than himself, at least when he speaks on the public stage. Even in response to tragedies such as a the terror attacks in Paris, San Bernardino, Nice, and elsewhere, his responses to tragic events tend to become opportunities for self-promotion rather than actual expressions of sympathy. Similarly, when faced with the comments of a father who lost his son, a father who would not even be in this country if Trump’s “ban all Muslims” immigration policy had been in effect when he sought to come to this country in the 1970s, Trump responds not with empathy, but with an attack and a gratuitous slap at a grieving mother. This is what the Republican Party puts forward as its best?

In any case, thanks to Trump’s decision to respond to Khan, this story is likely to have legs for the next few days. As we know from past history, it certainly isn’t going to be enough to turn off his most rabid supporters and it may only have a tangential impact on the polls at best, but I doubt it’s going to help very much. As always seems to happen with Trump, though, it’s something that reinforces all of the negative stereotypes about him and, to that extent, it plays right into the hands of a Democratic campaign that is quite obviously far more willing to take Trump on head-to-head than any of his Republican opponents were during the long race for the Republican nomination. It’s also the kind of thing that could have a negative impact on swing voters who haven’t quite made up their mind yet. Trump is already reaching unseen before lows in his favorable/unfavorable numbers and things like this are unlikely to help improve on those numbers. If he continues to fall, it could make any prospect of a viable path to the White House all the more impossible. In that case, he’ll have nobody but himself to blame.

Update: Ghazala Khan, Mr. Khan’s wife, has written a piece for The Washington Post:

Walking onto the convention stage, with a huge picture of my son behind me, I could hardly control myself. What mother could? Donald Trump has children whom he loves. Does he really need to wonder why I did not speak?

Donald Trump said that maybe I wasn’t allowed to say anything. That is not true. My husband asked me if I wanted to speak, but I told him I could not. My religion teaches me that all human beings are equal in God’s eyes. Husband and wife are part of each other; you should love and respect each other so you can take care of the family.

When Donald Trump is talking about Islam, he is ignorant. If he studied the real Islam and Koran, all the ideas he gets from terrorists would change, because terrorism is a different religion.

Donald Trump said he has made a lot of sacrifices. He doesn’t know what the word sacrifice means.

Just as with Khizr Kahn, Trump will feel compelled to respond to this. His advisers should do everything they can to dissuade him from doing that.

 

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2016, Donald Trump, Politicians, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Tony W says:

    Donald Trump could “stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody” and retain all his supporters.

    40% of America will vote for literally anybody with an ‘R’ by their name.

  2. CSK says:

    Apart from any other consideration, this incident perfectly demonstrates that Trump is, in fact, pathological. Mentally ill. A genuine certifiable nut. And a very dangerous one should he get his wee little hands on the reins of power.

    He has to stay at the top of the news cycle. He’ll do or say anything–even if it’s insanely self-destructive–to maintain that perch.

    That he would flout all the laws of common sense, decency, and sensitivity to attack the parents of an American soldier who died trying to protect his troops just to get publicity (all bad, but who cares? It’s publicity) shows just how far removed from the realms of sanity Trump is.

  3. Jen says:

    In a just world, mocking a disabled reporter and denigrating a war hero like John McCain should have finished Trump. Now there’s this.

    He has no empathy, and no moral compass, as Mr. Khan said this morning on CNN. I have never been so utterly and thoroughly disgusted with someone running for office. He is appalling, cruel, and this is another sign that he cannot withstand the slightest of criticisms. He literally tweeted “I was viciously attacked by Mr. Khan at the Democratic Convention. Am I not allowed to respond?” Viciously attacked.

    Trump is completely unstable and quite possibly mentally ill.

  4. Mark Ivey says:

    Running a business is like military service. Paying employees is a sacrifice.

  5. His insinuation about Mrs. Khan, which was clearly an attempt to stoke Islamophobic responses, was typical and yet horrible (or am I being redundant?).

    He will, no doubt, simply say he was asking a question.

  6. Pch101 says:

    Trump is a media genius. He knows how to set the agenda for the news cycle and to get everyone to talk about whatever that it is that he wants to talk about.

    I think that what you’re missing is that there are more voters who will vote to take a stand against a Muslim guy than those who will vote to stand with him. Trump realizes that the hate-powered vote thrives on a constant diet of bile, and he’s keeping them well fed.

    Trump”s most enthusiastic supporters like him because he has given them permission to hate. Humans are petty but they are also social animals who live in packs. Even the nastiest ones often want to have some sort of validation for whatever it is that they do.

    Trump has provided them with that validation. You can bet that there is a segment of the population that would love to be able to say the kind of things that Trump says but that doesn’t have the guts to do it. They like him because they think that using ethnic slurs is an act of courage, so the Khans are an ideal target.

  7. CSK says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    Someone should ask him why Melania stands silent like a department store dummy on the stage next to him. Did he order her to be still?

    And, given that Trump once famously said “Women: You have to treat them like sh!t,” does he really have any business commenting on how other men treat their wives?

  8. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @CSK:

    He’s this way in daily life as well. Everything has to be about him – the focus of attention must remain on him, or else he throws a tantrum. I’ve known him professionally for over a decade now, and my initial impression of him – that’s he’s a textbook case of narcissistic personality disorder – hasn’t changed in the slightest. I’ve never left a meeting with him where I didn’t desperately feel like I needed a shower. He’s just that odious of a human being – not a single redeeming quality that I’ve ever noticed, and believe me, I’ve tried to find one.

  9. Hal_10000 says:

    Ghazala Khan has spoken frequently and movingly of her son, which ten seconds on Google would have revealed. Trump isn’t just ignorant; he’s someone who doesn’t care about being ignorant. He’s not just despicable; he’s someone who doesn’t care about being despicable. I’m using to politicians being egotistical; Trump is all ego, all the time. Everything is about him; everything. Even in the press release, parts of which sounded like something a sane campaign would have crafted, he had to add in an ungrammatical swipe at Khan about the Constitution. And I hate to keep beating this drum, but if Clinton or Obama had said this? It would be the leading story on Fox for three months.

    It’s like we’re in a social experiment: how awful can a candidate be and still draw support?

  10. CSK says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    I absolutely believe you. Nothing you say about your personal dealings with him contradicts what we know of him from his public persona.

    I’ve always thought that his devotees love him because he validates their own moral ugliness and intellectual vacuity.

  11. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Hal_10000:

    I agree with Doug on this one – she didn’t need to say a word. The crushed and heartbroken look on her face when she saw that photo of her son on the screen said everything that needed to be said and then some. It was so evident that I felt it as well. I had tears in my eyes wishing I could do something, anything, to ease her pain.

    To attack that level of grief – to belittle it in any way – is a new low, even for someone as devoid of the slightest sense of empathy or human compassion as Trump is. He sickens me.

  12. Eric Florack says:

    @CSK: it’s called desperation.

    The majority of his followers were willing to latch themselves onto anything that looked like it was going to oppose the GOP establishment. Trump certainly qualifies there, but they forgot to look beyond that point

    As for George Will, I have blasted the man repeatedly for his Kamikaze Republican comments during the 1976 campaign . That said, he got this one right.

  13. JohnMcC says:

    Well, the redeeming quality revealed by this latest imbroglio from the Republican presidential campaign is the sight of all those Republican senators and congressmen and governors and state legislators and state party leaders condemning their candidate’s hateful remark.

    Oh….wait…..

  14. CSK says:

    @Eric Florack:

    And no one wants to be “establishment” more than Donald Trump. This is someone who’s made a career out of screwing “the little people,” “we the people,” “the common man”–whatever locution is currently in vogue. He certainly exploits his followers, and his contempt for them is radiant.

  15. michael reynolds says:

    Finally, yes, it’s beginning to occur to people that Trump is psychologically unhinged, that at the very least he has a major personality disorder. @HarvardLawyer says NPD, I’ve said psychopathy – they’re in effect the same thing: an absolutely ruthless, amoral, obsession with oneself and one’s own goals.

    He is not okay. He is not just ‘flawed,’ he is dangerously unfit. The idea of giving this cruel, nasty pig of a man control over 4,500 nuclear warheads is absolutely insane. The question now is whether the racists and misogynists and lovers of chaos are going to sober up and recognize that they are in effect handing the means of human annihilation to a deeply deranged man.

  16. bill says:

    well, to be fair- the father threw the first punch, trump just swung back. of course the father is ticked that trump wants to limit muslim immigration and needed to vent. that he was conned into talking it up at the dnc is his fault- he doesn’t realize that democrats have halted muslims from coming here already.

    @michael reynolds: fear mongering 101?! and you described hillary as well, you know that right?

  17. James Pearce says:

    @Pch101:

    Trump is a media genius. He knows how to set the agenda for the news cycle and to get everyone to talk about whatever that it is that he wants to talk about.

    Trump has been arguing with the Khans since Thursday night, which means he’s an idiot. Friday night was the last time he should have said anything about the Khans.

    But this clown just can’t help himself. He’s undisciplined and petty and this is going very badly for him. All he needs from us is more rope.

  18. CSK says:

    @michael reynolds:

    His most fervent acolytes will just dig in deeper; you should read some of their defenses of what he said to the Khans.

    As for everyone else? Probably the notion that this man could start a nuclear war over a Twitter p!ssing contest with Kim Un Jong will give enough of them pause to either decline to vote, or vote for someone other than Trump if they can’t bring themselves to vote for Clinton.

    And you know that Trump is going to get uglier and more outrageous as the election season goes on. Even if he wanted to moderate his tone, he can’t. It’s a symptom of his acute mental illness.

  19. michael reynolds says:

    @bill:

    Have you lost your goddamned mind? The father of a dead American soldier “threw the first punch?” And Trump has to defend himself?

    Jesus H. Christ. You are lost, man. You are lost.

  20. Jen says:

    @bill:

    the father threw the first punch, trump just swung back.

    This is truly idiotic.

    Trump is running for president of the United States. If he can’t handle criticism of a policy that HE advocated (banning an entire religion), then he has zero business being in the arena.

    “Trump just swung back”

    This is PRECISELY the problem. Grown-ups don’t do that. They say “I value and appreciate the sacrifice made by this American family in the loss of their son, while he was serving his country.” PERIOD. FULL-EFFIN-STOP.

    He has the mentality and demeanor of an ill-behaved, spoiled, five-year-old. That you are defending this is really beyond the pale, even for you.

  21. steve s says:

    Bill’s a great GOP voter–amoral and dumb.

  22. EddieInCA says:

    @bill:

    Are you out of your effing mind????

    Seriously? A father, a Muslim father, who lost his son in war fighting for this country “threw the first punch?”

    Fvck you! You have no heart, and obviously no compassion.

    Trump threw the first punch. Under his proposed Muslim ban, future brave Muslims would be unable to enter the country and fight for their country.

    You are a sad, lost, pathetic little man. I’m done with you. You go into the Jack and Jenos pile, never to be responded to again.

  23. Pch101 says:

    @James Pearce:

    As usual, you just don’t see it.

    Donald Trump managed to get American political junkies to spend the entire weekend talking about Muslims. That’s exactly what he wanted.

    Trump wants this election to be about how he is uniquely qualified to save us from the foreigners that frighten us. This Khan story works for him perfectly because much of America does not want to like Muslims, and those bigots will appreciate anyone who tells them that they don’t need to make any exceptions.

    Bill’s response above is perfect. He has found a way to use the death of a Muslim veteran to validate his love of racism and his hatred of Democrats. Trump allows Bill to be the dumb jerk who he wants to be. You think that guys like Bill are going to be moved by homages to people like the Khans when he doesn’t even see them as being people?

  24. gVOR08 says:

    @CSK:

    Apart from any other consideration, this incident perfectly demonstrates that Trump is, in fact, pathological. Mentally ill. A genuine certifiable nut.

    http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/07/donald-trump-keith-olbermann-sanity-test

  25. gVOR08 says:

    @bill: Conservatives don’t realize how much they depend on political correctness. Your comment is so far beyond the pale that it allows me to ask a very non-politcally correct question. What is wrong with you?

  26. Andrew says:

    Ha.

    Trump spends his convention time talking sh!t about all Muslims.
    A week later a family of a dead soldier, who happens to be Muslim, rebukes Trump on his ignorant hate.

