If You Are Not Nervous About The Upcoming Election...

If you are not nervous about the impending Presidential election I envy and applaud you.

But for the rest of us (the Trembling Majority?), David Sanger of the Times presents a new concern that should easily crack anyone's Top 100 list of potential electoral disasters. As a disclaimer, I should add that when the White House wants an authoritative, sympathetic source to present their spin on international events they seek out Mr. Sanger. So this article is a lightly-edited press release rather than hard-hitting investigative journalism, but still - it is interesting to know what the Administration wants us to believe. Here we go, on cyberwar and the many complexities of a US response:

U.S. Wrestles With How to Fight Back Against Cyberattacks

ASPEN, Colo. — It has been an open secret throughout the Obama presidency that world powers have escalated their use of cyberpower. But the recent revelations of hacking into Democratic campaign computer systems in an apparent attempt to manipulate the 2016 election is forcing the White House to confront a new question: whether, and if so how, to retaliate.

So far, the administration has stopped short of publicly accusing the Russian government of President Vladimir V. Putin of engineering the theft of research and emails from the Democratic National Committee and hacking into other campaign computer systems. However, private investigators have identified the suspects, and American intelligence agencies have told the White House that they have “high confidence” that the Russian government was responsible.

Less certain is who is behind the selective leaks of the material, and whether they have a clear political objective. Suspecting such meddling is different from proving it with a certainty sufficient for any American president to order a response.

Because Obama is far too calm and reflective, don'cha know? I don't think game theorists recommend extreme predictability as a winning strategy, but I am not a genius like Obama either.

Oh, yeah, Obama is a visionary as well, as per this vignette from 2009:

While setting up his new administration, he was also learning the dark arts of cyberwar, descending into the Situation Room to oversee a complex American-Israeli offensive operation to disable Iran’s nuclear centrifuges. He expressed concern to his aides that the operation would help fuel the escalation of cyberattacks and counterattacks.

Right, because no one else anywhere realized that computer power was more widely available than nuclear power. Whatever. On to the new concern:

At the event in Aspen on Saturday afternoon, Lisa O. Monaco, Mr. Obama’s homeland security adviser, sidestepped specific discussion of the D.N.C. hacking but acknowledged that the administration might soon have to consider whether the United States’ electoral system constitutes “critical infrastructure,” like the power grid or the cellphone network.

“I think it’s a serious question,” she said, especially if there is “coercion, destruction, manipulation of data.” Ms. Monaco noted that whenever the United States thinks about retaliation, “the danger of escalation and misinterpretation is such that we have to be responsible about it.” But she also said that if an event were serious enough, “we have to be very clear we will respond.”

The cost of doing nothing could be high. As the United States and other nations move to more electronic voting systems, the opportunities for mischief rise. Imagine, for example, a vote as close as the 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore, but with accusations about impossible-to-trace foreign manipulation of the ballots or the vote count, leaving Americans wondering about the validity of the outcome.

Oh, brother. Florida 2000 becomes Florida/Ohio/Pennsylvania 2016? With a 4-4 Supreme Court unable to swing the result to Hillary? And who among us honestly believes that Obama, Lynch and the establishment Republicans running the FBI could investigate an election-tampering scheme and conclude that Hillary was the beneficiary and Trump won the election? Well, never ask a rhetorical question - I am confident that Democrats and establishment Republicans would insist that their investigation was fair and balanced, but in a close election, the half of the voters that went for Trump won't buy it.

Of course, if Russian manipulation secretly swings the election to Hillary this will get as much attention from the DoJ as Lois Lerner of the IRS. And whoever wins, the hint of Russian meddling makes it possible that the losers will not accept the legitimacy of the "winner", leaving our next leader in charge of an even-more divided country.

Our leaders and institutions have lost their credibility and the Russians may be inclined to exploit that. Yike.

MADMAN ACROSS THE WATER: Let me just snip a fair-use excerpt form the Foreign Policy link above:

Madman in the White House

Why looking crazy can be an asset when you’re staring down the Russians.

...

