Khan asks McCain to unendorse Trump

[President Johnson]

Will McCain react? Or will he wait until the primary his over? Nevertheless, McCain should unendorse The Donald.

[LLR]

If he wins his primary he will. If he loses his primary, he will endorse Clinton.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Will McCain react? Or will he wait until the primary his over? Nevertheless, McCain should unendorse The Donald.

If he weren't up for reelection in a state where Trump won a majority, probably.

[Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez]

Let's dispel this fiction that Khzir Khan is a mere "grieving father" who has been unfairly responded to by Donald Trump.  I have no doubt that Mr. Khan is, indeed, grieving, and may well be in that condition for the rest of his life.  But his activities in partisan politics are not about his son, not really; they're about current issues of public policy.

I have no problems with anything Mr. Khan has done; he has the right as a person living in America to do so.  I don't think less of the fact that Mr. Khan has chosen to use his narrative as a Gold Star Father to advance his political beliefs.  But activities like this are evidence that Mr. Khan is, in fact, a political operative for the Democrats.  That's OK as well, but it doesn't entitle you to a pass from legitimate criticism, regardless of your personal narrative.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Let's dispel this fiction that Khzir Khan is a mere "grieving father" who has been unfairly responded to by Donald Trump.  I have no doubt that Mr. Khan is, indeed, grieving, and may well be in that condition for the rest of his life.  But his activities in partisan politics are not about his son, not really; they're about current issues of public policy.

I have no problems with anything Mr. Khan has done; he has the right as a person living in America to do so.  I don't think less of the fact that Mr. Khan has chosen to use his narrative as a Gold Star Father to advance his political beliefs.  But activities like this are evidence that Mr. Khan is, in fact, a political operative for the Democrats.  That's OK as well, but it doesn't entitle you to a pass from legitimate criticism, regardless of your personal narrative.

I'm sure you feel the same way about the "grieving" mother of one of the men killed at Benghazi who lambasted Hillary at the RNC, right?

[Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez]

Let's dispel this fiction that Khzir Khan is a mere "grieving father" who has been unfairly responded to by Donald Trump.  I have no doubt that Mr. Khan is, indeed, grieving, and may well be in that condition for the rest of his life.  But his activities in partisan politics are not about his son, not really; they're about current issues of public policy.

I have no problems with anything Mr. Khan has done; he has the right as a person living in America to do so.  I don't think less of the fact that Mr. Khan has chosen to use his narrative as a Gold Star Father to advance his political beliefs.  But activities like this are evidence that Mr. Khan is, in fact, a political operative for the Democrats.  That's OK as well, but it doesn't entitle you to a pass from legitimate criticism, regardless of your personal narrative.

I'm sure you feel the same way about the "grieving" mother of one of the men killed at Benghazi who lambasted Hillary at the RNC, right?

Actually, I do.

And I extend that to the mother of Chris Stevens, who writes a letter demanding that Trump not use her son's name in his speeches.

I feel terrible for THEIR losses as well.  But these folks, too, have entered the political fray.  It's not unfair to suggest that some of them are, indeed, partisan Republicans (or Democrats, in Mrs. Stevens' case) that have chosen to use their own personal narratives for the advancement of their candidates of choice.  Folks don't get a free pass in a truly free society.

[Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez]

While online, I just watched an ad for Hillary Clinton.  It featured a Gold Star Mother, offended by Trump's comments about the Khans.  I didn't catch all of this, but she made a statement as to how Gold Star Parents should be treated with honor and kindness for the rest of their lives.

It was a really good ad, and one that would reach folks, but I would respectfully submit that when folks enter the political fray, being treated with "kindness" is an unrealistic expectation, and some folks of "kindness" is, essentially, the idea of being received uncritically.  That's just not reasonable, and I would submit that such an idea isn't in keeping with the spirit of the 1st Amendment.  The rough and tumble of partisan politics is not a kind place, and folks that enter it ought to understand that before jumping into the fray.

[The Other Castro]

While online, I just watched an ad for Hillary Clinton.  It featured a Gold Star Mother, offended by Trump's comments about the Khans.  I didn't catch all of this, but she made a statement as to how Gold Star Parents should be treated with honor and kindness for the rest of their lives.

It was a really good ad, and one that would reach folks, but I would respectfully submit that when folks enter the political fray, being treated with "kindness" is an unrealistic expectation, and some folks of "kindness" is, essentially, the idea of being received uncritically.  That's just not reasonable, and I would submit that such an idea isn't in keeping with the spirit of the 1st Amendment.  The rough and tumble of partisan politics is not a kind place, and folks that enter it ought to understand that before jumping into the fray.

You can respond critically to someone without being an ass about it.

[Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez]

While online, I just watched an ad for Hillary Clinton.  It featured a Gold Star Mother, offended by Trump's comments about the Khans.  I didn't catch all of this, but she made a statement as to how Gold Star Parents should be treated with honor and kindness for the rest of their lives.

