Politico
- Thread starter Fingon
- Start date
He won around 50% of the GOP primary vote. He has to consolidate all of that support and then some to overcome the disadvantage the GOP starts with. I think it will work.
I hope he doesn't. I also hope Hillary doesn't win. So I'm going to lose this election regardless.
If we're going by your prediction batting average, you've been losing this election for a long time. ;-)
If Trump had lick of sense he would have issued a full apology on Saturday and moved on. That he doesn't simply shows both his narcissism and political naivete'.
Trump made a federal case in the Stephanopoulos interview about the mother not talking. I thought GS missed an opportunity to ask him why Melania is every bit as mute as the old lady when she's standing on the dais when the mic is in his hand.
Anyway, even though Hillary's campaign may have found a bit of a soft spot in the until-now impenetrable Trump deflector shield, they better be careful as to not overplay their hand with Khan or the entire situation could easily backfire on them.
Anyway, even though Hillary's campaign may have found a bit of a soft spot in the until-now impenetrable Trump deflector shield, they better be careful as to not overplay their hand with Khan or the entire situation could easily backfire on them.
I have been away from the news for several days but I haven't seen much from Clinton campaign on Trump being an idiot on this other than the obvious that Trump isn't qualified to be CIC. They should just be quiet and let the republicans roast trump and continue letting Donald sticking his foot in his mouth.
The circumstances are different today. Again, Trump is saying some awful things. Hillary did some awful things. People are going to measure Trump's words against Hillary's deeds. Did Trump ever act or fail to act in such a way as to cause the death of anyone? Can a case be made that Hillary allowed political expediency to interfere with decisions that ultimately cost Americans their lives?
To put it another way, you're stationed at an embassy in a Middle East country with strained relations with the US. The embassy is attacked. Who is more likely to send in US forces to rescue you, and who is more likely to allow the local government to handle the situation and not risk further straining the relationship?
[QUOTE="To put it another way, you're stationed at an embassy in a Middle East country with strained relations with the US. The embassy is attacked. Who is more likely to send in US forces to rescue you, and who is more likely to allow the local government to handle the situation and not risk further straining the relationship?[/QUOTE]
And who is more likely to:
a.) Not even know where the country is on a map, much less have an informed, contextualized understanding of the issues in play based on rational analysis of the known facts?
b.) Eschew the advice and analysis of seasoned and experienced subject matter experts in his DoD, CIA, etc.?
c.) Make a gut-based mistake based on such a misunderstanding, combined with the most brazen of confidence--living out in real-time the Dunning-Kruger effect with our national security interests as the stakes?
And who is more likely to:
a.) Not even know where the country is on a map, much less have an informed, contextualized understanding of the issues in play based on rational analysis of the known facts?
b.) Eschew the advice and analysis of seasoned and experienced subject matter experts in his DoD, CIA, etc.?
c.) Make a gut-based mistake based on such a misunderstanding, combined with the most brazen of confidence--living out in real-time the Dunning-Kruger effect with our national security interests as the stakes?
What "won't work" is Trump using the same tactics in a general election as he did to get the GOP nomination.
I'm reminded of a joke I heard long ago and I forget some of it but the point re. the current discussion is this. There was a guy named Bob that went golfing at a tournament where there were always teams of two and Bob's partner didn't show that day so he needed another partner.
Someone suggested, "How about that gorilla over there? He's a good golfer." Bob scoffed. So the other guy said "Watch this." And he teed up a golf ball and gave the gorilla a driver and the gorilla walked up to the ball and whacked it 400 yards on a straight line. Bob said "Wow, that gorilla really can golf, I'll take him on my team."
So the tournament starts and the first hole is a 400 yard par 4. And the gorilla takes out a driver and goes to the tee and whacks a 400 yard drive that stops three feet from the cup. And Bob thinks "We're gonna win this tournament for sure.'
Then eventually they get to the green and the gorilla takes a putter and walks up to the ball and.....drives it 400 yards.
