trump

[jamil]

Also, on the jobs thing, that is a really bizarre retort on the question of sacrifice.

Trump wouldn't have his "billion" dollars if those people hadn't done the work for him. It isn't a sacrifice to make money off of other people's labor. That's called the profit motive.

He sacrificed nothing to create those jobs. It isn't like he would've made more if he'd done the work himself. He took on risk - sure - for which he was handsomely rewarded when it worked, and for which he dodged responsibility when it didn't.

I don't begrudge him his money, but making it wasn't a sacrifice.

The real story, if Khan wants sacrifice, is that the candidate he's supporting didn't sacrifice either. If a good reason not to support Trump is that he's not sacrificed, then the same thing is true about Clinton. And the only reason we're not talking about that instead is that Trump wants to have his twitter wars.

 

[Dead Duck]

This is a bit excessive, even for INGO.
All you #NeverTrumpers are not going to sway anyone's opinions with all this trash. Show my a better candidate to beat Hillary and we'll talk about it. Until then, Jeez, take a break.

 

[T.Lex]

The real story, if Khan wants sacrifice, is that the candidate he's supporting didn't sacrifice either. If a good reason not to support Trump is that he's not sacrificed, then the same thing is true about Clinton. And the only reason we're not talking about that instead is that Trump wants to have his twitter wars.

Hey - I agree. This issue nets out as a tie, IMHO, not favoring either candidate. (Somewhat ironic that both VPs are also "tied.")

But that's also how easy it would be to turn on this issue. If Trump were at all prepared to be a candidate or an elected official, he would make better decisions.

This is a bit excessive, even for INGO.
All you #NeverTrumpers are not going to sway anyone's opinions with all this trash. Show my a better candidate to beat Hillary and we'll talk about it. Until then, Jeez, take a break.

Hey, I'll STFU if Trump supporters will.

 

[bwframe]

The support for the anti-gun opposition is strong in this thread.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The real story, if Khan wants sacrifice, is that the candidate he's supporting didn't sacrifice either. If a good reason not to support Trump is that he's not sacrificed, then the same thing is true about Clinton. And the only reason we're not talking about that instead is that Trump wants to have his twitter wars.

The context was in Trump's call for a ban on entry into the country by Muslims. Showing that Muslims have sacrificed in the GWOT, yet are to be denied categorically by someone who's never made such sacrifices, was the point of the speech.

Afghanistan veteran helps resettle interpreters in US - News - Stripes

No One Left Behind - Non-Profit Charity

But racial politics are too important to acknowledge that sort of thing.

 

[T.Lex]

The support for the anti-gun opposition is strong in this thread.

So is the seeing-things-that-aren't-there sophistry from Trump supporters.

 

[Tombs]

The context was in Trump's call for a ban on entry into the country by Muslims. Showing that Muslims have sacrificed in the GWOT, yet are to be denied categorically by someone who's never made such sacrifices, was the point of the speech.

Afghanistan veteran helps resettle interpreters in US - News - Stripes

No One Left Behind - Non-Profit Charity

But racial politics are too important to acknowledge that sort of thing.

I'll take Khan's words with a grain of salt considering who he's with. Clinton Cash: Khizr Khan?s Deep Legal, Financial Connections to Saudi Arabia, Hillary?s Clinton Foundation Tie Terror, Immigration, Email Scandals Together - Breitbart

Beyond that though, I have to ask where Trump ever made a statement that means a currently serving US soldier would not be allowed back into the United States?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Beyond that though, I have to ask where Trump ever made a statement that means a currently serving US soldier would not be allowed back into the United States?

Nowhere that I know of, why? Do you think the translators who assisted US forces in the field and in intelligence centers are soldiers or US citizens?

 

[KG1]

The context was in Trump's call for a ban on entry into the country by Muslims. Showing that Muslims have sacrificed in the GWOT, yet are to be denied categorically by someone who's never made such sacrifices, was the point of the speech.

Afghanistan veteran helps resettle interpreters in US - News - Stripes

No One Left Behind - Non-Profit Charity

But racial politics are too important to acknowledge that sort of thing.

Just curious but did Trump call for simply categorically denying all Muslims entry into the country without reason or was his platform about not allowing un-vetted Muslim immigrants from terror stricken countries entry without through background checks?

 

[indykid]

I keep waiting for the Trump people to go after the email server lady and ask the same question, who has she sacrificed? But no, they seem to be stuck on going after the decoy and not the main forces. Or is it just the news media that keeps the focus on Trump not losing a child to an act of war, and ignoring that neither has the wannabe queen?

 

[BugI02]

So, I'm curious, what does INGO say that Trump has sacrificed. That was really the core of Khan's rhetorical flourish.

And yes, I know, HRC hasn't sacrificed anything of substance, either. Just wondering if INGO thinks Trump has.