It was a really good ad, and one that would reach folks, but I would respectfully submit that when folks enter the political fray, being treated with "kindness" is an unrealistic expectation, and some folks of "kindness" is, essentially, the idea of being received uncritically.  That's just not reasonable, and I would submit that such an idea isn't in keeping with the spirit of the 1st Amendment.  The rough and tumble of partisan politics is not a kind place, and folks that enter it ought to understand that before jumping into the fray.

You can respond critically to someone without being an ass about it.

That's a fair criticism of Trump.  It's also a fair criticism of a number of folks on Atlas.

[Antonio the Sixth]

While online, I just watched an ad for Hillary Clinton.  It featured a Gold Star Mother, offended by Trump's comments about the Khans.  I didn't catch all of this, but she made a statement as to how Gold Star Parents should be treated with honor and kindness for the rest of their lives.

It was a really good ad, and one that would reach folks, but I would respectfully submit that when folks enter the political fray, being treated with "kindness" is an unrealistic expectation, and some folks of "kindness" is, essentially, the idea of being received uncritically.  That's just not reasonable, and I would submit that such an idea isn't in keeping with the spirit of the 1st Amendment.  The rough and tumble of partisan politics is not a kind place, and folks that enter it ought to understand that before jumping into the fray.

You can respond critically to someone without being an ass about it.

That's a fair criticism of Trump.  It's also a fair criticism of a number of folks on Atlas.

People on Atlas aren't public figures. Different standards apply.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Wow, hopefully John McCain lays it into him in public so people see this maniac for what he really is.

[Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez]

While online, I just watched an ad for Hillary Clinton.  It featured a Gold Star Mother, offended by Trump's comments about the Khans.  I didn't catch all of this, but she made a statement as to how Gold Star Parents should be treated with honor and kindness for the rest of their lives.

It was a really good ad, and one that would reach folks, but I would respectfully submit that when folks enter the political fray, being treated with "kindness" is an unrealistic expectation, and some folks of "kindness" is, essentially, the idea of being received uncritically.  That's just not reasonable, and I would submit that such an idea isn't in keeping with the spirit of the 1st Amendment.  The rough and tumble of partisan politics is not a kind place, and folks that enter it ought to understand that before jumping into the fray.

You can respond critically to someone without being an ass about it.

That's a fair criticism of Trump.  It's also a fair criticism of a number of folks on Atlas.

People on Atlas aren't public figures. Different standards apply.

That's true, but it doesn't mean folks should take advantage of that.

[muon2]

This is all quite interesting to watch as someone who grew up in the 1960's and '70's. So many Americans lost their lives fighting in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, it seemed hard to find a family that wasn't impacted by the loss of a close relative while in the military. There were so many family members with stories of loss that they were all over the political spectrum. That made it difficult to use them politically, and they were rarely seen in that context.

[The Other Castro]

While online, I just watched an ad for Hillary Clinton.  It featured a Gold Star Mother, offended by Trump's comments about the Khans.  I didn't catch all of this, but she made a statement as to how Gold Star Parents should be treated with honor and kindness for the rest of their lives.

It was a really good ad, and one that would reach folks, but I would respectfully submit that when folks enter the political fray, being treated with "kindness" is an unrealistic expectation, and some folks of "kindness" is, essentially, the idea of being received uncritically.  That's just not reasonable, and I would submit that such an idea isn't in keeping with the spirit of the 1st Amendment.  The rough and tumble of partisan politics is not a kind place, and folks that enter it ought to understand that before jumping into the fray.

You can respond critically to someone without being an ass about it.

That's a fair criticism of Trump.  It's also a fair criticism of a number of folks on Atlas.

People on Atlas aren't public figures. Different standards apply.

That's true, but it doesn't mean folks should take advantage of that.

Oh sorry, is calling Trump out for his toxic statements hurting his feelings? Maybe he should think next time before he speaks while running a campaign for the presidency.

[Xing]

McCain never should have endorsed Trump in the first place. The fact that he'd show little reluctance to embrace a man who dealt him such a low blow doesn't speak well of McCain.

[Maxwell]

McCain never should have endorsed Trump in the first place. The fact that he'd show little reluctance to embrace a man who dealt him such a low blow doesn't speak well of McCain.

I think McCain's soul has been crushed for years.

[Antonio the Sixth]

While online, I just watched an ad for Hillary Clinton.  It featured a Gold Star Mother, offended by Trump's comments about the Khans.  I didn't catch all of this, but she made a statement as to how Gold Star Parents should be treated with honor and kindness for the rest of their lives.

It was a really good ad, and one that would reach folks, but I would respectfully submit that when folks enter the political fray, being treated with "kindness" is an unrealistic expectation, and some folks of "kindness" is, essentially, the idea of being received uncritically.  That's just not reasonable, and I would submit that such an idea isn't in keeping with the spirit of the 1st Amendment.  The rough and tumble of partisan politics is not a kind place, and folks that enter it ought to understand that before jumping into the fray.

