• 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!

Media Apoplectic as Khan Narrative Crumbles

Hawkeye10 said:
This civilization is so bad off that much of the time people believe what they want to believe, they call that truth, they call the stuff they imagine to be wrong "fantasy".

You can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink..all that rot....these imbeciles want to be lied to, they ****ing DEMAND to be lied to.

Things are bad, but never fear, TRUMP is here!

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

:2usflag:
Click to expand...

If Hillary wins it will prove your theory that people want to be lied to.

Of course Obama pretty much proves it all ready.
 
LowDown said:
It turns out that Khan is a very big Democrat operative with extensive ties to the Clintons and their foundation. Nobody in the mainstream media bothered to research this.

It sort of explains why Khan was so dishonest in his smear of Trump.

Khizr Khan Attack on Donald Trump Goes Down in Flames
Click to expand...

It must really drive you nuts that Donald Trump was a very big donor to Democratic causes and candidates. It must really drive you nuts that Trump has extensive ties to the Clintons too. It sort of explains why Trump is so dishonest every time he opens his mouth.
 
Tigerace117 said:
In other words, "he said mean things about the Holy One's stupidity. He must be a democratic agent!"

Trump supporters just keep on failing.
Click to expand...

Nope, he's objectively a Democratic agent.
 
tres borrachos said:
It must really drive you nuts that Donald Trump was a very big donor to Democratic causes and candidates. It must really drive you nuts that Trump has extensive ties to the Clintons too. It sort of explains why Trump is so dishonest every time he opens his mouth.
Click to expand...

Well, no. I'm not really a big Trump supporter. Besides which, Ronald Reagan was a big democrat with extensive ties to other democrats until he came to his senses.

Sooner or later people grow up.
 
LowDown said:
Well, no. I'm not really a big Trump supporter. Besides which, Ronald Reagan was a big democrat with extensive ties to other democrats until he came to his senses.

Sooner or later people grow up.
Click to expand...

Let me know when Donald Trump grows up.
 
katzgar said:
another breitbart pile of crap. nobody but the lowest of the low attacks a gold star mother. breitbart is disgusting and yet you quote it.
Click to expand...

So it is ok for Khan to attack Trump but Trump is not allowed to attack back?
 
Mason66 said:
The figure out what's going on means to make sure the person coming in is vetted completely.

Another way to say that is a background check.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting interpretation. And contradicts "total and complete."
 
Moderate Right said:
So it is ok for Khan to attack Trump but Trump is not allowed to attack back?
Click to expand...


you never attack a gold star mother. trump is the lowest scum around. decent civil people do not try to defend such behavior.
 
pinqy said:
That's an interesting interpretation. And contradicts "total and complete."
Click to expand...

How do you explain the part where he says "until we know what is going on"?

Until is generally an indicator of a temporary situation.
 
Mason66 said:
How do you explain the part where he says "until we know what is going on"?

Until is generally an indicator of a temporary situation.
Click to expand...

Right, he was suggesting a total ban on all Muslims until such a time as a vetting system could be developed. Khan did not claim Trump wanted a permanent ban.
 
blaxshep said:
It is documented that he is connected to the Muslim Brotherhood
Click to expand...
No he is not.
One page of an academic paper on Sharia Law "which in no part suggested support for Sharia law or membership in the Muslim brotherhood and appeared to be an academic piece, not an advocacy paper, and being a immigration lawyer is not proof.

and he is an immigration lawyer that is paid to immigrate Muslims to America.
Click to expand...
Also, nothing on his website indicated that he only practiced immigration law only for a specific religious sect....

Nothing delusional on my part just denial on yours.
Click to expand...

:lamo
 
katzgar said:
you never attack a gold star mother. trump is the lowest scum around. decent civil people do not try to defend such behavior.
Click to expand...

So, in other words, if a woman punches you, you just let her do it. Khan started it. He didn't have to. Can you explain to me what is in the constitution that Khan was throwing in Trump's face? I've never been able to figure it out.
 
Moderate Right said:
So, in other words, if a woman punches you, you just let her do it. Khan started it. He didn't have to.
Click to expand...
:lamo Yea! How dare a Muslim man share his personal opinion about Trump! Dont you know that Trump is incredibly thin skinned?! Now its time to spread conspiracy theories and lies about Khan!

Can you explain to me what is in the constitution that Khan was throwing in Trump's face? I've never been able to figure it out.
Click to expand...

You ****ing kidding me?

"“I believe Trump’s unprecedented proposal would violate our Constitution,” said Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, “both the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses and the equality dimension of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” ... Tribe, a constitutional law expert, said Trump’s proposal also conflicts with the Constitution’s general prohibition on religious tests outside of the immigration context. “It would also conflict with the spirit of the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI,” Tribe told MSNBC Monday evening. Beyond the law, Tribe said it was also notable that using religious discrimination for immigration would be “impossible to administer” and “stupidly play into the hands of extreme Islamic terrorists.”... Cornell Law professor Michael Dorf said that while U.S. policy “routinely applies different immigration rules for nationals of different countries,” Trump’s proposal to only exclude “foreign nationals who are Muslim” would likely be “unconstitutional.” Constitutional scholars: Trump's anti-Muslim immigration proposal is probably illegal | MSNBC

"On one hand, Mr. Trump seemed to misunderstand the scope of presidential power. Libel is a state-law tort constrained by First Amendment principles, and a president’s views do not figure in its application. On the other hand, said Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, Mr. Trump’s comments betrayed a troubling disregard for free expression. “There are very few serious constitutional thinkers who believe public figures should be able to use libel as indiscriminately as Trump seems to think they should,” Professor Somin said. “He poses a serious threat to the press and the First Amendment.” http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/us/politics/donald-trump-constitution-power.html?_r=0
 
TheDemSocialist said:
:lamo Yea! How dare a Muslim man share his personal opinion about Trump! Dont you know that Trump is incredibly thin skinned?! Now its time to spread conspiracy theories and lies about Khan!



