A Political Thread

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Kiwi dictionary.....just because we talk shut(****) doesn't mean we eat it

but you lot do go crazy over Marmite.

 

[McTallshort]

but you lot do go crazy over Marmite.

Thats thrush not ****

 

[Peat]

You cannot count people who have been turned off by leftism and voted for anti-immigration populism instead (Lab-to-UKIP voters), or swing voters (Lab-to-Tory voters), as being "splitters of the left". They are no longer of the left.

But you never mentioned swing voters - don't you go changing goal posts on me now! You mentioned the SNP, who are definitely of the left, and whose existence is a big barrier to a left-wing government in this country.

And I disagree that those turned off by the Labour party's brand of 2015 leftism and went for anti-immigrant populism are definitely and entirely no longer of the left.

Besides...

As I have said before, electoral pacts.

Take Thurrock. Tories won by 33.7% to Labour's 32.6%. Lib Dems had 1.3%. Make a pact that only Labour stands, with Liberal Democrats encouraging their voters to support Labour. (In return, Labour stands down in a Labour-Lib Dem marginal.)
Take Cardiff North. Tories won 42.4% to Labour's 38.3%. Collectively, Plaid, Lib Dems and Greens had 10.8%.

Collectively, Labour, Lib Dems and Greens had 41.2% of the vote. And then, if they still fall short of a majority of seats, they bring SNP on board in a coalition.

Labour just need to sustain their support from the last election... which they seemed to be doing until the coup. There's been a 3-4% drop in Labour voting intentions within the last month. Imagine if the rebellion were actually working with Corbyn, and hammering at the Tories? Labour could have actually been in a decent position by now.

When your answer to Labour's problems are to form an electoral pact bringing all the parties of the left together, why are you denying that the left's tendency to split into different factions is a major problem?

And I don't see where you're actually disagreeing with me. I asked how it would work without a halfway useful Labour party. You said it would work with a halfway useful Labour party (not disagreeing with my statement) and then called out the rebellion as why we do not currently have a half-useful Labour party. Nothing of what you said actually disagrees with me. Do you disagree with the statement that an Election Pact of the Left won't work if this is the Labour party put in front of it?

And saying "Imagine if they weren't rebelling" doesn't change that there is a rebellion and that the likelihood of the tooth paste going back in the tube is very minimal. Barring 170 Damescene conversions, the absolute best you get is a large proportion of the PLP sulking in the basement making it absolutely clear they're only there as Constituency MPs.

... or the Labour MPs are bad followers. Leadership is a two-way interaction and a break down in it isn't necessarily the fault of the leader.

The last sentence is true although it is incredibly rare to find a group of humans who are actually outright unleadable.

The first sentence is certainly true up to a point, with greater or lesser truth for particular MPs. However,those who did work under previous party leaders, worked just 'fine'; they have proven they can follow.

But even if Labour MPs are definitely bad followers, that doesn't mean Corbyn is definitely not a bad leader.

re: the first bolded part. Surely for practical and political reasons their duty is to the Labour-voting constituents. Practical because most MPs have constituencies which have a plurality of non-Labour voters, with non-Labour interests, happy to see the Labour party fail, which would make the political process impractical if the MP had to represent these people. Political because when you stand as an MP, under a platform, you want to be able to represent those that resonate with that platform. In this case, let me turn the question on you: is an MP breaking their duty if the MP is working against a constituency mostly in favour of Corbyn?

Bolded - imo, yes.

You're right that for practical and political reasons, those people (and the Labour selectorate) are things they must serve. But they have to serve a lot of things and I think those fall under the other stuff I mentioned. If there is a conflict in duties, you turn to the first things on the list.

re: the second bolded part. Which principle is Corbyn breaking?

None and I never intended to imply that he was. I believe it is perfectly possible for two MPs to look at Labour's principles and come up with wildly differing ideas on how to accomplish them with neither being wrong to hold them or pursue them.

I think you have left out one other duty: to the party. Which is odd, because this is arguably the one on which Corbyn may fall down: his so-called "electability". That said, I think the coup have presented an even more unelectable candidate.

