Why Vets are Still Backing Trump after Khan Controversy

[Averroës Nix]

Must have a pretty dark heart.

My youngest adult son served in Afghanistan, and is voting for Trump.

Why?

[ag]

Must have a pretty dark heart.

My youngest adult son served in Afghanistan, and is voting for Trump.

Does EVERYONE who votes for Trump have a "dark heart"?  If you think that, is your heart darkened by being over-politicized?

Sure. He is, probably, voting for Trump because Trump presidency would have you die earlier and he wants to avoid having to take care of you when you get old. Dark heart indeed!

Is this meant as irony? Or are you really such an ugly, spiteful, and cruel - in a word, Trump-like - person?

In the world of Trump, all of us are Trumps.

Or, to put it the way I have put it before: Trump has made it certain that none of us will be able to taste our coffee without urine ever again.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Because they're sick of establishment's wars all over the world.

But insulting of Khan family was dumbest thing Trump ever did.

Khan put himself in the political arena.  Anyone who does that is fair game for a rebuttal.  And Trump went fairly easy on him, by Trump standards.

I was unaware that questioning a gold star parent's loyalties, attempting to string him together with the group that killed his own son was going "fairly easy."
Trump does not rebuttal. That requires careful thought and concise language. He just throws tantrums at people he doesn't like for the things they say about him regardless of their standing or the quality of their criticisms.

Yes.
And let's not forget about his initial attack on the mother/wife (Mrs Kahn).
She was so distraught about her son's death and nervous on stage, she did not say a word at the DNC. But yet trump felt it was "proper" to attack her, based on her religion.
Disgusting.

I understand that grief can last a lifetime.  I know folks who have lost a child who have never fully gotten over it.

That being said, the phrase here implies that Captain Khan was a recent casualty.  He was killed in 2004; that's 12 years ago. 

Mr. Khan let loose with an attack on Trump and reading the Constitution.  Yet Mr. Khan is a believer in Sharia Law, and he's got a paper trail on the issue.  He's also an immigration lawyer, and he's got a paper trail on that issue as well.  The Khan's jumped into the political pool with both feet.  They got what they could reasonably expect when they became partisan advocates. 

But let's hear from Gold Star Mothers themselves:

http://www.goldstarmoms.com/PressRelease082305.htm

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is in response to Cindy Sheehan, et al.  The statement, however, speaks for itself.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Because they're sick of establishment's wars all over the world.

But insulting of Khan family was dumbest thing Trump ever did.

Khan put himself in the political arena.  Anyone who does that is fair game for a rebuttal.  And Trump went fairly easy on him, by Trump standards.

I was unaware that questioning a gold star parent's loyalties, attempting to string him together with the group that killed his own son was going "fairly easy."
Trump does not rebuttal. That requires careful thought and concise language. He just throws tantrums at people he doesn't like for the things they say about him regardless of their standing or the quality of their criticisms.

Yes.
And let's not forget about his initial attack on the mother/wife (Mrs Kahn).
She was so distraught about her son's death and nervous on stage, she did not say a word at the DNC. But yet trump felt it was "proper" to attack her, based on her religion.
Disgusting.

I understand that grief can last a lifetime.  I know folks who have lost a child who have never fully gotten over it.

That being said, the phrase here implies that Captain Khan was a recent casualty.  He was killed in 2004; that's 12 years ago. 

Mr. Khan let loose with an attack on Trump and reading the Constitution.  Yet Mr. Khan is a believer in Sharia Law, and he's got a paper trail on the issue.  He's also an immigration lawyer, and he's got a paper trail on that issue as well.  The Khan's jumped into the political pool with both feet.  They got what they could reasonably expect when they became partisan advocates. 

But let's hear from Gold Star Mothers themselves:

http://www.goldstarmoms.com/PressRelease082305.htm

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is in response to Cindy Sheehan, et al.  The statement, however, speaks for itself.

As I said in the thread about Khan, Trump was most likely right.

But stil he had absolutly nothing to win saying it. It did hurt him. And it was very dumb.

[ag]

As I said in the thread about Khan, Trump was most likely right.

Smelling urine already?

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Because they're sick of establishment's wars all over the world.

But insulting of Khan family was dumbest thing Trump ever did.

Khan put himself in the political arena.  Anyone who does that is fair game for a rebuttal.  And Trump went fairly easy on him, by Trump standards.

I was unaware that questioning a gold star parent's loyalties, attempting to string him together with the group that killed his own son was going "fairly easy."
Trump does not rebuttal. That requires careful thought and concise language. He just throws tantrums at people he doesn't like for the things they say about him regardless of their standing or the quality of their criticisms.

Yes.
And let's not forget about his initial attack on the mother/wife (Mrs Kahn).
She was so distraught about her son's death and nervous on stage, she did not say a word at the DNC. But yet trump felt it was "proper" to attack her, based on her religion.
Disgusting.

I understand that grief can last a lifetime.  I know folks who have lost a child who have never fully gotten over it.

That being said, the phrase here implies that Captain Khan was a recent casualty.  He was killed in 2004; that's 12 years ago. 

