Trump responds to Khan parents DNC speech megathread

[politicallefty]

It's almost like he's a Democratic plant.

I don't believe that and neither should you. As Hillary herself said in a well-delivered line Thursday, "There is no other Donald Trump. This is it." I think that is the disturbing and awful truth. Many on the left (and even some on the #NeverTrump right) want to believe that there is something else under this pathetic and disgusting excuse of a man. The truth is that there is not.

I usually just watch Rachel, but I watched Lawrence as Friday night. The pain that these parents have to endure is something few can understand, and certainly not one that Donald Trump can understand. I did have that chance to hear Mrs. Khan speak out. She speaks as a mother that had to go through the horrific and unbearable pain of having to bury her 27-year-old son, just as Mr. Khan has spoke out.

It's one thing to be Donald Trump. As awful and despicable a human being he may be, he could easily be dismissed as just another lunatic on the fringes of American society. Unfortunately, he is propped up by near cult-like supporters. I'm not sure that Donald Trump himself is the real issue here. I think the real issue is the number of people in this country that support and defend what he is offering and trying to impose. He is thin-skinned, childish, and vindictive. Personally, I really thought more people in this country were raised better than that. It is those that support him that make sad for this country and truly disappointed.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

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

Sorry, Mr. Khan, but you're full of crap.  When you take your Gold Star Family status into the partisan political arena, you cannot reasonably expect to be reacted to in a deferential and uncritical manner.  

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,

The only hypocrisy Trump exposes is his own.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Please don't merge this with the other thread specifically on his wife. I know it's the same interview, but this encompasses more. I couldn't find the transcript so I made it myself.


Interview between Donald Trump and George Stephanopoulos on ABC News:


George Stephanopoulos — There was a man named Khizr Khan speaking at the Democratic Convention... his son, Captain Humayun Khan, was killed serving in Iraq and he has some very tough questions for you. He said you wouldn't have even let his son in America... [cut off]


Donald Trump — He doesn't know, he doesn't know that. I saw him, he was, you know, very emotional and probably looked like, uh, a nice guy to me. His wife, uh, if you look at his wife, she was standing there, she had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me, but plenty of people have written that. Uh, she, uh, she was extremely quiet and it looked like she had nothing to say. A lot of people have said that, uh, and personally, uh, I watched him, I wish him the best of luck George.


George Stephanopoulos — What would you say to that father?


Donald Trump — Well, I'd say we've had a lot of problems with Radical Islamic Terrorism, that's what I'd say. We have a lot of problems where, you look at San Bernadino; you look at Orlando; you look at the World Trade enter; you look at so many different things. You look at what happened to the priest over the weekend, in Paris, where his throat was cut. 85 year old. Beloved catholic priest. you look at what happened in Niece, France, a couple of weeks ago. Uh, I'd say, you gotta take a look at that, because something's going on and it's not good.


George Stephanopoulos — He said you've sacrificed nothing and no one.


Donald Trump — Well, that sounds, uh, who wrote that? Did, uh, Hillary's, uh, script writers write it?


George Stephanopoulos — How would you answer that father? What sacrifice have you made for your country?


Donald Trump — I think I've made a lot of sacrifices. Uh, I worked very, very hard, I've created thousands and thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs. Uh, I think I've done a lot.


George Stephanopoulos — Those are sacrifices?


Donald Trump — Oh, sure, I think they're sacrifices. I think when I can employ thousands and thousands of people, take care of their education, take care of so many things, even in military, I mean, I was very responsible, along with a group of people for getting the Vietnam memorial built in downtown Manhattan, which, to this day, people thank me for. Uh, I raised, and I have raised, millions of dollars for the vets. I'm helping the vets a lot. I think my popularity with the vets is through the roof.


So in a single interview, Trump said that he would let the Khans into the country (false if he ban Muslims from entering the country), accuse Khizr Khan of silencing his wife (his wife said she didn't want to speak 'cause she gets emotional when she talks about her son's death), tell Khan that Islamic Terrorism is a big issue if he got to meet him, and say that he has sacrificed for the country because he has made jobs. Well done. I hope this wonderful man becomes president.

Why didn't Trump talk about the sacrifices he made dodging STDs? He's seemed very proud of it on previous occasions.

[ag]

Sorry, Mr. Khan, but you're full of crap.  When you take your Gold Star Family status into the partisan political arena, you cannot reasonably expect to be reacted to in a deferential and uncritical manner.  

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".  

...

As you know, there are literally 0 prominent Democrats who advocate Sharia Law.