The moral is, Trump can drive a golf ball 400 yards (or do his schtick he did to get the GOP nomination) but he can't do anything else. He can't hit from the fairway, he can't pitch, he can't bunker shots and he can't put. But he can drive the ball 400 yards every day of the week. There are lots of different political skills and Trump can do one really well and the others not at all.
http://conservativetribune.com/khizr-khan-tie-saudia-clinton/
It turns out that Khan has several connections to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton through the government of Saudi Arabia, a prestigious law firm associated with the Clinton Family Foundation, and even his own personal law firm, which assists wealthy Muslims with immigration to the U.S.
Khan used to work for the prestigious D.C. law firm Hogan Lovells, LLP, formerly known as Hogan & Hartson, which is on retainer as the primary law firm representing Saudi Arabian interests in the U.S. As we all know, the Saudi government, and numerous individuals within that government, have donated heavily to the Clinton Foundation.
On top of that, one of Hogan Lovell’s lobbyists bundled more than $50,000 in donations to Hillary Clinton’s campaign this year. In case one would dismiss this as a mere coincidence, one lawyer among many, Khan is still greatly revered at the firm, where he was a beloved colleague joined in mourning over the death of his son in 2004 in the Iraq War.
It has also been revealed that the same law firm handles the taxes of Bill and Hillary Clinton, specifically, a lawyer named Howard Topaz, who is alleged to have worked with Khan in the past.
Furthermore, the Hogan law firm handled the patent for a special spam-filtering program known as MX Logic, which, coincidentally, was the spam filter program used on Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
As a side note, adding just another layer of coincidence, is the fact that Hogan & Hartson used to employ one Loretta Lynch, now attorney general of the U.S., and the one most responsible for Clinton seemingly escaping accountability for her use of a private email server to handle classified documents while serving as secretary of state.
It turns out that Khan has several connections to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton through the government of Saudi Arabia, a prestigious law firm associated with the Clinton Family Foundation, and even his own personal law firm, which assists wealthy Muslims with immigration to the U.S.
Khan used to work for the prestigious D.C. law firm Hogan Lovells, LLP, formerly known as Hogan & Hartson, which is on retainer as the primary law firm representing Saudi Arabian interests in the U.S. As we all know, the Saudi government, and numerous individuals within that government, have donated heavily to the Clinton Foundation.
On top of that, one of Hogan Lovell’s lobbyists bundled more than $50,000 in donations to Hillary Clinton’s campaign this year. In case one would dismiss this as a mere coincidence, one lawyer among many, Khan is still greatly revered at the firm, where he was a beloved colleague joined in mourning over the death of his son in 2004 in the Iraq War.
It has also been revealed that the same law firm handles the taxes of Bill and Hillary Clinton, specifically, a lawyer named Howard Topaz, who is alleged to have worked with Khan in the past.
Furthermore, the Hogan law firm handled the patent for a special spam-filtering program known as MX Logic, which, coincidentally, was the spam filter program used on Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
As a side note, adding just another layer of coincidence, is the fact that Hogan & Hartson used to employ one Loretta Lynch, now attorney general of the U.S., and the one most responsible for Clinton seemingly escaping accountability for her use of a private email server to handle classified documents while serving as secretary of state.
I really don't give a **** about all of that. The only thing that matters to me is Capt. Khan made the ultimate sacrifice as a Muslim American and his parents are now getting treated in a very disgraceful manner because little, crooked, lyin' Donnie got his feelings hurt.
And who is more likely to:
a.) Not even know where the country is on a map, much less have an informed, contextualized understanding of the issues in play based on rational analysis of the known facts?
b.) Eschew the advice and analysis of seasoned and experienced subject matter experts in his DoD, CIA, etc.?
c.) Make a gut-based mistake based on such a misunderstanding, combined with the most brazen of confidence--living out in real-time the Dunning-Kruger effect with our national security interests as the stakes?[/QUOTE]
Hillary would know the location instantly. Thru the Clinton Foundation she has all potential donors pinpointed. Amazing difference between the two candidates. Donald is a negotiator for the US. Hillary has experience in extortion practices for Clinton Foundation.
