Ed Is Humayun Khan Trump's Turning Point?

[Tony Stark]

Which is a round about way of saying 'I hear she does that and it's only because she's so clever at covering up that I can't produce a shred of evidence to back my claims.'

it's pathetic, you can offer not one positive reason to support trump, not one credible defence of Donald the fraudster but still you keep swinging and missing.

He's not a Democrat. That's pretty much all they have.

 

[Garrison]

He's not a Democrat. That's pretty much all they have.

I can get a Republican who doesn't like Hillary but defending trump? That's just ludicrous.

It's 'crooked Hillary' but guess which candidate is actually facing trial in November?

It's 'lying Hillary' when Trump can't open his mouth without saying something untrue, and it's not harmless either, ask anyone who invested in one of those 'Trump' properties that went belly up and it turned out he hadn't actually developed them.

It's Hillary is too close to big money/is using her charity as a slush fund, when Trump is the one whose spent is career playing games with investors money, to his benefit and their regret.

Oh and of course Clinton voted for the Iraq war, but its okay Trump supported it and his VP also voted for it, but hey he's entitled to make a mistake, Clinton isn't of course...

 

[Andy_Ross]

As he changes what he says in the course of a speech, maybe he isn't lying but is a confused senile old man?

He changes what he says depending on the reaction he gets. If he gets a reaction he repeats and amplifies, if he gets no reaction he days the opposite.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Which is a round about way of saying 'I hear she does that and it's only because she's so clever at covering up that I can't produce a shred of evidence to back my claims.'

I hear Trump supports NAMBLA I can't produce a shred of evidence but a lot of people are saying it, the best people.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yea, it works like this:

If Trump treats a head of state, or their families the same way he treats our military, or our disabled citizens, his political opponents, or women, or our soldiers - he's going to start a war.

I think we would expect him to treat with them the way he deals with contractors.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Which is a round about way of saying 'I hear she does that and it's only because she's so clever at covering up that I can't produce a shred of evidence to back my claims.'

And the hundreds of millions spent investigating her over the years that have turned up nothing are entirely irrelevant as well.

 

[Tony Stark]

Donald will not have the respect of any major world leader if he wins. Even Putin will not respect him, just view him as a useful idiot.

Very stark contrast to what we have now.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And according to two columns I read it was entirely in character he often gives out pocket constitutions. He is simply someone who believes in the ideals of the USA constitution.

He's been interviewed a number of times now and it is very clear those were his words, he believes in what he said and he's very intelligent, educated and articulate.

He described why Sharia Law was for the 'Old Country' (not sure of his exact label) and not consistent with the Constitution. He prefers the Constitution.

I admire him a lot.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

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.

You mean like the molehill mountain of the wording of Comey saying Clinton was not found to be lying to the FBI?

The molehill mountain that there was confusion over the initial circumstances whether Benghazi was spontaneous or planned attack?

The molehill mountain that the Clinton Foundation staff contacted Hillary's State Department staff?

And the one that is about to be made of the fact the DoJ sees no reason to go on yet another witch hunt over the Clinton Foundation's potential for quid pro quos of which there is no evidence suggesting an issue?

 

[sunmaster14]

Which is a round about way of saying 'I hear she does that and it's only because she's so clever at covering up that I can't produce a shred of evidence to back my claims.'

it's pathetic, you can offer not one positive reason to support trump, not one credible defence of Donald the fraudster but still you keep swinging and missing.

Of course I can, and I have. Many times. I can't help it if you do the equivalent of closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and going "nanny nanny boo boo."

Donald Trump is like a missile aimed at the heart of our political establishment - at the elites who have had an iron grip on the reins of power for decades.

He is an extremely volatile stock, but constrained by our institutions on the down side (like having a put option on that stock). He's a gamble, but an intelligent and, I dare say, an exciting gamble. If you are unhappy with the current system, with the entrenched interests and the fossilized political thinking, and the inexorable drain of our economic vitality, then Hillary is your man (so to speak). But if you want to roll the dice and see some of those entrenched interests scramble for cover, and see a little rearranging of the established order of things, then Trump is your man. Plus, he will be infinitely more entertaining. I'd much rather have a buffoon as President than an arrogant moralizer who's always preaching at me about how I should think and feel.

