Trump responds to Khan parents DNC speech megathread

[LLR]

Fuzzy Bear's gone from innocuous pro-Trump Republican hack, to probably the most craven and pathetic hack on this forum, all in a single thread. Bravo.

Meh, I've had him on ignore since his days as an independent.

[Badger]

Atlas Democrat logic:
Mrs. and Mr. Khan: Yuge Freedom Fighters, bravely acting in defiance for their country!

The Benghazi mother: Classless bitch using her sons death to attack Hillary.

FWIW, I find Trump's comments disgusting. They are reprehensible and wrong. But a Presidential candidate being an asshole is still better than a corrupt, tired, and incompetent relic from the 90s. 

that argument might hold more water if litterally every single thing Trump has ever said or done in the last couple years (as candidate in particular) hasn't proven corrupt, tired, and above all incompetent.

[Gustaf]

Atlas Democrat logic:
Mrs. and Mr. Khan: Yuge Freedom Fighters, bravely acting in defiance for their country!

The Benghazi mother: Classless bitch using her sons death to attack Hillary.

FWIW, I find Trump's comments disgusting. They are reprehensible and wrong. But a Presidential candidate being an asshole is still better than a corrupt, tired, and incompetent relic from the 90s. 

that argument might hold more water if litterally every single thing Trump has ever said or done in the last couple years (as candidate in particular) hasn't proven corrupt, tired, and above all incompetent.

Trump's a relic from the 80s who hasn't produced anything novel or interesting since then.

Clinton on the other hand is very current having been Secretary of State only a few years ago.

[Badger]

Fuzzy Bear's gone from innocuous pro-Trump Republican hack, to probably the most craven and pathetic hack on this forum, all in a single thread. Bravo.

yeah. sad to see the one Trump hack able to occasionally articulate an argument go off the deep end.

[ProudModerate2]

Fuzzy Bear's gone from innocuous pro-Trump Republican hack, to probably the most craven and pathetic hack on this forum, all in a single thread. Bravo.

yeah. sad to see the one Trump hack able to occasionally articulate an argument go off the deep end.

Very sad.
Fuzzy would at least acknowledge when he could see huge trump failures.
Now he is Mr Seriously Junior.

[Fargobison]

Christie has gone rogue...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2016/08/christie-criticism-of-the-khans-inappropriate-104426#ixzz4GCUbcUrc

[Antonio the Sixth]

Christie has gone rogue...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2016/08/christie-criticism-of-the-khans-inappropriate-104426#ixzz4GCUbcUrc

He could salvage a little dignity by taking his revenge on Drumpf and then leaving politics for good. He probably won't, sadly.

[Joe Republic]

Whether or not you show respect for the parents of a dead soldier is now becoming a partisan issue.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Christie has gone rogue...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2016/08/christie-criticism-of-the-khans-inappropriate-104426#ixzz4GCUbcUrc

Which is the perfect response, of course.

[RINO Tom]

Whether or not you show respect for the parents of a dead soldier is now becoming a partisan issue.

Considering elected Republicans' disowning of Trump's comments, I don't think that's true at all.

[Fargobison]

Now Palin's medal of honor son-in-law goes rogue...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/Dakota_Meyer/status/760592745178083328

[Joe Republic]

Whether or not you show respect for the parents of a dead soldier is now becoming a partisan issue.

Considering elected Republicans' disowning of Trump's comments, I don't think that's true at all.

I said "becoming".  The response from the Republican establishment (who never wanted Trump in the first place) is one thing, but take a look at social media or article comments sections for a snapshot of the current GOP base's views on the Khan family.

[Fargobison]

Katrina Pearson just blamed President Obama for changing the rules of engagement in 2004 thus resulting in the death of the Capt. Khan. Where does Trump find these idiots?

https://twitter.com/GPollowitz/status/760605283324264448

[dspNY]

Katrina Pearson just blamed President Obama for changing the rules of engagement in 2004 thus resulting of  death of the Capt. Khan. Where does Trump find these idiots?

https://twitter.com/GPollowitz/status/760605283324264448

I didn't know that a state senator from Illinois had the ability to change Army rules of engagement unilaterally

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

Katrina Pearson just blamed President Obama for changing the rules of engagement in 2004 thus resulting of  death of the Capt. Khan. Where does Trump find these idiots?

https://twitter.com/GPollowitz/status/760605283324264448

In the same interview, she also doubled down on the "Khan is a Clinton hack that defended Sharia Muslims" story

[ProudModerate2]

Katrina Pearson just blamed President Obama for changing the rules of engagement in 2004 thus resulting of  death of the Capt. Khan. Where does Trump find these idiots?

https://twitter.com/GPollowitz/status/760605283324264448

I didn't know that a state senator from Illinois had the ability to change Army rules of engagement unilaterally

Only thing I can think of, is that Pearson was not exactly sure when Khan's son was killed (in 2004), so she mistakenly thought Obama was President at that time.
Ooops.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I wonder who I would have to be, or what I would have to do to be in a position where NOTHING I would say would be subject to critical feedback. 

