Let the media keep on calling Trump a clown and underestimating him. They will have lowered the bar so much that all Trump will have to do is show up at the debates with his pants on correctly and its a win for him to the nomination.
Good lord, what a statement about the broken state of our two party political system. The dem side isn't any better. I may write in a vote for Belichek.
Let the media keep on calling Trump a clown and underestimating him. They will have lowered the bar so much that all Trump will have to do is show up at the debates with his pants on correctly and its a win for him to the nomination.
Good lord, what a statement about the broken state of our two party political system. The dem side isn't any better. I may write in a vote for Belichek.
Doug, believe it or not this was a failed strategy used in the recent Canadian PM election. The post mortems done feel that since Trudeau was not the clown conservatives were painting, all the negative bashing backfired significantly after his debate performances. Its not the only reason he won, as change to a dysfunctional gov was also ripe in the air. sound familiar?
Let the media keep on calling Trump a clown and underestimating him. They will have lowered the bar so much that all Trump will have to do is show up at the debates with his pants on correctly and its a win for him to the nomination.
It really is fascinating the different ways we interpret what we see. The "media" is covering Trump vs. the other candidates 99% of the time. I don't see any underestimation at all. He's all they are talking about. No one is talking about any other candidate. As a matter of fact, it'd be hard pressed to come up with one thing that Obama has said in 7 years that has resulted in this kind of attention and wall-to-wall international coverage and international political and social media reaction.
The media is a tool to be used by those who demonstrate the best workmanship in the moment. Everyone is so easily trolled right now, addicted to reactions and outrage. Those who have the ability to take advantage of such things always will exploit the opportunity and, historically, always have.
Let the media keep on calling Trump a clown and underestimating him. They will have lowered the bar so much that all Trump will have to do is show up at the debates with his pants on correctly and its a win for him to the nomination.
Good lord, what a statement about the broken state of our two party political system. The dem side isn't any better. I may write in a vote for Belichek.
Doug, believe it or not this was a failed strategy used in the recent Canadian PM election. The post mortems done feel that since Trudeau was not the clown conservatives were painting, all the negative bashing backfired significantly after his debate performances. Its not the only reason he won, as change to a dysfunctional gov was also ripe in the air. sound familiar?
FEEL THE BERN!!!
Let the media keep on calling Trump a clown and underestimating him. They will have lowered the bar so much that all Trump will have to do is show up at the debates with his pants on correctly and its a win for him to the nomination.
Good lord, what a statement about the broken state of our two party political system. The dem side isn't any better. I may write in a vote for Belichek.
Doug, believe it or not this was a failed strategy used in the recent Canadian PM election. The post mortems done feel that since Trudeau was not the clown conservatives were painting, all the negative bashing backfired significantly after his debate performances. Its not the only reason he won, as change to a dysfunctional gov was also ripe in the air. sound familiar?
More dysfunction is not the change I'm looking for. Its a sad day when this direction seems the most appealing choice to any significant portion of the electorate, and a sad commentary on the state of our two party system
Let the media keep on calling Trump a clown and underestimating him. They will have lowered the bar so much that all Trump will have to do is show up at the debates with his pants on correctly and its a win for him to the nomination.
Good lord, what a statement about the broken state of our two party political system. The dem side isn't any better. I may write in a vote for Belichek.
Doug, believe it or not this was a failed strategy used in the recent Canadian PM election. The post mortems done feel that since Trudeau was not the clown conservatives were painting, all the negative bashing backfired significantly after his debate performances. Its not the only reason he won, as change to a dysfunctional gov was also ripe in the air. sound familiar?
Canada though uses a parliamentary system and the leaders are not elected but appointed by the party. The first test for the leader is party support and this ensures that an independent like Trump does not become leader of a major party. In the case of Trump he is self-selected and has not passed through the political gauntlet. Trump has pretty much intimidated all his foes in the republican primary race as well as the leadership of the party. In the end as much as conservatives hate and distrust the media it may be the only entity left that can save the GOP from Trump.
The dysfunctional gov in Canada was run by the conservatives using the identical economic formula advocated by the current slate of republican candidates including Trump.
