What? Important Climate Update!

[iWriteStuff]

Samizdat, again the context is what matters, not twisting what Trump was saying.

Fiannan you should write a letter to all the Latino Republicans who are leaving the party for good, thanks to Trump:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... -of-trump/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm sure when the dust settles, the death of the Republican party will be ruled a suicide.

[rewcox]

Samizdat, again the context is what matters, not twisting what Trump was saying.

Fiannan you should write a letter to all the Latino Republicans who are leaving the party for good, thanks to Trump:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... -of-trump/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm sure when the dust settles, the death of the Republican party will be ruled a suicide.

Correct iWriteStuff! Mormons are not your average voters. They don't like the morals Trump represents.

Also, they are familiar with the Book of Ether. The Jaredites. Angst and angst leads to more angst, until hatred reigns. Hatred then kills, everyone. Just ask the Jaredites.

What, you can't. They are all gone. Only Ether survived.

[moonwhim]

I'm sure when the dust settles, the death of the Republican party will be ruled a suicide.

No, it will be by people like you who vote for a 3rd party candidate who can't win. I made that mistake when I voted for Ron Paul last election. So I helped Obama win again.

[iWriteStuff]

I'm sure when the dust settles, the death of the Republican party will be ruled a suicide.

No, it will be by people like you who vote for a 3rd party candidate who can't win. I made that mistake when I voted for Ron Paul last election. So I helped Obama win again.

Sorry, don't mean to jest... just reminded me of:

wesuckagain.jpg (7.1 KiB) Viewed 1073 times

"People like me" were unimpressed with the candidate Republicans chose. Somehow that's our fault? We're just supposed to vote for whomever the party chooses? How is that a good use of agency?

[moonwhim]

"People like me" were unimpressed with the candidate Republicans chose. Somehow that's our fault? We're just supposed to vote for whomever the party chooses? How is that a good use of agency?

If you have watched the selection process for Republican candidate you would realize that it was no "normal" process and It would appear that a majority of the Republican establishment was against Trump. It was the overwhelming support of the voters that got him selected, not the Republican party leaders. They are still against him. They were forced to accept him despite their objections. So that puts him into a different category outside the establishment.

You are free to vote as you wish. But I believe that Trump is an important anti-establishment candidate. And I believe Hillary will take down America. If you don't believe that then of course I can see how an idealistic selection would be attractive to you even if that person doesn't win.

[iWriteStuff]

"People like me" were unimpressed with the candidate Republicans chose. Somehow that's our fault? We're just supposed to vote for whomever the party chooses? How is that a good use of agency?

If you have watched the selection process for Republican candidate you would realize that it was no "normal" process and It would appear that a majority of the Republican establishment was against Trump. It was the overwhelming support of the voters that got him selected, not the Republican party leaders. They are still against him. They were forced to accept him despite their objections. So that puts him into a different category outside the establishment.

You are free to vote as you wish. But I believe that Trump is an important anti-establishment candidate. And I believe Hillary will take down America. If you don't believe that then of course I can see how an idealistic selection would be attractive to you even if that person doesn't win.

Yes, I know he's "The People's Candidate". I don't agree with The People. In fact I'm sure they could have done better.

This is the first time I've gone looking for a third party candidate. Honestly, it's the first time I felt I really had to.

As I said, death by suicide. It's the Whig party all over again.

[samizdat]

The #nevertrump people have found their candidate...

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... ident.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Evan McMullin.

Ex CIA agent and UN worker, as well as a GS employee. Mormon.

This could get interesting! Too bad the first three for me are redflags.

[Fiannan]

[larsenb]

. . . . You see how she makes it sound like there are only 2 choices. Gotta love the secret combination controled media.

Get us to think the battle is between the 2 opposing sides when both choices they present is a win win for them. You will find that reoccurring theme everywhere in secret combination controled media or brainwashed people.

Shiz vs. Coriantumr vs.....

Oh yeah, there's this guy named Ether. He survived, too.

To clarify: there is no salvation in a political candidate. There is DEFINITELY no salvation in a politician. Anyone looking to a political candidate, and I do mean any candidate, to save us from destruction will be sadly disappointed.

