Author Topic: President Trump  (Read 472034 times)

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #450 on: November 28, 2015, 08:38:40 AM »
Doug,

Disagree entirely with your premise. The problem was that Romney was a bad candidate. He should have won the election, but he lost because he was not good in the debates, especially after Candy Crowley gobsmacked him.  Also, the fact that Romney created his own version of Obamacare in Mass, and that was used as the basis for Obamacare, doomed him.

Who do you think controls the State RNC groups?  The National RNC has tremendous influence and gets their own people put into place at the state level.  Then they do manipulate things to get their own candidate on the ballot.

Look at Kasich in New Hampshire. Kasich is old school GOPe. His own people went to Court to get Trump thrown off the ballot for not being "republican" enough, but lost in under 60 seconds when the judge threw the case out. Go figure.

Look at South Carolina and Virginia trying to get a "pledge" requirement to not run as a 3rd party, or Trump or others could not run on the ballot. Look at Florida and the other states who change the rules for running and delegate selection every four years, doing so to support the GOPe candidate.

This is all about the professional politicians trying to stay in power, and the crony capitalists who support them for their own gain.



PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #451 on: November 28, 2015, 10:56:16 AM »
Pat, right, all of that behind the scenes is true and then the votes are cast and, for the most part, everyone gets one vote that goes all or proportionally to the candidate whether the party likes it or not.  Trump wants the benefits of running and winning within an established party and none of the responsibilities building it or running it.  In fact there is a clear public record of him working against them - recently.

My main point came to me from what you have been saying (and I only know one Trump voter).  Trump voters will sit out (future tense) if it isn't their guy.  But isn't that what 8 million potentially conservative voters already have in common; they sat out last time and swung the election to Obama.  Those who thought there wasn't a difference between Obama and Romney - gave us Obama over Romney.

I wasn't a Romney supporter, but his tax plan was the same as Trump's.  He opposed illegal immigration, took a strong stand against it in the primaries.  Opposed Obamacare, would have been tougher on Iran, would have insisted on a responsible withdrawal agreement in Iraq, etc.

As local party chair, a couple of young Ron Paul said something similar, they would like to be delegates but will only help if their guy is the nominee.  I told them, for one thing, there was some burden on them to win arguments and persuade people and bring them to their side, not just blame them for what you don't like.  Secondly, fair weathered help and supporting only one candidate for one office is not how we build a party.

What is Trump doing to reach one more voter than those already in his camp?  What did he do previously to help all these Republicans across the country get elected up and down the ballots in other elections?  Nothing that I can see, mostly gave to the other side and now threatening to break his own promise to not use the party as his springboard to run against the eventual nominee.  And this is how he talks with a 22 point lead.

Frankly, I now believe Rubio would win in a 3 way race against Trump and Clinton, but I don't see exactly how he beats Trump or Cruz in the primaries.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2015, 11:10:56 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #452 on: November 28, 2015, 12:07:02 PM »
IMO it is simple:  If Trump does a Perot, like Perot he will give us a Clinton and this country is done for.

 :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #453 on: November 28, 2015, 03:31:58 PM »
The GOP left the party faithful long ago. That is why the insurrection is occurring.

The politicians promise one thing, then as soon as they are elected, they do something else. And in the past few years, it has been to give in to Obama wishes, claiming that they can not win, so it is better to not make waves and avoid the media presenting them as obstructivists.

With Trump, we see the same thing occurring as with Reagan. In 76 and 80, the GOP did not want Reagan to run. They made the same type claims as they do now against Trump. And the people who support Trump are subjected to the same type ridicule; we are heathens, uneducated, racist, lo info voters, who haven't got a clue about how the real world works. We should simply get out of the way and let our "betters" handle things and take care of us. Is this any different in the long run than what the Dems propose?

Doug, you wrote that you only know one person, presumably me, who is supporting Trump. Isn't this saying something itself?  Doesn't it make sense to seek out other Trump supporters and find out what they think and feel?

What I am seeing among the political elitists is what I experienced when living in the Boston area from 1982 to 1985. Because I grew up in the south and graduated from LSU my degree meant nothing. I was an uneducated idiot who could not understand the real world and only saw things through a myopic tunnel vision.  Today, there is the same type of elitism going on within the DC GOP establishment.

Work through the Party to change things? Look what the GOP did with the Tea Party. A group of people who felt we were overtaxed. were simply disregarded and ignored. Now, the group supporting Trump are told that if they do not conform to the Party, then they are not needed.

Look at Karl Rove. Bloomberg is reporting that Rove opened up his rolo-dex and put his money people in contact with Carson. This is an obvious tactic to support Carson against Trump. And who is in the rolo-dex that was given to Carson? Steve Wynn, an admitted democrat who has already indicated that he would vote for Hillary.  So Wynn may give money to Carson to derail Trump so that Hillary can win.  Or else so that Jeb can be put into a position whereby in a brokered convention, he could potentially be the nominee.

Rubio? Give me a break. He is a professional politician who has never held a real job. He came out of law school and became a City Commissioner for Miami in the late 1990's. Then in 2000, in the Florida House of Representatives, and Speaker of the House in 2005, and finally 2011, senator from Florida. Since then, he has been a flip flopping waffler on different. If he won the Presidency, do you expect him to be any different? Hell no. He will simply serve his financial masters so he can be re-elected. Just JEB and Dubya lite.

The  simple fact is that this country is done for any way. The only thing that will prevent the onward march of socialism and world government is a complete collapse of the financial industry, and even then, it will likely usher in the socialism and crony government that the elites desire.

Yes, this is what I believe. I truly think that it is over and what anyone should do is seek places to go to minimize the problems going forward.



PPulatie


ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #455 on: November 29, 2015, 09:43:52 AM »
And of course the GOPe, which includes the Chamber of Commerce and Wall Street, is not doing everything it can to stop Trump.  GOP donors may support Hillary over Trump.  This is more evidence that the donors, and for that matter the GOPe, only care about doing what benefits them and their coffers. Otherwise, they would not be "faced" with a decision on whom to support.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/261227-gop-donors-wrestle-with-possibility-of-trump-nomination
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #456 on: November 29, 2015, 11:14:10 AM »
Trump supporters include the 8 million conservatives who stayed home against the flawed Romney and swung the last election to Obama.(?)  (I was trying to get Pat's view on that.)  

Trump enjoys the benefits of running inside a party he actively opposes, then whines when people he punches in the face oppose him.

Hard to argue either way when the bottom line is that it doesn't matter anyway.   It matters to me what kind of world we leave our kids.


Crafty wrote:  "IMO it is simple:  If Trump does a Perot, like Perot he will give us a Clinton and this country is done for."

That is the conventional wisdom and my view until recently.  Hillary theoretically would lead that contest 50-25-25.  But there are differences in the dynamic between these people now and those of 1992.  Bill Clinton and Ross Perot both ran against a not very politically adept Bush Sr.  In this case, Rubio and Trump would be running mostly against the status quo, Obama and Hillary.  I would put that starting point at 33-33-33 with the best politician of them ultimately winning, which could be Trump or Rubio.  The lesson of 92 might be that with a serious third party challenge in the mix, the major party challenger wins over the incumbent party.