Nixon wanted to impress upon the Soviets that the president of the United States was, in a word, mad: unstable, erratic in his decision-making, and capable of anything. The American commander-in-chief wanted the Kremlin to know that he was willing to escalate even localized conventional military conflicts to the nuclear level. Kissinger understood: "I’ll tell [the Soviets] tomorrow night," he vowed. The national security advisor even rehearsed for the president specific lines from the good cop/bad cop routine he intended to put on. "The more we do now," he would tell his Soviet interlocutor, "the better." He was akin to saying: On the shoulders of reasonable men, like you and me, rests the responsibility of preventing a madman, like Nixon, from taking things too far.

It wasn’t the first time the national security advisor had been exposed to the strategic potential of madness. The concept had originated, amid the nuclear anxieties of the 1950s, in the academic circles Kissinger had formerly inhabited. It was a product of game theory, a mathematic discipline — often applied to national security policymaking — that can be used to assess competitive situations and predict actors’ choices, based on prior actions by their competitors. Kissinger himself had endorsed the concept in his writings, as a professor of international relations at Harvard, a full decade before he came to the White House. "The more reckless we appear [the better]," he told Nixon that afternoon, "because after all, Mr. President, what we’re trying to convince them of is that we are ready to go all the way."

In his post-Watergate memoir The Ends of Power, former White House chief of staff H.R. Haldeman wrote that his boss’s use of the strategy was hardly unconscious. "I call it the Madman Theory," Haldeman recalled the president telling him. "I want the North Vietnamese to believe I’ve reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war. We’ll just slip the word to them that, ‘for God’s sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about communism. We can’t restrain him when he’s angry — and he has his hand on the nuclear button,’ and Ho Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two days begging for peace."

Comments

[James D.]

You hold Trump to no standard at all. You should be democrats - or maybe you are.

My view on this is, I will start holding Trump to a high standard on the morning of November 9th, if he wins. Starting that day, he becomes a target and he needs to be pushed constantly to do the right thing, and called to account when he doesn't.

Until then, this is total war, no quarter, no mercy, no rules. Metaphorically, I'm fine with firebombing the enemy's population centers, and using poison gas on the their beachheads, and dropping atomic weapons on their cities, and using every dirty trick in the book and coming up with as many new ones as can be invented.

[squaredance]

Khan is part of the enemy. He may be their dupe, but it does not matter, There no moral equivalence between Kaine, Khan or Hillary on the one hand, and Trump on the other. It is an absurd proposition. (and let me point out that the Clintons have accepted millions from rich Muslims.)

Khan deserves no slack at all. None of the Democrat do. They must be crushed and removed from power across the board. Most of them need to do prison time. Not a few should face the full penalty for treason for the simple fact that they are traitors.

He comes to this country and takes up with its internal enemies, and parades his dead son around for electioneering purposes.

He is doubly disgusting.

This is a war for this civilization. It is not a lonely hearts club. It is not a mutual admiration society.

The very fact that the Democrats have cornered "the Muslim vote" should tell us all we need to know about either group. We are at war with Islam--not "radical Islam", but Islam; we should not be catering to them, period, and certainly not in a national election. Can you imagine someone trying this during WW1 or WW2?

Stop thinking the enemy is honorable and fight them, Stop carry water for the Democrats.

[Jane]

"Except he was right about the judge"

Really? How so? And how was commenting on a personal suit appropriate in a political campaign? He can't help himself. No matter how much in the Trump camp you are, you shouldn't defend that behavior. That's what democrats do. YOu can still be pro-Trump and have standards - I hope.

Kahn is a grieving father. Trump should have simply thanked him for his son's service and moved on. Or said something like - if all Muslims were as patriotic as the Kahns, we wouldn't be fighting Isis. But he can't help himself - a lot like TK.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--Has anyone ever explained why after OBL was purportedly killed he was allegedly given a proper Muslim burial?--

It wasn't because Barry thinks OBL was muslim.
It's because all the other muslims in the world do.

[Beasts of England]

Bravo, squaredance.

[Threadkiller]

But he can't help himself - a lot like TK.

Another attack!

2 from Jane and 0 from TK.

Very telling..

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

Ron Dellums was a Marine.
Dying for your country or serving it tells us nothing about your political intelligence or political honor.

I do note all we're doing is talking about Trump not Hillary right after the DNC.

