Trump fans: Respond to Khizr Kahn, muslim father who lost his son in Iraq, DEVASTATES Trump at DNC

lipstick on a pig wrote:

I hate to break it to you but this is what's getting exposed: the fact even a long-buried soldier's corpse isn't safe from the Clinron re-election machine reveals how desparate, and desparately wicked and those people are!

As if Republicans would never stoop so low. Right? Never. Not once.

You need to get out of your parent's basement.

DiscoGary wrote:

It's a wonderful demonstration of the double standard and how the MSM are just an arm of the Democrat party.

Hey, Conservatives! Has your candidate of choice done something outrageous and left you defending and an indefensible position? Just blame the liberal media! A proud conservative tradition that lets you shirk responsibility for any potential slip of the tongue!

There is no liberal media bias. The corporate media runs stories that are good for ratings. They are motivated by profit, not ideology. That's why CNN picked up Corey Lewandowski as a political commentator the moment Trump let him go, why MSNBC starts off every day with three hours of right-wing commentary by Joe Scarborough, and why Chuck Todd regularly brings on prominent conservative pundits to spout off nonsense without any sort of pushback or follow-up. (Beyond, of course, sugar-coating the completely wrongheaded things they say with reminders that both sides are equally bad. The Duopoly!)

I'll eat my trainers the day Fox or Breitbart runs an ad campaign similar to this:

DiscoGary wrote:

The Islamic State (note that word "State" in their title) has responded to the Pope's assertion that Islam is a religion of peace. The Islamic State (ISIS) says they are NOT peaceful, they intend to convert us, enslave us, or kill us, and that they HATE us! They claim that the Koran requires and justifies all the "senseless" killing we see every day.

Saying that the Islamic State speaks for Islam (while they consider nearly all of the world's Muslims as heretics), you might as well say that the Ustase spoke for all Christians.

I agree. She was wrong to buy what W, and Cheney and the rest of the Republicans were selling 15 years ago. She - and, thankfully, most of the rest of the country - now know better.

Anyway, the point of inviting the Khans to appear was to make the point that being Muslim doesn't mean you can't be a patriotic American. It was a counterpoint to Trump's comment that we should ban all Muslims from entering the country. That you want to characterize that as 'parading a dead corpse', attests that you either a troll, or someone who puts party before country -like all the dishonorable Republicans who. even after the last two weeks, still support Trump.

Dora the Agoraphobiac wrote:

...

There is no liberal media bias. The corporate media runs stories that are good for ratings. They are motivated by profit, not ideology.

...

Wow! I first heard that 30 years ago! I would tell my friends that the media was fixed and it was biased for liberals and they would say the media only reported the stories that would sell papers and commercial time. My response was that if the media were a competitive business then we would see one news outlet accuse another of being wrong, and that never happened.

Then the Fairness Doctrine was rescinded under Reagan which enabled Limbaugh to get on the air. And then the internets were discovered by Al which spawned the Drudge Report. Suddenly, we had news outlets giving the other side of the story, and making YUGE amounts of money doing it.

I've been in business for 30 years now and the Holy Grail of any business is finding an under-served market where you have the opportunity to be the first one to give people something they can't get anywhere else. $! CHA-CHING! $ That kind of thing usually creates a feeding frenzy where everyone who can jumps in and tries to get a piece of the newly discovered pie.

Limbaugh and Drudge proved that there was a market for news that didn't skew liberal, a very big market. If the media cared about money they would have created their own outlets to compete directly with Limbaugh and Drudge, but they didn't.... because they are NOT driven by money. They are ideological liberals who support the Democrat agenda and do everything they can to destroy anyone who challenges that.

... and all that has been obvious to anyone with an open mind.

“Patty Smith, the mother of Sean Smith that was killed, who gave a very emotional speech at the Republican Convention – notice that she wasn’t interviewed by any of the Sunday shows. She wasn’t put on any of the networks. And she wasn’t on the front page of the New York Times,” he pointed out. “And that was about her son being killed because Hillary Clinton had directly lied about it.”