T. Lex, I don't know that Trump has sacrificed anything (past tense, present tense he may be in the process of sacrificing any remaining semblance of a normal life by running for POTUS)

But should he have sacrificed anything? Does being president require suffering? The Khan's are the ones attempting to accord themselves enhanced standing because their son lost his life on a military deployment. Should any potential future candidate for president have to have lost a child to an unexpected death? Did the Khans not know that this was a potential outcome?

I just don't see the Khans as having sacrificed anything. Their son made the ultimate sacrifice, but unless they did everything in their power to discourage his desire to join the army; only to reluctantly give in to his steadfast desire, I just don't see where they actively sacrificed anything. They just responded to the tragedy of the loss of their son. They were passive in the process.

I'm not sure what they expect from Trump, or anybody else. Are they holding their son up as the one good, patriotic muslim who breaks the rule? That somehow because of this one positive example we should change our mind and be for unfettered, unvetted muslim immigration by anyone from anywhere at any time?

All I see is a family tragedy cynically used for political gain, with the Khans complicit in the process. I expect their 15 minutes will be over soon and neither party will give them the time of day

 

[T.Lex]

But should he have sacrificed anything? Does being president require suffering?

IMHO, no to both. With one small caveat: true public service does involve sacrifice, but that is separate from suffering. The men and women I know and am related to in public service, sacrifice of themselves willingly. They "suffer" but only as it relates to what society thinks is important.

It comes back to principles.

I just don't see the Khans as having sacrificed anything.

Are you a parent?

I am.

Even if they were proud of their son's service, it was still a sacrifice. Of course they knew the potential outcomes. The informed support of their son's dedication is part of what makes it a sacrifice.

Again, I'm not saying it is necessary for POTUS or any other elected official to sacrifice. What I am saying is that such sacrifices are emblematic of someone's principles. Perhaps, the best evidence.

Which begs the question, are Trump's sacrifices emblematic of his principles?

 

[SteveM4A1]

Why does Trump have to be so stupid.

Seriously, he is trying to lose. Has to be.

 

[BugI02]

Just curious but did Trump call for simply categorically denying all Muslims entry into the country without reason or was his platform about not allowing un-vetted Muslim immigrants from terror stricken countries entry without through background checks?

I believe initially it was all muslims we were not able to sufficiently vet. I believe the 'from countries with endemic radical islam' caveat was added later.

But he's not wrong

https://homeland.house.gov/press/nations-top-security-officials-concerns-on-refugee-vetting/

 

[jamil]

Why does Trump have to be so stupid.

Seriously, he is trying to lose. Has to be.

It's pathological I think. He can't help himself. And I think the Democrats have figured that out. They'll keep putting innocent little puppies out there to troll Trump, and then let America watch him slay the puppies on twitter.

 

[SteveM4A1]

It's pathological I think. He can't help himself. And I think the Democrats have figured that out. They'll keep putting innocent little puppies out there to troll Trump, and then let America watch him slay the puppies on twitter.

The sad thing is, he can slay the puppies and still come close to beating Hillary. That's how bad everyone knows she is. This is just nuts.

 

[jamil]

The sad thing is, he can slay the puppies and still come close to beating Hillary. That's how bad everyone knows she is. This is just nuts.

I think any of the other 16 candidates could be at this point against Hillary, and many would be well ahead. Possibly even Cruz, the second most unlikable Republican since they kept track. He'd be nailing her on her email lies all day every day, not fighting twitter wars against surrogates.

 

[Jludo]

I believe initially it was all muslims we were not able to sufficiently vet. I believe the 'from countries with endemic radical islam' caveat was added later.

But he's not wrong

https://homeland.house.gov/press/nations-top-security-officials-concerns-on-refugee-vetting/

You believe incorrectly, it was:

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," a campaign press release said

Now hes probably said a dozen different things since then but the statement was made.

 

[KG1]

It's pathological I think. He can't help himself. And I think the Democrats have figured that out. They'll keep putting innocent little puppies out there to troll Trump, and then let America watch him slay the puppies on twitter.

That's exactly what they're doing. Trolling Trump to get a reaction. I think hardcore Trumpers also know that he's being trolled and when he doesn't just sit there and take it like a GW Bush administration did that makes them want to support him even more.

I think that's why Trump does it. It plays to his hardcore supporters.

My opinion is he should'nt play that game and focus instead on hammering Hillary's critical flaws.

 

[Jludo]

That's exactly what they're doing. Trolling Trump to get a reaction. I think hardcore Trumpers also know that he's being trolled and when he doesn't just sit there and take it like a GW Bush administration did that makes them want to support him even more.

I think that's why Trump does it. It plays to his hardcore supporters.

My opinion is he should'nt play that game and focus instead on hammering Hillary's critical flaws.

Yea but who's going to watch the Trump show if he sticks to issues or hammers his former friends critical flaws?
His campaigns a publicity stunt and as head barker it's Trumps job to keep the headlines coming.