Ed Is Humayun Khan Trump's Turning Point?

[catsmate]

For goodness sake for whatever reasons society does consider the Khan's loss a sacrifice. Therefore trying to argue it isn't is missing the entire point I. E. By *definition* it is considered a sacrifice.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori".

 

[Dr. Keith]

Yeah but him being so easy to manipulate is one of the many reasons he shouldn't be President.

Among all your passionate froth flung at this man, this sentiment deserves to stand out.

 

[marplots]

They also serve who only stand and wait.

 

[sunmaster14]

Among all your passionate froth flung at this man, this sentiment deserves to stand out.

This seems to be the conventional wisdom on both sides of the aisle, and it is has been pressed relentlessly by the, um, ... press. But it is a shallow conclusion based on shallow evidence. Trump can be baited into saying impolitic things. In fact, he doesn't even have to be baited. He says impolitic things unprompted all the time. He has the political equivalent of Tourette's syndrome. But is that a substantive failing? Perhaps it is in a President. I've always felt that was George W. Bush's greatest flaw. His inarticulateness made it difficult for him to justify his ideology and his decisions. If he had had the eloquence of Tony Blair, the Iraq War might have been seen as a triumph rather than a disaster.

On the other hand, eloquence is clearly of secondary importance. Tourette's syndrome might be a negative quality for a President to have, but it is hardly as bad as the press, and certain opportunists on the GOP side, are making it out to be. For all of the fear and anger and hatred that has been directed at Trump, almost all of it is for stuff that he has said (usually imprecisely and with little or no thought) rather than for anything he has actually done (or will ever do, even if he were elected).

I can't help but be fascinated by this massive construction project of the political establishment, including the news media, of turning molehills into mountains. Of course, with respect to the news media, they do this every four years with Republican candidates. In this respect, Trump is probably an average Republican nominee. He is worse than the last one, but better than the next one.

 

[The Don]

I've always felt that was George W. Bush's greatest flaw. His inarticulateness made it difficult for him to justify his ideology and his decisions. If he had had the eloquence of Tony Blair, the Iraq War might have been seen as a triumph rather than a disaster.

Well Tony Blair has Tony Blair's eloquence and the Iraq war is seen as Blair's greatest failure. It has thoroughly (and so far permanently) tainted his reputation and it's the reason why he is seen as a great unifier - both Labour and Conservative supporters hate him and his legacy.

 

[NoahFence]

Trump can be baited into saying impolitic things. In fact, he doesn't even have to be baited. He says impolitic things unprompted all the time. He has the political equivalent of Tourette's syndrome. But is that a substantive failing? Perhaps it is in a President.

It absolutely is in a President. Imagine this thin skinned waste of oxygen saying the things he says to other sitting presidents, or their families.

Wars have been started for less.

 

[Dr. Keith]

This seems to be the conventional wisdom on both sides of the aisle, and it is has been pressed relentlessly by the, um, ... press. But it is a shallow conclusion based on shallow evidence. Trump can be baited into saying impolitic things. In fact, he doesn't even have to be baited. He says impolitic things unprompted all the time. He has the political equivalent of Tourette's syndrome. But is that a substantive failing? Perhaps it is in a President. I've always felt that was George W. Bush's greatest flaw. His inarticulateness made it difficult for him to justify his ideology and his decisions. If he had had the eloquence of Tony Blair, the Iraq War might have been seen as a triumph rather than a disaster.

On the other hand, eloquence is clearly of secondary importance. Tourette's syndrome might be a negative quality for a President to have, but it is hardly as bad as the press, and certain opportunists on the GOP side, are making it out to be. For all of the fear and anger and hatred that has been directed at Trump, almost all of it is for stuff that he has said (usually imprecisely and with little or no thought) rather than for anything he has actually done (or will ever do, even if he were elected).

I can't help but be fascinated by this massive construction project of the political establishment, including the news media, of turning molehills into mountains. Of course, with respect to the news media, they do this every four years with Republican candidates. In this respect, Trump is probably an average Republican nominee. He is worse than the last one, but better than the next one.

Currently he has no power to act, he only has the power to speak.

That he wields this power so "imprecisely and with little or no thought" does not inspire me to give him the power to act on my behalf.

 

[sunmaster14]

Well Tony Blair has Tony Blair's eloquence and the Iraq war is seen as Blair's greatest failure. It has thoroughly (and so far permanently) tainted his reputation and it's the reason why he is seen as a great unifier - both Labour and Conservative supporters hate him and his legacy.