[jimmyk]

Why is the MSM not in a frenzy over Hillary's repeated dismissals of Patricia Smith? Including today: On her claim that Hillary lied to the families of the Benghazi victims, Hillary said:

"As other members of families who lost loved ones have said, that's not what they heard."

"I don't hold any ill feeling for someone who in that moment may not fully recall everything that was or wasn't said."

Yeah, right.

[Jane]

JIB,

You sound like a jealous 12 year old with your NR BS. I don't read NR. I am friends with some of the people you hate, but I never comment on it. You have no credibility on that issue.

When did I say Trump attacked Kahn's son?

[Jack is Back!]

Bullshit, Trump actually had every right to discuss the judge. Look at his profile and associations. Khan not Kahn, the same. Work back to his profile over time. We have had many Muzzie Americans as military officer who served honorably and herooically but Trump never, never denigrated any of them at any time. This is all made up Democrat bullshit to bring in the Never Trumpers and others to a dark side that in reality doesn't exist except for them.

[Jane]

Until then, this is total war, no quarter, no mercy, no rules.

I agree, so why are you trying to lose the war with stupid stuff? Sometimes I really wonder whose side you guys are on?

[Threadkiller]

More attacks!

[Captain Hate]

Why should Rodham hold ill feelings when Tweety is calling Pat Smith a liar.

[Jane]

You didn't answer my question Square dance.

I'd also like to know how you think highlighting stupid stuff Trump does, helps him.

[Threadkiller]

Who is highlighting the stupid stuff?

Hmmm?

[glasater]

Alexander Haig was an R and he was a pretty liberal one. A lot of military types tend to the liberal side of political philosophy.

[Jane]

Why is the MSM not in a frenzy over Hillary's repeated dismissals of Patricia Smith?

Why aren't they in a full frenzy over saying the #1 enemy to this country is "Republicans"?

Those are the things to talk about.

[Jane]

Bullshit, Trump actually had every right to discuss the judge.

He certainly does. That doesn't mean it's not dumb and destructive to his campaign. Are you sure you aren't in the Hillary camp, jib?

[BeenThereDoneThat]

Kahn is using the Dems and the Dems are using Kahn. Personally, I don't consider Islam a religion, but a deranged political system worshiping a false god. A god that leads its followers, especially its women into subjugation and misery. In America, Muslims align with the Democrat party because Democrats allow them to propagate their ideology unhindered and without assimilation into our culture. If Muslims ever become dominate in America, liberal Democrats will be the first to be persecuted. Why? Because they'll never see the blade about to fell them.

Liberals are BLIND to the danger growing around them, the very danger they recruit into our country with the goal of creating voting blocs to keep them in power!

I agree with JiB, Iggy, James D and others who hold no quarter with those who refuse to see this situation for what it IS.

[glasater]

If the attacks on Trump..even the small ones..are allowed to stand, then the progs get a toe-hold and go on to others.

The accumulation of these smaller ones mount up. Just like the dog in a crate strapped to the top of a car for a family vacation.

[Jane]

Glas,

Finally a thoughtful reaction. But I'm not talking about an attack on Trump, but rather, Trump's retort. It was dumb and self defeating. He's an inept politician on many fronts, which is precisely what many people like about him. I get that appeal. What I don't get is pretending his response was smart in any way.

It's a self defeating cult.

[Jane]

I agree with JiB, Iggy, James D and others who hold no quarter with those who refuse to see this situation for what it IS.

And that requires in your book pretending something stupid is smart, and highlighting it? You think Hillary's camp would do that?

[Threadkiller]

Jane, you are highlighting it.

[Jane]

No TK, I'm responding to you acting like a democrat snowflake.

[jimmyk]

It was dumb and self defeating.

Jane, whether or not it was smart, I am not inclined to join in the MSM's one-sided assault on Trump. There are enough people attacking Trump, why do we need to pile on? It's important to point out that what Trump has said pales in comparison to Hillary's treatment of the families of the Benghazi victims. It's important to point out that Khan's death has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of immigration.

[Miss Marple 2]

Let's review some of the things Hillary's camp did:

Compromised the DNC, got their email hacked, and revealed that they had the thumb on the scales for Hillary.

