Ed Is Humayun Khan Trump's Turning Point?

[Stacko]

Ted Strickland already apologized.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I wonder if the news media will consider the following to be a gaffe by Ted Strickland (D-OH), and if so, that he'll be forced to apologize:




Do you think he will? Do you think he should?

Ted Strickland already apologized.

Should I still watch the video?

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

LMAO. No, he is not. And it is absurd to suggest that he is. I graduated with a degree in political science. I've studied most Presidential political races in the last 120 years as well as many before that. There is absolutely nothing about Trump that is average. Even the length of his fingers.

You missed my point which is that Democrats and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) tend to speak of past Republican candidates (particularly dead ones) in glowing terms, while vilifying the current one. In 2008, McCain was a warmonger, racist, philanderer, who had neither the intelligence nor the temperament to be President. Years later, he wasn't such a bad guy after all. In 2012, Romney was a dishonest, mean-spirited, racist, sexist, religious nutjob, tax and draft dodger, who hated poor people and wore magic underwear. Now, he's the voice of reason and sanity and forthrightness.

Now, I'll admit that Trump is sui generis. But if he loses, then I predict in 2020, Democrats will be comparing him favorably to the then current Republican nominee. Trump will probably be remembered as an entertaining and kind-hearted buffoon, sort of like Joe Biden is now, who actually did speak up for the downtrodden and tried to refocus the country's energy inward.

Hell, even Reagan is remembered as a great leader by most Democratic operatives, even though he was vilified as much as Trump is now, and in much the same way, in 1980.

Trump is a demagogue. The person Trump reminds me the most of is Joe McCarthy because of his recklessness and demagoguery. But McCarthy was never a Presidential nominee although there is no doubt he had aspirations.

They're all demagogues. Trump isn't really much different except that he's nowhere near as polished.

 

[sunmaster14]

Should I still watch the video?

If you want to learn something. Also, if you want to answer my second question.

ETA: Also, this is one of those things which is a Kinsley gaffe. Strickland clearly said what he really believed. Trump says whatever crosses his mind that second, but it's not necessarily closely related to the conclusion he will eventually reach.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

You missed my point which is that Democrats and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) tend to speak of past Republican candidates (particularly dead ones) in glowing terms, while vilifying the current one. In 2008, McCain was a warmonger, racist, philanderer, who had neither the intelligence nor the temperament to be President. Years later, he wasn't such a bad guy after all. In 2012, Romney was a dishonest, mean-spirited, racist, sexist, religious nutjob, tax and draft dodger, who hated poor people and wore magic underwear. Now, he's the voice of reason and sanity and forthrightness.

There's an explanation for the above that doesn't rely on massive conspiracies of liberal media boogeymen: the GOP support base is such that to secure its nomination prospective candidates have to hold their noses, speak in tongues, roll around the aisles and kiss Sheldon Adelson's ring. Whatever they may have believed before or since, right then they have to play the role of the Republican Candidate for President, and that means acting in certain ways which are less than favorably looked upon by right-thinking individuals. It isn't everyone else that's changing, it's just them.

McCain's a great example. I liked 2004 McCain. I like current McCain. But 2008 McCain... what the hell happened? Just for that short period of time, he really did turn into a warmongering racist without the temperament or intelligence to be President. His most disgraceful moment was when he finally cashed in his last bit of integrity and toed the party line of the time regarding torture.

 

[Tony Stark]

It isn't the Democrat's or the media's fault that the GOP base is a bunch of crazy stupid bigots and nominated a crazy stupid bigot.

 

[pgwenthold]

It isn't the Democrat's or the media's fault that the GOP base is a bunch of crazy stupid bigots and nominated a crazy stupid bigot.

[channeling]You don't know he is a crazy stupid bigot. He just says stupid, crazy and bigoted things. Those are just his words, and don't tell you about him.[/channeling]

 

[Babbylonian]

McCain's a great example. I liked 2004 McCain. I like current McCain. But 2008 McCain... what the hell happened? Just for that short period of time, he really did turn into a warmongering racist without the temperament or intelligence to be President. His most disgraceful moment was when he finally cashed in his last bit of integrity and toed the party line of the time regarding torture.

