Buford T. Justice Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 Regret to say I think this latest controversy is a tide-turner for The Don: For the first time in the campaign Trump has lost control of the narrative. I'll be interested to hear what Stefan has to say about it.
Mister Mister Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 you mean with the Muslim father of the soldier who spoke at the DNC?
Paul in Sweden Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 How much traction would a German father in the USA with shady political & business connections of a fallen US soldier in 1944 have received compared to today's Khizr Khan? Was this Khizr Khan's son some kind of Messianic figure that was sacrificed and washes away all the death and destruction by all Muslims since Khizr Khan son's death in combat? No Apologies. This sounds like the idiot 'Not All Muslims Rant' to me just dressed a little different. BTW I was unimpressed with 2 dozen 'moderate' Muslims out of the countries more than 15 million Muslims showing up for a memorial & photo op at a Cathedral in France.
Matthew Ed Moran Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 Since CNN has like ten different articles all unfavorable towards and a new poll where Hillary suddenly is up like 10 points on him, I'm just going to assume in reality Trump must be doing really well that they feel motivated to do all this.
Koroviev Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 Trump says something "mean" >> Trump is done for he will never recover he is the worst human alive Hillary is actually responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, actually responsible for the situation that caused Trump to be "mean," is corrupt, irresponsible, and a pathological liar >> Meh... 1
shirgall Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 Poll-wise it is difficult to distinguish between the DNC convention bounce and whether the Khan kerfuffle has traction with voters. It's certainly getting talked about because it is the only attack that managed to stick.
Buford T. Justice Posted August 2, 2016 Author Posted August 2, 2016 To your points, especially Koroviev's: It's true we've had a year of the commentariat telling us he's done, put a fork in him -- and he's always triumphed. No candidate in Am. history has been so genius -- and I do mean genius -- at using the media swirl of condemnation against itself to make himself even more adored. But this one has thrown him and there seems to be a pile-on effect. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that it's different and new, and I wonder what Stefan's take will be. Trump doesn't have to win the message boards, Fox or CNN: He has to persuade a majority of average folk he's electable -- and I think he took a serious hit on that this week from an unlikely source. Oh, and Shirgall: Exactly right.
Matthew Ed Moran Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 But this one has thrown him and there seems to be a pile-on effect. You've got to be able to see that the media is going to get more hysterical and verbally abusive as the election nears. This is typical and predictable of the mainstream media. As for Trump being "thrown," I don't see how that is the case. And the media has been piling on every opportunity they have.
DaviesMa Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 Unless I am missing something he really hasn't said anything too controversial. After being attacked by Khan at the DNC this is what I have managed to find: In an interview he questioned why the mother didn't speak saying : “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.” Responding to the accusation from Khan that he had not made any sacrifices for American: "Who wrote that? Did Hillary's script writers write it?" He also responded to Khan acccusing him of not having read the constitutioin by saying: "while I feel deeply for the loss of his son, 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." He also tweeted: "Mr. Khan, who does not know me, viciously attacked me from the stage of the DNC and is now all over T.V. doing the same - Nice!" Considering Mr Khan put himself into the political fray by attacking Trump personally rather than just stating his case for what he believed, I don't think this is unreasonable. Mr Khan did say that Trump had a Black Soul which is considerably worse than anything Trump said to him. Reading online I found it very difficult to find direct quotes from Trump and every one I saw used language saying that Trump belittled or attacked Khan. I think the DNC have used Mr Khan as some kind of impregnable class of victim to attack Trump with which is making the media go ape about it. Whether anyone outside of the Muslim community in America actually cares is another matter. It does however reiterate to the Trump supporters that he isn't afraid to speak his mind after a few months of being relatively boring by Trump standards. 1
Will Torbald Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 On the bright side, it pushed a ton of democrats to read the constitution for the first time in their lives. Pro tip: there's nothing in there about a religious test for immigrants.
Guest Gee Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 On the bright side, it pushed a ton of democrats to read the constitution for the first time in their lives. Pro tip: there's nothing in there about a religious test for immigrants. You know, I recently heard the most delightful response to the progressive assertion, the second ammendment applies to mustkets. Should it be true that the second ammendment applies only to muskets, then this implies that the first ammendment applies only to Christians.