Seems everyone is going off about Donald Trump claiming he said he wants to keep all Muslims out of the U.S.
What he actually said:
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.The last half of the sentence got dropped along the way.
The “government” aka the Obama administration has been repeatedly proven incapable of vetting pretty much anyone. But hey, Obama does not want us to “discriminate” against Islamic Extremist Terrorists.
Which is more dangerous: Donald Trump’s perceived over-reaction or Obama’s actual under-reaction?
Easy. Trump's plan in unconstitutional.
________________________________________________________________________
That has nothing to do with the question i asked but since you brought it up, since when did the liberals want to start abiding by The Constitution?
Obama's immigration (Amnesty) order is unconstitutional and we don't hear a peep from the left about that one.
You asked which was worse. I answered that Trump's plan was unconstitutional. If you didn't understand that, then you are a moron.
Obama's plan was not unconstitutional, just like Reagan's similar plan was not unconstitutional.
Now, genius, do you see the basic difference on why one is unconstitutional and the other isn't? You won't answer because you are pretty clueless.
_______________________________________________________________________
The people who Donald Trump is talking about keeping out of our country until the government can vet them do not have constitutional rights. That and the fact that you do not know exactly what Mr. Trump’s plan is you are incapable of deciding any constitutionality issues.
The entire religious freedom argument is a joke. The Obama administration just deported many Iraqi Christians who were here on State Department issued visas because there were being persecuted in Iraq because of their faith.
Obama's Immigration (amnesty) order is constitutionally illegal and has been stopped by two federal courts and those court rulings were upheld by a federal appellate court.
Curiously but not surprisingly is that here in the W/P we never hear the liberals calling for Islamic Extremist Terrorists to be kept out of our country when it is clear that the Obama administration is incapable of doing so either by incompetence or willingness.
More dysfunction is not the change I'm looking for. Its a sad day when this direction seems the most appealing choice to any significant portion of the electorate, and a sad commentary on the state of our two party system
Then you definitely should not vote for the republicans as the dysfunction cited was created by the conservatives over the course of 10 years. Imagine where the economy would be if George W. had another 4 years?
Let the media keep on calling Trump a clown and underestimating him. They will have lowered the bar so much that all Trump will have to do is show up at the debates with his pants on correctly and its a win for him to the nomination.
_________________________________________________________________________
The media love Donald Trump. He is swallowing up the most column inches and airtime of any candidate. Hillary Clinton’s campaign should send Mr. Trump a thank you card for his keeping Hillary’s many scandals and corruption out of the mainstream media’s attention.
Ever notice that while some claim that they are “appalled” by some of what Donald Trump says they never can answer why he holds such massive poll ratings or why his proclamations are so popular with the American people?
Ever notice that while some claim that they are “appalled” by some of what Donald Trump says they never can answer why he holds such massive poll ratings or why his proclamations are so popular with the American people?
Is it not obvious? There is a huge market for what Trump is selling. HUGE.
You are right, Trump is one guy with an opinion. It's the millions of Americans that WILL vote for him that we should be appalled at.
With each outrageous comment made Trump's supporters show their own asses to us just a bit more. I love it!
____________________________________________________________________
Gotta love it!
Everyone is talking about Trump and no one is talking about Hillary Clinton or whats-his-name... the socialist.
Ever notice that while some claim that they are “appalled” by some of what Donald Trump says they never can answer why he holds such massive poll ratings or why his proclamations are so popular with the American people?
Is it not obvious? There is a huge market for what Trump is selling. HUGE.
You are right, Trump is one guy with an opinion. It's the millions of Americans that WILL vote for him that we should be appalled at.
With each outrageous comment made Trump's supporters show their own asses to us just a bit more. I love it!
An observation I saw somewhere yesterday..."The phenomenon of Donald Trump is as if the comments section on the internet sprung to life and became a presidential candidate." 😛
Let the media keep on calling Trump a clown and underestimating him. They will have lowered the bar so much that all Trump will have to do is show up at the debates with his pants on correctly and its a win for him to the nomination.
