Meanwhile the cry-bullies take over, and you won’t even realize that you had alternatives to letting them do so, alternatives that Trump kept demonstrating.

Is Tatter trying to claim he knew the Leftist alliance was evil long ago? Because by my limited recollection, he was sleeping like the rest of America was, while the Left took over. They have no moral authority to question other people on the same mistakes they themselves made.

This context is like Leftists using Reagan to rhetorically smash Bush II. Reagan wasn’t there to defend himself, and Bush II wasn’t either, when the Left used GWB’s statements against the war. While Trum and Khan isn’t here to defend themselves, there are people who have personal authorities that can be put on the line and tested.

We can disagree with what Khan has said (I do with a good portion of it), but the fact that he is seen as a “cry-bully” here is clearly in the eye of the beholder.

In the dynamic where trump is the one running for president, he has the upper position. He will be the receiver of all kinds of messages – fair or unfair, eloquent or crude – and the onus is on him to respond appropriately, presidentially.

That trump didn’t is his problem – without blame on a “cry bully”.

@GB – as I said… Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon guilt by association.

Linking to a site that has “Obamas’ Wahhabist Fundraising Empire” as an article is enough to question the veracity of the “source” and their interpretation of it all.

Reading comprehension is apparently not your strong suit.

I wrote that Trump is not seen as a victim of bullying. NOT seen as a victim. Therefore I was not ““needing to see one side or other as the victim.” I did not label either as a victim.

As I said several times, it is YOU who brought up the bullying topic in the first place, not me. I have no need to see either bullies or victims. But in any bully dynamic, it just so happens that most people will see one person as more bully and the other as more a victim. That’s what bullying is all about. No one really cares if one bully bullies another bully, do they? I’ve certainly never observed that.

Except I wasn’t the one who started trying to find victims. From the post I was responding to, when I “accused” you:

“There is no way he is seen as the weak victim here–except I suppose by Trump supporters.”

The first step is admitting the actual problem.

It is a matter of perception by the onlookers, the American public. I would say that it is only fervent Trump supporters who watched the exchange between Khan and Trump and thought: “hmm, two bullies here.”

The bully-victim dichotomy was yours, not mine. YOU are the one who accused me of “needing” to see one side or other as the victim, but I did not say that either side was victim. If I do think of it in terms of bullies, however (which I only took a look at after YOU mentioned it), I think that most non-Trump-supporters or people on the fence about Trump would not see this as two bullies, but as Trump being the bully and the Khans the victims. The Khans are the civilians who lost a son in the war—that’s just a fact, and it makes them natural figures of sympathy for most people. Trump is a presidential candidate, a big strong man who has not suffered a personal tragedy or made a personal sacrifice of that magnitude (whatever he says about creating jobs, a ludicrous comparison), and he can defend himself quite nicely, as everyone who has ever observed him can see. There is no way he is going to be perceived as victim, so in any exchange of insults between Khan and Trump the vast majority of people who do see it as a bully situation will naturally see Trump as bully and Khan as victim, rather than bully/bully as you seem to see it.

This is what I had written, and only in response to your talking about bullying:

What’s more, it is Trump who comes across as the bully. He is the one in the power position, not they. He is the one who blusters and attacks almost everything and everybody. There is no way he is seen as the weak victim here–except I suppose by Trump supporters if it suits their rhetorical needs of the moment.

In other words: Trump is seen as a bully and not a weak victim.

How does that come across as my needing to see bullies and victims? You responded by writing, “You still need to see one side or the other as ‘victim,’ and can’t get past that.” However, that was the first time I’d ever mentioned bullies or victims, and in was only in response to your characterizing the exchange as involving bullies, so why you would accuse me of “still” “needing” to see “one side or the other as ‘vicim'” is a complete mystery. There’s no “still” about it.

I have no idea what you’re talking about.

I had NEVER said that I saw either side as a victim. I have been looking at the entire thing in terms of strategy as well as giving particular emphasis to the irony of Trump’s using the word “right” (saying they had “no right”) in the context of a discussion about the Constitution and whether he knows much about it.

It is YOU who introduced the idea of victims by talking about bullies, something I had never mentioned. I then merely pointed out to you that if you are going to consider anyone the bully and anyone the bullied, it’s certainly not Trump who would be perceived by most observers as the victim of bullying. Au contraire.

Meanwhile the cry-bullies take over, and you won’t even realize that you had alternatives to letting them do so, alternatives that Trump kept demonstrating.

Nice try, but it’s not just “schoolmarms” who see Trump as wrong here. This is not about using the wrong utensil at a ladies’ luncheon.

What’s more, it is Trump who comes across as the bully. He is the one in the power position, not they. He is the one who blusters and attacks almost everything and everybody. There is no way he is seen as the weak victim here—except I suppose by Trump supporters if it suits their rhetorical needs of the moment.