|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 08 2015 08:07 Deathstar wrote:
Just realized jebbush.com redirects to donaldjtrump.com
what a god
::Master Troll achievement unlocked::
Wow, didn't realize Trump was trying to prevent American Muslims from being able to return from out of country trips...
When asked by The Hill whether that would include Muslim-American citizens currently abroad, Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks replied over email: "Mr. Trump says, 'everyone.'"
Trump is quoted in the statement as saying that a significant number of Muslims harbor a "hatred" toward America and as a result should be kept out of the country.
Source
Are Republicans (Cruz, Carson, Rubio) going to get away with not calling that insane?
|
This must be his final testing the waters of how crazy he can be without losing poll numbers. It just has to be.
Setting aside whether or not it's a good idea (it's not), It's EVEN LESS feasible than building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico and having than pay for it, which seemed to be the least possible thing on anyone's dockets. You'd need some kind of truth detecting force field around the United States.
|
On December 08 2015 05:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 05:47 cLutZ wrote:On December 08 2015 05:20 zlefin wrote:On December 08 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2015 03:07 Mohdoo wrote:On December 08 2015 02:48 Plansix wrote:On December 08 2015 02:43 oneofthem wrote:On December 08 2015 02:37 Plansix wrote:
Americans are willing to accept voodoo as tax policy all the time, see the Republican tax plan since 2000. Powered by black magic. If they ask Trump if he going to raise taxes and he says "no", Sanders can respond by simply saying Trump is lying and being unrealistic. Its not like the last two elections were decided on that question. Raising taxes polls poorly, but its not a deal breaker for most voters. they are fine with voodoo in two directions, tax cut and spending cut. increased spending AND tax raise is about as toxic as it comes in the fiscal policy. sanders will likely be talking about raising taxes on the rich and such, but this makes him easily caricatured as a class warrior sort of dude. again, pretty bad. The voting public tends not like the rich, especially if they are not paying taxes. Politics on the internet are not reflective of real life politics. Obama ran on a very similar platform to what Sanders is running on, raises taxes on the rich and large business, close loop holes. I think you are underestimating the desire in the US to have these issues addressed. Free college is the one thing that I have seen basically no one agreeing with Sanders on irl. It has allowed many people I know to just write him off as a loon Spread across all tax payers it works out to around $1.30 a year per person (even with inflated university costs). Even if that cost were to triple it would be one hell of a bargain for a more educated populace (almost every college kid I've mentioned it to was on board and young parents, once explained how much it would cost, thought it sounded better then paying by themselves or burdening their children with that debt). Perhaps you should expand your irl circles. Sanders has been gaining consistently especially in the early states, Bernie will in all liklihood win in New Hampshire, and has a strong chance at winning in Iowa, if he wins both I suspect people will begin to change their tune on his chances. Of course our education system needs an overhaul bottom to top also so it's certainly not a magic bullet in itself. $1.30 a year per person? that doesn't sound right, I think you got a math error somewhere. Its not right. We spend about $250 billion in federal Student aid and loans alone, per year. Treasury Dept, the same study says higher ed had ~ $497 billion in total revenues in 2009, which would put the cost at $1562 per person, which includes children and the elderly. More realistically, there are ~ 122 million Americans who pay taxes or $4073 per taxpayer. That seems like a lot until you realize how much people pay on their student loans already. It's the same situation as health insurance where the additional taxes for single payer sound unbearable until you count in the pay increase from your work converting the health insurance benefit into a pay bump and then, for most Americans, you come out ahead.
The American public is already paying for education, it's just a question of how it is structured.
Except for those of us who didn't attend college and don't plan to attend.
We'll just be paying for all those rich kids to go to reeducation campcollege. Because as Obamacare has shown us, redistributing the wealth from the poor to the rich is the end-result of all the feel-good leftist programs.
|
On December 08 2015 08:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 08:07 Deathstar wrote:
Just realized jebbush.com redirects to donaldjtrump.com
what a god ::Master Troll achievement unlocked:: Wow, didn't realize Trump was trying to prevent American Muslims from being able to return from out of country trips... Show nested quote +When asked by The Hill whether that would include Muslim-American citizens currently abroad, Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks replied over email: "Mr. Trump says, 'everyone.'"
