Trump responds to Khan parents DNC speech megathread

[Gustaf]

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

Oh, just  off you piece of sh*t

[Gustaf]

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

just some casual racism nbd

Last time I checked, it isn't a race...

Sigh.

I guess his supporters are now fine with mocking the grieving mother of a dead patriot. Both Reagan and Lincoln would be rolling in their graves over this embarrassment.

[Gustaf]

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

Oh, just  off you piece of sh*t

Why don't you go to Malmo and see how they treat women?

I have. Have you?

[Gustaf]

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

Enjoy being completely wrong like your orange God-king...

https://youtu.be/FrWX_c3v8Y0?t=68

It really tears me up to listen to them. That Trump and his posse of racist trolls think they are in a position to mock and attack these people is fully despicable.

[Gustaf]

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

She stated in an interview with TLW w/ Lawrence O'Donnell that she "couldn't keep her composure whenever she saw [her son]" especially when the giant picture of him was behind her. She is articulate, intelligent, and can speak on her own. She debated even coming on stage because of that.

Therefore I ask the question again, would anyone ever say that about a White Christian mother who lost her son and decided not to speak to the entire American public? God forbid.

Yup. But don't expect Classic Conservative to apologize for his crass comment. And don't expect him to ever sacrifice his life or volunteer to fight for his country.

[Gustaf]

It gets worse...In the same interview...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/759446514209058816

Ugh. What a nasty little man he is.

[Gustaf]

I had this very argument with family yesterday and I'm honestly appalled that some people are living in some bizarro world where its ok to paint people with one brush.


Their son died a hero, like many others before him and sadly, likely, many others after him. You don't have to like his parents' speech but to attack them and to attack their son and to attack any of these people personally is morally disgusting. If you love this country and if you love our military than you must honor all of our heroes and their families.

I am very hardline on fighting radicalization and on fighting radical Islam but you cannot let yourself become crazy in the process of fighting terrorism.


If you truly believe every Muslim is a terrorist...you need to reevaluate yourself and your views because you are dead wrong.

Living in a black and white world on almost any issue is dangerous and ridiculous. That being said, the Muslim community indeed has a radicalization problem and it must be addressed.


Of course, there was a reason the DNC brought this family on, just like the RNC had a reason to bring out the family members of the Benghazi attack victims. Politics takes good people and uses them as props. Its a nasty business, but we all, on this forum, should be used to political tricks like this, from both sides already.

I broadly agree with what you're saying.

To me the big difference between this couple and the Benghazi mother (apart from the Benghazi story's link to Clinton being more of a conspiracy theory) is that the Benghazi woman was clearly not mentally well. She was being personally exploited in the sense that you could sort of tell she wasn't really in full control of her environment and her life.

By contrast, the Khans were very dignified and poised. These are people who choose to overcome their grief and speak up about their son's memory because they as citizens deemed it important. I get that people can bring partisan biases into judging these things but I found some of the RNC speakers just very cringey for this reason.

[Gustaf]

I hadn't thought about the bit of what he would say to the father. It's pretty gross as well.

[Gustaf]

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.

[Gustaf]

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

You have to be kidding me. WTF

Why are such blatant displays of xenophobia allowed? I'm not entirely sure what the moderators here do.

We generally try to tread carefully when it comes to political views - especially ones that are now (horrifyingly) mainstream in the US.

If you think it was against the ToS you should report it.

[Gustaf]

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.

If you're not trying to be dumb I'm sure you can think of another response. Wanna try again?

[Gustaf]

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.

Lol! That's a pretty beautiful display of hackery in action.

[Gustaf]

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.

[Gustaf]

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.

I just did and no one said what you made up. I guess that like your candidate you just construct your own reality to live in.

[Gustaf]

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.

You're about as pathetic as your candidate. It's amazing you people can manage to sleep at night with the level of sleaze you stoop to.

[Gustaf]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Gustaf]

I wonder if Fuzzy is ever going to acknowledge that he's fighting a strawman that only exists in his mind. It's a pretty fascinating performance he's putting on.