Amazing analysis. "Really don't give a ****". That is obviously the way the press looks at it. During the past two weeks, the free press has devoted 70 seconds to the Smith lady who lost a son. For the same time period the same press devoted 57 MINUTES to coverage of Muslim who lost a son 12 years ago. The press didn't give a **** either(about one loss).
Now 82 has done a little research and discovered the Muslim father to be a well connected lawyer with a past association with Clintons. Part of his income comes from getting passage for Muslims into the country. He would suffer greatly if Hillary is not in office to continue business as usual. He had more than a passing interest in Dem Convention.
What about the Mrs. Khan who observed convention delivery frozen like a mummy? Trump asked why she didn't speak. She says that she is too grief stricken to talk about it or see a picture of her son. That is a possibility, but highly unlikely that she is that emotional after 12 years have elapsed. More likely reason for silence, is that wife is to remain silent while husband is talking as Muslims. Neither I nor Trump offer the "don't give a ****" as reason for silence.
A distraction was offered and Trump accepted the challenge to deviate from the item the population gives as the highest priority. The ECONOMY has to be Trump's central topic. 1.2% growth is a topic that Trump can hit hard. Obama and successor cannot defend it. Plenty time to address things needing correction, but Trump has to be on ECONOMY at every stop. Somebody has got to be pro-active in addressing the problems that Dems "don't give a **** " about.
Um, because they didn't mention it at all when they had the national podium?
Come to think of it, noone from the Democratic platform mentioned it. At all.
They certainly did last night on PBS's NewsHour.
Several people spoke about radical Islam at the DNC
You shouldn't let your caricature of Trump become confused with the actual person. Do you really find he makes decisions based on gut feelings and not based on facts and advice? I worry more about loyalty over national interests than I do about gut feelings. He speaks rashly. I have not seen evidence he acts rashly.
But if an American is in trouble in the Middle East and President H.R. Clinton is making the decisions I'm sure he will have plenty of mourners at his closed-casket viewing.
Last edited:
WEll said , well said. People laugh when I said we could have flown suppression flights from Italy. I got that from an Air force colonel who flew them. He said they run like rabbits.
People laugh because you make it sound as simple as just telling AF pilots to run to their aircraft and fly someplace and start shooting.
Again, you have no clue what suppression flights are. Ask around from somebody that would know. They fly low over a target and those skinnies think that there is some heavy duty **** coming their way like a AC 130 gunship. My guy, who told me this, fought in ever war from Kosovo till the last gulf war and broke his back in Tora Bora looking for the big guy. Unlike me and certainly unlike you, he is a war hero. He has some hair raisng tales form fighting on the ground in Ramadi and Najaf. He did everything from flying fighters to B52 to being an air combat control officer who called in the strikes. He said suppression flights work, he's been personally involved. Do you have anybody that you personally know that will say what he is saying isn't true?
1) It takes an hour and a half to get from our nearest base to the embassy and
2) people on the ground entering a building or compound didn't just quit because an aircraft flew over at low altitude.
Geez Louise!
The compound came under attack before 4pm. Libyan forces were still trying to regain control of the compound 4 hours later.
Also, 1 1/2 hours to respond is a spin. In order to get perform an air assault the Marines would need 1 1/2 hours. A gunship could have been there in less time.
What was available in the area? What was ready to go in the area? What sort of resistance are they facing? If they were shot down, would there be assets available for rescue? Lots of questions to be answered. Also, fueling and arming take time if nothing is ready.
I'm not defending the decision to not fly something over there, but we can't act like we are only looking at flight time to get to the site. You have to brief on the situation, send something armed with something that will be useful, know what you are getting into. That's discounting the possibility that this isn't just a diversion intended to draw assets away from another, bigger target. We can arm chair QB this until the cows come home, but that doesn't reflect what the concerns were at the time of the incident.
