"Until this moment I think I never really gauged your cruelty"

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution

The other problem is that Trump appeals to angry White people and racists. There aren't enough voters to counter the women, African-Americans, Latinos, Muslims and educated people that he turns off.

Scary, I think you're serious. I worked for Lockheed Martin when the contract was awarded so I wanted the Lightning to be a good plane but the concept was deeply flawed in trying to make the same airframe do VTOL and air superiority fighter.

Not Obama's fault but he wouldn't know **** about what was wrong with the F-35.

And if fighters are obsolete, why build it at all?

But you do agree that a temporary ban is still a ban?

Well, Khizr Khan never said anything about it being permanent or temporary. And that's not really necessary, is it? A ban can be either temporary or permanent, as you yourself recognize. What you're arguing with, therefore, is Khan's choice in the way he describes the "total and complete shutdown" that Trump has proposed. In short, you're not saying he was wrong, just that you would have phrased it differently.

Sorry, but I'm having trouble finding where Khan said that Trump had tried to silence him. It's nowhere in the excerpt that you posted.

And regardless of whether Khan was being hypocritical or not, that doesn't mean he was "whining," which you said he was. I asked for examples of whining, not hypocrisy.

Well, again, are those examples of "whining?" Certainly, you'd have to concede that Trump has engaged in similarly "colorful language." Does that mean that Trump has been whining as well?

It doesn't matter if Trump "meant" temporary ban of Muslims or continued ban,

it is against the constitution to make laws based on religion which is why Khan asked Trump if he had ever read the constitution. It was a very logical question.

Quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Not in the current context. The term "ban" without the modifier "temporary" almost certainly refers to something permanent.

I do think it is necessary to state temporary if that is what is meant.

But even if he did mean temporary, there are still big problems with his statement. A temporary halt while the government comes up with better procedures would not violate the Constitution. If this guy is excoriating Trump for proposing a temporary emergency measure, then it is he who needs to go read the Constitution.

His statement "he has to have the patience and tolerance for criticism" implies that Trump had done something that wasn't patient and tolerant of criticism.

His statement "but no one else can criticize" implies that Trump was trying to disallow criticism of himself.

It is kind of like the infamous question "have you stopped beating your wife". The statements contain underlying presumptions beyond their direct meaning.

I propose this as the best definition of "whine" in the current context:

1.3 - A feeble or petulant complaint:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/whine

I think all of my previous quotes from the guy meet the definition.

Donald Trump proposed a system of religious discrimination for U.S. immigration policy on Monday, advocating a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States," according to a written campaign statement.

The incendiary proposal was swiftly denounced by Trump's rivals in both parties, and as a policy proposal it is probably illegal.

"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."

In the modern era, federal immigration law has generally cited religion to protect and welcome refugees facing religious discrimination by other countries — not to advance discrimination by the U.S. In 1980, for example, Congress passed an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act to protect some potential refugees facing "fear of persecution" on account of their "religion," among other factors.

As a matter of federal law, Trump's call to insert religious discrimination into national immigration policy would hark back to policies repealed many decades ago.

True that you can't do both in one plane. But that just means that the F-35 is not an air superiority fighter

The fact is reality doesn't fit in with your prejudices and complete lack of empathy. As a Trump supporter I doubt you're even on nodding terms with reality.

I've never been interested in your nonsense, and it is nonsense.

There's no argument to be had with you. Arguing with far right racists only legitimises their position. Trump is pushing a racist far right agenda and therefore you'll brook no criticism of him. He insulted the Khans, you refuse to see that and assume that you have the right to tell people whether or not they should feel offended by that.