Now Khan says about Trump, "Shame on him, Shame on his family" (his family?)

[Seawytch]

So the "right" didn't attack Kerry en masse, but one guy mentioning McCains flying record is "the left" attacking McCain en masse?

Anti war is not anti military.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One guy? It was more than that, but I think we can agree it was a minority just like the idiots who think Obama is a Kenyan, Muslim sleeper agent sent to destroy the US of A.

Agreed anti-war is not anti-military. However, denigrating people who choose to serve and teaching your children that serving in the military is for losers is, indeed, anti-military.

Yeah, it would be. Links to who does that?

I'm as liberal as the day is long...served 20 years with a lot of liberals and have two liberal kids that will likely join too. I've been surrounded by liberals in Northern California my whole life and never heard a one bad mouth serving members of the armed forces...for their service.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Howey]

"Shame on his family?" For what? This guy is obviously a whackadoodle. Who else would use his son's death to promote a presidential candidate? He should be ashamed. He's definitely got that Sharia attitude.

Muslim Family of Fallen Army Captain Responds to Trump: 'Shame on Him'​

Khan's latest attack on Trump:

"Running for president is not an entitlement to disrespect Gold Star families and [a] Gold Star mother not realizing her pain. Shame on him! Shame on his family!" Khizr Khan said, struggling to hold back his anger. "He is not worthy of our comments. He has no decency. He is void of decency, he has a dark heart."​

He's absolutely right.

I used to remember when conservatives respected our troops and their families.

Oh well.

Trump/Pootin 16 changed all that!

 

[Divine Wind]

.....I've been surrounded by liberals in Northern California my whole life and never heard a one bad mouth serving members of the armed forces...for their service.

The new Liberal anti-military meme; hug the troops then hate the military. Cut their budgets, COLAs, everything you can to undermine those seeking to do their service. Got it. Thanks.

 

[Howey]

And I disagree that Democrats are less supportive of the military. Less supportive of military action maybe, but not less supportive and to go to disrespect and dislike is ridiculous.

When you constantly gut military funding - then you are absolutely "less supportive of the military". When you bash the military - then you are absolutely "less supportive of the military".

When did any of that happen?...with links.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes my dear. And you know it too. You just love to play your petty little games because you can't find a rational way to defend your beloved failed ideology. During his 8 years in office - Bill Clinton cut a total of half a trillion dollars to the U.S. military.

Additionally, spending under Obama has plummeted as well. It has been cut every year since 2011 for a total of 15.9% total decrease. And hell....lets go back 40 years shall we. Jimmy Carter gutted defense spending as well. So of the last three Dumbocrat presidents, all three have have slashed defense in a major way. Then the Republican's have to come in and rebuild everything at a tremendous cost.

Umm...under Clinton it was because we weren't at war. I understand the word "peace" isn't in you conservative's vocabulary, but we just didn't need all those troops and bases.

As far as Obama, yes...the budget did go down 15%, thanks partly to the drawdowns in Afghanistan and Iraq (Thanks Obama!).

But the main reason for it was Congress and a little Republican ploy called "sequestration".

How soon y'all forget...

Sequestration was intended more as an incentive to get the two sides to negotiate than as a realistic policy alternative. However, when the super-committee failed to agree on a deficit-reduction package, sequestration cuts kicked in. These were across-the-board cuts -- not reductions to particular programs carefully selected by lawmakers -- and they included both domestic and military programs.

While the defense budget had already been drifting downward under Obama, the impact of the sequester was noteworthy.

"The cut in defense spending in 2013, when sequestration went into effect, was the largest, single-year percentage cut in the Defense Department budget since the end of the Korean War, so I think that counts as ‘swift,’ " said Todd Harrison, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "And because the cut was initially through a sequester, which cuts all accounts by the same amount, it was also ‘mindless.’ "

So Bush has a point when he says the cuts have been "swift" and "mindless."

But is the Obama administration solely to blame? No

The Obama administration has already proposed spending increases for future years. The most recent Obama budget proposed a 7.8 percent increase in the base Defense Department budget between 2015 and 2016 -- clear evidence that he is seeking increased defense spending despite the continuing threat of sequestration.