For other 3-way races I would look to Rubio's Senate race in 2010 where the R won and to the MN Gov race when independent Jesse Ventura won over two major party candidates who ran hard against each other.
______________________________________
« Last Edit: November 29, 2015, 11:16:20 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #457 on: November 29, 2015, 11:23:02 AM »
If I have it right, a three way race might also get the results tossed into the House of Reps.

Anyway, I stand by my analysis that a Donald Perot means a President Hillary and the end of most of what made this country exceptional.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
Comparing Trump with Reagan
« Reply #458 on: November 29, 2015, 03:13:30 PM »


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/08/23/trump_is_no_reagan_127851.html
Trump Is No Reagan
By Stu Spencer and Ken Khachigian
August 23, 2015
Donald Trump’s attempts to burnish his conservative credentials by comparing himself to Ronald Reagan are wildly unconvincing. In his recent “Meet the Press” interview, Trump argued that his metamorphosis from left to right was akin to Reagan’s. He added that the late president was “somebody that I actually knew and liked. And he liked me. And I worked with him and helped him.”

Combined, we had the privilege of working very closely with Ronald Reagan over a five-decade period, and we must have missed the occasions when The Donald “worked with” the president, and overlooked The Gipper’s expressions of affection for him.

But quite apart from whether those assertions of affinity are true, we take even greater exception with Trump claiming the Reagan mantle to advance his political fortunes. Here are our reasons why:

--In his 1966 campaign for governor of California, Reagan popularized the so-called Republican 11th Commandment, stating, “Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican.” Calling his GOP opponents (or anyone for that matter) “losers,” “morons,” “dummies” or “idiots” would have been unthinkable for Reagan. Those words didn’t exist in his vocabulary—even for Democrats who called him names. He once wrote a note to us saying we had done “d--- good,” not being able to bring himself to spell out the word “damn.” Meanness was not in Reagan’s soul.

--Yes, Ronald Reagan migrated from being a liberal Democrat to the gold standard for conservative Republicans. But Reagan’s views evolved over four decades’ worth of life experience, a philosophical journey that took place gradually. His conservative credentials didn’t emanate overnight to match the political season. His was a slow and thoughtful transformation from the 1930s to the 1960s. Trump’s appears to be a midnight conversion just in time for the Iowa caucuses.

--Reagan vetted his ideas for governing with the likes of William F. Buckley, Milton Friedman, Barry Goldwater and Dwight Eisenhower. He got his information by studying and reading and listening to a wide spectrum of experts.  By all accounts, Trump appears to have no policy or philosophical patrons, characterized by his recent statement that his schooling on military affairs comes from “watching television shows.”

--Above all else, Ronald Wilson Reagan was genial and mannerly. He treated others with respect and courtesy. He was a gentleman whose personal decency was exceptional. On the occasions where he disagreed with our opinions or points of view, he did so without sharp words or rebuke, often apologetically. Yes, his political rhetoric could be tough and partisan, but it was never vulgar or personal. Donald Trump would benefit from the light-hearted humor that Reagan used to advantage in his communication.

--In the 1980 presidential campaign, Reagan also said it was time to “make America great again.” But he did so while reflecting on what a wonderful country we live in, and that even amid the failure of our institutions, our nation’s promise of hope and opportunity stood out. It would have been unimaginable for Reagan to say, “Our country is going to hell,” as Trump regularly claims.  Optimism permeated Reagan’s thinking, and we don’t see any evidence of Trump using the uplifting and aspirational language that was so dominant in Reagan’s communications.

--Ronald Reagan was respectful of all people, but even more so towards women, with whom he was warm and courtly.  As a person who believed a soft answer turneth away wrath, his approach to Megyn Kelly on debate night would have been delivered with a wink and a smile.  He might have even said, “There you go again.” If Mr. Trump, as he insists on being called, wants to be like Mr. Reagan, he needs to replace churlishness with charm.

--Despite the acclaim he achieved in his motion picture, television and political careers, Reagan was never boastful. On election night 1980, as he prepared his victory remarks, there was no trace of gloating or conquest. And on the eve of his inauguration, it was the stirring emotion and spirit of the moment that moved him, not the notion that he would soon be the most powerful man in the world. It was America that was great, not him – a studied contrast with Mr. Trump’s overwhelming self-absorption.

We find no similarities other than both Reagan and Trump came out of the entertainment industry. We knew Ronald Reagan. We served alongside President Reagan. Ronald Reagan was our friend. And, Mr. Trump, you’re no Ronald Reagan.
----------------------------------------

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/reagan-sons-interview-donald-trump-213149

http://www.redstate.com/2015/09/16/stop-donald-trump-nothing-like-ronald-reagan/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielkleinman/2015/09/29/despite-comparisons-differences-between-trump-and-reagan/

https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2015/08/30/comparing-trump-to-reagan-should-be-a-slappable-offense/
Reagan’s encounters with the Left made him a conservative.  Trump’s encounters with the Left made him get out his checkbook.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #459 on: November 29, 2015, 03:35:30 PM »
Good point about the possibility of the election being thrown into the House. I had not considered that.

If in the House, that poses some very interesting thoughts:

1. All dems go to Hillary so there is not enough to provide her a majority. So she cannot win.

2. How do the Reps go, especially if Trump has won their state? Do they go with Rubio? If so, what happens to their future?  If they go with Trump, then what happens with regard to future election prospects and the RNC?

Much horsetrading to happen...........
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #460 on: November 29, 2015, 03:43:48 PM »
Doug:

Quite the zinger there! 

Peggy Noonan's biography "When Character was King" captures what these two authors are saying about Reagan quite well.


ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #461 on: November 29, 2015, 04:25:39 PM »
Doug,

You want my view on Romney and the 8 million staying at home and Obama winning.  Here you go.

1. I was in favor of Romney over the other candidates simply because I was one who thought he might be electable. I did not like his position on many things, including that he created MassCare, and was more of a moderate in the vein of previous republican candidates and presidents. It was a hold the nose scenario, but under the circumstances, what else was there.

2. As the actual campaign began after the nomination, I quickly began to see Romney's failings. He was a "nice" guy, afraid to attack, etc. In the last two debates, he let Obama and the moderators run roughshod over him. Ryan was no better, though I actually had high hopes for him.

3. The biggest flaw of Romney, though people will not talk about it, was that he was a Mormon. This is what led for so many people to fail to go to the polls. Add to that his other positions, and it was a lost cause.

Would it have mattered if Romney had won the election? I doubt that much would have changed. ObamaCare might have had a few changes made to it, but the Chamber of Commerce and other groups would have pulled out all stops to prevent full repeal.

Immigration?  There would not have been the huge increase in immigration, but the problem would still exist and no one would have been willing to bring it up as an issue.

