If you openly support a candidate at a convention, should that protect you from any scrutiny?

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 07:38:08 -0400

A lot has been made recently about Trump attacking the family of a fallen Soldier. Meanwhile, where is outrage this family was used as a political tool based on their faith? Does the loss of their son protect them from attacks "just because"? Should it? What about the retired generals that now speak at conventions in support of candidates? If you volunteer to play the game, expect backlash.

Response by Sgt Seth Welch made Aug 2 at 2016 7:42 AM

Sgt Seth Welch — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 07:42:43 -0400

No, they were out there to support themselves, they have pokers in the fire as well. They opened up for all of this

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 2 at 2016 7:44 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 07:44:20 -0400

It is tragic that Kahns lost their son. He was a hero, and a brother-in-arms. One of us. However, the Kahns agreed to speak at a National Democratic Convention. They decided to do so at the insistence of HRC. My opinion is she knew what she was doing, and used them as nothing more than a political weapon. One more piece of pandering. After all, there are thousand of gold star families. And she is very quick to dismiss those that had sons that perished in Benghazi.

The question is, should we give the Kahns a pass just because they lost their son? Does that absolve them from the fact they agreed to speak on behalf of HRC, against Trump? Trump did not attack their son. He attacked the parents. He was speaking about the subordinate role female Muslims take in some families. He picked the wrong time to do it. He picked the wrong place. Does their status as Gold Star parents protect them from scrutiny though? Should it? Especially given the circumstances? They agreed to go on the national stage. This again is a media dust-up.

And what of the retired generals that speak their mind for candidates. Should they be allowed to even? Personally, I believe they are private citizens. They can do as they please now. Of course, they are open to scrutiny, and attack. I am sure they accept that.

Response by Sgt Seth Welch made Aug 2 at 2016 7:46 AM

Sgt Seth Welch — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 07:46:37 -0400

Didn't finish my post, wanted to elaborate. The Kahns oversee a campaign to get Muslim Americans on board voting democratic. Maybe because Mr Kahn himself is an immigration lawyer and his business will be hurt once borders are tightened up and vetting is required.
They wanted the publicity for their cause and I think he used his son as a tool as much as Hillary used the parents, they shouldn't be immune to the cross fire.

Response by MSgt Michael Smith made Aug 2 at 2016 7:56 AM

MSgt Michael Smith — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 07:56:29 -0400

Ask yourself the same question about the Benghazi families and take that as your answer CPT.

Response by Cpl Justin Goolsby made Aug 2 at 2016 8:33 AM

Cpl Justin Goolsby — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 08:33:30 -0400

No. If you have put your opinions out there for the general public, then they are open to criticism no matter how good or bad they are. That's one of the basics free speech, the ability to have your opinions challenged by someone else.

Does it suck that they suffered a loss, of course. That doesn't make them being exempt from being criticized whether it's at the convention or in the privacy of their own home. If they put their thoughts out for the public to see, they must be prepared for someone to challenge those thoughts.

I literally only know one person in my Facebook friends list that is a Hillary supporter. Her biggest arguments in support of Hillary is that "it's about time we've had a woman in the White House" and "Hillary is the most qualified because she already spent 8 years in the White House". It is mind-numbingly stupid to believe that being a housewife makes you any more qualified than anyone else. Every time I see her post something along those lines I will explain to her that the requirements to be President are pretty bare bones because it's a position that's meant to be held by any loyal citizen.

Response by CW5 Andrew J. Foreman made Aug 2 at 2016 8:34 AM

CW5 Andrew J. Foreman — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 08:34:23 -0400

No! Once you cross the line into politics at the conventions you are fair game. Unfortunately the press is treating Mr. Khan, who spoke at the DNC Convention, differently then with Mrs. Smith, who spoken at the RNC Convention.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Aug 2 at 2016 8:35 AM

SrA Edward Vong — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 08:35:28 -0400

Only from government, individuals are free to scrutinize you as you are free to defend yourself and scrutinize back.

Response by SSG Jeff Carlisle-Tierno made Aug 2 at 2016 9:06 AM

SSG Jeff Carlisle-Tierno — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 09:06:18 -0400

No. There needs to be more scrutiny in politics. Too much hypocrisy and 'do as I say, not as I do' bullshit, no accountability… this election promises to be the biggest joke in this nation's history to date. As for Mr. Khan, I don't know what the bigger travesty is - Trump attacking the man, or Clinton trotting him out after she was one of those who was behind Bush 100% in pushing for the war which killed his son.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Aug 2 at 2016 9:29 AM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 09:29:40 -0400

LTC Private RallyPoint Member When they decided to speak at the DNC, they opened themselves up to whatever fallout came from that decision. They used their hero son to play politics. Now that they have been exposed for what they really are, there is a media frenzy. Where was the outcry when Hillary called the Benghazi mother a liar? Hypocrites...

