Trump responds to Khan parents DNC speech megathread

[Fuzzy Bear]

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

I can't imagine having the level of hate in my heart like you have.

The next time I hear such a comment from a liberal commenting about a conservative Christian expounding on something while his wife just stands silently won't be the first.  Of course, it's not "hate" when a conservative Christian is the target of such a comment, it's just "pointing out the obvious".  There is a right and wrong, but there is also a double standard here amongst some, and some who will deny this are just flat-out intellectually dishonest.  And there is, very much, a sharp differentiation on the issue of the status of women between Muslims (even American Muslims) and it is interesting that liberal Democrats rake conservative Christians over the coals on this issue, but provide deafening silence when the issue of the status of American Muslim women is mentioned.

I have empathy for Mr. and Mrs. Khan.  They are Gold Star Parents, and Trump might have done better to have focused more on that.  They deserve honor for being Gold Star Parents, and that honor is a bittersweet honor, to say the least.  But they did voluntarily use their status as Gold Star Parents in a purely political venue to take Trump to task, and about "the Constitution" no less.  When you do that, you waive a degree of deference you might get otherwise.  And when you comment on substantive matters in that venue, your comments are subject to analysis and criticism.

As to the Constitution, the Khans are flat-out wrong.  The Constitution, including the Equal Protection Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments, do not guarantee foreigners the right to come to America, or to stay here; we can keep them out for any reason we choose.  The only requirement is that IF THEY ARE HERE, they are to be dealt with under the law as other PERSONS.  It does not require that we allow folks from all countries and all walks of life equal opportunity to enter America, because everyone who wants to come to America is not amenable to be citizens of a liberal republic with democratic features and enumerated liberties.  When asked what kind of new nation we were, Ben Franklin said that our new nation was "A Republic, madam, if you can keep it (emphasis added)."  Part of that "keeping" is being mindful to ensure that those who shape its destiny share in their belief in liberal democracy, and not everyone, everywhere in the world who wants to come to America is amenable to that.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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

I can't imagine having the level of hate in my heart like you have.

The next time I hear such a comment from a liberal commenting about a conservative Christian expounding on something while his wife just stands silently won't be the first.  Of course, it's not "hate" when a conservative Christian is the target of such a comment, it's just "pointing out the obvious".  There is a right and wrong, but there is also a double standard here amongst some, and some who will deny this are just flat-out intellectually dishonest.  And there is, very much, a sharp differentiation on the issue of the status of women between Muslims (even American Muslims) and it is interesting that liberal Democrats rake conservative Christians over the coals on this issue, but provide deafening silence when the issue of the status of American Muslim women is mentioned.

I have empathy for Mr. and Mrs. Khan.  They are Gold Star Parents, and Trump might have done better to have focused more on that.  They deserve honor for being Gold Star Parents, and that honor is a bittersweet honor, to say the least.  But they did voluntarily use their status as Gold Star Parents in a purely political venue to take Trump to task, and about "the Constitution" no less.  When you do that, you waive a degree of deference you might get otherwise.  And when you comment on substantive matters in that venue, your comments are subject to analysis and criticism.

As to the Constitution, the Khans are flat-out wrong.  The Constitution, including the Equal Protection Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments, do not guarantee foreigners the right to come to America, or to stay here; we can keep them out for any reason we choose.  The only requirement is that IF THEY ARE HERE, they are to be dealt with under the law as other PERSONS.  It does not require that we allow folks from all countries and all walks of life equal opportunity to enter America, because everyone who wants to come to America is not amenable to be citizens of a liberal republic with democratic features and enumerated liberties.  When asked what kind of new nation we were, Ben Franklin said that our new nation was "A Republic, madam, if you can keep it (emphasis added)."  Part of that "keeping" is being mindful to ensure that those who shape its destiny share in their belief in liberal democracy, and not everyone, everywhere in the world who wants to come to America is amenable to that.

Don't BS about this. What he said was wrong, unsubstantiated and bigoted. She has spoken in interviews and said she chose not to speak because she was overcome with grief. Which is of course the logical first choice of theory for why a mother would want to stay silent. Unless you're an Islamophobe like you and your ilk, of course.