And the increase isn’t fleeting. CBO projections based on Defense Department requests show rising defense spending over the next five years. Taking account of inflation, defense spending is projected to rise by 8.8 percent between 2015 and 2019. The CBO also predicts increases above the rate of inflation as far in the future as 2030.

"Defense spending is rising modestly now even at Budget Control Act levels," said Mackenzie Eaglen, a resident fellow in security studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

The Bush campaign argues that author Bob Woodward’s detailed book about fiscal negotiations has described the sequester as a Democratic invention. They also note that when House Republicans sought to use overseas contingency funding to go around the budget caps on military spending, Obama threatened a veto.

However, a cross-section of experts told PolitiFact they see the two parties as co-owners of sequestration.

Republicans in Congress voted for the law that set up its possibility. In the House, 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for the law, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 269-161.) In the Senate, 28 Republicans and 45 Democratsvoted for it, while 19 Republicans and 6 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 74-26.) Two other laws that modified the terms of the sequester were also passed on a bipartisan basis -- the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013.

"The Budget Control Act was adopted by bipartisan majorities with a Republican House, Democratic Senate, and signed into law by a Democratic president," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. "The failure of the super-committee was a bipartisan failure. This falls on both sides."

While Eaglen acknowledged that the White House initially came up with sequestration, she added that "both parties are responsible for the drawdown. Many members of Congress voted for these military reductions, and the president signed them into law."

Harrison agreed. "In a divided government, I don’t think it’s ever completely accurate to say that one party or the other is responsible for something," he said. "What happened is that both parties took the defense budget hostage in the budget debate, and when both sides have the same hostage, it doesn’t work out well for the hostage."

He added that the administration has proposed a defense budget each year that was higher than what Congress ultimately enacted, with the exception of 2015, when Congress enacted spending at close to the level Obama proposed. "So Congress has been providing less to the Defense Department than the administration has requested, but the president has signed each of those appropriations bills into law," he said. "So I think the blame has to be shared."

Is the level of funding today, and in the near future, adequate for the military’s needs?

Perhaps not surprisingly, there is less consensus on this question.

Even taking into account sequestration, current defense spending is high by historical standards. As we noted, defense spending is estimated to be 3.3 percent of gross domestic in 2015. That’s higher than in the period immediately before 9/11 -- the years 1997 to 2002.

Additionally, the current round of cuts "are consistent with other post-war drawdowns, including Korea, Vietnam, and the Cold War," said Christopher A. Preble, the vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank that favors lower defense spending.

"I believe that we are extraordinarily safe and secure, both by historic standards, and relative to any other country on earth," Preble said.

To be sure, Eaglen said that military chiefs and civilian leaders have repeatedly said sequestration poses an intolerable risk to U.S. forces. "I would agree," she said.

At the same time, she added, the military brass has said that Obama’s proposed budget levels "are acceptable. Putting aside how it’s funded -- through the overseas contingency budget or not -- the GOP Congress is giving the president" what he wants.

Our ruling

Bush said Democrats are "responsible" for "the swift, mindless drawdown of a military that was generations in the making."

There has certainly been a decline in military spending during much of Obama’s presidency, and to the extent that sequestration has contributed to this, it’s not unreasonable to call the cuts "swift" and "mindless." But to pin that solely on the Obama administration is wrong. Obama has proposed increases for defense spending beyond the rate of inflation lasting years into the future, and Bush’s decision to exclusively blame the Democrats for past cuts isn’t justified. It has taken two to tango, experts say. We rate the claim Mostly False.[/url]


Louis Jacobson

Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan

Subjects: Federal Budget, Military

Sources:
Jeb Bush, announcement speech, June 15, 2015

Congressional Budget Office, "Long-Term Implications of the 2015 Future Years Defense Program," November 2014

Office of Management and Budget, "Table 3.1—Outlays by Superfunction and Function: 1940–2020," accessed June 18, 2015

Congressional Research Service, "Discretionary Budget Authority by Subfunction: An Overview," Feb. 5, 2015

Center for Strategic and International Studies, "The FY2016 Defense Budget and US Strategy: Key Trends and Data Points," March 6, 2015