_________________________________________________________________________
The media love Donald Trump. He is swallowing up the most column inches and airtime of any candidate. Hillary Clinton’s campaign should send Mr. Trump a thank you card for his keeping Hillary’s many scandals and corruption out of the mainstream media’s attention.
Ever notice that while some claim that they are “appalled” by some of what Donald Trump says they never can answer why he holds such massive poll ratings or why his proclamations are so popular with the American people?
He gets good poll ratings because low info people like you believe he will be able to do what he says he will.
Seems everyone is going off about Donald Trump claiming he said he wants to keep all Muslims out of the U.S.
What he actually said:
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.The last half of the sentence got dropped along the way.
The “government” aka the Obama administration has been repeatedly proven incapable of vetting pretty much anyone. But hey, Obama does not want us to “discriminate” against Islamic Extremist Terrorists.
Which is more dangerous: Donald Trump’s perceived over-reaction or Obama’s actual under-reaction?
Easy. Trump's plan in unconstitutional.
________________________________________________________________________
That has nothing to do with the question i asked but since you brought it up, since when did the liberals want to start abiding by The Constitution?
Obama's immigration (Amnesty) order is unconstitutional and we don't hear a peep from the left about that one.
You asked which was worse. I answered that Trump's plan was unconstitutional. If you didn't understand that, then you are a moron.
Obama's plan was not unconstitutional, just like Reagan's similar plan was not unconstitutional.
Now, genius, do you see the basic difference on why one is unconstitutional and the other isn't? You won't answer because you are pretty clueless.
_______________________________________________________________________
The people who Donald Trump is talking about keeping out of our country until the government can vet them do not have constitutional rights. That and the fact that you do not know exactly what Mr. Trump’s plan is you are incapable of deciding any constitutionality issues.
The entire religious freedom argument is a joke. The Obama administration just deported many Iraqi Christians who were here on State Department issued visas because there were being persecuted in Iraq because of their faith.
Obama's Immigration (amnesty) order is constitutionally illegal and has been stopped by two federal courts and those court rulings were upheld by a federal appellate court.
Curiously but not surprisingly is that here in the W/P we never hear the liberals calling for Islamic Extremist Terrorists to be kept out of our country when it is clear that the Obama administration is incapable of doing so either by incompetence or willingness.
Trump said that he would ban Muslim immigration "until our representatives can figure out what is going on". What exactly does that mean? Do you support Trump?
Let the media keep on calling Trump a clown and underestimating him. They will have lowered the bar so much that all Trump will have to do is show up at the debates with his pants on correctly and its a win for him to the nomination.
_________________________________________________________________________
The media love Donald Trump. He is swallowing up the most column inches and airtime of any candidate. Hillary Clinton’s campaign should send Mr. Trump a thank you card for his keeping Hillary’s many scandals and corruption out of the mainstream media’s attention.
Ever notice that while some claim that they are “appalled” by some of what Donald Trump says they never can answer why he holds such massive poll ratings or why his proclamations are so popular with the American people?
Trump’s dominance in this year’s presidential primary race has often been described as a mysterious natural phenomenon: the Donald riding a wild, unpredictable tsunami of conservative populist anger that just now happens to be crashing down on the Republican establishment. But in fact, Trump spent years methodically building and buying support for himself in a vast, right-wing counter-establishment — one that exists entirely outside the old party infrastructure and is quickly becoming just as powerful.
These forces have asserted themselves repeatedly in the fight over the future of the Republican Party. But Trump came to understand their power earlier than most. When no one was watching, he was assuming command of this Fringe Establishment, building an army of activists and avatars that he would eventually deploy in his scorched-earth assault on the GOP’s old guard, on his rivals in the primary field — and, as an early test case in the winter of 2014, on me.
Right now it seems that it is the republican leadership that is concerned about Trump. He really is a gift for Clinton.
Trump is popular with a fringe group that represents about 30% of possible GOP voters.
Seems everyone is going off about Donald Trump claiming he said he wants to keep all Muslims out of the U.S.
What he actually said:
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.The last half of the sentence got dropped along the way.