Trump's comments about Muslims already in America, for example branding American citizens of Muslim faith as foreigners or pushing for active persecution of Muslims clearly are in violation of those amendments. And furthermore it's pretty clear that the spirit of US legislation on religious freedom is very anathema to banning people from entering solely due to their faith.

Is it against the spirit of religious freedom (never mind the letter) to restrict immigration against those who advocate the establishment of Sharia Law in America?  I grant you that not all Muslims agree to this, but some do.  We would not allow Nazis or Bolsheviks into our country because of their political ideology.  We would not allow folks leading White Nationalist movements in Europe into America.  These folks seek to undermine the principles of republican government that, however hardy it has proven to be, does not self-maintain, and while folks already here have freedom of speech, we are not Constitutionally obliged to invite more trouble.

Sharia Law is what it is.  Should persons residing America be subject to Sharia Law?  If not, is there harm in allowing in folks who subscribe to the imposition of Sharia Law in sufficient numbers as to someday prove electorally significant?  The race of immigrants is irrelevant to me, and their religion, in and of itself, is irrelevant to me as well, but their IDEOLOGIES are MOST important to me, as an American citizen, and Islam carries with it ideology and philosophy that goes beyond mere religion. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Fuzzy, what Trump said wasn't even criticism. It was just a race-baiting insult.


Trump's desire to strike back on any person who criticizes him, regardless of who they are, is disturbing.

When I post here, I endure folks calling me all sorts of names, and I endure the questioning of any and all of my motivations.  Some of it may be a bit unfair, but that's the price of advocacy in today's political discourse.  Folks who take a public stand are going to get negative feedback; that's just the way it is.

The Khans took a public stand.  God Bless them; that's their right.  When they did so, however, they forfeited the deference of being received uncritically.  Mr. Khan made partisan public statements.  Trump fired back.  And when Mr. Khan took Trump to task on the Constitution, Trump fired back about the issue on the status of women in the eyes of Muslims.  Was that wrong?  Is there some pot-calling-the-kettle-black here?

[Fuzzy Bear]

It bothers me immensely when people try to pretend they're just sticking up for women when they lambast the entire Muslim faith.

If hijabs, chadors, niqabs, and burqas offend you, seek out the voices of the women who wear them before you start your crusade. For many women, wearing one of these garments is a statement of identity, not subservience. Obviously there are always going to be areas of concern, but it is possible to be a Muslim woman and not be consistently oppressed or mistreated any more than other women.

And it bugs the hell out of me when we're told that religious freedom is not compatible with feminism or LGBT advocacy. Sometimes there are battles between advocates for these causes that are worth fighting. But there's no use in just assuming the battles will always be there. I will always fighting against religious intolerance (Hell, I'll fight against intolerance of any kind). But religious intolerance is not always part-and-parcel with religion.

The concept of "The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend" trumps intellectual honesty in this election, does it not?

Does voting Democratic absolve folks of their sins of intolerance?  Is that the operative theology here?

I'm not in the heads of every woman who wears head covering.  I'm not in the heads of their fathers or husbands for that matter.  But Sharia Law is what it is.  It's not a secret, and it's certainly not egalitarian.  And it's something that many Muslims in America wish to codify in American Law, starting at a point comparable to how Britain does things (allowing certain issues to be resolved in Sharia Courts).  If a Christian advocated the same thing, you'd be screaming, and painting with the broadest possible brush.  Sharia Law is about the subjugation and submission of women to men in law.  I know it's uncomfortable for the Feminist Left to admit that these are the folks they've forged a political alliance with, but facts are facts.  Enjoy your alliance with religious misogynists; just remember that's who you've allied yourselves with when you decide to take Fundamentalist Christians to task.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Fuzzy, what Trump said wasn't even criticism. It was just a race-baiting insult.
Trump's desire to strike back on any person who criticizes him, regardless of who they are, is disturbing.

When I post here, I endure folks calling me all sorts of names, and I endure the questioning of any and all of my motivations.  Some of it may be a bit unfair, but that's the price of advocacy in today's political discourse.  Folks who take a public stand are going to get negative feedback; that's just the way it is.