    Trump is victim in this? HA, yeah okay.

    No, actually, Trump is a douche nozzle Thin skinned, bad tempered, douche nozzle.

    Not the victim.

  27. James Pearce says:

    @Pch101:

    Donald Trump managed to get American political junkies to spend the entire weekend talking about Muslims. That’s exactly what he wanted.

    No, Donald Trump managed to get American political junkies to marvel how he was so easily baited into having a very public argument with a Gold Star family who hurted his feelings.

    Even conservatives are going, “You’re running against Hillary Clinton, not the Khan family. STFU.”

    @Pch101:

    This Khan story works for him perfectly because

    No, this Khan story is further entrenching in people’s minds that this dude has no place in the White House.

    Trump’s strategy, and the GOP’s strategy behind him, is to win this election based on the unique awfulness of Hillary Clinton. For anyone else, it would be a sound strategy. But Trump has proven to be so awful that Clinton actually looks good.

    Paraphrasing Penn Jillette:
    Two things I always believed: A) All candidates from major political parties are smarter than me. B) There could be no one worse than Hillary Clinton. This election has proven me wrong on both counts.

  28. Moosebreath says:

    From the NY Times article quoted near the top of the original post:

    “I think I’ve made a lot of sacrifices,” Mr. Trump replied. “I’ve worked very, very hard. I’ve created thousands and thousands of jobs.”

    So creating “thousands and thousands” of jobs is a sacrifice? This explains Republican economic policy over the recent decades, as their track record for job creation is so poor:

    “72 years was selected as the timeframe because each party has controlled the presidency for 36 of those 72 years. During those 36 years each, 58 million jobs have been created under Democratic presidents, but only 26 million jobs under Republican Presidents. That means that for all of modern American history, jobs have been created more than twice as fast when we have elected Democrats to the highest office. “

  29. al-Ameda says:

    Normally, a gaffe like the one Trump committed – being graceless, unthoughtful, and cruel – would be close to fatal, but this is an America in a different time and place.

    Unfortunately, Trump probably has a solid 40%, and we have to hope that Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida and Michigan don’t go full on stupid and deliver the White House to Trump. It comes down to Democratic constituencies turning out – if they do, Trump loses, if they don’t, stupid wins.

  30. Loviatar says:

    @gVOR08:

    Conservatives don’t realize how much they depend on political correctness.

    THIS

    I believed and have said for a long time that Republicans generally, and Conservatives in particular do not realize how much they benefit from political correctness. They consistently take advantage of it, but they don’t realize or appreciate how much they benefit from it.

    Most Americans strive to be seen as polite and well mannered, so they will hesitate to call a racist/sexist asshole out in public. Trump is in the process of removing that hesitation, bill in his own small way is also helping the process along.

    continue on bill.

  31. Pch101 says:

    @James Pearce:

    So you’re seriously arguing that the candidate who has gotten as far as he has because of his xenophobic platform would benefit from halting the xenophobia?

    Trump probably won’t win the election because the odds were against the GOP in the first place. But Trump is going to get far more post-election mileage out of his defeat than Mitt Romney ever did, for he’s now a hero for the angry white man bloc.

  32. CSK says:

    Apropos of…I’m not quite sure what, but the front page of the New York Post has a full-length shot of a nude Melania Trump with the headline THE OGLE OFFICE.

    http://www.nypost.com/2016/07/30/melania-trump-like-youve-never-seen-her-before/

    That is, guys, if you’re interested.

  33. DrDaveT says:

    @Hal_10000:

    And I hate to keep beating this drum, but if Clinton or Obama had said this? It would be the leading story on Fox for three months.

    Understatement of the year. O’Reilly would literally foam at the mouth, and Hannity would have to be hospitalized and sedated.

    To call it a “double standard” is misleading; it’s more like a Moebius standard — it only has one side to begin with.

  34. Hal_10000 says:

    well, to be fair- the father threw the first punch, trump just swung back

    So we haven’t quite reached the bottom of the barrel with Trump support. I wonder where that is?

    Here’s the thing. To be President of the United States, you need a thick skin. A really thick skin. Because there are three hundred million people in this country and at least a third are going to think you’re scum no matter what. Late night comedians will joke about you, protesters will shout at you, investigators will go after you, foreign countries will pillory you. It’s part of the job. Successful Presidents have a thick skin. Bush Sr. dealt with criticism and laughed with those who imitated him. Obama, for all my disagreement with him, has endured a crazed nonstop political viciousness since he stepped into office and been happy to mock himself on late night TV. Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan overcame heavy criticism sometimes from their own party and used self-effacing humor. When we dealt with the Soviet Union, our President had to negotiate with people who had called them monsters earlier in the day. You have to be that way because otherwise you will go insane, descending into a never-ending series of vendettas against whomever you think has wronged you.

    Trump is insanely thin-skinned. It was visible back in the 2011 WHCD, where he was stone-faced and scowling while Obama roasted him. He has no sense of humor about himself. He is famous for SLAPP lawsuits against critics. He simply can not let it go when someone criticizes him (while expecting them to let it go when he says nasty things about them).

    Clinton put it perfectly: A man you can bait with a tweet should not be in charge of nuclear weapons. Or the world’s most powerful military. If he has to “punch back” because a man who isn’t a politician responded angrily to his proposed policies, what the hell is going to do when Russia or China or India or Saudi Arabia or Iran does something he doesn’t like? This isn’t a game. This is people’s lives.

  35. DrDaveT says:

    @bill:

    well, to be fair

    No. That’s not what you’re being.

  36. James Pearce says:

    @Pch101:

    So you’re seriously arguing that the candidate who has gotten as far as he has because of his xenophobic platform would benefit from halting the xenophobia?

    Yes. Trump’s crude xenophobia puts a cap on whatever public support he thinks he’s going to get. I know this may be shocking to your worldview, but the “build a wall” and “Muslim ban” stuff doesn’t actually have mass support.

    If Trump loses the election, his political career is over. What’s he going to do, slink back to NYC and run for Congress? He’s going to the White House or he’s going home.

    And don’t worry: if he loses, Trumpism is over too. The GOP will reclaim their party from the nativist protectionists so fast you’ll think Trump ran as a Democrat.

  37. Dave Schuler says:

    He’s his own worst enemy. And that’s a crowded field.

  38. CSK says:

    @Hal_10000:

    Here’s what’s also appalling, Hal: The Trumpkins LOVE the fact that Trump becomes unhinged over every late night joke or critical Tweet. They see it as him having the courage to “fight back,” that he’s not a “weakling” the way they perceive the other Republican candidates as having been weaklings for not foaming at the mouth every time they were kidded or criticized.

  39. Pch101 says:

    @James Pearce:

    I know this may be shocking to your worldview, but the “build a wall” and “Muslim ban” stuff doesn’t actually have mass support.

    I don’t recall saying that, but whatever.

  40. gVOR08 says:

    @James Pearce:

    The GOP will reclaim their party from the nativist protectionists so fast you’ll think Trump ran as a Democrat.

    I hope you’re right. But if so, who are they going to get to vote for them?

  41. Carolyn says:

    Big mouth Trump has gone too far verbally attacking grieving parents of the son they lost. When is the Republican party going to say enough, Trump doesn’t represent us? Trump is a sociopath!!!!

  42. Gustopher says:

    He’s a classy fellow, that Donald Trump.

  43. Mikey says:

    Mrs. Khan has a piece in the Washington Post today.

    Trump criticized my silence. He knows nothing about true sacrifice.

  44. Mikey says:

    @CSK:

    The Trumpkins LOVE the fact that Trump becomes unhinged over every late night joke or critical Tweet. They see it as him having the courage to “fight back,” that he’s not a “weakling”

    Yes, he is a mirror of their own deep insecurities.

  45. CSK says:

    @Mikey:
    .
    Indeed. They take all criticism of Trump as a criticism of themselves personally. They’ve merged their identities with him the same way they did with Sarah Palin. Not surprising, given that a lot of Palinistas are now Trumpkins.

  46. Andrew says:

    Not surprising, given that a lot of Palinistas are now Trumpkins.

    Yup.

    The group of people that think that freedom of speech means freedom from consequences of said words. But only for them. No one else.

    Also, side note: This may be the best thing I have seen all week or month.

    Trumpster Fire : What happens when rabid racist rant fuels shitstorm of word salad. “That speech smells like a Trumpster Fire!”

  47. Chuck says:

    @bill:

    Defending Trump for this is almost as idiotic as defending someone who commits road rage because someone gave him a finger.

    The man is auditioning to become leader of the free world, not a WWF heel

  48. James Pearce says:

    @Pch101:

    I don’t recall saying that, but whatever.

    No, you said “the candidate who has gotten as far as he has because of his xenophobic platform.” I took that as a straightforward statement that there was some kind of causal relationship between Trump’s xenophobia and Trump winning the GOP nomination. But now you don’t recall?

    (Do you recall saying that I needed psychiatric help?)

    @gVOR08:

    But if so, who are they going to get to vote for them?

    I’d vote for a sane Republican party that’s genuinely committed to limited government and increasing liberty for all.

  49. michael reynolds says:

    “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

  50. Steve Verdon says:

    I have to say, this put me over the top. I saw people saying Trump is a sociopath and narcissist, and now I have to agree.

    When you employ people that is NOT a sacrifice. It is the exact opposite. You employ people when they provide more value to you than the money you are paying them. Conversely for the employee it is exactly the reverse, whatever they are giving you they value less than the money they are getting. This is by definition the very reason exchanges take place. So this simply cannot be a sacrifice.

    Hard work is not a sacrifice either. It is a choice, and in Trump’s case a choice he has been rewarded for. So again, this is not a sacrifice.

    To try and put himself even in the same ballpark as the Khan’s shows what a truly disgusting and despicable person he is. I simply cannot see how anyone can try to defend this. The Khan’s loss of their child is in no way a benefit to them. It is a gut wrenching and horrifying loss that as a parent I hope to never ever experience.

    Hiya, @michael reynolds.

  51. Kylopod says:

    @michael reynolds:

    @HarvardLawyer says NPD, I’ve said psychopathy – they’re in effect the same thing: an absolutely ruthless, amoral, obsession with oneself and one’s own goals.

    NPD and anti-social personality disorder (the DSM’s term for what used to be called psychopathy) do have some symptoms in common, including an abnormal lack of empathy, and they aren’t mutually exclusive disorders either; it’s possible to be diagnosed with both, what’s known as comorbidity.

    Psychopaths (or people with ASPD) are basically people who are extremely ruthless, manipulative, and lacking in regard for others. But most psychopaths don’t display the grandiosity associated with NPD. Believing oneself to be phenomenally great, superb, magnificent is very much a symptom of NPD, not ASPD. (Grandiosity delusions show up in other disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, though in those cases they usually have a certain bizarreness that make even Trump seem down-to-earth by comparison: I think of the late John Nash who, during one of his psychotic breakdowns, said he was being appointed emperor of Antarctica.)

    I generally think people, even mental health professionals, should be very cautious about diagnosing a public figure with some psychiatric disorder. A lot of people use these disorders to make cheap shots against candidates they don’t like, and to give their judgments a scientific veneer they don’t deserve. (Keith Ablow and Charles Krauthammer, both psychiatrists by training, are constantly doing this against Obama on FOX, and they are clearly abusing their credentials to score partisan points.) But even just a casual read on the symptoms of NPD makes it very hard not to draw conclusions about Trump:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

  52. Lit3Bolt says:

    @bill:

    Trump makes Hillary look good. You know this, or you wouldn’t be squirming.

    The man has no qualifications other than the fact that he is racist.

    Apparently, that’s good enough for you.

  53. JohnMcC says:

    @James Pearce: “If Trump loses this election, his political career is over.”

    I am almost certain that you know what the ‘Dolchstosslegend’ was, my friend.

    Recall that Mr Trump’s political life did not begin with his descent on that escalator last June. He had been making political headlines for years doing his very best to peddle a ludicrous conspiracy theory accusing Pres Obama of being a Nigerian. Recall that actual majorities of Republicans respond to pollsters questions by agreeing that Pres Obama is secretly a Muslim. Recall the belligerent expression on Mr Trump’s face at the White House correspondent’s dinner.