Had NO American flags on the stage the first night of the convention, until Trump people and Twitter users pointed it out.

Locked Bernie delegates out of the convention if they left. Confiscated signs and banners of those who didn't leave.

Had the mothers of two thugs on stage without ever mentioning police deaths.

Repeatedly makes outright lies (like the appearance on Fox News Sunday) and never apologizes or corrects herself.
---------------------------------

Trump is winning this thing on a shoestring budget. He's running circles around her. She cancelled an appearance scheduled today in Cleveland. She's on a darn bus, he's on a plane, and Pence has one, too.

So exactly why is Trump stupid?

[Beasts of England]

'It's a self defeating cult.'

Oh, my.

[Captain Hate]

I don't think that anybody who has suffered over the last 7+ years cares about Khan and his family.

[Texas Liberty Gal]

Jane - "Kahn is a grieving father" I'm sure he mourns the death of his son but he was killed 12 years ago. How many years has it been since Pat Smith's son died?

If you don't think Kahn has a political agenda I think you are sorely mistaken.

[Jane]

Jane, whether or not it was smart, I am not inclined to join in the MSM's one-sided assault on Trump. There are enough people attacking Trump, why do we need to pile on?

Jimmy,

No one, including me asked you to. My entire point was that going after Kahn doesn't help Trump. It alienates people. It's stupid.

There was a much better response than the one Trump gave, and anyone who thinks he was on the money and highlights it, really doesn't want him to win.

[Jack is Back!]

JIB,

You sound like a jealous 12 year old with your NR BS. I don't read NR. I am friends with some of the people you hate, but I never comment on it. You have no credibility on that issue.

LOL. Jane, I have done more damn Holland America and Cunard cruises than you can count and nver to kiss ass with a bunch of no nothing pundit drunks from DC. And I do have credibility on the issue since you like to throw around Jane Rules every time you can. What is it that Jane Rule's at the NRO cruises?

Give it a break. I am commenting on your assertion that somehow Trump invited Khan's invective. He didn't and if you are a lwayer who looks at facts before arguing law, then you will know that.

Pace!

[Jane]

Good attempt at changing the subject MM. So according to you, Trump can afford to lose votes, because you say you hate Hillary. Not a smart campaign strategy IMO.

[pagar, a bacon, ham and sausage supporter]

"My bet: Trump gets somewhere around 2/3rds of the active military vote."

IMO, the Obama regime and the DNC will do every thing they can to insure that most of the active duty members do not get their ballots in time or that once marked their ballots get back too late to be counted. The regime will,of course, make sure the transgengered members get thier's in in time.

[Threadkiller]

A seemingly infinite amount of attacks from Jane. 0 from TK

[Texas Liberty Gal]

I'm not familiar with the author of this piece but she makes some excellent points about the 2 conventions.

http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20160729_Webhed_here.html

[Jane]

If you don't think Kahn has a political agenda I think you are sorely mistaken.

Where did I say that?

(You guys blow my mind)

What I said was that Trump attacking Kahn is not a good political strategy, and highlighting his attacks, or aiding and abetting them is alienating to voters making up their minds.

I swear you guys do not want to win this election.

[Threadkiller]

This is reminiscent of Romney vs Todd Akin.

[Lurker Susie]

MM

Here you go.

http://kmkhanlaw.com/

[Jane]

jib,

You may be rich, but you are insecure as hell, and utterly clueless.

[Threadkiller]

Wow!

[Texas Liberty Gal]

"I swear you guys do not want to win this election"

Well he's defeated 15 candidates so far so I'd say he has a pretty good record, wouldn't you?

[Jane]

I am commenting on your assertion that somehow Trump invited Khan's invective.

Where did I make that assertion jib?

[Jane]

Well he's defeated 15 candidates so far so I'd say he has a pretty good record, wouldn't you?

Absolutely but what does that have to do with whether you want him to win this election?

[squaredance]

pager: you are right about that.

[Jane]

Jane, whether or not it was smart, I am not inclined to join in the MSM's one-sided assault on Trump

Who asked you to?

[pagar, a bacon, ham and sausage supporter]

TK, Thank you!