The Khans took a public stand.  God Bless them; that's their right.  When they did so, however, they forfeited the deference of being received uncritically.  Mr. Khan made partisan public statements.  Trump fired back.  And when Mr. Khan took Trump to task on the Constitution, Trump fired back about the issue on the status of women in the eyes of Muslims.  Was that wrong?  Is there some pot-calling-the-kettle-black here?

Fuzzy,
You are wrong.
There is a big difference between the two, it's not a simple kettle and pot description.
Mr Khan taking "trump to task on the Constitution," versus trump's personal attack on the Khans regarding the wider issue of "the status of women in the eyes of Muslims" is not comparable.
It's like me saying that your cooking (food) does not taste very well, and then out of nowhere, you call me a ni**er (if I were black) in retaliation.
And remember this bigoted attack from donald on the grieving Kahns who lost their son (a US soldier) comes directly from trump's mouth. This makes trump look completely un-presidential in the eyes of the public. What kind of president would say such a thing ?
I don't recall Hillary personally attacking the moms of those who died in Benghazi, after they spoke at the RNC.

I do wish to clarify certain things (although I'm sure I've said them before here).

I would vote for Trump if the election were held today, but I'm not asking anyone else to.  His persona is why I won't go further in my support for him.  I agree with him, issue by issue, more than any other candidate, but I do have reservations about his persona, and I understand why other folks do as well.  

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 do believe, especially in light of the ranting by Democrats over the "Religious Right's" views on the status of women (at least as presented by liberal Democrats), that an examination of the Islamic view of the desired status of women, as set forth in Sharia Law, is a legitimate issue.  I suppose it is embarrassing for the party of the Feminist Left to be in alliance with Sharia Law misogynists, and responding to the Khans may not be the proper time to bring that issue up, but it is certainly a legitimate issue.  A party that takes the Falwells and Swaggarts to task routinely ought to consider the appearances of its own alliances, should it not?

[Fuzzy Bear]

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. 

And FWIW, one of the Benghazi mothers asked Trump to stop politicizing her son's death. And unlike Benghazi Night, there was reason for Mr. Khan to speak.

I do agree in spirit with the highlighted comment on some of Trump's comments, to say the least.  I would be more enthusiastic about his candidacy if he didn't see the need to insult folks who are in no position to do anything but disagree with him.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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. 

And FWIW, one of the Benghazi mothers asked Trump to stop politicizing her son's death. And unlike Benghazi Night, there was reason for Mr. Khan to speak.

The "Benghazi mother" who asked Trump to stop speaking was the mother of Chris Stevens, the career diplomat who supported the Libyan mission and played a role in his own demise. The mother of the marines who died protecting the very man who assisted Clinton and the State Department in the insidious campaign against Qaddafi isn't a "Benghazi victim."

And yes, Benghazi is a black mark on Clinton's record as Secretary of State. Sorry, there is a lot to talk about there. There is a reason for them to speak. Can you guys handle any criticism of Hillary at all?

13 different attacks on our Embassay happened in the last administration, and yet only Benghazi has been investigated non-stop for FOUR YEARS now with no new conclusions.

And if your team really has this much contempt for Chris Stevens then you probably should stop addressing his name every single time you talk about Benghazi.

Oh, I'm just speaking for myself, not my team.

Also, the 13 embassy attacks never resulted in multiple deaths, nor were we responsible for directly destabilizing the situation outside of Iraq.

The difference with Benghazi was that it happened in the midst of the 2012 political campaign, and the real narrative undermined Obama's claims to being an effective President on foreign policy.  A false narrative was therefore created to deflect the press from the fact that it was radical jihadist terrorists that perpetuated the attack.

I think much more of Benghazi and the "narrative" issue has been made than what should be.  There is another issue, and that issue is one of whether or not we should have had an embassy in Benghazi in the first place.  It is the responsibility of the host country, and not our military, to provide security for our embassies.  If our embassies require a massive show of force to defend them in a nation, then we don't have an embassy there; it's the way it's always been.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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. 

And FWIW, one of the Benghazi mothers asked Trump to stop politicizing her son's death. And unlike Benghazi Night, there was reason for Mr. Khan to speak.