Yep. Sarah Palin may not have killed his candidacy if he hadn't allowed himself to be turned into a shill for the worst aspects of Bush II's Presidency. It's also possible, as you point out, that he wouldn't have gotten the nomination if he hadn't done so but the bottom line is that he became someone who centrists (of the US sort - let's not open the "everyone in the US is to the right of Margaret Thatcher" can of worms) simply couldn't respect anymore.

And US Presidential elections really do come down to respect. More than any specific beliefs, we want someone we believe will be a relatively sensible leader. Donald Trump is barely tolerated by most Republicans, and the only reason he stands even a chance of getting most of their votes is that they'd be willing to hold their nose long enough so that their more regressive bills aren't vetoed and no left-leaning judges are nominated and confirmed. That he would be the worst leader in US history is both obvious and what they're willing to put up with in service of those interests.

 

[Dr. Keith]

If you want to learn something. Also, if you want to answer my second question.

Yeah, too soon.

I would also say it was less of a gaffe than what Donald said.

He literally just pointed out that his death was timely for their cause, even though he didn't wish anyone ill. I think that is fair to point out when emphasizing the importance of the court: who is on the court matters.

But the way he said it was not so artful and he apologized.

ETA: Also, this is one of those things which is a Kinsley gaffe. Strickland clearly said what he really believed. Trump says whatever crosses his mind that second, but it's not necessarily closely related to the conclusion he will eventually reach.

Yes, he said, and he believes, that Scalia's death was well timed for their cause. I think that is factually accurate. Do you believe otherwise?

Why should he retract the content that is true?

Donald said he saw thousands in the streets in New Jersey celebrating 9/11. He stuck by that and doubled down. I think that is factually inaccurate. Do you think it is true?

 

[acbytesla]

You missed my point which is that Democrats and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) tend to speak of past Republican candidates (particularly dead ones) in glowing terms, while vilifying the current one. In 2008, McCain was a warmonger, racist, philanderer, who had neither the intelligence nor the temperament to be President. Years later, he wasn't such a bad guy after all. In 2012, Romney was a dishonest, mean-spirited, racist, sexist, religious nutjob, tax and draft dodger, who hated poor people and wore magic underwear. Now, he's the voice of reason and sanity and forthrightness.

Now, I'll admit that Trump is sui generis. But if he loses, then I predict in 2020, Democrats will be comparing him favorably to the then current Republican nominee. Trump will probably be remembered as an entertaining and kind-hearted buffoon, sort of like Joe Biden is now, who actually did speak up for the downtrodden and tried to refocus the country's energy inward.

Hell, even Reagan is remembered as a great leader by most Democratic operatives, even though he was vilified as much as Trump is now, and in much the same way, in 1980.

They're all demagogues. Trump isn't really much different except that he's nowhere near as polished.

No, I think your missing the point. While there is a certain amount of campaign vilification happening in every election. I can find positive things to say about every Presidential candidate and President going back to Truman and Dewey. I can also say what I perceive that was negative.

I hate pretty much every domestic economic action Reagan made from his support of SDI to the firing of PATCO employees to his lowering of taxes on the wealthy and increasing taxes on the middle class and poor. But Reagan carried himself very well. He knew how to rally the people and everyone genuinely liked him on a personal level.

Trump is of course being vilified as a candidate and so is Hillary. But the ability to make that stick has less to do with the media and more to do with the candidate. When people call him "narcissistic" it's not an overreach, it is spot on. When people say he's thin skinned and insensitive, it rings true, even to you.

I can't imagine how I'd feel if Trump was the Democratic nominee other than disgust of other Democrats who made him the party's nominee. He could be pro-choice, pro-labor, pro women's rights and yet the thought of him as President makes me physically ill.

 

[sunmaster14]

Yeah, too soon.