There is only one salvation from destruction, and that comes from nationwide repentance.

Just another example extreme black-and-white categorization.

I don't think any Trump supporters see him as providing spiritual 'salvation'. Though they may see him as initiating political actions that may begin to save us economically, keep us out of unnecessary and illegal wars, avoiding a WWIII via ramping down the anti-Russian/Putin rhetoric, etc., etc.

So far, I'm not aware of any of the anti-Trump posters on this forum being able to pull themselves out of their black-and-white thinking regarding Trump. I've come to think this is an impossibility with this group.

Fascinating phenomenon, though, viewed dispassionately.

I'm curious - would a poster have to be pro-Trump to escape their "black-and-white thinking"?

I'd also like to clarify that I'm not anti-Trump. I just won't vote for him. I don't think he's the best candidate for the job. Doesn't mean I dislike him personally. I'm sure he's a great dad and grandfather, probably even a good husband. But I don't think he's right for the country. This is why I have declined to use personal attacks or defamation in my reasoning. I use his own statements to demonstrate why I think he's wrong for the country.

If quoting Trump is anti-Trump, then Trump is anti-Trump.

Not at all. The first step would be to exercise objectivity . . . not resorting to statements such as: "He [Trump] hates Mexicans, he hates Muslims, he hates Black", as per Samizdat.

In an earlier post, you said Trump said he would ban all Muslims, conveniently leaving out why he would do so (screen Muslim jihadists) and for how long (until a proper vetting process was put in place). You also distorted his intent by saying he would ban all 1.6 billion Muslims, conveniently ignoring Trump's saying he would put a temporary ban on Muslim immigrants, which would be a very small subset of the 1.6 billion (or 1.3).

That is not being objective.

[Fiannan]

Yes, I know he's "The People's Candidate". I don't agree with The People. In fact I'm sure they could have done better.

[Ezra]

Yes, I know he's "The People's Candidate". I don't agree with The People. In fact I'm sure they could have done better.

That's a very simple answer. The common folk are schooled in the elitist controled schools indoctrinated by the info they want them to learn. Then their controled media and news continues to indoctrinate them after their public schooling is completed.

Here is what h verlan Anderson had to say about it.

H Verlan Andersen The Book of Mormon and the Constitution p.191
It is not at all unlikely that the massive destruction of faith in God, and the acceptance of false beliefs in the world today is largely attributable to the massive substitution of public education for that of the parents. D&C 93:40 & 39 But I have commanded you to bring up your children in light and truth. And that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of the tradition of their fathers. D&C 123:7 The influence of that spirit which hath so strongly riveted the creeds of the fathers, who have inherited lies, upon the hearts of the children, and filled the world with confusion.

And

H Verlan Andersen The Great and Abominable Church of the Devil p. 121, 122
Instead of using government to finance and compel the worship of a Supreme Being, they use it to compel and subsidize the worship of the state and its evil leaders; rather than advocating that compulsion be used to satisfy spiritual needs, they advocate that compulsion be used to satisfy material needs; in place of the doctrine that man is a child of God who is answerable to his creator for his sins, they teach that he is merely an animal with no higher goal than to satisfy the lusts of the flesh; instead of imposing their abominable creed merely on adults on the Sabbath, they take the children from their parents at an early age and place them under the tutelage of a priestly class hired to corrupt their tender minds all throughout the week. But whether priestcraft is enforced by communists or religionists, the central evil is the same: the power of government is used to abolish freedom and compel the people to finance their own enslavement by supporting teachers who are paid to deceive them into believing that the particular brand of priestcraft they are subsidizing is the only true religion. It is veritably true that there is no principle of the communist manifesto more essential to the success of Satan’s plan than that of socialized education. If all children can be forcibly taken from their homes where the Lord intended they be trained, and during the innocence of youth their unsuspecting and defenseless minds are indoctrinated with a belief in organic evolution, atheism, materialism, and socialism the perpetuation of these satanic doctrines is systematized and imposed uniformly upon each succeeding generation.


