Trump shoves foot in mouth, again

[/QUOTE]

I and others have posted thousands of words on the topic.

 

I'd agree that they had to approve what was in that speech. Not leaving much to chance is an admirable quality in a president, wouldn't you say?

 

Even when it is an easily provable lie?

 

And the proof? Lol! That's right; there is none.

 

If you are referring to the email server thang, I don't believe John Q has any idea what is going on. Especially after Comey's press conference.

 

Anyone with an 8th grade education understood what Trump said and why. Pretty much explains why you don't.

- - - Updated - - -

So if Trump doesn't win you are threatening violence?

We'll be sure to write that post on your tombstone.

 

Trump is best understood by listening to what he actually says, not be distorting it into something he didn't say, as you do. Sorry to see that you did not make it past the 7th grade.

 

I see where this time it took you till the 3rd paragraph to reveal your anti-white racism and anti-American bigotries. Yet, you want us to believe that we are the hateful racist ones. How quaint.

 

You don't read very well, do you? Of course you have no idea that your comprehension is incredibly poor, or that you are distorting things up to fit your own illusions.

Trump was never mentioned. NO threat of violence was made. The point was also once made in a speech by President John F Kennedy:
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

Can you read that without twisting it up?




Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/johnfkenn101159.html

 

Boss, most of us here do not speak in tongue, or have a special code language from which we deliver our messages. That said, I haven't a clue what these threats of violence are all about? Maybe you can elaborate for us all what it is you are really talking about?

 

What? 293? I didn't realize we were discussing the threats of violence from another poster?

I thought I was talking about refugees who haven't committed terrorist acts, while you changed the narrative to terrorists who have, for reasons I can't explain?

 

It was the Khans who used their dead son for Hillary's political gain.

That's more than disgusting.

 

Do you feel the same way about Patricia Smith using her dead son for Drumpf's political gain?

 

Patricia Smith became vocal about Hillary Clinton back in 2012 when Hillary lied to Patricia saying her son was killed over a youtube video.

Back in 2012 Hillary was still the Secretary of State and Donald Trump was building really big things and wasn't on the political radar.

 

Let's see. Well, first, Drumpf was on the political radar in 2012. Or don't you remember his dalliance with the Republican primaries that year? Or his ridiculous accusations around that same time about the President's birth certificate? (And BTW, when IS Baby Hands going to release that "absolutely unbelievable" stuff his super-duper investigators found in Hawaii? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...absolutely-unbelievable-birther-investigation)

Second, do I understand you to believe that, in order for someone to publicly speak their political opinion, they must have been speaking it for 4 years? Or is 2 years sufficient? What is the cutoff before one can exercise their First Amendment rights at a political convention? I don't remember ever seeing Chachi at a convention before; what right did he have to speak his opinion at the RNC?

Third, you're right that Drumpf has never lied to the Khans, but that's only because he's never met the Khans. If he had, it's a pretty good bet that whatever came out of his mouth would have been less than truthful. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

Fourth, the Khans have never spoken about this publicly before because no presidential candidate has ever proposed a religious test before. Maybe because it's unconstitutional. Speaking of which:

Fifth, Mr. Khan was obviously correct in his assumption that Drumpf has never read the Constitution since, with unintentional irony, Drumpf tweeted that Mr. Khan had "no right" to say that he'd never read it. Of course, we already knew that Drumpf ("I'm for Article XII") is unfamiliar with it.

And finally, you don't really want to get into a discussion about Baby Hands' business history, do you? http://www.newsweek.com/2016/08/12/donald-trumps-business-failures-election-2016-486091.html

 

But I think it's far more fundamental and disturbing than any of that. Why is it that he can't let any criticism go by without lashing out? Patricia Smith said that Hillary should be in jail, among other things. What was Hillary's response to that? Silence. When asked in a interview, she expressed sympathy for Mrs. Smith. She did not attack. She did not question her motives. She expressed sympathy.

And that's what any normal human being would do when confronted with grieving parents. For most of us that's just instinct, or at least common sense. You don't go after the grief-stricken. If Drumpf felt compelled to invoke the magic words *radical Islamic terror*, surely there were other targets for his rage. Why go after the Khans? Because they had said something mean about him. And that's something his fragile ego can't stand. He must lash out at anyone who criticizes. And I think that's what America has judged as very ugly, and very troubling in someone who wants to be commander in chief.

