• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

VFW slams Trump, Gold Star families demand apology

Got anything yet, cpwill? Oh come on, I made enough mistakes in my previous post to illicit some sort of response, I'd think.
 
cabse5 said:
How was he personally attacking Khan?
Click to expand...

Trump claimed that Khan did not even have the right to criticize him. He engaged in stereotyping them as Muslims by suggesting that the wife was forbidden to speak in public. He suggested Khan was not even speaking his own mind, but being a tool controlled by the Clinton campaign. He sent out his minions to try to smear Khan first as a Muslim Brotherhood plant, as a money-grubbing liar, and then as someone associated with 9/11.

So, you're saying Trump was wrong in the way he decided to criticize and correct Mr. Khan rather than Trump criticizing and being critical of Mr. Kahn?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that Trump was wrong in that he decided to personally go after Mr Khan instead of doing something that is so basic in decency that even Hillary ****ing Clinton can manage it. You honor the family, you thank them for their sacrifice, you say you respectfully disagree with their argument.

If the GOP candidate has sunk to a moral low that even Hillary Clinton can claim to be the better moral person in something, that's mind-blowing.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
Trump claimed that Khan did not even have the right to criticize him. He engaged in stereotyping them as Muslims by suggesting that the wife was forbidden to speak in public. He sent out his minions to try to smear Khan first as a Muslim Brotherhood plant, as a money-grubbing liar, and then as someone associated with 9/11.



I'm saying that Trump was wrong in that he decided to personally go after Mr Khan instead of doing something that is so basic in decency that even Hillary ****ing Clinton can manage it. You honor the family, you thank them for their sacrifice, you say you respectfully disagree with their argument.

If the GOP candidate has sunk to a moral low that even Hillary Clinton can claim to be the better moral person in something, that's mind-blowing.
Click to expand...
So you're ascribing your argument to political correctness? That there is a certain - official way to handle this situation and Trump didn't do that? Hum?
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
How does this distraction help Hillary? Are you comfortable with Hillary being able to use this crap to avoid addressing her horrible record?
Click to expand...
How does Trump attacking (or counterattacking) gold star parents help his campaign exactly? The answer to your second question is that I don't think the Khan's speech at the DNC is "crap." That word better defines Trump's response to the speech.
 
Ikari said:
I'm going with the pot head. Worst there is that prices of snack foods explode. lol

It's not actually a bad choice, Johnson is the only tried-and-true small government candidate out there.
Click to expand...

We need strong leadership...Sorry, I don't think Johnson projects that.
 
Grand Mal said:
If Clinton is smart she'll keep her yap shut and let Trump drive the bus.
Click to expand...

We are just getting started on the real campaign....Clinton is so flawed, she won't have to speak, we can let her corrupt 40 year record speak for her.
 
cpwill said:
Exactly. Democrats furious about the Trump reaction to Khan studiously ignored their own side acting atrociously towards Patricia Smith. Republicans who felt that Patricia Smith spoke with total moral authority think it's totally disrespectful of the Democrats to put up the Khans like that. :roll:
Click to expand...
Which Democratic leaders attacked Patricia Smith for speaking to the RNC or speaking out in general? They deserve nothing but condemnation, as does Trump. The Khans had every right to speak at the DNC, full stop.
 
manise said:
How does Trump attacking (or counterattacking) gold star parents help his campaign exactly? The answer to your second question is that I don't think the Khan's speech at the DNC is "crap." That word better defines Trump's response to the speech.
Click to expand...

Well of course you don't....being a liberal partisan, you are all about what ever playground cheap shots your side can muster to attack Trump....I am not a fan of the "irrefutable source" Alinsky tactic your side so loves to employ...It is dishonest at best....Hillary sticks Kahn up there as an emotional appeal, a fallacy in itself....True enough that Trump shouldn't have given it the time of day, but he did, and defended himself against this dishonest attack...

The bottom line is that your progressive side has already lost this election....People are downright pissed off....Regardless of the rosy glasses demo progressives want to put on the last 8 years, it sucks out there, and is largely due to progressive policies that were rammed down the country's throat in that time....
 
j-mac said:
We need strong leadership...Sorry, I don't think Johnson projects that.
Click to expand...

Well he very well as Governor of New Mexico. So "projects" or no, he gets things done. Trump doesn't project strong leadership, that's for sure.
 
j-mac said:
New Mexico? I think any big city has as much population as NM doesn't it?

