Trump responds to Khan parents DNC speech megathread

[Lyin' Steve]

The worst part about this from Trump's perspective is that, while everyone's already forgotten the Republican convention, by choosing this strategy Trump has singlehandedly kept the single most powerful moment of the Democratic convention on top of the news cycle long past when it would usually have disappeared.  WaPo and NYT both have Khan in multiple above the fold stories in addition to the headline.  Trump didn't even have to say anything - Biden, Kaine and the Obamas put out powerful critiques of him as well, but they're already long out of the public consciousness.  By picking a fight with the Khans, Trump is doing the DNC's dirty work for it.

And by the way, let's not forget that Khizr Khan is a Harvard-educated lawyer of nearly 40 years.  It's no accident that he makes such a powerful case; his courtroom experience far exceeds even that of Chris Christie.

[Fuzzy Bear]

So what would have been an appropriate response to Mr. Khan's partisan political statements from a National Party's podium?

"Oh yes, Mr. Khan.  You're entirely correct!  You're a world class FF and I'm the biggest HP that ever walked the Earth, and I'm conceding the election to Hillary right now, because she's the REAL FF in this race."

Would that work?
Personally, I believe that, whoever you are, if you are a speaker at the nominating convention of a political party, you have opened yourself up to criticism, and you ought to man up and deal with it.  If you snarl back, that's OK, but the "How dare you!" insults the idea of free discourse more than anything Trump has said.

The 'criticism' you speak of was classless and bigoted, as usual.  Any other person would choose their words wisely.  Trump decided to resort to his usual tactic of 'open mouth first, engage brain later'.

What I don't understand is that Fuzzy had it correct a couple of days ago, when he and I were going back in forth debating this issue (see page 3&4). But now, Fuzzy has taken a 180 degree turn, and has gone "bonkers" on the issue.
I don't get it. Here was his previous answer, to how trump should have responded ....

If I were Trump, I would have responded to the Khans with something like, "I appreciate their son's sacrifice and empathize with their terrible loss, but I respectfully submit that the Khans and myself have differences as to what the Constitution says and doesn't say on the issue of immigration." and leave it at that.  I wouldn't have "gone there" on the issue of Mrs. Khan's silence.

I was being sarcastic (an unusual occurrence for me these days) as even the highlighted part of my quote is too much for some here.  Even the way I put it isn't enough for some here.  

I'd still say what I quoted above, and I wish Trump had left it at that.  I'll stand by what I said as (A) my response if I were Trump and (B) what I believe would have been the right thing to say, all things considered.  

I DON'T think that Mr. Khan is entitled to everyone affirming his statements, however.  I would be gentle in my criticism, but I think that the fact that what Mr. Khan implies about the Constitution is flat out wrong.  That's a legitimate issue; the issue of just exactly what can the US government do in picking and choosing (or not picking and choosing) who gets to emigrate to this country.  Calling Trump names and shouting "We're a nation of immigrants!" doesn't do justice to the legitimate issues Mr. Khan's comments beg.  And I would, again, point out that Mr. Khan willingly chose to speak at a partisan political venue.  I wish the best to the Khan family on a personal level, but they are not entitled to a silence from critical listeners who don't agree with him.  That would do truth, itself, a gross disservice.

[Gustaf]

You're being completely dishonest. No one is saying Trump had to accept the criticisms. But, AS YOU SAID YOURSELF, he could have responded in a way that wasn't insulting and undignified. See for example how Clinton responded to the Benghazi mother.

This really shouldn't be rocket science, even for a Trumpist.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The "police chief" analogy you are making is not an accurate one.
Trump has not referred to minorities in that manner.  Not once.
Trump's statements about illegal immigrants from Mexico are substantially correct.  Many of them ARE, in fact, criminals, and some are members of transnational gangs.  Trump's statements about ISIS refugees ARE, in fact correct; there are embedded terrorists in with the refugees, and our vetting process is woefully inadequate.  And jihadist terrorists have, indeed, made it to America to wreck havoc and destruction, and have done so, and folks are rightly concerned about it.

https://www.quora.com/Where-does-Barack-Obama-belong-on-the-James-David-Barber-scale-of-presidential-character-active-positive-active-negative-passive-positive-or-passive-negative

When I was in college, I read James David Barber's The Presidential Character, a book using the character of a President to predict what sort of President he/she would be.  Barber's book has, undoubtedly been subjected to a great deal of revision, as not only LBJ and Eisenhower, but Nixon and Harding, have been subjected to a degree of revisionism since the book was published, but the character of a man does give some insight into what sort of President a candidate will be.