You ****ing kidding me?

"“I believe Trump’s unprecedented proposal would violate our Constitution,” said Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, “both the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses and the equality dimension of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” ... Tribe, a constitutional law expert, said Trump’s proposal also conflicts with the Constitution’s general prohibition on religious tests outside of the immigration context. “It would also conflict with the spirit of the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI,” Tribe told MSNBC Monday evening. Beyond the law, Tribe said it was also notable that using religious discrimination for immigration would be “impossible to administer” and “stupidly play into the hands of extreme Islamic terrorists.”... Cornell Law professor Michael Dorf said that while U.S. policy “routinely applies different immigration rules for nationals of different countries,” Trump’s proposal to only exclude “foreign nationals who are Muslim” would likely be “unconstitutional.” Constitutional scholars: Trump's anti-Muslim immigration proposal is probably illegal | MSNBC

"On one hand, Mr. Trump seemed to misunderstand the scope of presidential power. Libel is a state-law tort constrained by First Amendment principles, and a president’s views do not figure in its application. On the other hand, said Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, Mr. Trump’s comments betrayed a troubling disregard for free expression. “There are very few serious constitutional thinkers who believe public figures should be able to use libel as indiscriminately as Trump seems to think they should,” Professor Somin said. “He poses a serious threat to the press and the First Amendment.” http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/us/politics/donald-trump-constitution-power.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

"I believeTrump’s unprecedented proposal would violate our Constitution,” said Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe

Well, that's rock solid

Are you saying that Obama understands the scope of presidential powers? How many executive orders has he signed that are questionable and under review by courts?
 
Last edited:
When Trump said "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters" I laughed and thought it was a joke.

But after all that's gone on, all that Trump has said and done, especially this recent thing where Republicans who are Trump supporters but because of politics are vilifying and disrespecting a soldier who died in combat. I'm not laughing anymore.

These same Republicans use to support and back American troops. But now because of politics and Trump's racist comments they are pissing on the memory of this soldier. And no I do NOT think trump is a racist, but he is definitely pandering to the racist part of the Republican base.

It's disgusting what part of the Republican Party has become.
 
Moderate Right said:
"I believeTrump’s unprecedented proposal would violate our Constitution,” said Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe

Well, that's rock solid
Click to expand...
You asked what was in the Constitution that Khan was throwing in Trumps face..... I simply reinforcing what Khan was throwing in Trumps face and using Constitutional scholars opinions. You seemed to be confused on what Khan was talking about, and constitutional scholars dont seem to be confused....

Are you saying that Obama understands the scope of presidential powers? How many executive orders has he signed that are questionable and under review by courts?
Click to expand...

What does Obama have to do with this?
 
cpwill said:
:lamo


What is it with the Trumpkins in the last 48 hours? :) Conservatives oppose Trump because we are conservative, dude. And Breitbart has become a a trash site, spitting on its' founders legacy, one step removed from a more politicized version that other Trump-favored publication, The Enquirer.
Click to expand...

But the bigger question is: What if all this is true, which it can easily be discredited if not and quite honestly, I don't hear a word out of the Hillary camp claiming it to be a lie. So what if? Doesn't that in some way change your mind as to this whole hoopla? I mean as I've said all along, he went after Trump and insulted him. He said some things that I think were very easily considered an attack - you know "read the constitution Mr. Trump" "you haven't sacrificed Mr. Trump." And to find out that while he did lose a son in the military he also has other reasons to attack Trump. Especially when you consider that Trump has absolutely nothing to do with the loss of his son. So, that's just my question...what if it is true?
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
When Trump said "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters" I laughed and thought it was a joke.

But after all that's gone on, all that Trump has said and done, especially this recent thing where Republicans who are Trump supporters but because of politics are vilifying and disrespecting a soldier who died in combat. I'm not laughing anymore.

These same Republicans use to support and back American troops. But now because of politics and Trump's racist comments they are pissing on the memory of this soldier. And no I do NOT think trump is a racist, but he is definitely pandering to the racist part of the Republican base.

It's disgusting what part of the Republican Party has become.
Click to expand...

See - I think that is a bold lie. I've not heard one person vilify or disrespect this soldier and I challenge others to actually show something that Trump or his campaign has said to Vilify or disrespect this son.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
When Trump said "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters" I laughed and thought it was a joke.

But after all that's gone on, all that Trump has said and done, especially this recent thing where Republicans who are Trump supporters but because of politics are vilifying and disrespecting a soldier who died in combat. I'm not laughing anymore.

These same Republicans use to support and back American troops. But now because of politics and Trump's racist comments they are pissing on the memory of this soldier. And no I do NOT think trump is a racist, but he is definitely pandering to the racist part of the Republican base.

It's disgusting what part of the Republican Party has become.
Click to expand...

Oh and as for the statement that Trump said in jest about how devoted his supporters are to him (which by the way has turned out to be very true) - what about the comment from Hillary who said and I quote "we are going to put all coal miners out of business." Who do you think is more harmed by the two statements? Those who know that Trump was talking about the strength of his support to those who think it is a positive statement to state and mean that the livelihood of those who have worked for decades and sacrificed their health and sometimes their lives to provide energy for the rest of us to use, are nothing more than a campaign propaganda attack to earn her some brownie points with the liberals who claim to want cleaner air but then drive around in their giant SUV's?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom