The point is, that the dude is a total con... He's never wanted a Purple Heart... That was another stupid lie... He just spouts this riduculois nonsense that just gets more and more insane. This is not stuff that a serious man says and does.

 

Dude, you sound unhinged. You should become an activist for Correct the Record.

---

Dude, you sound unhinged. You should become an activist for Correct the Record.

How much does it pay?


Also, as kotite points out there appears to be a lot of mental gymnastics you have been contorting yourself into in order to defend this guy... One may question your hinges as well... ;-)

---

No numbers, percentages, or polls in that article. This is from one group, the VFW, and their members disagreed with their statement.

 

"This prompted a divisive debate on Facebook. Many members objected to the statement.

 

“VFW is supposed to be non-political,” Monica Parrish Noland wrote on its Facebook page, echoing many. “If you want to express a political opinion, don't do it as a representative of the VFW … Hillary Clinton must never become President.”  

 

Kate McCabe declared that the VFW “just lost the support of this veteran’s wife, veteran’s daughter, granddaughter, niece, cousin! How ignorant are you!” She went on to ignorantly repeat prejudicial falsehoods about Khan’s intentions, positing that Trump’s election “is going to effect Khan's business and maybe his interests in increasing the Muslim population in this country not to assimilate, but to conquer!”"

 

Partisan biased drivel.

 

 

http://www.bustle.com/articles/176481-11...-the-medal

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/natio...story.html

 

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/07/30/t...diers.html

 

The point is there isnt a percentage point of veterans who disagree with Trmup's message, they exist. 

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/176481-11...-the-medal

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/natio...story.html

 

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/07/30/t...diers.html

 

The point is there isnt a percentage point of veterans who disagree with Trmup's message, they exist. 

 

 

Thanks for the sources. The percentage point matters though, because that is what determines the overall feeling of the statements (and votes). If there isn't a percentage point though, we will have to wait for poll numbers on veterans. There were plenty veterans who disagreed with Trump even before this, and there are those who agree with him after. If he incurs a significant drop in veteran voter support, then his comments were a mistake.

 

For example, the Navy Seal who shot and killed Osama Bin Laden disagrees with Mr. Khan and his position/statements:

 

"O'NEILL: ISIS is saying regardless of Mr. Khan the elder saying it's a religion of peace, they are laughing at him saying, 'it's not a religion of peace and your son died an apostate,' who is a non-believer, an infidel. An apostate is a better way to say it...


Mr. Khan should be saying what can we do to defeat this. He is a Muslim, Pakistani born, and all the work that he's done in Saudi Arabia especially with bringing in migrants. We should be using people like Mr. Khan to how are we going to defeat radical Islam rather than yelling at each other back and forth.


LOU DOBBS: But that isn't what he is focusing on unfortunately.


It is unfortunate. They shouldn't be politicizing it. And there was no mistake he came out for the Clintons. He's worked for the Clintons before and there have been three presidential elections since his son was killed. They could have come out for -- this is one he decided to come out for.


This is part of the Clinton machine. There's no mistake that Mr. Trump was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos. He's in the Clinton camp as well and this is how Clinton politics work as opposed to going on Hillary's record we're just going to how bad you are. "

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6L_zxixdL2E

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2...chine.html

 

This is more about the Khan statement than the Purple Heart event, but the sentiment is the same.

---

JW, trump and you are trying to deflect the underlying issue that caused the khans to be so offended. Trumps policy would be to deny these people, and people like the khans from entering the USA. It's offensive, and anti-American. The Muslims in this country are just as American as you and I. We should be embracing them in our war against Isis.... We should not be lumping them into the same category of Isis. That is what trumps rhetoric does, and it's offensive to the khans, whose son sacrificed his life for this country. Muslims are Americans, too.

---

Did Trump say that Muslims should NEVER, under any circumstances, EVER be allowed in the US, or did he say we should hold off on letting them in until they are more properly vetted? Cuz if it's the second option, then Mr. Khan and family would have been admitted in to the country once they had been thoroughly vetted, no?

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

JW, trump and you are trying to deflect the underlying issue that caused the khans to be so offended. Trumps policy would be to deny these people, and people like the khans from entering the USA. It's offensive, and anti-American. The Muslims in this country are just as American as you and I. We should be embracing them in our war against Isis.... We should not be lumping them into the same category of Isis. That is what trumps rhetoric does, and it's offensive to the khans, whose son sacrificed his life for this country. Muslims are Americans, too.