The “government” aka the Obama administration has been repeatedly proven incapable of vetting pretty much anyone. But hey, Obama does not want us to “discriminate” against Islamic Extremist Terrorists.
Which is more dangerous: Donald Trump’s perceived over-reaction or Obama’s actual under-reaction?
Easy. Trump's plan in unconstitutional.
________________________________________________________________________
That has nothing to do with the question i asked but since you brought it up, since when did the liberals want to start abiding by The Constitution?
Obama's immigration (Amnesty) order is unconstitutional and we don't hear a peep from the left about that one.
You asked which was worse. I answered that Trump's plan was unconstitutional. If you didn't understand that, then you are a moron.
Obama's plan was not unconstitutional, just like Reagan's similar plan was not unconstitutional.
Now, genius, do you see the basic difference on why one is unconstitutional and the other isn't? You won't answer because you are pretty clueless.
_______________________________________________________________________
The people who Donald Trump is talking about keeping out of our country until the government can vet them do not have constitutional rights. That and the fact that you do not know exactly what Mr. Trump’s plan is you are incapable of deciding any constitutionality issues.
The entire religious freedom argument is a joke. The Obama administration just deported many Iraqi Christians who were here on State Department issued visas because there were being persecuted in Iraq because of their faith.
Obama's Immigration (amnesty) order is constitutionally illegal and has been stopped by two federal courts and those court rulings were upheld by a federal appellate court.
Curiously but not surprisingly is that here in the W/P we never hear the liberals calling for Islamic Extremist Terrorists to be kept out of our country when it is clear that the Obama administration is incapable of doing so either by incompetence or willingness.
Trump said that he would ban Muslim immigration "until our representatives can figure out what is going on". What exactly does that mean? Do you support Trump?
_________________________________________________________________________
"What exactly does that mean?"
- are you really that detached from reality? Just look at the Islamic Terrorist Extremist attacks on U.S. soil during the Obama administration. In the latest attack in San Bernadino Obama's Homeland Security Department and FBI failed to detect them.
The Obama administration has repeatedly proven they are incapable of or unwilling to "figure out what is going on" which is exactly what Donald trump is saying.
Anything else you need explained?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/opinion/trumps-anti-muslim-plan-is-awful-and-constitutional.html
Trump’s Anti-Muslim Plan Is Awful. And Constitutional.
By PETER J. SPIRO DEC. 8, 2015
Philadelphia — DONALD J. TRUMP’S reprehensible call to bar Muslim immigrants from entering the United States tracks an exam question I’ve been giving my immigration law students since Sept. 11. Would such a proposal be constitutional? The answer is not what you might think — but it also raises the issue of what, exactly, we mean when we say something is “constitutional” in the first place.
In the ordinary, non-immigration world of constitutional law, the Trump scheme would be blatantly unconstitutional, a clear violation of both equal protection and religious freedom (he had originally called for barring American Muslims living abroad from re-entering the country as well; he has since dropped that clearly unconstitutional notion). But under a line of rulings from the Supreme Court dating back more than a century, that’s irrelevant. As the court observed in its 1977 decision in Fiallo v. Bell, “In the exercise of its broad power over immigration and naturalization, Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.”
The court has given the political branches the judicial equivalent of a blank check to regulate immigration as they see fit. This posture of extreme deference is known as the “plenary power” doctrine. It dates back to the 1889 decision in the Chinese Exclusion case, in which the court upheld the exclusion of Chinese laborers based on their nationality.
Unlike other bygone constitutional curiosities that offend our contemporary sensibilities, the Chinese Exclusion case has never been overturned. More recent decisions have upheld discrimination against immigrants based on gender and illegitimacy that would never have survived equal protection scrutiny in the domestic context. Likewise, courts have rejected the assertion of First Amendment free speech protections by noncitizens.
Nor has the Supreme Court ever struck down an immigration classification, even ones based on race. As late as 1965, a federal appeals court upheld a measure that counted a Brazilian citizen of Japanese descent as Asian for the purposes of immigration quotas.