Ezra Taft benson

In a free and open society such as ours, a well-rounded education is an essential for the preservation of freedom against the chicanery and demagoguery of aspiring tyrants who would have us ignorantly vote ourselves into bondage. As the educational system falls into the hands of the in—power political faction or into the hands of an obscure but tightly knit group of professional social reformers, it is used not to educate but to INDOCTRINATE!
Pres. Ezra Taft Benson - An Enemy pg. 229


So you see the common folk have been indoctrinated to ignorantly vote themselfs into bondage. From a young age they have been taught to do so.

It's why it's such an essential part of Satans plan in the communist manifest to have government run schools. And to make our government more a democracy then a republic. So government trained youth can vote themselfs out of freedoms and put their fellow men into the bondage of taxation and wealfare.

[larsenb]

Trump cannot continue to say the things he has said and win the election. He hates Mexicans, he hates Muslims, he hates Blacks, and he is losing the educated White vote.

There are not enough angry White males to counteract 27 million Latinos who right now are 80 percent Clinton, and for good reason.

If Clinton DOESN'T win, it will be because the voting was rigged.

What deluded poppy cock (your hate allegations).

None of that is poppy cock. He started the election by condemning many Mexican immigrants as rapists and drug dealers promising to build a wall to keep them out. Walls will never work. Tunnels, ladders, and airplanes are used all the time. . . .

Trump maligned a judge just because he happened to be of Mexican descent.

Let's just look at a couple of your claims. I don't have time to cover all the others.

First, he didn't "condemn[] many Mexican immigrants as rapists and drug dealers". He said there were rapists and drug dealers and other criminal types among the illegal Mexican immigrants, and this needs to be stopped. Do you see the difference??

Second, Trump did NOT malign a judge just because he happened to be of Mexican descent. He asked Judge Curiel to recuse himself from adjudicating the Trump University case for about 5 good reasons. Information on this issue can be read at these links to previous posts: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=42579&hilit=Judge+C ... el#p716199" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and viewtopic.php?f=5&t=42579&hilit=Judge+C ... el#p716450" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Heaven help us from millenials who promulgate distortions and untruths.

[Fiannan]

Message to anti-Trump promoters of hysteria:

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Exodus 20:16

[Ezra]

Message to anti-Trump promoters of hysteria:

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Exodus 20:16

Is it false witness to quote trump?

“I have no intention of running for president.” (Time, September 14, 1987)
“I am officially running for president.” (New York, June 16, 2015)
“I don’t want it for myself. I don’t need it for myself.” (ABC News, November 20, 2015)
“I wanted to do this for myself. … I had to do it for myself.” (Time, August 18, 2015)
“Politicians are all talk and no action.” (Twitter, May 27, 2015)
“I’m not a politician.” (CNN, August 11, 2015)
“I’m no different than a politician running for office.” (New York Times, July 28, 2015)
“If I ever ran for office, I’d do better as a Democrat than as a Republican—and that’s not because I’d be more liberal, because I’m conservative.” (Playboy, March 1990)
“I’m a registered Republican. I’m a pretty conservative guy. I’m somewhat liberal on social issues, especially health care.” (CNN, October 8, 1999)
“You’d be shocked if I said that in many cases I probably identify more as a Democrat.” (CNN, March 21, 2004)
“Look, I’m a Republican. I’m a very conservative guy in many respects—I guess in most respects.” (The Hugh Hewitt Show, February 25, 2015)
“I’ve actually been an activist Democrat and Republican.” (CNN, October 8, 1999)
“Folks, I’m a conservative, but at this point, who cares? We got to straighten out the country.” (Burlingame, California, April 29, 2016)
“I’m totally pro-choice.” (Fox News, October 31, 1999)
“I’m pro-life.” (CPAC, February 10, 2011)
“Look, I’m very pro-choice. I hate the concept of abortion. I hate it. I hate everything it stands for. I cringe when I listen to people debating the subject, but you still—I just believe in choice. … I am strongly for choice, and yet I hate the concept of abortion. … I am pro-choice in every respect … but I just hate it.” (NBC News, October 24, 1999)
“I am very, very proud to say that I’m pro-life.” (Cleveland, Ohio, August 6, 2015)