    My expectation is the opposite of yours. I think we have just begun to hear from Mr Trump and that he will lead a core group of Republicans in a permanent campaign against their oppressors.

  54. Mister Bluster says:

    Can Someone Without A Filter Be A Viable Presidential Candidate?

    Whatever you might think of (Candidate X), he’s going to provide reporters with good stories to cover if he runs for President, this interview is just one indication of that. Secondly, the very fact that (Candidate X) is largely unfiltered like this means that the media is going to love putting cameras on him on a daily basis on the campaign trail. Obviously, if he wants to be a viable candidate he’s going to have to be more than a guy who spouts his mouth off without concern for what he’s saying. So, if he does run you’re likely to see a more professional (Candidate X) than what you’re seeing now. In the end, though, he’s still likely to have the same personality he does now, and that’s exactly what would make him a media darling. (Candidate X) is unlikely to be the kind of candidate who could beat Hillary Clinton, but he strikes me as a guy who would have a hell of a lot of fun trying,..

    Who is Candidate X:
    A.) Donald Trump
    B.) Bernie Sanders
    C.) Ren Hoek
    D.) Someone else
    Click on link to reveal the answer.

    https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/can-someone-without-a-filter-be-a-viable-presidential-candidate/

  55. CSK says:

    @JohnMcC:

    Actually, this is the fourth time Trump has made a stab at running for the presidency. First go-round, 1988. Second go-round, 1999. Third go-round, 2011. He has run as a Republican (1988), a Reform Party candidate (1999), and as an Independent (2011).

  56. mdk says:

    No it isn’t. Paying employees is compensation in exchange for another’s work done for your benefit. That is NOT the definition of sacrifice, especially where military service is concerned. Can’t believe anyone needs to explain this!
    Trump deliberately avoided military service.
    There’s a record of that.
    Yes – if Obama had said even one of those idiotic comments Trump had said, especially the one about shooting someone on the street, the Republicans would have howled and totally used that to say he is unfit for the WH. There would have never been a President Obama. So why are the same voters giving Trump a pass on this? And that’s just one comment! If it had been discovered that a past first lady hopeful had posed nude for a men’s magazine, how do you think the Republicans voters would have reacted to that? So why does Melania get a pass? What about Trump’s strip club? His stiffing contractors and illegal workers? His dealings with Native Americans? Nothing in his words or actions even remotely reflect anything resembling “Christian values”. So why would anyone calling themselves a ” Christian” support him?

  57. SC_Birdflyte says:

    @HarvardLaw92: During Joe McCarthy’s heyday, Adlai Stevenson said, “I believe in the forgiveness of sin and the redemption of ignorance.” If he met today’s Donald Trump, I suspect he might want to revise that statement. Some people are beyond help or sympathy.

  58. Gromitt Gunn says:

    @bill: The sad thing is that you probably consider yourself a patriot. And don’t even understand why that statement is probably pretty close to the single most unpatriotic comment written in the history of OTB.

  59. James Pearce says:

    @JohnMcC:

    I think we have just begun to hear from Mr Trump and that he will lead a core group of Republicans in a permanent campaign against their oppressors.

    You may be right about the permanent campaign stuff. I just don’t think Trump will be leading them. The guy is so crude (not only in speech, but also in strategy) I just don’t see him getting anything but knocked down a peg or two.

    It’s the next demagogue I’m worried about. He’ll be much like Trump in approach. He’ll just be better at it.

  60. Paul Hooson says:

    Mr. Khan always brings tears to my eyes when he speaks. I see such a decent and patriotic family that loves this country so much. This patriotism, love of this country and decency also follow most other immigrants to our great nation as well. Mr. Khan’s family make an excellent case that the vast majority of immigrants to this country are wonderful people with complete loyalty to this nation.

  61. CSK says:

    @James Pearce:

    But here’s the thing about a permanent campaign: These people will never have a leader or candidate who ultimately satisfies them, particularly if he or she is actually elected to office. They worshiped Ted Cruz. Now they hate him. They worshiped Paul Ryan. Now they hate him. They thought Kelly Ayotte was great. Now they hate her. And Joni Ernst, and Tim Scott, and Ben Sasse, and…well, I could go on listing names forever, but there is no candidate whom these people have slobbered and drooled over who hasn’t, in their view, eventually become a vile Obama-loving traitor.

    They are not tethered to reality. They want it to be a mythical 1955 again–even those who weren’t alive in 1955. No one will be able to give them that–especially not Donald Trump–so they remain in a permanent state of rage.

    Sarah Palin was very astute to bail from politics and become a reality show starlet. That way, she never had to prove herself–and her fans can sigh and say, “If only…”

  62. Dazedandconfused says:

    He reminds of the con man who becomes reckless. It’s an expression of self-loathing and a subliminal desire to get caught. His vindictiveness indicates what I call a malignant narcissist. I’ve had to deal with my share and in my experience they are generally reluctant to quit, they prefer to be fired when they wish to leave and will become ever more outrageous until somebody does it to them. I suppose it gives them something to whine about.

    Trump may not want to be President. He seeks attention is all. I’ve met a lawyer who says they had a job in Florida which caused him to attend a hostile deposition of Trump. “Highly intelligent. As slippery as two eels fornicating in a bucket of snot.” The intelligent ones are the worst.

  63. Dazedandconfused says:

    He reminds of the con man who becomes reckless. It’s an expression of self-loathing and a subliminal desire to get caught. His vindictiveness indicates what I call a malignant narcissist. I’ve had to deal with my share and in my experience they are generally reluctant to quit, they prefer to be fired when they wish to leave and will become ever more outrageous until somebody does it to them. I suppose it gives them something to whine about.

    Trump may not want to be President. He seeks attention is all. I’ve met a lawyer who says they had a job in Florida which caused him to attend a hostile deposition of Trump. “Highly intelligent. As slippery as two eels fornicating in a bucket of snot.” The intelligent ones are the worst.

  64. Pch101 says:

    @James Pearce:

    Er, I’ve said numerous times that I don’t expect Trump to win the election. Then again, there wasn’t a single Republican contender who could have won this year and Trump may prove to have been the most successful of that bunch.

    What I do expect Trump to win is a large, loyal following for his post-election media project — I can only assume that he would like to launch Trump TV or some other such nonsense.

    As for your optimism about the GOP, that is badly misplaced. The Republicans have become the party of Dixiecrats, and there will be no purge, as they cannot afford to lose the South.

  65. James Pearce says:

    @CSK:

    well, I could go on listing names forever, but there is no candidate whom these people have slobbered and drooled over who hasn’t, in their view, eventually become a vile Obama-loving traitor.

    I can’t deny that’s how these supporters act, but I’m just wondering where actions like that lead to success.

    We’ve all see those silly movies where the villain shoots his own henchmen when they screw up. It’s become such a cliche that it doesn’t work anymore, but that’s not why the trope doesn’t work.

    If you shoot your own henchmen, pretty soon you’re going to run out of henchmen.

    These people are finding themselves in that same dilemma. Keep threatening to primary everyone who doesn’t tow your line, it’s going to be harder and harder to find someone who is going to tow your line.

  66. CSK says:

    @James Pearce:

    True enough. But these people don’t recognize the possibility that they’re going to run out of saviors some day. There’s always going to be some conman/conwoman who gallops over the horizon to their rescue, or so they believe.

  67. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Paul Hooson:

    I’ve noticed this as well myself. I think it stems from a greater appreciation on the part of the immigrant because he/she actually had to make an effort and work their tail off to get here. As a result, they typically display a love for and sense of duty to this country that far exceeds that displayed by most citizens by birth.

    My near neighbors are both Muslim immigrants from Egypt. Both arrived here with essentially nothing, worked like dogs to get through (and pay for) college and medical school, and have prospered (he’s a cardiologist / she’s a psychiatrist) to a degree that should serve as an example to anyone. Beyond that, they’re warm, welcoming and delightful people who have never shown the slightest degree of discomfort with or hesitancy towards my wife and I even though we’re Jews. Their kids are equally driven high achievers, all of whom to my knowledge intend to (and I’m pretty sure are expected to) serve in the military when they complete college. I can’t say enough about what wonderful people they are, how grateful our family is to call them friends and how impressive I find their example.

    Then I think about the same thing Mr Khan said – that if Trump had his way they’d never have accomplished any of that, because they’d never have been here in the first place – and it just makes me ill. To be frank, I’d be much happier with a policy that somehow excluded Trump instead. At least then he’d be contributing to society – by removing himself from it.

  68. CSK says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    Aw, come on. Surely you cannot be suggesting that Celebrity Apprentice isn’t one of the high watermarks of western culture, up there with Paradise Lost, King Lear, Oedipus Rex, Aristotle Contemplating the Bust of Homer…

    Can you?

  69. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @CSK:

    I’ll stop short of suggesting that the show and everyone on it be boiled in oil – but just short of. Reality TV is the premier example of the vacuity and celebration of stupidity that has come to characterize our society.

    Symptom or cause? That’s a conundrum and a half

  70. Stormy Dragon says:

    @CSK:

    The Trumpkins LOVE the fact that Trump becomes unhinged over every late night joke or critical Tweet.

    Have you ever noticed how all the “people need to get a thicker skin instead of demanding everyone be PC” people always seem to have a huge glass jaw the moment someone says something about them?

  71. James Pearce says:

    @CSK:

    There’s always going to be some conman/conwoman who gallops over the horizon to their rescue, or so they believe.

    True. And the result will always be diminishing returns, because that’s always the result of being conned.

    To quote Steve Carell’s character in The Big Short:

    “For fifteen thousand years, fraud and short sighted thinking have never, ever worked. Not once. Eventually you get caught, things go south. When the hell did we forget all that?”

    When the hell did they forget that?

    @Pch101:

    As for your optimism about the GOP, that is badly misplaced

    I don’t think so. A non-awful Republican party would do a lot towards making this world a better place. That’s not to say I support the Republican platform. I don’t.

    But I support better Republicans.

    (Also, the Republicans aren’t just in the South. Don’t tell yourself that. There are more Republicans in California than there are people in Mississippi.)

  72. al-Ameda says:

    Stormy Dragon says:

    Have you ever noticed how all the “people need to get a thicker skin instead of demanding everyone be PC” people always seem to have a huge glass jaw the moment someone says something about them?

    I hear that.
    I’ve been the lone liberal in a family of eleven for, well, forever, and I can tell you that today’s conservatives are the most thin-skinned people. To this day my family ritually vows to not discuss politics at family occasions, yet they just can’t resist soliciting my opinion on the issues – because apparently, they want to have something to complain about. I can take it, they can’t. If they don’t want to hear my opinion they should not goad me into a response.

    By any measure, Trump is exceptionally thin-skinned.

  73. Pch101 says:

    @James Pearce:

    I support better Republicans.

    That’s great, but the Republicans don’t.

  74. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @James Pearce: There are more oranges in California, too. And more supermarkets. It’s all related to more people living there. The fact that there are more doesn’t make them more moderate, though.

  75. gVOR08 says:

    @James Pearce:

    (Also, the Republicans aren’t just in the South. Don’t tell yourself that. There are more Republicans in California than there are people in Mississippi.)

    Absolutely. This is an urban/rural thing, not north south. Every state has one or a few major cities and in between Pennsytucky. I happen to have run across a fair number of people from upstate New York. They are as un- and anti- New York City as anybody from Lower Hog Waller MS.

  76. James Pearce says:

    @Pch101:

    That’s great, but the Republicans don’t.

    No, I think we can agree their standards have fallen off quite a bit from their storied heights.

    You should read some more of the Republicans in Exile. (The OTB guys are good for this.) They might not fill you with hope, but read closely enough and you’ll see people who are being reminded why they became Republicans, and Trump ain’t it.

    These guys are going to carry the torch long after Trumpism is defeated. We’ll be able to work with them.

  77. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Carolyn: They’re not going to. Trump does represent them.

  78. Matt says:

    You know I”m friends with a female in Saudi Arabia (met in Lineage 2) and she has no issues talking with me or others on teamspeak. She is really annoyed she cannot drive although there are protests and women breaking that law. She has university classes that she attends without a family member and she can leave the house without an escort etc. It’s not a liberal country by any means but it’s it’s not the kind of country people here seem to think it is.

