Endorsement Race 2016

http://www.politifact.com/colorado/statements/2016/aug/03/donald-trump/trump-falsely-accuses-colorado-fire-marshal-incomp/

I think he is talking about A2K, not veterans. In this respect anyways.

Seemed that he was commenting on my reference to A2k veterans and their range of opinions. Hard to believe you are a bleeding heart liberal brainwashed leftist. Maybe you've changed a lot recently?

I don't think I've changed a whole lot, but I admit to having had my stomach churned a few times in the past year.

What gives you the right to judge whether or not a father's grief for his son is genuine?

Wow! guijohn hit the bottom of the pig sty with his observation about the parent's grief of losing a child. We lost our son, and speechless about guijohn's total ignorance.

Don't underestimate. I'm pretty sure there are lower and more ignorant things to come.

Shattered? Only because I am in a Bastion of bleeding heart liberal leftists. In my life... That would be in the real world... Where I encounter veterans, active-duty military, police officers, and firefighters the consensus is mr. Khan is a piece of ****. He's the lawyer that teaches (and charges) immigrants how to skirt our laws to get into this country. His motivation is more than clear to critical thinkers whose minds are not addled my leftist propaganda.

Yes of course I was... It's easy to be confused when your brain is addled by leftist brainwashing.

So, when **your** liberals think that Mr. Khan is genuine, its because they are bleeding heart liberals..

When you and your conservative 'friends' think that he is disingenuous, its because you are clear thinking 'real-worlder's'.

Man, that logic is mathematical, inescapable. Is that the way it works? When someone disagrees with you they are automatically relegated to being irrational, when they agree they are rational?

Yes, the absolute number of people that think Mr. Khan is disingenuous is large. Runs in the millions I'm sure. But so are the folks who think he is genuine. And statistically, I would expect that those people run the gamut of political beliefs.

But the political bearing isn't even really the point. The point is that consensus doesn't mean truth. None of you or I have any evidence, any facts that he is either genuine or disingenuous. You just have your own political leanings, your own prejudices to steer your beliefs.

For myself, I don't know either way. But I'll take him at face value until **facts** show otherwise. Do facts not matter to you?

The only fact that matters is that he was at the Democratic National Convention publicly carrying water for Hillary Clinton using his dad hero son as a tool.

Yes, he was at the democratic convention to tell the world that Trump doesn't respect the sacrifice the Kahns made for this country. They also showed that Trump is ignorant about the US Constitution.

That is so much bullshit. This father and Trump had no interactions before the Democratic National Convention. And I'm still waiting to hear why this person pulled the Constitution out of his pocket to claim that Trump doesn't know anything about the Constitution, What was the Constitutional issue that he was trying to make that seems to be completely unclear and done only for dramatic effect and what did it have to do with his dead son?

You clearly don't understand what a 'fact' is. The only part of your statement that is a fact is that he was at the democratic national convention.

'Carrying water' for Hillary Clinton is not a fact, neither is your use of 'using his dead hero son as a tool' as your interpretation would have it.

Do you really not understand what constitutes a fact over an opinion? I assume you are an adult? And you still haven't learned this basic difference? How can you possibly have proper discussion without understanding these differences?

If he wasn't carrying water for Hillary pray tell who was he doing at for???

Who are you talking bollocks for, for that matter? Are you being sponsored or something, a dime for every time you say something asinine?

If so you must be making a bloody fortune.

Who pulled your chain?

That's another dime.

That's too much. A penny.

Still not a fact, you are still trying to convince me of an opinion..but that's ok, there's nothing wrong with that. Just call it like it is..

With that in mind..



ok, now we are getting somewhere..allow me to express my..opinion and perhaps help you out where you have some credibility and where I think you go off the rails..

First, we can agree that Hillary certainly gained politically from Mr. Khan. But we don't know if Hillary 'used' Mr. Kahn with respect to that word, 'used' . 'Used' implying that she didn't care about him or his son or his outward message, just her own political gain..

Let's for arguments sake assume that Hillary did 'use' Mr. Khan. Certainly a plausible thing. Where you go off the rails is conflating your opinion of her using Kahn with Mr. Kahn's intentions regarding his son.

The thought of Clinton's political gain with Mr. Khan is not what's at issue when addressing Mr. Kahn and his motivations. Unless there is evidence that Mr. Kahn and Hillary conspired have Hillary use him and he to consciously dishonor his son's death to that end, then Hillary and Mr. Kahn's motivations are SEPARATE things. And logically so, this is not an opinion or argument. They are logically, necessarily separate; if they conjoin, it is an accident.

Again, you may have a valid argument over Hillary use of Mr. Kahn. I'm not saying I agree or don't. Barring any proper evidence, it is, however, only your opinion. And one, I might add, you should hold only tentatively because there is a lack of specifics that support your view.

Further, the vociferousness with which you prosecute your argument serves only to undermine (any possible) validity in your argument. You come across as dispassionate, hateful (calling Mr. Kahn a piece of ****) and generally shrill and you expect people to listen to you? Or do you really not care about that and are just ranting to see your own writ? To express frustration?

I am not deaf nor blind to the problems posed by this federal gov't. They are no saints in some of the matters of which you speak. I get that. However, get your facts and opinions straight. Remove the hateful speech. Sort out what is truly relevant. Admit that you (and none of us) have all the answers and that things are more nuanced than at first glance.

You'll be left with some real answers, lose some of the things you thought were true (which is simply an admission that you don't know everything) and other things you will be uncertain about..