Associated Press, "House defies Obama veto threat, passes defense policy bill that skirts federal spending caps," May 15, 2015

Politico, "Bob Woodward: Obama 'mistaken' on sequester," Oct. 23, 2012

PolitiFact, "Marco Rubio says sequester was Obama’s idea," Feb. 12, 2013

Email interview with Lance Janda, historian at Cameron University, June 17, 2015

Email interview with Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, June 17, 2015

Email interview with Todd Harrison, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, June 17, 2015

Email interview with Mackenzie Eaglen, resident fellow in security studies at the American Enterprise Institute, June 17, 2015

Email interview with Christopher A. Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, June 17, 2015



How to contact us
Email comments and suggestions for fact-checks to [email protected] or find us on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. (If you send us a comment, we'll assume you don't mind us publishing it unless you tell us otherwise.)

Browse The Truth-O-MeterTM

• Barack Obama's file
• Pants-On-Fire rulings
• By our rulings
• By subject
• By person
• View recent articles

ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe
Keep up to date with PolitiFact

• Put a free PolitiFact widget on your blog or Web page
• Subscribe to our RSS feeds on Truth-O-Meter items
• Subscribe to our RSS feeds on GOP Pledge-O-Meter items
• Subscribe to our RSS feeds on Obameter items
• Follow us on Twitter
• Fan us on Facebook
• Advertise on PolitiFact
  What do you think?
  Does it matter how many American flags are on stage at the Conventions?
  • Yes, surely
  • 
    No, not one bit

 

[Divine Wind]

Umm...under Clinton it was because we weren't at war. I understand the word "peace" isn't in you conservative's vocabulary, but we just didn't need all those troops and bases.

Bullshit. Are you fucking lying or just blind to reality? Am I correct that you claim to be a disabled Air Force vet? Do you recognize any of the following actions?:

Enforcing the the no-fly zones in Iraq.

Bosnia.

Macedonia.

Somalia.

Haiti.

Liberia.

Kuwait.

Albania.

Congo and Gabon.

Several others listed here: Timeline of United States military operations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you try to pull the "we weren't at war" bullshit, let me remind you 1) the last time the US declared war was December 1941 under a Democrat President and 2) dead and maimed US troops don't give a shit if the war was "declared" or not.

 

[P@triot]

Links to the "gutted" military you didn't serve in, "patriot"

Like you've got room to talk. The only thing you ever served were bull dykes...

 

[LeftofLeft]

What has Trump sacrificied? Comrade Donald's words eat his guts daily.

As opposed to Hillary? What did she sacrifice?

 

[bripat9643]

"Shame on his family?" For what? This guy is obviously a whackadoodle. Who else would use his son's death to promote a presidential candidate? He should be ashamed. He's definitely got that Sharia attitude.

Muslim Family of Fallen Army Captain Responds to Trump: 'Shame on Him'​

Khan's latest attack on Trump:

"Running for president is not an entitlement to disrespect Gold Star families and [a] Gold Star mother not realizing her pain. Shame on him! Shame on his family!" Khizr Khan said, struggling to hold back his anger. "He is not worthy of our comments. He has no decency. He is void of decency, he has a dark heart."​

He's absolutely right.

I used to remember when conservatives respected our troops and their families.

Oh well.

Trump/Pootin 16 changed all that!

Why should anyone respect an obvious Hillary operator and agent of the Muslim brotherhood?

The Dim theory we aren't allowed to criticize some people because of some tragedy they experienced has always been pure hoory.

 

[bripat9643]

What has Trump sacrificied? Comrade Donald's words eat his guts daily.

As opposed to Hillary? What did she sacrifice?

Do you wonder why they never answer that question?

 

[Divine Wind]

As opposed to Hillary? What did she sacrifice?

Her soul. How else can one be a successful politician in Washington, D.C.?

 

[bripat9643]

Shall we see if the fucking bleeding hearts have the same reaction to Sean Smiths mother? Or is hypocrisy all they know?

How is that even a comparison?

That loon came on national stage to talk about how Hillary needs to got to jail for killing her son.

Khan on the other hand was highlighting contribution and sacrifice by Muslim Americans for this country, something that gets lost in all the recent muslim bashing.