    Even in Saudi Arabia there is a wide range of adherence and interpretations to various Islamic tenants. What you did was the equivalent of painting all of the US as being like the Westboro Baptists…..

  79. Pch101 says:

    @James Pearce:

    Most of the opposition to Trump within the Republican is not due to his racism.

    Establishment Republicans don’t like his positions on trade and taxation. They don’t like his immigration position, either, but only because they want to be able to import workers — they would not mind a candidate who used anti-immigration rhetoric but who looked the other way when workers were needed.

    Some of the religious right doesn’t like him because they think that he’s too secular.

    The mean-spirited bigotry that offends liberals is not on the radar of most Republicans. Even the Republicans who are griping about it now came to it late in the game; they seem to have changed up their arguments because their concerns were not gaining the traction with a wider audience.

    If Trump argued for free trade, prioritized tax cuts and eased off a bit on immigration but was otherwise exactly the same, then he would have a lot more support within the GOP. Those aspects of Trump’s persona hit the party where it hurts the most: fundraising.

  80. Gromitt Gunn says:

    @Matt: I have to say, a comment whose main takeaway is to reinforce that rich people play by different rules on a post about Trump might not be providing quite the lesson that you think.

  81. Gustopher says:

    @bill: “well, to be fair” is one of those phrases that is almost never used by someone who is actually being fair. It’s right up there with “I’m a nice guy” and “trust me”.

    It’s like how “Budget Movers” is always more expensive but “Reliable Movers” never shows up.

    It’s like a political party that makes noises of “Country First”…

    When you assure someone of your honor with your words, it is generally because your actions don’t say the same thing.

  82. Loviatar says:

    @Gustopher:

    Its like how Outside The Beltway will only give you inside the beltway talking points and The Moderate Voice is anything but moderate.

  83. Gustopher says:

    @Loviatar: you better wear a flag pin to show your patriotism!

  84. Gromitt Gunn says:

    @Loviatar: on the other hand, Hot Air is pretty darn accurate.

  85. Loviatar says:

    @Gustopher:

    Actually I have a flag tattoo. I didn’t want to risk leaving home without it.

  86. Loviatar says:

    @Gromitt Gunn:

    No, its more like Passing Gas. Not really hot, just warm and smelly.

  87. Matt says:

    @Gromitt Gunn: Rich people HAHAHAH. You need to check your level of assumptions because you’re way off the mark.

  88. michael reynolds says:

    @Steve Verdon:

    Hey, Verdon, where the hell have you been?

    It amazes me that it’s taken this long for people to see that Trump is mentally unhinged. But I forget that I’m basically imagining characters all day long, so ‘types’ tend to jump out at me. I don’t think normal people expect to see abnormal people. It’s anomalous, doesn’t fit a pattern they deal with in their lives, whereas it relates very closely to my job.

  89. michael reynolds says:

    @Kylopod:

    Why do I have the feeling I owe you 300 bucks?

  90. Jim Brown 32 says:

    This settles it for me. Trump is trolling the Republican Party. I don’t see how there can be a question at this point.

    A large percentage of the CEO and political class are narcissists and sociopaths, that’s nothing new. They are however, socially adept enough to mask their true intentions from the people they need to step on or over. High achieving sociopaths are usually very charming.

    Trump is not stupid, he’s an a$$h0le….there’s a difference. He has to know that he needs higher support from other demographics in order to have a chance to win. He is deliberately ensuring that there’s no way he gets that support.

    There’s a “rest of the story” to why he’s doing this. Ross Perot had a beef with Bush Sr so his campaign and his splitting of the Republican vote were his payback.

  91. michael reynolds says:

    @Jim Brown 32:

    I think he is actually relatively stupid. I’m very familiar with the sociopath/psychopath mind having been one myself earlier in life. People like that see the bright, clear line from A to Z. Like a shark sees prey. Straight lines, no futzing around with morality, empathy, legality, etc…

    The smart psychopath learns to mimic other people’s morality, to feign empathy. (The even smarter psychopath has the good luck to meet the right woman at the right time and change his fwcked up ways, but enough about me.) Trump is not smart. His ruthlessness and utter narcissism can read as intelligence, but if Trump were actually smart he’d have managed by now to reach at least stage 2 – mimicking morality, if for no other reason than Stage 2 is in the end more efficient.

    I said two things about Trump right from the start. 1) That he’s a psychopath and 2) I made an educated guess that he is dyslexic. I doubt he can’t read at all well. If someone dived deep on his time in school and at Wharton they’d find he cheated extensively, probably paying classmates to do his work. That’s not meant to imply that dyslexia = stupidity, my daughter is dyslexic, but it is interesting and relevant to his capacity to function in a role that requires a whole lot of reading.

    Trump is an excellent bullshit artist, a fraud, a self-inflating helium balloon. Certainly NPD or psychopath (I’ll leave that to @Kylopod), likely burdened with one or more learning disabilities. He’s under the impression that because he’s bullshitted his way this far that he’s unstoppable. But beneath the ego is a fragile foundation, hence the extreme sensitivity.

    No impulse control, poor capacity for learning, extreme sensitivity, underlying insecurity, absolutely zero empathy. A collapsed consciousness, a black hole of narcissism. Just the guy to be in charge of 4,500 nuclear weapons.

  92. Concerned UK Citizen says:

    @Tony W:

    I’m from the UK and have been following the US elections, so I don’t have any axes to grind and consider myself a neutral observer.

    I am increasingly amazed at what I’ve been seeing and hearing from Donald Trump.

    I’d just like to ask what does Trump have to do/say before the Republican Party leadership stands up and says “enough is enough”?

    In the UK, someone running for Prime Minister who had done/said a fraction of what Trump has been doing would, at the very least, be suspended by their party.

    Is the Republican Party so desperate for power that it’s willing to see a man who, at least to us in the UK, is patently unfit to hold any public office – let alone that of the most powerful office in the world?

    If the Democratic Party nominee was anyone other than Hillary Clinton, he (Trump) with his abysmal negative ratings, would be nowhere.

    Why haven’t the Republican leadership come out and unequivocally condemn, and disassociate themselves and the party from this man’s behaviour?

    Shame on you.

  93. Loviatar says:

    Another writer who says it better. What is it about those professional writer and their ability to write. Its almost like its a job to them. /s

    Philadelphia Stories: From Reagan to Trump to the DNC

    So does any of this matter? Why do I keep harping on the non-newness of Donald Trump, why do I keep resurrecting the multiple precedents for his candidacy against those who would argue for its novelty and innovations?

    Part of the reason is that it is an offense against history and memory to pretend that the GOP of the past was somehow a party of reasonable men, clear-headed and basically decent moderates who were taking the car out for a Sunday spin when it all of a sudden it got hijacked by neighborhood toughs and crazed yahoos.

    This is not a new argument with me. I’ve been trying for years to explain to dubious liberals and skeptical leftists that Trumpism is what this party is all about, that the “rational, prudential conservatives they think they know are in fact ultra-revanchist songstresses of domination and violence.”

    We’re losing our country. 27% want to set it on fire, 20% are basking in the glow and 30% still don’t get it. These people aren’t Republican or Conservative, they aren’t normal, haven’t been since 1981. With someone who was a better liar, we could easily have a Trump like president, a Senator McConnell led Senate and a Paul Ryan led House of Representative.

    I always look at the followers to understand the leaders, why? Leaders are who thier followers want them to be, James Joyner, Doug Mataconis and any person who still calls themselves a Republican want this, they are part of the 47% who are either trying to burn the country down or are basking in the glow.

  94. stonetools says:

    @Loviatar:

    Robin is extreme , but he is right about one thing: Trump has shown quite clearly that today’s Republican Party is not, as was once thought, a party of economic conservatives with a racist and socially conservative fringe. Rather, it is a white supremacist party with a fringe of economic and social conservatives.The core ideology in the Republican Party is not that of the National Review/The American Conservative/Weekly Standard crowd: it is that of the Dixiecrat crowd, who used to be the dominant wing of the Democratic Party and who migrated into the Republican Party post 1964.Those people don’t give a d@mn about the kind of internationalist foreign policy that James is concerned about or the economic and social libertarianism championed by Doug: all they care about is the defense of white privilege and white pre-eminence at all costs. Now maybe the Dougs and the Jameses can wrest control of the Republican Party back from the Dixiecrat crowd, but at this point they are an embattled minority. I wish them good luck-they’ll need it!
    The saddest people in the Republican Party today? Black economic conservatives like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams, who argued that the Republican Party was a party of conservative economic ideology that could be an alternative for blacks, and that would benefit them more that the “statist” Democratic Party ideology. That is simply not a description of today’s Republican Party, however it may have been in the past.

  95. Grumpy Realist says:

    Go over to TAC and you’ll find tons of people finding excuses for Trump and why he was perfectly right in saying what he did about the Khans.

    If you ever wondered how Germany could find people to do to other people what they did in the 1930s, wonder no longer. A lot of people are just waiting for someone in authority to tell them to drop all self-control and let loose the raging demons of the id. They’re supporting Trump because he acts the way they’ve always wished to.

  96. Lynn says:

    @Kylopod: “But most psychopaths don’t display the grandiosity associated with NPD. Believing oneself to be phenomenally great, superb, magnificent is very much a symptom of NPD, not ASPD.”

    And most psychopaths have the ability to restrain themselves, at least short term, in order to get what they want. Trump can’t manage restraint for even a minute.

  97. Jen says:

    Trump attacked the family again. This morning. On Twitter, while the family was giving an interview to CNN.

    I hope the GOP is proud of its creation. Ryan and McConnell and McCain have all issued statements condemning his remarks, but hey, they’re sticking with their nominee!

  98. CSK says:

    @Jen:

    Did you notice that the Trumpkins are now accusing Mr. Khan of being an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood?

  99. Jen says:

    @CSK: Oh, FFS. No, I did not see that.

    This whole thing is unreal. About the only good that has come of this is that thousands more people have seen Mr. Khan’s speech to the DNC than ever would have, had Trump not attacked them.

  100. C. Clavin says:

    Anyone who thinks this man should be President of these United States has serious mental health issues.

  101. Pch101 says:

    Trump is still at it. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-doubles-criticism-khan-family-blow-back-continues/story?id=41041166

    Nobody should be surprised. Trump’s goal is to make his campaign about Islam.

    He’s succeeding.

    From Trump’s standpoint, it’s a good idea. It’s not as if Islam is going to surge in popularity between now and November, so has nothing to lose.

    And if there is some sort of terrorist attack between and November, then he will use that as an opportunity to tout himself as a visionary leader.

    He probably still won’t win the election, but this serves his brand and it compensates somewhat for his lack of a ground game. Since he doesn’t have a team to personally encourage you to vote, he’s going to frighten you into voting, instead.

    The Khan speech was a proud, feelgood moment for the Democratic convention, but I suspect that it will prove to have been a strategic error. Trump wants this election to be about Islam and for the Democratic party to be the party of Islam, and the Dems handed it to him on a silver platter.

  102. grumpy realist says:

    @Pch101: I wonder at what people people will say “no more”? When we start requiring all Muslims to wear a yellow crescent?

    I suspect a sizable percentage of Trump’s supporters would love that.

  103. Mikey says:

    @Pch101: Trump may want this election to be about Islam, but I highly doubt he wanted it to be about heroic Muslims who have died fighting for America, or about him attacking and denigrating a Muslim American hero’s grieving parents.

  104. Andrew says:

    @Pch101:

    The Khan speech was a proud, feelgood moment for the Democratic convention, but I suspect that it will prove to have been a strategic error. Trump wants this election to be about Islam and for the Democratic party to be the party of Islam, and the Dems handed it to him on a silver platter.

    It goes both ways. Trump gets to focus on Islam and it being bad, period. And Clinton gets to show how open the tent is on her side of the aisle. And show just how small minded, and insecure Trump is. He did just attack the family of a fallen soldier, who died for his country. And there are stories out there of Trump’s kids enjoying the life of luxury, while American families are losing their kids daily overseas. The Khan’s being one of those families.