In the context of noncitizens seeking initial entry into the United States, due process protections don’t apply, either. This past June, the court upheld the denial of a visa for the spouse of an American citizen based on the government’s say-so, with no supporting evidence.
The courts have justified this constitutional exceptionalism on the grounds that immigration law implicates foreign relations and national security — even in the absence of a specific, plausible foreign policy rationale. The 1977 Fiallo case, for instance, involved a father seeking the admission of his out-of-wedlock son from the French West Indies — hardly the stuff of national interest.
Indeed, contrary to the conventional understanding, President Trump could implement the scheme on his own, without Congress’s approval. The Immigration and Nationality Act gives the president the authority to suspend the entry of “any class of aliens” on his finding that their entry would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” President Obama has used this to the better end of excluding serious human rights violators.
But here’s the interesting thing: Just because Mr. Trump’s proposal has a judicial pedigree, that doesn’t make it “constitutional” in a broader sense. The Constitution and the courts are not synonymous, nor do the courts have a monopoly on constitutional interpretation. Politicians, the legal community, scholars and the public at large are all a part of our continuing constitutional conversation. Clear popular consensus can establish constitutional norms, with or without the courts.
The leading example comes out of the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. The Supreme Court upheld the internment in its 1944 Korematsu decision, and that ruling has never been judicially reversed. Technically, it remains good law. But it has been effectively overridden by other actors, and in the court of public opinion. A formal apology and payment of reparations, enacted by Congress and signed into law by Ronald Reagan in 1988, supplies the formal evidence. Korematsu continues to provoke popular shame.
We may be seeing that same shame at work today. Mr. Trump’s plan has triggered an uproar across the partisan divide. Perhaps a religion-based immigration bar may be consistent with court-made doctrine. But it doesn’t reflect our deeper, broadly assimilated understandings of the Constitution.
The fact that many Americans seem to assume Mr. Trump’s proposal is unconstitutional means that the courts need to catch up with the public on immigration. We don’t tolerate discrimination on the basis of national origin in hiring, housing or public accommodation. But discrimination on the basis of nationality, often capricious, even illogical, is a central feature of immigration law.
If you were born in the Philippines and are seeking to join a sibling who has American citizenship, for example, your wait in line is 10 years longer than almost everyone else’s. There may be good reasons for some of these different approaches. But the Supreme Court shouldn’t be rubber-stamping them.
The court won’t get to rule on the Trump scheme. It now needs to take the cue from the rest of us and bring its reading of the Constitution in line with the public’s own, more progressive constitutional norms.
Peter J. Spiro is a professor of immigration and constitutional law at Temple University.
Seems everyone is going off about Donald Trump claiming he said he wants to keep all Muslims out of the U.S.
What he actually said:
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.The last half of the sentence got dropped along the way.
The “government” aka the Obama administration has been repeatedly proven incapable of vetting pretty much anyone. But hey, Obama does not want us to “discriminate” against Islamic Extremist Terrorists.
Which is more dangerous: Donald Trump’s perceived over-reaction or Obama’s actual under-reaction?
Easy. Trump's plan in unconstitutional.
________________________________________________________________________
That has nothing to do with the question i asked but since you brought it up, since when did the liberals want to start abiding by The Constitution?
Obama's immigration (Amnesty) order is unconstitutional and we don't hear a peep from the left about that one.
You asked which was worse. I answered that Trump's plan was unconstitutional. If you didn't understand that, then you are a moron.
Obama's plan was not unconstitutional, just like Reagan's similar plan was not unconstitutional.
Now, genius, do you see the basic difference on why one is unconstitutional and the other isn't? You won't answer because you are pretty clueless.
_______________________________________________________________________
The people who Donald Trump is talking about keeping out of our country until the government can vet them do not have constitutional rights. That and the fact that you do not know exactly what Mr. Trump’s plan is you are incapable of deciding any constitutionality issues.
The entire religious freedom argument is a joke. The Obama administration just deported many Iraqi Christians who were here on State Department issued visas because there were being persecuted in Iraq because of their faith.
Obama's Immigration (amnesty) order is constitutionally illegal and has been stopped by two federal courts and those court rulings were upheld by a federal appellate court.