The economy? Nothing would change there either. No one had the cajones to do what was needed to improve the economy nor to rein in government spending and the programs.

The result of a Romney presidency is that we would have continued on our current path, but simply at a lower speed.
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #462 on: November 29, 2015, 07:50:20 PM »
1. and 2.  It's interesting that we only disagree on maybe one issue and differ on strategy on about one or two more.  That isn't very far apart.

3.  The House of representatives Presidential outcome is interesting.  I suppose the right thing for a representative to do is to cast his or her vote to match the winner is that district.  That favors Cruz, Rubio or Christy only if he has carried the district.  The third place candidate would have to be winning some electoral votes to trigger that provision.

As to the differences with Obama and Romney, I would refer you to 35 long internet pages in the Glibness thread as all examples of bad governance you would categorically have not had with Romney.  And much more over on the Rule of Law thread.  Let's take one issue alone that makes the entire point, IRS targeting.  That would not have happened to anyone under Ronmey and if it had the perpetrators would have gone to prison.For those who believe in a constitution, are conservative, or just patriotic Americans from any political viewpoint and didn't show up to try to defeat this known jerk, ... shame.  Add Fast and Furious to that and perhaps a thousand other abominations, like that crossword puzzles will forever use 'ISIS' as a 4 letter word for 'Obama Legacy'.  Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and al Qaida in Libya, too.  And what if, God forbid, Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas could not serve out the conclusion of Obama's second term.

We aren't just arranging deck chairs here.


ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #463 on: November 30, 2015, 07:08:45 AM »
Here is a question for you.

If Trump does win the nomination and goes up against Hillary, what about all of the Party who have said that they will not support or vote for him? 

Seems to me that this is no different than 2012.
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #464 on: November 30, 2015, 07:31:18 AM »
If he is either the best candidate or the lesser evil, he will get my vote.  Big money people don't matter.  He doesn't want their money anyway.  He will of course be challenged to bring back people he insulted along the way.  That's why you try to minimize that and why he isn't perceived by most as expecting to be the eventual uniter.  It's hard to imagine Carly, Jeb, Carson or Kasich traveling the country to rally different groups to his side.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2015, 10:03:43 AM by DougMacG »

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #465 on: November 30, 2015, 08:15:39 AM »
Can any of the others get the cross over vote and in the numbers that Trump is appearing to attract?  Cross overs are going to be required to win this election.

Trump is the "middle class" candidate that appeals to people on both sides of the spectrum. He is the one who is attracting those who feel disenfranchised (how I hate that word) with the system, those who feel that the establishment on either side ignore them and yet take them for granted that they will "fall into line" with the party lines at election time.
The appeal of Trump is that he understands the middle class in ways that the others do not. And the middle class believes that he represents their interests. Not so with any of the other candidates.

Give me good middle class working families any time over the elitists in this country.
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #466 on: November 30, 2015, 09:03:58 AM »
Good questions Pat.  We will see.  He hasn't reached the Dems and liberals that I know.  I asked my daughter who lives in another parallel universe, a college campus, do people like Trump?  No, she said, no one she knows does.  But I have seen the crowds at the events and the polls.  

I watched the Sunday shows yesterday.  Apparently Trump had mocked a handicapped reporter.  Saw the video several times.  Trump denies it.  )

Chris Wallace:  ... We have been thinking for a long period of time that Trump was going to be saying something that would be over the line.  Is this the one?  

James Rosen:  Probably not.   ...  "The greatest threat to Donald Trump's viability is the descent into conventionality."

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2015/11/29/safe-at-home-sen-richard-burr-talks-terror-threat-carly-fiorina-reacts-to/
« Last Edit: November 30, 2015, 10:01:34 AM by DougMacG »

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #467 on: November 30, 2015, 10:44:43 AM »
I have watched the video as well.  Trump has used various physical expressions and movements at different times in his many various rallies, so this is something not unknown. If he was mocking the reporter, then the mockery was far above and beyond the physical deformities of the reporter. (Essentially, his hand is held in a position similar to a person who has an injured arm in a sling.) Was Trump mocking him? Who knows, but we must also consider what else has occurred.

1. The reporter did cite sources and police reports in Oct 2001 that claimed cops investigated these reports. Now he denies that anything happened.

2. WAPO reporting also indicated that these types of Muslim celebrations occurred in NJ as well as in the Middle East. This reporting is now ignored.

3. Large numbers of people in NJ and elsewhere have indicated that they actually saw the celebrations occur. These reports are now ignored.  (YouTube videos of these celebrations have been deleted for years and a result of PC complicity.

4. Now the claims are made that since Trump said thousands, and only hundreds may have done so, Trump is lying.

5. The NY Times sent this same reporter out to look at Sarah Palin during the 2008 election. He wrote articles, one of which he spoke to Palin's hairdresser and got some very negative quotes about Palin that were cited in his article. The hairdresser saw the article and then claimed that she never spoke with him about Palin? Would the reporter and the NY Times make this up? You decide..........

6.  The reporter did a one day get together in about 1987 where he and many other reporters met with Trump. They spent the day on his plane, helicopter and also in his office.
Now, the reporter claims that Trump knew who he was and was making fun of his disability. Okay, that might be possible, but then here is the other side.

In a group of reporters on a one time activity that occurred almost 20 years ago, Trump is expected to remember everyone there and all the details about each person. Well, when I was in the military, I can't remember but few of the people that I closely worked with daily for years. Nor can I remember people in other activities that I was involved in that lasted months or years. Why should Trump be any different.

IMO, this is likely just another hit piece on Trump. The media and opposition saw a potential weakness and decided to take advantage of it. In all reality, it will mount to nothing either. Actually, once again, it may go to the benefit of Trump if the public perceives it as just another hit piece.  (Did not seem to bother the crowd at the Florida rally.)

What is important is the crowds that Trump is attracting at every rally. Each time that a rally is announced, all tickets are taken within a couple of hours (tickets are free). Then, the venue gets changed to a larger setting so that the people wanting tickets can have a chance to see Trump. Even then, like in Florida, the overflow is tremendous. And in Florida, Trump goes outside and does a second speech to those who could not get into the hall.

Compare that to Cruz who held a rally in Iowa in a general store with only a couple of hundred in attendance, or with Jeb in Florida who could only get tens of people to appear. The contrast is certainly  indicative of something sweeping the country.



PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #468 on: November 30, 2015, 01:32:12 PM »
He was mocking the reporter.  Those offended by that are already not in the Trump camp.  The reporter deserved something, not that.

Biden told the guy in the wheelchair to stand up so we can all see you.  But he was gaffing by mistake.  Trump was mocking for fun.  Like a Geico commercial, it's what he does.

"IMO, this is likely just another hit piece on Trump."

It was a hit piece handed to them by Trump.  

Michele Bachmann used to do stuff like this [the thousands cheered claim].  She was a former frontrunner nationally, considered a flake locally.  Very serious woman, well educated and experienced, ran circles around Bernancke and Geithner while chairing a banking committee meeting.  Then she would fly with some claim that hadn't been checked and didn't need to be said.

