2016 USA Presidential Elections

Did you see what she was wearing?
That is the clothing of someone under control of their husband.
 
Did you see what she was wearing?
That is the clothing of someone under control of their husband.

And did you really just judge a woman based on her clothing?

As it happens, you are dead wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...6e52ec-571c-11e6-831d-0324760ca856_story.html

Ghazala Khan?s son, U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan, was killed in Iraq in 2004.

CHARLOTTESVILLE

Donald Trump has asked why I did not speak at the Democratic convention. He said he would like to hear from me. Here is my answer to Donald Trump: Because without saying a thing, all the world, all America, felt my pain. I am a Gold Star mother. Whoever saw me felt me in their heart.

Donald Trump said I had nothing to say. I do. My son Humayun Khan, an Army captain, died 12 years ago in Iraq. He loved America, where we moved when he was 2 years old. He had volunteered to help his country, signing up for the ROTC at the University of Virginia. This was before the attack of Sept. 11, 2001. He didn?t have to do this, but he wanted to.

When Humayun was sent to Iraq, my husband and I worried about his safety. I had already been through one war, in Pakistan in 1965, when I was just a high school student. So I was very scared. You can sacrifice yourself, but you cannot take it that your kids will do this.

Humayun Khan was an American Muslim Army soldier who died serving the U.S. after 9/11. His father, Khizr Khan, spoke at the Democratic National Convention and offered a strong rebuke of Donald Trump, saying, "Have you even read the United States Constitution?"

We asked if there was some way he could not go, because he had already done his service. He said it was his duty. I cannot forget when he was going to the plane, and he looked back at me. He was happy, and giving me strength: ?Don?t worry, Mom. Everything will be all right.?

The last time I spoke to my son was on Mother?s Day 2004. We had asked him to call us collect whenever he could. I begged him to be safe. I asked him to stay back, and not to go running around trying to become a hero, because I knew he would do something like that.

He said, ?Mom, these are my soldiers, these are my people. I have to take care of them.? He was killed by a car bomber outside the gates of his base. He died trying to save his soldiers and innocent civilians.

That is my son. Humayun was always dependable. If I was vacuuming the house and he was home, he would take the vacuum from my hand and clean the house. He volunteered to teach disabled children in the hospital how to swim. He said, ?I love when they have a little bit of progress and their faces, they light up. At least they are that much happy.? He wanted to be a lawyer, like his father, to help people.

Humayun is my middle son, and the others are doing so well, but every day I feel the pain of his loss. It has been 12 years, but you know hearts of pain can never heal as long as we live. Just talking about it is hard for me all the time. Every day, whenever I pray, I have to pray for him, and I cry. The place that emptied will always be empty.


I cannot walk into a room with pictures of Humayun. For all these years, I haven?t been able to clean the closet where his things are ? I had to ask my daughter-in-law to do it. Walking onto the convention stage, with a huge picture of my son behind me, I could hardly control myself. What mother could? Donald Trump has children whom he loves. Does he really need to wonder why I did not speak?

Donald Trump said that maybe I wasn?t allowed to say anything. That is not true. My husband asked me if I wanted to speak, but I told him I could not. My religion teaches me that all human beings are equal in God?s eyes. Husband and wife are part of each other; you should love and respect each other so you can take care of the family.

When Donald Trump is talking about Islam, he is ignorant. If he studied the real Islam and Koran, all the ideas he gets from terrorists would change, because terrorism is a different religion.


Donald Trump said he has made a lot of sacrifices. He doesn?t know what the word sacrifice means.
 
Isn't Trump the guy who speculated that the reason the mother didn't say anything was because she wasn't alowed" to have anything to say? "You tell me," he says.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ments-on-muslim-mother-fallen-us-soldier.html

Exactly my point (thanks).

Trump is either a complete, tactless, ignorant, egomaniac moron, so he shouldn't be president of the USA, or he knows exactly what is going on and he is uttering these ghastly farts of his just so he could grab the heart and soul of the most desperately ignorant electors around, and that's disgusting to say the least, so he shouldn't be president of the USA.
 
And did you really just judge a woman based on her clothing?

As it happens, you are dead wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...6e52ec-571c-11e6-831d-0324760ca856_story.html

It must be true then...
And yes, if women are wearing a hijab. burka, niqab or whatever they are called, I do judge them.
Those types of clothing have specific meanings, and all of them involves the husbands control over their woman.
This woman has something to say about "the real Islam and Koran". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edVQETclhps
 
And yes, if women are wearing a hijab. burka, niqab or whatever they are called, I do judge them.
Those types of clothing have specific meanings, and all of them involves the husbands control over their woman.

