Khan shuts down his website

Clock Town said:
anti trumpers have been saying this shit for a year. if trump loses the election it's not going to be because he said something 'controversial'
Click to expand...
Like hell it isn't. He's been saying controversial shit since he started and though it gained him the nomination the general election is a totally different electorate than the primaries. He has virtually non-existent support from minorities and only around 30% support from women primarily because of the controversial shit he's said.

Now if you said that he's not going to lose because he's said something controversial since his nomination I'd agree with you. He's said enough controversial shit prior to the convention where it isn't necessary! LOL
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Well Mott, maybe you're not up to speed lol.

Khan does work with EB5 visas and there's significant money in them---and green cards. That spells conflict of interest in big neon lights.

Khan brought this on himself by going after Trump on immigration. He could have simply extolled the virtues of Hillary.
Click to expand...
No it's not a conflict of interest. It has nothing to do with the sacrifice his son made for his nation or Trumps bigotry towards non-white immigrants.
 
Congratulations on destroying the life of a family that gave everything for this country. Be very proud of yourself, Republicans. You are national cancer.
 
Jihadism is a disease of the skin, fascism is a disease of the heart. The Republican party will destroy this nation. We should focus all efforts to defeating the internal enemy before going abroad.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
It got Trump in the short term but this one may not be done playing out. Khan, it turns out, submitted a paper to the Houston Journal of International Law regarding the sources of Islamic law aka Sharia.

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/hujil6&div=3&id=&page=

I'm not paying $30.00 to read it lol. It'll be interesting to see if this link gets buried too.

But I would be very interested in knowing what Khan said. Right up front, you could surmise that Khan considers Sharia a legitimate form of international law---or how could he justify submitting a paper about it in a journal devoted to the general topic of international law?

This guy is so not a run of the mill Muslim. In fact, he's an apparent Muslim jurist. If he's not an Islamist, it would be remarkable.

I think there's people who want to move on the next outrage as quickly as possible. And I bet Khan is one of them.
Click to expand...

Sharia is a legal system, just like Common law is a legal system. It's of theoretical interest to lawyers.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No it's not a conflict of interest. It has nothing to do with the sacrifice his son made for his nation or Trumps bigotry towards non-white immigrants.
Click to expand...

It's not about his son---or Trump. Trump's comment was pretty innocuous relative to the outrage it generated. You would have thought Trump dissed his son.

If Khan was working pro bono for poor Mexicans it would be different. He works with EB5's so serious money is involved.

In any other instance that would spell conflict of interest. Why is this different?
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
But we're not supposed to talk about that lol. And we're really really not supposed to draw any inferences from it.

I'm inclined to think the DNC knew all about Khan, but they were banking on him being unassailable because of the Gold Family thing.

Think about it: would you use the death of your kid to make a political statement? I wouldn't. I don't care who it was for or against. I would wager that the DNC got turned down by other Muslim Gold Families. But Khan was willing to do it because of his *business* interest in immigration.

And I think Khan made the same miscalculation---which explains why he buried his website.

And liberals can spare the faux outrage. They know better than anyone how politics works. Look what they did to Bernie's people. When Khan injected himself into presidential politics, he became fair game.
Click to expand...

To attack the fuckers who are responsible for his death and spit on him due to his ethnicity? Fuck yeah I would make a political statement. The Republican party is a greater danger to this country than ISIS, Trump is the greatest enemy America has ever faced, they are internal enemies and traitors who must be snuffed out with all due haste.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
It's not about his son---or Trump. Trump's comment was pretty innocuous relative to the outrage it generated. You would have thought Trump dissed his son.

If Khan was working pro bono for poor Mexicans it would be different. He works with EB5's so serious money is involved.

In any other instance that would spell conflict of interest. Why is this different?
Click to expand...

It can never be a conflict of interest to make a political statement. Surely by your definition corporate lobbying is a "conflict of interest" to? But it is protected by the first amendment. That's not what you use the term "conflict of interest" to describe.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
He implied that Mrs Khan was silent at the convention because of her religion lol.
Click to expand...

I assume she was silent at the convention because she wasn't the one giving a speech. It's pretty common for a persons spouse to stand by their side during a speech, only when it's a Muslim do you have a problem with it. Because you're a fascist, a racist shithead, and you want to destroy my country. You're an internal enemy. Get the fuck out of America traitor!
 
Racists Aren't Human said:
It can never be a conflict of interest to make a political statement. Surely by your definition corporate lobbying is a "conflict of interest" to? But it is protected by the first amendment. That's not what you use the term "conflict of interest" to describe.
Click to expand...

Ok lol. How about biased? In Khan's *biased* opinion Trumps immigration policy isn't good.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I doubt that very much. This is probably going to be like Mitt's 47% comment. His being an immigration lawyer is a big whoop de do to anyone but a Trump supporter and Trump supporters have already shown they will give the Donald a pass on anything.

The real question....given the data is will Trump turn this from a defeat into a crushing landslide defeat?
Click to expand...

The 47% were average Americans, though - not Muslims
 
Thing1 said:
I've never really seen anything like this in a campaign, even if most of that is true.

I mean, Trump should be hammering Hillary this week. There are topics that he could put at the top of the news that would be very strong for his campaign, and bad for hers.

He could have let the Khans have their say at the convention, and the story would have ended within a day or 2. Instead, he focuses on this, and this is all anyone is talking about. It's impossible to spin this as any kind of positive thing for Trump or his campaign.
Click to expand...


It makes sense if you consider Trump is trying to lose. I bet he made a deal with Hillary to get her elected. He probably stands to get some sweet government contracts, no-bid of course, and he will profit far more behind the scenes.

Crazier conspiracies happen all the time
 
tinfoil said:
It makes sense if you consider Trump is trying to lose. I bet he made a deal with Hillary to get her elected. He probably stands to get some sweet government contracts, no-bid of course, and he will profit far more behind the scenes.

Crazier conspiracies happen all the time
Click to expand...

There's more merit to this theory than usual conspiracy stuff.

He seems to be REALLY trying now - just saw the story about him potentially supporting Paul Ryan's primary opponent, or something like that? It's like he's throwing everything he possibly can out there to self-destruct.
 
Racists Aren't Human said:
Jihadism is a disease of the skin, fascism is a disease of the heart. The Republican party will destroy this nation. We should focus all efforts to defeating the internal enemy before going abroad.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that only people with the "wrong sort of skin" are susceptible to jihadism?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top