institution of marriage should be between a man and a woman.” (The Advocate, February 15, 2000)
“If two people dig each other, they dig each other.” (Trump University “Trump Blog,” December 22, 2005)
“I’m against gay marriage.” (Fox News, April 14, 2011)
“It’s like in golf. A lot of people—I don’t want this to sound trivial—but a lot of people are switching to these really long putters, very unattractive. It’s weird. You see these great players with these really long putters, because they can’t sink three-footers anymore. And I hate it. I am a traditionalist. I have so many fabulous friends who happen to be gay, but I am a traditionalist.” (New York Times, May 1, 2011)
“It’s always good to do things nice and complicated so that nobody can figure it out.” (The New Yorker, May 19, 1997)
“The simplest approach is often the most effective.” (Trump: The Art of the Deal, 1987)
“My attention span is short.” (Trump: Surviving at the Top, 1990)
“I have an attention span that’s as long as it has to be.” (Time, August 18, 2015)
“I prefer to come to work each day and just see what develops.” (Trump: The Art of the Deal, 1987)


“I do listen to people. I hire experts. I hire top, top people. And I do listen.” (Greenville, South Carolina, February 13, 2016)
“I’m speaking with myself, No. 1, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things. … My primary consultant is myself.” (MSNBC, March 16, 2016)
“Don’t think you’re so smart that you can go it alone.” (Trump: Surviving at the Top, 1990)
“You must plan and execute your plan alone.” (Trump: Think Like a Billionaire, 2004)

[larsenb]

Message to anti-Trump promoters of hysteria:

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Exodus 20:16

Is it false witness to quote trump?

It's a false witness if you give a partial quote that ignores context and/or leaves out further information that qualifies and clarifies the partial quote. . . . resulting in a distortion of his meaning.

[Ezra]

Message to anti-Trump promoters of hysteria:

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Exodus 20:16

Is it false witness to quote trump?

It's a false witness if you give a partial quote that ignores context and/or leaves out further information that qualifies and clarifies the partial quote. . . . resulting in a distortion of his meaning.

Totally agree.

[skmo]

In that case, practically everything Trump says is false witness, since he's clearly not going to come right out and tell us the truth:

"Yeah, I know most people hate Hillary and know she can't be trusted, so I'm going to go out and hoot & holler and say things to get the devout conservatives fired up and at the same time act and behave like a crude megalomanic so most people will believe the conservatives are all as crazy as I'm going to pretend to be."

Yeah, even though that's his bottom line, he will be sure to hide it. False witness.

[iWriteStuff]

Not at all. The first step would be to exercise objectivity . . . not resorting to statements such as: "He [Trump] hates Mexicans, he hates Muslims, he hates Black", as per Samizdat.

In an earlier post, you said Trump said he would ban all Muslims, conveniently leaving out why he would do so (screen Muslim jihadists) and for how long (until a proper vetting process was put in place). You also distorted his intent by saying he would ban all 1.6 billion Muslims, conveniently ignoring Trump's saying he would put a temporary ban on Muslim immigrants, which would be a very small subset of the 1.6 billion (or 1.3).

That is not being objective.

I think you're misquoting me, big guy. This is how the exchange went down:

Fiannan wrote:
Since I do not even click on Clinton News Network links anymore here are two statements on Trump. One is from Trump's own site:

December 07, 2015 -
​Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration

(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- 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." - Donald J. Trump

iWriteStuff wrote:
Ok, so you chose a different path to the same message.... the message still stinks. Not to mention it defies logic. We're going to Make America Great by excluding Muslims? We're going to make it great by exercising prejudice against an entire multi-billion person religion? How does that make America great?

A better question would be: what kind of precedent does this set? If we establish it's ok to discriminate against 1.6 billion Muslims (contrary to the 14th Amendment, btw), who else can we justify discriminating against in the future?

Best question: how well has governmental persecution of a specific religion worked for Mormons in the past?

Moonwhim wrote:
So are you saying that all 1.6 Billion Muslims have a constitutional right to come to our country?

iWriteStuff wrote:
Yes, just as all 2.18 Billion Christians have a constitutional right to come to our country. Not that all would want to, nor that all would be able to due to circumstances, or even that all could pass the health and criminal screening, but that they could try and have the right to do so.