If you look back to all the close elections, Republicans haven't won a decisive one since Reagan was in the White House, we need focus, not distractions.  If it's an important point, check it.  If it isn't, don't say it.  We do a better job checking each other's claims here on the forum than some of them do running for leader of the free world.  

Makes you wonder, what will he say or do next?  Are his aides afraid to say no to him?  Does he delegate help with his speeches to no one?  If he can't or won't delegate something this simple, fact checking prior when you know you will be fact checked after, how do you run a $4 trillion bureaucracy?  

The answer of course is that he doesn't know what he will say when he walks out on the stage.  Unscripted.  Just what we want in a world leader...
« Last Edit: November 30, 2015, 01:34:16 PM by DougMacG »

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
The Truth About the Muslim 9-11 Celebrations in New Jersey...
« Reply #469 on: November 30, 2015, 06:14:08 PM »
DID NEW JERSEY MUSLIMS CELEBRATE ON 9/11?

The facts and the eyewitnesses.  Donald Trump's statement has been corroborated.

November 30, 2015  Danusha V. Goska

On November 21st, 2015, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said to supporters in Birmingham, Alabama, "Hey, I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down."

Trump's assertion sparked a national verbal wrestling match. Mainstream media and cultural leaders rushed to insist that no American Muslims celebrated 9-11. George Stephanopoulos dismissed accounts as mere "internet rumor." Snopes' Kim LaCapria argued that Muslims celebration of 9-11 is a "claim [that] was long since debunked." LaCapria, quoting an American Psychological Association article, theorized that those who report seeing Muslims celebrate 9-11 suffer from false memory syndrome. The page LaCapria linked to makes no mention of the 9-11 terror attacks and LaCapria cites no research by any scholar who studied self-identified witnesses of Muslim celebrations in NJ. The New York Times wrote that "a persistent Internet rumor of Muslims celebrating in Paterson, N.J., was discounted by police officials at the time.

A search of news accounts from that period shows no reports of mass cheering in Jersey City." Reuters claimed that "Paterson officials promptly issued a statement denying the report." National Public Radio's crack investigators "could not turn up any news accounts of American Muslims cheering or celebrating in the wake of Sept. 11." A Slate headline insisted that Muslims celebrating 9-11 is "one of the oldest 9/11 urban legends." Buzzfeed quoted, with approval, CAIR's Ibrahim Hooper, "This has been one of these vile memes on the anti-Islam hate sites for some time, but there's actually no evidence to support it whatsoever." Buzzfeed also quoted the Anti-Defamation League, "It is unfortunate that Donald Trump is giving new life to long-debunked conspiracy theories about 9/11."

Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow in governance studies at The Brookings Institution, blogging at Lawfare, is among the most self-righteous, highhanded, and inflammatory in his condemnation of Trump and also Ben Carson. These people, Wittes insisted, are spreading the equivalent of "blood libel … being used … to whip up the ignorant into murderous mobs … They are either lying or they are delusional. And assuming they are not suffering both from the same hallucination, they are lying in a fashion calculated to instill anger and hatred against a minority population at a time when nerves are raw, fears are high, and tempers are short. There are a lot of names for this. None of them is nice."

Wittes' charge of blood libel raises the stakes. Blood libel was used as an excuse to murder Jews in pogroms and it can be associated with tens of thousands of deaths. Wittes identifies blood libel as "medieval" and Christian – his meaning is plain. Christians are bad people who are bigoted against others; bigotry is a relic of the past.

In fact blood libel is neither exclusively Christian nor is it medieval. Blood libel goes back at least to Pagan, Classical Rome. In 1910, in Shiraz, Iran, a Jew was accused of murdering a Muslim girl. Muslims injured and killed Jews, and 6,000 Jews were dispossessed. Blood libel is so popular in the modern Muslim world that a 2001 TV series, "Horseman without a Horse," featured it. But to address actual facts, Wittes writes, would be beneath him. "I'm disinclined to rehash the tawdry history of this episode in any detail. To engage the substance of it feels a little to me like arguing with Holocaust deniers."

Even the Facebook page for Weird NJ insisted that no Muslims celebrated 9-11. Weird NJ is a publication usually dedicated to describing phenomena like the Ghost Boy haunting of Clinton Road. When people who promote belief in the Jersey Devil start insisting that an event never happened, you know something is up.

Prof. Irfan Khawaja of Felician College and Al Quds University acknowledges that some Muslims did celebrate 9-11. The group was much smaller than Trump mentioned, so the entire story can and must be labeled a "lie" rather than "an exaggeration." Khawaja writes, "He said that 'thousands and thousands' of people were cheering in Jersey City. That's a blatant lie."

The intense effort by empowered voices to erase an event matters. It is more than a footnote in the 2016 presidential race. Several factors are at play here. They include censorship of truth in order to meet the demands of political correctness, an utterly wrongheaded attempt to protect Muslims, an attempt that will only harm Muslims, and profound racism – the racism of an empowered elite who are convinced that average Americans are nothing but "ignorant murderous mobs."

In a May 5, 1920 photograph of Lenin delivering a speech, Trotsky is clearly visible. After Trotsky fell out of favor, he was airbrushed out of the photo. The Soviets were also good at smearing any speaker of inconvenient truths as too insane to be heard. We must reject the Soviet concept of truth. Truth is truth, even if it is politically incorrect. And truth is our friend. Truth is the friend of non-Muslims and Muslims alike.

I lived in and worked in Paterson, NJ, in the 1980s to 1990. I loved my Arab and Muslim friends then, and I love them now. In our many hours-long debates, many of my Arab and Muslim friends expressed enthusiastic and unshakeable support for terrorism. Not all did so; my Muslim friend Emmie's utter rejection of terrorism is described here. I wasn't surprised when 9-11 happened. As horrible as that day was, in one small sense, I experienced a pinprick of relief. Finally, I thought, we can start having an honest conversation about the support that even otherwise good but profoundly misguided people can voice for terrorism.

That conversation has yet fully to emerge. We are still too afraid of saying politically incorrect things. This censorship isn't just a bad thing for non-Muslims. It's a bad thing for Muslims as well. Those who witnessed the 9-11 celebrations, their friends and loved ones see much effort being exerted to smear and silence them, and to negate the historically important truth they speak. This silencing will only increase resentment against Muslims. An open and free public conversation will serve everyone's best interests.

People whom I trust told me that they witnessed the celebrations. None agreed to be named here. They know that speaking this truth in public sets them up for attack. One witness is my former student. He is an Italian-American, an A student who attended class regularly and handed in assignments on time. He is a responsible adult who worked during the day and took courses at night. Almost a decade ago, during a long conversation that touched on many topics, he told me of the celebration he witnessed. He named the location, the public library on Main Avenue.