Donald Trump is impulsive, shoots from the hip, and is reluctant to apologize.  Barber would probably view Trump as likely to be an Active President, but whether or not he'd be an Active-Positive, or a Passive-Negative President remains to be seen.  However, Hillary Clinton is more likely to be an Active-Negative President, seeing power as a means to self-realization.  That's been a theme of Hillary's entire adult life, and one of the things I've always not liked about her.  Trump, for all his faults, is already self-realized.  He may find the job boring, but he'll do less harm. 

Fuzzy,
We have already gone though this before ... I feel like I am beating a dead horse with this issue.
Remember .... the way trump worded his statement is that practically ALL OF THEM are rapists/criminals, etc.
Yes, some of them cause crime and some of them join/form gangs, but nothing to make a big thing about.  I'm sure some of them also run through red lights, and some of them even sit on the toilet (believe it or not), like you and me.
You know there are studies that show that immigrants produce less violent crime, than our very own citizens.

As I said, it's about "disgusting attacks from trump on 'groups' of people, AND on people directly (individually)."
- trump saying he saw "thousands and thousands" of Muslims celebrating after 911 (using "Muslims" to create fear and bigotry).
- trump attacking Megyn Kelly with ""blood coming out of her wherever."
- Judge Curiel not being able to do his job properly as a citizen born in the USA, because of his "Mexican Heritage."
- trump attacking other candidates' family members, like Cruz's dad who was somehow associated with the JFK assassination.
- trump attacking Cruz's family by comparing how his wife is more "superior in beauty" compared to Cruz's wife (with side by side images of both).
- trump's many years of disgusting verbal attacks on women, calling them "pigs, dogs, slobs" or saying extremely sexist statements related to "dropping to your knees," or "as long as you've got a young and beautiful piece of ass." etc, etc.
- His personal attack on Carly Fiorina (her looks) with ""Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that?"
- trump mocking a reporter by bending his wrists and jerking his arms around, in front of thousands of people, when mocking the physical disability of this man.
- trump disparaging words towards McCain and other vets, saying he likes vets more if they were not captured.

This list goes on, and on, and on ! Almost endless. It's a consistent problem and it will continue (don't think it won't). It is a main identifier of who Donald trump is today (and how he will forever be know as).
Would you describe these things as just a minor "persona" problem, or that trump is just a psychotic piece-of-filth (insert REALLY bad curse word here) ?
My "police chief" analogy was not meant to be taken as an exact example.
If you care to try to defend trump on each issue above, go for it. But my guess is that you will not endeavor to sound as foolish as our Atlas member Mr "Seriously," who feels trump is God and can do no wrong.

Trump's not God, and he's not perfect, and I'll concede most of your points here.

I guess after soul-searching, I've become an "ends justify the means" guy just like others here.

Sounds like you searched for your soul, and couldn't find it. It doesn't matter how many people Trump hurts, as long as he wins right?

Let's apply that standard to Hillary.  Let's ask Bernie Sanders.  Let's ask the women who alleged sexual misconduct on the part of Bill Clinton that Hillary actively defamed.  Does it matter how many people Hillary hurts?

This election is a binary choice between two candidates, each one unsavory in their ways.  I believe the difference between you and I is that I could possibly be convinced to not vote for Trump, but you could never be convinced not to vote for Clinton.  Search YOUR soul, then tell me what you find.

[Fuzzy Bear]

You're being completely dishonest. No one is saying Trump had to accept the criticisms. But, AS YOU SAID YOURSELF, he could have responded in a way that wasn't insulting and undignified. See for example how Clinton responded to the Benghazi mother.