shirgall Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 You know, I recently heard the most delightful response to the progressive assertion, the second ammendment applies to mustkets. Should it be true that the second ammendment applies only to muskets, then this implies that the first ammendment applies only to Christians. If the Second Amendment only applies to muskets than the only laws written on vellum are valid. 1
S. Misanthrope Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 I agree that the important thing is to figure out how to get a finger on the pulse of the "real people" of America. How does one do this? There's an entire industry for polling that is supposed to do this job. I don't know if I, as a layperson, can reasonably expect to take that on in my spare time. Anyone know of any relatively easy ways to get a general sense (even just a directional sense) of these sorts of things? Personally I have a hard time seeing how a typical person could be swayed by Khan's actual speech. He didn't carry himself well or speak well, and what he said made no sense. He said Trump's name more times than Clinton's in a speech endorsing Clinton. The silent wife came off as creepy. The whole thing just seemed to scream "These people are not Americans." Assuming the average American still thinks Americans should decide America's destiny, I think the speech was an enormous flop. Insofar as the controversy will lead to more people directly comparing Khan to Trump, there's no question Trump comes out ahead in that conflict. 1
AndrewV Posted August 4, 2016 Posted August 4, 2016 But I thought Donald Trump was stepping down lol these people suck I cant believe they call themselves journalists. MEDIA LIES
rosencrantz Posted August 5, 2016 Posted August 5, 2016 The Shoebats make a good case that Khan sails under a false flag http://shoebat.com/2016/07/31/what-the-media-is-not-telling-you-about-the-muslim-who-attacked-donald-trump-he-is-a-muslim-brotherhood-agent-who-wants-to-advance-sharia-law-and-bring-muslims-into-the-united-states/
shukie Posted August 5, 2016 Posted August 5, 2016 Simple answer from Trump. Had they not invaded Iraq, which was what I suggested at the time, you would not be Gold Star Parents. Or he can let it die on the vine by not addressing it any more. Probably the best course of action IMO
Guest Gee Posted August 5, 2016 Posted August 5, 2016 Simple answer from Trump. Had they not invaded Iraq, which was what I suggested at the time, you would not be Gold Star Parents. Or he can let it die on the vine by not addressing it any more. Probably the best course of action IMO I heard on the grapevine that this gold star chap wrote papers stating the US constitution must be sublimated to Shira law and took hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Clinton foundation. I think if Trump, champion of Kek, is keeping it alive as a story it is because he is playing some 14d backgammon.
shirgall Posted August 5, 2016 Posted August 5, 2016 I heard on the grapevine that this gold star chap wrote papers stating the US constitution must be sublimated to Shira law and took hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Clinton foundation. I think if Trump, champion of Kek, is keeping it alive as a story it is because he is playing some 14d backgammon. Back in 1983. In the Houston Journal of International Law, Khazir Khan wrote an article entitled “Juristic Classification Of Islamic Law” but I have not seen the full article available online, just quotes from it. http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/02/daily-caller-khan-wrote-extensively-favor-sharia/
Guest Gee Posted August 5, 2016 Posted August 5, 2016 Back in 1983. In the Houston Journal of International Law, Khazir Khan wrote an article entitled “Juristic Classification Of Islamic Law” but I have not seen the full article available online, just quotes from it. http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/02/daily-caller-khan-wrote-extensively-favor-sharia/ Thank for the link. I can't wait for the debates! I genuinly think Trump's rhetoric will induce a seizure in Clinton.
Will Torbald Posted August 5, 2016 Posted August 5, 2016 Thank for the link. I can't wait for the debates! I genuinly think Trump's rhetoric will induce a seizure in Clinton. Considering how she seizures from much less than that, I think they will find any excuse for her not to debate at all. Did you watch the Paul Watson vid on her brain problems?
Guest Gee Posted August 5, 2016 Posted August 5, 2016 Considering how she seizures from much less than that, I think they will find any excuse for her not to debate at all. Did you watch the Paul Watson vid on her brain problems? Yeah I did, good vid right? Did you catch this video of her being stumpted at a rally? I caught it through Cernovich's twitter. You can hear the sec. service reassuring her and literally pocketing her. So weak.
shukie Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2013/05/a-defense-of-traditional-islamic-law.html?m=1 http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2013/07/what-went-wrong-with-islamic-law.html?m=1 I can't seem to get around the idea that Sharia "Style" isn't so bad. Not that I defend beheading or rape or all of the bad punishments. I simply want a separation of the state from my legal affairs. I don't see how the world can move forward without honest objective looks at other systems. The Constitution being held as the standard for the world to follow has led to more Fiat Currency paying for more death and theft than I can stomach. I really don't care what system I just want to make sure it is structured to collapse under it's own weight once it gets too big.
EclecticIdealist Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 The Constitution being held as the standard for the world to follow has led to more Fiat Currency paying for more death and theft than I can stomach. You're mistaken if you think that Fiat Currency and War is the result of the Constitution being held as the standard for the world to follow. It's hardly held as the standard for the US to follow anymore. Sure, they pay lip-service to it, but that's about it. The People of this Nation are too ignorant and apathetic to do anything about it.
shukie Posted August 13, 2016 Posted August 13, 2016 We are in agreement. What I meant was that they claim that their actions are in support and accordance with the Principles of the Constitution. It is a beautifully crafted document,however it seems that a piece of paper isn't a very powerful barrier to State aggression.
DCLugi Posted August 13, 2016 Posted August 13, 2016 We are in agreement. What I meant was that they claim that their actions are in support and accordance with the Principles of the Constitution. It is a beautifully crafted document,however it seems that a piece of paper isn't a very powerful barrier to State aggression. I think the only barrier to state aggression is when enough people recognize and reject the inherent violence that comes with it.
Recommended Posts