Trump is quoted in the statement as saying that a significant number of Muslims harbor a "hatred" toward America and as a result should be kept out of the country. SourceAre Republicans (Cruz, Carson, Rubio) going to get away with not calling that insane?
Hopefully. Even Tom Cotton said on CNN a few hours ago that he definitely disagreed with Trump's statement!
|
On December 08 2015 08:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:
This must be his final testing the waters of how crazy he can be without losing poll numbers. It just has to be.
Setting aside whether or not it's a good idea (it's not), It's EVEN LESS feasible than building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico and having than pay for it, which seemed to be the least possible thing on anyone's dockets. You'd need some kind of truth detecting force field around the United States.
It's starting to seem more and more likely that Trump is in it to destroy the Republican party and get cashed out by the Clinton Foundation after the election.
|
On December 08 2015 08:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 08:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2015 08:07 Deathstar wrote:
Just realized jebbush.com redirects to donaldjtrump.com
what a god ::Master Troll achievement unlocked:: Wow, didn't realize Trump was trying to prevent American Muslims from being able to return from out of country trips... When asked by The Hill whether that would include Muslim-American citizens currently abroad, Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks replied over email: "Mr. Trump says, 'everyone.'"
Trump is quoted in the statement as saying that a significant number of Muslims harbor a "hatred" toward America and as a result should be kept out of the country. SourceAre Republicans (Cruz, Carson, Rubio) going to get away with not calling that insane? Hopefully. Even Tom Cotton said on CNN a few hours ago that he definitely disagreed with Trump's statement!
Yeah I don't think disagreeing is enough. They also 'disagreed' on the whole "Obama is a foreign born Muslim". They have to come out and call it what it is "disgusting, putrid, unacceptable, etc..." something along those lines otherwise it won't really mean much.
Trump is absolutely the manifestation of FoxNews' comment section.
Source
|
Tom Cotton is also a neocon nobody. He can say what he wants but he's nothing to the Republican base compared to Trump.
|
On December 08 2015 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 08:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:
This must be his final testing the waters of how crazy he can be without losing poll numbers. It just has to be.
Setting aside whether or not it's a good idea (it's not), It's EVEN LESS feasible than building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico and having than pay for it, which seemed to be the least possible thing on anyone's dockets. You'd need some kind of truth detecting force field around the United States. It's starting to seem more and more likely that Trump is in it to destroy the Republican party and get cashed out by the Clinton Foundation after the election.
I think most of the people on this thread seriously misunderstand what the average GOP voter thinks of Islam.
|
On December 08 2015 08:44 Cowboy64 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2015 08:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:
This must be his final testing the waters of how crazy he can be without losing poll numbers. It just has to be.
Setting aside whether or not it's a good idea (it's not), It's EVEN LESS feasible than building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico and having than pay for it, which seemed to be the least possible thing on anyone's dockets. You'd need some kind of truth detecting force field around the United States. It's starting to seem more and more likely that Trump is in it to destroy the Republican party and get cashed out by the Clinton Foundation after the election. I think most of the people on this thread seriously misunderstand what the average GOP voter thinks of Islam.
They still have a boner for the Constitution. And not letting Muslim citizens back into the U.S. directly flies in the face of the 1st Amendment. He might walk that back though.
(I mean, if he doesn't care about the 1st Amendment...what about...the second??? Dun dun daaaaah)
|
On December 08 2015 08:44 Cowboy64 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2015 08:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:
This must be his final testing the waters of how crazy he can be without losing poll numbers. It just has to be.
Setting aside whether or not it's a good idea (it's not), It's EVEN LESS feasible than building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico and having than pay for it, which seemed to be the least possible thing on anyone's dockets. You'd need some kind of truth detecting force field around the United States. It's starting to seem more and more likely that Trump is in it to destroy the Republican party and get cashed out by the Clinton Foundation after the election. I think most of the people on this thread seriously misunderstand what the average GOP voter thinks of Islam.
I think people have a pretty good grasp on it. Some are just more willing than others to accept it. Trump's just saying what a significant number of Republicans think but usually only say anonymously. Hard to tell if the politicians themselves actually believe it or use coded language just to appeal to the worst parts of the party.
Trump's getting another shot at it in about 20 minutes on Greta. We'll see if he walks it back or if he doubles down.
"Should Muslims be able to buy as many guns as they want?" would be a good question to hear him answer from the hip.
|
On December 08 2015 08:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 06:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Republican presidential hopeful and real estate mogul Donald Trump is calling for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" following a series of deadly terror attacks involving Islamic jihadists in California and France.
"Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension," Trump said in a statement emailed to reporters on Monday.
"Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life," he added. Source I don't even understand how he thinks this is possible. The terrorists will just lie and say they aren't Muslims, and people that want to get in but aren't terrorists will just lie and say they aren't Muslims, and you can't possibly afford to screen everyone flying into the U.S. for their religion anyway. Then again he doesn't seem to much care about proposing impossible things.
Oh that's easy. Brown people with black hair and long beard. That's pretty much what he meant.
|
United States43964 Posts
On December 08 2015 08:33 Cowboy64 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 05:52 KwarK wrote:On December 08 2015 05:47 cLutZ wrote:On December 08 2015 05:20 zlefin wrote:On December 08 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2015 03:07 Mohdoo wrote:On December 08 2015 02:48 Plansix wrote:On December 08 2015 02:43 oneofthem wrote:On December 08 2015 02:37 Plansix wrote:
Americans are willing to accept voodoo as tax policy all the time, see the Republican tax plan since 2000. Powered by black magic. If they ask Trump if he going to raise taxes and he says "no", Sanders can respond by simply saying Trump is lying and being unrealistic. Its not like the last two elections were decided on that question. Raising taxes polls poorly, but its not a deal breaker for most voters. they are fine with voodoo in two directions, tax cut and spending cut. increased spending AND tax raise is about as toxic as it comes in the fiscal policy. sanders will likely be talking about raising taxes on the rich and such, but this makes him easily caricatured as a class warrior sort of dude. again, pretty bad. The voting public tends not like the rich, especially if they are not paying taxes. Politics on the internet are not reflective of real life politics. Obama ran on a very similar platform to what Sanders is running on, raises taxes on the rich and large business, close loop holes. I think you are underestimating the desire in the US to have these issues addressed. Free college is the one thing that I have seen basically no one agreeing with Sanders on irl. It has allowed many people I know to just write him off as a loon Spread across all tax payers it works out to around $1.30 a year per person (even with inflated university costs). Even if that cost were to triple it would be one hell of a bargain for a more educated populace (almost every college kid I've mentioned it to was on board and young parents, once explained how much it would cost, thought it sounded better then paying by themselves or burdening their children with that debt). Perhaps you should expand your irl circles. Sanders has been gaining consistently especially in the early states, Bernie will in all liklihood win in New Hampshire, and has a strong chance at winning in Iowa, if he wins both I suspect people will begin to change their tune on his chances. Of course our education system needs an overhaul bottom to top also so it's certainly not a magic bullet in itself. $1.30 a year per person? that doesn't sound right, I think you got a math error somewhere. Its not right. We spend about $250 billion in federal Student aid and loans alone, per year. Treasury Dept, the same study says higher ed had ~ $497 billion in total revenues in 2009, which would put the cost at $1562 per person, which includes children and the elderly. More realistically, there are ~ 122 million Americans who pay taxes or $4073 per taxpayer. That seems like a lot until you realize how much people pay on their student loans already. It's the same situation as health insurance where the additional taxes for single payer sound unbearable until you count in the pay increase from your work converting the health insurance benefit into a pay bump and then, for most Americans, you come out ahead.