I would also say it was less of a gaffe than what Donald said.

He literally just pointed out that his death was timely for their cause, even though he didn't wish anyone ill. I think that is fair to point out when emphasizing the importance of the court: who is on the court matters.

But the way he said it was not so artful and he apologized.



Yes, he said, and he believes, that Scalia's death was well timed for their cause. I think that is factually accurate. Do you believe otherwise?

Nope.

Why should he retract the content that is true?

He shouldn't. His campaign did the right thing to apologize for the insensitivity, although I'll note that it only did so in response to a request from the Washington Examiner, a conservative publication. I didn't really see it mentioned anywhere else before that happened.

Donald said he saw thousands in the streets in New Jersey celebrating 9/11. He stuck by that and doubled down. I think that is factually inaccurate. Do you think it is true?

I think he confused footage of Palestinians celebrating in the West Bank with Arabs in New Jersey. The parts of New Jersey that Trump sees from his apartment sort of look like the West Bank, so it's an understandable mistake.

 

[Mader Levap]

Trump University was apparently a scam, but, meh.

Everything is meh for you as long as Trump does it. Hmmm... let's try it in different way, as you seem to not want to give examples of democrat's "gaffes" rivaling Trump's "verbal indiscretions".

What Trump would have to do or say to make you say "Holy ****! He is unfit to be POTUS!"?

 

[Tony Stark]

What Trump would have to do or say to make you say "Holy ****! He is unfit to be POTUS!"?

Say that Obama is a good President?

 

[The Atheist]

It isn't the Democrat's or the media's fault that the GOP base is a bunch of crazy stupid bigots and nominated a crazy stupid bigot.

This is actually an important point, but thanks to Trump's self-destruction the lesson will be lost.

I read a piece the other day which listed the criticism of past Republican candidates, and both Romney and Bush had been classed widely as "unfit to be president".

If the level of attack isn't raised from calling them morons (no matter that they probably are) the next Trump might not self-destruct.

There are worse people in the world than Trump. Ted Cruz springs to mind.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I think he confused footage of Palestinians celebrating in the West Bank with Arabs in New Jersey. The parts of New Jersey that Trump sees from his apartment sort of look like the West Bank, so it's an understandable mistake.

No. It would have been an understandable mistake if he had backed off it once the truth was pointed out to him. But instead he doubled down in the face of all available evidence. That is the difference. When he is shown that he is lying he just sticks to the lie. That is not a gaffe.

 

[Sabrina]

I think he confused footage of Palestinians celebrating in the West Bank with Arabs in New Jersey. The parts of New Jersey that Trump sees from his apartment sort of look like the West Bank, so it's an understandable mistake.

And yet when someone pointed out to Trump that the footage he was thinking of was likely of Palestinians in the West Bank, Trump refused to believe it and insisted that he'd seen it happen in New Jersey. Never mind that no one else in New Jersey has corroborated his assertion and in fact have vehemently denied it; in Trumpland whatever Trump thinks happened is the truth and everyone else is a liar. If you don't see an issue with that, I'm not sure what else can be said here.

 

[Stacko]

No. It would have been an understandable mistake if he had backed off it once the truth was pointed out to him. But instead he doubled down in the face of all available evidence. That is the difference. When he shown that he is lying he just sticks to the lie. That is not a gaffe.

Has he admitted the NFL didn't send him a letter about the debates yet?

 

[Shalamar]

Everything is meh for you as long as Trump does it. Hmmm... let's try it in different way, as you seem to not want to give examples of democrat's "gaffes" rivaling Trump's "verbal indiscretions".

What Trump would have to do or say to make you say "Holy ****! He is unfit to be POTUS!"?

Have a (D) next to his name.

 

[slyjoe]

Has he admitted he didn't see WTC jumpers?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Has he admitted the NFL didn't send him a letter about the debates yet?

The only thing he has backed off on was seeing the plane full of money being unloaded. He backed off that one assertion. I have no idea why he chose that one, but he did.