I sort of fold in party with party principles but fair enough if you want to make them separate in which case, yes, that's one of the first loyalties.

I would consider Corbyn vastly in breach of loyalty to the party because he is a major part of tearing it apart and...

You seem to be generally supportive of this behaviour of the PLP despite decrying the "leftist circular firing squad".

The PLP definitely deserves plenty of the blame.

I am supportive of the view that it took two to tango and both sides need to own up to this part in the mess. Since the arguments here tend to be pro-Corbyn and anti-PLP, I seek to redress the balance. The idea that Corbyn should wriggle free for blame of this very much annoys me.

But there are definitely a number of willing CFS enthusiasts in the PLP. Given that the process has been mostly undocumented, its hard to be sure exactly who we're looking at as the most to blame, but there have been some really, really dumb decisions. I have sympathy with their goals, but absolutely not with their methods, for they are of the CFS.

That said:

a) I wish we had better definitions for this. Some of the PLP were CFS enthusiasts from Day 1 and carry a huge amount of blame - going from public utterances, Hunt and Woodcock stand accused; some of the PLP tried very, very hard to work with Corbyn and only picked a side of the lesser evil at the end and still get some blame but far, far less. And there's a lot of ground in the middle with various MPs strewn across. Treating them as a monolithic bloc is very inaccurate.

b) While I'm really not pleased with the PLP as a whole and really really not pleased with those driving current events, I do think Corbyn deserves the lion's shame of blame as I think he has turned 30 CFS enthusiasts into 170 willing to play, that he has gone way beyond the bounds of what a party leader is normally expected to do in this situation, and because he is the leader. The buck stops here and all that.

As an aside, politicians tell people that they can have their own say by getting involved in the political process and voting. Sure, the Labour membership does not make up a large proportion of people in this country. But they do make up a big proportion of the particularly politically motivated left. I think that when you have party MPs working against these members, the message being sent is that politics and political decisions are not for the masses, they are for the entitled few MPs. The implication that a few hundred MPs know better than the collective hundreds of thousands of members. It's not exactly great for political engagement. And when these MPs turn to these members, asking for canvassers and donations, I suspect a few MPs may have to lower their expectations.

Yes. Its is an absolutely horrible message to send and I'm expecting a lot of long term fallout from this.

That said, it is a long standing complaint that all the people who signed up in 2015 never showed up to do any of the hard work. How many activists will be lost I don't know and my impression is that the long standing Labour activists who do a lot of this work are not overwhelmingly pro-Corbyn (although I will admit to working on very flimsy data here).

And you need a lot of individual donations to make up for a Lord Sainsbury deciding he'll no longer donate too. Swings and roundabouts here.

And with all of this being said... this:
http://www.sharonhodgson.org/sharon...resignation_and_her_support_for_owen_smith_mp

In particular:


Makes me see the other side. The bit that voters generally aren't privy to: the day-to-day working arrangements of the party. This is where I wonder about Corbyn/McDonnell. I hope more MPs release things like this, and Corbyn/McDonnell release a statement sharing their POV too.

There's a few stories like this that have been released. Lilian Greenwood's speech to her CLP over her resignation gives further insight to the problems there have been over transport policy. Thangam Debbonaire has written about being an accidental minister. Danny Blanchflower had previously vented about how poorly the economic advisory committee was going. There's some stories that are hinted at but without the people involved talking about it too, like Neale Coleman resigning as Corbyn's policy advisor for family reasons (allegedly not the real reason) but being back six months later to be Smith''s chief policy advisor. Heidi Alexander has complained about John McDonnell forming an NHS advisory group without telling her, but has yet to make good on telling about the other times she was undermined.

I'd like more. We are up to five areas of policy where Corbyn and McDonnell have demonstrably undermined set party policy, or tried to single handedly set it - Transport, Health, Trident, the EU, and Benefits. Six if you include the business with the economic advisory committee.