There's your context. I didn't say he is banning all 1.6 billion Muslims (Trump did - see above), I said all 1.6 billion Muslims have a constitutional right to immigrate here. Slight distinction. And, to be frank, this is what the Constitution promises.

But really, explain to me how banning people of a specific religion, whether temporary or long term, locally isolated or worldwide, isn't still a blatant violation of both the 1st and 14th amendments? If it was for one day and for one person being told he can't immigrate to the United States "because he is a Muslim", that would still be a violation of both the 1st and 14th. If you want to discuss a screening policy, that's one thing, but a blanket policy of a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims" "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on" is crossing a big red Constitutional a line.

[rewcox]

Have you ever seen a party where notable senators and congresspeople announce they are not voting for their party's candidate?

This is so bizarre!

Trump has struck out:
three incidences in particular that led her to make her decision: when Trump mocked a disabled reporter; when he said Judge Gonzalo Curiel could not be fair about Trump University because of his Mexican heritage; and when he attacked a Gold Star family, the Khans, after they spoke out against him at the Democratic National Convention.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/08/politics/ ... index.html

[iWriteStuff]

hoo boy, and the hits keep coming. What to do when national security experts won't support you? Why, defame them, of course. This reads like a chapter out of the famous book "How To Lose Friends and Alienate People":

“Well, I respond by saying that I wasn’t using any of them and they would have loved to have been involved with the campaign,” Trump said. “But I wasn’t using. I had no interest in using. Look where the country is now on national policy. Look what we are in defense. Look where we are. Look at the mess we are in. Whether it’s the Middle East or anyone else.”

“And these were the people that have been there a long time,” he continued. “Washington establishment people that have been there for a long time. Look at the terrible job they’ve done. I hadn’t planned on using any of these people.”

“They don’t feel relevant because of that and they form a group and they go out and try to get some publicity for themselves and they hope that somebody else other than Trump wins because that way they can get a job,” he added.

Signers of the letter include Michael V. Hayden, the former director of both the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency; Michael Chertoff and Tom Ridge, both of whom served as secretaries of Homeland Security during the Bush administration; Dov Zakheim, a former under secretary of defense; John D. Negroponte, a deputy secretary of state and a former director of national intelligence; Eric Edelman, a top national security adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney; and Robert Zoellick, a former deputy secretary of state, United States trade rep and president of the World Bank.

In a statement released by his campaign on Monday, Trump thanked the officials for “coming forward so everyone in the country knows who deserves the blame for making the world such a dangerous place.”

Well, it's only Tuesday. How many other constituents can we anger before Friday?

[Fiannan]

At least this guy knows who represents his interests I suppose:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/43 ... t9Geraghty" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Fiannan]

hoo boy, and the hits keep coming. What to do when national security experts won't support you? Why, defame them, of course. This reads like a chapter out of the famous book "How To Lose Friends and Alienate People":

“Well, I respond by saying that I wasn’t using any of them and they would have loved to have been involved with the campaign,” Trump said. “But I wasn’t using. I had no interest in using. Look where the country is now on national policy. Look what we are in defense. Look where we are. Look at the mess we are in. Whether it’s the Middle East or anyone else.”

“And these were the people that have been there a long time,” he continued. “Washington establishment people that have been there for a long time. Look at the terrible job they’ve done. I hadn’t planned on using any of these people.”

“They don’t feel relevant because of that and they form a group and they go out and try to get some publicity for themselves and they hope that somebody else other than Trump wins because that way they can get a job,” he added.

Signers of the letter include Michael V. Hayden, the former director of both the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency; Michael Chertoff and Tom Ridge, both of whom served as secretaries of Homeland Security during the Bush administration; Dov Zakheim, a former under secretary of defense; John D. Negroponte, a deputy secretary of state and a former director of national intelligence; Eric Edelman, a top national security adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney; and Robert Zoellick, a former deputy secretary of state, United States trade rep and president of the World Bank.

In a statement released by his campaign on Monday, Trump thanked the officials for “coming forward so everyone in the country knows who deserves the blame for making the world such a dangerous place.”

