Trump has briefly responded to them a couple of times on the subject, which perhaps he shouldn’t have, but don’t confuse what the press is doing with what Trump is doing. He’s not done anything at all to “cede the movement.” The press, on the other hand, is trying to drown out any coverage of the movement with a ton of their own propaganda. I do think Trump needs to devise a better strategy of dealing with the press’s manipulations, distortions, and very partisan spin though.
It isn't all media. I'm not going to follow Trump into indefensible territory by looking aside. Change is needed with the campaign and the candidate, or we are going to lose. We can have a great big bonfire and blame it on the media afterward, or we can execute a strategy to win. I want the latter, which is why I believe Trump needs to hear voices like mine.
Can't disagree with you on this. While I believe Trump is employing an intelligent strategy in exposing the rigged system, it is going to fall on deaf ears of those who don't/won't spend the time to fully understand his narrative - and the media most certainly won't give him any assistance.
Trump needs to understand this but, sadly, I think his personality will not allow him to change. He simply is who he is. Hopefully, it will be enough to overcome...
“I’m not going to follow Trump into indefensible territory by looking aside.”
Could I ask what specifically Trump said that you find “indefensible” and why? The press keeps saying that Trump “attacked” the Kahns, but I didn’t see him do anything of the sort. I think a lot of people are believing this narrative because they didn’t bother listening to what Trump actually said, think that he must have made additional comments that were actually belligerent, or they simply buy whatever line the press feeds them.
Trump made two mildly snarky comments that were not even attacks on the Kahns, and one of which only served to remind people that Islamic Sharia law (that Mr. Kahn has a history of promoting in print) oppresses women. It’s just a “coincidence” I’m sure that of all the many parents of dead children who appeared at the conventions, it just happened to be the Muslim woman and the wife of a promoter of legal discrimination against women who was the one who stood there silently. Is it really so wildly outrageous under those circumstances for someone to question whether she was allowed to speak? How is that in any way an attack on her, as the leftists and the media are claiming, to remind people that Muslim women should also be allowed to speak (but often aren’t)?
Trump is being attacked mercilessly for fighting openly and without PC against Islam’s oppression of women (and of course against it’s violent jihadi elements—which the press believe don’t exist so long as you can find a tiny handful of Muslims who died for the country). Nobody is ever supposed to mention this aspect of Islamic culture and beliefs. He broke a taboo, and the primary reason the press is going crazy is because he had the gull to suggest women in Islam often don’t have the same rights to express themselves as men (which is a fact). You’d think from the way the press reacted that Trump attacked their son’s sacrifice, but no, Trump called him a “hero” and only praised him. This is about deflecting and defending Islam from any criticism of its oppressive or violent aspects. If it had anything to do with defending parents of fallen vets, then the outrage would have been much greater when Hillary actually attacked Pat Smith and called her a liar.