This really shouldn't be rocket science, even for a Trumpist.

It's not rocket science to me.  But read through the responses.  Many here think Trump should not have given any criticism to the contents of Mr. Khan's speech, and that is something I don't believe, not when the speech is given at a political convention and involves a personal attack, Gold Star Father or not.

[Joe Republic]

You're being completely dishonest. No one is saying Trump had to accept the criticisms. But, AS YOU SAID YOURSELF, he could have responded in a way that wasn't insulting and undignified. See for example how Clinton responded to the Benghazi mother.

This really shouldn't be rocket science, even for a Trumpist.

It's not rocket science to me.  But read through the responses.  Many here think Trump should not have given any criticism to the contents of Mr. Khan's speech, and that is something I don't believe, not when the speech is given at a political convention and involves a personal attack, Gold Star Father or not.

Nope, not true.  Read brittain's post near the top of this page for a good example of how somebody could have defended themselves from Mr. Khan's speech while still displaying respect, decorum and class.

[ProudModerate2]

You're being completely dishonest. No one is saying Trump had to accept the criticisms. But, AS YOU SAID YOURSELF, he could have responded in a way that wasn't insulting and undignified. See for example how Clinton responded to the Benghazi mother.

This really shouldn't be rocket science, even for a Trumpist.

It's not rocket science to me.  But read through the responses.  Many here think Trump should not have given any criticism to the contents of Mr. Khan's speech, and that is something I don't believe, not when the speech is given at a political convention and involves a personal attack, Gold Star Father or not.

Nope, not true.  Read brittain's post near the top of this page for a good example of how somebody could have defended themselves from Mr. Khan's speech while still displaying respect, decorum and class.

Fuzzy,
I don't see much (or any) of what you are saying either, regarding (as you say) "Many here think Trump should not have given any criticism to the contents of Mr. Khan's speech."
The argument and the discontent in this thread is the "classless and bigoted" (as put by another Atlas member) response from trump, not that mere fact that trump responded.

I understand that it makes your argument better, and/or it makes you feel better, if others are saying that trump "should not have given any criticism," but that is just a mirage in your head.
Sorry.

[Fuzzy Bear]

You're being completely dishonest. No one is saying Trump had to accept the criticisms. But, AS YOU SAID YOURSELF, he could have responded in a way that wasn't insulting and undignified. See for example how Clinton responded to the Benghazi mother.

This really shouldn't be rocket science, even for a Trumpist.

It's not rocket science to me.  But read through the responses.  Many here think Trump should not have given any criticism to the contents of Mr. Khan's speech, and that is something I don't believe, not when the speech is given at a political convention and involves a personal attack, Gold Star Father or not.

Nope, not true.  Read brittain's post near the top of this page for a good example of how somebody could have defended themselves from Mr. Khan's speech while still displaying respect, decorum and class.

Fuzzy,
I don't see much (or any) of what you are saying either, regarding (as you say) "Many here think Trump should not have given any criticism to the contents of Mr. Khan's speech."
The argument and the discontent in this thread is the "classless and bigoted" (as put by another Atlas member) response from trump, not that mere fact that trump responded.

I understand that it makes your argument better, and/or it makes you feel better, if others are saying that trump "should not have given any criticism," but that is just a mirage in your head.
Sorry.

Read the first page of posts and replies.

[Gustaf]

You're being completely dishonest. No one is saying Trump had to accept the criticisms. But, AS YOU SAID YOURSELF, he could have responded in a way that wasn't insulting and undignified. See for example how Clinton responded to the Benghazi mother.

This really shouldn't be rocket science, even for a Trumpist.

It's not rocket science to me.  But read through the responses.  Many here think Trump should not have given any criticism to the contents of Mr. Khan's speech, and that is something I don't believe, not when the speech is given at a political convention and involves a personal attack, Gold Star Father or not.

Nope, not true.  Read brittain's post near the top of this page for a good example of how somebody could have defended themselves from Mr. Khan's speech while still displaying respect, decorum and class.

