yeah, there IS a goddamn difference

So the binary choice is between a proven asshole and the proven liar.  

The advantage goes to the liar cuz its easier to deny being lied to than to deny being insulted. 

That and the liar promises the most free stuff.

 

 islander wrote: 
A ha! An optimist!

 VV wrote: 
Yes. Bullseye. 

Trump's no-apology approach works when he's talking about politicians or celebrities or famous people. To Trump supporters, they're fair game and deserving of rough treatment. But that "strength" looks ugly and hateful when he hurts regular people. That WashPo article I pointed to in my previous post just below reports that Trump's mocking of a disabled NYT reporter really stuck in the craw of focus groups. Like attacking the Khans, that kind of behavior is out of bounds; it's cruel and bullying. 

Trump will have to make friends with more voters in order to win. I don't think he's capable of that or showing compassion and humility. 
 

 haresfur wrote: 
From David Brooks, on Sunday:

"And I wonder what this moral pygmy on top of a ticket what’s doing to the country and what will do as President.’"

 Steely_D wrote: 
Seems like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell have found their balls and are criticizing Douchebag Don as well, along with other GOP politicians: 

 

Some interesting points from this WashPo article (emphases are mine):

 

Khan confrontation keys in on human decency — and that could haunt Trump



“Nobody minds when he attacks other politicians; in fact, they like it. He’s instilling an ­accountability that doesn’t exist. But they don’t like it when he goes after real people, and they wish he would stop,” said GOP pollster Frank Luntz, who conducted a focus group about Trump with voters Friday in Columbus, Ohio.

...

Critics believe that in the case of the Khans, Trump has gone way too far, comparing it to a famed turning point for McCarthyism in the 1950s. Grilled by then-Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy at a congressional hearing as part of the Wisconsin Republican’s crusade to root out communist sympathizers, then-Army counsel Joseph N. Welch asked, “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”

Initial reports suggest the Khan episode has hurt Trump, at least for now. A pair of national polls taken over the weekend and released Monday showed a ­sizable bump for Clinton, suggesting the Khan affair, coupled with a successful Democratic convention, was working to her advantage. Clinton led 52 percent to 43 percent in a CNN-ORC survey and 47 percent to 41 percent in a CBS News survey.

Polls consistently show that Trump’s biggest vulnerabilities are on questions of character and temperament. Three-quarters of Americans said Trump does not show enough respect for people he disagrees with, and 55 percent said this was a “major problem,” according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll in May.

...

Democratic strategist Stephanie Cutter, a former adviser to Obama, said Trump’s comments about the Khans are breaking through to voters because they violate people’s expectations of decency and empathy.

“They worry about what kind of role model this sets for their kids,” Cutter said. “They don’t want a president who is insulting people based on their disability or religion or gender or threatening to knock somebody in the head.”

 

 

 Steely_D wrote: 
From the VFW statement:

When you question a mother’s pain, by implying that her religion, not her grief, kept her from addressing an arena of people, you are attacking us,” the Gold Star families wrote. “When you say your job building buildings is akin to our sacrifice, you are attacking our sacrifice.”

 

 haresfur wrote: 
When the VFW comes after you, it's not so good.
Particularly if you've been beating your chest about how you want to take care of veterans. 

 haresfur wrote: 
No, not today.

Washington Post front page:

14 articles mentioning Trump
2 mentioning Clinton (and one was Howard Stern wanting her to come on his show) 

All publicity is good publicity 

 Steely_D wrote: 
You do have one. Her name is Hillary.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
Ayup. Their minds are made up, don't try to confuse them with facts. The antichrist they believe Clinton to be cannot hold a candle to the horrors that will be visited upon us - and the rest of the world - if this psychopath gets in the white house.

 VV wrote:
Every time he stuck his foot in it and said something idiotic or unbelievably cruel or clueless or transparently dishonest I thought "Stick a fork in him, he's done, no way he's coming back from that" and every time I've been wrong. I have given up making predictions about this race.

All I can conclude is that his supporters just aren't listening. They're projecting what they want him to be onto that fake-gold-leaf-framed canvas and nothing about who he really is is going to get in the way of that vision. That, or they hate Hillary so much that they will take any alternative. An empty lawn chair. A painting of Ronald Reagan on black velvet. A bucket of rancid deep-fat-fryer grease last used to cook babies.

Anything but a third party candidate.

 VV wrote: 

 skyguy wrote: 
He's a genius, I tell ya. If you don't believe me, just ask him.

 kcar wrote: 
The thing that completely floored me was Trump's thinly veiled insinuation that the mother didn't speak because her religious affiliation would not allow her to. So what? If that were even true (it's not)... who cares? How does that take away from the ultimate sacrifice that their son made for this country?

