Media hypocrisy about grieving parents on full display

[lostinblue 1,989]

Media hypocrisy about grieving parents on full display

The media found a new hero in the grieving parents of fallen soldier Humayun S.M. Khan, they delivered a scathing speech against Donald Trump at the DNC and are publicly mourning their son by campaigning for Hillary Clinton.

Despite that several statements in Khan’s speech were hyperbole and just well done political theater, the media has praised them as redefining American politics.

Yet when Pat Smith, the mother of a victim of the terrorist attack in Benghazi spoke she was fact checked and attacked by members of the mainstream media. Chris Matthews bashed Smith, calling her comments “a gross accusation” and said of the grieving widow “I don’t care what that woman felt

http://theamericanmirror.com/medias-hypocrisy-grieving-parents-full-display/#more-16663

[TBoneTX 46,441]

It didn't send a thrill running down Matthews' leg, apparently...

[Rob L 3,811]

Media hypocrisy about grieving parents on full display

The media found a new hero in the grieving parents of fallen soldier Humayun S.M. Khan, they delivered a scathing speech against Donald Trump at the DNC and are publicly mourning their son by campaigning for Hillary Clinton.

Despite that several statements in Khans speech were hyperbole and just well done political theater, the media has praised them as redefining American politics.

Yet when Pat Smith, the mother of a victim of the terrorist attack in Benghazi spoke she was fact checked and attacked by members of the mainstream media. Chris Matthews bashed Smith, calling her comments a gross accusation and said of the grieving widow I dont care what that woman felt

http://theamericanmirror.com/medias-hypocrisy-grieving-parents-full-display/#more-16663

So this makes the grief and statements of these gold star parents less potent or there questions for Trump supporters less powerful?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Not to take away from the sacrifice that Khan made in the line of duty, because I have the UTMOST respect for people in uniform who serve their country, but...

What did his giving up his life 12 years ago have to do with anything in the election of 2016?

[Rob L 3,811]

Not to take away from the sacrifice that Khan made in the line of duty, because I have the UTMOST respect for people in uniform who serve their country, but...

What did his giving up his life 12 years ago have to do with anything in the election of 2016?

1 Trump did not serve his country, received multiple deferments. Thus son if immigrants volunteered to serve.

2 Trump wants to supress immigrants from Muslim countries. These folks would not have a chance to come here if left to Trump

3 Such views by Trump is a personal affront to these parents who love their adopted country and list their son in its defense.

4 The couple failed on their quest to get Ryan and McConnell to repudiate Trump and failed. The DNC gave them a platform to make their case. They made their case effectively

What other questions do you have. Like many people the thought of a Trump Presidency makes the nauseous.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Which Clinton served our country

Next

[JayJayH 546]

We're so partisan nowadays that the content of a story really doesn't matter.

What matters is whether it benefits [your side] or not.

[yuna628 9,758]

Which Clinton served our country

Next

False equivalence. Trump has basically reiterated in no uncertain terms, that he has made exemplary sacrifices for his country, just as exemplary as serving in the military and losing one's life. His supposed belovement of vets is exceedingly hollow, and has used groups as a pawn of promotion - his 'donations' nowhere near totaling his outrageous claims. Trump received multiple special deferments, which ran contrary to numerous claims he has spun about how he avoided going into the draft. He has seemed rather proud of himself in that regard. He tramples on the memory of those who served in Vietnam and equates that to his rampant sexual behavior.

Bill Clinton, joined the ROTC, admittedly as a method to avoid the draft. But a manner in which he came to have misgivings about, and resigned up for the draft. Both Clintons, whether you like them or not, have dedicated themselves to public service. Trump has never been into public service, he dedicated himself to serving himself, as all con men do.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Public service? AYFKM??? Do not think for one second that the Clinton's are in it for the good of the public. Never have been, even when they were the governor of our great state of Arkansas. They are in it for themselves. So much so that they even took furniture from the whitehouse when they left. If you look up the word "Corrupt" in a dictionary, you will find a picture of the Clintons as the definition.

Joining ROTC does not have anything to do with the draft, FYI. ROTC is simply a way into the military while attending college. A way to get IN to the military, not a means to avoid it. But if you'd like to study a little more on how Bill dodged his obligation, you can find interesting reading here:

http://www.1stcavmedic.com/bill-clinton-draft.htm

This does not mean I condone what Trump did. They are both wussies for avoiding military service.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 Trump did not serve his country, received multiple deferments. Thus son if immigrants volunteered to serve.

Trump was a wuss for avoiding military service when called to duty.

2 Trump wants to supress immigrants from Muslim countries. These folks would not have a chance to come here if left to Trump.

As do I, in the context of muslim immigrants from Syria and such. If they want to come to the USA, they need to do it the same way all immigrants do, thru a visa & vetting process, not en masse as Obama has suggested.

3 Such views by Trump is a personal affront to these parents who love their adopted country and list their son in its defense.

They can stand in line to be offended. They came over the right way, and should hold others to the same standards they had to comply with, regardless of religion or country.

4 The couple failed on their quest to get Ryan and McConnell to repudiate Trump and failed. The DNC gave them a platform to make their case. They made their case effectively.

The DNC was NOT the platform for their issue. The dems only allowed it because they felt it would hurt Trump's campaign; it had NOTHING at all to do with one dead soldier, which Hillary obviously cares nothing about. Surprised she didn't say "what does it matter, after 12 long years?"

What other questions do you have. Like many people the thought of a Trump Presidency makes the nauseous.

As I stated in my original post, their story has NOTHING to do with the current election. It was simply a smear campaign designed to make Trump look bad. Shame on the dems for this under-handed play. But that is par for the course that Hillary always plays on.

