- This topic has 17 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
He wants to lose. He supports Hillary.
This article is a year old, so I don’t base much into it, but recent examples make me wonder…
http://blackbag.gawker.com/is-donald-trump-running-a-false-flag-campaign-to-help-h-1723925057
Like you, I can’t bring myself to believe this, but it’s an intriguing prospect.
If true, it’s a terrible subversion of the political process, but one that the GOP deserves.
My favorite paragraph from the article;
Boiled down, Trump’s appeal to the Republican Party’s base consists of his willingness to say nakedly racist statements and his promises to enact equally racist legislation.
But why is that appeal surprising?
In its contemporary manifestation, the GOP has repeatedly sought the support of voters who wish to disempower and intimidate racial minorities.
This isn’t just about the party’s bizarre obsession with upholding the sanctity of the Confederate flag.
To this day, for example, the party continues to advocate for Voter ID laws, which are ostensibly designed to combat in-person voter fraud—a virtually non-existent phenomenon—but in practice help prevent a disproportionate number of eligible non-white voters from actually voting.
Only in a bizzaro GOP world would Hillary be blamed for tRump. This is Alex Jones stuff that will unfortunately be given further credence after tRump’s defeat. It will be as good an excuse as any other.
He didn’t say Muslims would be banned indefinitely, but that there needs to be a better vetting system in place to prevent Muslim terrorism.
A wall with the purpose of thwarting illegal immigration is racist in what way?
The other two have nothing to do with legislation.
You can’t have it both ways.
A better vetting system for purchasing firearms is what is needed. But no, can’t have that, NRA won’t allow it.
Show us how that is not good and won’t work but a tighter vetting system for immigrants is good and will work. Timothy McVeigh, The Unabomber, Clayton Waagner, Eric Rudolph, Robert Goldstein, William Krar and Judith Bruey, Army of God, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, George Metesky, David Berkowitz and Jeffrey Dahmer were all home grown terrorists. How is better immigration vetting going to stop that? However in some cases a better vetting system for firearms purchase might have stopped some of the aforementioned.
The conservatives don’t believe in a better vetting system for immigration, anyway. They want a wall.
And how is this all racist you ask? Because it targets a whole group of law abiding people not a group of law breakers. Besides, the vetting is already quite intense, a fact largely ignored by donald and those that find their noses up his ass daily defending his atrocious stink.
He didn’t say Muslims would be banned indefinitely, but that there needs to be a better vetting system in place to prevent Muslim terrorism.
And what in the current vetting system needs to be improved upon?
Please be specific and cite your sources.
Otherwise you’re just regurgitating talking points.Calling for the ban of members of an entire religion, temporary or indefinitely, is by literal definition racist.
Care to try again?
This from Politico, (in a story detailing the myriad of self-inflicted wounds the Trump campaign is attempting to control) and the same is being reported from other news outlets:
But the billionaire’s foreign policy speech Monday afternoon on defeating the Islamic State is supposed to be yet another opportunity for Trump to reset the race and stay on message. In it, Trump is expected to propose screening immigrants with an ideological questionnaire to determine whether potential immigrants support American values.
That’s his brilliant proposal? Let’s present a pop quiz? How would that go, exactly?
U.S. Immigration: “Hey there! We were wondering, would you mind taking this questionnaire? We’ll be asking you some questions about your baseball, your mom, and apple pie. If you answer correctly, you’ll have been deemed ideologically compatible with American values and allowed entry into the country. Now, remember, no lying”!
Immigrant: “You got it. By the way, I love Taylor Swift, The New York Mets, and really enjoy an upscale seafood experience at your American Red Lobster”.
U.S. Immigration: “Welcome”!Memo from Earth:
1. The Federal government already has and employs a wide array of vetting measures in regards to immigration. The ignorant and fear mongering comments to the contrary you hear from Trump are a lie.
2. If Hillary Clinton proposed something that idiotic the Trump supporters hereabouts be falling over yourselves to criticize her. Fox News would have a complete melt down, Hannity would be red faced and sweating turkey gravy, and the loon patrol would be widely ridiculing the proposal.P.S. Trump is still a racist and a bigot. Supporting him is supporting those kinds of statements. On the bright side, you’re in the company of both David Duke and the leader of American Nazi Party. That’s something, right?
I was about to ask how the vetting system might work–would visa applicants have to sign an affidavit stating, “I am not a Muslim?” I see, however, if there is a quiz, perhaps one of the questions might be, “Do you belong to a mosque (not a church or synagogue)?” This has too much of a McCarthyesque air to it.
“There is not a Mahometan bone in my body.”
There’s new detail from Herr Drumpf’s speech today:
Trump’s proposal will include what he calls “extreme, extreme, vetting”. (No details of any kind provided, of course.)
Presumably this is akin to Double Secret Probation.
Though he did share it would include the “Excuse me, but are you a terrorist”? questionnaire which he’d like to administer to everyone entering the U.S.
Wow, that’s smart. And practical! It’s in no way at all completely logistically unworkable combined with being colossally moronic and utterly ineffective. LOL.
This dude is magic. The intellect is dizzying. I just can’t keep up with the brilliance. Too much raw IQ, baby.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.