 

Thank you for discussing the root of the issue. I disagree with your position and this is probably worthy of a separate thread. I don't feel we should be embracing them. They should be embracing us. Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. It is their religion that overwhelmingly commits acts of terror. They should be in the front lines condemning, reforming, and doing whatever they can to end the inherit violence and oppression that comes with Islam. They should be the ones assimilating to American cultures and freedoms. They don't, though. You hear it from security officials and reformed Muslims themselves that the community at-large will turn a blind eye to suspicious behavior and rhetoric. You see it here, Europe, and the middle-east. In France, where it is getting very bad, they are shutting down Mosques because of the level of extremism permeating their communities.

 

We can go on about this at a deeper level, but really should be another thread.

---

Did Trump say that Muslims should NEVER, under any circumstances, EVER be allowed in the US, or did he say we should hold off on letting them in until they are more properly vetted? Cuz if it's the second option, then Mr. Khan and family would have been admitted in to the country once they had been thoroughly vetted, no?

 

too much common sense applied here

---

I was in that same draft lottery and my number was ~200 (I know the exact number but don't want to post my D.O.B.).  Deferments were pretty standard for college students.  It's funny when you think about how cheap college was (I think my first semester of full classes was about $300) but the academic standards were much higher.

Fine. Understandable. Conscious objectors. Protesters. Draft card burn parties.

But. With five deferments, no way I could accept any medal, especially the Purple Heart. But that's just me. Maybe too proud not to accept something I didn't earn, that someone else put their life on the line for. Hell, with no deferments and with serving I couldn't accept a medal I didn't earn.

Doesn't upset me. But does leave a sour taste of characters I have little use for....I always wanted one, this was much easier sealed that for me.

---

Blakes Life Matters

JW, trump and you are trying to deflect the underlying issue that caused the khans to be so offended. Trumps policy would be to deny these people, and people like the khans from entering the USA. It's offensive, and anti-American. The Muslims in this country are just as American as you and I. We should be embracing them in our war against Isis.... We should not be lumping them into the same category of Isis. That is what trumps rhetoric does, and it's offensive to the khans, whose son sacrificed his life for this country. Muslims are Americans, too.

Deny refugees after we have been told without a doubt terrorist would be able to infiltrate the population and would be a part of the people coming here? There is a responsibilty to protect our own citizens now. This is a different time.

---

Of course Trump didn't earn it.  He also didn't go looking for it.  But a Veteran and Purple Heart recipient felt strongly enough about Trump that he wanted to give Trump his medal.  I think it would have been a gross insult to not accept it. 

---

Of course Trump didn't earn it. He also didn't go looking for it. But a Veteran and Purple Heart recipient felt strongly enough about Trump that he wanted to give Trump his medal. I think it would have been a gross insult to not accept it.

Saying "I can't accept this. It's too precious. You earned this." is insulting. Gotcha.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Saying "I can't accept this. It's too precious. You earned this." is insulting. Gotcha.

 

You are good at politically correct rhetoric. You should run for president.

---

Did Trump say that Muslims should NEVER, under any circumstances, EVER be allowed in the US, or did he say we should hold off on letting them in until they are more properly vetted? Cuz if it's the second option, then Mr. Khan and family would have been admitted in to the country once they had been thoroughly vetted, no?

 

There's a pretty thorough vetting process already in place, and there was one when Khan (and the owner of the Jags with the same name, BTW) emigrated to the U.S.  What the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services does not take into account when allowing legal immigration is the person's religion, because it's against the first amendment to the U.S. constitution. 

 

If he wanted to temporarily ban ALL immigration, that's another discussion, but Donald singled out "moose-lims".  Let everyone else in but them.

 

Which is why Mr. Khan held up his pocket constitution in the first place.

---

You are good at politically correct rhetoric. You should run for president.

I haven't been sued, audited or indicted yet. Isn't that a prerequisite?


And having the decency to refuse a gift that is too big is not spin just because it's being discussed about a political figure. There's such a thing as being gracious, empathetic, tactful, etc.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

There's a pretty thorough vetting process already in place, and there was one when Khan (and the owner of the Jags with the same name, BTW) emigrated to the U.S.  What the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services does not take into account when allowing legal immigration is the person's religion, because it's against the first amendment to the U.S. constitution. 

 

If he wanted to temporarily ban ALL immigration, that's another discussion, but Donald singled out "moose-lims".  Let everyone else in but them.

 

Which is why Mr. Khan held up his pocket constitution in the first place.

 

For documented immigrants, sort of. For undocumented immigrants (refugees from Somalia, Syria, Libya, Iraq, etc), no. Government security officials have confirmed this.

