Trump Thread Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter XndrK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mary_Gail_36 said:
I posted the text of Kahns speech. No name calling. Perhaps the part that offended Trump was about the lack of sacrifice on Trumps part.

It wasn’t a long speech just about 3 minutes. It wasn’t a particularly insulting or inaccurate speech either.
Click to expand...
here’s an excerpt:
He disrespects other minorities – women, judges, even his own party leadership. He vows to build walls and ban us from this country.

Donald Trump, you are asking Americans to trust you with our future. Let me ask you: Have you even read the U.S. Constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy. In this document, look for the words “liberty” and “equal protection of law.”

You have sacrificed nothing and no one. "

Just offhand, I would say that’s name calling. It’s also untrue for the most part. And the tiny part that isn’t name calling, is an insult. And neither Khan nor anybody here on CAF or anyone else really knows what sacrifices Trump has ever made in his life, or for what reason, or what the price was. Nobody.

Say what one will about Trump’s wondering aloud about Mrs. Khan’s permission or non-permission or whether she even needs permission to speak. Because of my dread of a Clinton victory, I wish he hadn’t uttered those seven words. But it’s nowhere near as nasty as Khan’s speech.
 
Vouthon said:
But an American war hero’s grieving mother?

The comment outraged many Republicans. So I don’t think its quite right to suggest that a leftist media whipped this furore up. Folks on either side of the political aisle were obviously unsettled by this and rightly so.
Click to expand...
That’s correct. From the FOX News poll:

Finally, 77 percent of voters are familiar with the exchange between Trump and the parents of a Muslim-American soldier who died while serving in Iraq. Some 69 percent of them describe Trump’s criticism of the Khan family as “out of bounds.” Among Republicans, 40 percent think his response was “in bounds,” while 41 percent say “out of bounds,” and 19 percent are unsure.
 
Vouthon said:
Context is everything.

A person with even a modicum of tact, good taste and empathy, would surely have known that turning a grieving mother’s dignified silence over her dead war hero son into a moralistic tirade about her religion’s treatment of women, when this had absolutely nothing to do with the context other than her happening to be a Muslim, is a terrible and plainly wrong thing to do, not to mention stupid. A lousy, low blow if there ever was one.

In a different context he might have had a valid point, were he for instance referring to Iran or ISIS.

But an American war hero’s grieving mother?

The comment outraged many Republicans. So I don’t think its quite right to suggest that a leftist media whipped this furore up. Folks on either side of the political aisle were obviously unsettled by this and rightly so.
Click to expand...
Apparently Trump makes no distinction between Muslims who live in foreign countries and American Muslims. Witnessing the hijab worn by Mrs. Khan was probably all he needed to do to make the assumption that being religious, she must follow Sharia law and that is why she was quiet. He does not treat Muslims as individuals, and probably has the same mentality regarding both legal and illegal Mexicans, African Americans, and even women, although I have never heard about any anti-Semitism associated with Trump’s business or personal life.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
This is a mode of thinking that must be addressed, especially given today’s candidates.

Abortion is a very important issue, perhaps THE most important issue. But in this election we all must ask ourselves if we are willing to risk. Risk what?

It seems to me that Donald Trump would be so bad for this country and this world in so many ways that this harm outweighs any good he might do in regard to abortion. And I say “might do” because he cannot be counted on for anything even if he had the opportunity to do something specific, like appoint a SCOTUS judge, or influence legislation. He is an unpredictable, unstable wildcard who is now being criticized by prominent members of his own party.
Click to expand...
This ^^.

👍
 
Ridgerunner said:
here’s an excerpt:
He disrespects other minorities – women, judges, even his own party leadership. He vows to build walls and ban us from this country.
Click to expand...
All perfectly true, sadly.
Donald Trump, you are asking Americans to trust you with our future. Let me ask you: Have you even read the U.S. Constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy. In this document, look for the words “liberty” and “equal protection of law.”
Click to expand...
Again, he has a valid point. Trump has been vocal in the past to the effect that civil liberties - whether for victims of waterboarding, Muslims et al - do not really mean for him “equal protection”. There have even been peer-reviewed articles by conservative Americans opining that his presidency may prove a threat to constitutionalism and the rule of law, if he makes good on even half of his bombast
You have sacrificed nothing and no one. "
Click to expand...
Yet again, this has truth. Sure, its barbed - but not a patch on any of the offensive things Trump has said about others.

While young and poor Americans were dying by the dozen in the jungles of Vietnam, and John McCain whom Trump denied was a hero, languished as a prisoner of war under insufferable and degrading humanitarian conditions - Trump managed to effectively draft dodge because his father had the connections, leverage and capital to safeguard his son.

I bet this hurts him to hear but again he’s reaping what he’s already sowed by saying things far worse and more hurtful to other people.
Just offhand, I would say that’s name calling. It’s also untrue for the most part. And the tiny part that isn’t name calling, is an insult. And neither Khan nor anybody here on CAF or anyone else really knows what sacrifices Trump has ever made in his life, or for what reason, or what the price was. Nobody.
Click to expand...
He was clearly talking about sacrifices in war. It’s true, I haven’t sacrificed my own life or a family member’s in any recent war. So if Khan said it about me I certainly wouldn’t see it as a slur.

But it cuts deep to Trump since veterans are an important part of his base and are a respected “class” of people in American society.

The truth is, it hurt Trump and he lashed out with an ill-advised comment that he shouldn’t have said.
 