The American public is already paying for education, it's just a question of how it is structured. Except for those of us who didn't attend college and don't plan to attend. We'll just be paying for all those rich kids to go to reeducation campcollege. Because as Obamacare has shown us, redistributing the wealth from the poor to the rich is the end-result of all the feel-good leftist programs.
Two things. Firstly, if you actually read my post I was saying how you'd come out ahead by trading in health insurance for extra taxes. Which is true. Secondly, an educated populace helps everyone, not just the people who have the education. Also education correlates with income which is directly linked to taxes.
|
On December 08 2015 08:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 08:44 Cowboy64 wrote:On December 08 2015 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2015 08:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:
This must be his final testing the waters of how crazy he can be without losing poll numbers. It just has to be.
Setting aside whether or not it's a good idea (it's not), It's EVEN LESS feasible than building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico and having than pay for it, which seemed to be the least possible thing on anyone's dockets. You'd need some kind of truth detecting force field around the United States. It's starting to seem more and more likely that Trump is in it to destroy the Republican party and get cashed out by the Clinton Foundation after the election. I think most of the people on this thread seriously misunderstand what the average GOP voter thinks of Islam. I think people have a pretty good grasp on it. Some are just more willing than others to accept it. Trump's just saying what a significant number of Republicans think but usually only say anonymously. Hard to tell if the politicians themselves actually believe it or use coded language just to appeal to the worst parts of the party. Trump's getting another shot at it in about 20 minutes on Greta. We'll see if he walks it back or if he doubles down. "Should Muslims be able to buy as many guns as they want?" would be a good question to hear him answer from the hip.
I really doubt they do, because most of them seem to imagine a false dichotomy where we can either:
1) Despise all Muslims because they are "brown"
or
2) Ignore the overwhelming evidence that a large minority of Muslims hold very radical beliefs about the West/America/non-Muslims.
Personally, I'll have to wait and hear Trump's explanation before I decide whether I agree with what he seems to be saying or not. Barring law-abiding citizens from coming back to America is obviously unconstitutional, but reforming our immigration programs and protocols to limit the number (or even halt temporarily) of Muslim's entering the country might be a legitimate solution (among others).
I think we do neither ourselves nor moderate Muslims a favor by pretending there is not a serious problem within the Muslim communities around the world.
|
The World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled Monday that Canada and Mexico can slap more than $1 billion in tariffs on U.S. goods in retaliation for meat labeling rules it says discriminated against Mexican and Canadian livestock.
At issue were U.S. labels on packaged steaks and other cuts of meat that say where the animals were born, raised and slaughtered.
The WTO has previously found that the so-called "country of origin" labeling law put Canadian and Mexican livestock at a disadvantage. It ruled Monday that Canada could impose $780 million in retaliatory tariffs and Mexico could impose $228 million.
"We are disappointed with this decision and its potential impact on trade among vital North American partners," said Tim Reif, general counsel for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
The labels are supported by some U.S. ranchers and by consumer groups. They are opposed by meatpackers who say they require costly paperwork.
The WTO's decision shifts responsibility to Congress, which is considering working a repeal of the labeling law into a massive year-end spending bill.
Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, said Monday that he will look for "all legislative opportunities" to repeal the labeling law. "We must prevent retaliation, and we must do it now before these sanctions take effect," Roberts said.
Source
|
I'd imagine someone who is leading the polls and actually wants to win the nomination would be working on his rejection, or in other words, avoid controversial statements.
In that context, illegal immigration is great to be spectacular about while being aligned with the interests of most voters, and by not proposing anything else you don't alienate anyone of that very diverse group. It's mindboggling that his next point is outright religious discrimination.
|
On December 08 2015 08:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 08:44 Cowboy64 wrote:On December 08 2015 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2015 08:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:
This must be his final testing the waters of how crazy he can be without losing poll numbers. It just has to be.