    (While Chelsea Clinton would never serve, as well as the Trump kids. Trump, in my opinion, would have less empathy towards the families, and the children, he would send off to fight a war. Kim in NK called my hair bad and my hands tiny!!? Time to send your kids to die for my honor! etc. etc.)

  105. Pch101 says:

    @grumpy realist:

    As I noted above, there will be more people who will be willing to act on their hatred of Islam than their tolerance of it.

    It’s not that most Americans hate Muslims, but that the motivation to vote for a particular candidate will be driven more by those who have the hatred than by those who have the tolerance. Net-net, Trump gets more votes for him than against him from this.

    Let’s remember that the right-wing loathes “political correctness” (read: social taboos against homophobia, racial slurs, ethnic slurs etc.) and “social justice warriors” (those who have the gall to care about minorities.) This serves both agendas.

  106. Andrew says:

    Let’s remember that the right-wing loathes “political correctness” (read: social taboos against homophobia, racial slurs, ethnic slurs etc.) and “social justice warriors” (those who have the gall to care about minorities.) This serves both agendas.

    Yeah, when the right wing nutters are done having sex with their first, second, and third cousins, who are also their sisters, mothers, and aunts. And the reruns of dog the bounty hunter are just not helping along their meth additions/high, but their unclebrotherfather just gone blown up in that lab indecent, you can understand why Islam is just so bad.

    mmmm political correctness.

  107. CSK says:

    @Jen:

    Oh, yeah. The “proof,” apparently, is that Mr. Khan once wrote some articles about OPEC, and was affiliated with a law firm that was connected to an organization that was associated with the Clinton Foundation.

    What else do you need to prove that someone’s a terrorist?

  108. Kylopod says:

    @stonetools:

    The core ideology in the Republican Party is not that of the National Review/The American Conservative/Weekly Standard crowd: it is that of the Dixiecrat crowd, who used to be the dominant wing of the Democratic Party and who migrated into the Republican Party post 1964.

    It isn’t quite that simple. For one thing, during the primaries Trump’s strongest showing wasn’t in the South but in the Northeast. In any case, racism in the GOP didn’t begin with the migration of the Dixiecrats, the seeds were there long before.

    The central question that emerges…is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.

    Who wrote those words? Strom Thurmond? George Wallace? David Duke? Wrong on all counts. Those are the words of William F. Buckley writing for National Review in 1957.

    As I noted the other day on IMDb, the character of Archie Bunker was in many ways a proto-Trumpian figure who, if he lived long enough, would have adored Trump. Bunker wasn’t a Dixiecrat, he was a working-class stiff from Queens who as far as we could tell had been a lifelong Republican, and while he was a fictional character, he resonated with audiences because people knew folks like him.

    Pundits used to talk about the “Archie Bunker vote.” The use of that term has faded as there are more and more people who weren’t alive when the show first aired, but it may be more relevant to this election than to any previous one.

  109. Pch101 says:

    @Andrew:

    Trump gets more out of it than Clinton because the urge to vote out of fear is stronger than the desire to vote out of tolerance. So it doesn’t quite cut both ways.

  110. Kylopod says:

    @Pch101:

    the urge to vote out of fear is stronger than the desire to vote out of tolerance

    Agreed. What you’re overlooking is that millions of Clinton supporters are being motivated by fear of a Trump presidency.

  111. An Interested Party says:

    The Khan speech was a proud, feelgood moment for the Democratic convention, but I suspect that it will prove to have been a strategic error. Trump wants this election to be about Islam and for the Democratic party to be the party of Islam, and the Dems handed it to him on a silver platter.

    I suspect there are more people who will feel revulsion about Trump concerning this issue than those who will support him, especially as this is yet another example of how he seems to dislike anyone of any other ethnic background, religious faith, etc….yes, a bigot can be successful in parts of the country and even more so with coded language, but Trump? He’s a walking dumpster fire…

  112. Tyrell says:

    Veterans, 4 star generals, Mr. Khan were heckled and/or booed at the DNC. So was Nancy Pelosi, Bernie, and Hillary. If John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson walked in, they would have been booed also. They probably booed themselves. What has got into people ?
    When I was young I was set straight about booing: you don’t boo anyone, including the umpire, even if they get it wrong.

  113. Andrew says:

    @Pch101:

    Fear cuts both ways, though. Fear of Islam, terrorism, colored people, non Christians etc.
    And then the people that fear the zealousness of those people.
    Fear of intolerant people, basically.

    So, while, yes Trump is fear, fear, fear 24/7. A great motivator for the ignorant he is targeting. Clinton also has the opportunity to court everyone else not buying into Trump’s brand, but also use the fear OF Trump and the people who support him.

    Edit: Kylopod beat me to it.

  114. slimslowslider says:

    @Tyrell:

    Welcome to Philadelphia, buddy.

  115. Pch101 says:

    @Kylopod:

    I didn’t overlook that. I didn’t mention it because this story is about the Khans and how Trump is using the Khans to his advantage, not about every aspect of the campaign.

    But since you want to talk about that, fine. What the Dems need to do is stir up their own fear campaign.

    However, basing it on Muslims is not a particularly great idea, given the unpopularity of Islam and the tiny number of Muslim voters.

    It would make more sense to focus on women and minorities, as there are a lot of them and there are enough of them that they could swing the vote in the Dems’ favor. But it should be noted that the Dems’ previous “war on women” strategy was not exactly a resounding success. so the Dems will have to get their acts together in learning how to sell it.

    The GOP has the advantage of using wedge issues to serve them. In part, that is due to the difference in voters — now that American party politics have become a culture war with the GOP leading the charge, those who belong to the party that wants the culture war is more prone to be receptive to the battle cries. Trump is going full culture war because that’s all he has, given his persona and limited budget.

  116. Mikey says:

    @Pch101: The Democrats can’t just sit back and let Trump be the sole definer of Islam and what it means to America.

    And they needed to move it out of the abstract, so personalizing Islam with the example of an heroic Muslim who died fighting for our country was the right thing to do.

  117. Mister Bluster says:

    @Concerned UK Citizen:..Is the Republican Party so desperate for power that it’s willing to see a man who, at least to us in the UK, is patently unfit to hold any public office – let alone that of the most powerful office in the world?

    Yes. See Paul Ryan:

    But the reality is, on the issues that make up our agenda, we have more common ground than disagreement…House Republicans are helping shape that Republican vision by offering a bold policy agenda, by offering a better way ahead…Donald Trump can help us make it a reality. http://www.gazettextra.com/20160602/paul_ryan_donald_trump_can_help_make_reality_of_bold_house_policy_agenda

  118. Andrew says:

    The GOP has the advantage of using wedge issues to serve them. In part, that is due to the difference in voters — now that American party politics have become a culture war with the GOP leading the charge, those who belong to the party that wants the culture war is more prone to be receptive to the battle cries. Trump is going full culture war because that’s all he has, given his persona and limited budget.

    Add in the fact that the party of responsibility has for years now blamed the Democratic Party for making the Republicans act the way they do, and it is a win/win.

    Hilary made me do it with her X, Y, and Z!
    Self/Impulse control ? What is that? Hilary is to blame for that as well!

    And Trump supporters, and others in the tent will of course have almost no problem with that “logic.”

  119. bill says:

    @EddieInCA: i love how all you “military haters” jump in and defend a muslim guy whose son died.- just like you spew venom at chris kyle….., it’s like your anti-religious rhetoric- you hate religion until someone criticizes islam….like they’re your friends?!

    and no, i don’t hate muslims, just the ones who want to kill us…….

    and as i stated earlier- this guy let the dnc use him to be the proverbial “victim” that you all need to protect. it’s pretty pathetic but typical.

  120. David Coleman says:

    I just wrote a new book detailing how Donald trump will become the next President of the United States. If he keeps putting his foot in his mouth like this, it may never happen.

    ” Breaking News” How And Why Donald Trump Will Win The 2016 Presidential Election.”
    Authored by David Coleman

    List Price: $9.99
    6″ x 9″ (15.24 x 22.86 cm)
    Black & White Bleed on White paper
    120 pages
    ISBN-13: 978-1534772021 (CreateSpace-Assigned)
    ISBN-10: 1534772022
    BISAC: Reference / Consumer Guides

    Breaking News describes how Donald Trump will become the next President of the United States. It shows all the states that he will win and the amount of electoral votes he will receive
    .
    CreateSpace eStore: https://www.createspace.com/6357103

  121. steve s says:

    I just wrote a new book detailing how Donald trump will become the next President of the United States.

    nice to meet you, lunatic. Have you met bill, Jack, and Jenos? You guys are peas in a pod.

  122. wr says:

    @David Coleman: Hey David,

    Checked out your book on Amazon, at least to the extent I could. You should really kick up the amount of information on that page. You’ve got your bio, but that’s really it You could use a much more engaging description of what’s in your text. And given that your bio lists all kinds of interesting things you’ve done and presumably people you’ve met, it’s pretty much inexcusable that you don’t have a single blurb up there, let alone any customer reviews.

    You’ve got a short window to sell this book — right or wrong, it’s going to be pretty much valueless in 100 days. So if you want to sell copies, you’ve got to market it better than just mentioning it on the occasional political blog!

  123. Concerned UK Citizen says:

    @bill:

    You don’t seem to understand that It goes way, way, way beyond his treatment of a soldier who died for his country; or the religion of that soldier.

    Hillary Clinton is no saint, but she understands that there are lines that should not be crossed.

    Being from the UK, I have no party axe to grind when it comes to Clinton and Trump..

    To me, it’s not about the politics of it all, it’s about what’s right and wrong.

    It’s about, as Mr Khan said, having empathy, understanding and respect for others – especially those who have died, suffered injury for their country / community. Be they in the armed forces; law enforcement; emergency services – anyone who is doing what they can to make countries, communities better and safer.

    It’s about being a decent human being.

    It makes me wonder that, should DT become president and have to send young men and women into battle, will he be as dismissive of their dying, and of their families suffering, as he had been about Captain Khan and his family?

  124. Kylopod says:

    @Pch101:

    However, basing it on Muslims is not a particularly great idea, given the unpopularity of Islam and the tiny number of Muslim voters.

    It depends. It’s true that the American public is receptive to certain kinds of Islamophobic attacks, as we saw from the controversy over the Cordoba House (the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque”), where even many Democrats were joining the anti-Muslim chorus or getting wussy about speaking against it.

    But there’s a limit, and making personal attacks against the grieving parents of a fallen war hero is probably way past that limit. This is almost Westboro Baptist Church-level vileness, and it causes even people who aren’t especially sympathetic toward Muslims to recoil.

    A candidate with self-control might be quite adept at riding a wave of Islamophobia to the White House. Trump is not that candidate. Not only is it his style to constantly “go too far,” I’m not convinced he can help himself. It’s why he totally bungled the aftermath of the Orlando shooting, and why he’s hurting himself now. In the coming months he’d have the potential to use Islamophobia more to his advantage than detriment–if his name weren’t Donald J. Trump.

  125. Pch101 says:

    @Kylopod:

    A lot of Americans know someone who is gay. It gets harder to hate them when you realize that you like one of them. We required a few decades of gay folks coming out of the closet in order to reach this point.

    Most Americans don’t know any Muslims and they aren’t going to know any. A significant number have been touched by some kind of violence that they associate with Islam (9/11, the two wars.) That’s a much harder sell.

    There are some Americans who hate Islam, and they can’t be reached. (Say hi to Bill above.)

    But there a lot more who may not be carrying pitchforks but who do fear it. Talking about Islam in favorable terms is just going to make them even more fearful, and now they hear the Democrats talking positively about something that makes them nervous. That will turn a few fencesitters into Trump voters because they think that he will protect them.

    Virtually no one will vote for Clinton in order to protect Muslims, so Trump wins that round. I still think that women and minorities will put Clinton over the top, but the Dems had better figure out how to maximize those odds.

  126. An Interested Party says:

    i love how all you “military haters” jump in and defend a muslim guy whose son died.

    Who here has talked about hating the military? Be specific, we’ll wait…

    it’s like your anti-religious rhetoric- you hate religion until someone criticizes islam….like they’re your friends?!