Fuzzy,
I don't see much (or any) of what you are saying either, regarding (as you say) "Many here think Trump should not have given any criticism to the contents of Mr. Khan's speech."
The argument and the discontent in this thread is the "classless and bigoted" (as put by another Atlas member) response from trump, not that mere fact that trump responded.

I understand that it makes your argument better, and/or it makes you feel better, if others are saying that trump "should not have given any criticism," but that is just a mirage in your head.
Sorry.

Read the first page of posts and replies.

I just did and no one said what you made up. I guess that like your candidate you just construct your own reality to live in.

[ProudModerate2]

You're being completely dishonest. No one is saying Trump had to accept the criticisms. But, AS YOU SAID YOURSELF, he could have responded in a way that wasn't insulting and undignified. See for example how Clinton responded to the Benghazi mother.

This really shouldn't be rocket science, even for a Trumpist.

It's not rocket science to me.  But read through the responses.  Many here think Trump should not have given any criticism to the contents of Mr. Khan's speech, and that is something I don't believe, not when the speech is given at a political convention and involves a personal attack, Gold Star Father or not.

Nope, not true.  Read brittain's post near the top of this page for a good example of how somebody could have defended themselves from Mr. Khan's speech while still displaying respect, decorum and class.

Fuzzy,
I don't see much (or any) of what you are saying either, regarding (as you say) "Many here think Trump should not have given any criticism to the contents of Mr. Khan's speech."
The argument and the discontent in this thread is the "classless and bigoted" (as put by another Atlas member) response from trump, not that mere fact that trump responded.

I understand that it makes your argument better, and/or it makes you feel better, if others are saying that trump "should not have given any criticism," but that is just a mirage in your head.
Sorry.

Read the first page of posts and replies.

Fuzzy,
You are crazy !
I just spent 10 minutes and read the entire first page !
Even look at the OP (very first post). The emphasis and the quote is that trump degraded this family, by Donald pointing out the mother : "She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say."
The OP isn't even quoting or talking about Mr Khan's comment about "The Constitution."

You are either going insane, or you are trolling me, by having me run back and forth between the fire on one street and the fire on the next block.
What's up ?
If you are so certain there is "something" on page one, please quote it.

[Maxwell]

Trump could've offered a coherent response to this. He didn't. He chose to attack.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

Has to a first time that a gold star family has ever had to issue a statement like this during a presidential election...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/marykbruce/status/759535011477483520

The condition of Muslim women is a worldwide Human Rights issue.  This is neither a secret, nor poorly documented.  Trump gets under people's skins because he exposes hypocrisy after hypocrisy, and one hypocrisy this has exposed is the alliance between Sharia Law advocates and the Feminist Left within the Democratic Party.  The Feminist/Misoginyst alliance here is one of the ways the Democrats play "The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend".  

Developing countries worldwide treat their women (and their citizens' in general) crappily.

Billions of Muslims and people in developing countries would say the same about us.

[Mister Mets]

Why are the Democrats using the grieving parents of a dead military serviceman to gain votes?

Trump made a policy suggestion.

These individuals put a human face to opposition to the policy.

[Mister Mets]

He's right, her husband probably told her she couldn't. I thought that when I saw her

She stated in an interview with TLW w/ Lawrence O'Donnell that she "couldn't keep her composure whenever she saw [her son]" especially when the giant picture of him was behind her. She is articulate, intelligent, and can speak on her own. She debated even coming on stage because of that.

Therefore I ask the question again, would anyone ever say that about a White Christian mother who lost her son and decided not to speak to the entire American public? God forbid.

Some have also noted the hypocrisy of Trump criticizing anyone else for having a wife who stands next to him and doesn't say anything while he gives a speech. So it could be projection.

So what would have been an appropriate response to Mr. Khan's partisan political statements from a National Party's podium?

"Oh yes, Mr. Khan.  You're entirely correct!  You're a world class FF and I'm the biggest HP that ever walked the Earth, and I'm conceding the election to Hillary right now, because she's the REAL FF in this race."

Would that work?
Personally, I believe that, whoever you are, if you are a speaker at the nominating convention of a political party, you have opened yourself up to criticism, and you ought to man up and deal with it.  If you snarl back, that's OK, but the "How dare you!" insults the idea of free discourse more than anything Trump has said.