He was viciously attacking Trump, a guy who had nothing to do with his son's death. In fact, if Trump had been president, his son would still be alive. HIllary, on the other hand, is directly responsible, by definition, for the death of Patricia Smith's son.

The Dim attempt to equate these two cases only shows what a bunch of sleazy lying douche bags they are.

 

[Faun]

Shall we see if the fucking bleeding hearts have the same reaction to Sean Smiths mother? Or is hypocrisy all they know?

How is that even a comparison?

That loon came on national stage to talk about how Hillary needs to got to jail for killing her son.

Khan on the other hand was highlighting contribution and sacrifice by Muslim Americans for this country, something that gets lost in all the recent muslim bashing.

He was viciously attacking Trump, a guy who had nothing to do with his son's death. In fact, if Trump had been president, his son would still be alive. HIllary, on the other hand, is directly responsible, by definition, for the death of Patricia Smith's son.

The Dim attempt to equate these two cases only shows what a bunch of sleazy lying douche bags they are.

He was pointing out that if "Crazy" Donald's policies were in place when he came to America; his son, who gave his life to save other Americans, would never have been in the U.S. military.

 

[Divine Wind]

Donald Trump's biggest friend and foe is himself. Frankly, I think he's deliberately tubing his own election to 1) have fun while being at the center of the limelight and 2) to avoid being seen as a quitter. He'll go down "fighting" when he loses. He'll have fun with this for years just like Sarah Palin has done, but he doesn't need the money. Just the entertainment...and none of the responsibility required by swearing an oath on a Bible.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Donald Trump's biggest friend and foe is himself. Frankly, I think he's deliberately tubing his own election to 1) have fun while being at the center of the limelight and 2) to avoid being seen as a quitter. He'll go down "fighting" when he loses. He'll have fun with this for years just like Sarah Palin has done, but he doesn't need the money. Just the entertainment...and none of the responsibility required by swearing an oath on a Bible.

This Khan is a fucking fraud...nothing more and nothing less. Stop the BS already

 

[bripat9643]

Shall we see if the fucking bleeding hearts have the same reaction to Sean Smiths mother? Or is hypocrisy all they know?

How is that even a comparison?

That loon came on national stage to talk about how Hillary needs to got to jail for killing her son.

Khan on the other hand was highlighting contribution and sacrifice by Muslim Americans for this country, something that gets lost in all the recent muslim bashing.

He was viciously attacking Trump, a guy who had nothing to do with his son's death. In fact, if Trump had been president, his son would still be alive. HIllary, on the other hand, is directly responsible, by definition, for the death of Patricia Smith's son.

The Dim attempt to equate these two cases only shows what a bunch of sleazy lying douche bags they are.

He was pointing out that if "Crazy" Donald's policies were in place when he came to America; his son, who gave his life to save other Americans, would never have been in the U.S. military.

Big whoop. Since there would have been no war to begin with, why would we have needed his Khan's son?

 

[TooTall]

An Open Letter to Mr. Khizr Khan
US Defense Watch ^ | July 30, 2016 | Ray Starmann

Dear Mr. Khan:

I, like millions of Americans saw your speech at the DNC on Thursday night.

I wish to offer my sympathy for the death of your son, Captain Humayun Khan, who was killed in action in Iraq.

As a former US Army officer, and a veteran of the Gulf War, I can certainly understand the pain and anguish that you and your wife endure every day.

Your son died saving the lives of his fellow soldiers. As John the Baptist wrote, Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Captain Khan is a hero. I am sure the soldiers he served with regard him as one. I know you and your wife do. Rest assured that millions of veterans regard your son as a hero as well.

To paraphrase from the Book of Ecclesiasticus, your son’s name liveth for evermore.

Your son made the ultimate sacrifice for his country, a country that was new to you and your family and one which you openly embraced and certainly love.

When you and your family arrived to America from Pakistan, you assimilated into our country. You adopted American ways, learned our history and apparently you even acquired a pocket Constitution along the way. Good for you sir.

But, there are many Muslims in America who not only have no desire to assimilate, but wish to live under Sharia Law.

That is unacceptable to Americans. There is only one law of the land. That is the US Constitution.