Mr. Khan let loose with an attack on Trump and reading the Constitution.  Yet Mr. Khan is a believer in Sharia Law, and he's got a paper trail on the issue.  He's also an immigration lawyer, and he's got a paper trail on that issue as well.  The Khan's jumped into the political pool with both feet.  They got what they could reasonably expect when they became partisan advocates. 

But let's hear from Gold Star Mothers themselves:

http://www.goldstarmoms.com/PressRelease082305.htm

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is in response to Cindy Sheehan, et al.  The statement, however, speaks for itself.

As I said in the thread about Khan, Trump was most likely right.

But stil he had absolutly nothing to win saying it. It did hurt him. And it was very dumb.

I agree that Mrs. Khan should have been left out of Trump's statement, even if he guessed right.

As for Mr. Khan, Trump should have pointed out that the man entered the political fray, and doesn't have an expectation of being received uncritically under those circumstances.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

As I said in the thread about Khan, Trump was most likely right.

Smelling urine already?

[Cubby]

I'm pretty sure Trump has the support of the veterans who tortured prisoners in Abu Ghraib.

Oh snap no you di-int!

Somebody find that female soldier from West Virginia in the Abu Ghraib photos and ask her who she's supporting. After the way she was thrown under the bus by the Bush Administration, it shouldn't be Trump.

[ag]

As I said in the thread about Khan, Trump was most likely right.

Smelling urine already?

I will make sure that nobody here ever smells anything else, trust me

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

I'm pretty sure Trump has the support of the veterans who tortured prisoners in Abu Ghraib.

Oh snap no you di-int!

Somebody find that female soldier from West Virginia in the Abu Ghraib photos and ask her who she's supporting. After the way she was thrown under the bus by the Bush Administration, it shouldn't be Trump.

Not that I condone what went on with Abu Gharaib.  But that female soldier who was thrown under the bus by the Bushies would probably appreciate how Trump took on Bush in his own party.  Trump has done more to discredit the Bushes than any Democrat ever.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

  Trump has done more to discredit the Bushes than any Democrat ever.

[ag]

I'm pretty sure Trump has the support of the veterans who tortured prisoners in Abu Ghraib.

Oh snap no you di-int!

Somebody find that female soldier from West Virginia in the Abu Ghraib photos and ask her who she's supporting. After the way she was thrown under the bus by the Bush Administration, it shouldn't be Trump.

Not that I condone what went on with Abu Gharaib.  But that female soldier who was thrown under the bus by the Bushies would probably appreciate how Trump took on Bush in his own party.  Trump has done more to discredit the Bushes than any Democrat ever.

I am happy to note that you are happy to associate with that "female from WV" (BTW, her name is Lynndie England). In fact, I have no doubt you would be very happy to see you son photographed like this



Actually, given what you have told us about him, I am sure he would have liked such a photo himself.

[ProudModerate2]

Because they're sick of establishment's wars all over the world.

But insulting of Khan family was dumbest thing Trump ever did.

Khan put himself in the political arena.  Anyone who does that is fair game for a rebuttal.  And Trump went fairly easy on him, by Trump standards.

I was unaware that questioning a gold star parent's loyalties, attempting to string him together with the group that killed his own son was going "fairly easy."
Trump does not rebuttal. That requires careful thought and concise language. He just throws tantrums at people he doesn't like for the things they say about him regardless of their standing or the quality of their criticisms.

Yes.
And let's not forget about his initial attack on the mother/wife (Mrs Kahn).
She was so distraught about her son's death and nervous on stage, she did not say a word at the DNC. But yet trump felt it was "proper" to attack her, based on her religion.
Disgusting.

I understand that grief can last a lifetime.  I know folks who have lost a child who have never fully gotten over it.

That being said, the phrase here implies that Captain Khan was a recent casualty.  He was killed in 2004; that's 12 years ago.  

Mr. Khan let loose with an attack on Trump and reading the Constitution.  Yet Mr. Khan is a believer in Sharia Law, and he's got a paper trail on the issue.  He's also an immigration lawyer, and he's got a paper trail on that issue as well.  The Khan's jumped into the political pool with both feet.  They got what they could reasonably expect when they became partisan advocates.  

But let's hear from Gold Star Mothers themselves:

http://www.goldstarmoms.com/PressRelease082305.htm

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is in response to Cindy Sheehan, et al.  The statement, however, speaks for itself.

1. My "phrase here" did not "imply" that he was a "recent casualty." We all know by now that vet Khan died in 2004. So don't try to use "this angle" as part of your argument.
2. Where are you getting this "Mr. Khan is a believer in Sharia Law" bull from ? I have not seen any reputable coverage on this topic (and don't tell me you got it from Seriously's great go-to websites).
3. We all know that Mr Khan is/was "an immigration lawyer." So ? What does that have to do with anything ? Or do you have some trump-low-level conspiracy theory regarding this ?
4. Just because someone speaks at a political convention, does not mean they should be attacked by the opposing candidate. The Khan family was attacked on the basis of their religion, for pete's sake. And it was targeted more towards Mrs Khan who just stood there. How can you justify this by saying "they got what they expect." Are you sub-human ?
5. Your inserted quote and statement on "four organizations serving military families" has no relevance to the topic. Why exactly did you insert it ? Filler ?