Today's Political Truth - The Wrath of Khan

a reply to: ketsuko

Khan was chosen explicitly for that reason and no other.

Khan was chosen to show that Immigrants can come to this country and sacrifice for the good of the country as any other American family. A Muslim was chosen because Trump has talked about bans or limits on certain types of people.

Two birds with one stone. Muslims and immigrant's son.

His sacrifice was not more or less significant than that of any other soldier.

Remember, the DNC was the convention of hyphenated Americans. The more boxes, the better.

Someone has to represent all types of people.

originally posted by: Snarl
I still haven't wrapped my mind around what's going on there. Is the guy really allowing his son's death to be exploited for political gain?

Something's creepy about that dude.

I feel that way as well.

a reply to: Snarl

Clinton probably convinced him to be there so they would get better leverage against Trump. Thing is, if Trump gets elected and starts vetting Muslim immigrants then Khan would lose his business of selling green cards.

Khan specializes in visa programs accused of selling U.S. citizenship

This has officially become the biggest story of both conventions.
Apparently the MSM sees fit in edging their 6% approval rating down even further with this newest character assassination attempt on Trump. You'd think they would learn every time they try and expose Trump as a "bad guy" people are forced to dig into the info only to find out the accuser/victim and the informer's are full of s***.

One of two things will happen with this story.
It will silently fade into obscurity.
Or it will garner another couple hundred thousand votes for Trump.

a reply to: Snarl

COINTEL jihad?

a reply to: introvert

Maybe this is why?

www.breitbart.com... ndation-connect-terror-immigration-email-scandals/

These ties go very very deep.

a reply to: introvert

No. there are plenty of examples of that. There are many of Hispanic descent in the armed forces, even some who have illegal background.

No, they chose Khan precisely because of the religious affiliation. Don't play dumb. It doesn't become you.

originally posted by: ketsuko

Or was his sacrifice somehow made more significant because of the statistical rarity of his religion in the armed forces? Why choose Khan specifically to speak about how his son gave all over some other father or mother of a dead soldier?

Khan was chosen explicitly for that reason and no other. So in this case, the religious affiliation makes this son special before all other dead soldiers as far as the DNC was concerned. They needed a sympathetic Muslim and a soldier they could check off the list of boxes.

Remember, the DNC was the convention of hyphenated Americans. The more boxes, the better.

+1.

Trump has stated that he will hit back when attacked. the dems produced a minority family-of-dead-soldier that is realistically un-hittable, and Trump fell in the trap by returning fire. now the minority can claim victimhood and the dems and their media stooges can shout bigot.

did any other military families have a chance to speak at the dem convention? or just this one trotted out to make Trump look bad?
did any non-Fox media report on the mother who lost a son at Benghazi that spoke at the Republican convention?
and my Constitution doesn't say anything about open everyone-is-welcome borders, which (I think) is the issue at hand.

Front page of CNN last night. No political agenda here folks!

a reply to: ketsuko

No, they chose Khan precisely because of the religious affiliation. Don't play dumb. It doesn't become you.

That's what I said. Two birds with one stone.

Immigrants and Muslims.

I think at some point in the campaign, perhaps a different point for different people, Trump supporters will recognize that there is a difference between the kind of forthright expression of opinion that is derived from a strong character and the courage of one's convictions, and the careless, confident expression of opinion that happens when people have "eff you" money.

I think some of Donald Trump's more brainless comments, like the ones about the Khans, are of the latter type.

"I'm rich, so I can say whatever I feel like, no matter how asinine it is, so eff you."

This is the kind of thing that becomes habitual and almost unconscious. A famous politician in Canada once said words to the effect that our former Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, a wealthy man, was someone forever in search of a good slap in the face.

Occasionally, that is Trump too.

VFW to condemn Trump over Clinton's attempt at stolen valor through Khizr Kahn?
My donations will now go to AMVETS...and they "were" considerable.

January 28, 2017

He's baaaack.. Khizr Khan, in response to President Trump's temporary ban...

"Muslim are at the front lines. Patriotic Muslims within the United States feel alienated and if they are alienated, they will not be as supportive of his policies, as supportive of security and the threats that loom within our country," the Gold Star father told CNN's Alisyn Camerota Thursday on "New Day."

"He should be reaching out to Muslims. He should be reaching out, joining hands to deal with the safety of the United States."

Full Story at: www.cnn.com...

...and whom are we fighting? al-quaeda? isis? daesh? who are they again?

'patriotic muslims' should be telling their co-religionists to stop blowing up innocent people. or running them over. or whatever deviltry they are up to this week.

tired of these self-righteous victim-victim-victim whiners. and the partisan media that amplifies them.