As usual, I would additionally enquire, what is the speaker's attitude to Halakhic law, and if it is different, why?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

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

Sorry, Mr. Khan, but you're full of crap.  When you take your Gold Star Family status into the partisan political arena, you cannot reasonably expect to be reacted to in a deferential and uncritical manner.  

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".  

It's largely an issue of culture tbh. Developing countries worldwide treat their women (and their citizens' in general) crappily. The way we can change it is not through hectoring, but tormenting change from within.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

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.

[Joe Republic]

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'.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

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.

You know damn well what the appropriate response to that would be. But you're not Trump, who doesn't and is MAKING IT WORSE. You really don't seem to GET why the Khan's are speaking, let alone realising that Trump's egotistical inability to LEAVE ANYTHING BE, is why this is getting worse.

[LLR]

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

Why was there a Benghazi night at the RNC?

Why was the Willie Horton ad a thing?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

the cult will defend anything, exhibit #31673882

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

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

Why was there a Benghazi night at the RNC?

Why was the Willie Horton ad a thing?

That's the point, why complain about those things and do the same thing at the DNC?

the difference has already been explained in this thread, buddo. do you have the same attention span as your idol?

[Gustaf]

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.

If you're not trying to be dumb I'm sure you can think of another response. Wanna try again?

[Sbane]

Even more disgusting than Trump's comments are the people who are defending him. They are utter scum. Bigoted pieces of trash. Trump is correct that he could literally murder someone and these trash would still defend and support him.

[Devout Centrist]

"Trump used Insult! It's not very effective..."

[Sbane]

Even more disgusting than Trump's comments are the people who are defending him. They are utter scum. Bigoted pieces of trash. Trump is correct that he could literally murder someone and these trash would still defend and support him.

Hey look who's talking, Hillary supporters are still defending her no matter what she does!

I'm not trying to be rude but I hate it when people use double standards.

And what exactly has she done? Has she insulted entire groups of people from the crimes of the few? Has she talked sh**t about the Benghazi moms who spoke at the RNC? She comports herself like a President must do. Trump is a complete joke. The world will end in a nuclear holocaust if he becomes President.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Even more disgusting than Trump's comments are the people who are defending him. They are utter scum. Bigoted pieces of trash. Trump is correct that he could literally murder someone and these trash would still defend and support him.

They are the same scums, who defended Hermione Granger, when she bigotedly assumed, that elves were enslaved, just because they silently did their jobs.
http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Society_for_the_Promotion_of_Elfish_Welfare

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, it was inappropriate, since Trump had not any evidence [but his perception of Khans' speech and the knowledge about their culture] to assume it, but yeah... he is probably right. In most non-Western societies women do have [much] less freedom. Even in Japan http://www.japanpowered.com/japan-culture/gender-roles-women-modern-japan

[RJEvans]

But the thing is, nobody will care about him saying this.

Conclusion: Many Americans are stupid.

The smarter Americans can have assurance that we are right about this small, pathetic little brain of a man.

[ag]

But the thing is, nobody will care about him saying this.

Conclusion: Many Americans are stupid.

It is not stupidity. It is immorality.

[GeorgiaModerate]

But the thing is, nobody will care about him saying this.

Conclusion: Many Americans are stupid.

It is not stupidity. It is immorality.

Some of both.  They are not mutually exclusive.

[Brittain33]

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?  

There are ways that a politician with an ounce of self-control could have finessed this. Reihan Salam, a Republican, suggested:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mrs. Khan has a heartbreaking editorial in the Washington Post today. This isn't just hurting Trump, it's directly confronting and defeating his demeaning of Muslims as un-American. Brava to Mrs. Khan for that. This is Trump's worst moment since the Curiel pogrom and he needs to back the  off as quickly as he can.

[ProudModerate2]

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.

[Stranger in a strange land]

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?  

There are ways that a politician with an ounce of self-control could have finessed this. Reihan Salam, a Republican, suggested:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mrs. Khan has a heartbreaking editorial in the Washington Post today. This isn't just hurting Trump, it's directly confronting and defeating his demeaning of Muslims as un-American. Brava to Mrs. Khan for that. This is Trump's worst moment since the Curiel pogrom and he needs to back the  off as quickly as he can.

Mitt Romney or John McCain would have done a much better job deflecting this type of attack against them, but neither appealed to anti-Muslim bigotry, so A statement like the one Mr. Khan made wouldn't have been necessary.

[Gustaf]

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.

Lol! That's a pretty beautiful display of hackery in action.

[publicunofficial]

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?

[Frodo]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell seems to have felt the need to distance himself from Donald Trump:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/khan-mconnell-trump-226485