Another witness was a prominent figure in Democratic politics, in which I used to participate. His account was similar to my student's account. The two men don't know each other. A third witness permits me to quote her here. "I stopped for gas in Belleville immediately after the second fall and there were two men in the station cheering at the TV coverage as if they were watching the Super Bowl and their team was winning." I have known this woman for years. I have to rely on her in financial and other matters. She has never lied to me.

There are tried-and-true methods to assess truth. These include Occam's Razor, multiple accounts, cui bono, and consistency with otherwise verified data. All of these can be applied in the accounts of Muslims celebrating 9-11.

Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation is best. Numerous New York and New Jersey residents insist that they or those close to them saw New Jersey Muslims celebrate 9-11. New Jersey radio station 101.5 quotes some of these accounts here. A sampling:

Tom Penicaro: "I worked for PSEG in Clifton on the Paterson boarder and I witnessed it firsthand. They were celebrating in the streets cheering and stomping on the flag. I am a Marine and I remember very very clearly because I was so pissed I wanted to engage them with a bat I had in my van."

William Hugelmeyer: "I was working in the jail when the attacks occurred. Once it was clear it was a terrorist attack, we had inmates celebrating. This instantly caused a lockdown. As you could imagine, many other inmates and officers didn't share their jubilation."

John Pezzino: "They were in the streets banging on the cars trying to drive through the crowd in the street. The Muslims were shouting death to Americans and Allah is great other crap I didn't understand. We were amused until a car with 3 young women mistakenly turned on to main st. The muslims were banging on their windows and screaming, thats when we came out of our car and pushed the muslims off their car helped them back out and get back to the Parkway."

Walter Emiliantsev: "I lived in NJ at the time on Demott Ave., Clifton! When I tried to go to Paterson to my brother in laws shop, I usually took Main Ave. There were so many people dancing on Main, I couldn't get through! I KNOW what I saw!"

Occam's Razor suggests that when numerous people, using their first and last names in a public forum, and providing concrete details that can be checked, all provide similar accounts of public behavior, chances are they are telling the truth. It is possible that all of these people, as Kim LaCapria suggests, are suffering from false memory syndrome, or are all attempting to whip up murderous hatred against Muslims, as Benjamin Wittes accuses, but neither LaCapria nor Wittes provides any support for their smears.

Cui bono directs us to consider "who benefits" from a statement. New Jersey has one of the largest Muslim populations in the US, after Michigan. New Jersey's Muslim population constitutes the second highest, by percent, in the US, after Illinois and above Michigan. New Jersey Muslims wield political clout. Note Republican Governor Chris Christie's nomination of Sohail Mohammed for the New Jersey Superior Court in spite of intense pressure, and Christie's dismissal as "crap" any concerns that New Jerseyans might have about sharia law. Note also that a New Jersey judge ruled that a Muslim man had the basis to beat, torture, and rape his 17-year-old wife because he believed that Islam granted him this right. Muslim political clout may explain why so many empowered voices insist that the 9-11 celebrations never happened.

Too, no decent New Jerseyan wanted to see retaliatory attacks against Muslims in our state. Many speculate, and some report as fact, that police, journalists and local officials downplayed or denied Muslim celebrations to protect Muslims from retaliatory attacks.

In contrast, those who insist that they witnessed Muslim celebrations have nothing to gain by making these statements publicly, and everything to lose. First, many of those speaking out now have no public record of making these statements previous to this controversy. They saw what they saw and they kept it to themselves, or told only those closest to them, for the past fourteen years. It is only the attempt to expunge this historical fact from public memory, and to smear and disgrace anyone who speaks this truth, that caused witnesses to come forward. They are average New Jerseyans simply telling the truth in the face of a wave of censorship and demonization that could cost them their friends or their jobs.

Are accounts of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating 9-11 consistent with other verified data? Indeed they are.

Palestinians make up a large percentage of Paterson's Muslim population, so much so that the neighborhood where the 9-11 celebration is alleged to have taken place is sometimes nicknamed "Little Ramallah." Local businesses are often named for Palestinian landmarks, for example the Al-Quds restaurant, Al-Quds Halal meat and the Al-Quds bakery. Paterson has a large Hispanic population; there are businesses with the provocative and irredentist name of El Andalus Discount Store and Andalus Islamic Fashion. Paterson Palestinians are not shy about expressing their opposition to Israel, see here. Indeed, Paterson's City Hall famously flew the Palestinian flag. One Paterson resident, Moneer Simreen, is quoted referring to Palestine, not the US, as "our country." Americans, Tariq Elsamma said, "need to obey our needs because we are a large community." Paterson's mayor, Jose Torres, wore a kaffiyeh and supported making Ramallah Paterson's sister city.

Even those who deny that any American Muslims celebrated 9-11 acknowledge that Palestinians overseas did celebrate the attacks. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are familially related to Palestinians in Paterson.

Further, polling data indicate that there is not inconsiderable support for terror among some Muslims, with support varying by group. In a 2005 FAFO Foundation poll, a significant percentage of Palestinian respondents supported "Al Qaeda's actions like bombings in USA and Europe." A 2013 Pew Poll found that 40% of Palestinians support suicide bombing in defense of Islam. In the same poll, only one percent of Muslims in Azerbaijan voiced support for suicide bombing.

Finally, we know that six of the 9-11 hijackers lived in Paterson, NJ, and they used the computers of a nearby campus in planning their attacks.

There are all too many non-Muslims who voice support for terror as well. One notorious example: Ward Churchill, a white American university professor of European, Christian descent called the 9-11 victims "little Eichmanns." Other non-Muslims say that poverty or injustice justifies terrorism.

Good people of all beliefs need to say, without ambiguity or apology, that Western Civilization is worth maintaining, and that terrorism is both immoral and a tactical dead-end. If Muslims don't like an aspect of public life, they can change it through organizing and hard work. But we aren't having that conversation to the extent that we should. Instead too many of our cultural elites are apologetic about Western Civilization, and too eager to make excuses for terrorism.

No, Ms. LaCapria, there is no evidence that the people who witnessed New Jersey Muslims celebrating 9-11 suffer from false memory syndrome. No, Benjamin Wittes, those who witnessed the celebrations are not "lying delusional murderous mobs." Rather, the real bigots and racists are those who demonize the honest New Jerseyans who risk censure by simply stating what they saw. From universities, newspaper suites and think tanks, the erasers of history look down on average Americans and sneer. They believe the worst of the American people. They are convinced that if Americans know one small fact – that some New Jersey Muslims celebrated on 9-11 – we will rise up with our pitchforks and torches and erupt into slaughter. They are the delusional ones.

Americans are nice people. We are not especially bigoted. We know that 9-11 happened. Most Americans probably suspect that some minority of Muslims celebrated, openly or in secret. It's been fourteen years, and the pogrom that some have been perversely hoping for and trying to foment never happened.

