Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster
Mr. Khan said in his speech that Trump should not be given the right to carry us into the future, and he cited that Trump had not sacrificed anything.
Either Trump's "sacrifice" is important, or it is not. Unless you are suggesting that Trump's detractors are only applying it to Trump and/or the presidency. Which makes no sense.
The argument here is clear, and Coulter is right: anti-Trumpers are suggesting that sacrifice is an important qualification for public office. It is a nonsense argument by them, and it is a nonsense argument by Khan. It formed the foundation for Khan's entire speech.
|
Okay, now it's you that's making strawmans. The line about Trump asking Americans to trust him with their future was immediately followed by the accusation that Trump had not read the constitution. Which may or may not be accurate, but I think it's totally reasonable to suggest that anyone who has not read the constitution would be unfit for the office of president.
Taken as a whole, the speech suggests that Trump's lack of empathy for other races and faiths in America (which is the complaint of the speech), is the result of a) an unfamiliarity with the constitution, b) an lack of interest in educating himself about others who have made sacrifices for America, and c) no personal sacrifice. It's a solid, coherent, if somewhat emotional argument. To reduce it to 'no personal sacrifice = unfit for office' is absolutely a strawman and a desperate attempt by the right to miscast the argument and deflect the backlash.