[yuna628 9,758]

Public service? AYFKM??? Do not think for one second that the Clinton's are in it for the good of the public. Never have been, even when they were the governor of our great state of Arkansas. They are in it for themselves. So much so that they even took furniture from the whitehouse when they left. If you look up the word "Corrupt" in a dictionary, you will find a picture of the Clintons as the definition.

Joining ROTC does not have anything to do with the draft, FYI. ROTC is simply a way into the military while attending college. A way to get IN to the military, not a means to avoid it. But if you'd like to study a little more on how Bill dodged his obligation, you can find interesting reading here:

http://www.1stcavmedic.com/bill-clinton-draft.htm

This does not mean I condone what Trump did. They are both wussies for avoiding military service.

Actually it did have something to do with him dodging the draft and you can find that information in thoroughly researched biographies and sites dedicated to debunking incoherent ranting spew on a variety of topics.

And yes, public service. The furnishing issue has been addressed numerous times and has nothing remotely interesting to do with the current subject.

Mr Khan's parents had the right to speak on this subject, wherever they wished to speak it as it is their Constitutional right to do so. If their words are damaging and effective then so be it, because of what Trump has said and done. If Mrs Smith has the right to speak, then the Khans do as well. Is she not an equal tool for the RNC or is this more pretzel-twisting for Comrade Cheeto to fit a narrative? The Trump camps disgusting tactics against the Khans including this morning, has blown little Chris Matthew's diatribe out of the water. But what can one honestly expect from a mobster con artist?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

If the Mrs. Smith you are referring to was the mother of the Benghazi victim, then I agree with you, she had no place talking during the RNC either. Crappy play by both parties.

But let's put it into perspective... The Khan's are upset about something Trump "may" do in the future, even though he doesn't really have the power to do it alone. Their son's death had nothing to do with Trump.

Mrs. Smith is upset about something Hillary did allow to happen. Her son's death does have something to do with Hillary. And Obama.

Actually it did have something to do with him dodging the draft and you can find that information in thoroughly researched biographies and sites dedicated to debunking incoherent ranting spew on a variety of topics.

And yes, public service. The furnishing issue has been addressed numerous times and has nothing remotely interesting to do with the current subject.

Mr Khan's parents had the right to speak on this subject, wherever they wished to speak it as it is their Constitutional right to do so. If their words are damaging and effective then so be it, because of what Trump has said and done. If Mrs Smith has the right to speak, then the Khans do as well. Is she not an equal tool for the RNC or is this more pretzel-twisting for Comrade Cheeto to fit a narrative? The Trump camps disgusting tactics against the Khans including this morning, has blown little Chris Matthew's diatribe out of the water. But what can one honestly expect from a mobster con artist?

[smilesammich 10,727]

If the Mrs. Smith you are referring to was the mother of the Benghazi victim, then I agree with you, she had no place talking during the RNC either. Crappy play by both parties.

But let's put it into perspective... The Khan's are upset about something Trump "may" do in the future, even though he doesn't really have the power to do it alone. Their son's death had nothing to do with Trump.

Mrs. Smith is upset about something Hillary did allow to happen. Her son's death does have something to do with Hillary. And Obama.

so, when are you going to put it into perspective? was this it, the attempt at perspective?

the khans are pointing out that their son is not welcome in trump's 'future' america. this is what trump is running on, bigotry. keeping people out based on their religion. very relevant in this election. you can't twist that back on them with nonsense about how long ago their son died.

mrs. smith's speech, in my mind, is the equivalent of if the dnc had forced mrs. khan to speak about her dead son, even choking back tears and prompting her to wildly blame trump specifically for her son's death, at the convention. which isn't close to what happend. the parents are not blaming trump for their sons death. also, they are responding to an aspect of his campaign platform.

meanwhile the gop paraded mrs. smith's misplaced grief around like macy's and thanksgiving. disgusting display.

and trump can't attack hillary's foreign policy experience, because he has all of absolutely none.

don't be mad because trump is proving unable to properly censor himself. for the life of me i don't get how any of you think he's capable of being a world leader.

[Teddy B 17,252]

so, when are you going to put it into perspective? was this it, the attempt at perspective?

the khans are pointing out that their son is not welcome in trump's 'future' america. this is what trump is running on, bigotry. keeping people out based on their religion. very relevant in this election. you can't twist that back on them with nonsense about how long ago their son died.

mrs. smith's speech, in my mind, is the equivalent of if the dnc had forced mrs. khan to speak about her dead son, even choking back tears and prompting her to wildly blame trump specifically for her son's death, at the convention. which isn't close to what happend. the parents are not blaming trump for their sons death. also, they are responding to an aspect of his campaign platform.

meanwhile the gop paraded mrs. smith's misplaced grief around like macy's and thanksgiving. disgusting display.

and trump can't attack hillary's foreign policy experience, because he has all of absolutely none.

don't be mad because trump is proving unable to properly censor himself. for the life of me i don't get how any of you think he's capable of being a world leader.

Deep down I don't think any of them really think he's capable. They're stuck voting for the booby prize simply because he's wearing an "R" on his sweater. It's fun watching them twist and spin to attempt to justify voting for Trump. No matter how much one hates Hillary Clinton, there is no logical way they can sit there and say that Trump is a better choice.

Edited August 1, 2016 by Teddy B

[smilesammich 10,727]

Deep down I don't think any of them really think he's capable. They're stuck voting for the booby prize simply because he's wearing an "R" on his sweater. It's fun watching them twist and spin to attempt to justify voting for Trump. No matter how much one hates Hillary Clinton, there is no logical way they can sit there and say that Trump is a better choice.

some days it's fun. other days i need pepto bismol to log in.