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

Thanks for supporting the point that Khan gave a memorable speech.

Over the cuckoos nest wrote:

Piddly wrote:

The RNC had a mother up on stage that said HRC was directly responsible for her son's death. Surprise, surprise, the media didn't spend the next 2 weeks discussing it, or asking her what "sacrifices" she has made.

The RNC had a Muslim speak. They had a homosexual man speak (and Trump specifically noted the RNC support/reaction to Thiel in his own speech). The RNC had a few African Americans, including members of law enforcement. And of course, they have the parents of several individuals murdered by illegal immigrants- including those that took place in sanctuary cities- on their side... How much coverage do those poor parents receive? Right.

Thanks for supporting the point that the biased media fawned over Khan's unmemorable speech.

Tea and biscuits wrote:

Coffee and a donut wrote:

But seriously, how do you make fun of a woman at your rally because her baby is crying?

Crying babies are annoying. We all agree on that.

But c'mon, Donald, did you really not think that the media would jump all over that one?

Another non-story from the liberal media. We are now debating a crying baby at a Trump event. Obviously, Hillary would have aborted it months in advance.

But it is a story - we are talking about it. Even though it isn't true:

But the point that The Donald refuses to comprehend is that when he makes his little monkey faces and scoffs at people, the media is going to make hay of it.

He spent two days denying the plagiarism of his wife's speech - which allowed the story to continue for two days, instead of him getting his message out (although, to be fair, it also wiped out coverage of Scott Baio).

It's amateur hour.

Yes, he needs to keep a little of the Trump bombast - it gets him headlines.

But right now, he's just being stupid.

Yeah yeah, the media is against you. What are you going to do about it, continue to complain while you're getting your arse kicked? Fine by me.

Joe Biden was a gaffe machine when he was running with Obama but the difference is the media barely covered it. The point is the media is trying to decide the election and that's not the purpose of the media. If they reported down the middle fairly there is no way Hillary would've even gotten through the primary. 3 more top DNC officials had to resign yesterday because of being exposed with racist comments through the e-mail leak. Barely even a story....

Reg Fields wrote:

Joe Biden was a gaffe machine when he was running with Obama but the difference is the media barely covered it.

I beg to differ.

Mein Gott wrote:

Kramerica wrote:

Pierson just blamed Capt Khan's death on Clinton and Obama!!!!!!!

Can't make this stuff up!!!!!!

I know. Why would the Commander and Chief and Secretary of State that continued and expanded the war on Muslim nations have any responsibility for the deaths of American soldiers in those wars. Crazy!

LOL right over your head... Captain died in 2004.... Might want to check when Obama became President...

You've missed the point.

Biden would apologize for his gaffes. The other side would accept the apology and everyone would move on.

Trump doubles down. He keeps the story alive.

It may be a deliberate strategy - and hell, it may even be his best play here.

The assumption was that after winning the nomination he would tack to the left and try to grab the independents.

It may very well be that he has decided that his path to victory is a long shot, so they only way he thinks he can win is to just keep doing what he is doing, and hoping the magic continues.

It's going to be fascinating to watch. If he wins, it will force everyone in political communications to completely re-think "the rules" of how politicians should act and speak.

His brand has always been to be on the front page - that any publicity is good publicity. I just don't think that will work for him here - but what the hell, he may just prove me wrong.

Coffee and a donut wrote:

...

If he wins, it will force everyone in political communications to completely re-think "the rules" of how politicians should act and speak.

...

And THAT is why I'm voting for Trump. The only way to break the Republican/Democrat Establishment hold on the country is to find a new way to defeat them. If Trump can survive being politically incorrect then maybe more people will stand up to the PC fascists and defeat them. We can't fix our problems if we're not even allowed to discuss them.

Rojo, Obama's brother not wanting to support Hillary Clinton and preferring Donald Trump can hardly be presented as a political judgment of someone close to Barack Obama or to American politics generally. There are family politics, not global politics going on here that we know nothing about. I don't take this seriously at all as some kind of important statement about Clinton, or something worthy of a thread. Interesting, sort of, but that's about it. One wonders if Malik even understands that if Trump is elected and gets his way (both highly unlikely), he would not be allowed to travel to the U.S. again.

LIBERALS ARE SUCH LYING SACKS OF HYPOCRITCAL CRAP.

THE SAME PEOPLE CALLING TROOPS BABY KILLERS, ARE ALL LIKE, 'OH DEAR TRUMP HAS MOCKED THE SANCTITY OF A GOLDSTAR FAMILY', PFFFFFFFFFFF. JUST BECAUSE HIS SON DIED, WE ARE SUPPOSE TO IGNORE THE FACT THAT HE IS A SAUDI SCUMBAG FUNNELLING TERRORISTS INTO THE USA

DiscoGary wrote:

Coffee and a donut wrote:

...

If he wins, it will force everyone in political communications to completely re-think "the rules" of how politicians should act and speak.

...

And THAT is why I'm voting for Trump. The only way to break the Republican/Democrat Establishment hold on the country is to find a new way to defeat them. If Trump can survive being politically incorrect then maybe more people will stand up to the PC fascists and defeat them. We can't fix our problems if we're not even allowed to discuss them.

The funny thing is you think you are undertaking some sort of political revolution by voting for one of the parties.

At a certain point, if Donald Trump has any hope of winning, the GOP machinery is going to have to lend their support. He can't win an election without a ground game - and he simply doesn't have the time, resources or boots on the ground to accomplish this without the party's help.

That help will come at a price. So you won't achieve what you are hoping for.

But allow me to open your eyes a little wider, DiscoGary:

The problem with the US two-party system today is the antiquated voter registration system you have. It's the most bizarre system imaginable. But Americans have no idea that it is so bad, because 99% of Americans refuse to look at anything outside their own borders, or to accept any criticism of the good old US of A.

The entire voting registration system needs to be scrapped. No registered Democrats or Republicans. An arms-length body needs to control the voter records (like every other 1st world nation on earth does it). And yes, that would include showing ID.

As long as the US perpetuates the current system, the GOP and DNC are guaranteed to finish no lower than 2nd.

You will never reform your system by voting for DNC and GOP candidates.

Sorry.

oy vey the goyim know wrote:

LIBERALS ARE SUCH LYING SACKS OF HYPOCRITCAL CRAP.

THE SAME PEOPLE CALLING TROOPS BABY KILLERS, ARE ALL LIKE, 'OH DEAR TRUMP HAS MOCKED THE SANCTITY OF A GOLDSTAR FAMILY', PFFFFFFFFFFF. JUST BECAUSE HIS SON DIED, WE ARE SUPPOSE TO IGNORE THE FACT THAT HE IS A SAUDI SCUMBAG FUNNELLING TERRORISTS INTO THE USA

They might have forgotten to tell you when they thawed you out of that glacier, but the current year is not 1969.....

Trump to stand trial for RICO:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/us/politics/trump-university-case.html?_r=0

uhhhh wrote:

Didn't read the thread. Don't care. There is literally not one single thing trump could do or say, outside of committing a violent crime against someone I know personally(if he does so against a random person it sucks but won't make me not vote for him), that would make me vote for Hillary Clinton as president.

I haven't read through the whole thread either. This post stopped me, because I think it's the most honest I've seen.

I've been a NY voter for more than 25 years, so I've had plenty of chances to vote for a Clinton...and have never done so. I just don't like HRC.

And if voting against HRC--trying to keep her out of the White House--is someone's primary goal, then I think voting for Donald makes perfect sense.

I'd like my own vote to be a little more positive--not just against someone, but *for* someone/something--but if you feel strongly enough *against* a candidate, using your ballot solely to keep her/him out of office is sound strategy.

I just don't want people to say things like they're voting Trump "because Hillary lies." She does, but Trump lies more (as documented on Politifact and elsewhere). Let's be honest enough to admit that we're just against Hill, period, and that's why we're voting Don. Let's not make up or repeat stuff that, in fact, isn't true.

The son is a hero, a true hero in American terms and pure religious principles, the dad is a lying greedy POS. Big law, Washington corruption, Saudi salafi radical Islam, etc. End of story. But Americans are too stupid to get their facts and morals straight! Shame! You idiot runners kissed butt and learned by regurgitation and indoctrination in school. That is, all grades and empty achievement and no morals and wisdom. Shame! You bring shame to running!

You bring shame to your family if that's what you believe about Khizr Khan.

Politifact is a biased joke.

hofstrau wrote:

You bring shame to your family if that's what you believe about Khizr Khan.

Nope. Khan's father is an Islamo-fascist, a Muslim Brotherhood supporter.

This guy waved the Constitution at us after he supported the supremacy of Sharia Law over all other law. He doesn't believe in Constitutional Law, and if he understood it he would know that there is no Constitutional restriction for placing religious limitations on immigrants.