As you well know, Mr. Khan, we live in violent times, dangerous times. Muslim madmen from ISIS and other radical Jihadi groups are on a murder and terror spree across the globe.

Your religion of peace, Islam, is anything but that in 2016. That is a fact that is confirmed every time a Muslim shoots, bombs, beheads and tortures innocent men, women and children. This does not mean that every Muslim is a terrorist, but most terrorists, sir, are indeed Muslims.

A Muslim terrorist attack has become the sign of the times.

Regardless of what the feckless, naïve, leftist ideologue Barack Obama and his dimwitted colleagues John Kerry, Jacques Hollande and Angela Merkel state, the United States and the West are at war with Radical Islam. It is the job of the President of the United States to protect his nation from all enemies; foreign and domestic. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama romanticizes Islam and refuses to accept reality, which has resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people across the world.

Groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda have one goal, the complete destruction of the Judeo-Christian culture, our religions and our way of life.

Many Americans have families that have been here for decades, even centuries. Many families like mine have relatives who fought in the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and Desert Storm. Some families have relatives who fought in the American Revolution.

We don’t plan on letting our country be devoured by Muslim maniacs. We are Americans sir, and not unarmed, socialist European zombies. We will do what is necessary to protect the United States. While many Democrats and liberals see the world through rose colored glasses, conservatives understand that there is good and evil in this world. Evil must be destroyed before it destroys us.

Strong measures, wartime measures, must be taken to protect this country from those that wish to annihilate us and our way of life.

Mr. Trump’s plan to temporarily halt immigration from Muslim countries that are known to either support terrorism or harbor terrorist groups is not only pragmatic, but indeed it is constitutional. It is the constitutional duty of the President of the United States to protect this nation.

There is simply no way to vet hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees from war zones like Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Europe is being destroyed because reckless leaders like Angela Merkel have opened the continent’s doors to a flood of over one million undocumented Muslims arriving with nothing more than a bad attitude and a haversack of Jihad.

Do you think Americans are stupid? While the left lives in a dream world, the right does not. Mr. Trump understands the threat to his nation and the threat, sir, is not from Swedish Lutherans named Anna and Lars. The threat, sir, is from Radical Islam.

How in God’s name are US immigration authorities supposed to know the true intentions of a 22 year old Syrian man? It is impossible. You know it is impossible.

How in God’s name are US immigration authorities supposed to know the true intentions of hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees and thousands of other sundry Muslims who wish to arrive on our shores?

It is impossible. You know it is impossible.

Whether you, your wife, the Muslim world and millions of Democrats are offended by Mr. Trump’s realistic view of the world is irrelevant.

Whether you, your wife and son would have been prohibited from emigrating from Pakistan to America under Mr. Trump’s wartime plan is irrelevant. The security of this great land supersedes your desires and the desires of others who wish to come here now. The United States of America has no obligation to open its doors in order to placate foreigners and liberals in our government.

To adopt any other course but Mr. Trump’s would be a cause for further endangering the lives of Americans every day. That, sir, is unacceptable.

You attacked Mr. Trump in front of a worldwide audience, yet you can’t understand the fact that he defends himself against attacks from you, Hillary Clinton and the left. What else is one to do sir?

We must live in a world of reality, not a world of denial, delusion and fantasy the Democrats inhabit every waking day of their lives.

Radical Islam is the enemy of everyone on this planet who believes in freedom and justice. Until it is destroyed, this nation must protect itself from enemies both foreign and domestic.

Vigilante, this is a nice open letter, altough I'm not nearly as eloquent allow me to respond. I'm one of these mindless European zombies, but I'm a bit confused. Altough my country (Belgium) Has suffered from attacks, it is still very much NOT destroyed, in fact after the Brussels attack, we moved on after a few weeks of reflecting. We realise that more then likely more attacks will follow, but our way of live and our values can and do survive attacks by those people who preach hate. Which I'm sad to report is excactly what the current Republican candidate does. The person who wrote this letter talks about a ban on Muslims being constitutional because a president swears to protect people against enemies. This is actually not true he swears to protect and uphold the constitution, a constitution that has religious freedom at it's very heart. It's the army who swears to protect the nation against its enemies He also talks about Trumps right to respond to attacks. The thing is he responded by implying that Khans wife was not allowed to respond by her husband because she is a Muslim, an attack so vicious, callous and unsubstanciated that it should disqualify him to the presidenty. Instead of him trying to make the case that it is like the letter said simply a matter of pragmatism, he attacked 2 grieving parants who felt it was their right, to point out that it is not just white Christians who are willing to lay down their lives, for the idea of America, an idea that thinks of religious freedom as one of its unalienable rights. An idea that Trump and alot of scared white Americans find is no longer valid because there are assholes who use religion as a reason to commit crimes.

"This is actually not true he swears to protect and uphold the constitution, a constitution that has religious freedom at it's very heart. It's the army who swears to protect the nation against its enemies."

All federal employees take this oath. The President is a federal employee.

Oath
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

5 U.S.C. §3331

 

[TooTall]

We realise that more then likely more attacks will follow, but our way of live and our values can and do survive attacks by those people who preach hate. Which I'm sad to report is excactly what the current Republican candidate does. The person who wrote this letter talks about a ban on Muslims being constitutional because a president swears to protect people against enemies. This is actually not true he swears to protect and uphold the constitution, a constitution that has religious freedom at it's very heart. It's the army who swears to protect the nation against its enemies He also talks about Trumps right to respond to attacks. The thing is he responded by implying that Khans wife was not allowed to respond by her husband because she is a Muslim, an attack so vicious, callous and unsubstanciated that it should disqualify him to the presidenty. Instead of him trying to make the case that it is like the letter said simply a matter of pragmatism, he attacked 2 grieving parants who felt it was their right, to point out that it is not just white Christians who are willing to lay down their lives, for the idea of America, an idea that thinks of religious freedom as one of its unalienable rights. An idea that Trump and alot of scared white Americans find is no longer valid because there are assholes who use religion as a reason to commit crimes.

So Muslims don't subjugate women? They damn sure do. We treat dogs better than Islamic nations treat their females. You label that hate?

If attitudes like yours are prevalent in Belgium you will indeed be hit again. And again. And again. You can hohum it off until every last native citizen is gone if you want but please don't project that attitude onto the US. We don't roll that way. Some in power do so we must throw them out of office wherever we can find them.

What attitude are you reffering to? The attitude that the only thing to do after someboy attacks you, is to get up and say. "You don't fucking scare me." We have beefed up security, looked and found most of those responsible and decided to go back to our daily lives. The truth is most of these attacks aren't committed by refugees but rather by the children and grandchildren of immigrants. They are born here, have Belgian nationality and have lived their entire lives in Europe. We can and do do other stuff, for instance people on the terrorist watchlists can't buy and own an assault rifle legally, in fact no criminal is allowed to own guns, revolutionary right?
I'll give you a little history lesson, in 1933 an Austrian got himself elected on a platform, of strong leadership, demagoguery, and hate for everything that wasn't pure blood German. A couple of months later he had some of his goons set fire to the parliament. He then declared martial law in order to " protect" Germany, in effect abolishing the constitution. It took 12 horrendous years and 60 million death, to get rid of this guy. Trump preaches hate against Muslims, portrays himself as the only person capable of 'protecting' the average Americans and his attacks against Khan and Muslims in general don't exactly show respect for the constitution.

I need a link to a quote where Trump preached hate against Muslims. I'm waiting.

 

[TooTall]

So Muslims don't subjugate women? They damn sure do. We treat dogs better than Islamic nations treat their females. You label that hate?

If attitudes like yours are prevalent in Belgium you will indeed be hit again. And again. And again. You can hohum it off until every last native citizen is gone if you want but please don't project that attitude onto the US. We don't roll that way. Some in power do so we must throw them out of office wherever we can find them.