Well, aside from the fact that the UK and the US are very different countries (with the UK being more pro-Arab and anti-war), Tony Blair's eloquence was dominated by Bush's ineloquence. If anything, the poodle's intelligence only made him more hated for eating out of his idiot master's hand.

 

[shemp]

This seems to be the conventional wisdom on both sides of the aisle, and it is has been pressed relentlessly by the, um, ... press. But it is a shallow conclusion based on shallow evidence. Trump can be baited into saying impolitic things. In fact, he doesn't even have to be baited. He says impolitic things unprompted all the time. He has the political equivalent of Tourette's syndrome. But is that a substantive failing? Perhaps it is in a President. I've always felt that was George W. Bush's greatest flaw. His inarticulateness made it difficult for him to justify his ideology and his decisions. If he had had the eloquence of Tony Blair, the Iraq War might have been seen as a triumph rather than a disaster.

On the other hand, eloquence is clearly of secondary importance. Tourette's syndrome might be a negative quality for a President to have, but it is hardly as bad as the press, and certain opportunists on the GOP side, are making it out to be. For all of the fear and anger and hatred that has been directed at Trump, almost all of it is for stuff that he has said (usually imprecisely and with little or no thought) rather than for anything he has actually done (or will ever do, even if he were elected).

I can't help but be fascinated by this massive construction project of the political establishment, including the news media, of turning molehills into mountains. Of course, with respect to the news media, they do this every four years with Republican candidates. In this respect, Trump is probably an average Republican nominee. He is worse than the last one, but better than the next one.

Indeed, it's the media's fault that the GOP trots out inarticulate fools as candidates.

 

[sunmaster14]

Currently he has no power to act, he only has the power to speak.

That he wields this power so "imprecisely and with little or no thought" does not inspire me to give him the power to act on my behalf.

And I think that is reasonable. However, I think it is unreasonable for serious people, who expect to be taken seriously, to declare Trump unfit for the Presidency, simply based on his free association approach to speaking. It's certainly better than the alternative. Obama, for instance, mouths all the right platitudes about how morally difficult it is to fight the war on terror, and how we have to be true to our values, blah, blah, blah. Meanwhile, he has a drone kill list, and he seems perfectly willing to blow up the occasional wedding party or hospital in order to kill somebody who might be a terrorist who generally is in the act of minding his own business. And because he mouths all the right platitudes, he gets a pass on just about anything he does.

 

[sunmaster14]

Indeed, it's the media's fault that the GOP trots out inarticulate fools as candidates.

No, it's the media's fault for focusing on the GOP candidates' verbal indiscretions and not on the Democratic candidates' gaffes. Obama is not particularly articulate. Neither is Hillary actually. They both make plenty of gaffes, but they tend to go unremarked in the media. And then when you do get a gaffe machine which is impossible to ignore (e.g. Biden), the media treats his verbal diarrhea as something charming.

 

[Dr. Keith]

And I think that is reasonable. However, I think it is unreasonable for serious people, who expect to be taken seriously, to declare Trump unfit for the Presidency, simply based on his free association approach to speaking. It's certainly better than the alternative. Obama, for instance, mouths all the right platitudes about how morally difficult it is to fight the war on terror, and how we have to be true to our values, blah, blah, blah. Meanwhile, he has a drone kill list, and he seems perfectly willing to blow up the occasional wedding party or hospital in order to kill somebody who might be a terrorist who generally is in the act of minding his own business. And because he mouths all the right platitudes, he gets a pass on just about anything he does.

I don't think it is such a far leap from "does not inspire me to give him the power to act on my behalf" to "unfit for the Presidency".

I didn't vote for Romney or McCain, but I was not concerned with either having the power to act on my behalf. They may not act exactly as I would want, but they would not act out of complete self interest either. They each had a history of public service and a reputation as decent men to defend.

I can not point to any actions by Trump that are not out of complete self interest.

 

[Dr. Keith]

No, it's the media's fault for focusing on the GOP candidates' verbal indiscretions and not on the Democratic candidates' gaffes. Obama is not particularly articulate. Neither is Hillary actually. They both make plenty of gaffes, but they tend to go unremarked in the media. And then when you do get a gaffe machine which is impossible to ignore (e.g. Biden), the media treats his verbal diarrhea as something charming.

That's why we never heard about the US having 57 states?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

No, it's the media's fault for focusing on the GOP candidates' verbal indiscretions and not on the Democratic candidates' gaffes. Obama is not particularly articulate. Neither is Hillary actually. They both make plenty of gaffes, but they tend to go unremarked in the media. And then when you do get a gaffe machine which is impossible to ignore (e.g. Biden), the media treats his verbal diarrhea as something charming.