“The Trump campaign, and your listeners, and this election, understand – this democracy is under assault by a press, who I, in 45 years, have never seen so biased, and so on a jihad against one candidate,” Caddell declared. --

Pat Caddell, long time Democrat

The MSM saw what Drudge and Limbaugh were doing

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

lipstick on a pig wrote:

I hate to break it to you but this is what's getting exposed: the fact even a long-buried soldier's corpse isn't safe from the Clinron re-election machine reveals how desparate, and desparately wicked and those people are!

As if Republicans would never stoop so low. Right? Never. Not once.

You need to get out of your parent's basement.

Even with the standard letsrun "parent's basement" reply you still implicitly agreed with me, Lol!

You are correct to point out that Hillary voted for those completely stupid wars that killed so many people and spent so much money. The surgical strikes against Osama Bin Laden and the Al Queda (sp?) leadership were smart. The massive ground ops were completely stupid. We all know that now. 20/20 Hindsight. Does Hillary have some blood on her hands for that? Yes she does.

When you look at the way Trump conducts himself, however, I see nothing that says "President." The way that he handled the Khan speech was really undignified, at best. He could have stayed about the fray and said "Thank you for your sacrifice, I understand your pain and passion," and left it at that.

Rojo and Wejo: I think that it speaks volumes that your father's former classmate, as well as his father, is not endorsing Trump, and neither of them even showed up at the Republican National Convention.

Here's a little tidbit for you: In 1995, I was on a business trip from Reno to Atlantic City, and I was traveling with the CEO of my company, who was a former gaming executive in Atlantic City, so he knew Donald personally. We arrived in AC about 11:00pm for meetings the next day, staying at the Trump Taj Mahal. When we arrived to check in, the clerk could not find our reservations in the system. Our CEO immediately picked up the phone and called Donald, then handed the phone to the clerk. I could hear the screaming on the phone from 15 feet away. Within about 30 seconds we were shown up to these absolutely palatial suites were everything was done up in black marble and gold. Too bad that I could only stay there about 7 hours since we were only staying one night, but the jacuzzi the the room as awesome. Nice upgrade......Thanks Donald!

Is Hillary the next JFK or FDR? Of course not, far from it, but when you look at the alternative......

breit leit wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

... and when Democrats trashed the mother of the Benghazi victim they walked right into the trap too, right? Oh, no they didn't. Because the MSM didn't call them on it, because the ones doing the trashing WERE the MSM.

The Democratic presidential candidate did not "trash the mother of the Benghazi victim". The Republican presidential candidate did trash the parents of speaking about their lost son at the DNC. That's the difference.

Bump, because Gary still thinks that Khan is getting more press than Smith due to media bias and discounting the influence of the reaction from the presidential candidates.

Link wrote:Anyway, the point of inviting the Khans to appear was to make the point that being Muslim doesn't mean you can't be a patriotic American. It was a counterpoint to Trump's comment that we should ban all Muslims from entering the country. That you want to characterize that as 'parading a dead corpse', attests that you either a troll, or someone who puts party before country -like all the dishonorable Republicans who. even after the last two weeks, still support Trump.

You still don't get it. The point in trotting out Khizr Khan was to set up a prop for a soldier's corpse, and milk some fatherly grief so that the DNC could troll Trump on an issue he clearly is correct on. You speak of patriotism--well how patriotic is it to allow unlimited muslim immigration into this country? Just look at the recent history of any western country that allowed that to happen. Do you really want us to go through what Germany and France are currently having to endure because of their open border policies???

The level of denial among the leftist, is fascinating. So, what you're really saying, is that somebody (HC) who is this gullible and naive, isn't really suited to be President? I mean, if they "buy" what the stupid republicans "were selling", their judgment must certainly disqualify them from 'the highest office in the land'.

Link wrote:

I agree. She was wrong to buy what W, and Cheney and the rest of the Republicans were selling 15 years ago. She - and, thankfully, most of the rest of the country - now know better.

breit leit wrote:

breit leit wrote:

The Democratic presidential candidate did not "trash the mother of the Benghazi victim". The Republican presidential candidate did trash the parents of speaking about their lost son at the DNC. That's the difference.

Bump, because Gary still thinks that Khan is getting more press than Smith due to media bias and discounting the influence of the reaction from the presidential candidates.