This may be a good article for you....

Gary Johnson's Problematic Libertarianism | The Daily Caller
Click to expand...

There are certainly more populas states than NM. But he was still governor and still accomplished quite a bit. He's the only candidate to hold an elected office in the executive branch. He's the smallest government candidate of them all and committed to America and American liberty. Those are the facts.

In the end, we're likely going to end with another President Clinton, but given how toxic both Trump and Clinton are to the Republic, there is no way I could vote for either. So Gary Johnson it is.
 
j-mac said:
Well of course you don't....being a liberal partisan, you are all about what ever playground cheap shots your side can muster to attack Trump....I am not a fan of the "irrefutable source" Alinsky tactic your side so loves to employ...It is dishonest at best....Hillary sticks Kahn up there as an emotional appeal, a fallacy in itself....True enough that Trump shouldn't have given it the time of day, but he did, and defended himself against this dishonest attack...

The bottom line is that your progressive side has already lost this election....People are downright pissed off....Regardless of the rosy glasses demo progressives want to put on the last 8 years, it sucks out there, and is largely due to progressive policies that were rammed down the country's throat in that time....
Click to expand...

People are pissed off Mac. But there's not enough of them to win an election.
 
Ikari said:
Maybe, maybe not. If he were allowed in the debated, he'd really raise that number. But the Republcrats don't like challenges to their power base. So in the end, we'll be left with either Hillary or Trump and worse off for it.
Click to expand...

You might be right about limiting the debate participation.
 
haymarket said:
You might be right about limiting the debate participation.
Click to expand...

It's very clear. The last non-Republocrat allowed into the debates was Ross Perot. He ended up with almost 19% of the popular vote. Right after that, the Republocrats removed the League of Women Voters from their long-term role as handlers of the Presidential debates and started putting restrictions on participation. I think it's 15% now. Something so artificially high that it's unlikely that another third party candidate will achieve it. You need to press exposure to really get that high, but you cannot get the press exposure until you poll that high. It's the Catch 22, and it's entirely purposeful.
 
Ikari said:
It's very clear. The last non-Republocrat allowed into the debates was Ross Perot. He ended up with almost 19% of the popular vote. Right after that, the Republocrats removed the League of Women Voters from their long-term role as handlers of the Presidential debates and started putting restrictions on participation. I think it's 15% now. Something so artificially high that it's unlikely that another third party candidate will achieve it. You need to press exposure to really get that high, but you cannot get the press exposure until you poll that high. It's the Catch 22, and it's entirely purposeful.
Click to expand...

I agree that participation would open the door for third parties. The question then becomes will Americans walk though that door and vote Libertarian. And both you and I know what my feelings are about that.

But I am all in favor of the Libertarian candidate being on the first debate.
 
haymarket said:
I agree that participation would open the door for third parties. The question then becomes will Americans walk though that door and vote Libertarian. And both you and I know what my feelings are about that.

But I am all in favor of the Libertarian candidate being on the first debate.
Click to expand...

If Perot could get 19% of the popular vote, an actual third party candidate could do quite well if given the same exposure. I think Johnson would end up beating Trump if you heard about him in the Press and if he were allowed to participate in the debates.

But the Republocrats fear political competition. Oligarchy is much better at preserving one's power.
 
cabse5 said:
So you're ascribing your argument to political correctness? That there is a certain - official way to handle this situation and Trump didn't do that?
Click to expand...

No, I'm ascribing to basic ****ing human decency. Republicans used to claim that character mattered, and they used to absolutely land on the dregs of the anti-troop left who were low and vile enough to would pull **** like this. Now, apparently, they are those people.
 
manise said:
Which Democratic leaders attacked Patricia Smith for speaking to the RNC or speaking out in general? They deserve nothing but condemnation, as does Trump. The Khans had every right to speak at the DNC, full stop.
Click to expand...
I don't recall party leadership - mostly media figures.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
cpwill said:
I'm saying that Trump was wrong in that he decided to personally go after Mr Khan instead of doing something that is so basic in decency that even Hillary ****ing Clinton can manage it. You honor the family, you thank them for their sacrifice, you say you respectfully disagree with their argument.
Click to expand...

Well said.

Then factor that there is a good probability, the Republican Party- or Trump's campaign had identified that there could well be a Democratic counter to Patricia Smith at the Convention and that a sacrificing Moslem could make an excellent counter. Heck, an internet search could probably even identify who the Democrats were more likely to approach.