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 2 at 2016 9:43 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 09:43:21 -0400

I'll take it by the down vote that I infringed upon someone's safe space.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 2 at 2016 11:14 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 11:14:10 -0400

1st Amendment, US Constitution... check it out.
It does not say that you can only speak if everyone agrees with you. In point of fact, it is specifically there to guarantee the rights of the DISSENTING voice to speak out.
Mr and Mrs Khan is just fine going up there and supporting Hillary because she opposes Trump's proposed ban on Muslim or Syrian immigrants, or whatever reason they have.
Mr Trump is also just fine with countering with a factual argument against what they said... but that is not what he did. He did his usual "many people say" rubric where he questions their authenticity through shadowy "other people".

For what it is worth, I think that the Khans were sincere, that the DNC was insincere running them out there (look at how it went with other speakers that night for reference) and that Trump was foolish to engage in any other way then to thank them for their sacrifice, and point out how his policies will better ensure their son's sacrifice will not be in vain - if he can.

Response by SSG Carlos Madden made Aug 2 at 2016 12:08 PM

SSG Carlos Madden — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 12:08:53 -0400

Depends on the circumstances.

Response by SFC J Fullerton made Aug 2 at 2016 12:09 PM

SFC J Fullerton — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 12:09:02 -0400

No. You cannot put yourself on a platform and take a political stance and criticize a candidate and expect that everyone will agree with you. However, the way Trump handled it, the same way he handles any criticism, only further validates that he lacks the demeanor, temperament, and character to be the President. It would have been much better for him to take the high ground and tactfully and respectfully responded when asked about it. But that is not his style. No matter how you spin it or justify it, he did not handle it as a "President" should. Most of the GOP is in agreement with that.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Aug 2 at 2016 12:13 PM

PO1 John Miller — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 12:13:56 -0400

Absolutely not. If anything, it should make you MORE subject to scrutiny, the same as the politician one is endorsing.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Aug 2 at 2016 1:12 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 13:12:53 -0400

Grieving should not include parading your son's death as a means to advance a political agenda or your business interests (Mr Kahn does make his living helping Muslim immigrants circumvent barriers to immigration)

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Aug 2 at 2016 3:40 PM

COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 15:40:44 -0400

A few thoughts:
- Openly supporting a candidate at a convention does not protect one from ANY scrutiny but excessive or inappropriate scrutiny is out of bounds.
- We should focus more upon attacking positions than upon attacking people.
- We should focus more upon talking about what we are for rather than what we are against.
- Family of politicians should never be "fair game" especially if they avoid the spotlight. Underage children of politicians are never "fair game" regardless of the circumstances.
- It is appropriate to understand the background and history of a person who has placed themselves into the spotlight.
- It is inappropriate to personally attack a person merely because they have openly supported a candidate.

Response by SSgt Robert Dant made Aug 2 at 2016 5:07 PM

SSgt Robert Dant — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 17:07:50 -0400

This is one of the more daunting questions of our time and more proof to me that our political machine has no respect for us veterans.

I call shame on both parties for dragging grief stricken parents on the stage to use their child's honorable death to advance a political party. When they died was there a political party next to them.

So shame on the political machine for bringing these tragic deaths to the stage.

On the other hand, the parents are of age and when step into that political quagmire you have forever disgraced your child's death as you are now vulnerable to scrutiny.

To all parents out there - let your child's death be a badge of honor and courage. Let their honor rest with them and only use it to benefit others in the same situation.

I truly feel for a Gold Star family but they should have stayed private on this - they also have political motives and that is a disgrace all by itself.

Does that excuse Donald - not in my mind but I still trust him to do more for this country than Hillary.

Response by Maj John Bell made Aug 2 at 2016 7:15 PM

Maj John Bell — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 19:15:32 -0400

Freedom of Speech does not include freedom from social consequences.

Response by CSM Richard StCyr made Aug 3 at 2016 10:56 AM

CSM Richard StCyr — Wed, 03 Aug 2016 10:56:18 -0400

Personally I think the Kahn family and all who lost sons and daughters deserve our respect and condolence for the loss of their loved ones and our nations heros.
That said, as soon as Mr Kahn deviated from a stance of "hey we're Muslim and we gave our son and we're proud Americans too" which should be noticed because so many folks keep asking where the moderate Muslims are, and went on a political offensive he became fair game.
Mr Kahn blew an opportunity to highlight the awesome bravery, selflessness, and sacrifice of his son to the world and instead of the dead Soldier being remembered, its now Mr Kahn and Trump in the press.