The difference is most politicians admit the gaffe, back down and apologize when appropriate. Everyone makes mistakes, they can easily be made humanizing. Media who keep harping on the gaffes after that (e.g. Fox News) come off as bullies.

But Trump doesn't do that. He doesn't know how to back down. He just keeps doubling down, until he says something else that's even dumber. He's easy to manipulate, and even easier to goad. All you have to do is ask him if he thinks he made a mistake, and he'll fill your hat with priceless sound bites.

 

[sunmaster14]

That's why we never heard about the US having 57 states?

The mainstream media never made any big deal out of that, and they were right not to, although I doubt they would have refrained if a Republican had said that. No, I'm referring to more substantive ones, which are not due to fatigue, but rather actual ignorance or laziness. Mispronouncing leaders' names comes to mind, or mispronouncing or misusing very common military terminology. Or not realizing that Austrians speak German or not knowing enough Spanish to understand that cinqo in cinqo de mayo refers to 5 or fifth rather than the month of May. There was that time where he accidentally explained how little he understood about how insurance worked (the story about him totaling his old beater and being surprised that his bare bones insurance didn't have collision damage). Actually, there are many idiotic stories he has told in which he inadvertently revealed how ignorant he is.

 

[sunmaster14]

The difference is most politicians admit the gaffe, back down and apologize when appropriate. Everyone makes mistakes, they can easily be made humanizing. Media who keep harping on the gaffes after that (e.g. Fox News) come off as bullies.

But Trump doesn't do that. He doesn't know how to back down. He just keeps doubling down, until he says something else that's even dumber. He's easy to manipulate, and even easier to goad. All you have to do is ask him if he thinks he made a mistake, and he'll fill your hat with priceless sound bites.

Yes, he does refuse to apologize for gaffes. Is that so bad? Most apologies are obviously insincere anyway. The typical politician's apology is "I'm sorry if anybody was offended," which, frankly, is no better than not apologizing in my book. Regardless, you're talking about using words to ameliorate words. It's not a sufficiently important issue that it should be used as the basis for declaring somebody unfit for the Presidency. Yes, Trump may be unfit as a suicide hotline counselor, but a President should do a lot more than speak artfully. Is the ability to speak well a precondition for being a good President? I don't think so.

 

[DavidJames]

Somehow this thread has been hijacked to displaying ODS rather then the topic. Can't say I'm shocked.

 

[Mader Levap]

For all of the fear and anger and hatred that has been directed at Trump, almost all of it is for stuff that he has said

It is almost like you are whining "why everyone cares about it so much, no big deal maaan, he is not responsible for his own words or something maaan, since when POTUS nominee is supposed to behave like sane aldut".

I guess it is not big deal if POTUS nominee says that

• he has bright idea to make NATO protection racket
• calls for spying political opponent by foreign power
• jokes about assasination of political opponent
• already knows that elections are rigged if he loses

And that's only what I care immediately about, there are tons more. Pathetic.

You are whining that democrats make "gaffes" too (btw how nice of you to call "verbal indiscretions", say, undermining important alliance), but those horrible media ignore those. Please list some of those "gaffes" that are on same magnitude as list above.

Only in that case it (complaining that media focus only on "verbal indiscretions/gaffes" of one side) would be legitimate complaint, not pathetic whine of someone that - for reasons completely incomprehensible to me - decided to defend insane fascist clown.

(usually imprecisely and with little or no thought)

It is nice you don't mind that in POTUS. I personally mind presence of glassed, radioactive craters all over planet.

rather than for anything he has actually done (or will ever do, even if he were elected).

Huh? He already did a lot. Mainly screwing over contractors, conducting scams like Trump University, getting away with multiple bankrupties in best corporate murica tradition of golden parachutes etc, etc, etc. Those virtues are SO appealing in future POTUS, am I rite?

 

[sunmaster14]

Somehow this thread has been hijacked to displaying ODS rather then the topic. Can't say I'm shocked.

Thread drift is not hijacking. Nor is fair analysis of the differences between how the media treats Trump and how it treats Obama an example of ODS. If you have nothing of substance to contribute other than sniping from the sidelines, perhaps you should start a thread in Forum Community.

 

[NoahFence]

No, it's the media's fault for focusing on the GOP candidates' verbal indiscretions and not on the Democratic candidates' gaffes. Obama is not particularly articulate. Neither is Hillary actually. They both make plenty of gaffes, but they tend to go unremarked in the media. And then when you do get a gaffe machine which is impossible to ignore (e.g. Biden), the media treats his verbal diarrhea as something charming.

Wow. So much cow dung in one post. It's actually impressive.