 

[Tony Stark]

Of course I can, and I have. Many times. I can't help it if you do the equivalent of closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and going "nanny nanny boo boo."

Donald Trump is like a missile aimed at the heart of our political establishment - at the elites who have had an iron grip on the reins of power for decades.

He is an extremely volatile stock, but constrained by our institutions on the down side (like having a put option on that stock). He's a gamble, but an intelligent and, I dare say, an exciting gamble. If you are unhappy with the current system, with the entrenched interests and the fossilized political thinking, and the inexorable drain of our economic vitality, then Hillary is your man (so to speak). But if you want to roll the dice and see some of those entrenched interests scramble for cover, and see a little rearranging of the established order of things, then Trump is your man. Plus, he will be infinitely more entertaining. I'd much rather have a buffoon as President than an arrogant moralizer who's always preaching at me about how I should think and feel.

Yeah, lets make a deranged idiot the most powerful person in the world to shake up the "establishment".

Stupidest idea ever.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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 ridiculous, the media is obsessed with Clinton's every word, Biden's gaffes were covered, they're just not relevant now.

Maybe you don't see a difference between batcrap crazy conspiracy ramblings about Obama's birth certificate, Obama and Hillary's founding ISIS, calling for an assassination if the election is lost, lying over and over then trying to tell us he didn't say what he said...

Clinton is politician-as-usual, Trump is mentally disturbed.


And BTW, it is absurd to claim Obama is not articulate. He's an exceptionally articulate man.

 

[Tony Stark]

The simple fact of that matter is that Hillary does not constantly spew crazy, idiotic garbage like the GOP Fuhrer does. Neither does Obama.

 

[sunmaster14]

That's ridiculous, the media is obsessed with Clinton's every word, Biden's gaffes were covered, they're just not relevant now.

Maybe you don't see a difference between batcrap crazy conspiracy ramblings about Obama's birth certificate, Obama and Hillary's founding ISIS, calling for an assassination if the election is lost, lying over and over then trying to tell us he didn't say what he said...

Clinton is politician-as-usual, Trump is mentally disturbed.


And BTW, it is absurd to claim Obama is not articulate. He's an exceptionally articulate man.

I guess you have to be articulate to understand just how inarticulate he really is. He says nothing but spends a lot of time saying it, with tons of gaps while he tries - usually unsuccessfully - to gather his thoughts.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

It's not just refusal to apologize. It's the incessant need to pretend he didn't say what he is on video saying.

Did any of his minions admit they were ridiculous to claim Melania's words were simply common and the charge of plagiarism false when Melania admitted plagiarizing?

 

[Tony Stark]

I guess you have to be articulate to understand just how inarticulate he really is. He says nothing but spends a lot of time saying it, with tons of gaps while he tries - usually unsuccessfully - to gather his thoughts.

Says someone who suffers from a severe case of ODS and "thinks" that Donald Trump might be a good President.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

He was forced to by an intervention.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I doubt that he was even the one who tweeted that so his perfect record of never backing down from his lies may be intact.

That too.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Wow, talk about missing the point. You weren't even in the same galaxy. It's not about dirty tricks and political attacks by Democrats and their allies in the press. I think these are heartfelt critiques. People like Joe Klein really did feel that McCain was running a racist campaign because Klein is so biased that, in the heat of a campaign, he can't view opposition talking points as anything else. The same dynamic happened with Mitt Romney, who, everybody agrees now, is a decent human being and not somebody who fires employees unnecessarily and gives their spouses cancer to boot.

I remember Klein discussing race at length and racism, and the racism of the GOP and its voters, but I never remember him writing anything that would support your claim that the press inaccurately portrayed McCain as "a warmonger, racist, philanderer, who had neither the intelligence nor the temperament to be President."

Maybe you can help me with that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Fox pundit is using the NAMBLA argument: lots of people don't trust Clinton, there must be something there.