Will it change the tide? Maybe. But I feel anyone who wants to stare the facts straight in the face will see that Corbyn is a very bad leader for the Labour party. Whether there's anyone better is irrelevant to that fact. That's relevant to whether you replace him, or whether this whole mess is justified, but not to whether the label fits to begin with. It does.

edit: Richard Murphy, the man credited as having a lot of the ideas behind Corbynomics, has posted a number of articles on why he's no longer behind Corbyn, the last being really quite scathing.

And an Independent journalist talking about some of the difficulties in dealing with Corbyn as a journo. These lines in particular:

"Last autumn, I complained when a Saturday speech by Corbyn was released far too late on a Friday to secure much space in the next day’s Independent. “It won’t happen again,” Corbyn’s office assured me. Seven days on, another Saturday speech arrived – an hour later than the previous one. I know this sounds like trivial gossip from the Westminster village but on each occasion, incompetence prevented Corbyn from getting positive media coverage."

 

[j'nuh]

Don't have time to answer all of it, but didn't want to ignore it either. So just wanted to answer in general.

I am supportive of the view that it took two to tango and both sides need to own up to this part in the mess. Since the arguments here tend to be pro-Corbyn and anti-PLP, I seek to redress the balance. The idea that Corbyn should wriggle free for blame of this very much annoys me.

Agreed. I actually came at this from the opposite view: that this forum is generally anti-Corbyn and that Corbyn was unfairly taking a disproportionate share of the blame.

I have been open with my reservations with Corbyn before on here. And I think my friends have me down as anti-Corbyn. I'm certainly not of the position that Corbyn has done nothing wrong.

I guess I could summarise my opinions as:

• Corbyn's leadership has been undermined. I think this is somewhat unquestionable.
• Some of the criticisms made towards him, if true, show Corbyn's leadership in a bad light.
• Others seem less explainable. Time-keeping is clearly not the responsibility of Corbyn. Corbyn alone cannot keep track of all the shadow teams, all of his MPs, all of his appearances etc. He is reliant on his office, and other Labour support structures. It seems unfathomable to me that an entire office can neglect to send an e-mail to a given deadline twice in a row. My default position is that it is incompetence from Corbyn's office (not necessarily Corbyn himself), but I also suspect sabotage.
• Either way, the narrative has been entirely and disappointingly one-sided. I have experienced arguments and debates, personally, where my opinion has jumped from one extreme to the other because of the arguments and counter-arguments presented. So far, Corbyn and his team have not responded to the specific complaints. I would like to hold off on making any specific judgements until I heard this side.
• That being said, we have to see the bigger picture when it comes to Corbyn. What is achievable with him as leader? What would constitute a success in his leadership?
• I follow the camp of people who believe that Corbyn's role is to ideologically set the party and then pass the leadership to another MP on the left of the party. If we are to perceive this as the aim set of Corbyn, then he has clearly succeeded. The Labour Party is distinctly more left-wing a year into Corbyn's rule.
• So it makes me unreasonably frustrated that Corbyn - having possibly achieved all he could hope to, and in a very short time frame - wouldn't step down in the wake of the leadership challenge. He does more damage to his left wing principles in power than out. An electoral wipe out of Corbyn will see the left unjustly blamed for another routing, and it will kick some of the policies into the long-grass.
• But also, in regards to the PLP, I feel that they jumped the gun on the coup by a ridiculous margin. I feel that the protracted resignations were an embarrassment of Corbyn and caused an irate Momentum, making it much more difficult for Corbyn to resign. The 170 MPs should have gone into secret dialogue with Corbyn about him standing down, only taking it public if they reached an impasse. The coup denied Corbyn a graceful departure. The coup seemed devoid of leadership, clearly demonstrated by the quality of options presented by the PLP as alternatives to Corbyn

 

[Peat]

Don't have time to answer all of it, but didn't want to ignore it either. So just wanted to answer in general.


Agreed. I actually came at this from the opposite view: that this forum is generally anti-Corbyn and that Corbyn was unfairly taking a disproportionate share of the blame.

I have been open with my reservations with Corbyn before on here. And I think my friends have me down as anti-Corbyn. I'm certainly not of the position that Corbyn has done nothing wrong.