Curiously but not surprisingly is that here in the W/P we never hear the liberals calling for Islamic Extremist Terrorists to be kept out of our country when it is clear that the Obama administration is incapable of doing so either by incompetence or willingness.
Trump said that he would ban Muslim immigration "until our representatives can figure out what is going on". What exactly does that mean? Do you support Trump?
_________________________________________________________________________
"What exactly does that mean?"
- are you really that detached from reality? Just look at the Islamic Terrorist Extremist attacks on U.S. soil during the Obama administration. In the latest attack in San Bernadino Obama's Homeland Security Department and FBI failed to detect them.
The Obama administration has repeatedly proven they are incapable of or unwilling to "figure out what is going on" which is exactly what Donald trump is saying.
Anything else you need explained?
That isn't what he said. He made another vague statement and he has no idea about how to accomplish it. Once again, do you support Trump? For once why don't you stand up for someone or something instead of tearing everything down.
Ever notice that while some claim that they are “appalled” by some of what Donald Trump says they never can answer why he holds such massive poll ratings or why his proclamations are so popular with the American people?
Is it not obvious? There is a huge market for what Trump is selling. HUGE.
You are right, Trump is one guy with an opinion. It's the millions of Americans that WILL vote for him that we should be appalled at.
With each outrageous comment made Trump's supporters show their own asses to us just a bit more. I love it!
____________________________________________________________________
Gotta love it!
Everyone is talking about Trump and no one is talking about Hillary Clinton or whats-his-name... the socialist.
Ironically Hillary gets more headlines on FoxNews.com than Trump does. But why am I telling you this...
_________________________________________________________________________
The only Hillary Clinton stories on Foxnews.com lately have been about The Department of Defense being ready to go to Benghazi during the Islamic Extremist Terrorist attack but her State Department never gave the okay and her, at a meeting with women, stating that all rape claims should be investigated. A lady in her audience asked Hillary Clinton, naming the three women, if all claims included those of the two women that said they were sexually assaulted by her husband and the one he raped.
Ever notice that while some claim that they are “appalled” by some of what Donald Trump says they never can answer why he holds such massive poll ratings or why his proclamations are so popular with the American people?
Is it not obvious? There is a huge market for what Trump is selling. HUGE.
You are right, Trump is one guy with an opinion. It's the millions of Americans that WILL vote for him that we should be appalled at.
With each outrageous comment made Trump's supporters show their own asses to us just a bit more. I love it!
Like I said, he is a demagogue doing what demagogues do. And that is not usually a good thing.
A few excerpts from http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/27/williams-trump-is-a-demagogue/
When a leader (or would-be leader) appeals to emotions and prejudices rather than intellect and reasoning, or spews vitriol rather than hope, and when he (or she) appeals to those who prefer to be led rather than guided, the ground is set for demagoguery.
Mr. Trump has tapped into the unhappiness, which polls show to be prevalent, and the cynicism it breeds. Some of his followers may be ill-informed, but they all recognize condescension. Many Americans find offensive the aura of sanctimony that enshrouds politicians in Washington and much of the press. People abhor attitudes of moral and intellectual superiority. Mr. Trump pierced that veneer and has shown it to be shallow. Despite his privileged background and his wealth, he has become the champion of the disenfranchised – or, at least, of those on the right.
Mr. Trump has argued that his personal wealth means that he is not obligated to any special interest or lobbyist. Believe that at your peril. He and his business interests are inextricably tied to government. He is a lobbyist. His businesses are dependent on tax breaks and on regulations designed to inhibit competition. If only the rich ran for office, we would live in a plutocracy. Political campaigns consume money, but that is no reason why the talented and aspirant should be denied the opportunity because of a lack of personal wealth. The mixture of money and politics dates back centuries. We should, however, demand full disclosure, complete transparency as to who gives how much to whom. Congress should pass a bill that removes the tax-exempt status for any group that fuels political campaigns – including all PACS and organizations like the Sierra Club and the NRA.
