Ed Is Humayun Khan Trump's Turning Point?

[Babbylonian]

Not only that, but in eight years' time, the accusation against Trump will make him look progressive.

So, is this an actual assertion of the [patently ridiculous and offensive] idea that if homosexuals are allowed to be themselves and marry, we're inevitably going to legalize sex with children? Or, is it just tacky trolling using that idea?

Either way, your continuing responses to the obvious nonsense that is the NAMBLA accusation (its current source is well documented, it was started by someone who has made clear that it is a joke, and it is being used here in that manner) seem to be an indicator that your skin is very thin indeed.

 

[Mader Levap]

I don't think there is any need to go after Trump on a questionable NAMBLA charge,

"Questionable"? Everyone here knows it is not true. It is repeated for different reason, explained below.

when he is giving us so much ammunition to use against him every day...

I think some people use it as example of how smear campaign (like one conducted by repubs against Hillary for last few decades) works.

Some people say, I heard it a lot, it must be at least somewhat true, after all there is no smoke without fire. And repeat lie ad nauseam. Something from that slinged mud WILL stick, even if it is just vague feeling of distrust without justification. If you get some accusations that turned to be true in there, great! It will make rest of accusations - lies - way more believable.

 

[Tony Stark]

"Questionable"? Everyone here knows it is not true. It is repeated for different reason, explained below.



I think some people use it as example of how smear campaign (like one conducted by repubs against Hillary for last few decades) works.

Some people say, I heard it a lot, it must be at least somewhat true, after all there is no smoke without fire. And repeat lie ad nauseam. Something from that slinged mud WILL stick, even if it is just vague feeling of distrust without justification. If you get some accusations that turned to be true in there, great! It will make rest of accusations - lies - way more believable.

Donald is always claiming "many people are saying x" and it is always something he completely made up. That's the point of it.

 

[sunmaster14]

So, is this an actual assertion of the [patently ridiculous and offensive] idea that if homosexuals are allowed to be themselves and marry, we're inevitably going to legalize sex with children? Or, is it just tacky trolling using that idea?

It's an actual prediction. NAMBLA is a legal organization, by the way, and as far as I know (I'm not a member, nor do I donate to it), they do not advocate illegal activities. They just recognize that there are some adults who love children romantically. Some day, maybe society will soften the stigma against such people. If it happens, it no doubt will start with advocacy from the left.

Either way, your continuing responses to the obvious nonsense that is the NAMBLA accusation (its current source is well documented, it was started by someone who has made clear that it is a joke, and it is being used here in that manner) seem to be an indicator that your skin is very thin indeed.

My continuing responses? What are you talking about? It's my very first post to address the issue.

 

[JoeB]

Oops

 

[JoeB]

It's an actual prediction. NAMBLA is a legal organization, by the way, and as far as I know (I'm not a member, nor do I donate to it), they do not advocate illegal activities. They just recognize that there are some adults who love children romantically

That feeling when you are defending an org just because people joked about your preferred candidate donating to them...

 

[Tony Stark]

That feeling when you are defending an org just because people joked about your preferred candidate donating to them...

That feeling when it is a pedophile advocacy org.

 

[Darat]

It's an actual prediction. NAMBLA is a legal organization, by the way, and as far as I know (I'm not a member, nor do I donate to it), they do not advocate illegal activities. They just recognize that there are some adults who love children romantically. Some day, maybe society will soften the stigma against such people. If it happens, it no doubt will start with advocacy from the left.



My continuing responses? What are you talking about? It's my very first post to address the issue.

I am surprised that you think adults having sex with prepubescent children can ever be described as "romantic" and "love", each to their own I suppose, regardless of that did you miss the whole point of what people had been posting i.e satirising Trump's tactics?

