CDZ Trotting out the dogs and ponies.

[tinydancer]

We all remember Cindy Sheehan who was used by the liberal press to attack GW Bush. Sheehan's son was killed in the Iraq War and she was paraded by the Democrats incessantly to suggest that Bush was personally responsible. Now we have Khazir Khan, a Muslim American shaking a copy of the US Constitution at Trump even though Trump had nothing to do with the war that killed his son. Apparently trump's calls for a moratorium on Muslim immigrants until we find a way to properly vet them is cause for the Democrats to use Khan to lecture Trump and suggest that he is too stupid to understand the Constitution. It's bizarre. Who can see past this?

No one's asserting he had their son killed. (That was Bush). But they are truthfully addressing Trump's assertion that Khan -- a U.S. soldier who served bravely and made the ultimate sacrifice -- is not welcome in this country under a Trump presidency. And Trump has proven himself to be a crybaby who's not above insulting a gold-star mother in response.

He's your candidate. Enjoy.

What bullshit you spew. Trump has never said a Muslim wasn't welcomed in America. Stop the lies. Liar.

And the Khans are sharia loving mother truckers who believe sharia is above the constitution.

 

[tinydancer]

It's difficult to fault Khan because his loss is real. He's been led to believe that Trump is the enemy because Trump wants to vet immigrants from parts of the world that pose a threat. He was used for the show. Trump should have held his piece but he is not a politician.

What they left out of Khan's resume was that on his way to becoming a great American he became a religious legal scholar on sharia in Saudi Arabia. WHOOPSIES!

OH

And that he is a muslim immigration lawyer assisting all immigrants.



Gee. Conflict of interest much?

 

[Holos]

We all remember Cindy Sheehan who was used by the liberal press to attack GW Bush. Sheehan's son was killed in the Iraq War and she was paraded by the Democrats incessantly to suggest that Bush was personally responsible.

Following the story as it has been presented by the OP, up to the quoted period, we can conclude there is a direct association of the so-called Democrats and the so-called liberal press, meanwhile Cindy Sheehan is altogether absent although referred to as antagonist in contrast to the multi-named, already mentioned, democrats and liberal press protagonists. The actual antagonist, however, is GW Bush, who had a role more important to the development of the story than it was made evident by the OP, who proposed the actual antagonist to be absent while in remembrance of Cindy Sheehan who was actually absent.

Synthesis for appropriate story presentation and possible development:

Self sabotaging OP, mistaking themselves as protagonists, while confusing the antagonist with an absent support character.

Now we have Khazir Khan, a Muslim American shaking a copy of the US Constitution at Trump even though Trump had nothing to do with the war that killed his son.

In the quoted period above, in development of the previous period, the participants were reduced from three individuals to two. Protagonist and antagonist are still there, but there is no support character.

The protagonist isn't the OP mistaking themselves anymore. The OP was the individual altogether removed from the tale. The OP removed, protagonist and antagonist are yet still undeveloped to be appropriately identified according to their singularities presented as Trump and Khazir Khan.

Synthesis:

Underdeveloped character presentation.
What motivated Khazir Khan to act in the way described? What did Khazir Khan intend as a result of the action?

Who is Trump? Why would Trump be associated to the US Constitution through Khazir Khan's motivations?

Apparently trump's calls for a moratorium on Muslim immigrants until we find a way to properly vet them is cause for the Democrats to use Khan to lecture Trump and suggest that he is too stupid to understand the Constitution. It's bizarre. Who can see past this?

There is no grammatical coherency to the last quoted segment of the OP's sequence, therefore we must assume syntactical coherency was lost prior to arriving at the last segment.

Considering the OP in the beginning mistook themselves (termed "we") for the protagonists, and in the mid-section the OP (as "we") had already removed themselves from the account, the problem is in the first quoted segment, the "past to be seen" in relation to the final question.

 

[Picaro]

It's difficult to fault Khan because his loss is real. He's been led to believe that Trump is the enemy because Trump wants to vet immigrants from parts of the world that pose a threat. He was used for the show. Trump should have held his piece but he is not a politician.

What they left out of Khan's resume was that on his way to becoming a great American he became a religious legal scholar on sharia in Saudi Arabia. WHOOPSIES!

OH

And that he is a muslim immigration lawyer assisting all immigrants.



Gee. Conflict of interest much?

Everything they do is a fraud and a blatant lie; the press isn't even bothering to hide their shilling any more. Khan should be deported back to Sharia Land himself. As for 'Muslims in the military', so what? A Muslim colonel shot 40 something American soldiers at Ft. Hood, and all Obama could think of was to call it 'workplace violence'. Just because Muslims are joining the military doesn't mean they're doing so to fight for American values. Muslims can't be loyal to a non-Muslim system, period; it's against their 'religion'.

 

[Ray9]

The synthesis is supported by analogous comparison- Liberal press/Sheehan/Khan-past/present. It is entirely permissible to draw conclusions from past actions of the subjects to demonstrate intent through established modus operandi.

 

[jwoodie]

It's difficult to fault Khan because his loss is real.

He's still a jackass.

 

[Holos]

It is entirely permissible to draw conclusions from past actions of the subjects to demonstrate intent through established modus operandi.

Why is it permissible, instead of appropriate?

Can intent not be demonstrable without analogy or accusative past actions to have the established modus operandi recognized as it was or as it still may have to be?

I find it unnecessary to accuse or to emulate an experience for its further or continued exposition.