Do you think that Drumpf understands that sitting presidents are the world's largest target for criticism? Does he understand that if elected, he will be criticized 24/7, from left and right, at home and abroad, in Congress, in the press, on twitter? How is he going to handle that? There aren't enough hours in the day to feud with the number of people who will be criticizing him. We will have a president whose mission in life is to get revenge on the meanies who say bad things about him. Is that what you want in the Oval Office?

 

You could go back to 1986 when Trump first talked politics in an interview.

But Trump wasn't on the political radar with the majority of Americans as someone who might be running for POTUS.

As for speaking at the RNC or even the DNC, one doesn't have to have political ambitions to speak at either one.

Clint Eastwood also took to the stage at the 2012 RNC.

Clint Eastwood only ran for political office once, 1986 when he successfully was elected as Mayor of Carmel, California only to stop the insane ADA PC regulations that required small businesses to build wheelchair ramps to the roof just incase if a roofer is confined to a wheelchair when the roof needs to be reroofed.

 

The Benghazi mother at the RNC was really animated. She accused Hillary Clinton of being responsible for her son's death rather than the terrorists who actually killed her son. She also led a rabid pack of GOP imbeciles in a chant of "lock her up". Cheap political trick but pretty effective in firing up the Clinton Haters. At the DNC, Kahn is sent in to show that Donald Trump is a horses ass for demeaning all Muslims, and that many are patriotic Americans. Cheap political trick, but effective at demonstrating what a moron Donald Trump is.

The only thing that makes this an issue is that Trump, nit wit that he is, had to shoot his big mouth off the next day and insult Mr. and Mrs. Kahn the next day. Mrs. Clinton, smart politician that she is, just let it go as she realized there was no upside to engaging this woman that maliciously attacked her on national TV.

These kinds of judgements could be the difference in who wins in November.

 

Kahn is a Islamist lawyer who practices Sharia law and who's in the business of bringing Muslims to America who support Sharia law.

Trump is a threat to jihadist and Sharia law in America just like Trump is a threat to world globalization.

The Kahn's met with President Obama just around the same time the Muslim Brotherhood met with Obama at the White House.

 

I realize that the clueless are increasing in number exponentially- in the midst of a forest of clues the size of billboards. That's blindness, not clueless. I also know that you can paint the picture in grade-school simplicity, and most of them will still be clueless.

Follow the revolutionary war.
* The king of England governed the colonies, with great injustice.
* The colonies petitioned for redress of their grievances.
* The king effectively said, "Screw you, I'm the king and I don't have to be fair"
* Lacking any course to resolve the injustice by peaceful means, a violent war followed.

Have a clue yet?

Of course, there are a few who can see the core picture- but of course those who can are certainly not clueless. Assuming you are not really among the clueless, I will clarify it.

Your government political system is running on a self-made system of corruption (Not the constitutional model) where money and power take strong precedence over fulfilling the duty of serving the people. ALL politicians must sell influence to raise money to run a campaign and get elected. ALL candidates must become compliant enough to the major parties will to get their support, (virtually impossible to get elected without it) and lock in the portion of the vote of those who vote straight party line. (Mostly clueless) Now bear in mind that this entrenched standard of corruption is one built by the politicians themselves, that has become so powerful that it controls the whole process. If they are victims of it, they are victims of their own greed and lust for power.

Money and power run politics. They need the power to get the money; they need the money to stay in office and get the power, which includes the ability to sell the influence and get the money (And re-election) again. YOU, the voter, are the source of both. They get operating money by taxing you, regulating (and controlling) you, and by selling influence over regulation to benefit the big money contributors. They reinforce their power to do that by making you dependent on them- and you give up control and freedom for the promise of security or government aid (taking money from you and giving some of it back with strings attached), which always means the people are more and more dependent on the government, and less willing to think independently... and thereby the power of the government to control the people is increased, while our power to resist the erosion of freedom and independence is decreased. This situation is self-perpetuating and self-expanding, not static. It will reach a critical and volatile state.