I guess I could summarise my opinions as:

• Corbyn's leadership has been undermined. I think this is somewhat unquestionable. Agreed.
• Some of the criticisms made towards him, if true, show Corbyn's leadership in a bad light. Agreed.
• Others seem less explainable. Time-keeping is clearly not the responsibility of Corbyn. Corbyn alone cannot keep track of all the shadow teams, all of his MPs, all of his appearances etc. He is reliant on his office, and other Labour support structures. It seems unfathomable to me that an entire office can neglect to send an e-mail to a given deadline twice in a row. My default position is that it is incompetence from Corbyn's office (not necessarily Corbyn himself), but I also suspect sabotage. Corbyn's office is appointed and led by the man himself. If they constantly make mistakes without him either firing them, or stapling their face to the desk until they get it right, it should reflect on him. There is also the possibility that the reason for the delay is him not making up his mind on what the press release should say quickly enough, but that is only a possibility. Owen Jones has repeated this claim though, and I see no reason for him to lie, while some of the complaints about missed meetings also point to extremely poor time keeping.
• Either way, the narrative has been entirely and disappointingly one-sided. I have experienced arguments and debates, personally, where my opinion has jumped from one extreme to the other because of the arguments and counter-arguments presented. So far, Corbyn and his team have not responded to the specific complaints. I would like to hold off on making any specific judgements until I heard this side. My experience is there's two one-sided narratives, depending on who you are and talk to (not in the media mind), and very little two-sided narratives. The only one of these complaints that I know of a response to is that of Debbonaire, in which Corbyn said he regretted the way she'd been treated. For the most part he has been silent. Out of curiousity - how long would you give Corbyn to respond before saying he is not interested in responding?
• That being said, we have to see the bigger picture when it comes to Corbyn. What is achievable with him as leader? What would constitute a success in his leadership?
• I follow the camp of people who believe that Corbyn's role is to ideologically set the party and then pass the leadership to another MP on the left of the party. If we are to perceive this as the aim set of Corbyn, then he has clearly succeeded. The Labour Party is distinctly more left-wing a year into Corbyn's rule. He has certainly made the Labour party more left wing
• So it makes me unreasonably frustrated that Corbyn - having possibly achieved all he could hope to, and in a very short time frame - wouldn't step down in the wake of the leadership challenge. He does more damage to his left wing principles in power than out. An electoral wipe out of Corbyn will see the left unjustly blamed for another routing, and it will kick some of the policies into the long-grass. I agree with this assessment of the situation bearing in mind how you see Corbyn's role.
• But also, in regards to the PLP, I feel that they jumped the gun on the coup by a ridiculous margin. I feel that the protracted resignations were an embarrassment of Corbyn and caused an irate Momentum, making it much more difficult for Corbyn to resign. The 170 MPs should have gone into secret dialogue with Corbyn about him standing down, only taking it public if they reached an impasse. The coup denied Corbyn a graceful departure. The coup seemed devoid of leadership, clearly demonstrated by the quality of options presented by the PLP as alternatives to Corbyn. I think it is possible to overstate the extent to which this was planned. I do not want to excuse their timing, but when we see an act devoid of leadership, I think that's because the situation meant there was very little. It was spur of the moment and conducted in the belief that Corbyn would abide by the usual rules of parliamentary parties - and the moment was somewhat caused by Corbyn sacking Benn.
  
  The big question here however is how Corbyn saw his role and how likely he was to ever want to step down. I am not convinced he was ever interested in doing so or that he sees his role in the same light as you do.

Incidentally, while I'd say this forum was more anti-Corbyn than pro-Corbyn in terms of numbers, in terms of quantity of argument, if I didn't open my mouth it would be pro-Corbyn

 

[ncurd]

In other news post convention polling suggest Clinton is going to walk away with this one. Electoral Maps suggest a trouncing too.

