Posted on Aug 2, 2016
If you openly support a candidate at a convention, should that protect you from any scrutiny?
5.93K
74
36
9
9
0
A lot has been made recently about Trump attacking the family of a fallen Soldier. Meanwhile, where is outrage this family was used as a political tool based on their faith? Does the loss of their son protect them from attacks "just because"? Should it? What about the retired generals that now speak at conventions in support of candidates? If you volunteer to play the game, expect backlash.
Gold Star Families
Election 2016
Donald Trump
Hillary Clinton
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 19
6
6
0
No, they were out there to support themselves, they have pokers in the fire as well. They opened up for all of this
(6)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
I agree. They took a stance. They put themselves in the game. While their story is tragic, they are using it to push the agenda of their candidate. Had Trump attacked the son it would have been different. He did not. I feel the parents are fair game given the circumstances.
(5)
(0)
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Meanwhile... interesting development. Khan has completely deleted his Muslim Immigration website. It seems that he is no stranger to using political agendas to his profit.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
No! Once you cross the line into politics at the conventions you are fair game. Unfortunately the press is treating Mr. Khan, who spoke at the DNC Convention, differently then with Mrs. Smith, who spoken at the RNC Convention.
(5)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
I have noticed that as well. HRC even came out and dismissed Mrs. Smith, saying "she probably forgot what I told her." Yet no outrage at all.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
SGT Efaw (Mick) G. - That doesn't make sense. "Foreign service by free choice." How does that make a difference. Was CPT Kahn conscripted into the military? We are all here by free choice. How is it any different? Contractor, foreign services, military... no one forced us to take the job.
What about Hillary openly dismissing Mrs. Smith? Same principle.
What about Hillary openly dismissing Mrs. Smith? Same principle.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
I agree with honoring them all. However, this was conveniently the first time HRC decided to honor anyone at all. And again, the only reasons the Khans were up there was because they are Muslim and CPR Khan was Muslim. Only reason. Pandering to the Nth degree. Benghazi rates a mention because it the sum of her failures as the Secretary of State. If she has been a General in charge of that, she would have been relieved for cause.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
Didn't finish my post, wanted to elaborate. The Kahns oversee a campaign to get Muslim Americans on board voting democratic. Maybe because Mr Kahn himself is an immigration lawyer and his business will be hurt once borders are tightened up and vetting is required.
They wanted the publicity for their cause and I think he used his son as a tool as much as Hillary used the parents, they shouldn't be immune to the cross fire.
They wanted the publicity for their cause and I think he used his son as a tool as much as Hillary used the parents, they shouldn't be immune to the cross fire.
(5)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google