Vouthon said:
A person with even a modicum of tact, good taste and empathy, would surely have known that turning a grieving mother’s dignified silence …
Click to expand...
The purpose of the couple on the stage at the DNC was to promote the Democratic candidate and discredit Donald Trump. A grieving family as such really didn’t belong in the middle of a heated political debate, isn’t that in itself distasteful/indecent by the Democratic party?
 
queenofheartscv said:
Anti-trump republican loses election to outsider candidate in a landslide despite polling showing opposite.

Paul Ryan is primaried next week. Stay tuned.

hotair.com/archives/2016/08/03/how-did-tim-huelskamp-lose-his-primary-that-badly/
Click to expand...
I find it curious that this is yet another example of your embracing that which you seem to object to in others: accepting commentary and edited speeches/videos.

The site you reference above is nothing but…commentary and edited speeches.
 
Vouthon said:
All perfectly true, sadly.

Again, he has a valid point. Trump has been vocal in the past to the effect that civil liberties - whether for victims of waterboarding, Muslims et al - do not really mean for him “equal protection”. There have even been peer-reviewed articles by conservative Americans opining that his presidency may prove a threat to constitutionalism and the rule of law, if he makes good on even half of his bombast

Yet again, this has truth. Sure, its barbed - but not a patch on any of the offensive things Trump has said about others.

While young and poor Americans were dying by the dozen in the jungles of Vietnam, and John McCain whom Trump denied was a hero, languished as a prisoner of war under insufferable and degrading humanitarian conditions - Trump managed to effectively draft dodge because his father had the connections, leverage and capital to safeguard his son.

I bet this hurts him to hear but again he’s reaping what he’s already sowed by saying things far worse and more hurtful to other people.

He was clearly talking about sacrifices in war. It’s true, I haven’t sacrificed my own life or a family member’s in any recent war. So if Khan said it about me I certainly see it as a slur.

But it cuts deep to Trump since veterans are an important part of his base and are a respected “class” of people in American society.
Click to expand...
We’ll see how all of it turns out once the media thinks the public is tired of this one and goes on to some new thing.

And “…hasn’t sacrificed anything…” is broader than that.

Enemy combatants are not guaranteed “equal protection under the law” by the Constitution. Khan, a lawyer, knows that. He said it as an advocate, hoping people would believe it.

There are, indeed, conservatives who hate Trump. But they have no idea at all what his views of the constitution are, other than that he promised to appoint constitutionalist justices to the Supreme Court. They hate him for other reasons.
 
Coder said:
The purpose of the couple on the stage at the DNC was to promote the Democratic candidate and discredit Donald Trump. A grieving family as such really didn’t belong in the middle of a heated political debate, isn’t that in itself is distasteful/indecent by the Democratic party?
Click to expand...
Agreed. It’s right up there with their anti-Semitic tactic.
 
Coder said:
The purpose of the couple on the stage at DNC was to promote the Democratic candidate and discredit Donald Trump. A grieving family as such really didn’t belong in the middle of a heated political debate, isn’t that in itself is not tasteful/tactful/decent?
Click to expand...
A person has the right to campaign for any cause dear to their hearts.

The Khans obviously feel, as Muslim immigrant Americans, that Trump’s “nativist” approach to their social demographic - whereby he seems to view Muslims as a faceless, alien mass hostile to American ideals, rather than as individuals with differing views - dishonours the sacrifices of patriotic Muslim Americans who gave up their lives for the U.S., incidentally in the case of Ms Khan’s son to fight an Islamic country.

I wouldn’t deny them that right, why shouldn’t they speak out if it affects them directly as a Trump presidency may very well judging by his rhetoric?
 
Ridgerunner said:
We’ll see how all of it turns out once the media thinks the public is tired of this one and goes on to some new thing.

And “…hasn’t sacrificed anything…” is broader than that.

Enemy combatants are not guaranteed “equal protection under the law” by the Constitution. Khan, a lawyer, knows that. He said it as an advocate, hoping people would believe it.

There are, indeed, conservatives who hate Trump. But they have no idea at all what his views of the constitution are, other than that he promised to appoint constitutionalist justices to the Supreme Court. They hate him for other reasons.
Click to expand...
I wonder whether Trump himself has any “idea at all what his views of the constitution are.” I think many conservatives hate him simply because he is a threat to the GOP establishment, not being a true conservative.
 
Beginning to feel the glow of CAF rule radioactivity in here. Don’t want to be here when the Moderators take a look.

See you all. Be of good cheer!
 
Coder said:
I agree, I think it’s horrible that a Catholic could ever vote for a candidate that promotes abortion as an option as the Democratic candidates have over the years.
Click to expand...
There is no other option, Coder.

Trump is no friend to the unborn, either.
 
Coder said:
The purpose of the couple on the stage at the DNC was to promote the Democratic candidate and discredit Donald Trump. A grieving family as such really didn’t belong in the middle of a heated political debate, isn’t that in itself distasteful/indecent by the Democratic party?
Click to expand...
On this point, I agree. It is a cheap, politically motivated ploy to gain points by manipulating the heartstrings of the public. But it is not foreign to campaigns or conventions. The GOP convention did the same thing by showcasing the mother of one of the Benghazi victims, who blamed Hillary Clinton personally for the death of her son.
 
PRmerger said:
No. Atheistic socialism is inherently atheistic.

But socialism, in general, is neither atheistic nor theistic.
Click to expand...
Analogously:

No. Atheistic evolution is inherently atheistic.

But evolution, in general, is neither atheistic nor theistic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top