Most commentators said Trump was going to have to moderate his language to appeal to moderate Republicans enough to get them to vote for him. Sadly he's not and I cant see his current tone working in states he actually needs to win. Many are claiming they won't vote or go for a third party candidate.
Plus this is how imagine the Presidential debate going....mind you I wish Clinton wold be half the president the fictional Bartlett was.
[video]https://youtu.be/85dKvletfSo[/video]

 

[Tony Manx]

A quarter would do me.....the script writers were good enough to surround him with decent people though and not sure how they would translate into the real world enmeshed as it is in corruption (of one sort or another) and cronyism!!!

 

[ncurd]

A quarter would do me.....the script writers were good enough to surround him with decent people though and not sure how they would translate into the real world enmeshed as it is in corruption (of one sort or another) and cronyism!!!

The interesting thing is a lot of Bartlett administration characters are based of Bill Clinton aides. The characters are essentially an idealised version of the Clinton and Kennedy administrations.

 

[austingtir]

In other news post convention polling suggest Clinton is going to walk away with this one. Electoral Maps suggest a trouncing too.

Most commentators said Trump was going to have to moderate his language to appeal to moderate Republicans enough to get them to vote for him. Sadly he's not and I cant see his current tone working in states he actually needs to win. Many are claiming they won't vote or go for a third party candidate.
Plus this is how imagine the Presidential debate going....mind you I wish Clinton wold be half the president the fictional Bartlett was.
[video]https://youtu.be/85dKvletfSo[/video]

Meanwhile back in the real world Hillarys going for new attendance records at her rallys:https://i.redd.it/eanyiucajzcx.png
And what should be the real story:http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN10D209
But of course its just a couple paragraphs buried deep under stuff like Donald kicks a baby out of one of his rallys.....

Easily manipulated by the media I see Ncurd.....

 

[ncurd]

Fox News giving Clinton a 10% lead that's all that really matters.

Both those stories mean absolutely nothing compared to Republican party clamouring to disown Trump. Our media have barely focused on the baby incident but the fact he chose to be little parents who lost their child serving the country.

 

[austingtir]

Fox News giving Clinton a 10% lead that's all that really matters.

Both those stories mean absolutely nothing compared to Republican party clamouring to disown Trump. Our media have barely focused on the baby incident but the fact he chose to be little parents who lost their child serving the country.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/6d/c6/af/6dc6af7018fed1fb757805f8e00fb37c.jpg

They lost their "child" over 12 years ago. And there's the interesting fact that this muppet Khzir Khan used his dead "childs" name to further his own business/political interests.

Why was he in such a hurry to remove his business website? A website where he obtains visas for the hefty sum of five hundred thousand USD and provides legal advice for "people" attempting to enter the US.

No conflict of interest here.

Interestingly Khzir doesnt seem to have the stomach to do interviews anymore.... LOL I wonder why.

In B4 story of Khzir high tailing it back to pakistan once he realises he's been used by Hillary and the DNC.

The Dons bullshiet meter never lies.

 

[ncurd]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/6d/c6/af/6dc6af7018fed1fb757805f8e00fb37c.jpg

Oh the irony.....

Got anything to back up any of those claims?

 

[austingtir]

Oh the irony.....

Got anything to back up any of those claims?

What? Like facts: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-02/khan

 

[ncurd]

Actually reading into this further again it's nonsense out of nothing.

First up the EB-5 is a perfecally legal way to enter the USA and get a visa.
https://www.uscis.gov/eb-5

Is it surprising that there are lawyers who specialise in getting people visa based on the criteria? Even less suprising an immigrant would specialise in this field?

Nope the fact remains still Khan is a Pakistan Muslim and therefore his actions must be cynical. (I'm being sarcastic as I need to point this out to you)

The reason he probably took his site down was he was probably being attacked by Trump supporters through the contact information within it. Which is not uncommon for most people suddenly in the public light to suddenly get their presence off the internet.


Grassley's report brings up legitimate security concerns of the EB-5 and he seems a fairly moderate republican form his wikipedia page. However this is putting 1 and 1 toegther and getting 6.

- - - Updated - - -

Plus Grassley has defended the Khan's

http://www.kcci.com/news/grassley-releases-statement-on-khan-family-gold-star-families/41002888

 

[TRF_Olyy]

provides legal advice for "people" attempting to enter the US.