Not all Americans are sheep; indeed we come from highly independent and self sufficient people, capable of great things- and clear thinking. These people are NOT clueless. Their numbers are growing too- and their patience with the persistent expansion of political corruption is shrinking. If the situation continues to worsen, you will find more and more of the sheep developing backbone, thinking for themselves, and finding they are no longer clueless. They tend to be a little more than angry when that is realized.

* The government governs the American people, with great and growing injustice. They spy on them, lie to them, steal from them, manipulate them and fail them.
* The people have been petitioning for redress of their grievances, in a multitude of ways for a very long time- yet the situation continues to degrade.
* The government, it it's own way, says "Screw you- we give your complaints lip service promises and you have the ability to replace old crooks with new crooks, that's all you get."
*

Can you write the bottom line, the extension of where such a course of events will lead?

The objective is not violence- that is a last resort of a desperate people who have exhausted alternate resources. That situation is not created by the people, but by the indifference of corrupt government. Corruption is done "legally", meaning that there is no contract or direct way to prove that the money changing hands was specifically in payment for the political benefit delivered. The fact it is done under the table makes only one difference, which is the protection from prosecution. It is still blatantly dishonest, still totally unethical, still a violation of fiduciary duty and ethics- but difficult to charge as a criminal act. In other words, the system runs by selling out the people they are sworn to serve in order to maintain itself. That IS a true situation, denied by those who do it but proven by the process itself. Follow the money and resulting favors- the pattern is consistent.

The objective is to restore a more honorable government that serves the nation and makes it strong, and that is impossible with out a reform of the entire system- one that makes honorable conduct an absolute condition of holding office, and provides the people with the means and power to immediately terminate (as in you are fired, clean out your desk now) any person holding major political position (including congress) for violation of the oath of office, violation of the ethics of office, or violation of the fiduciary duty to which all these people are subject to. Unless you are in favor of corruption, you have got to be in favor of demanding honesty and integrity from those we grant such power to. If those in power refuse to run the government honestly and reject all peaceful efforts to improve it, what is likely to happen?

John F Kennedy: Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

 

Could you show me the proof that you think you have that "most" here haven't seen the interview?

No, you can't. So why would anything you post be credible?

And the first thing you had to do was change the subject..


""" Seeing how this was a Clinton propaganda machine setup don't you find any disgust for Clinton using these parents?

BTW: What has Clinton sacrificed? Oh yeah, she had to duck and run from sniper fire. LOL """"""



............by doing that you admitted what Trump did was disgusting and shameful and not acting like a decent human being which he is incapable of doing.....



Question: Did CLINTON claim she made a sacrifice like what those parents did ? NO! She did not.

But Trump did....he equated creating jobs and making money with losing a child....gee, nice guy you support

 

It's not enough for the reality tv performer to repeatedly take his eyes off the prize as he goes off on his vindictive tantrumps against anyone with the temerity not to worship him - including, among others, America's Gold Star families, US military veterans, and Republican office holders:

His "foot in mouth" affliction is bipedal, as he seems convinced that every inane remark he makes must be repeated:

Well, at least his obsessive-compulsive disorder saves most Americans from saying, "Oh Mein Gott! He didn't actually say that, did he?"



.

 

Trump needs to find Ivanka a "Trump costume" and put her on in his stead and "he" would win the election hands down..!!

 

So basically you admit Trump actually did things for Americans while Hillary only got them killed.

 

Excellent and most expected sidestep ...

NO where in my post did I "admit Trump did things for Americans"....learn to read without your Trump glasses:

""Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post

Could you show me the proof that you think you have that "most" here haven't seen the interview?

No, you can't. So why would anything you post be credible?

And the first thing you had to do was change the subject..






............by doing that you admitted what Trump did was disgusting and shameful and not acting like a decent human being which he is incapable of doing.....



Question: Did CLINTON claim she made a sacrifice like what those parents did ? NO! She did not.

But Trump did....he equated creating jobs and making money with losing a child....gee, nice guy you support """

***********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************


See, I didn't "admit" anything HE did.....did I make that great big word "he" big enough to be read ????




But still glaring....your inability to address anything else in the post...for instance still looking for your
"proof" that you think you have that "most" here haven't seen the interview? ""