 

[JPK]

Wait a second. I thought they were talking about NAMBLA the "North American Marlon Brando Look-Alikes". I learned all about them on South Park. http://southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s04e06-cartman-joins-nambla

 

[shemp]

So, is this an actual assertion of the [patently ridiculous and offensive] idea that if homosexuals are allowed to be themselves and marry, we're inevitably going to legalize sex with children? Or, is it just tacky trolling using that idea?

Either way, your continuing responses to the obvious nonsense that is the NAMBLA accusation (its current source is well documented, it was started by someone who has made clear that it is a joke, and it is being used here in that manner) seem to be an indicator that your skin is very thin indeed.

Typical Snopes cover up.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

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.

No ****. He would have to concede on some important points though before I would take a look at him. Hillary and Bill will work for whoever pays them. Trump isn't taking money from the head-choppers to chop heads off in Syria, Libya, Iraq, etc. Like McCain and Hillary have.

The Libertarians supporting the TPP throws a wrench into supporting them this time around so it is not an easy race. The greens are good on anti-war, but domestically they like big government, everything free. If you think education is expensive now, just wait 'till it is free.

 

[acbytesla]

Trump is losing Arizona

A placeholder saying "GOP nominee" could win in Arizona and Trump is losing it.

 

[Foolmewunz]

A placeholder saying "GOP nominee" could win in Arizona and Trump is losing it.

Trump supporters are going to have trouble determining who they want to shout about. They've got Obama, Hillary, The Press,... when Donald figures out the math [well, someone will tell him, at least] and he sees that "the Mormons and Mitt Romney" have rigged the elections in UT, NV, AZ.... he'll put them on his "leetle list".

 

[The Atheist]

Trump supporters are going to have trouble determining who they want to shout about. They've got Obama, Hillary, The Press,... when Donald figures out the math [well, someone will tell him, at least] and he sees that "the Mormons and Mitt Romney" have rigged the elections in UT, NV, AZ.... he'll put them on his "leetle list".

And "the only we can lose Pennsylvania is by cheating".

I wonder how the second amendment people will feel about that?

 

[SezMe]

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.

From a literary perspective and from the way the population see it. Their's is a great "sacrifice" and it has been framed or portrayed that way virtually forever.

My bolds.

I guess it is true that the politics subforum is indeed where skepticism goes to die.

ETA: My last word on this issue. It's a bit off topic and not important.

 

[SezMe]

On the other hand, eloquence is clearly of secondary importance.

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

I shall return.

Gorbachev, tear down this wall.

Sometimes, especially at the world level, eloquence can change history. Don't discount it.

 

[Foolmewunz]

My bolds.

I guess it is true that the politics subforum is indeed where skepticism goes to die.

ETA: My last word on this issue. It's a bit off topic and not important.

Sorry, it may be YOUR last word, but it's not THE last word. That's how it works in a discussion forum.

Personally, I'm content in a discussion on politics to go by the definitions of terms that are, shall we say, the most vernacular. If you don't want to go by the commonly accepted definitions of sacrifice, then you've got some convincing to do. "Well, I disagree, philosophically, so bye now" isn't going to cut it.

 

[Foolmewunz]

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

I shall return.

Gorbachev, tear down this wall.

Sometimes, especially at the world level, eloquence can change history. Don't discount it.

Speaking of "where skepticism goes to die". Not even one of those three eloquent moments changed history.

 

[SezMe]

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.

Who is a Democratic "operative"? How many are you on speaking terms with? If you are reporting on publicly available information, please provide a cite. And don't just cite an example, give a cite that shows that Reagan is remembered as a "great leader" by more than 50% of those operatives.

 

[SezMe]

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.

You know that? How? Is there a pic on the web you can point to?

I must say, sunmaster14, I used to hold that you were good at upholding conservative views. I didn't (don't) agree with those views but you defended them reasonably well.

Now, not so much.

The twists and turns you've taken in this thread to defend Trump are not reasonable - they don't stand up to skeptical standards, or any useful standards at all. For heaven's sake why not just toss Trump overboard and stand up for other GOP people and values that need defending. Trump is not worth your honor.