Hillary compaign deletes Khan's Muslim Immigration ad (middle east, campaign, ethical)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just another dem/Clinton attack on Trump which completely backfired. The dems look like complete idiots..............again.
I'm trying to understand this logic. Khan spoke at the DNC, nothing strange about that. They propped up a person who had a personal experience that supported their talking point (Negatives about Trump), nothing strange about that, both parties do it as SOP, and Reagan was a master at it.
But Trump is the one that launched personal attacks on a fallen US Soldier, and THAT is what people attacked him so harshly on. He invited it, all he had to do was "do nothing" and it would have been a blip on the radar that almost nobody paid attention to.
How is this a Dem/Clinton attack? And who did it really backfire on? And who is looking like a complete idiot while his party has almost unanimously rejected his comments, and we're now starting to see reps from his own state come out saying they'll cross party lines and vote for Hillary?
Then why does he keep going on news stations why saying he wishes this would all go away ( he's talking about Hillary)?
Maybe because his son, who lost his life defending our country, has been disgraced by a major Presidential Candidate, and protecting the honor of his fallen son trumps any personal wishes he has for anonymity?
Just a guess, I'm not him. None of us know the answer...
Maybe because his son, who lost his life defending our country, has been disgraced by a major Presidential Candidate, and protecting the honor of his fallen son trumps any personal wishes he has for anonymity?
Just a guess, I'm not him. None of us know the answer...
Rubbish. You don't go on DNC and then wish to be anonymous. How much did the Clinton paid him?
Notwithstanding his war-hero son’s genuinely patriotic example, Khizr M. Khan has published papers supporting the supremacy of Islamic law over “man-made” Western law — including the very Constitution he championed in his Democratic National Convention speech attacking GOP presidential nod Donald Trump.
He supports beating of wives and stuff. He is a pure hero and roll model to the left he is.
Khan speaks admiringly of Brohi’s interpretation of human rights, even though it included the right to kill and mutilate those who violate Islamic laws and even the right of men to “beat” wives who act “unseemly.”
His wife better had stood behind him and not once opened her trap least her husband beat the snot out of her!
He supports beating of wives and stuff. He is a pure hero and roll model to the left he is.
Khan speaks admiringly of Brohi’s interpretation of human rights, even though it included the right to kill and mutilate those who violate Islamic laws and even the right of men to “beat” wives who act “unseemly.”
His wife better had stood behind him and not once opened her trap least her husband beat the snot out of her!
I hope Hilary and the Democraps brought this up in the convention. Maybe Bill can beat Hilary up.
I'm trying to understand this logic. Khan spoke at the DNC, nothing strange about that. They propped up a person who had a personal experience that supported their talking point (Negatives about Trump), nothing strange about that, both parties do it as SOP, and Reagan was a master at it.
But Trump is the one that launched personal attacks on a fallen US Soldier, and THAT is what people attacked him so harshly on. He invited it, all he had to do was "do nothing" and it would have been a blip on the radar that almost nobody paid attention to.
How is this a Dem/Clinton attack? And who did it really backfire on? And who is looking like a complete idiot while his party has almost unanimously rejected his comments, and we're now starting to see reps from his own state come out saying they'll cross party lines and vote for Hillary?
What the heck are you thinking?
That's why I like Trump. He is real and unlike that bunch of hypocrites criticizing him, he sticks by his word. Some people don't have a true word to stick by. These people attacked him because he was stopping unsafe immigration. He had nothing to do with the death of their son but anyone in the senate that voted for the war did.
You thought wrong. Or do you have any links to back up your 'thought' ?
Yes. Houston Journal of International Law, 1983. Juristic Classification of Islamic Law. “The invariable and basic rules of Islamic law are only those prescribed in the Shari’ah,” Khan writes. “All other juridical works… must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah.”
That's why I like Trump. He is real and unlike that bunch of hypocrites criticizing him, he sticks by his word. Some people don't have a true word to stick by. These people attacked him because he was stopping unsafe immigration. He had nothing to do with the death of their son but anyone in the senate that voted for the war did.
Wrong. They attacked him for lumping ALL MUSLIMS together. They showed an example of one Muslim who fought FOR America. Could have been left at that, or Trump could have even said "Great, that's one. But what about all the bad ones?" But he didn't. Instead he attacked a fallen war hero and got what he deserved.
Trump seems to be the master of creating a victim of himself and then playing the card.
Why is this a surprise? Khan, the latest Dem plant, is a con.
Khan is just another Muslim attorney pushing the EB-5 Visa scam and, behind the scenes, for Sharia law to make its way into the U.S.
We know he's chosen to attack Trump solely because of his immigration position, in a well-rehearsed fit of phony indignation. People might want to learn about the kinds of people he praises.
Educate yourselves.
Isn't it hilarious?
The dems/libs thought this was a major "gotcha" against Trump. Now it completely backfired and is a complete embarassment which substantiates Trumps claims.
The media, of course, given thier lack of due dilligence, attacked Trump like hungry wolves. Like Hillary, the media looks like a biased group of pro-Hillary idiots.
The media is no longer the "watchdog of the public", but is an obedient, yappy, liberal Yorkie.
Wrong. They attacked him for lumping ALL MUSLIMS together. They showed an example of one Muslim who fought FOR America. Could have been left at that, or Trump could have even said "Great, that's one. But what about all the bad ones?" But he didn't. Instead he attacked a fallen war hero and got what he deserved.
Trump seems to be the master of creating a victim of himself and then playing the card.
He's not attacking muslims, he's trying to figure out how to stop the attacks. If you or the khan man have a better plan, have at it, i haven't heard anything along those lines though, people just attack the man and the plan without offering a better solution.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