What we need is frank speech. We need to talk to our Muslim fellow citizens about why some of them celebrated on 9-11. And we need to – through speech – convince those who celebrated 9-11 that they are mistaken. The day that we do so will be a good day. We delay that day by denying that these celebrations ever happened.
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump, pathway to citizenship, illegals building new Trump hotel
« Reply #472 on: December 01, 2015, 09:06:12 AM »
Trump favors pathway to citizenship:

The GOP has to develop a comprehensive policy “to take care of this incredible problem that we have with respect to immigration, with respect to people wanting to be wonderful productive citizens of this country,” Trump says.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Donald-Trump-Ronald-Kessler/2012/11/26/id/465363/

“He [Romney] had a crazy policy of self deportation which was maniacal,” Trump says. “It sounded as bad as it was, and he lost all of the Latino vote,” Trump notes. “He lost the Asian vote. He lost everybody who is inspired to come into this country.”


Illegals building new Trump hotel in Washington DC:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-one-way-to-take-down-trump/417699/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/they-say-they-arrived-in-the-us-illegally-now-theyre-working-on-trumps-dc-hotel/2015/07/06/9a785116-20ec-11e5-84d5-eb37ee8eaa61_story.html

It's not Trump's fault because he uses 'subcontractors'.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
Trump sides with Doug, not PP on 'Metadata' (NSA)
« Reply #473 on: December 01, 2015, 12:21:00 PM »
Trump sides with Rubio, not Cruz on NSA
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-sides-with-rubio-not-cruz-in-nsa-debate/article/2577376

"I err on the side of security", Trump told Hugh Hewitt.

DDF

  • Guest
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #474 on: December 02, 2015, 11:45:23 AM »
“It would be an utter, complete and total disaster,” added South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who is polling below 1 percent in the GOP race. “If you’re a xenophobic, race-baiting, religious bigot, you’re going to have a hard time being president of the United States, and you’re going to do irreparable damage to the party.”

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/can-trump-be-stopped-171010062.html

Nonsense. It's high time there was a leader who didn't criminalize the act of being born Caucasian, being Christian, or act as though people of Caucasian decent don't deserve their own country for killing people centuries ago, just as every other culture (even Tibetans) has done.

Go Trump....failing that.....give it to Hilary and let it all burn.

The Republicans and Democrats have for far long, fumbled their way through nearly everything.

I'm ok with a world that burns. I am not okay sacrificing principles.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19756
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #475 on: December 02, 2015, 03:08:57 PM »
"I'm ok with a world that burns. I am not okay sacrificing principles."

You sound like Patrick Henry.   8-)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #476 on: December 02, 2015, 04:42:41 PM »
Quite a bit less than the thousands asserted by Trump, but more than two , , ,

http://www.wnd.com/wnd_video/jersey-city-911-report-on-celebrating-muslims-vindicates-trump/#XdQOrXTQokxmJiX0.99

Amazing how long it took for this to resurface  , , ,

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #477 on: December 02, 2015, 06:28:58 PM »
Quite a bit less than the thousands asserted by Trump, but more than two , , ,

http://www.wnd.com/wnd_video/jersey-city-911-report-on-celebrating-muslims-vindicates-trump/#XdQOrXTQokxmJiX0.99

Amazing how long it took for this to resurface  , , ,

Because our "professional journalists" have done their best to "memory hole" it. Right Big Dog?

DDF

  • Guest
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #478 on: December 02, 2015, 08:19:49 PM »
Muslims shooting up San Bernardino... 3 of them as a matter of fact - hard to blame work place violence with three shooters...

I wonder if that will boost Trump's numbers?

 :mrgreen:

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19756
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #479 on: December 04, 2015, 05:52:07 AM »
Remember when BROCK mocked Trump's hair at the correspondents dinner some years back.   Wouldn't it be something to see him stand there and do comedy mocking BROCK someday.

How I would relish that.  :-D

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #480 on: December 04, 2015, 09:02:36 AM »
 :-D :-D :-D

http://www.scribd.com/doc/291976357/NRSC-Trump-Memo-From-Ward-Baker


This is so funny. After months of beating up Trump and losing, they will now pretend to be Trump.

Latest CNN poll,

Trump at 36%,
Cruz at 16%
Carson at 14%
Rubio at 12%
Jeb at 3%

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/12/04/cnnorc12042015gopprimarypoll.pdf

I guess that Trump is now finished and will leave the race...............for the 450th time.

 :evil: :evil:
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #481 on: December 04, 2015, 09:39:41 AM »

Latest CNN poll,

Trump at 36%,
Cruz at 16%
Carson at 14%
Rubio at 12%
Jeb at 3%

PP,  I've looked iat the internals and believe they over-sampled Trump, Cruz and Carson supporters.    :wink:

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #482 on: December 04, 2015, 10:10:46 AM »
I am glad you caught that. I have not had time to look at the internals. :-D

Interesting commentary by Allahpundit at HotAir......Trump wins blue collar and splits on white collar. 

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/04/poll-trump-36-cruz-16-carson-14-rubio-12/

Now back to my newest project.  Putting together a proposal to evaluate over 400 MBS Trusts for a lawsuit. 

PPulatie

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #483 on: December 04, 2015, 10:11:24 AM »

Latest CNN poll,

Trump at 36%,
Cruz at 16%
Carson at 14%
Rubio at 12%
Jeb at 3%

PP,  I've looked iat the internals and believe they over-sampled Trump, Cruz and Carson supporters.    :wink:

They found 3% Bush support.  :-o

Talk about oversampling....

DDF

  • Guest
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #484 on: December 05, 2015, 10:51:21 AM »
:-D :-D :-D

http://www.scribd.com/doc/291976357/NRSC-Trump-Memo-From-Ward-Baker
 :evil: :evil:

"Special Note: Consider doing some of the jobs workers do in machine shops, small businesses, and factories you visit. Have the employee show you what they do and then try to do it. This changes the visual narrative so it's more personal and engaging."

Politicians attempting to "act" their way into the people's hearts. What's sad, is that people believe it.

People should be able to smell the imposter from a mile away.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #485 on: December 05, 2015, 11:13:07 AM »
DDF,

And that is why Trump is pulling so much support.  People are seeing through the professional politicians.

BTW, last night at the Trump rally in Virginia, Trump took questions from the audience. First Question

Woman: "What would you say to President Obama about" (She did not get to finish)

Trump:  "Your fired!!!"

Crowd went nuts..........

PPulatie

DDF

  • Guest
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #486 on: December 05, 2015, 12:19:11 PM »
DDF,

And that is why Trump is pulling so much support.  People are seeing through the professional politicians.

BTW, last night at the Trump rally in Virginia, Trump took questions from the audience. First Question

Woman: "What would you say to President Obama about" (She did not get to finish)

Trump:  "Your fired!!!"

Crowd went nuts..........



Awesome. Loretta Lynch needs to be fired too, along with the rest of his cabinent. To think she has the b.lls to tell Americans what they can and can't say in their own country. The chickens are coming home to roost soon.