    Only anti-religious when people try to force their religion on others…yes, we know that the “sheetheads” aren’t your friends but there is no need for you to project your bigotry on others…

    and as i stated earlier- this guy let the dnc use him to be the proverbial “victim” that you all need to protect. it’s pretty pathetic but typical.

    Oh, like the Benghazi mom who let the RNC use her? Khan is not a victim nor is anyone using him as a victim…Trump was the one who was spewing anti-Muslim rhetoric and Khan rightfully put him in his place…

  127. Concerned UK Citizen says:
  128. Mikey says:

    @Pch101:

    Most Americans don’t know any Muslims and they aren’t going to know any.

    Yes, it’s true a lot of Americans don’t know any Muslims, but a lot of Americans DO know parents who have lost sons in the last 15 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    When Trump attacked the Khans as he did, he wasn’t merely attacking Muslims, he was attacking parents who had lost a son to war.

    That’s why this is going to do a lot more damage than any of his prior statements. He’s trod on ground that’s sacred to a lot of people who haven’t cared about the previous objects of his derision.

  129. Jim Brown 32 says:

    @michael reynolds: I couldn’t disagree with you.

  130. Pch101 says:

    @Mikey:

    When Trump attacked the Khans as he did, he wasn’t merely attacking Muslims, he was attacking parents who had lost a son to war.

    That’s how you regard it. But the angry white guy bloc and the larger vaguely-frightened-of-Muslims contingent will see a Donald Trump who is articulating their angst about an alien religion that hurt or killed their kid.

    If you want to understand what is going on, then you need to stop thinking like a liberal and starting seeing things from the perspective of someone who isn’t so keen on tolerance and isn’t so warm and fuzzy about multiculturalism. There are even quite a few Democrats who might be OK with social programs, a higher minimum wage, etc. but who are still frightened of Islam.

    The Jews didn’t have many friends in 1930s Germany, and the Muslims have even fewer friends in modern America. This country is generally much better at intolerance than tolerance, in spite of all of its freedom and equality rhetoric. That is mostly a slogan — the United States has always been at the forefront of marketing.

  131. Concerned UK Citizen says:

    This thought has just crossed my mind:

    If DT was nominated for say, Director Of CIA, an Ambassador post or other top government positions, he would, with his questionable history, never be confirmed under the appropriate scrutiny Committee(s)

    So why is he good enough to be President?

  132. Brian Koontz says:

    I wonder how well HRC would do against an adult who didn’t have grave emotional and character issues. I’ m actually for her but I just miss elections that wouldn’t more likely play out in a school sandbox. DT has to regress to name calling and can’t leave well enough alone when his very thin skin gets impinge. This sideshow is not an election but just a sad example of how an immature person can highjack a national event that previously had some credibility. The U.S. has turned into a jokes due to this sideshow.

  133. Jim Brown 32 says:

    @Kylopod: Concur…I pretty much can go anywhere in my hometown in the South these days and not feel singled out or watched.

    I was in the northern suburbs of Boston last month and some of the places I went there I got double takes galore. I sat down at the bar in a golf club (it was only 3 or 4 people there) and, after waiting for 10 minutes for the waitress to ask me what I wanted…..she seemed shocked that I asked her for a menu “Ohhh…a menu???”

    My grandfather always captured the different kinds of prejudices between north and south pretty succinctly:

    Southerners don’t mind you getting too close–but just don’t get too big (iow stay in your place)

    Northerners don’t mind you getting too big–but just don’t get too close.

    My personal experiences living for periods of time has confirmed this for me. I personally prefer the current Southern brand of prejudice–because when you are in close contact with people, you have a chance to change their perceptions through normal interactions.

  134. erik grad says:

    Legal (not so) hypothetical question: Person A creates a blog with the purpose of spreading lies about another person, say associating them with the Muslim Brotherhood.

    Person B sources it as a talking point with the word “reportedly” added.

    Can Person B be held accountable? Particularly if it is obvious that Person A is spreading lies and misinformation, and is being used as insulation from accountability?

    I’d love to see Mr. Khan go after Roger Stone Jr, Savage, and the like.

  135. Concerned UK Citizen says:

    During campaigning to remain/leave the European Union, there were several resignations of top politicians including members of the Government) on principal – either because they ageed/disagreed about leaving or remaining.

    I would have expected there to be several resignations of top Republican leaders in protest at Dr’s conduct/utterances etc.

    It’s no good “distancing” yourself from him, that costs nothing.

    Is the RP so bereft of principles and honour?

    Bloomberg is right: it’s beyond Party loyalty – it must be about love of country

  136. James Pearce says:

    @bill:

    i love how all you “military haters” jump in and defend a muslim guy whose son died.- just like you spew venom at chris kyle

    Did someone go by your house this morning and yell “F Chris Kyle” or something? You’re the only dude in this thread that’s mentioned him.

    @Pch101:

    If you want to understand what is going on, then you need to stop thinking like a liberal and starting seeing things from the perspective of someone who isn’t so keen on tolerance and isn’t so warm and fuzzy about multiculturalism.

    This about sums up every argument you and I have ever had.

    “Stop thinking like a liberal, James and be less tolerant.” (“The angry white guy bloc.” Seriously?)

  137. Mister Bluster says:

    @Concerned UK Citizen:..So why is he good enough to be President?

    Anyone who meets these qualifications can run for President USA. There is nothing in the United States Constitution about a candidate being “good enough”.

    No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. Article II Section 1 USCon

  138. Pch101 says:

    @James Pearce:

    You keep fighting the good fight for white guys, I’m sure that the beacons of tolerance such as Jenos and Bill appreciate it.

    Understanding the perspective of the Islamophobia brigade is not the same as agreeing with it or even having sympathy for it.

  139. Concerned UK Citizen says:

    @Mister Bluster:

    Thank you for clarifying that. Much appreciated.

  140. Mikey says:

    @Pch101:

    If you want to understand what is going on, then you need to stop thinking like a liberal and starting seeing things from the perspective of someone who isn’t so keen on tolerance and isn’t so warm and fuzzy about multiculturalism.

    It’s not about Islam, or multiculturalism, or tolerance. Trump has finally said things that offend their sense of common decency. To them, a Gold Star parent is a person due considerable reverence, and Trump has displayed none.

    That’s what’s different this time.

  141. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Concerned UK Citizen: You can’t force an election here by resigning, so politicians have no incentive to take such actions. In some cases, politicians might attempt to “work within the system” to correct problems that would trigger resignation in the UK, but I don’t see such principle avail here at this time.

  142. Mister Bluster says:
  143. Pch101 says:

    @Mikey:

    Trump has finally said things that offend their sense of common decency

    That’s your sense of common decency.

    Few people share that sense of decency. And of those who do, only a small percentage of them will turn that decency into a vote for the candidate who opposes him.

  144. gVOR08 says:

    @Concerned UK Citizen: @Mister Bluster: If I may add a few observations, running for President has become very entrepreneurial. Basically anybody can go to the various state election authorities who administer the primaries (not the caucuses) and declare himself a candidate for the Republican or Democratic nomination. (Am I correct in believing that UK party leadership elections are run by the parties?) That’s how we get a handful of serious candidates for the R nomination and a dozen guys (and Fiorina) promoting their brands and their books. There isn’t much the Parties can do beyond withholding minimal funds and support. And once Trump secured enough delegates, that’s it. The Party apparatus has little choice, they either support him, at least half-hardheartedly, or they concede the election.

  145. wr says:

    @Pch101: I have to say I think you’re really misreading this situation. To most people I believe it’s not coming across as Trump vs. Mulsims, although he’s trying desperately to make it that. What’s coming through is Trump vs. grieving parents of a soldier who died fighting for our country. Yes, he was also a Muslim, but I’m not hearing that attack except for the very fringiest of fringers who are now claiming that the dead soldier was actually an Al Qaeda mole… which seems to be prompting mostly shouts of “have you no shame.”

    I understand your point of view, and you’re probably right when it comes to the hard core of Trump’s supporters. But this election isn’t about them, any more than it is about a hardcore Hillary guy like me. It’s about making those who incline towards Trump realize what a dangerous, cruel, narcissistic and evil man he is. People who listen to Infowars are never going to abandon Trump, but there are a lot of sometimes Fox viewers who might.

    To me, we’re just waiting for the “Sandra Fluke is a slut” moment. Remember that? For years, Rush Limbaugh could say anything and no matter how offensive he got it only increased his audience and influence. And then one day he pushed too far in exactly the wrong place and he got a big pushback. And pretty soon advertisers started peeling off. And pretty soon after that he was banished from KFI in LA, the highest rated talk station in the country… And though it took a few months, that was the end of Rush’s dominance of political entertainment. Yes, I’m sure he’s still making tons of money talking to his base, but when was the last time you saw him quoted on anything? It’s like recent albums by Madonna or Bruce — they may be good or bad individually, they probably sell a lot of copies to fans, but the moment when their releases were the biggest thing in the culture is long gone.

    I don’t know if this is Trump’s slut moment. After all, he’s survived a bunch of them. But after his psychotic convention, this is showing cracks in his wall. We just have to hope that whatever it is he says that finally pushes too far comes before November.

  146. Mikey says:

    @Pch101:

    That’s your sense of common decency.

    No. It’s THEIR sense of common decency.

    Do you actually know any of these people, or are you just thinking from a caricature? Because I can tell you I know plenty of people who pretty much exemplify “angry white guy bloc” and pretty much every single one is pissed off at Donald Trump over his treatment of the Khans.

  147. James Pearce says:

    @Pch101:

    You keep fighting the good fight for white guys

    Can’t even resist, can you?

    Just to be clear, when you complain about “white guys” you’re not just talking about bill and Jenos. You’re talking about Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Edward Snowden, Bruce Wayne, and and a whole bunch of other people who have done nothing to deserve your incessant complaining about “white guys.”

  148. wr says:

    @wr: And PS — that’s not to put down Madonna or Bruce… or U2 or Michael Jackson or anyone else who was once the Most Important Thing in Our Culture and is no longer. That moment never lasts, and sometimes its passing frees the artist to create more interesting, idiosyncratic work than is possible when you are the Biggest Thing In The World. My hat is off to anyone who has this moment and keeps on going after the crowds have gone…

  149. Mister Bluster says:

    @gVOR08:..Basically anybody can go to the various state election authorities who administer the primaries (not the caucuses) and declare himself a candidate for the Republican or Democratic nomination.

    See Politics1:

    President Obama is barred by constitutional term limits from seeking re-election in 2016. A large crowd of candidates will likely compete for the Democratic and Republican nominations. Plus there are LOTS of likely third party and independent P2016 hopefuls. So, if a person is running, or thinking of running — regardless of party, ballot status, or chances of winning — we have him or her listed below. Incumbent party first, following by the main opposition party, then the third party candidates, and finally the independent and write-in hopefuls.
    http://www.politics1.com/p2016.htm

  150. Pch101 says:

    @James Pearce:

    You’re talking about Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Edward Snowden, Bruce Wayne, and and a whole bunch of other people who have done nothing to deserve your incessant complaining about “white guys.”

    Don’t drag them into it. The subject was you and your inability to grasp that white guys in America do not belong to an oppressed class.

    I don’t hear Biden, Clinton, Sanders et. al. saying anything like that. No one who is even slightly liberal is going to take your white guy martyrdom shtick seriously.

    I am lumping you with characters on this website such as Jenos and Bill because you do have a lot in common with them when it comes to matters of race. And not many people are taking them seriously, either.

  151. Concerned UK Citizen says:

    @gVOR08:

    Here in the UK each party has different methods of selecting it’s leader.

    The Conservative Party Leader (as I understand it) is elected by the Parliamentary Party – where each elected Conservative MP (Member of Parliament), votes for the leader as per the wishes of his/her constituency members. Once that leader is chosen, he/she becomes the candidate for Prime Minister at the subsequent General Election.

    The Labour Party leader is selected by registered party members via “one member, one vote”. Once that leader is chosen, he/she becomes the candidate for Prime Minister at the subsequent General Election.

    I may have been over simplistic about the processes, but this is essentially how it’s done here in the UK

    Hope this helps

  152. Pch101 says:

    @Mikey:

    Again: How many people are going to change how they vote because of this? That’s what really counts.

