It seems most anti-Trump hyperventilated ideology/opining now is predominantly emotion-based non-sequitur parallel attacks that exploit some vague, disconnected appeal to self-righteousness without ever truly confronting the blueprint of their distaste for the man.
Consider the case of Khizr and Ghazala Khan, parents of army soldier Humayan who was killed in Iraq in 2004.
They happen to be Muslim, a fact which Democrats slurped up liked a hog in a lake of slop. They trotted out the couple on the last night of the DNC and Khizr, the Harvard-educated father, issued a stern flood of disdain for Donald Trump while wrongly asserting that if Donald Trump had his way, Khizr and his family would never have been allowed in the United States. This is the emotionalism, the illogical-speak, and as is typical of the anti-Trump crusaders, it has little basis in reality.
Trump has made it clear that he is not pushing a blanket no-Muslim immigration policy. He is merely endorsing enactment of a smart immigration process which will examine Muslim immigrants in order to determine their tendency to radicalism. What is wrong with that?
But to hear the Democrats rail around Khizr’s pre-Hillary soliloquy on Thursday night, you’d think his speech was the absolute pinnacle of denunciations of Trump and Trumpism when in fact it was merely the face of a man who lost his son in war. There is a horrible brew of misery and sadness implicit in such a story, and this bleak narrative is thus imbued with anti-Trump emotionalism but ultimately, it is not a rebuff of Donald Trump, it’s simply the sad story of a young man who lost his life because the United States cannot seem to keep its meddlesome claws out of the business of other nations.
To cast the Khans’ experience as an indictment of Trump’s immigration plan is nothing but displaced grief.