More on Khan!

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/07/31/lightbulbs-start-go-off-death-muslim-soldier-whose-parents-pawns-dnc-372737

[Threadkiller]

Attacking in response to perceived attacks is a winning strategy at JOM but a losing strategy in the real world?

[Jane]

Sorry Jimmy, I responded to you twice.

[jimmyk]

No one, including me asked you to.

You seem to be criticizing us for not doing so. Perhaps I misunderstand your point.

My point is, whether or not it was stupid, it was not as bad as it is being made out to be in the media, so that makes me want to defend it--not to claim that it was helpful or the ideal response, but to say it was a not nearly so bad as it has been made out to be, nor as bad as a hundred things Hillary has done that the MSM ignores.

Is it so hard to understand that when the MSM is already unfairly lambasting him, calling him racist, bigoted, etc., the right thing to do is not to pile on but to push back?

[Threadkiller]

Thanks for that link, pagar.

Even Ben Shapiro isn't fooled.

Seems cut and dry to me.

[Beasts of England]

This popcorn is really good...

[cheerleader]

... Romney's and McCain's Mr. Nice Guy acts helped their campaigns sooooooooooooooo much ...

[cheerleader]

The people like bad boys.

[Miss Marple 2]

Jane,

ASSUMING Trump's attack on the Khans, which consisted of ONE Tweet in which he asked why the wife stood silent, was stupid, I submit that the Clinton campaign is 100 times MORE stupid.

Your compaint is the type of sngst-ridden stuff I used to see by the Ewok.

Campaigns are comprised of many events over time. Fixating on this, and misrepresenting it, are counter-productive.

I maintain that Trump knows what he's doing. If you think an angry Muslim going after him is a sympathetic character, well, I just disagree.

Also, the man's connections with the Clinton Foundation are beginning to surface.

[still lurking]

good grief ... and the Nats are losing to.

[clarice]

I'm with Jimmy--Khan apparently lives in DC. He lists himself in NYC as a lawyer specializing in discovery matters (something he did in Lynch's former firm , Hogan and Hartson) put the phone number he lists is a private number in dC. The man who answered refused to give his name, said it wasn't a law office and I think it is Mr. Khan. Shoebat, whose accounts aI take with a grain of salt, says Khan is a Moslem Brotherhood member.

[still lurking]

and Zimmerman took a pitch to the hand ... damn it.

[Jane]

You seem to be criticizing us for not doing so. Perhaps I misunderstand your point.

My point was, and is, that attacking Kahn is not a good strategy for Trump. It doesn't help him with people on the fence.

And frankly the reaction here makes me think a lot of people here secretly want Hillary to win.

[boris]

"I swear you guys do not want to win this election"

WTF?

Arguing with you is losing the election?

Get over yourself.

[clarice]

fwiw (and I repeat that I often find him less than perfectly credible) Here's Shoebat on Khan:http://shoebat.com/2016/07/31/what-the-media-is-not-telling-you-about-the-muslim-who-attacked-donald-trump-he-is-a-muslim-brotherhood-agent-who-wants-to-advance-sharia-law-and-bring-muslims-into-the-united-states/

[Jane]

Uh MM, Trump responded on TV today. No one is fixated, except maybe the people here, who I now think are secretly rooting for Hillary.

[Miss Marple 2]

Jane,

Just because people don't agree with your view of the strategy does not mean they want Hillary Clinton to win.

That's just insulting and I am wondering why you are doing it, since you know it will make people angry.

[still lurking]

this is all making zero sense ...

[Jane]

Oh sorry MM. I forgot. If you don't agree with the Trumpets no matter how stupid they are, it's an insult.

No rational conversations allowed at MM's blog. You must fall in line.

I swear you guys want Hillary to win.

[Jane]

Clarice,

Do you believe attacking Khan is a good strategy for getting people to vote for Trump?

[still lurking]

dang it ... Nats lose 3-1 to the Giants.

[BeenThereDoneThat]

I watched the night the DNC presented the cons, sorry, the KHANS, and immediately was turned off with Mr. Khan's reason for being there - to damn Trump for issues Trump had absolutely no hand in. Pat Smith on the other HAND did have a right to go after Hillary Clinton because of their personal meeting when the coffins returned from Libya and the lies Hillary told to Pat Smith's face about why her son died.