    I am willing to bet that the vast majority will not change their voting choice at all because of this, but of those who do, more of them will opt for Trump than for Clinton.

  153. Concerned UK Citizen says:

    Just seen that top Jeb Bush advisor had resigned from the Republican Party..

  154. Jen says:

    @Concerned UK Citizen:

    …and said that she will vote for Clinton if the vote in Florida is close.

    Interesting, and I think one of many. Some might not come forward publicly, but it makes sense.

    Frankly, if Republicans want their party back, the smartest thing for them to do would be to vote for Clinton at the top and give her a landslide, completely crushing Trump. They’ll live to fight again in four years, and will need the interim time to repair all of the damage he’s caused. Only a crushing defeat will give them the, I guess “anti-mandate” to clean house.

  155. wr says:

    @Concerned UK Citizen: “So why is he good enough to be President?”

    I promise to explain — right after you tell us why Boris Johnson is good enough to be foreign secretary.

  156. Concerned UK Citizen says:

    @wr:

    He isn’t!

  157. Mikey says:

    @Pch101: From my vantage point, they’re opting for third party (Libertarian, of course) or “screw them both, I’ll just stay home.” Not all, yet, but save one or two exceptions, they’re all offended to some degree by Trump’s statements on this.

    Whether that translates to a change at the polls come November is, admittedly, impossible to say. But as a former “angry white guy bloc” member myself, I know how they think and this is really different to them. Trump attacked someone with whom they actually identify this time.

  158. wr says:
  159. Rafer Janders says:

    @Pch101:

    Few people share that sense of decency.

    Few people share the sense of decency that you don’t attack a grieving mother who has lost her child?

    Have you ever met people?

  160. wr says:

    @Mikey: “Trump attacked someone with whom they actually identify this time.”

    And I think it hits home in another way as well. Because a lot of these people really don’t think they’re racist and are offended by the accusation. And one proof of their lack of racism is that they will stand behind someone like this young Muslim soldier who gave his life for our country. So they identify with him even more strongly than they might have otherwise… and now Trump is crapping all over him and his parents.

    And it’s one thing to hear Trump trashing people you don’t know and don’t like — you know, them illegal rapists. But when he starts using the same language about people you feel you do know and like, that begins to call everything he says into question.

  161. Concerned UK Citizen says:

    @wr: o

    Once elected PM, it is his/her decision as to who fills cabinet positions. Boris was a prominent “leave” campaigner. As such, I suspect his appointment is more to do with politics, ensuring the Government is representative of vote to leave the European Union, and minimising risk of party in-fighting/disunity , rather than Boris’s ability.

  162. James Pearce says:

    @Pch101:

    Don’t drag them into it.

    I think you may be coming to the slow dawning realization that your problem isn’t actually with “white guys” at all…

    I am lumping you with characters on this website such as Jenos and Bill because you do have a lot in common with them when it comes to matters of race.

    The only thing I have in common with those guys is that we don’t buy the illiberal left’s version of intersectional politics.

    So there’s two errors you’ve made:

    A) Unable to distinguish what really makes you mad. (right-wing ideology rather than “white guys.”)

    B) Unable to distinguish actual racism from mere disagreement with your ideological particulars.

    You’ve made these errors not because you’re stupid or ignorant. (You’re neither.) You’ve made these errors because of your devotion to a set of ideas that make these errors all but inevitable. I keep trying to explain this to you in a dispassionate, patient way. And yet you insist on compounding the errors when you should be chucking the bad ideas.

  163. Pch101 says:

    @Rafer Janders:

    If everyone saw the world as you did, then we wouldn’t have a racism problem in the first place.

    Obviously, not everyone sees it as you do.

  164. Concerned UK Citizen says:

    Carl Higby seems to be saying that because only 12 Muslim American military personnel were killed in the various conflicts, and are not the “majority” of those killed, that the Khan family has no right to be saying what they have

  165. Pch101 says:

    @James Pearce:

    Your reading skills could use some work.

    You’ve offered so many bizarre distortions that they’re not even worth addressing. I realize that on Planet Pearce that is simply unthinkable to recognize that some white people are bigots, but fortunately, we don’t all live on Planet Pearce.

  166. Mikey says:

    There’s a Politico piece I just came across that illustrates the difference in this Trump incident relative to previous ones:

    But now Trump has touched a kind of ethical third rail by attacking the unimpeachable, suffering parents of a dead hero—Capt. Khan was awarded the Bronze Star for his actions—and by cheapening the very idea of sacrifice for one’s country. And with just 98 days left until the election, the GOP candidate’s campaign is consumed in another unnecessary controversy—perhaps the biggest one yet—and Trump is being condemned by leading figures in both parties. Many in the military, which has given Trump a lot of support, are also questioning whether Trump is fit to be president. “I loathe Donald Trump with every fiber of my being,” one retired Army officer wrote on Facebook as the controversy took off. A group of Gold Star families organized by VoteVets.org wrote in an open letter published Monday: “When you question a mother’s pain, by implying that her religion, not her grief, kept her from addressing an arena of people, you are attacking us. When you say your job building buildings is akin to our sacrifice, you are attacking our sacrifice.”

    ‘Have You No Sense of Decency, Mr. Trump?’

  167. Concerned UK Citizen says:

    @Just ‘nutha ig’rant cracker:

    Is there no procedure whereby Republican Congressmen/women & Senators can call for a motion of No Confidence in DT (should be win in November)?

    After all, they have mid-terms to fight

  168. Grewgills says:

    @Pch101:

    I am lumping you with characters on this website such as Jenos and Bill because you do have a lot in common with them when it comes to matters of race. And not many people are taking them seriously, either.

    I have had many (over)long discussions with Neal about SJWs and privilege. We have serious disagreements about both and I think he is dead wrong, but your characterization is way off the mark and here is where there is a kernel of truth to his argument.
    As far as I can see (from internet comments) Neal agrees with me (us?) on goals, but he disagrees on tactics. I think his disagreement on tactics comes too close to the ‘moderate white’ that MLK was talking about as an impediment to real equality, but he is by no means a bill or jenos. It isn’t even close and putting him and others like him in that category is not only a bad argument, it is bad tactics. You shouldn’t want either.

  169. Grewgills says:

    @James Pearce:

    You’ve made these errors not because you’re stupid or ignorant. (You’re neither.) You’ve made these errors because of your devotion to a set of ideas that make these errors all but inevitable. I keep trying to explain this to you in a dispassionate, patient way. And yet you insist on compounding the errors when you should be chucking the bad ideas.

    and yet again you confuse or conflate bad implementation with bad ideas

  170. Grewgills says:

    @Grewgills: @Grewgills:
    Apologies to everyone. I don’t want to derail this conversation into another forever back and forth on a tangentially related topic that won’t move anyone from their starting position.

  171. Concerned UK Citizen says:

    ……. Or even publish an Open Letter (as families of those killed in action) expressing No Confidence in DT as their Presidential nominee?

  172. Mister Bluster says:

    @Concerned UK Citizen:..Republican Congressmen/women & Senators…

    Unlike Jenos Washington, I will give you a pass on this.
    Citizens elected to the United States Senate and citizens elected to the United States House of Representatives all hold seats in the Congress of the United States.

    All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Article I Section 1 USCon

  173. Concerned UK Citizen says:

    @Jen:

    I think you may be right. That only a catastrophic defeat of DT in November will make the RP look seriously at itself and the way it goes about its business

  174. Concerned UK Citizen says:

    @Mister Bluster: sorr
    Thanks again for the clarification, but hope you get the point I was trying to make

  175. Jim Brown 32 says:

    @Jen: I disagree–look at the power brokers that Trump beat to win the nomination. Cruz? Rubio? Kaisic? Perry?

    Two cans of $hithead and two cans of $hithead Light. The Republicans have two problems: Conservatives and Evangelicals—both who are only namesakes of their descriptors. Until the partly purges the internal bosses that for this bloc and changes their platform and overall Ideology to real Conservativism (i.e. cautious, incremental change)–they are hosed.

    If anything, a Trump shellacking gives the Cruz camp the big I Told Ya So–and he’s next in the chamber.

  176. Rafer Janders says:

    @Pch101:

    Obviously, not everyone sees it as you do.

    Which is it, “not everyone”or “few”? Because at first you said that only a few people would be outraged by attacking the grieving mother of a dead child, and now you’re saying that not everyone would be outraged by it.

    Your first claim went far, far too far, and since you can’t actually defend it, you’re trying to move the goalposts.

  177. Jim Brown 32 says:

    @Pch101: Frankly, the human psyche requires some sort of “ism”. We are social creatures and that demands some sort of hierarchy…pick your configuration. One will be on the top–one on the bottom and others will fall some where in-between. What it wont be is flat. That’s why Communism failed—its incompatible with the human psyche (in its current state of evolution anyway) with its aims to make all citizens completely equal. I think the practical aspiration is to shorten the gap between the top and bottom categories whatever they may be.

    If anything, the Country is moving from its flaws of racism to classism–might take another 50 years or so but its mostly here. Already–when you adjust for class–a large percentage of the gaps in categories of well being between races disappear. Not completely but mostly. Considering the state of Black America 50 years ago—we are march forward a good pace despite setbacks and roadblocks erected by the last vestiges of institutional racism. I think the pathway to us getting fully vested in the Country– the way we should be– is a 150 year proposition. The clock only started in 1969.

  178. Mister Bluster says:

    @Concerned UK Citizen:.. No need to apologize. I have vague memories of a Comparative Governments class in college almost 50 years ago. Seems that the UK operates without a written Constitution. I don’t know how you do it!
    As for any formal No Confidence Vote the only thing I can equate to that is Impeachment Proceedings against a sitting President.
    Richard Milhous Nixon, 37th President USA, avoided impeachment by resigning before those proceedings started. He is so far the only President of the United States to resign.
    William Jefferson Clinton, 42nd President was successfully impeached but was not convicted by the US Senate and served two full terms.
    Lately Republicans in Congress have practiced stalling and delaying tactics to demonstrate their disdain for the policies of President Obama. As an example President Obama has appointed a nominee to replace a recently deceased Supreme Court Justice but the Republicans refuse to even hold a hearing on the matter.

  179. James Pearce says:

    @Pch101:

    I realize that on Planet Pearce

    Ya know, it’s funny. When you can’t respond intelligently, this is where you always end up: Planet Pearce.

    It’s like you give up on the collegiate back and forth, and revert right back to kindergarten.

    @Grewgills:

    conflate bad implementation with bad ideas

    Perhaps. I’m open to the possibility.

    But sounds like I might be making some progress opening you to the possibility that the social justice movement might actually deserve a critique or two.

  180. Pch101 says:

    @Grewgills:

    It’s James, not Neal. (Let’s not drag him into this, too…)

    Go back and read his Clinton/ Biden rant above, and you tell me whether (a) it displays any evidence of reading comprehension and (b) it makes a damned bit of sense.

    I point out that there are voters who are motivated by racism but that one can learn more about them if one tries to see the world from their (warped) perspective, and he lobs a pile of nonsense that shows no comprehension of what I said.

    Yes, there are some racists. No, not everyone who is white is a racist. Yes, you should understand your proverbial enemy, and it is possible to get inside of their heads without agreeing with them. It’s not really that complicated, is it?

  181. Concerned UK Citizen says:

    @Mister Bluster:

    Having no written constitution leaves everything up for “interpretation”, much like having a written one. Believe me, all is far from well in the UK “political garden”

    Going off at a tangent ((as you’ve raised the issue) I thought the the three branches of government (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) are supposed to be independent of each other.

    In the UK, a Supreme Court Judge would (I hope) never be appointed based on his/her stance on Abortion/Gun Control/Immigration etc…….

    This aspect has always made me raise an eyebrow.

    I’m not critising the US process, s or trying to start a flame war, so hope that my comment is taken as that of a curious outsider

    And thank you for your concise, intelligent and respectful responses.

  182. Pch101 says:

    @Rafer Janders:

    Not that many people will be upset, and only a fraction of those will actually do anything about it. I didn’t move any goalposts; I’ve said that consistently.

    Furthermore, some will support Trump because he speaks to their fears. Not all of them will admit it, but some of them will turn their thoughts into action by voting accordingly.