Implying foreign immigrants aren't people?
You've shown yourself to be an ignorant bigot many times but this is taking it up to a new level.

 

[austingtir]

Its the conflict of interest and the fact he was prepared to use his dead childs name in an effort to further his business interests/political interests. I never said what he was doing was illegal although its seems the media has not put much scrutiny into him at all and I do wonder what a good dig would unearth.

Theres other stuff like him writing papers to do with sharia law and something to do with the muslim brotherhood which seems like a bit of a nothing TBH.

The fact is he only attacked trump to further his own interests.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...nancially-benefits-pay-play-muslim-migration/

[FONT=&quot]The liberal way. Use someone to achieve your goals.[/FONT]

- - - Updated - - -

Implying foreign immigrants aren't people?
You've shown yourself to be an ignorant bigot many times but this is taking it up to a new level.

Are you for real how is that implying foreign immigrants arent people? And I certainly wasnt if thats what your trying to imply.

As iv stated before im from a family of foreign immigrants to NZ and my wife is a foreign immigrant so I suggest you take your ridiculous assertions elsewhere.

 

[ncurd]

You can been bigoted/racist to one group and not another. The level of your nonsence you say will do very little to convince me your not.

I'm sat here trying to resolve doing it for business/poltical gain.

First up political this was at a political convention and he disagree's with Trump, as he noted if it were up to Trump he wouldn't of been allowed to enter the USA and his son wouldn't of been able to die for the country.
Very few parents willing to put themselves on a national stage aren't doing it 'poltical' reasons. The reality those reasons are driven by his sons death. The arguement he's doing it for his own poltical career is a bit stupid to be honest.

As business I don't see any evidence that's the case. It might be a by product.



More importantly your making the exact same mistake Trump is regardless of if your right or wrong. If you question the reasons why someone might be against you when they attacking you due to the loss family member your going to be loosing battle in politics.
The reason why this has continued to run is Trump refuses to shut up even though it's damaging his entire campaign. If he hadn't said anything the Khan's would be a footnote in history. The fact he felt compelled to dig himself the hole and then continue digging is the story not the Khan motives for speaking out against him.

Senior and respected Republican's such as John McCain have had issue statements deploring Trump's behaviour over this. Major donor's and congressman have decalred they are supporting Clinton over this.

The entire story is inflicting wound after wound on Trump's camapign and all he had to do was keep his mouth shut. It's making epople question how he'd act in office if he feel the need to attack anyone who attacks him.


The best part about this is Clinton knows she just needs to line up people willing to attack Trump with sob stories he shouldn't attack and he'll defeat himself.

 

[austingtir]

You can been bigoted/racist to one group and not another. The level of your nonsence you say will do very little to convince me your not.

I'm sat here trying to resolve doing it for business/poltical gain.

First up political this was at a political convention and he disagree's with Trump, as he noted if it were up to Trump he wouldn't of been allowed to enter the USA and his son wouldn't of been able to die for the country.
Very few parents willing to put themselves on a national stage aren't doing it 'poltical' reasons. The reality those reasons are driven by his sons death. The arguement he's doing it for his own poltical career is a bit stupid to be honest.

As business I don't see any evidence that's the case. It might be a by product.



More importantly your making the exact same mistake Trump is regardless of if your right or wrong. If you question the reasons why someone might be against you when they attacking you due to the loss family member your going to be loosing battle in politics.
The reason why this has continued to run is Trump refuses to shut up even though it's damaging his entire campaign. If he hadn't said anything the Khan's would be a footnote in history. The fact he felt compelled to dig himself the hole and then continue digging is the story not the Khan motives for speaking out against him.

Senior and respected Republican's such as John McCain have had issue statements deploring Trump's behaviour over this. Major donor's and congressman have decalred they are supporting Clinton over this.

The entire story is inflicting wound after wound on Trump's camapign and all he had to do was keep his mouth shut. It's making epople question how he'd act in office if he feel the need to attack anyone who attacks him.