First, let me point out that not all Muslim women in the world choose to wear the traditional clothing.
Second, you claim that their specific clothing has meaning that is somehow tied to husband control over women.

Here are more women wearing traditional ethnic or religious clothing for you to judge then.
Traditional Russian Christian woman clothing:
c4a977779d62107577c579ebb5bbd1f8.jpg

Traditional Orthodox Jewish headwear:
10550809894c610ccae24ac36722c16d.jpg

Traditional Bulgarian Christian woman headband:
09.jpg

Traditional Hindu woman's sari:
stock-photo-an-indian-young-woman-in-traditional-clothing-sari-19186642.jpg


Bonus: The women's appropriate dresscode for the Christian Liberty University:
Dresses and skirts should be no shorter than the top of the knee (sitting or standing). Skirt slits should be modest; open slits should be no higher than the top of the knee, closed slits should be no higher than two inches from the top of the knee. Shoulder straps should be no less than two inches wide. Anything tight, scant, backless, see-through, low in the neckline or revealing the midriff (in any position) is immodest and unacceptable. Slips should be worn under thin material. Earrings and/or plugs are permitted in ears only with the exception of a stud nose ring. No other facial piercings or plugs are allowed, including tongue.

Please, go ahead and show your outrage to these example of women being controlled to dress in specific ways. Since you insist that a woman can be judged based on the way she dresses, please explain to me how those (except for the Liberty University rules) are somehow NOT tied to religion and husband control over their wives?
 
It's not that they are wearing some kind of traditional clothing... It's that they are wearing Islamic traditional clothing. It's an indicator that the individual is a devout believer, which, in turn, is an indicator of a particular set of beliefs. Russians, Jews, Bulgarians, and Hindus don't beat their wives legally, kill gays, hack off limbs as punishment, give out lashes for alcohol consumption (can you imagine if they started doing that in Russia or Bulgaria??), and so on.
 
It's not that they are wearing some kind of traditional clothing... It's that they are wearing Islamic traditional clothing. It's an indicator that the individual is a devout believer, which, in turn, is an indicator of a particular set of beliefs. Russians, Jews, Bulgarians, and Hindus don't beat their wives legally, kill gays, hack off limbs as punishment, give out lashes for alcohol consumption (can you imagine if they started doing that in Russia or Bulgaria??), and so on.

Beliefs are grown into people whn they are children. Clothes may be indicators, but they alsmo might just be a cultural inheritance devoid of any actual meaning in the belief system of a person. If your goal is to cancel violent beliefs, you are missing the target by just condemning the exterior symbolism, becaue you might well being wasting energies to fight a violent belief in a person that doesn't hold one. Quite a waste of time.

You have to fight the belief, without caring too much of the external symbol. Because it's not just that. In some rural places in my country, at least until the late '90ies, a woman should not have walked around wihtout black clothing and a black head-scarf, and should have always possibly been in the company of other women. I leave the deduction of the motives to you, but I guarantee you their not that far from the muslim ones. And it's not like all women who did that were subjugated and had their spirit broken.

That is to say: don't treat people one way or another -just- because they dress in a certain way. Try to understand how they think -before- attacking them. You want people who think like you to be on your side, even if they wear a head-scarf.
 
Religious dress absolutely indicates beliefs! I'm Jewish but don't wear a kippah because I'm not religious. A Muslim woman in a hijab is definitely a devout Muslim.


That is to say: don't treat people one way or another -just- because they dress in a certain way.
I hear this a lot and it's a silly notion. Try getting a job by walking in for your interview in pajamas instead of a suit.
 
It's not that they are wearing some kind of traditional clothing... It's that they are wearing Islamic traditional clothing. It's an indicator that the individual is a devout believer, which, in turn, is an indicator of a particular set of beliefs. Russians, Jews, Bulgarians, and Hindus don't beat their wives legally, kill gays, hack off limbs as punishment, give out lashes for alcohol consumption (can you imagine if they started doing that in Russia or Bulgaria??), and so on.

Not all muslims approve of the practices you mention. There are crazy strands of Christianity too (see the Liberty University example), but that doesn't mean that everyone wearing a cross on their neck subscribes to them. Like SirEdward said, you are focusing too much on the external symbol (clothing), which makes you lose the target.

We saw what happened with Ann Coulter recently - she attacked the father of a veteran because he was an "angry Muslim." There were so many "angry Christians" speaking at the RNC, but there was no outrage about that. For all we know and we have seen the Khan family does not approve of wife beatings, gay killings, etc... You are ascribing those to them by default because they are Muslims, and that's wrong.

