I am going to be plain about this. In 2008 I was in the anybody but shrillary camp. Then Obama proved you could be worse.
However, I wI’ll still take the dumbest republican or libertarian over hillary any day of the week.
But I will not take the dumbest liberal. Nothing is more dangerous than a liberal who actually believes in there own socialist causes.
My only hope with another Clinton is that they can be bought, they are corrupt and hence deals can be made.
Trump is an idiot, but he’s better than hillary. I took a shit that was better than hillary, so it’s a low bar.
Trump is no prize but Hillary is like vomit, you can’t help but look, but it’s always nasty.
You are reaching, the Muslim ban Trump proposes is temporary. He could very well settle here, just a little later in life. The stupidity you speak of is due to our government’s inability to properly vet these immigrants, which led to the murder of innocent Americans. If the government suggests that they can manage such immigration issues and fails at the expense of American lives, they they deserve the scrutiny Trump proposes.
1 Like
The TEMPORARY ban you speak of, is due to our inability to vet Muslim immigrants.
The basis for his TEMPORARY ban is due to all Americans being killed, just like the Khan son. For Christ sake, the fiancé in the San Bernardino shooting had all sorts of ISIS bullshit on her social media, and they still let her in !
You guys are focusing on Trump’s outlandish ideas, when really they are due to our own government stupidity. If government got it right, we would not need a Muslim ban.
2 Likes
[quote=“MaximusB, post:1186, topic:218984, full:true”]
You are reaching, the Muslim ban Trump proposes is temporary.[/quote]
It’s also extravagantly stupid, certain to decimate our ability to practice counter-terrorism (reasons already provided in great detail, the kind of detail that doesn’t occur to Trumpites because they don’t understand reality and won’t listen to the competent people with real jobs who work around the clock to keep them undeservedly safe [search for Azerbaijan]), impossible to enforce (Muslims don’t come with stickers or tags), probably not Constitutional (not that Trump has even a casual interest in such trifles), and so on.
But as for this temporariness, it’s until “we,” i.e. President Trump, “can figure out what’s going on,” yes? Well, then it’s permanent, because if Trump has shown us anything, it’s that he doesn’t ever have even the slightest idea about what’s going on (see: nukes, Ukraine, article XII, Kurds, Brexit, etc.), and he doesn’t have the basic intellectual tools to figure out.
[Quote]
He could very well settle here, just a little later in life. [/quote]
It’s nice of Trump and his teeming ocean of rajrajian garbage-people to leave it an open possibility that the young man in question might have one day, under a Trump administration, been allowed to settle here. Then, presumably, he could have looked into dying for their country while they sit in their trailers snorting crushed-up opioids. I know that doesn’t describe every Trump supporter, but it is faithful to the essence of his movement (% of trailer homes and unemployed white HS dropouts having been among the best demographic predictors of Trump support in the primary, after all). I know furthermore that I’m not being what you might call charitable, but then this isn’t a charitable time in our history, and I’m a very proud member of the un-PC fire with fire schools of reason and politics. Anyway, you take my point.
Every policy has led to the murder of innocent Americans, often in far more statistically-significant numbers.
But the particular “solution” under consideration would lead to many more dead Americans, and it would strip us of our principles in the process. That this doesn’t matter to half the electorate is just something we patriots will have to work to undo.
Didn’t Trump walk back the “Muslim Ban” to a territorial ban in his first 60 minutes interview with Pence? I thought I remember this and a few other of his more brilliant ideas/comments being toned down to a more reasonable level.
Hell I was just starting to think that maybe there was some hope until Putin/Russia endorsed him and he started attacking deceased veterans…
Never said it was better.
We’ve been through this. You can’t ban all Muslims it is literally impossible. Not to mention there are 5M already here.
Right, I understand. Trump and his supporters wants to blame 1.7B people for the deaths of 20 or so people on U.S. soil a year. It’s completely irrational.
The government can’t monitor the 1.71B active Facebook users, let alone other social media, without substantially growing, is that what you’d like to happen?
So your proposed solution is to hire the guy that says outlandish things and has outlandish ideas to fix government stupidity?
Easy to say in hindsight and we don’t need a Muslim ban.
You have Trump supporters on this very board hoping upon hope that the ban becomes permanent.
I think that most of the folks here that have argued against Trump’s ban are fine with state and even regional travel bans. I know I’ve said as much before.
The difference is that you would be banning all travelers from these areas and not adding a religious test to our travel or immigration policy.
We discussed this in depth before so I for one am not really interested in rehashing, but a religious test or ban is almost certainly a violation of the 1st amendment.
Edit
(Should say fine depending on the detains of course)
My God, Chris Christie is defending the Khans now…
I don’t necessarily disagree with you. But as I said it has been tried many, many times and failed. Time will tell my friend.
Clinton condescended to Smith in her response, which was stupid and wrong. Never to be outdone, of course, Trump lobbed a thermonuclear bomb of condescension at Khan. No one is under the impression that Clinton’s response to Smith came even remotely close to Trump’s insinuation that Khan won’t allow his wife to speak and, even worse, is upset about jihadists not being allowed into the United States. The two aren’t in the same universe, and nobody actually thinks they are. Imagine if Clinton accused Smith of terrorist sympathies. The Internet would melt. It’s just that we have grown so accustomed to Trump’s unprecedented scum-covered horseshit that our eyes are playing tricks on us.
Furthermore, it is in fact possible, and under certain circumstances correct, to question the arguments of a grieving parent in a legitimate and careful and respectful fashion (see the Bush example above for a stylistic paragon). Neither candidate pulled this off – Trump far, far less than Clinton – but broadly speaking Khan’s argument is not made of provably incorrect parts. Is there an objective claim of fact in Khan’s public remarks that you can falsify? Because Smith’s analysis of Benghazi is plainly not tethered to the reality.
To top it all off, Trump, unbelievable idiot that he is, kept babbling about the Khans for days, ensuring the story’s survival and ensuring that threads like this one would continue to focus on Khan.
1 Like
Just scrolling through some old posts in this thread:
My opinion on Donald Trump in no way implies I have a better opinion of Clinton.
1 Like
But you did say you would rather have Clinton than Trump even though you said you are voting third party. So, you must think Clinton just a tad better…
This is one of those cute things that happens in political discussions, though.
You can’t offer an opinion or comment on one candidate without being accused of something-by-omission.
“Oh, you criticized Trump? So you’re telling me that Hilary is better?”
No. It’s just a criticism of Trump. And calling out usmc for doing this is hilarious because he can post like five times in this thread where he has been very critical of Hilary.
4 Likes
I did think it was kind of hilarious that somehow Cruz became the bad guy for not-endorsing-Trump-by-name in his convention speech. Trump had spent weeks calling the guy Lyin’ Ted, attacked his wife, and suggested his father was involved in the JFK assassination, and somehow Cruz was the one who broke with decorum in this whole deal?
3 Likes