The 'criticism' you speak of was classless and bigoted, as usual.  Any other person would choose their words wisely.  Trump decided to resort to his usual tactic of 'open mouth first, engage brain later'.

What I don't understand is that Fuzzy had it correct a couple of days ago, when he and I were going back in forth debating this issue (see page 3&4). But now, Fuzzy has taken a 180 degree turn, and has gone "bonkers" on the issue.
I don't get it. Here was his previous answer, to how trump should have responded ....

If I were Trump, I would have responded to the Khans with something like, "I appreciate their son's sacrifice and empathize with their terrible loss, but I respectfully submit that the Khans and myself have differences as to what the Constitution says and doesn't say on the issue of immigration." and leave it at that.  I wouldn't have "gone there" on the issue of Mrs. Khan's silence.

Good catch.

[Fargobison]

Trump is now getting pummeled by his own party...

[Fargobison]

[

If this doesn't hurt him at least as much as the Judge Curiel spat did, something is very wrong.

Agreed and think this could be worse since the Kahn's can talk about it. HRC can easily cut into campaign  ads hitting Trump.

[Fargobison]

Here comes Trump's trash, launching their gutter attacks on Mr. Kahn...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/RogerJStoneJr/status/759941783098761216

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Here comes Trump's trash, launching their gutter attacks on Mr. Kahn...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/RogerJStoneJr/status/759941783098761216

Ah that delusional old dear.

[Fargobison]

Here comes Trump's trash, launching their gutter attacks on Mr. Kahn...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/RogerJStoneJr/status/759941783098761216

Ah that delusional old dear.

Bigly delusional...



https://twitter.com/ReaganBattalion/status/759945801313427456

[ProudModerate2]

Here comes Trump's trash, launching their gutter attacks on Mr. Kahn...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/RogerJStoneJr/status/759941783098761216

Ah that delusional old dear.

Bigly delusional...



https://twitter.com/ReaganBattalion/status/759945801313427456

OMG !
Could the trump camp make this any worse for their side ?
They are digging a huge hole.  Soon they wont be able to climb out of it.

[BaldEagle1991]

All I can say is that Trump is already eroding his support among families of fallen soldiers with those comments. Especially the non-White ones.

[Lyin' Steve]

Here comes Trump's trash, launching their gutter attacks on Mr. Kahn...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/RogerJStoneJr/status/759941783098761216

Ah that delusional old dear.

Bigly delusional...



https://twitter.com/ReaganBattalion/status/759945801313427456

GUYS
The Muslim Brotherhood gave birth to the jihadist movement that built the car bomb that killed Khizr Khan's son, the son whose death allowed him to fulfill his Muslim Brotherhood obligations to elect Hillary كلينتون president of the الجمهورية الإسلامية لأمريكا.  HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE IT?

[dirks]

It's absurd that they keep harping on this. No tact at all.

His son was a US Military Veteran killed in action.

Stop, you cant win.

[Lyin' Steve]

It's absurd that they keep harping on this. No tact at all.

His son was a US Military Veteran killed in action.

Stop, you cant win.

You couldn't find a more perfect foil for Trump.  A muslim immigrant who's also a Harvard-educated lawyer and a gold star parent?  He's invincible, razor-sharp, and embodies the fundamental good Trump would eradicate from the nation if elected.  The only thing better would be if Khizr himself was a war hero or something.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It's absurd that they keep harping on this. No tact at all.

His son was a US Military Veteran killed in action.

Stop, you cant win.

You couldn't find a more perfect foil for Trump.  A muslim immigrant who's also a Harvard-educated lawyer and a gold star parent?  He's invincible, razor-sharp, and embodies the fundamental good Trump would eradicate from the nation if elected.  The only thing better would be if Khizr himself was a war hero or something.

This really is just self-inflicted at this point. There was a way to handle this gracefully and with respect, Trump seems utterly incapable of NOT responding. One of Clinton's most effective lines was about him being so easily triggered and goaded... and well, she's clearly right.