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.
In politics, there has been an unspoken rule that no one should use the death of a soldier in battle to make political capital, at least not on an individual basis. I agree with that rule; regardless of his or her religious faith, no one should use the death of a soldier to gain political advantage.
But because Hillary and Mr. Khan have set this rule aside, I feel free to make this post.
First of all, I'm not writing in order to find fault with Captain Khan's personal sacrifice, not at all, not in the least. What he did was certainly worthy of the Bronze Star and Purple Heart.
In my above sentence, I put Hillary's name first because I think that her campaign team went out to find the families of Muslim soldiers, and write a speech for someone to give.
In the speech, Captain Khan's heroism was used to construct a barrier behind which to take cover. If Mr. Trump responded to any personal attacks made in the speech, Hillary or whoever could hide behind the misdirected anger that came forth. That's why the speech was structured the way it was.
And the ensuing kerfuffle has nothing to do with this soldier's sacrifice. It has everything to do with how how his family chose to use it to attack Trump because of his position on immigration.
There will be trail of bread crumbs Mr Kahn has left. Selling 'citizenship' may be it.
Still why no uproar over Mrs Smith's speech. She too lost a son in a war. That too should have tarnished the candidate she railed against. But, up pops the "It's the Republican's fault.". whack-a-mole, again. Some things never change.
Both were crass political ploys. The media aided and abetted the ploy in Mr Kahn's case. That is the only substantive difference.
There will be trail of bread crumbs Mr Kahn has left. Selling 'citizenship' may be it.
Still why no uproar over Mrs Smith's speech. She too lost a son in a war. That too should have tarnished the candidate she railed against. But, up pops the "It's the Republican's fault.". whack-a-mole, again. Some things never change.
Both were crass political ploys. The media aided and abetted the ploy in Mr Kahn's case. That is the only substantive difference.
Nope. The ONLY difference is that Hillary was smart enough not to rebuke or respond to Mrs. Smith. Hillary did NOT come out and criticize her for being onstage. She did NOT try to play one upmanship with the mother of a dead SON as to who made the most sacrifice.
Trump's inability to monitor his mouth brought this on - otherwise, it would have been forgotten by Friday night.
There will be trail of bread crumbs Mr Kahn has left. Selling 'citizenship' may be it.
Still why no uproar over Mrs Smith's speech. She too lost a son in a war. That too should have tarnished the candidate she railed against. But, up pops the "It's the Republican's fault.". whack-a-mole, again. Some things never change.
Both were crass political ploys. The media aided and abetted the ploy in Mr Kahn's case. That is the only substantive difference.
I think you meant to say, Trump aided and abetted Mr. Khan's continued coverage. Without Donald whining about how mean Mr. Khan was to him, we would not still be talking about it today. That is the only substantive difference.
Trump loves the media and can never get enough of it. He even upstaged his own Benghazi-Palooza precisely while Mrs. Smith was giving her own impassioned speech because he couldn't stand that an hour had gone by that wasn't focused entirely on him.
At the very least, give the man credit for his best attribute, that of a media *****. You disrespect him when you take that away from him.
Sure there is. Trump's stated goal to ban all Muslims from entering the country would have meant that their son would not have been here, would not have enlisted in the armed forces, and all of those soldiers whose lives he saved could very well be dead now.
Their son personifies exactly what Trump's policies would look like in reality. I'd call that a very strong connection.
Are you 100% sure that is what Trump's stated goal is? Sounds like you read what someone else said and just repeated it and then believed it.
Are you 100% sure that is what Trump's stated goal is? Sounds like you read what someone else said and just repeated it and then believed it.
Nope, I read what Trump said: "I think that we should definitely disallow any Muslims from coming in. Any of them. The reason is simple: we can't identify what their attitude is."
Are you 100% sure that is what Trump's stated goal is? Sounds like you read what someone else said and just repeated it and then believed it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Yes, exactly like Bush did. Exactly.
They can go to hell also.
15 years and trillions of dollars in Afghanistan. Why?
No, not in terms of American lives. NOT exactly like Bush did.
The word is - if we leave Afghanistan (or try to again) that another radical group will just pop up and try to kill us.
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.