If the target is radical Islamic terrorism, by focusing on what someone wears you begin to target all Islam. Similarly, even if some Muslim husbands think it's appropriate to beat their wives, it has very little to do with Islamic terrorism.
 
One must be really, ******* ignorant to believe that all Muslims think that it's fine to beat their wives.
 
I don't find those two things contradictory.

It is a national security issue if a foreign country, or nationals of a foreign country, hack the private email server(s) of a presidential candidate from another country. The content only really determines the severity. Even if all they found was a message to Bill asking him to pick up a pint of milk on his way home. It's still a security breach.
 
Drunk driving is fine if nobody died, right?
 
I don't find those two things contradictory.

It is a national security issue if a foreign country, or nationals of a foreign country, hack the private email server(s) of a presidential candidate from another country. The content only really determines the severity. Even if all they found was a message to Bill asking him to pick up a pint of milk on his way home. It's still a security breach.
It's just more lies and hypocrisy, that's all. Hillary has been telling us that the deleted emails are all personal in nature and are not relevant to the investigation - if that's the case, then why is it a national security issue all of a sudden if Russia has them? Is it a national security scandal if Putin knows where Hillary went to lunch on a random Tuesday? Either she is lying now and trying to make a big deal out of nothing, or, more likely, she was lying earlier and those emails are actually important, in which case Russia now has blackmail material on our potential next president.

Just more scumbag antics from a scumbag. More lies and deceit. And the voters are licking it up like a kitten drinking milk from a saucer.
 
It's just more lies and hypocrisy, that's all. Hillary has been telling us that the deleted emails are all personal in nature and are not relevant to the investigation - if that's the case, then why is it a national security issue all of a sudden if Russia has them? Is it a national security scandal if Putin knows where Hillary went to lunch on a random Tuesday? Either she is lying now and trying to make a big deal out of nothing, or, more likely, she was lying earlier and those emails are actually important, in which case Russia now has blackmail material on our potential next president.

Just more scumbag antics from a scumbag. More lies and deceit. And the voters are licking it up like a kitten drinking milk from a saucer.

You seem locked in to the idea that it's only a security issue if the information obtained was classified.
 
I don't find those two things contradictory.

It is a national security issue if a foreign country, or nationals of a foreign country, hack the private email server(s) of a presidential candidate from another country. The content only really determines the severity. Even if all they found was a message to Bill asking him to pick up a pint of milk on his way home. It's still a security breach.

This x 1000. Unless Hillary used password as her password, someone should be worried.
 
You seem locked in to the idea that it's only a security issue if the information obtained was classified.

A personal security issue, yes. A national security issue? Nope.

It would be like if she parked her personal car in a bad neighborhood and left the doors unlocked and it was broken into. She says there was nothing work related in the car, so... what's the big deal? Still a crime, but not something that should threaten national security. Now if she left classified information in the car, negligently, and the car was targeted specifically to obtain that information, then yes, it would be a national security concern.
 
A personal security issue, yes. A national security issue? Nope.

It would be like if she parked her personal car in a bad neighborhood and left the doors unlocked and it was broken into. She says there was nothing work related in the car, so... what's the big deal? Still a crime, but not something that should threaten national security. Now if she left classified information in the car, negligently, and the car was targeted specifically to obtain that information, then yes, it would be a national security concern.

If the people who broke into the car were local thugs? Nothing to worry about
If it seems some special agents from a foreign government did it? Maybe you should be worried they're trying to get into other cars, parked in safer places...
 
This x 1000. Unless Hillary used password as her password, someone should be worried.
That's basically what she did! She ignored cyber security protocols and set up an unsecured personal server that was easy to hack into. This isn't a case of "omg the Russians managed to hack us" but one of "omg the Secretary of State made it easy for the Russians to hack us".

I work in auto insurance and have access to quite a lot of personal info. If I leave such material on the printer overnight and the cleaning guy finds it and steals someone's identity, it's as much my fault as it is his. I was careless and negligent and that's what lead to the identity theft. Plus I will get fired on the spot and I'd never even get close to this industry again. But the Clintons are made of Teflon - nothing sticks to them. Fucking crime syndicate.

- - - Updated - - -

If the people who broke into the car were local thugs? Nothing to worry about
If it seems some special agents from a foreign government did it? Maybe you should be worried they're trying to get into other cars, parked in safer places...
Every country is spying on all the other countries. Is this news to you? Every country also sets up defensive parameters to try and prevent said spying. Then a rogue Secretary of State decides to ignore those defensive parameters and the spies get through... Hmm... See the problem yet?
 
Top