Random Politics & Religion #09

His kids are an interesting wrinkle to the story; they clearly have genuine affection for him (and vice versa), and for growing up as rich as they did, they actually seem about as close to normal as they could have possibly hoped to be (unlike dear old dad, who even his most ardent supporters have to admit is kind of a weirdo).

"Donald Trump: maybe not the best husband ever, but didn't seem to do too badly as a father"

I think the press may actually be inundated with Trump blunders. In the last 24 hours:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/first-read-gop-trump-go-unraveling-break-glass-mode-n622116?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

I'd say 'feuding with a crying baby' is my favorite.

According to some estimates, more than 20,000 people turned out Tuesday to hear Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump in critical Loudoun County, Virginia. To borrow a Trumpism, that's huge but, thanks to the mainstream press, what you'll hear about the event will likely be how Trump booted a crying baby from it.

We should be used to the distortions by now, but it's a plain fact that most of the people covering the campaign are unwilling to give him a fair shake yet will bend over backwards to put the best face on anything former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says or does.

The "baby booting" story, judged newsworthy by Politico, reads as though Trump is a heartless monster. Here's what he said: "Don't worry about that baby. I love babies. ... Don't worry about it. I love babies. I hear that baby crying, I like it. What a baby. What a beautiful baby. Don't worry, don't worry. The mom's running around like – don't worry about it, you know. It's young and beautiful and healthy and that's what we want."

As a member of the media, I may be confused but it sounds to me like a marvelous thing to say, especially in light of what was probably the parent's embarrassment at how her child was disrupting his remarks. As it continued, Trump again addressed the child and her mother by saying, "Actually, I was only kidding, you can get the baby out of here."

Anyone listening can tell the latter comment was meant as a joke. It won't be reported that way because that doesn't fit in with the narrative the Washington Post, CNN, the New York Times and the unabashedly liberal political zines have created. It's only by hearing or seeing the event that you'll come to understand the truth of what went on.

This is but one distortion; there are plenty more. Following the lead of the Democrats, the media are demanding Trump apologize to Khizr and Ghazala Khan, parents of a dead American soldier who spoke at the Democratic National Convention. Now, I'm not on any of the relevant email lists but I'm not exactly sure what it is he is supposed to apologize for. The Khans should have known they were being drawn into a political forum (one from which they now say they want to escape because they apparently don't like all the attention) and were opening themselves up to criticism – especially in the pointed nature of what Mr. Khan said in his speech. Trump certainly didn't attack them for being Muslim which, it almost goes without saying, would be wrong.

If the Khans occupy a rarified status because they lost a son in combat then how does one explain the treatment given Pat Smith and Charles Woods, parents who lost their sons in the massacre at Benghazi and who both claim Clinton lied to them, face to face? They are being excoriated for stepping into the political arena on Trump's behalf but, unlike the Khans, are not backing down under pressure.

One set of rules for Hillary Clinton and a different set of rules for everyone else is not only the way she lives her life but the way the media is covering this election. The latest wrinkle is the emerging demands Ivanka Trump say something on the record about the way her father treats women and sexual harassment in the workplace. This may be a salient point (not really) but some of the same reporters who want a statement from her on these matters have assiduously avoided posing similar question to Chelsea Clinton, a woman whose father (why do we have to remind people of this?) had an illicit sexual relationship with a workplace subordinate young enough to be his own daughter and then lied about it to the American people after he was caught. If the shoe were on the other foot I know reporters (and you know them too) who would fall all over themselves queuing up to ask Ivanka what she thought about the allegation her father was a rapist.

No one is making this stuff up. We have here three concrete examples of the disparity between the way Clinton – whom the media loves – is being treated vs. the way Trump – whom they loathe – is covered. Is it any wonder he is rescinding the credentials of entire outlets seeking to cover him on the campaign trail? He knows he's getting a raw deal and is not going to stand idly by while it happens.

The media is supposed to be impartial. Sadly, it's not – at least not in this race. For whatever reason, too many of my colleagues – especially the ones on television (which includes the producers who back them up while whispering in their ears) have thrown in against Trump. In a situation like this the only thing I can advise is for voters who want to know what is going on to use the internet to get to as many original sources as possible. It's not hard – just time consuming – so that you can decide for yourself who can be trusted to occupy the highest office in the land over the next four years which, coincidentally enough, happen to be critical to the life and future of the nation in a way seldom seen before.

His kids just seem to be aware of the...luck?...of their situation. Like, they're clear on the lay of the land. The actual lay of the land. They're happy with it. They'd like to keep it the way it is. But they're not the batshit crazy caricature of spoiled rich kids some people would expect of that man's issue, given that's exactly what he seems to be.

The fact that they can even tell the lay of the land correctly is better parenting than we're used to seeing from that class.

Yeah, but think about how many rich/celebrity kids we've seen just turn into total weirdos (lookin at you, Jaden Smith) or melt the *** down in public entirely (Hi Paris!).

The fact that they can even tell the lay of the land correctly is better parenting than we're used to seeing from that class. Mocking Trump is funny stuff, but parenting is hard, and if he isn't responsible for them being basically well-adjusted, he at least didn't do anything to *** it up for whoever was responsible.

Sorry to break it to you but being the POTUS isn't fueled on a series of perpetual gaffes and insulting everyone.

Like it or not, we aren't a bad crowd. Just because we were born into wealth doesn't mean that we are automatically evil/greedy/vindictive/<insert derogatory term>.

un refutable

Worked for Obama, twice!

Worked for Obama, twice!

This gets really, really old. You really need to find a new refrain.

Yeah, no. Try again.

Obama has proven he had the class and temperment to hold the office. His politics are debatable, his respect for the office are not. Trump has proven neither the class or temperment for the position.

But sure, if you want to spin bashing *anyone* who even criticizes him lightly like a 14 year old Twitterette as fit for office, go ahead. I'm sure when meetings don't go his way he'll post like a high schooler on Twitter how mean those nasty old world leaders were to him.

Then insult their wives/husbands. Class.

So rebukes from top GOP leaders about Trump is nothing.

Ok

Don't care.

We already got it, GOP leaders do not like Trump. At least they didn't rig a primary to get somebody else elected. Too bad you can't say the same about the DNC.

So does people attacking Trump over pretty much nothing.

Tell you what, I'll stop attacking Obama when everyone on this website stops attacking Trump. Deal?

So the GOP not liking their nominee for a variety of reasons is 'nothing'? Nothing at all of concern? Ok.

Keep those blinders on buddy. If you don't see the fires, there is no fire.

So the GOP not liking their nominee for a variety of reasons is 'nothing'? Nothing at all of concern? Ok.

Keep those blinders on buddy. If you don't see the fires, there is no fire.

Don't care.

We already got it, GOP leaders do not like Trump. At least they didn't rig a primary to get somebody else elected. Too bad you can't say the same about the DNC.

And they didn't ask why we can't use nukes.

'irrefutable' was the word you were looking for.

Obama has proven he had the class and temperment to hold the office. His politics are debatable, his respect for the office are not.

Abusing executive powers to the point of bending the Constitution is respect for the office? How about actively dividing the nation into race and class warfare? How about that "class and temperament" of constant insults against Republicans? Sorry, I don't buy any of what you just said.