The "Benghazi mother" who asked Trump to stop speaking was the mother of Chris Stevens, the career diplomat who supported the Libyan mission and played a role in his own demise. The mother of the marines who died protecting the very man who assisted Clinton and the State Department in the insidious campaign against Qaddafi isn't a "Benghazi victim."

And yes, Benghazi is a black mark on Clinton's record as Secretary of State. Sorry, there is a lot to talk about there. There is a reason for them to speak. Can you guys handle any criticism of Hillary at all?

13 different attacks on our Embassay happened in the last administration, and yet only Benghazi has been investigated non-stop for FOUR YEARS now with no new conclusions.

And if your team really has this much contempt for Chris Stevens then you probably should stop addressing his name every single time you talk about Benghazi.

Oh, I'm just speaking for myself, not my team.

Also, the 13 embassy attacks never resulted in multiple deaths, nor were we responsible for directly destabilizing the situation outside of Iraq.

That's completely false. The attack on the US embassy in Yemen in 2008 resulted in 16 deaths, which is four times as many as the Benghazi attack.

Six attackers, six police, and six Yemeni citizens were killed. No Americans.

Actually, five Yemen civilians were killed, and one American citizen was killed.

There was not, however, a false narrative created about this event as there was in Benghazi.

Of course, the 2008 narrative was more about the collapsing US economy.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Fuzzy, what Trump said wasn't even criticism. It was just a race-baiting insult.
Trump's desire to strike back on any person who criticizes him, regardless of who they are, is disturbing.

When I post here, I endure folks calling me all sorts of names, and I endure the questioning of any and all of my motivations.  Some of it may be a bit unfair, but that's the price of advocacy in today's political discourse.  Folks who take a public stand are going to get negative feedback; that's just the way it is.

The Khans took a public stand.  God Bless them; that's their right.  When they did so, however, they forfeited the deference of being received uncritically.  Mr. Khan made partisan public statements.  Trump fired back.  And when Mr. Khan took Trump to task on the Constitution, Trump fired back about the issue on the status of women in the eyes of Muslims.  Was that wrong?  Is there some pot-calling-the-kettle-black here?

Fuzzy,
You are wrong.
There is a big difference between the two, it's not a simple kettle and pot description.
Mr Khan taking "trump to task on the Constitution," versus trump's personal attack on the Khans regarding the wider issue of "the status of women in the eyes of Muslims" is not comparable.
It's like me saying that your cooking (food) does not taste very well, and then out of nowhere, you call me a ni**er (if I were black) in retaliation.
And remember this bigoted attack from donald on the grieving Kahns who lost their son (a US soldier) comes directly from trump's mouth. This makes trump look completely un-presidential in the eyes of the public. What kind of president would say such a thing ?
I don't recall Hillary personally attacking the moms of those who died in Benghazi, after they spoke at the RNC.

I do wish to clarify certain things (although I'm sure I've said them before here).
I would vote for Trump if the election were held today, but I'm not asking anyone else to.  His persona is why I won't go further in my support for him.  I agree with him, issue by issue, more than any other candidate, but I do have reservations about his persona, and I understand why other folks do as well.  
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.  .....

Fuzzy,
Your description of a proper response, that trump should have used, is spot on.
It at least sounds "Presidential," and not like a hot-head who has no control but to retaliate against everyone and anything with childish playground attacks.
The best thing, actually, would be for trump to just ignore it altogether, but we ALL know that trump does not have the temperament for any kind of "adult response."

The only thing that disturbs me (just barely) is that you use the word "persona" to describe trump's "verbal mess-ups" and comments that resemble hatred and bigotry. I understand that it probably makes it easier for you to support (or possibly support) trump if you tell us and others (like your friends and family) that these "errors" from trump are just "persona" related.
But your use of "persona" are putting it lightly .... very lightly.
The truth of the matter is that all these disgusting attacks from trump on "groups" of people, or on people directly (individually), makes him look like an (insert REALLY bad curse words here), and I would never describe this as something as simple as using the term "persona."