That's become the issue for me.  The idea that this man, Khzir Khan, achieves the right to not be responded to when he makes a blatantly political speech. 

I'll grant people that Trump was way over the top in his initial response.  I would not have responded as Trump did if I were the candidate.  I've made that clear.  I guess that I'm going to have to accept that most of America has a double standard in favor of Khzir Khan.  He's not to be criticized.  Everything he says must be received uncritically.  If only I could be so special.

I'm sorry.  I will comply.

I'm sorry.  I will comply.

I'm sorry.  I will comply.

I'm sorry.  I will comply.

Got it!

[fldemfunds]

I wonder who I would have to be, or what I would have to do to be in a position where NOTHING I would say would be subject to critical feedback. 

That's become the issue for me.  The idea that this man, Khzir Khan, achieves the right to not be responded to when he makes a blatantly political speech. 

I'll grant people that Trump was way over the top in his initial response.  I would not have responded as Trump did if I were the candidate.  I've made that clear.  I guess that I'm going to have to accept that most of America has a double standard in favor of Khzir Khan.  He's not to be criticized.  Everything he says must be received uncritically.  If only I could be so special.

I'm sorry.  I will comply.

I'm sorry.  I will comply.

I'm sorry.  I will comply.

I'm sorry.  I will comply.

Got it!

It isn't really "he shouldn't be replied to," but more "don't reply to him saying his dead son is equal to you building structures" because, you know, being a human.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I wonder who I would have to be, or what I would have to do to be in a position where NOTHING I would say would be subject to critical feedback. 

That's become the issue for me.  The idea that this man, Khzir Khan, achieves the right to not be responded to when he makes a blatantly political speech. 

I'll grant people that Trump was way over the top in his initial response.  I would not have responded as Trump did if I were the candidate.  I've made that clear.  I guess that I'm going to have to accept that most of America has a double standard in favor of Khzir Khan.  He's not to be criticized.  Everything he says must be received uncritically.  If only I could be so special.

I'm sorry.  I will comply.

I'm sorry.  I will comply.

I'm sorry.  I will comply.

I'm sorry.  I will comply.

Got it!

Stop feeling sorry for yourself.

You're being called out for spouting utter bulls***. He has the right to be heard, and he's put himself out there and so there's also a right to rebuttal. But, you've not only decided to take the Trumpist route by completely missing his point about sacrifice and suggested he's only in it for himself.

It's a classless, graceless approach and I did think you were better than that.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I normally don't resort to sarcasm.  But I'm utterly amazed as to how special folks on this forum have made Khzir Khan.  I can recognize that Trump went over the top.  In truth, a number of things about Trump have given me some pause.  I recognize that you can agree with issue positions with someone, yet not vote for that person because of perceived "psychological issues", and I'm not blind to human behavior.

But the entire Atlas Forum, it seems, is blind to the fact that Khzir Khan is a political surrogate of Hillary Clinton.  He gets to do that.  That's his right, and there's nothing wrong with that.  But to say that his political statements should not be responded to critically is, truthfully, a foreign concept to me, even for a Gold Star Father.  I've always believed that if you venture into politics, you give and you take.  Atlas Forum has shown me that Khzir Khan will be an exception to that rule.

[fldemfunds]

I normally don't resort to sarcasm.  But I'm utterly amazed as to how special folks on this forum have made Khzir Khan.  I can recognize that Trump went over the top.  In truth, a number of things about Trump have given me some pause.  I recognize that you can agree with issue positions with someone, yet not vote for that person because of perceived "psychological issues", and I'm not blind to human behavior.

But the entire Atlas Forum, it seems, is blind to the fact that Khzir Khan is a political surrogate of Hillary Clinton.  He gets to do that.  That's his right, and there's nothing wrong with that.  But to say that his political statements should not be responded to critically is, truthfully, a foreign concept to me, even for a Gold Star Father.  I've always believed that if you venture into politics, you give and you take.  Atlas Forum has shown me that Khzir Khan will be an exception to that rule.

There were a million other ways to respond. "Hey, I understand and respect the sacrifice you made, and if it were up to me, he'd have never been in a useless war in Iraq, so I want to honor other people's sons and daughters by making sure we use our force appropriately"

[ProudModerate2]

I normally don't resort to sarcasm.  But I'm utterly amazed as to how special folks on this forum have made Khzir Khan.  I can recognize that Trump went over the top.  In truth, a number of things about Trump have given me some pause.  I recognize that you can agree with issue positions with someone, yet not vote for that person because of perceived "psychological issues", and I'm not blind to human behavior.

