Can you be sorry for the loss of a soldier's life AND support Donald Trump's proposed temporary ban on immigration until America can effectively vet immigrants? It's a legitimate question. Remember, it's the FBI that warned that "there are certain gaps," in the process in December, 2015 http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/dec/15/ted-cruz/ted-cruzs-claim-head-fbi-told-congress-they-cannot/. Remember, Obama himself committed to yet couldn't "fix America's broken immigration system," https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/immigration/border-security, Obama himself, before secured as President promised, "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005," http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3434573&page=1.
Is the profiling and racism attached to choosing the parents of a soldier who was killed who also happened to be one of 14 Muslims of the over 4,000 US soldier deaths since this war began not as an obscenely racist, religionist (not sure that's a word), manipulation as any other grotesque unqualified generalization? Since we're all minorities in some shape or form, does it not make us cringe that the Khans were paraded out to prove, "Some of our best friends are Muslim"? Does choosing a Muslim family that LEGALLY came to the US have anything to do with the problem of, as the White House declares, "our broken immigration policy"?
Donald Trump's inartful language creates flash points that should never exist. It would be like defining Hillary Clinton based on her statement that under her reign as Secretary of State, "We didn't lose a single person," in Libya, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/15/clinton_we_didnt_lose_a_single_person_in_2011_libyan_war.html.
It would be like Hillary Clinton saying she's against Wall Street. It would be like Hillary Clinton asserting in response to allegations of her Wall Street allegiances that ""…there is absolutely no evidence," rather than making a denial, http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2016/04/april-2016-louie-loophole-my-own.html.
Or attacking Trump University without an explanation of Laureate University, http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-clinton-laundering-laureate-education-224614.
Or asserting there were no confidential emails in her email "problem," later confirmed to be a lie by FBI Director Comey whose exoneration of Hillary Clinton confirmed that she did lie, "No, there WAS classified material emailed," in spite of his act of credibility suicide in bending over backwards and beyond his sphere of responsibility and beyond the language of the law in order to give Clinton a pass and playing the dual role of Attorney General so that Loretta Lynch could abdicate her responsibilities, http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey-testimony/2016/07/clinton-untrue-statements-fbi-comey-225216?
And then there is Obamacare--Is it not perverse that the law discounts the number of males subject to domestic violence by providing only free counseling for domestic violence to women? https://www.healthcare.gov/preventive-care-women/. This choice is based on the difference of profiling-- which state that 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men have been victims, yet though somewhat less likely to experience domestic violence, the law IGNORES the 1 in 4, www.ncadv.org/learn/statistics.
Is it not perverse that ONLY tobacco users and those who dare to grow older can be charged more in insurance premiums under Obamacare in stark contrast to the medical evidence that those who are obese cost as much or more than smokers in healthcare costs? Sure, they're both costly, they're both injurious to health, but health insurance is about coverage, not political agendas.
More significantly, penalizing people for growing older based on their increased costs flies in the face of Obama's pet peeve, charging people more for pre-existing conditions--Sure, declining insurance for pre-existing conditions should be prohibited, but IGNORING the increased costs and demanding that those with pre-existing conditions EXCEPT the condition of aging be IGNORED? Outrageous.
It is suggested here that there is NO moral high ground that justifies the "politics" of this election. Republican-shaming is the Democratic strategy rather than any examination of the stark failures of the Democratic political class over the last eight years.
Suggesting something different from what HASN'T worked is to many of us more intelligent than opting for more of the same.
Suggesting an idea that considers that "The Wealth Gap Between Rich And Poor Is The Widest Ever Recorded," Joaquim Moreira Salles, 12/18/2014, http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/12/18/3605137/us-wealth-gap-at-its-widest-in-decades/, is important to some of us.
Suggesting that youth unemployment, which is at 10.7 percent, http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/youth-unemployment-rate is less important than the veteran unemployment rate that is less than half that, at 4.2 percent is an obscenity and an insult to our youth.
Suggesting that making college "more" affordable will solve the problem that OUR COLLEGE GRADUATES are not finding "college" jobs is justified by saying our educational system isn't working for our citizens, it's not a sign that we should make educational loans more affordable, http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/05/the-new-normal-for-young-workers/393560/.
Nobody knows who would be a "better" President, because we all have different issues that are vital to us and our families. But to continue the phony "moral high ground," is the biggest insult to thinking Americans and undercuts the cherished claims of "intelligence" Democrats are apt to put forth as they snicker at everyone else.