More on Khan:
http://theamericanmirror.com/medias-hypocrisy-grieving-parents-full-display/

[Threadkiller]

Is it a Soprano Trumpet?

[Beasts of England]

Piccolo.

[Miss Marple 2]

Jane,

If you want to go after Trump, you can join Mr. Kahn, who just joined Twitter in the past week or so and has been VERY busy. Here is the link to his timeline:

https://twitter.com/RealKhizrKhan

And for those who don't use Twitter, let me post just a few of his comments:

Khizr Khan
‏@RealKhizrKhan

Khizr Khan Retweeted closetconservative

A simple way @Jack could clean up Twitter: delete any account that has "Trump" or "MAGA" in it.

Khizr Khan ‏@RealKhizrKhan 2h2 hours ago

Khizr Khan Retweeted Hillary Clinton

I would like to see some Pakistani-Americans traveling with Mrs. Clinton, truth be told. Representation is important

Khizr Khan ‏@RealKhizrKhan 3h3 hours ago

Khizr Khan Retweeted Donald J. Trump

There hasn't been a radical Islamic terror attack in days, Mr. Trump.

Khizr Khan ‏@RealKhizrKhan 3h3 hours ago

Khizr Khan Retweeted HowardKurtz

You, sir, have a black soul.

(This was tweeted to Howie Kurtz.)

Khizr Khan ‏@RealKhizrKhan 4h4 hours ago

Khizr Khan Retweeted Hasan Ansari

You are either with the Khans or against us! Now is not the time for nuance. #ImWithKhan

Khizr Khan ‏@RealKhizrKhan 5h5 hours ago

Khizr Khan Retweeted Mark Suster

Ghazala would really like to see @HamiltonMusical, if you can get tickets. He is our second favorite founder.

Khizr Khan ‏@RealKhizrKhan 6h6 hours ago

Khizr Khan Retweeted Rick Klein

If Trump steals the election, General Allen will help rectify the situation. He is an honorable man like Musharraf.

-----------------------------

There's LOTS more. LOTS.

Parting words from Mr. Khan, with a link to that New York post set of photos:

Khizr Khan ‏@RealKhizrKhan 18h18 hours ago

Khizr Khan Retweeted New York Post

America is #StrongerTogether because of Muslims and our values, such as modesty for women. Mrs. Trump should learn.

[glasater]

The Kahn 'thing' highlighted all the disenfranchised the DNC put up on stage for all voters to see at their convention and the MSM to talk about.

I cannot see how this helps them win voters to Hillary's side.

On my twitter feed there are some who are very concerned about Russia meddling in our elections. We're having quite the discussion on that front.

[cheerleader]

Poor 'ol Mitt, they went into a tizzy because he dared to speak before Obama did, about the ambassador being murdered. Then Mitt oh-so politely and obediently submitted and shut up.

Winning formula!!!

[Threadkiller]

BoE, hahahahaha!!!!!

[windansea]

Ghazala would really like to see @HamiltonMusical, if you can get tickets. He is our second favorite founder.

LOL, Ghazala would stop grieving so hard if she could get some tickets

[GUS]

Clarice, I beleive Trump wasn't ATTACKING KHAN, I don't believe there was any STRATEGY involved in snarking at Khan (the ass hole). I don't want "Rodham" to win. I enjoy "rational discussions" with you and many here, nearly every day.
Clarice, I'm with you.

[Jane]

MM,

With all due respect, I didn't go after Trump, I suggested he was employing a strategy that would turn off voters.

I know that is offensive to you, but in the olden days here, we were allowed to speak our mind.

That was before your time.

[Threadkiller]

Must have been before my time as well.

[Texas Liberty Gal]

Son is killed by Muslims in a Muslim country, in a war that Hillary Clinton supported..