But the entire Atlas Forum, it seems, is blind to the fact that Khzir Khan is a political surrogate of Hillary Clinton.  He gets to do that.  That's his right, and there's nothing wrong with that.  But to say that his political statements should not be responded to critically is, truthfully, a foreign concept to me, even for a Gold Star Father.  I've always believed that if you venture into politics, you give and you take.  Atlas Forum has shown me that Khzir Khan will be an exception to that rule.

Fuzzy,
Get it through your thick skull, that no one has an issue with trump responding "critically," but it should be done in a very delicate manner. (Numerous Atlas member have explained this to you over and over and over again !) Or better yet, don't respond at all, if possible (trump, not you.)
In any case, trump's initial salvo was nothing remotely close to a "critical response" (as you say).
It was a response issued with overtones of religious bigotry, toward a Muslim family who lost a son in combat while serving for our great nation.

[Devout Centrist]

The Khans say they're done with this public argument. Trump should send them flowers in thanks.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/08/01/trump-khan-feud/

But they're not done with it.  Mr. Khan is on CNN right now, 10:30 PM Monday night with Don Lemon.

I don't dislike Mr. Khan.  He's a Harvard-educated attorney, and his son is, unquestionably, a hero.  Mr. Khan, however, is now an active surrogate for the Democrats.  That's fine with me, too; it's his right, and I don't think any more or less of him for that.

At what point, however, is Mr. Khan a man who is acting as a political surrogate for a party or candidate?  I think that point came when he used a DNC podium to attack Trump.  

The issue, FB, is Trump wasted no time in attacking this patriotic Gold Star family on a basis of sheer religious bigotry.

Just admit to yourself: I DON'T CARE if my guy $hits on the families of dead vets. As long as he's MY GUY. He (claims to) support the basic issues I do like trade and somehow deporting millions of browns who've been here since childhood, so I DON'T CARE.

I'd never vote for a candidate who took such a slimeball level of attack, because it demonstrates just how they'd govern. Can you say the same?

Oh yeah. "E-mails!" "Bhengazi!" "Both sides are just as bad".

http://www.kmkhanlaw.com/Home_Page.html

There's lots on the internet about this, but this is from Mr. Khan's own website.  He's an IMMIGRATION lawyer, specializing in types of visas that are both lucrative and controversial.

I'm sure his outrage over Trump's stances are real, but Trump's a guy whose policies would hit him in his law practice.  There's a bit of self-interest here, is there not?

I don't believe that it's OK to say anything when someone's your guy.  But I also don't believe people get to have it both ways.  Mr. Khan is a political surrogate; there's give and take there.  And he's a political surrogate because he chose to be.  His son is a hero, but he also died in 2004, and while the sorrow over such a loss can last a lifetime for some, he and his wife have had a lot of time to grieve.  There does come a point when you don't get to hide behind a loss like this when you jump in the political arena. 

Trump responded critically by berating his wife, his loss, and his own personal sacrifice. This isn't the proper way to criticize a political surrogate, period. Downplaying a gaffe of this magnitude just makes you look horrible in return

[Badger]

I normally don't resort to sarcasm.  But I'm utterly amazed as to how special folks on this forum have made Khzir Khan.  I can recognize that Trump went over the top.  In truth, a number of things about Trump have given me some pause.  I recognize that you can agree with issue positions with someone, yet not vote for that person because of perceived "psychological issues", and I'm not blind to human behavior.

But the entire Atlas Forum, it seems, is blind to the fact that Khzir Khan is a political surrogate of Hillary Clinton.  He gets to do that.  That's his right, and there's nothing wrong with that.  But to say that his political statements should not be responded to critically is, truthfully, a foreign concept to me, even for a Gold Star Father.  I've always believed that if you venture into politics, you give and you take.  Atlas Forum has shown me that Khzir Khan will be an exception to that rule.

Fuuuzzzy?

NO ONE deserves to be attacked based on blind RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY!!!!

Sorry to get miffed, but I just wanted to get it through your thick skull what the real objection here is.

[Panda Express]

I normally don't resort to sarcasm.  But I'm utterly amazed as to how special folks on this forum have made Khzir Khan.  I can recognize that Trump went over the top.  In truth, a number of things about Trump have given me some pause.  I recognize that you can agree with issue positions with someone, yet not vote for that person because of perceived "psychological issues", and I'm not blind to human behavior.

But the entire Atlas Forum, it seems, is blind to the fact that Khzir Khan is a political surrogate of Hillary Clinton.  He gets to do that.  That's his right, and there's nothing wrong with that.  But to say that his political statements should not be responded to critically is, truthfully, a foreign concept to me, even for a Gold Star Father.  I've always believed that if you venture into politics, you give and you take.  Atlas Forum has shown me that Khzir Khan will be an exception to that rule.

Look at Hillary's "response" to the Beghazi mom that spoke at the RNC vs Donald Trump's reaction to Khan. Which is better?