Hillary essentially called Mrs. Smith a liar. I'd also like to point out that the RNC convention was first and the media openly trashed Mrs. Smith after she spoke before we even knew who the Khan family was so this is hypocrisy at its best. If the media covered this election fairly it would be long over as Hillary would be destroyed by endless scandals. Go see Hillary's America if you want the truth.

Uncle Rico wrote:

The level of denial among the leftist, is fascinating.

So, what you're really saying, is that somebody (HC) who is this gullible and naive, isn't really suited to be President? I mean, if they "buy" what the stupid republicans "were selling", their judgment must certainly disqualify them from 'the highest office in the land'.

Link wrote:

I agree. She was wrong to buy what W, and Cheney and the rest of the Republicans were selling 15 years ago. She - and, thankfully, most of the rest of the country - now know better.

Reg Fields wrote:

breit leit wrote:

Bump, because Gary still thinks that Khan is getting more press than Smith due to media bias and discounting the influence of the reaction from the presidential candidates.

Hillary essentially called Mrs. Smith a liar. I'd also like to point out that the RNC convention was first and the media openly trashed Mrs. Smith after she spoke before we even knew who the Khan family was so this is hypocrisy at its best. If the media covered this election fairly it would be long over as Hillary would be destroyed by endless scandals. Go see Hillary's America if you want the truth.

Hillary and Mrs. Smith are in disagreement with what was said, yes. But Hillary showed compassion in her response. Trump did not. Trump's reaction is why the story has so much traction. Do you not agree that they handled the responses to their detractors very differently?

And as for Hillary's America...you should read up on "The Boy who Cried Wolf". I got talked into watching 2016 Obama's America and into following Benghazi hearings as if it was some sort of scandal, so after wasting my time on those false controversies I am worn out on trying to separate the trash and determine if there actually is any validity to the litany of scandalous claims.

No, no- the real issue here is Trump's answer when asked what "he has sacrificed." LOL. Idiot lemmings. Go US media-industrial complex!!

DiscoGary

Please refute:

You said our young men in uniform should intentionally target and kill innocent toddlers and pregnant women in the Middle East.

Thanks.

I'm not Wiggins, first of all.

And I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you about Democrats, Republicans, the media, or Islam. But what you see as a malicious racially tinged, poorly defined conspiracy, I just think is the way America operates in the 21st century.

We can't ban all Muslims from the U.S. because we need to keep doing business with the Saudis. Everything else in this discussion is just window dressing. There are lies and systems of manipulation in place to protect a status quo. In this election Hilary represents that status quo. In some previous elections, Republican candidates have served it better. The status quo keeps us fat and happy and you get to log on to letsrun everyday and have some fun arguing with people who you think are so stupid because they can't see "the truth". What is it you want that you don't have within this system that you think is so awful? Just have a coke and a smile and shut up.

In the past Hillary said "what does it matter" when talking about the Benghazi victims was that showing compassion? The media is just looking for opportunities to jump all over Trump and granted his responses give them that but people voting for Trump aren't looking for PC or soft spoken.

All I keep hearing is that Trump isn't presidential but time and time again I've seen Obama go play golf right after a terrorist attack. Is that presidential behavior. The media is certainly biased. Hillary's out for herself and making more money for her Clinton Foundation empire which acts as their slush fund and doesn't care about helping Americans.

If the shoe were on the other foot and Trump had a foundation that was pocketing 90% of its donations the media would be covering it non-stop.

Hillary's entire career is just scandal after scandal, the media just buries it for her.

She didn't say "what does it matter" about the victims - that's being intellectually dishonest. She said "what difference does it make at this point" about the motives of the terrorists. There is a big difference between those two descriptions of her comments, and you are either too dense to see the difference or too dishonest to lay out the facts appropriately. Still, it was a poor choice of words that she was criticized for, and is still criticized for, as you evidence yourself. But that is not certainly not an example of taking shots at the victim or the victim's family. Do you really find it to be comparable to Trump saying that the victim's mother probably wasn't allowed to talk? After Mrs. Smith's speech did Hillary say she was curious why Mr. Smith couldn't be bothered to weigh in?

Getting away from my original point to Gary I suppose.....As for media biases, yeah I'd imagine that different media stations have different slants. I don't make my voting decisions based on what the media's opinion is, so it doesn't really bother me. Are you now against private sector companies being able to voice political opinions and provide donations to candidates?