Fox News played commercial over the speech by the Muslim man whose son was killed

#302
#302
"Khizr M. Khan used to work for Hogan & Hartson and Lovells, which has ties to the Clinton Foundation. Accordingly, "Hogan Lovells LLP, another U.S. firm hired by the Saudis, is registered to work for the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia through 2016, disclosures show. Robert Kyle, a lobbyist from the firm, has bundled $50,850 for Clinton’s campaign."

Blog: Is There a Backstory about Khizr Khan and Donald Trump?
 
#303
#303
mrorange211 said:
It's criminal that she has not held a press conference. I am eager for the debates because at that point no one will be able to protect her from Trump. IMO, it will be the debates that win the election for Trump.*

*If he wins.
Click to expand...

Don't think for one second Clinton is afraid of trump. She'll chew him up and spit him out like a piece of worn out chewing gum. Can't wait, bring it on ! :bottom:
 
#305
#305
"Khizr Muazzam Khan graduated in Punjab University Law College, as the New York Times confirms. and he specialized in International Trade Law in Saudi Arabia. An interest lawyer for Islamic oil companies Khan wrote a paper, called In Defense of OPEC to defend the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), an intergovernmental oil company consisting of mainly Islamic countries. Khan is a promoter of Islamic Sharia Law. Khan is also co-founder of the Journal of Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law (Islamic Sharia)"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#306
#306
Someone called him the Human Cheeto™ earlier. Is that thing now, because I really want that to be a thing.

Donald-Trump-Cheeto-Face.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#307
#307
theFallGuy said:
"Khizr M. Khan used to work for Hogan & Hartson and Lovells, which has ties to the Clinton Foundation. Accordingly, "Hogan Lovells LLP, another U.S. firm hired by the Saudis, is registered to work for the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia through 2016, disclosures show. Robert Kyle, a lobbyist from the firm, has bundled $50,850 for Clinton’s campaign."

Blog: Is There a Backstory about Khizr Khan and Donald Trump?
Click to expand...

Conservative rag publication. :snoring:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#308
#308
theFallGuy said:
"Khizr Muazzam Khan graduated in Punjab University Law College, as the New York Times confirms. and he specialized in International Trade Law in Saudi Arabia. An interest lawyer for Islamic oil companies Khan wrote a paper, called In Defense of OPEC to defend the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), an intergovernmental oil company consisting of mainly Islamic countries. Khan is a promoter of Islamic Sharia Law. Khan is also co-founder of the Journal of Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law (Islamic Sharia)"
Click to expand...

But but the NYT is a "lib" rag.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#309
#309
Septic said:
Apparently, it's not something 'we got'. May I suggest using a present perfect form instead of past perfect simple? A more formal present perfect possession form of 'we have' would better emphasize the connection of said future (until then) event to the present and its effect on our current situation.

See how silly this is? Outside of personal insults - pointing out grammar and spelling mistakes screams "my argument has failed, but I want someone to pay attention to me anyway."
Click to expand...

Good to see you respond to a purposed error. See how easy it is?
 
#312
#312
Septic said:
Purposed. :thumbsup:

I do see how stupid grammar policing is, was that your question?
Click to expand...

Feel free to police my grammar and spelling any time you want to. Unlike others, I go back and correct errors, sometimes days later. Bugs the **** out of me unless they are "purposed".
 
#313
#313
Of all the various mediums in which I read about and discuss politics for this election season, I've always found VN to shift the blame of DJT's blunders the most, and this latest debacle is no exception.

Look, this was all in no way coincidental...

Yes, the DNC may have executed the best planned move so far with Khan's speech. It has effectively rallied their base, enticed those on the fence, and chipped into DJT's fringe support from veterans.

Yes, the media has taken advantage of it.

No, DJT's thin skin and his ego could not save him from playing right into the DNC's hand.