Staffers probably even prepared a response in advance that reads very similar to the concepts you illustrated. All Trump needed to do was follow the scripted response. But..... no, he cant do that. Like you said, Hillary can and did.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
We are just getting started on the real campaign....Clinton is so flawed, she won't have to speak, we can let her corrupt 40 year record speak for her.
Click to expand...

Corrupt or not, flawed or not, if she keeps a lid on it long enough Trump will hang himself. The opposite is true, too- if Trump is serious about this he needs to zip his lips, get some knowledgeable handlers and heed their advice. Clinton's flaws won't count if Trump continues to ad-lib this campaign.
The election might end up being decided by the headlines the day before the vote. Honest to God, how did you guys end up with this choice? Me, I blame the media, and the strange fascination with celebrity. Without his trash-TV exposure Trump wouldn't be there and without her media attention going back to Bill and Monica Hillary wouldn't be there. Somewhere left behind, in the dust cloud, is the right President of the United States.
 
Cryptic said:
Well said.

Then factor that there is a good probability, the Republican Party- or Trump's campaign had identified that there could well be a Democratic counter to Patricia Smith at the Convention and that a sacrificing Moslem could make an excellent counter. Heck, an internet search could probably even identify who the Democrats were more likely to approach.

Staffers probably even prepared a response in advance that reads very similar to the concepts you illustrated. All Trump needed to do was follow the scripted response. But..... no, he cant do that. Like you said, Hillary can and did.
Click to expand...

Longtime ally of Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign manager: "Manafort not challenging Trump anymore. Mailing it in. Staff suicidal."
 
cpwill said:
Longtime ally of Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign manager: "Manafort not challenging Trump anymore. Mailing it in. Staff suicidal."
Click to expand...

Are you even a little bit surprised? I'm hearing that even his own kids are at the end of their ropes with him.

Donald Trump doesn't want to be President. He did this to increase his own brand and to get Hillary Clinton elected. He will manage to succeed at #2, but I hope his brand is forevermore tarnished and ruined. Nobody who has 4 working brain cells can look at what that man has done and said over the last year and support him, and not see what the man is up to. Even a sleaze like Manafort knows what's really going on here.
 
tres borrachos said:
Are you even a little bit surprised? I'm hearing that even his own kids are at the end of their ropes with him.

Donald Trump doesn't want to be President. He did this to increase his own brand and to get Hillary Clinton elected.
Click to expand...

I am positive about the red portion, and find the bolded increasingly plausible.

He will manage to succeed at #2, but I hope his brand is forevermore tarnished and ruined.
Click to expand...

That would be nice, but I think so many people have invested so much in defending so many insane and wrongful things that they can't go back, now. They have to tell themselves he's a great man for the rest of their lives.

Cult followings act like cults. He'll sell shirts that read "We Need To Make Stuff In America Again!", that are made in Mexico, to the very people who lost their jobs to outsourcing, who will then tell themselves that they are still part of "the fight" by wearing it. :(

Nobody who has 4 working brain cells can look at what that man has done and said over the last year and support him, and not see what the man is up to. Even a sleaze like Manafort knows what's really going on here.
Click to expand...

Again. We need to bring back poll testing.
 
tres borrachos said:
Are you even a little bit surprised? I'm hearing that even his own kids are at the end of their ropes with him.

Donald Trump doesn't want to be President. He did this to increase his own brand and to get Hillary Clinton elected. He will manage to succeed at #2, but I hope his brand is forevermore tarnished and ruined. Nobody who has 4 working brain cells can look at what that man has done and said over the last year and support him, and not see what the man is up to. Even a sleaze like Manafort knows what's really going on here.
Click to expand...

Now THAT would be the ultimate in campaign strategies and would be discussed in political circles for many decades ... and might very well be the only way Hillary could get herself elected.
I know that renowned political analyst [sarcasm added] Donny Deutsch said that's what Trump is doing.
 
bubbabgone said:
Now THAT would be the ultimate in campaign strategies and would be discussed in political circles for many decades ... and might very well be the only way Hillary could get herself elected.
I know that renowned political analyst [sarcasm added] Donny Deutsch said that's what Trump is doing.
Click to expand...

That's what a lot of people have said Trump is doing. And with each passing day Trump is behaving as someone who is doing precisely that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom