Trump responds to Khan parents DNC speech megathread

[ProudModerate2]

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.

[ProudModerate2]

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

Typical knee-jerk reaction by the leftists on this board when Classic Conservative basically states the horrible way that some Muslim women are treated by their male counterparts.
And assuming that they didn't remove the post on their own, then there's that typical Atlas BS censorship.
Fact: Muslim women are treated like dirt in Muslim-dominated countries. Ask Malala Yousafzai what happens when they try to aspire to learn or do other things that women here take for granted.
It's Untrustworthy, Crooked, Lyin' Hillary that is on the wrong side of history, taking money from unscrupulous folks like the Saudis.
Culturally, it's not outside of the realm of normalcy for the woman to concede to the male in Muslim culture. With that said, if the record states otherwise in the instant case, Trump should apologize and go from there.
But you folks really need to get a grip.

So it's okay to assume that an immigration lawyer living in the US, who had a son who died serving in the military would mistreat his wife because he's a Muslim? And you wouldn't just assume that the mother is staying silent because she's grieving over her dead son?? Why don't you take your own advice and get a ing grip?!

You can assume whatever you want to. Sometimes it makes you look like an ass, like it did here. With that said, I'll pass on the idea of a thought police. They have stuff like that in backwards-assed third world Muslim countries that Hillary! has no problem taking money from. Even though those countries oppress women.

Seriously .... if anyone here is "looking like an ass," it is you.
As this Atlas member so precisely pointed out, and it just happens to have your name painted all over it .....

It's truly frightening there are so many people, on this very forum including, that will overlook or defend everything Trump says or does.

[ProudModerate2]

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).

[ProudModerate2]

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.

[ProudModerate2]

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.

It looks like this flap is another instance where Trump may be on his own. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are distancing themselves from Trump.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe on the Sunday shows some Trump surrogates will defend it. But this issue of Trump not having surrogates besides paid spokespeople back him up is a problem.

Between these two new events happening today, I just cant wait to see how hot-head responds.
He is going to blow-his-lid, and say even more ignorant bigoted comments .... shooting himself in the foot once again.

[ProudModerate2]

Kasich statement...Doubt he is getting any closer to lifting a finger for Trump in OH...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/JohnKasich/status/759574122221432832

^ Correction ..... three (3) new items on this topic, that are going to cause hot-head to respond in his usual disgusting-fashion.

[ProudModerate2]

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.

You do know that "Trump" labeled merchandise that Trump companies sell, is predominately made in other countries, right ?
It seems that trump is OK with his own trump companies benefiting "more" by producing/manufacturing overseas, but it's just not OK for other companies to do so.
Trump companies can make "billions" (as you say) and give the middle-finger to manufacturing workers in the USA, but God forbid any one else do it.
The hypocrisy is amazing !

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[ProudModerate2]

Unsurprisingly, John McCain has denounced Trump's comments:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's more detail in the article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/us/politics/john-mccain-denounces-donald-trumps-comments-on-family-of-muslim-soldier.html

I knew John McCain, as a previous war veteran, was going to respond some how.
With Ryan and McConnell releasing a statement, it was inevitable.
Glad to see that McCain is slowly starting to reject the orange haired clown.

[ProudModerate2]

When even 'Seriously?' has abandoned this thread after page 4, having quietly conceded that Trump's comments were "unwise" (but with a healthy dose of BUT HILLARY thrown in, of course), then you know Trump has really f[Inks]ed up here.

LOL.
I was thinking the same thing about our dear friend Mr Seriously.
;-)

[ProudModerate2]

Veterans of Foreign Wars released a statement denouncing Trump

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is huge news !
The VFW is a large and well respected organization for the vets within our country.

[ProudModerate2]

Trump crowd in Nevada booed a military mom (Air Force) who told Pence that Trump was disrespecting the Khan family

Does anyone have video on this ?
Please post links, if so.

[ProudModerate2]

Trump crowd in Nevada booed a military mom (Air Force) who told Pence that Trump was disrespecting the Khan family

Does anyone have video on this ?
Please post links, if so.

https://youtu.be/eLj6-k7sRm0?t=35m10s (Might be loud)

https://twitter.com/TheMattWilstein/status/760271711040212992

Thank you Interlocutor and Ebowed for the links.
It's incredible to see that some of trump supporters at this rally were so disrespectful to this military mom. But we cant be too surprised, because "birds with the same feather, flock together."
That orange-haired clown has polluted these people's minds, that they act like trump-zombies.
At least Pence was "adult" enough to answer in a proper manner ; we can't say that about Little-Hands-Drumpf-Fuhrer.

[ProudModerate2]

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,
You are clearly throwing "dirt." Just more desperate attempts to discredit the Khan family and connecting any bulls**t related to "immigrants" or "Muslim" to them.
The bigotry from the trump camp continues.
Unbelievable !

[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.

[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.

[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.