The $64,000 question that we're all wondering, (Democrats and Republicans alike, as well as Libertarian types such as myself), is if 1/2 of America is so mad, that Trump will pull votes from both major parties in a sufficient amount to win against Clinton. I am confident that he will as soon as Republicans realize they lose if they don't back Trump, and with the amount of Democrats that are more than displeased with Obama... the only real democratic hurdle for Trump will be winning liberal, latino votes.

My thoughts on the matter. As for Barrack.... I will never have a Kenyan as a president...ever. I left the country over it.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2015, 12:28:33 PM by DDF »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Geraghty: The Explcitly Anti-Constitutional GOP Front Runner
« Reply #489 on: December 08, 2015, 06:35:28 AM »
Trump: The Explicitly Anti-Constitutional GOP Presidential Front-runner

Here’s the Trump announcement, in its entirety:

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing “25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad” and 51% of those polled, “agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah.” Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won’t convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.

Mr. Trump stated, “Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. 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. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again.”

No Muslim tourists either: “Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski said Trump’s proposed ban would apply to ‘everybody,’ including Muslims seeking immigration visas as well as tourists seeking to enter the country.”

U.S. citizens who are Muslim who are outside the country would not be permitted to return under Trump’s proposal, at least according to his spokeswoman:
Trump, in a formal statement from his campaign, urged a “total and complete shutdown” of all federal processes allowing followers of Islam into the country until elected leaders can “figure out what is going on.” Asked by The Hill whether that would include American Muslims currently abroad, Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks replied over email: “Mr. Trump says, ‘everyone.’ “

Trump appeared on Greta Van Susteren’s program last night, defending his proposal, and adding, “I have Muslim friends, they’re wonderful people.”
Greta asked whether this policy would apply to his Muslim friends.

“This does not apply to people living in the country,” Trump said, appearing to contradict his spokeswoman, “except that we have to be vigilant, but when you have people putting bombs, having pipe bombs all over their apartment, and other people see this and they don’t report them, there’s something wrong.”

Regarding Muslim U.S. servicemen who are currently deployed overseas, Trump said, “They would come home.” It appears he means they would be allowed to return, but perhaps he means they would be recalled from overseas duties. It’s hard to tell with Trump’s vague, stream-of-consciousness circular-half-sentences.

Let’s go to the Constitution, starting with Article VI:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Last night I learned there are self-described constitutional conservatives who believe that the Founding Fathers who explicitly wrote there could not be a religious test for any office would be hunky-dory with one for citizenship or entry into the country.

Then let’s turn to the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How is declaring “we will no longer allow immigration, entry, or return of U.S. citizens of a particular religious faith” not prohibiting the free exercise of religion?
Wait, there’s more; last night Donald Trump talked about “closing the Internet in some way,” explicitly dismissing concerns about freedom of speech.
“We’re losing a lot of people because of the Internet. And we have to do something. We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. We have to talk to them, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way. Somebody will say, ‘Oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech.’ These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people.”

Trumpies, your man has no idea what he is talking about. Bill Gates does not “really understand what’s happening,” Microsoft does not control the Internet, we do not need the U.S. government to be ‘closing that Internet up in some way’ and it is not foolish to be concerned about freedom of speech.

Last night, Trump’s New Hampshire co-chairman defended the proposal, citing Internment camps: State Representative Al Baldasaro said, “What he’s saying is no different than the situation during World War II, when we put the Japanese in camps.”

Asked about whether he would have supported or opposed the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, Trump told Time:

“I would have had to be there at the time to tell you, to give you a proper answer,” he said during a recent interview in his office in New York City. “I certainly hate the concept of it. But I would have had to be there at the time to give you a proper answer.”

Trump added that he believes wartime sometimes requires difficult choices. “It’s a tough thing. It’s tough,” he said. “But you know war is tough. And winning is tough. We don’t win anymore. We don’t win wars anymore. We don’t win wars anymore. We’re not a strong country anymore. We’re just so off.”

In 1944, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3, in the case of Korematsu vs. the United States that the internment of the Japanese was constitutional. (The lone Republican nominee dissented.) Years later, the American public learned vital details that had been withheld from the Court:

By the time the cases of Gordon Hirabayashi and Fred Korematsu reached the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General had learned of a key intelligence report that undermined the rationale behind the internment. The Ringle Report, from the Office of Naval Intelligence, found that only a small percentage of Japanese Americans posed a potential security threat, and that the most dangerous were already known or in custody. But the Solicitor General did not inform the Court of the report, despite warnings from Department of Justice attorneys that failing to alert the Court “might approximate the suppression of evidence.” Instead, he argued that it was impossible to segregate loyal Japanese Americans from disloyal ones. Nor did he inform the Court that a key set of allegations used to justify the internment, that Japanese Americans were using radio transmitters to communicate with enemy submarines off the West Coast, had been discredited by the FBI and FCC. And to make matters worse, he relied on gross generalizations about Japanese Americans, such as that they were disloyal and motivated by “racial solidarity.”

The Supreme Court upheld Hirabayashi’s and Korematsu’s convictions. And it took nearly a half century for courts to overturn these decisions. One court decision in the 1980s that did so highlighted the role played by the Solicitor General, emphasizing that the Supreme Court gave “special credence” to the Solicitor General’s representations. The court thought it unlikely that the Supreme Court would have ruled the same way had the Solicitor General exhibited complete candor. Yet those decisions still stand today as a reminder of the mistakes of that era.

Korematsu vs. the United States was wrongly decided. The wholesale imprisonment of American citizens because of their ethnic heritage violates the Constitution. If you believe that someone doesn’t have the same civil and Constitutional rights as you do because of their ethnic heritage or religious beliefs . . . what word fits that description?

Banning the immigration of those who belong to a particular religion, perhaps barring U.S. citizens abroad from returning to their own country, “closing that Internet up in some way” . . . let me guess, we’re going to destroy the Constitution in order to save the country?

Here’s that noted softie, former vice president Dick Cheney:

Well, I think this whole notion that somehow we can just say no more Muslims, just ban a whole religion, goes against everything we stand for and believe in. I mean, religious freedom has been a very important part of our history and where we came from. A lot of people, my ancestors got here, because they were Puritans. There wasn’t anybody here then when they came, but it’s a mistaken notion. It’s a serious problem, this refugee problem is.

It’s a serious problem to make certain that the people coming in don’t represent ISIS. You’ve got to set up a vetting process. And that’s crucial, but I think the way you’ve got to begin to deal with that problem is to go back and look at why they’re here. And they’re here because of what’s going on in the Middle East. And what’s going on in the Middle East is the result of a U.S. vacuum. It’s the result of the rise of ISIS, civil war in Syria. I’ve heard proposals that I think make sense that we ought to establish safety zones, if you will, in the northern part of Syria where you’ve got them secured, you’ve got sufficient forces, hopefully of locals that would be there to protect, the area, but that’s where people who are fleeing the terrible tragedy that’s going on inside the caliphate, a place where they could reside. But it also takes the pressure, then, off of the refugee flow, the move to Europe of thousands of refugees and the move here to the United States. I think that makes a lot more sense than what’s happening now.