Setting aside whether or not it's a good idea (it's not), It's EVEN LESS feasible than building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico and having than pay for it, which seemed to be the least possible thing on anyone's dockets. You'd need some kind of truth detecting force field around the United States. It's starting to seem more and more likely that Trump is in it to destroy the Republican party and get cashed out by the Clinton Foundation after the election. I think most of the people on this thread seriously misunderstand what the average GOP voter thinks of Islam. They still have a boner for the Constitution. And not letting Muslim citizens back into the U.S. directly flies in the face of the 1st Amendment. He might walk that back though.(I mean, if he doesn't care about the 1st Amendment...what about...the second??? Dun dun daaaaah)
Has Trump ever formally walked anything back that he's said during the campaign? Usually he just denies saying it, says it was taken out of context, or does that passive aggressive bullshit of "Did you know [Douchebag Thing X]? I heard some people saying and thinking [Douchebag Thing X]. Is that true? Maybe, I don't know!" to try and throw out a stupid statement without needing to take credit for it in case it backfires. (Which is ingenious politically, btw. But still.)
|
On December 08 2015 09:04 Cowboy64 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 08:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2015 08:44 Cowboy64 wrote:On December 08 2015 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2015 08:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:
This must be his final testing the waters of how crazy he can be without losing poll numbers. It just has to be.
Setting aside whether or not it's a good idea (it's not), It's EVEN LESS feasible than building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico and having than pay for it, which seemed to be the least possible thing on anyone's dockets. You'd need some kind of truth detecting force field around the United States. It's starting to seem more and more likely that Trump is in it to destroy the Republican party and get cashed out by the Clinton Foundation after the election. I think most of the people on this thread seriously misunderstand what the average GOP voter thinks of Islam. I think people have a pretty good grasp on it. Some are just more willing than others to accept it. Trump's just saying what a significant number of Republicans think but usually only say anonymously. Hard to tell if the politicians themselves actually believe it or use coded language just to appeal to the worst parts of the party. Trump's getting another shot at it in about 20 minutes on Greta. We'll see if he walks it back or if he doubles down. "Should Muslims be able to buy as many guns as they want?" would be a good question to hear him answer from the hip. I really doubt they do, because most of them seem to imagine a false dichotomy where we can either: 1) Despise all Muslims because they are "brown" or 2) Ignore the overwhelming evidence that a large minority of Muslims hold very radical beliefs about the West/America/non-Muslims. Personally, I'll have to wait and hear Trump's explanation before I decide whether I agree with what he seems to be saying or not. Barring law-abiding citizens from coming back to America is obviously unconstitutional, but reforming our immigration programs and protocols to limit the number (or even halt temporarily) of Muslim's entering the country might be a legitimate solution (among others). I think we do neither ourselves nor moderate Muslims a favor by pretending there is not a serious problem within the Muslim communities around the world.
He wasn't really clear about Muslims who leave (just said be "very vigilant") but he did say Muslim members of the Military would be allowed back in.
I think he sold it as expected, didn't expect him to call Greta a "whore" after he thought he hung up though.
|
On December 08 2015 05:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 05:47 cLutZ wrote:On December 08 2015 05:20 zlefin wrote:On December 08 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2015 03:07 Mohdoo wrote:On December 08 2015 02:48 Plansix wrote:On December 08 2015 02:43 oneofthem wrote:On December 08 2015 02:37 Plansix wrote:
Americans are willing to accept voodoo as tax policy all the time, see the Republican tax plan since 2000. Powered by black magic. If they ask Trump if he going to raise taxes and he says "no", Sanders can respond by simply saying Trump is lying and being unrealistic. Its not like the last two elections were decided on that question. Raising taxes polls poorly, but its not a deal breaker for most voters. they are fine with voodoo in two directions, tax cut and spending cut. increased spending AND tax raise is about as toxic as it comes in the fiscal policy. sanders will likely be talking about raising taxes on the rich and such, but this makes him easily caricatured as a class warrior sort of dude. again, pretty bad. The voting public tends not like the rich, especially if they are not paying taxes. Politics on the internet are not reflective of real life politics. Obama ran on a very similar platform to what Sanders is running on, raises taxes on the rich and large business, close loop holes. I think you are underestimating the desire in the US to