Accused of not being “nice,” Mr. Trump responded by saying nice is not necessary and in fact is a hindrance. We need people, he says, who can get things done. That may be – Hitler was efficient in dispatching Jews to extermination camps and Benito Mussolini got trains to run on time – if that is what we want, which I am sure it is not. But nice also refers to character – a person true to their word who will stand on principle, an individual with moral standing who is respected and respectful; one who can be trusted. In my opinion, Mr. Trump fails when those standards are applied. As a conservative, it is my hope that he fails in his bid for the nomination.
Seems everyone is going off about Donald Trump claiming he said he wants to keep all Muslims out of the U.S.
What he actually said:
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.The last half of the sentence got dropped along the way.
The “government” aka the Obama administration has been repeatedly proven incapable of vetting pretty much anyone. But hey, Obama does not want us to “discriminate” against Islamic Extremist Terrorists.
Which is more dangerous: Donald Trump’s perceived over-reaction or Obama’s actual under-reaction?
Easy. Trump's plan in unconstitutional.
________________________________________________________________________
That has nothing to do with the question i asked but since you brought it up, since when did the liberals want to start abiding by The Constitution?
Obama's immigration (Amnesty) order is unconstitutional and we don't hear a peep from the left about that one.
You asked which was worse. I answered that Trump's plan was unconstitutional. If you didn't understand that, then you are a moron.
Obama's plan was not unconstitutional, just like Reagan's similar plan was not unconstitutional.
Now, genius, do you see the basic difference on why one is unconstitutional and the other isn't? You won't answer because you are pretty clueless.
_______________________________________________________________________
The people who Donald Trump is talking about keeping out of our country until the government can vet them do not have constitutional rights. That and the fact that you do not know exactly what Mr. Trump’s plan is you are incapable of deciding any constitutionality issues.
The entire religious freedom argument is a joke. The Obama administration just deported many Iraqi Christians who were here on State Department issued visas because there were being persecuted in Iraq because of their faith.
Obama's Immigration (amnesty) order is constitutionally illegal and has been stopped by two federal courts and those court rulings were upheld by a federal appellate court.
Curiously but not surprisingly is that here in the W/P we never hear the liberals calling for Islamic Extremist Terrorists to be kept out of our country when it is clear that the Obama administration is incapable of doing so either by incompetence or willingness.
Trump said that he would ban Muslim immigration "until our representatives can figure out what is going on". What exactly does that mean? Do you support Trump?
_________________________________________________________________________
"What exactly does that mean?"
- are you really that detached from reality? Just look at the Islamic Terrorist Extremist attacks on U.S. soil during the Obama administration. In the latest attack in San Bernadino Obama's Homeland Security Department and FBI failed to detect them.
The Obama administration has repeatedly proven they are incapable of or unwilling to "figure out what is going on" which is exactly what Donald trump is saying.
Anything else you need explained?
That isn't what he said. He made another vague statement and he has no idea about how to accomplish it. Once again, do you support Trump? For once why don't you stand up for someone or something instead of tearing everything down.
________________________________________________________________________
It is exactly what Donald Trump said. The entire sentence ended with “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on”. That is of course the part the liberal media and the left-winger’s here in the W/P leave out.
“he has no idea about how to accomplish it”.
- How would you know since you didn’t even know what he actually said?
BTW – no one here in the W/P ever posts who they support including you.
What I'm wondering is how will these comments effect his business ventures in the Middle East.
What I'm wondering is how will these comments effect his business ventures in the Middle East.
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/trumps-comments-cost-him-money-middle-east-n476966
He's probably having too much fun to worry about such trivial things.
Editorial: No more Donald Trump
The Detroit News 6:43 a.m. EST December 9, 2015There’s a difference between speaking your mind in a way that reflects a healthy disdain for political correctness and being an outrageous, offensive, bigoted boor. Donald Trump can’t see the distinction. Hopefully Republican voters will.
Trump, the wealthy developer and TV showman who thinks he can be president, is building his campaign on a strategy of saying whatever pops into his head. This week that curious head of his has been filled with awful, hateful views of Muslim-Americans.