 

Also, Mr. Khan holding up the constitution as a defense against Trump's immigration policy was totally false.

 

One of the main criticisms of Donald Trump’s proposed moratorium on Muslim immigration is that it’s unconstitutional. For example, Republican presidential candidate and law graduate Marco Rubio said that the plan “violates the Constitution” earlier this week.

 

However, two notable law professors — Jan C. Ting of Temple University and Eric Posner of the University of Chicago — say those critics are wrong and possibly don’t know much about legal history.

 

Ting, a professor at Temple University’s School of Law and a former Immigration and Naturalization Services commissioner for the Department of Justice, explained to The Daily Caller that Trump’s plan is in keeping with over a hundred years of legal precedent.

 

“No kind of immigration restriction is unconstitutional,” Ting told TheDC. “The U.S. government can exclude a foreign national on any basis.”

 

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/12/law-pr...itutional/

---

Thank you for discussing the root of the issue. I disagree with your position and this is probably worthy of a separate thread. I don't feel we should be embracing them. They should be embracing us. Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. It is their religion that overwhelmingly commits acts of terror. They should be in the front lines condemning, reforming, and doing whatever they can to end the inherit violence and oppression that comes with Islam. They should be the ones assimilating to American cultures and freedoms. They don't, though. You hear it from security officials and reformed Muslims themselves that the community at-large will turn a blind eye to suspicious behavior and rhetoric. You see it here, Europe, and the middle-east. In France, where it is getting very bad, they are shutting down Mosques because of the level of extremism permeating their communities.

 

We can go on about this at a deeper level, but really should be another thread.

I think what you are bringing up, and our opposing views of that topic really do beg for for an in depth conversation... I'm traveling all day today, so I won't have time to discuss right away, but I think it would be a good discussion.

---

For documented immigrants, sort of. For undocumented immigrants (refugees from Somalia, Syria, Libya, Iraq, etc), no. Government security officials have confirmed this.

 

Also, Mr. Khan holding up the constitution as a defense against Trump's immigration policy was totally false.

 

One of the main criticisms of Donald Trump’s proposed moratorium on Muslim immigration is that it’s unconstitutional. For example, Republican presidential candidate and law graduate Marco Rubio said that the plan “violates the Constitution” earlier this week.

 

However, two notable law professors — Jan C. Ting of Temple University and Eric Posner of the University of Chicago — say those critics are wrong and possibly don’t know much about legal history.

 

Ting, a professor at Temple University’s School of Law and a former Immigration and Naturalization Services commissioner for the Department of Justice, explained to The Daily Caller that Trump’s plan is in keeping with over a hundred years of legal precedent.

 

“No kind of immigration restriction is unconstitutional,” Ting told TheDC. “The U.S. government can exclude a foreign national on any basis.”

 

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/12/law-pr...itutional/

 

For the bolded part, I offer this Time Article stating the opposite:

 

http://time.com/4116619/syrian-refugees-...g-process/

 

From the article:


"Officials say it's the most intensive vetting process of any group that arrives in the U.S."

As for the rest of your statement, you seem to have found the only 2 attorneys who think an anti-Muslim policy will pass a Supreme Court test, even with Antonin Scalia returning as a zombie to cast the deciding vote.

 

As to the thread, I honestly don't know what I'd have done if someone handed me his well earned Purple Heart or any other medal.  I can't say I'd have done any different than Donald did, so I've stayed out of it.

 

Bunnie asked a question, I think I gave a fair answer.

---

Did Trump say that Muslims should NEVER, under any circumstances, EVER be allowed in the US, or did he say we should hold off on letting them in until they are more properly vetted? Cuz if it's the second option, then Mr. Khan and family would have been admitted in to the country once they had been thoroughly vetted, no?

Hold off on Muslims to properly vet them?


Muslims are from all over the world. Are you going to deny an Indonesian entry into the US because of what's happening in the Middle East?


There's the issue.

---

Hold off on Muslims to properly vet them?


Muslims are from all over the world. Are you going to deny an Indonesian entry into the US because of what's happening in the Middle East?


There's the issue.

 

Trump's plan is on a country-by-country basis. If Indonesia is one of those countries, then they will be denied. His plan would be very similar to the one Senator Rand Paul pushed in the senate.

 

"Paul’s amendment would have designated 33 countries as “high risk” and placed moratoriums on refugee resettlement and visa issuance to nationals from those countries until the Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security, and Director of National Intelligence certify and new processes to identify security risks."

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...countries/

---