"Make America Great Again!": The TRUMP Thread!!! - Part 6

[DarthSkywalker]

Can't stir up frothing hate over global warming because there are no minorities to blame.

Well they also can't piss of the donors who own these companies. Same for many democrats.

 

[SV Fan]

Saying you don't agree with 70% of what Trump says means you agree with 30% of what Trump says. There is still plenty of racism, sexism, xenophobia and good old fashion bigotry in that 30% from Trump. And considering most who back him agree with his "national security" and his "foreign policy", that stuff is full of those horrible things. Like his stance on Muslims.

I disagree because I would put myself in the category I agree with like 30% of what Trump says(although I strongly disagree with the bulk of the other 70%) and the stuff I can agree with I don't find any of those things you say.

The fact is Trump is so all over the place it's hard not to agree with a few things he says(especially because many times he takes both sides of the issue. lol)

 

[Clark-Kent]

He doesn't separate the two, hence his ban on all Muslims. A common Republican tactic, which is why Obama doesn't like to use the term. Because many Republicans paint all Muslims all with the same brush.

I thought the idea of the temporary ban on Muslims from outside the US coming in, was that it can be hard to know who is radicalized. Basically for example the refugees Trump quipped could be like the Trojan horse. There may be 90% good Muslims coming in for example, but knowing ISIS could use that as a way to infiltrate, could mean slowing down the influx of them coming in to reduce risk. It does seem unfair to those who are good Muslims and want to be here for decent reasons. I can also see with more attacks on the rise, where we may not truly know if some coming in could end up being radicalized ISIS members. The term for radicalized Islamist would suggest those who are outside the good Muslim faith, and have been converted into a tool of destruction. Is that a fair opinion?

 

[TheCommissioner]

I thought the idea of the temporary ban on Muslims from outside the US coming in, was that it can be hard to know who is radicalized. Basically for example the refugees Trump quipped could be like the Trojan horse. There may be 90% good Muslims coming in for example, but knowing ISIS could use that as a way to infiltrate, could mean slowing down the influx of them coming in to reduce risk. It does seem unfair to those who are good Muslims and want to be here for decent reasons. I can also see with more attacks on the rise, where we may not truly know if some coming in could end up being radicalized ISIS members. The term for radicalized Islamist would suggest those who are outside the good Muslim faith, and have been converted into a tool of destruction. Is that a fair opinion?

if you take that same thinking and apply it to crimes and violence committed by American citizens, you ok with jailing 15-20 percent of Christians too?

 

[Clark-Kent]

It's not like there is no precedent for a temporary ban at least in terms of refugee situation. In 2011 the Obama administration stopped processing Iraq refugee requests for six months. This was after the Federal Bureau of Investigation uncovered evidence that several dozen terrorists from Iraq had infiltrated the United States via the refugee program.

 

[Shikamaru]

Clearly one of the biggest misconceptions people have about Trump's voters is that they're all these wacko racists, sexists, xenophobes, etc.

The truth of the matter is there's a lot of "normal" people who are supporting Trump, but not for the reasons you'd think. Their rationale is essentially "burn it all to the ground", which is why they'll be voting for Trump (or not vote at all), even if they know Hillary is more mentally stable and more aligned with their beliefs. They're so angered by what the Establishment's been doing for the past 40 years that they're willing to vote a crazy person in just to spite them.

If you think this sentiment is shared by the Bernie-or-Bust movement alone, it's not. Honestly, it's a sentiment that's shared by a lot of the global community. Here in Canada, I hear numerous claims on a weekly basis that America deserves Trump so that "they learn their lesson". In the UK it's the same. Some go as far as to include themselves in the statement, saying instead that "we all need to learn our lesson" since the US president is the main leader of the Western world and has major influence in the global economy.

Personally if I was an American citizen, would I really vote for Trump or give the election to him by not voting Hillary? I honestly don't know. My gut feeling tells me I'd vote for Jill Stein or stay home, but I might just drag my ass to vote for Hillary if I lived in a swing state (kicking and screaming, of course). I don't know what the right call would be, but there's one thing that I do know and can't stand about the Hillary voters. That is this idea that if Trump wins the election, those who didn't vote for Hillary are the ones at fault for it.

No...just no. To quote Chris Hedges, "fascist movements build their base not from the politically active but the politically inactive, the 'losers' who feel, often correctly, they have no voice or role to play in the political establishment." You can't actively disenfranchise your population and still expect it to act rationally. All you've done is put them in a place where they feel helpless, which will only lead to them being desperate.

So if Trump wins the presidency, that is the direct fault of the Establishment (and more particularly of the Democratic Party). I don't see how Bernie's camp or anyone else's camp can be demonized for it more than the Establishment should.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I disagree because I would put myself in the category I agree with like 30% of what Trump says(although I strongly disagree with the bulk of the other 70%) and the stuff I can agree with I don't find any of those things you say.