This man could possibly win this election if he 86's most interviews, logs off twitter, and sticks to his rallies while ceasing response to whatever is trending on social media. He really could. He is only beating himself at this point by demanding the last word and having the temperament of a prepubescent brat. It's blowing my mind that a man who supposedly surrounds himself with highly paid and deeply qualified advisers can allow himself to fundamentally destroy his own campaign.

Now, as far as y'all pinning his personal **** ups solely on the media... shame on you for so vigorously shoving your head in the sand. Maybe it's time to admit that, despite the DNC putting forth the least electable/most disliked candidate in decades, he just may screw the pooch and lose this thing after hijacking the entire party while owing himself the majority of the credit for doing so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#314
#314
orangeluvr said:
Don't think for one second Clinton is afraid of trump. She'll chew him up and spit him out like a piece of worn out chewing gum. Can't wait, bring it on ! :bottom:
Click to expand...

Have you seen where that loser wimp Cheetoh is now trying to weasel his way out of the debates by claiming they're rigged? His reason: because two of them coincide with NFL games (as the debates have nearly every year for decades).

This guy seriously has to be the biggest loser that has ever run for president as a major party nominee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#319
#319
One of the things that has most fascinated me about this election is how it has turned the entire world upside down, where red is blue and the night now apparently occurs during the day. Left is right and a blade of grass is a tree. A party that claims to be progressive is voting for a neoliberal Neocon, while a party that claims to support classical liberal economics and small government is voting for a authoritarian, reactionary protectionist.

Similarly, a party that has styled itself as the party of defense and the party of the military now supports a nominee who has said publicly the most vile things about military servicemen and women and their families in perhaps our presidential history. Whether it be slighting a prominent war hero for being captured (thereby throwing thousands of our POWs and MIAs under the bus), insinuating American soldiers in Iraq were looters, describing our fighting men as weak and ineffective, or taking to the tough, manly Twitter streets to battle a Gold Star family, this man seems completely at odds with our military men and women, despite his claims to boost defense spending while making record-breaking tax cuts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#320
#320
malinoisvol said:
It worked for HRC during the nomination process. I'm guessing the DNC/MSM is banking it will work in her favor against DJT, also.
Click to expand...

Hillary would have scheduled them for 3am on a Tuesday if she could have. There was no way she wanted anyone seeing those debates.
 
#321
#321
joevol320 said:
would you want to compete with an NFL game?
Click to expand...

Of course not, but that isn't the point. Many have had to deal with NFL games before him. Heck, these days, there's practically an NFL game on every night of the week that part of the year. That or a college game. As the debate committee said, it's practically impossible now to schedule a weeknight (as opposed to weekends, when no one is home) debate anymore with conflicting with some major sports event.

Trump should do less complaining and more leading.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#322
#322
volprof said:
One of the things that has most fascinated me about this election is how it has turned the entire world upside down, where red is blue and the night now apparently occurs during the day. Left is right and a blade of grass is a tree. A party that claims to be progressive is voting for a neoliberal Neocon, while a party that claims to support classical liberal economics and small government is voting for a authoritarian, reactionary protectionist.

Similarly, a party that has styled itself as the party of defense and the party of the military now supports a nominee who has said publicly the most vile things about military servicemen and women and their families in perhaps our presidential history. Whether it be slighting a prominent war hero for being captured (thereby throwing thousands of our POWs and MIAs under the bus), insinuating American soldiers in Iraq were looters, describing our fighting men as weak and ineffective, or taking to the tough, manly Twitter streets to battle a Gold Star family, this man seems completely at odds with our military men and women, despite his claims to boost defense spending while making record-breaking tax cuts.
Click to expand...

VFW blasted him today for doubling down on his rhetoric, that's not a good look. At some point his handlers are going to have to pry his twitter account away from him entirely; people want to vote for him but he keeps opening his mouth and exposing who really is. Blaming the media and trying to redirect after he says something stupid is falling flat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#323
#323
Khan = Saudi/Clinton surrogate. Proven. Law firm he worked for is a major contributor. Even did Hill's tax returns. For all that income they did not have (we broke, lol).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top