    I truly hope to be wrong, but I find it to be naive for anyone to expect some dramatic shift in voting against the GOP to come from this. I would actually expect Trump to net a slight gain, although not enough to win the election, because there is plenty of fear and hate in this country.

    Martin Niemöller famous poem “First they came…” is famous because he was right — most people won’t do anything when their own tribe isn’t affected. We’re no better than the Germans, and in some ways we’re worse because we’re endlessly crowing about how free we are even when we’re not.

  183. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Concerned UK Citizen: No. Moreover, DT is popular enough with the base (in more ways than one) of the party that criticizing him and/or distancing oneself from him–by non-endorsement for example–can do political harm to the chances of those members of Congress. Specifically, Paul Ryan–Speaker of the House, so he shouldn’t be a lightweight (but manages to be anyway)–will say that DT’s comments on Khan are not in the spirit of the party, but will not demand that DT retract them or call for him to step down as candidate (although, there may not be a mechanism to replace him if he did step down). In fact, Congressman Ryan’s position is that racism, bigotry, and foolish policies and prescriptions notwithstanding, DT is still a better choice than Clinton.

  184. James Pearce says:

    @Pch101:

    I point out that there are voters who are motivated by racism but that one can learn more about them if one tries to see the world from their (warped) perspective, and he lobs a pile of nonsense that shows no comprehension of what I said.

    If what you’ve said is more sophisticated than “Look how awful white people look when I paint them with this broad brush,” do let me know.

  185. Pch101 says:

    @James Pearce:

    You can’t possibly expect to be taken seriously.

  186. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Jen: While I would really really really like to believe that, I have to point out that for someone to “clean house” that person or group needs to know what “clean” looks like. I don’t see that kind of awareness here.

  187. Eric Florack says:

    @bill: absolutely. I don’t want anything to do with either one of them. They’re both absolutely unfit for the office.

  188. Concerned UK Citizen says:

    @Just ‘nutha ig’rant cracker:

    But you don’t need to be Stephen Hawkins or a Maths Professor @ MIT to know that that the support / votes of his base is nowhere near enough for him to win

  189. Eric Florack says:

    It seems clear to me that what the majority of the people in the room seemed to be trying to sidestep is the fact that the only thing that both candidates have to bring to the table is that they’re not the other candidate. Beyond that they possess no redeeming qualities whatsoever

  190. Mister Bluster says:

    @Concerned UK Citizen:..I’m not critising the US process, s or trying to start a flame war, so hope that my comment is taken as that of a curious outsider.

    Please. By all means. Outside observations are welcome. Or at least they should be.
    As for a flame war in 23 days on Aug 24 it will have been 202 years since troops for King George III burned down the White House. I think everyone here is over it.

    I thought the the three branches of government (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) are supposed to be independent of each other.

    You demonstrate more knowledge of the USCon than many American citizens that I know and they were all supposed to pass a United States Constitution test to graduate from High School.
    As for the three branches of the government being independent and checks and balances…

    But Mousie, thou art no thy lane,
    In proving foresight may be vain:
    The best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men
    Gang aft agley,
    An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,
    For promis’d joy!
    Robert Burns

  191. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Concerned UK Citizen: That’s true, but they may be enough in some individual state to cause the incumbent to be voted out of office. That possibility may be what fuels some of Congressman Ryan’s actions regarding Trump. For Ryan, considering that he is the speaker, he also needs to be able to get whatever tractability he can out of the more radical elements of his party caucus in Congress. Imagine, if you will, that 25% of the Conservative Party in the UK is ready to bolt to UKIP at any moment. The difference here is that these people can’t bolt, but their followers have been moderately effective at causing trouble at primary election time for party members who dissent from their lunacy. Representatives–as opposed to Senators–run every 2 years.

  192. Concerned UK Citizen says:

    @Mister Bluster:

    I like your style!

    I would equate the Republican Party leadership to a verse from the Ancient Mariner:

    “Like one that on a lonely road,
    Doth walk in fear and dread,
    And having once turn’d round walks on,
    And turns no more his head,
    Because he knows a frightful fiend,
    Doth close behind him tread “

  193. Concerned UK Citizen says:
  194. JohnMcC says:

    @Jim Brown 32: Purely out of curiosity (because I recall ’69 very well) what caused the 150 year clock to begin in that year? Surely not the Nixon inauguration!

  195. Concerned UK Citizen says:

    @Jim Brown 32:

    As an outsider, I wouldn’t call a candidate that couldn’t win his own state (Rubio) and one who seems (from what I’ve read) to be universally loathed by the majority of his fellow congressmen and women (Cruz) as “power broker’s”

  196. An Interested Party says:

    The Jews didn’t have many friends in 1930s Germany, and the Muslims have even fewer friends in modern America.

    Jesus, is that a comparison you really want to make? You really believe that Islamophobia in this country is as bad as anti-Semitism was in 1930s Germany?

    It seems clear to me that what the majority of the people in the room seemed to be trying to sidestep is the fact that the only thing that both candidates have to bring to the table is that they’re not the other candidate. Beyond that they possess no redeeming qualities whatsoever

    That’s a complete load of horse$hit…of course, consider the source…

  197. Jen says:

    @Just ‘nutha ig’rant cracker:

    although, there may not be a mechanism to replace him if he did step down

    There (sort of) is a mechanism. The RNC would have to call a meeting of its state committee men/women, and they would select the replacement. This is what happened when VP candidate James Sherman passed away after the nomination but before the election. More here–it’s very interesting:

    http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/20431

  198. wr says:

    @Eric Florack: Ooh, look. Eric is wrong again. But here’s the tell — even he can’t come up with a single reason to vote for the slug at the top of his party, so he has to pretend that there’s no reason to vote for Hillary.

    Sorry, loser, not remotely the case. Have fun voting for a narcissistic sociopath.

  199. Concerned UK Citizen says:

    The term “Intelligence Briefing” seems kind of like a misnomer when applied to DT

  200. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Concerned UK Citizen: I wouldn’t either, but it may show the state of “power” in the current GOP because Cruz is, at this moment, the most likely favorite for 2020.

  201. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Jen: Interesting link. Thanks!

  202. Concerned UK Citizen says:

    DT has been blatantly lying about what he said re: Ukraine @ his rally tonight.

    Breathtaking! DT, do you realise that they have you on tape?

    The man is totally devoid of shame, and, even more so than HC, doesn’t seem to have met that that pesky, annoying and overblown concept called “truth”

    Staggering.

  203. Concerned UK Citizen says:

    I’m watching Anderson Cooper………and cannot believe what I’m seeing / hearing from DT’s people

  204. James Brown 32 says:

    @JohnMcC: Sorry, typing on this darn mobile phone without proof reading. The Civil Rights Act (Fair Housing Act) was in 1968….that started the clock. Restrictions on housing ownership was always the lynch pin of preventing Black people from accumulating wealth. Restrictions on freedom of movement always kept us concentrated so as to make it easy to target us with Jim Crow laws, inferior schools, etc.

    We have been making huge strides ever since…the latest setback has been the “War” on Bla….Drugs. Reform is coming there though now that they’ve squeezed most of the juice of our our population and the system is feeding off more and more whites to stay solvent. Things change real face in this country when enough white people are affected.

  205. James Brown 32 says:

    @Concerned UK Citizen:They had loads of money behind them–and not from one looney Billionaire like Rick Santorum did when he ran in 2012. HISTORICALLY, in all the political parties here–if you can get raise the money…you can call the shots.

    Trump has flipped this on its head for the Republican party so who knows what will happen to Cruz and Rubio. Ordinarily the guy that ran 2nd in the primary gets afforded every opportunity to win the nomination the next time (see McCain, Romney).

  206. bill says:

    @Chuck: ok, that’s a tad excessive you know- words are just words.
    but doug said something about a “grieving family”- with all due respect , their son died in a 2004 car bomb attack. and no, i’m not happy that we lost a soldier of any ethnicity/religion. but the khans were used by the dnc to comment on something that has been done already, and not by trump.

    then there’s this!

    https://twitter.com/joyandlife/status/738993648717565953

  207. Eric Florack says:

    @wr:

    Well first of all that’s not going to happen. I won’t vote for either one of them.

    Had you bothered looking before you started working off at both ends you might have noticed that I’ve been saying Trump was a bad choice from the go.

    But pray, continue with your diatribe. I could use a laugh

  208. An Interested Party says:

    …because Cruz is, at this moment, the most likely favorite for 2020.

    Oh good, that will help with Hillary’s reelection…

    but the khans were used by the dnc to comment on something that has been done already, and not by trump.

    You’re as disingenuous as Trump, yes, I know, hardly a surprise…

    then there’s this!

    Oh look at you finding a note of dissent from someone of South Asian ethnicity…but I wonder, do you think he is a “sheethead” too…

  209. Concerned UK Citizen says:

    Here in the UK we find it difficult to reconcile the argument that those from “counties that have been compromised by terrorism” (would that include US citizens returning from abroad?} should be subject to stricter background/security checks before being allowed into the US; with the refusal of the Republican majority in Congress to countenance even the most limited tightening of background checks on those purchasing guns.

    We just don’t get it.

    What is DT’s proposals on this? Has he any?

    Terrorism is a serious global problem, and everything should be done to defeat it.

    But let’s put things into context here.

    There are over 33,000 gun related deaths in the US every year; men, women and children seem to be routinely slaughtered in schools, workplaces, cinema, theatre’s and even churches. There’s a lot of weeping, wailing and hand wringing in the immediate aftermath of these events.

    But nothing is done about it

    To us in the UK this is unfathomable.

  210. An Interested Party says:

    Oh look, something we already knew, but something some people can’t admit

    What most Republican elites have always wanted is to lead a party that appeals to a majority of the country on the basis of abstract small-government, patriotic themes. Trump has revealed that this is a hopeless fantasy, and what they can lead instead is a party of racists. And they have decided, nearly every one of them, that they will take it.

  211. Concerned UK Citizen says:

    @Jen:

    Thanks for the link – interesting and thought provoking.

  212. Loviatar says:

    @An Interested Party:

    Trump has revealed that this is a hopeless fantasy, and what they can lead instead is a party of racists. And they have decided, nearly every one of them, that they will take it.

    Been saying it for awhile now.

    27% want to set the country on fire. 20% want to bask in the glow.

    Which group would you put James Joyner and Doug Mataconis?

  213. Zachriel says:

    @Loviatar: 27% want to set the country on fire. 20% want to bask in the glow.

    “It was a pleasure to burn.” — Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451

  214. bill says:

    so i wonder if the msm is going to turn the khan’s into a latter day cindy sheehan? y’all remember her right? she was the darling of the lefts “anti-war” rhetoric and they fawned at her and her protests at the Bush ranch, etc.
    ever wonder what heppened to her?
    apparently she was still an “anti-war” activist after obama won and she protested him and his policies……and the left did not like that so she was dismissed…..by the msm.
    in hindsight we all know she was batshit crazy but we afforded her a little “accommodation” as her son died in the war- see any “irony” yet?

  215. An Interested Party says:

    so i wonder if the msm is going to turn the khan’s into a latter day cindy sheehan?

    No, because other than the fact that both families have lost a son in Iraq, the two have not much else in common…next question…

  216. bill says:

    @An Interested Party: true, i wonder if the news that khan is an immigration lawyer who relies on getting muslims into the USA?! wouldn’t that suck if it were true?

    side note- is cindy sheehan “bad” now?

  217. gVOR08 says:

    @Concerned UK Citizen:

    There are over 33,000 gun related deaths in the US every year; men, women and children seem to be routinely slaughtered in schools, workplaces, cinema, theatre’s and even churches. There’s a lot of weeping, wailing and hand wringing in the immediate aftermath of these events.

    But nothing is done about it

    To us in the UK this is unfathomable.

    To many of us too, but there it is.

  218. An Interested Party says:

    @bill: Oh, so now you’re trying to smear Khan…you’re as disgusting as Trump…

  219. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @bill:

    just like you spew venom at chris kyle…..,

    Chris Kyle was a somewhat less than honorable person who exaggerated (in other words, lied about …) his military record and as far as I can tell engaged in outright fabrication in his book. Trying to compare his example to that of Captain Khan is probably a road you don’t want to go down.