The fact is Trump is so all over the place it's hard not to agree with a few things he says(especially because many times he takes both sides of the issue. lol)

Could you give me examples of this 30%? Because that isn't a small amount.

 

[Clark-Kent]

I think a pause for concern on refugee topic in particular is certainly understandable.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/terrorists-refugee-program-settle-us/story?id=35252500

Of the 31 states that have declared their opposition to taking in Syrian refugees, one state, Kentucky, has a specific reason to be wary of the background check process: previously two Iraqi refugees who settled in Bowling Green turned out to be al Qaeda-linked terrorists with the blood of American soldiers on their hands, an ABC News investigation found. Both pleaded guilty to terror-connected charges after trying to acquire heavy weapons while in America’s heartland.



The 2013 ABC News investigation also revealed that several dozen other suspected terrorist bombmakers, including some who were believed to have targeted U.S. troops, may have mistakenly been allowed to move to the U.S. as Iraq and Afghanistan War refugees, among the tens of thousands of innocent immigrants.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qa...terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131

In 2009 Alwan applied as a refugee and was allowed to move to Bowling Green, where he quit a job he briefly held and moved into public housing on Gordon Ave., across the street from a school bus stop, and collected public assistance payouts, federal officials told ABC News.



"How do you have somebody that we now know was a known actor in terrorism overseas, how does that person get into the United States? How do they get into our community?" wondered Bowling Green Police Chief Doug Hawkins, whose department assisted the FBI.

The FBI secretly taped Alwan bragging to the informant that he'd built a dozen or more bombs in Iraq and used a sniper rifle to kill American soldiers in the Bayji area north of Baghdad.



"He said that he had them 'for lunch and dinner,'" recalled FBI Louisville Supervisory Special Agent Tim Beam, "meaning that he had killed them."

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Clearly one of the biggest misconceptions people have about Trump's voters is that they're all these wacko racists, sexists, xenophobes, etc.

The truth of the matter is there's a lot of "normal" people who are supporting Trump, but not for the reasons you'd think. Their rationale is essentially "burn it all to the ground", which is why they'll be voting for Trump (or not vote at all), even if they know Hillary is more mentally stable and more aligned with their beliefs. They're so angered by what the Establishment's been doing for the past 40 years that they're willing to vote a crazy person in just to spite them.

If you think this sentiment is shared by the Bernie-or-Bust movement alone, it's not. Honestly, it's a sentiment that's shared by a lot of the global community. Here in Canada, I hear numerous claims on a weekly basis that America deserves Trump so that "they learn their lesson". In the UK it's the same. Some go as far as to include themselves in the statement, saying instead that "we all need to learn our lesson" since the US president is the main leader of the Western world and has major influence in the global economy.

Personally if I was an American citizen, would I really vote for Trump or give the election to him by not voting Hillary? I honestly don't know. My gut feeling tells me I'd vote for Jill Stein or stay home, but I might just drag my ass to vote for Hillary if I lived in a swing state (kicking and screaming, of course). I don't know what the right call would be, but there's one thing that I do know and can't stand about the Hillary voters. That is this idea that if Trump wins the election, those who didn't vote for Hillary are the ones at fault for it.

No...just no. To quote Chris Hedges, "fascist movements build their base not from the politically active but the politically inactive, the 'losers' who feel, often correctly, they have no voice or role to play in the political establishment." You can't actively disenfranchise your population and still expect it to act rationally. All you've done is put them in a place where they feel helpless, which will only lead to them being desperate.

So if Trump wins the presidency, that is the direct fault of the Establishment (and more particularly of the Democratic Party). I don't see how Bernie's camp or anyone else's camp can be demonized for it more than the Establishment should.

Republicans literally **** the country, admit they'd rather stand still then give into anything, and it is the Democrats fault... WTH?

The argument against the Democratic establishment is hypocrisy because too many sit at home during elections. It is exactly why we end up with a Senate and House lead by people who make sure at attempt at a Liberal agenda cannot be done. It is why Republicans try to block voting whenever they can. This is not to say that the Democrats don't represent the establishment. They do. But this has just as much to do with the voters.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I think a pause for concern on refugee topic in particular is certainly understandable.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/terrorists-refugee-program-settle-us/story?id=35252500





http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qa...terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131

Tens of thousands against a potential few dozen, who haven't actually done anything, two that did were arrested when they actually tried to do something. See that is the point right there. This is scare tactics. How many refugees or immigrants are responsible for Islamic based terrorism in the US since 9/11? 9/11 which could have been prevented if Bush had actually listened to to the reports.