When Trump tried to make that an issue, I could clearly see that Trump didn't want to acknowledge the ultimate sacrifice that the Khan's son made and didn't understand the message being delivered. He decided instead to try and derail that message because lashing blindly back at any derogatory statements made about him by anyone is Trump's modis operandi. Trump has never once apologized for any of the stupid statements/actions he has made throughout his campaign and this will never change. For to apologize in Trump's world would be an admission that he was wrong and to apologize would also show weakness. These are two things that he could never admit to himself or anyone else so we are simply left with the fallout of a sulking, petulant, emotionally stunted, egotistical bully that is prone to verbal tantruming at the drop of a hat.   

 

He appears to be getting his foreign policy notes from Sara Palin:

TRUMP: It’s ― look, you know, I have my own ideas. He’s not going into Ukraine, OK, just so you understand. He’s not gonna go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down. You can put it down. You can take it anywhere you want ―

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, he’s already there, isn’t he?

TRUMP: OK― well, he’s there in a certain way. But I’m not there. You have Obama there. And frankly, that whole part of the world is a mess under Obama with all the strength that you’re talking about and all of the power of NATO and all of this. In the meantime, he’s going away. He take ― takes Crimea. He’s sort of, I mean ―

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you said you might recognize that.

TRUMP: I’m gonna take a look at it. But you know, the people of Crimea, from what I’ve heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were. And you have to look at that, also. Now, that was under ― just so you understand, that was done under Obama’s administration.

 

 VV wrote: 
I'm increasingly convinced that Trump peaked shortly after the GOP convention and that he has nowhere to go but down from here on out. 

Trump succeeded in part by personifying the frustration and anger of his base, those feeling economically and socially threatened. His supporters were looking for someone who would criticize both parties and the national political system. They were looking for an outsider with a reputation for success who would promise to knock over the whole rotten system, someone who wouldn't apologize or mince his words. Trump looked successful in business and talked about his track record of creating jobs. He realized that he could appeal to voters' anger by lashing out against political correctness. He's trying to project an image of energy, infallible judgment, and unapologetic truth-telling. He succeeded largely by taking his reality-show persona into the political arena. 

But now Trump's campaign has little money and less organization to work with, so he has to rely on outrageous statements to stay in the news. He was bound to criticize someone he shouldn't have and owe that person an apology. His persona as capitalist superman doesn't allow for apology, though (his narcissism and attack-as-response character may be preventing him too). 

Trump clearly owes the Khans an apology and some concession that they have a point about his lack of sacrifice, but he can't or won't tactically retreat like that to move past this controversy. So his strength (attack-as-response, never apologize) has been turned against him and now he really looks like an uncaring, selfish monster. (Karl Rove was a master of attacking an opponent's strength.) 
 
People aren't really paying close attention to this election yet, so they're still stuck on Trump-as-entertaining-spectacle. He mocks John McCain? Most people don't remember Vietnam or McCain's POW experience, so he can get away with it. He calls Megyn Kelly a bimbo? You can still get away with sexist statements towards women these days, esp. when your base laughs at statements like that. But the Khans created a strong contrast with their son's service and sacrifice on hand and Trump's self-centered selfishness on the other. The mother's response that she didn't speak because she was so overcome with seeing her son's picture damaged Trump more, perhaps, than her husband's words. 

The Khans hit a raw nerve in America about sacrifice and service and Trump's failure to move away from his standard "so what, my critic has an axe to grind" response made it a much bigger news story. He stepped on a political landmine. The Democrats will keep putting these landmines in front of him and I don't think Trump can adapt to avoid further damage. 

The story of the Khans and Trump's invitation to Putin to interfere with our election will keep damaging Trump for a long time.  

 Steely_D wrote: 
There were 17 candidates for the Republican nod, I believe.  The chips fell in a rather unusual way, leaving Trump as the last one standing.  His campaign defied description and, quite obviously, common convention. Was it strategical brilliance or did he just ride a rogue wave?       

 VV wrote: 
I regularly believe that visionaries lack traction in society because there are so many different visions. It's hard to get a large group of people to support one of them and move towards that idea. (Example: bullet train)

This just happened in the Republican party: it fragmented so badly due to the Tea Party, religious groups, and the resulting schism, there was no legit unified GOP vision. That chaos allowed someone with an ego to stand up and say - literally - "I'm the least racist person there is." "I'm with you, the American People." and "I will give you everything." (you can find these easily on google)

So, if you don't have a good, real Republican candidate (what happened to Huntsman?) then you get this basically unopposed doofus. If there were a good GOP candidate, why did he/she sit on their hands?
Is it an agreement that they shouldn't waste their time running against Hillary? I always thought that was the tacit agreement with Romney: let him have his swing at it, but he can't really win and we shouldn't waste a good candidate when the result is inevitable.