have these issues addressed. Free college is the one thing that I have seen basically no one agreeing with Sanders on irl. It has allowed many people I know to just write him off as a loon Spread across all tax payers it works out to around $1.30 a year per person (even with inflated university costs). Even if that cost were to triple it would be one hell of a bargain for a more educated populace (almost every college kid I've mentioned it to was on board and young parents, once explained how much it would cost, thought it sounded better then paying by themselves or burdening their children with that debt). Perhaps you should expand your irl circles. Sanders has been gaining consistently especially in the early states, Bernie will in all liklihood win in New Hampshire, and has a strong chance at winning in Iowa, if he wins both I suspect people will begin to change their tune on his chances. Of course our education system needs an overhaul bottom to top also so it's certainly not a magic bullet in itself. $1.30 a year per person? that doesn't sound right, I think you got a math error somewhere. Its not right. We spend about $250 billion in federal Student aid and loans alone, per year. Treasury Dept, the same study says higher ed had ~ $497 billion in total revenues in 2009, which would put the cost at $1562 per person, which includes children and the elderly. More realistically, there are ~ 122 million Americans who pay taxes or $4073 per taxpayer. That seems like a lot until you realize how much people pay on their student loans already. It's the same situation as health insurance where the additional taxes for single payer sound unbearable until you count in the pay increase from your work converting the health insurance benefit into a pay bump and then, for most Americans, you come out ahead. The American public is already paying for education, it's just a question of how it is structured.
Yeah and the US system is already one of the best in the world. This isn't healthcare redux - higher ed in the US is top tier and redistibutive.
|
On December 08 2015 09:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 09:04 Cowboy64 wrote:On December 08 2015 08:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2015 08:44 Cowboy64 wrote:On December 08 2015 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2015 08:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:
This must be his final testing the waters of how crazy he can be without losing poll numbers. It just has to be.
Setting aside whether or not it's a good idea (it's not), It's EVEN LESS feasible than building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico and having than pay for it, which seemed to be the least possible thing on anyone's dockets. You'd need some kind of truth detecting force field around the United States. It's starting to seem more and more likely that Trump is in it to destroy the Republican party and get cashed out by the Clinton Foundation after the election. I think most of the people on this thread seriously misunderstand what the average GOP voter thinks of Islam. I think people have a pretty good grasp on it. Some are just more willing than others to accept it. Trump's just saying what a significant number of Republicans think but usually only say anonymously. Hard to tell if the politicians themselves actually believe it or use coded language just to appeal to the worst parts of the party. Trump's getting another shot at it in about 20 minutes on Greta. We'll see if he walks it back or if he doubles down. "Should Muslims be able to buy as many guns as they want?" would be a good question to hear him answer from the hip. I really doubt they do, because most of them seem to imagine a false dichotomy where we can either: 1) Despise all Muslims because they are "brown" or 2) Ignore the overwhelming evidence that a large minority of Muslims hold very radical beliefs about the West/America/non-Muslims. Personally, I'll have to wait and hear Trump's explanation before I decide whether I agree with what he seems to be saying or not. Barring law-abiding citizens from coming back to America is obviously unconstitutional, but reforming our immigration programs and protocols to limit the number (or even halt temporarily) of Muslim's entering the country might be a legitimate solution (among others). I think we do neither ourselves nor moderate Muslims a favor by pretending there is not a serious problem within the Muslim communities around the world. He wasn't really clear about Muslims who leave (just said be "very vigilant") but he did say Muslim members of the Military would be allowed back in. I think he sold it as expected, didn't expect him to call Greta a "whore" after he thought he hung up though.
Sounds like he walked back from "everyone" to "everyone except _____ and we'll be vigilant about them too." The increased vigilance still violates the 1st Amendment, I'm pretty sure, but won't play nearly as well with the base as doing so.
Did he really call her a whore? Holy crap.
|
On December 08 2015 08:08 Chewbacca. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 08:07 Deathstar wrote:
Just realized jebbush.com redirects to donaldjtrump.com
what a god Haha, that's pretty awesome.
just like how loser.com used to direct to the george bush page (forget if it was the state.gov one or wikipedia)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