 

[TheCommissioner]

white voters would hurt themselves and vote against their interests to support the party than willingly help minorities

and its more white voters than we would expect

 

[Schlosser85]

The core recruiting tool ISIS has is that the West hates Muslims. We don't. Bigoted, small minded (small handed) individuals do, but the west doesn't hate Muslims. We hate radical terrorists. We hate death. ISIS is going to take Trumps hate speech directed towards Islam and use it as a lightning rod to gain tons of new followers. Persecution never leads to anything positive. Instead of demonizing an ENTIRE religion we need to work much more closely, in a positive way, with the muslim communities to stamp out radicals before they even pop up.

For more on way Trump would be the best thing to happen to ISIS read this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...3c8eb6-92f2-11e5-b5e4-279b4501e8a6_story.html

ISIS has already used Trump soundbites in their recruiting videos.

Trump is gonna destroy ISIS? He might as well be their paid spokesman.

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

Could you give me examples of this 30%? Because that isn't a small amount.

I think there are going to be some issues with math in here.

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

ISIS has already used Trump soundbites in their recruiting videos.

Trump is gonna destroy ISIS? He might as well be their paid spokesman.

Trump does run the risk of being a motivation with his rhetoric.

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

It's not like there is no precedent for a temporary ban at least in terms of refugee situation. In 2011 the Obama administration stopped processing Iraq refugee requests for six months. This was after the Federal Bureau of Investigation uncovered evidence that several dozen terrorists from Iraq had infiltrated the United States via the refugee program.

The stalling of refugees is not exactly the same as banning an entire religion.

 

[Victarion]

Stop reminding me of why I liked that movie. You might make my hand slip and push the button for Trump come November.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

If there is a 1% chance that a risk could destroy the country, do we turn a blind eye to it? Clearly the possibility of risk from taking in further high numbers of refugees can end up in future inside jobs. If recent ISIS converts, no records, etc... it will be hard to know for sure until something happens I guess.

There is not a 1% chance of anything from ISIS destroying this country. The number is probably so small, it would probably take me a while to write all the zeroes after the decimal. To even suggest that ISIS could destroy the US is simply ridiculous.

 

[Kelly]

DO not post the pics again....if you have something to say say it ....

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Pics?

 

[egg]

@kelly are you talking about the bruce wayne gifs on the 1% chance? sorry don't see what was wrong about that relating to the discussion they were having. cool beans if you don't want it in the thread though.

 

[egg]

Pics?

i related the bruce wayne 1% speech to the refugee discussion you all are having.

 

[Kelly]

Nothing inherently wrong with them, except that it is next to impossible to keep the discussion as on point, silly-free, etc as possible in this particular thread. Pretty much anything sets some people off....that was why it was just a quiet delete, until ya posted again. NOW, ya wanna take them to the satire thread, more powa to ya. Save</span>

 

[SV Fan]

Could you give me examples of this 30%? Because that isn't a small amount.

Just recently he said if Kim Jong Un said he wanted to talk he would listen and got lambasted by the media for it. Personally I don't see anything wrong with that, to me it only makes sense that you are willing to give somebody a chance to state their case.

America is financing all the worlds wars and it's time for other countries to pay up. In the same vein we should not be the only one fighting these wars because it's these people are a bigger threat to Europe they should be more proactive and not expect us to do everything. He is for cutting the defense budget(although in the next breath he will brag how he will make the Military the greatest military ever so...)

Although I don't think abortion should be made illegal I do agree with his statement if something is illegal people should be punished(grant you he walked back on that one). It's the logical conclusion of making something illegal

 

[regwec]

NATO should be strengthened with its burden shared more equitably between America and its European members. But simply taking your football home in a tantrum would please only Putin, Assad and the Iranians.

Kim Jong Un is a sadistic psychopath. You may as well negotiate with a scorpion.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Just recently he said if Kim Jong Un said he wanted to talk he would listen and got lambasted by the media for it. Personally I don't see anything wrong with that, to me it only makes sense that you are willing to give somebody a chance to state their case.

America is financing all the worlds wars and it's time for other countries to pay up. In the same vein we should not be the only one fighting these wars because it's these people are a bigger threat to Europe they should be more proactive and not expect us to do everything. He is for cutting the defense budget(although in the next breath he will brag how he will make the Military the greatest military ever so...)

Although I don't think abortion should be made illegal I do agree with his statement if something is illegal people should be punished(grant you he walked back on that one). It's the logical conclusion of making something illegal

I think he gets made fun of because he wants to buddy up to Putin and talk to Kim Jong Un, while he insults our allies like the UK or Japan. He only wants to be friends with people who will talk nice about him. It has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with how others leaders react to his stupidity. I fully believe in pursuing piece between Israel and Palestine. But listen to how he talks about doing it. He admits he wants to con people, which of course makes it impossible to con them into anything.

As you pointed out his own words contradict his views on the military. He wants to fight ISIS, but cut spending.

I agree that is the logical conclusion. It is a fundamental flaw in the argument about abortion, which is why Conservatives have tried to avoid it. You don't say something super sexist like women should be punished for getting abortions. Because then you have to walk it back, or in his case lie about saying he said it on television.