What attitude are you reffering to? The attitude that the only thing to do after someboy attacks you, is to get up and say. "You don't fucking scare me." We have beefed up security, looked and found most of those responsible and decided to go back to our daily lives. The truth is most of these attacks aren't committed by refugees but rather by the children and grandchildren of immigrants. They are born here, have Belgian nationality and have lived their entire lives in Europe. We can and do do other stuff, for instance people on the terrorist watchlists can't by an assault rifle legally, in fact no criminal is allowed to own guns, revolutionary right?
I'll give you a little history lesson, in 1933 an Austrian got himself elected on a platform, of strong leadership, demagoguery, and hate for everything that wasn't pure blood German. A couple of months later he had some of his goons set fire to the parliament. He then declared martial law in order to " protect" Germany, in effect abolishing the constitution. It took 12 horrendous years and 60 million death, to get rid of this guy. Trump preaches hate against Muslims, portrays himself as the only person capable of 'protecting' the average Americans and his attacks against Khan and Muslims in general don't exactly show respect for the constitution.

No, he doesn't preach hate, you're full of shit. To not understand why it's wrong to let unknowns in from hostile regions means you are too stupid to vote.

Ah he doesn't preach hate. Donald Trump’s Hate Timeline These are all direct quotes, denying it just makes you look dishonest.

So Muslims don't subjugate women? They damn sure do. We treat dogs better than Islamic nations treat their females. You label that hate?

If attitudes like yours are prevalent in Belgium you will indeed be hit again. And again. And again. You can hohum it off until every last native citizen is gone if you want but please don't project that attitude onto the US. We don't roll that way. Some in power do so we must throw them out of office wherever we can find them.

What attitude are you reffering to? The attitude that the only thing to do after someboy attacks you, is to get up and say. "You don't fucking scare me." We have beefed up security, looked and found most of those responsible and decided to go back to our daily lives. The truth is most of these attacks aren't committed by refugees but rather by the children and grandchildren of immigrants. They are born here, have Belgian nationality and have lived their entire lives in Europe. We can and do do other stuff, for instance people on the terrorist watchlists can't by an assault rifle legally, in fact no criminal is allowed to own guns, revolutionary right?
I'll give you a little history lesson, in 1933 an Austrian got himself elected on a platform, of strong leadership, demagoguery, and hate for everything that wasn't pure blood German. A couple of months later he had some of his goons set fire to the parliament. He then declared martial law in order to " protect" Germany, in effect abolishing the constitution. It took 12 horrendous years and 60 million death, to get rid of this guy. Trump preaches hate against Muslims, portrays himself as the only person capable of 'protecting' the average Americans and his attacks against Khan and Muslims in general don't exactly show respect for the constitution.

No, he doesn't preach hate, you're full of shit. To not understand why it's wrong to let unknowns in from hostile regions means you are too stupid to vote.

Ah he doesn't preach hate. Donald Trump’s Hate Timeline These are all direct quotes, denying it just makes you look dishonest.

Nah, it makes you look like the retard that you are. You don't get to define hate for others. And next time post the content instead of a brain dead link.

Yea it was a bit lazy to not want to spend an hour, wich I would need to post all the hatefull shit that Trump has said.

Just one will do.

 

[TooTall]

No, he doesn't preach hate, you're full of shit. To not understand why it's wrong to let unknowns in from hostile regions means you are too stupid to vote.

Ah he doesn't preach hate. Donald Trump’s Hate Timeline These are all direct quotes, denying it just makes you look dishonest.

No, he doesn't preach hate, you're full of shit. To not understand why it's wrong to let unknowns in from hostile regions means you are too stupid to vote.

Ah he doesn't preach hate. Donald Trump’s Hate Timeline These are all direct quotes, denying it just makes you look dishonest.

Nah, it makes you look like the retard that you are. You don't get to define hate for others. And next time post the content instead of a brain dead link.

Yea it was a bit lazy to not want to spend an hour, wich I would need to post all the hatefull shit that Trump has said.

More libtard dishonesty. No one asked you to spend an hour. Posting one hateful thing would do, your link is a joke.

When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re not sending you, they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bring crime. They’re rapists… And some, I assume, are good people.”
This quote incites hate to all Mexican immigrants because he generalises. that's the very first one on my so called bullshit link.

I don't see the word MUSLIM there.

 

[LeftofLeft]

What has Trump sacrificied? Comrade Donald's words eat his guts daily.

As opposed to Hillary? What did she sacrifice?

Do you wonder why they never answer that question?

I do. Then I ask myself, at this point, what difference does it make?