I certainly hope these kinds of questions wouldn't plague our military in an emergency. Kinda puts a crimp in the rapid response concept.
Why is it more complicated? They could get instruction and coordinate the effort during flight. Orders to clear perimeter . This is not a major offense. Give those inside a more even confrontation. If the crowds do not disburse after a couple passes, allow them to be removed on a gurney. I have no experience in what I am advocating, but I know our military is more capable than what was displayed. Two did not have a chance to survive. But, two could have been given aide or cover to have a chance.
Instead of rescue, our troops were give "stand down" order by their superiors.
Evidently the most important question was "what to wear". That's what happens when you put a woman in charge(joke).
I think Pete Dawkins called for direct hit on his location. Others have been storied to have done the same. Give those on the ground a chance to survive or make the cost very high. Collateral damage is expected in heavily populated area. What assets were available, I have no idea, but I doubt it is SOP to leave planes unserviced until the next mission is assigned. I truly suspect that all planes in hot areas are serviced immediately.
Never been in the situation, but it doesn't prevent me from thinking. Granted, I offer nothing but conversation.
I've been thinking about this today; he certainly can do some things very well.
By pretty much anyone's standard, the guy is as good at promoting himself as anyone And he's obviously got the reputation for developing Commercial real estate, though I honestly have no clue what his true success batting average is. My gut feeling is its better than .500......possibly far better....... but his failures in those high-profile Atlantic City projects (IMO) taint his generalized reputation to a fair degree; perhaps more than is fair given how glittering some of his successes have clearly been.
He's also good at beating down the little guy when he's got the leveraged business position. I've never gotten the impression he's interested in doing business with anyone when the negotiating table with the other parties is anything other than slanted his direction To that extent, he's clearly good at taking advantage of a given situation; something he won't have the good fortune to have when dealing with that miserable Left-wing in Congress (just as Obama couldn't do with that equally-miserable Right-wing the last 8 years).
I've been wondering how badly he and Chuck Schumer will want to jam a gavel up the other's *** if he becomes President..
At that point take it to the voters. Explain your position and what the expected outcome is. What will be the outcome if Chuckie position prevails. Ronnie did it rather effective and later he just had to threaten.
Heard on the news today that Gold Star parents should not be questioned, and should be able to say whatever they please without fear of being attacked over it.
What a crock of **** and what a hypocritical crock from the left.
In terms of Trumps successes and failures... even if he's only Jim Justice rich... he's still done something right to make that much money. And many times the success of others comes at the failures of others.
What a crock of **** and what a hypocritical crock from the left.
In terms of Trumps successes and failures... even if he's only Jim Justice rich... he's still done something right to make that much money. And many times the success of others comes at the failures of others.
The AC thing wasn't just his failure, by a damn site. The Taj was THE hotel in AC for a very long time. Trump rode it as the bell cow of his empire for a very long time. AC as a city **** the bed, Trump saw it coming and got out. I'm not sure how anything in AC can be spun as a negative for Trump.
Honest question. Have you ever had to run a major corporate enterprise, manage a project/program, or negotiate a contract? Everything you described is all part of it. If you have the opportunity to put your boot on someone's throat to leverage a position, you do it. Also, if you are negotiating from a position of weakness, you know it going in and do anything you possibly can to move things along as fast as possible.
Now, with that said, I don't condone fvcking someone over just because you can. That's what Jim Justice has done to a lot of vendors and suppliers. But, if there is a contract signed up to that is agreed to and there are clauses in the contract and or Statement of Work not being met, you better bet your ***, I'm going to withhold fee, refuse payment, etc and make your *** sue me to get it. It's called business.
All the left's horseshit handwringing about the Bankrupties etc of Trump tell me one thing, they don't understand business. The number of startup businesses that fail outweigh those that succeed by a large margin. It takes someone with vision to even try. If it succeeds, it creates jobs. He attempts to create, I respect thT