Well, it's only Tuesday. How many other constituents can we anger before Friday?

I'm confused, were these the people who helped facilitate the destruction of Iraq by the Bush regime, and if so, are they the good guys?

[iWriteStuff]

hoo boy, and the hits keep coming. What to do when national security experts won't support you? Why, defame them, of course. This reads like a chapter out of the famous book "How To Lose Friends and Alienate People":

“Well, I respond by saying that I wasn’t using any of them and they would have loved to have been involved with the campaign,” Trump said. “But I wasn’t using. I had no interest in using. Look where the country is now on national policy. Look what we are in defense. Look where we are. Look at the mess we are in. Whether it’s the Middle East or anyone else.”

“And these were the people that have been there a long time,” he continued. “Washington establishment people that have been there for a long time. Look at the terrible job they’ve done. I hadn’t planned on using any of these people.”

“They don’t feel relevant because of that and they form a group and they go out and try to get some publicity for themselves and they hope that somebody else other than Trump wins because that way they can get a job,” he added.

Signers of the letter include Michael V. Hayden, the former director of both the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency; Michael Chertoff and Tom Ridge, both of whom served as secretaries of Homeland Security during the Bush administration; Dov Zakheim, a former under secretary of defense; John D. Negroponte, a deputy secretary of state and a former director of national intelligence; Eric Edelman, a top national security adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney; and Robert Zoellick, a former deputy secretary of state, United States trade rep and president of the World Bank.

In a statement released by his campaign on Monday, Trump thanked the officials for “coming forward so everyone in the country knows who deserves the blame for making the world such a dangerous place.”

Well, it's only Tuesday. How many other constituents can we anger before Friday?

I'm confused, were these the people who helped facilitate the destruction of Iraq by the Bush regime, and if so, are they the good guys?

You can debate their merits. I am not personally acquainted with them. Either which way, would you describe their denunciation of Trump as good news or bad?

[Fiannan]

You can debate their merits. I am not personally acquainted with them. Either which way, would you describe their denunciation of Trump as good news or bad?

If you feel the role of the USA is to destroy nations, kill and maim children in faraway lands...well, is that good or bad?

If such policies are great then by all means oppose Trump.

[larsenb]

Not at all. The first step would be to exercise objectivity . . . not resorting to statements such as: "He [Trump] hates Mexicans, he hates Muslims, he hates Black", as per Samizdat.

In an earlier post, you said Trump said he would ban all Muslims, conveniently leaving out why he would do so (screen Muslim jihadists) and for how long (until a proper vetting process was put in place). You also distorted his intent by saying he would ban all 1.6 billion Muslims, conveniently ignoring Trump's saying he would put a temporary ban on Muslim immigrants, which would be a very small subset of the 1.6 billion (or 1.3).

That is not being objective.

I think you're misquoting me, big guy. This is how the exchange went down:

Fiannan wrote:
Since I do not even click on Clinton News Network links anymore here are two statements on Trump. One is from Trump's own site:

December 07, 2015 -
​Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration

(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- 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." - Donald J. Trump

First "Dude", now "big guy. A style emerges.

Your first post on this subject emphasized Trump banning all Muslims. You then did include the quote from the Trump campaign. I'll grant you that.

Except that's not what he said:
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump called Monday for barring all Muslims from entering the United States.

"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," a campaign press release said.

But your subsequent comments indicate that even banning Muslims for a milisecond really troubles you, even bringing in the 14th amendment and 1st amendments to support your position, which have scant little, if anything, to do with Trump's proposal in my view.

Trump is simply responding to real acts of violence committed in this country by Muslim jihadists or jihadist wannabees. These acts come close to being acts of war against US citizens by people with a Muslim background. He is also responding to what these same groups are doing to an even more extreme degree in several European countries, and wants to nip these actions in the bud before they reach these extremes.

Very reasonable in my view, when seen in the context of 'acts of war' and when viewed in the context of the Center for Security Policy poll quoted by fiannan, above. You may disagree. So be it. However, if an act of violence coming from Muslim jihadists directly affected you and your family with tragic consequences, that would probably swing you more over to Trump's side.