In response to the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, carried out by a Muslim couple loyal to the Islamic State, Trump is offering solutions that play to a frightened nation’s worst instincts.
He is again advocating for a national registry of Muslims. There’s a reason such a government-compiled list is unconstitutional — it grates against this country’s core values. If Trump’s suggestion conjures images of yellow stars, then you’re on the right track in gauging its wrongness.
Trump now wants to add the closing of America’s borders, not just to Muslim immigrants, but to Muslim tourists and business travelers as well. He’d slam the door even to Muslim-Americans who leave the country for travel abroad, denying them re-entry.
In defending himself from critics, Trump cited the internment of Japanese-Americans by President Franklin Roosevelt during World War II, noting the decision didn’t dampen FDR’s popularity.
Two things about that remark: First, the internment stands as one of the dark blotches on America’s history, not as a tactic worth repeating. And second, running the country isn’t a popularity contest. Decisions are supposed to be made for the good of the nation and all its people, not to gain rating points.
Trump’s offensive proposals are carefully calculated. He knows the American people don’t feel safe, and whenever that’s the case, they are too easily exploited. He is taking advantage of the void left by President Barack Obama’s weak response to terrorism both at home and abroad. And he keenly understands the president has not done enough to convince Americans that federal officials can and will adequately screen the thousands of refugees headed here from Syria and Iraq.
So like any skilled populist, Trump is touching a match to those fears.
And he’s doing so in a most dangerous way. His Muslim scapegoating is particularly unwelcome in Metro Detroit, home to the country’s largest population of Muslim-Americans.
This community has worked especially hard to maintain good relations between its various religious groups throughout the war on terror. While there have been some ugly incidents, on the whole Metro Detroit has managed to live in harmony. It’s why Gov. Rick Snyder felt comfortable initially in requesting the Syrian refugees be settled here.
We don’t need Trump or anyone else stirring the hate pot.
It is encouraging that nearly all of the other Republican candidates have denounced this latest dose of poison from Trump. GOP votes must come to the same point.
We keep waiting for Trump to finally go too far, to say or do the thing that will at last break the back of his campaign. This should be it. If it’s not, those one-third of Republican voters who mistake Trump’s hateful bombast for political courage will have only themselves to blame if he wrecks their party as if it were just another one of his bankrupt Atlantic City casinos.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/editorials/2015/12/09/trump-muslim-ban-terrorism/77021428/
What I'm wondering is how will these comments effect his business ventures in the Middle East.
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/trumps-comments-cost-him-money-middle-east-n476966
He's probably having too much fun to worry about such trivial things.
Wealth is very concentrated in the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia where the Trump brand has become almost ubiquitous. It is also well known that the primary supporters of ISIS and other Middle Eastern terrorist groups are also drawn from the same quarters that do business with Trump.
Should a future aspirant to the US presidency not have done due diligence into all the activities of his business partners?
Private donors from Gulf oil states helping to bankroll salaries of up to 100,000 Isis fighters
Why the Iraq Mess Is So Awkward for Saudi Arabia
What I'm wondering is how will these comments effect his business ventures in the Middle East.
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/trumps-comments-cost-him-money-middle-east-n476966
He's probably having too much fun to worry about such trivial things.
Wealth is very concentrated in the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia where the Trump brand has become almost ubiquitous. It is also well known that the primary supporters of ISIS and other Middle Eastern terrorist groups are also drawn from the same quarters that do business with Trump.
Should a future aspirant to the US presidency not have done due diligence into all the activities of his business partners?
Private donors from Gulf oil states helping to bankroll salaries of up to 100,000 Isis fighters
Why the Iraq Mess Is So Awkward for Saudi Arabia
The real question is not how Trump's comments may affect his Middle East businesses. The question is what groups are his businesses funding in the Middle East, directly or indirectly.
Trump licenses his name in many countries so a "Trump" tower, may not have even been built by him or currently owned by him. He already cashed the check to license his name so he is not worried.
He's only one large scale homeland terrorist attack away from looking like a very smart man and the front runner for President.
Scary and true on a few levels...
BTW – no one here in the W/P ever posts who they support including you.
Not true...
or