But in any case, using your description, it also baffles me that anyone could support a person with this kind of "persona," even though you support him "issue by issue."
His "style of persona" attacks/comments, should (IMO) override any policy/issue acceptance from the electorate.
It's like if you were to support your local police chief because his ways of dealing with crime are very much in tune with your beliefs, but time and again the chief refers to some of the perpetrators of crime in his jurisdiction, as ni**ers, sp*ks or white-trash, when seen live on camera during police updates (at the podium).

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 Bear]

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".  

[Fuzzy Bear]

I really hope the people who are indignant about the supposed lies surrounding Benghazi and the tragic  deaths from it are just as morally outraged about the lies that took us into Iraq and the thousands of deaths that ensued from that, not to mention the countless wounded and scarred.

I await the day when the GOP congress holds a similar Chilcot style inquiry to it and prosecutes that with the same ferocity they have with Benghazi. Something tells me I'll be waiting a long time.

Donald Trump is one such person.  One of the few to date that I have counted.

[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.  Trump's rude and crude, but nowhere near as cruel and vicious as, say, the President of United Technologies, a company that had $6 BILLION in earnings, that they were moving their Indiana operations from Indianapolis to Monterrey, Mexico.  I guess $6 BILLION is chump change.  I guess that the scenarios of workers seeing their Social Contract trashed, their lives diminished, their futures shattered.  Yes, there's "retraining" offered, but for what?  Much "retraining" is for jobs that don't exist, or (at a minimum) don't exist in their area.  Skilled workers end up taking unskilled jobs and often take shorter-term retraining because they need a job NOW, and can't stay home with Mommy and Daddy while they go back to school.  

America's Displaced Workers have been screwed over by folks with outward civility and good manners.  The President of United Technologies was composed and polite as he endured the F-bombs of folks to whom he was informing that their lives were being ruined.  The President of United Technologies was calm and sounded reasonable as he expressed his belief that these workers would continue to maintain the quality they had always provided, assuring them that the move wasn't their fault.  He didn't say that $6 billion in earnings just doesn't cut it anymore; perhaps he just forgot to.

The President of United Technologies was able to relocate his firm in this manner because NAFTA made it possible.  NAFTA, a treaty that Bill Clinton did not take a position on in 1992, but supported it as soon as he was elected, was the poison enema for United Technologies, and for countless other American industries.  NAFTA and GATT are the crown jewels of Globalism, which we are told, over and over, is great for America, but it seems to suck out loud for the Working Class.

I am told that Donald Trump is obscene.  He may be, but is Trump a lesser obscenity than what has been done to the Working Class of America by Globalists?  I guess I really don't care about "civility" and "good manners".  Those things are talk, and talk is all BS.  The Working Class of America found this out the hard way.  And Hillary's a step down from Bill; she doesn't even offer sympathy for these folks.  She offers lectures and moral spankings, but has no real plans to reverse the effects of globalism on one working class community after another.

I guess this is my bottom line.  Lots of folks here despise common working people because they're not as enlightened as they are.  Let that be their bottom line.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Trump statement...



https://twitter.com/MattMackowiak/status/759580039515996161

Mr. Khan has every right to say whatever.  He doesn't have a right to not be called on it.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I guess this is my bottom line.  Lots of folks here despise common working people because they're not as enlightened as they are.  Let that be their bottom line.

The contempt with which your candidate holds for common working people just because of their ancestry or religion is the real bottom line here.  Working class people aren't just people who look, think and sound like Trump.  They are also the people he loves to insult the most.

The above quote is an assertion.  Not a fact.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.  

[Fuzzy Bear]

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. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

yeah how dare someone give people a vigorous defense in a court of law.

You guys really have nothing on Khizir Khan and instead of being decent human beings and apologizing the first time you keep trying to dig up fake dirt on him. It's pretty embarrassing.

I have no problem with him being a lawyer.  Or an immigration lawyer.  I've not said he's unethical in any way.  But Trump's proposed policies do have the potential to impact his practice, and impact his clients. 

I've only posted Mr. Khan's own website.  Is that "dirt"?

He's a political surrogate.  What I won't do is let him have it both ways.

[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!

[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.