The best part about this is Clinton knows she just needs to line up people willing to attack Trump with sob stories he shouldn't attack and he'll defeat himself.

John Mccain is hardly worth taking seriously the mans a warmonger of the highest order only slightly behind Hillary. And he'll be lucky to be re-elected.

If I have to spell it out to you its this simple: Khan was making money from helping immigrants into the country (some of those methods are dubious at best but not illegal) not just money but HUGE money. Trump wants to stop this. Khan uses his dead sons name in an attempt to slander trump. Trump responds as he should have any right to do the only thing stopping him is being politically correct. Which he's obviously not. All the other politicians have their hands tied by political correctness. Trump does not.

In the end large amounts of people in the USA will vote for trump because he's not being politically correct and because the media is outright lying and twisting every word that he says. I have no problem at all with how he's going even if he fails as far as im concerned its been a win. Politics the world over will never be the same..... Although having to listen to Hillary for 4 years will be unbearable.

 

[ncurd]

Ah yes your usual nonsense about 'political correctness'. You also don't need to spell it out to me I know what your saying I just disagree with your assessment.

This has nothing to do with political correctness, Trump had nothing absolutely nothing to gain by lashing out the way he did. Remember how this all started he questioned why Khan's wife didn't say anything in her husband's speech.
It's a nothing act wife's stand beside thier husbands in millions of speeches worldwide people stand beside them to show support for thier words.

Instead Trump chose to enter a war or words with a pair of people for the sake of not being bound by 'poltical correctness'. It's bloody stupid arguement.

And by doing this he's completely detracting from Clinton's own problems and calling her into account which is suppose to be his entire bloody job at the moment. Not taking on a pair immigrant muslims who suggested he doesn't have a grasp of constitution (he doesn't from his public statements).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36960223

The guys a colassal muppet in this entire situation yeah he's hero for idiots like you but the majority of people found his attacks on the Khan's offensive and disrespectful. If they had not his poll numbers wouldn't have plummeted since this happened.

If he looses as badly as is currently predicted it will move politics in America towards the center ground/left it would mean 12 years of Democratics presidency, the last 2 challengers were more moderates but got a better share of the vote.

It could mean the entire Republican party will crumble.

What's happening with Trump/Republican's mirrors what's happening in the UK with Labour/Corbyn quite a lot despite being on opposite sides of the political divide.

 

[austingtir]

Ah yes your usual nonsense about 'political correctness'. You also don't need to spell it out to me I know what your saying I just disagree with your assessment.

This has nothing to do with political correctness, Trump had nothing absolutely nothing to gain by lashing out the way he did. Remember how this all started he questioned why Khan's wife didn't say anything in her husband's speech.
It's a nothing act wife's stand beside thier husbands in millions of speeches worldwide people stand beside them to show support for thier words.

Instead Trump chose to enter a war or words with a pair of people for the sake of not being bound by 'poltical correctness'. It's bloody stupid arguement.

And by doing this he's completely detracting from Clinton's own problems and calling her into account which is suppose to be his entire bloody job at the moment. Not taking on a pair immigrant muslims who suggested he doesn't have a grasp of constitution (he doesn't from his public statements).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36960223

The guys a colassal muppet in this entire situation yeah he's hero for idiots like you but the majority of people found his attacks on the Khan's offensive and disrespectful. If they had not his poll numbers wouldn't have plummeted since this happened.

If he looses as badly as is currently predicted it will move politics in America towards the center ground/left it would mean 12 years of Democratics presidency, the last 2 challengers were more moderates but got a better share of the vote.

It could mean the entire Republican party will crumble.

What's happening with Trump/Republican's mirrors what's happening in the UK with Labour/Corbyn quite a lot despite being on opposite sides of the political divide.

I simply dont believe the poll numbers thats why it doesnt really concern me. You only have to go on Dons facebook page and then Hillarys and its pretty obvious he has a huge amount of support. Far higher than the media suggests.

Another 12 years of Dem presidency will pretty much gaurantee a nuclear war with somebody. So you better hope your wrong about that.

We will see in November.