You can respond critically to someone without being an ass about it.

That's a fair criticism of Trump.  It's also a fair criticism of a number of folks on Atlas.

People on Atlas aren't public figures. Different standards apply.

That's true, but it doesn't mean folks should take advantage of that.

Oh sorry, is calling Trump out for his toxic statements hurting his feelings? Maybe he should think next time before he speaks while running a campaign for the presidency.

#triggered

[ProudModerate2]

McCain never should have endorsed Trump in the first place. The fact that he'd show little reluctance to embrace a man who dealt him such a low blow doesn't speak well of McCain.

I completely agree.
Because McCain is seen a leader and advocate for veterans, McCain should have criticized trump much more harshly than he did, regarding the Khan incident.
In all honesty, McCain should have dumped trump a long time ago.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

McCain never should have endorsed Trump in the first place. The fact that he'd show little reluctance to embrace a man who dealt him such a low blow doesn't speak well of McCain.

I think McCain's soul has been crushed for years.

McCain hasn't been himself since 2008. With the exception of a few flashes here and there, he's now just a bitter old man.

[Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez]

While online, I just watched an ad for Hillary Clinton.  It featured a Gold Star Mother, offended by Trump's comments about the Khans.  I didn't catch all of this, but she made a statement as to how Gold Star Parents should be treated with honor and kindness for the rest of their lives.

It was a really good ad, and one that would reach folks, but I would respectfully submit that when folks enter the political fray, being treated with "kindness" is an unrealistic expectation, and some folks of "kindness" is, essentially, the idea of being received uncritically.  That's just not reasonable, and I would submit that such an idea isn't in keeping with the spirit of the 1st Amendment.  The rough and tumble of partisan politics is not a kind place, and folks that enter it ought to understand that before jumping into the fray.

You can respond critically to someone without being an ass about it.

That's a fair criticism of Trump.  It's also a fair criticism of a number of folks on Atlas.

People on Atlas aren't public figures. Different standards apply.

That's true, but it doesn't mean folks should take advantage of that.

Oh sorry, is calling Trump out for his toxic statements hurting his feelings? Maybe he should think next time before he speaks while running a campaign for the presidency.

I'm not talking about Trump; he's fair game.  Calling people names just because they support Trump or Clinton is different.  I've certainly railed on candidates of both parties at various times.  But insinuating people are racists just because they support Trump, or even because they agree with him on immigration, is something people do rather freely, and while they're free to do it, it is something that's targeting private citizens. 

That's one thing I'll say for dudeabides:  He was in the tank for Jeb! like no one else here, but he never made rashly personal attacks on other posters; only on candidates, and mostly Trump.  I've called certain candidates things like Walking Abscesses and Scum Incarnate, but very rarely, and never a fellow poster on the forum.

[The Other Castro]

While online, I just watched an ad for Hillary Clinton.  It featured a Gold Star Mother, offended by Trump's comments about the Khans.  I didn't catch all of this, but she made a statement as to how Gold Star Parents should be treated with honor and kindness for the rest of their lives.

It was a really good ad, and one that would reach folks, but I would respectfully submit that when folks enter the political fray, being treated with "kindness" is an unrealistic expectation, and some folks of "kindness" is, essentially, the idea of being received uncritically.  That's just not reasonable, and I would submit that such an idea isn't in keeping with the spirit of the 1st Amendment.  The rough and tumble of partisan politics is not a kind place, and folks that enter it ought to understand that before jumping into the fray.

You can respond critically to someone without being an ass about it.

That's a fair criticism of Trump.  It's also a fair criticism of a number of folks on Atlas.

People on Atlas aren't public figures. Different standards apply.

That's true, but it doesn't mean folks should take advantage of that.

Oh sorry, is calling Trump out for his toxic statements hurting his feelings? Maybe he should think next time before he speaks while running a campaign for the presidency.

I'm not talking about Trump; he's fair game.  Calling people names just because they support Trump or Clinton is different.  I've certainly railed on candidates of both parties at various times.  But insinuating people are racists just because they support Trump, or even because they agree with him on immigration, is something people do rather freely, and while they're free to do it, it is something that's targeting private citizens. 

That's one thing I'll say for dudeabides:  He was in the tank for Jeb! like no one else here, but he never made rashly personal attacks on other posters; only on candidates, and mostly Trump.  I've called certain candidates things like Walking Abscesses and Scum Incarnate, but very rarely, and never a fellow poster on the forum.

Regardless of the kind of posting that goes on at Atlas, it goes without saying that presidential candidates should be held to a much higher standard than the kind of things Trump has said and done throughout his campaign. Comparisons with Atlas posters shouldn't have to be made in order to justify that behavior.