ADDENDA: Twelve hours ago, I asked my Twitter followers, “Are Muslims enemies of the United States of America?” So far, with 790 responses, 36 percent say “yes,” 64 percent say “no.”

I think tomorrow I’ll write about something cheerier, like the final episodes of The Man in the High Castle.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #490 on: December 08, 2015, 06:57:08 AM »
What a garbage article. US law already can be used to exclude persons belonging to a nation at war with the US from entering, emigrating to the US. The religious test only applies to government office, not citizenship.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #491 on: December 08, 2015, 07:10:54 AM »
Trump Derangement Syndrome is pathological with Geherty and others. Geherty writes an article per week like this with Trump as the target.

What is omitted with the article is that Trump said it was also the job of Congress to figure this out and do something. But that would not fit the tone of the article.

Notice how Geherty tries to claim for the basis of his article Freedom of Religion. But he totally ignores that Congress has the authority to address Immigration and quotas. Seems like he does not know the Constitution.....just like our Constitutional Scholar President.

The reality is that we do not know and have no way of vetting those coming in from Syria and other areas right now. Yet, Obummer wants to bring in 200,000 from Syria in the next two years alone. So are we just to allow anyone to come in without vetting?

Watch Trump shoot up another 3 points or more in the polls....
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #492 on: December 08, 2015, 07:12:32 AM »
Trump did NOT limit himself to nations with whom we are at war.  He simply said "All Muslims".  This bombastic simplicity is very destructive to our cause.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #493 on: December 08, 2015, 07:19:02 AM »
Trump did NOT limit himself to nations with whom we are at war.  He simply said "All Muslims".  This bombastic simplicity is very destructive to our cause.


How is it harmful? We have NO obligation to take anyone into this country. We can set any standard we wish. Most muslims see themselves as members of dar Al Islam. Dar Al Islam is at war with us.


ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #494 on: December 08, 2015, 07:27:32 AM »
And he said until Congress figures it out which can also mean:

1. Setting quotas.

2. Establishing true vetting processes.

There was nothing about this being a permanent ban. And it is consistent with Trump and illegal immigration.

I wonder if TDS has been checked out by the CDC to see if it is contagious through the written word?
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #495 on: December 08, 2015, 07:48:46 AM »
And he said until Congress figures it out which can also mean:
1. Setting quotas.
2. Establishing true vetting processes.
There was nothing about this being a permanent ban. And it is consistent with Trump and illegal immigration.
I wonder if TDS has been checked out by the CDC to see if it is contagious through the written word?

I understand what he means, but his words are polarizing.  Supporters love it and opponents keep getting more ammunition to call him racist, bigoted, divisive, extreme.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #496 on: December 08, 2015, 08:37:37 AM »
Polarizing? Maybe......

But each time that Trump goes "rogue", he forces the country to look at problems that exist, but are ignored by politicians for political expediency. Of course, if Trump is not elected, then the politicians will go back to ignoring the same problems for political expediency again.
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #497 on: December 08, 2015, 09:24:38 AM »
Here is what I posted on my FB page earlier:

I trust my hard line credentials with regard to the War with Islamic Fascism are in good order.

Trump has served our democratic process well by shaking things up and speaking plainly and his courage in doing so has improved the quality of the conversation by forcing others to speak plainly.

That said, as can be witnessed by many of my posts on my forum (see the "Trump" thread and the "2016 Presidential" thread, I have consistently opposed him as a glib and superficial narcissist with a short concentration span resulting in a "drive-by" approach to serious issues and for being seriously wrong on a number of issues (and right on some others). I have spoken of him lacking in deep principles and convictions and of the dubious logic of electing a crony capitalist to solve the profound challenge to our constitutional republic of economic fascism a.k.a. crony capitalism.

The true blame for Trump's success (which is much less than it appears due to the fragmentation of the votes of those opposed to him by the unusually large volume of candidates) so far properly falls on the failings, subversions, and lies of the Obama presidency and of the Demogogues and Patricians of the US Congress that have left the American people rightly angry and frustrated.

Turning to the issue of the moment, there most certainly IS a fifth column danger to our country lurking within the larger Muslim community and the cranial-rectal interface of our so-called Commander in Chief in this regard sets the stage for Trump's call of yesterday to block the movements of all Muslims into the US (though he has clarified that US citizens can return-- how white of him oy vey).

I fear what Trump exhibits in this moment and the response it is already triggering will consume all the oxygen in the room and divert us from the failings of Obama, progressivism, and the Washington Cartel and undercut those of us who advocate firm action by putting us on our heels by having to distance ourselves from his bombastic foolishness.

Because the man appears to get his policy briefings from television and form his policies by listening to his gut response to the blatherings emitting therefrom, we now have from him , , , what we have.

To choose one low hanging piece of fruit out of many-- what about the Iraqi and Afghani interpreters-- Muslims all-- whom we deny admittance to America though they are vouched for by our brave soldiers whose lives they saved? Instead we abandon them to be picked off from the battlefield we abandoned. As articulated by Trump, all hope for them is to be abandoned.

Trump would serve America far better if he focused on attacking Obama for abandoning these Muslims.

===========================

Before this piece of blazing stupidity from Trump we were talking about how ridiculous President Obama and Attorney General Lynch were in their phobia about Islamophobia. Indeed, even some of the Pravdas in the Main Stream Media were pointing out that there are 3.5 antisemitic incidents reported for every anti-Muslim incident.

What Trump has done here is hand a giant life line to Obama and Hillary, who will purport to turn Trump's support into "proof" of Islamophobia and the bigotry of the Republican Party, instead of the truth of the matter which would place the responsibility of people's anger at their doorstep.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19756
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #498 on: December 08, 2015, 10:22:15 AM »
"What Trump has done here is hand a giant life line to Obama and Hillary, who will purport to turn Trump's support into "proof" of Islamophobia and the bigotry of the Republican Party, instead of the truth of the matter which would place the responsibility of people's anger at their doorstep."

This is along the lines of the Drudgereport on Huma Aberdin's "I am proud of being Muslim". and of course racism, "xenophobia" (the latest lib war cry) etc.

No the problem Huma is not us.  We are not racists etc.  The problem is with estimate ? 15% of YOUR OWN who hate us and want to kill as many of us they can.  They have the problem and Trump actually is right to say we need to stop all coming here until we can figure this out.   Huma should be standing up to the murderers not to any American who disagrees with liberal politics.

I say go for it Donald!

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #499 on: December 08, 2015, 10:47:37 AM »
And he said until Congress figures it out which can also mean:
1. Setting quotas.
2. Establishing true vetting processes.
There was nothing about this being a permanent ban. And it is consistent with Trump and illegal immigration.
I wonder if TDS has been checked out by the CDC to see if it is contagious through the written word?

I understand what he means, but his words are polarizing.  Supporters love it and opponents keep getting more ammunition to call him racist, bigoted, divisive, extreme.

The left uses that no matter what. Who cares?