AND ATTACKS TRUMP

@benshapiro pic.twitter.com/sC48IhspNR

— jwaxsom (@jwaxsom) July 31, 2016

[buccaneer morgan]

it is interesting what waleed turned up, some of it is highly speculative, however much of it seems
plausible,

[GUS]

Jane, most people here back Trump. He is OUR candidate.
Who are you secretly rooting for. I mean besides being a victim here all the time. It's getting quite old. You've shit on a lot of people here, and you expect us to shut up and get in line with your daily RIP of Donald Trump.
Trump is who we've got in this battle. Maybe you could PRETEND to want him to win. Please???

[Stephanie]

Meow. Just damn.

Not before my time and that was pure unadulterated cattiness.

[boris]

Jane's the only one who knows how Trump should win. The rest of us are just "enabling" his bad behavior. So it's not his fault, he can't help it.

It's out fault he's blowing it and that's why Jane suspects we are really rooting for Hillary.

[Miss Marple 2]

Jane,

I realize I am a comparative newcomer. I can't do anything about that. I got here when I did.

And yes, you can speak your mind. I don't have to agree with you, either.

I disagree that this episode is bad for Trump. I can understand why you think that way, but you make no effort to look at who Khan is, what his real motivations are, his links to dubious groups, or anything else.

Basically, you think if we don't agree with you we support hillary.

OK. Whatever.

[Threadkiller]

I
Vote
Birther

[still lurking]

Go Hillary!

that hell-broth is strong!

[GUS]

We are Boris, because we will not join in on Jane's Campaign plan for Mr Trump, we are complicit in his "losing strategy". Back in YE OLDE DAYS, we could discuss this, but not anymore, Jane is right. She will not let us disagree with her.

[Jane]

Gus,

I back Trump too. I just don't see him as the 2nd coming as the rest of you do.

This is what I posted that started all of this:

"Trump attacking Khan reminds me of his attack on the Judge. Both huge examples of bad judgment. He just can't help himself. Khan has suffered enough. Attack Hillary instead, endlessly.

I posted this earlier on the other thread. In a dem debate when asked who our biggest enemies were, Hillary said "republicans". That should be shoved down Miss-I'll unite us' throat every five minutes."

~~

Now you and many others think those attacks reflect great judgment on the part of Trump. That's fine. Just say so. But it truly makes me wonder who you want to win.

[Art in Newport]

So .. nice weather we've been having lately.

[Texas Liberty Gal]

Changing the subject - Gotta love the Dallas Cowboys!!!

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/07/31/dallas-cowboys-looking-to-promote-communitypolice-relations-with-helmet-logo/

[boris]

I guess the rest of us should stop enabling Trump with our stupid opinions and just let Jane guide Trump to victory.

I for one will ignore defer to Jane's wise counsel rather than respond to anything she says.

BTW, that's not treating her like a t-word, just trying to be civil.

[GUS]

Jane, you just posted ""Now you and many others think those attacks reflect great judgment on the part of Trump. That's fine. Just say so. But it truly makes me wonder who you want to win.""

Who the fuck do you think you are??? Seriously.
I've watched you and your enormous ego for a long time. Go to hell.

[Jane]

MM,

The election is not about Kahn. It's about Trump. You make it about Kahn, you lose.

Basically, you think if we don't agree with you we support hillary.

Sound familiar?

[Threadkiller]

It makes me wonder why you attacked me.

[still lurking]

Art-

it has been raining and thundering here this afternoon (NoVa). wanted to do some yard work, but laid down until the feeling passed.

[Threadkiller]

Any thunderheads, Art?

We may get some rain later.

[Threadkiller]

Who is this guy/gal?

:-)

[Threadkiller]

JOM is a stalking horse for Hillary.

[Beasts of England]

The rest of us see him as the second coming?

Hahaha!!

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

Jane, I consider you a friend and have defended you many times and we have had a few somewhat strong disagreements but they were always disagreements over politics not personal ones.

I'm not even sure where you're coming from on this. You're dismissing other people's opinions as not even worthy of considering and evidence of membership in a cult and blind allegiance to someone most people have considerable reservations about.
Perhaps others have watched his numbers improve and his winning continue as he was supposedly making similar disastrous mistakes, that if they were, would have sunk him long ago.
Maybe they aren't the disasters you think they are and maybe people who think they aren't don't really belong to a cult or want Hillary to win.

[lyle]

I like California cult wine. Does that count? 😎