When Roy Blunt a mere congressperson, not a senator, his campaign signs said “Roy A. Blunt for Congress”. I heard tell that someone did a little upgrade so it said instead “Roll A Blunt for Congress”. I hope it’s true, but who knows.
4 Likes
One election cycle my friends and I had fun altering political signs of a couple of fortuitously named candidates. With Bill Boner all it took was White-Out to add an apostrophe s, and Buck Dozier was nice enough to spell out his name in yellow on a dark blue background so we used a marker to turn the B to an F.
7 Likes
6 Likes
If it’s all right for Clinton and company to wave the bloody shirt (a Civil War reference), why isn’t it all right for Trump? Clinton has voted to or otherwise supported the killing of a lot more Muslims than Trump (so far); you’d think Mr. Khan would not like that either. Of course, Trump, it seems, would like to catch up.
Maybe I should go away until after the election. Things are just getting too stupid.
Unfortunately that’s about the level of discourse Drumpf understands. Not to mention his minions.
4 Likes
She’ll have to put some twitter drones on it then; to keep it at his attention level.
1 Like
Clinton’s past vote for AUMF and her support for military operations as Sec State have received heaps of criticism from the left and the right. Clinton’s responded by attempting to explain her actions, but hasn’t attacked the families of those who criticized her or responded in any way like Trump has.
Trump was criticized by Khizir Khan for policies that would have barred him and his family from entering the country. His criticisms were that Trump wants to pursue excluding people, disrespecting judges, the entire judicial system, immigrants, Muslim immigrants in ways that are totally against basic constitutional principles. Trump responded by attacking Khan and his wife with islamophobic bigotry and claims of being persecuted for being criticized (as well as bringing in attack dogs to claim Khan was part of the Islamic Brotherhood).
Equivocate all you like, but those are not equivalent at all.
13 Likes
True. As far as we know, Trump has not killed anybody – yet. I noted that. I feel that Clinton’s use of the Khan family for political gain was unseemly, but it’s not much of an offense compared to the other stuff that’s going around. I don’t go much by what Trump says, but as far as I know his proposed prohibition of Muslim immigration, dumb as it was, referred only to those who had not yet immigrated, not to people like Mr. and Mrs. Khan. But this is merely a fact, and we know what facts are worth in the present rhetorical environment.
I don’t see any equivocation, though. What equivocation? Clinton has actually had people killed – thousands and thousands of people, mostly Muslims. Trump hasn’t. There’s no equivalence there, until Trump catches up.
Let’s be fair. Clinton was secretary of state as war was happening. She didn’t individually choose people to murder, like a thug. Saying “she’s had thousands of people killed” makes it sound like nobody else in the US Government is involved in war activities.
Donald Trump was factually involved in mafia activities in the 80s. You could just as easily peg him as an accessory to any deaths happening within the mob as related to his business activities at that time.
13 Likes
The article is about Trump’s response to criticism. It’s not about Trump or Clinton killing anyone. Feel free to change subjects and drag in tangents to create some false equivocation unrelated to anything but the narrative you’ve invented. I’m not interested in carrying on with your game though. I’m out.
13 Likes
I wanna see that!!!
2 Likes
You mean like the vast majority of people in the U.S.? Race, religion, sex, gender, economic status…the list goes on and on.
Keep in mind this is what women have to deal with in every election. EVERY election. There is always at least one major candidate running on a platform of denying or at least curtailing human and civil rights to 51% of the population.
14 Likes
Warren Buffett is in line. I think after Cuban.
1 Like
Clinton voted to support Bush’s invasion of Iraq, which was a war crime, certain to be the cause of death, mutilation, torture, terror, and so on. Her subsequent career doubled down on this decision. In a way, it’s worse than thuggishly having specific persons killed. She didn’t care about her victims at all – she was just advancing her political career, or so she believed. The fact that others were involved, or that Trump may have been connected with the Mafia – ‘everybody does it’ – has no bearing on the character of Clinton’s malign (or stupid) actions.
During a presidential election, an article appears (one of many) slagging out one of the major-party candidates, and this has nothing to do with the other or the election?
As did Trump’s running mate, which Trump is very okay with.
8 Likes
Your broad point that Clinton is monstrous on foreign policy is one I agree with. If I thought there was a no more incinerating people candidate I’d be backing that candidate (with words on the internet, since I don’t get a vote).
And if Trump had replied to Khan’s speech by saying, “I have deep sympathy for Mr. and Mrs. Khan for their loss. What I hope to do as president is to stop having pointless foreign wars in the first place so we don’t have families losing their children. Unlike Hillary Clinton, I haven’t supported or voted for the kind of pointless conflict that Captain Khan lost his life in.” Then I would be fine with his response. Instead, he decided to cast aspersions on Islam by saying that he thought Mrs. Khan was not allowed to speak.
It is completely fair to say that Hillary Clinton doesn’t care about non-American lives. Donald Trump, I’m pretty sure, doesn’t care about non-Donald-Trump lives, and appears to actively wish away the lives of Muslims.
If someone wants to vote for Trump because they think Americans will kill fewer people under a Trump presidency than under a Clinton one, I would tell them that I wholeheartedly support choosing a candidate on that basis, but that I find their premise very suspect. I think the number of people that would be killed by US foreign (and domestic) policy under Trump is far more uncertain than the number that would be killed by under Clinton. I can’t see any reason to believe it would be lower.
11 Likes
To be totally clear (since your phrasing is sort of weird): voting for the invasion of Iraq was most definitely not a “war crime”. When she and many other senators voted for that invasion, they were being fed misinformation which most certainly made it seem like a logical step. It wasn’t until much later that we learned that the Iraq invasion was under false pretenses and lies. Context is very important here.
11 Likes
-
It wasn’t an offense of any kind. And, I wonder, what does the “other stuff that’s going around” include?
-
Oh, well that makes it okay. /s
5 Likes
Correct. As Trump also is said to have done. So they’re all accomplice war criminals, although Clinton, having had the most powerful position at the time, might be said to bear the greatest responsibility.
