Trump!!!

Which candidate is willing to say "radical Islamic terrorism"? Probably only one.
 
One other thing, if Trump offered a conservative policy agenda, I'd overlook that he's an ******* and has less discipline and maturity than your average fourth grader, hold my nose, and vote for him to keep Hillary out of office. (And then take three or four showers.) However, he doesn't offer a conservative agenda. He basically offers liberalism but combines it with being an *******. I'm not interested in endorsing that.
 
A HC victory is looking pretty inevitable. Trump continues to put his foot in his mouth, ex. his tweets after the shooting in Orlando. In my opinion, he will continue to fall in the polls--people have been entertained, but as it gets closer to the real election, I just don't see enough people actually voting for Trump. (which, in my opinion, is a good thing)
I read an interesting op-ed that a Kasich veep pick might be Trump's only chance, as he would pick up some key swing states.

I think Kasich is far too honorable, and young in his political career to hitch his wagon to that load of crazy.
All I can think of now, is some kind of overthrow at the convention...but unless Trump is agreeable, I think that is too risky. I have read he has zero infrastructure or ground game, a mere couple if million for ads v. HC's 72 million. He has planted his flag in the ground about being a self-funding candidate, so I don't see him asking for money to counter what will be an avalanche of HC ads. He can't tweet his way to a victory. The real battle is just beginning.
Trump is a narcissist who hates to lose...is there any way he realizes he can't win and bows out gracefully, still being able to boast about how he shook things up, changed the voting landscape, blah, blah, blah? Is there any way he gives his blessing to Kasich, who was the only one who beat HC in the polls...any way that he could salvage pride and tell his followers to support Kasich?
I know it's a pipe dream, but that is what I pray for. Maybe Trump finally realizes he is in over his head, and stepping aside is less painful and humiliating than a HC landslide. And it is looking that way.
I think people are desperate not to vote for her, there just needs to be a slightly viable other candidate.
Is there any way this could happen, or did I pick a bad week to give up drinking?
 
Htown77 said:
I believe that Hillary and Trump will both be disasters. I cannot in good conscience vote for either. It's like choosing between the communists and nazis in the spanish civil war. I will not support either of these things.......
Click to expand...

Assuming arguendo that Hillary and Trump would be identical on policy, legislation, the economy and foreign affairs, the tie-breaker is still the effect on the SCOTUS. The balance of the Court is now in play and this single difference will outlast two full terms of either of them in the WH. SCOTUS rulings matter more in our day-to-day lives than do almost all Presidential actions.
 
Holland
I know Trump can not control his mouth or twitter fingers
What did he tweet about the Orlando shootings.

The usual suspects are already using this horrible event to call for ban on guns. If even one person at that club had had a gun the result might have been different
 
On Trump ' s website is a pretty sound statement on the Orlando murders.
Www.Donaldjtrump.com
Ignore the donate plea. Go to menu and then press releases
Not sure what is upsetting to people on the right
 
Last edited:
Mr. Deez said:
One other thing, if Trump offered a conservative policy agenda, I'd overlook that he's an ******* and has less discipline and maturity than your average fourth grader, hold my nose, and vote for him to keep Hillary out of office. (And then take three or four showers.) However, he doesn't offer a conservative agenda. He basically offers liberalism but combines it with being an *******. I'm not interested in endorsing that.
Click to expand...
I have the same sentiment. I am trying to convince myself to vote for anyone but HRC or Trump, but I realize it is only a vote for HRC. This troubles me greatly. At this point, I only hope for HRC indictment, Biden gets put in and we have four more years of Obama only with the entertaining gaffes of Biden.

My other choice is to convert all assets into gold bars, stop contributing-start consuming and get on the government teet. Hell, maybe that sounds pretty good.:yippee:
 
theiioftx said:
I have the same sentiment. I am trying to convince myself to vote for anyone but HRC or Trump, but I realize it is only a vote for HRC. This troubles me greatly. At this point, I only hope for HRC indictment, Biden gets put in and we have four more years of Obama only with the entertaining gaffes of Biden.

My other choice is to convert all assets into gold bars, stop contributing-start consuming and get on the government teet. Hell, maybe that sounds pretty good.:yippee:
Click to expand...

No doubt, and believe me, I have great conflict over this vote. I wasn't a Cruz fan or a Carson fan, but if either of them had been the nominee, I wouldn't consider voting third party for one second. I'd happily vote for them just to deny the office to HRC. I know and fully appreciate how bad she is. The GOP had to lower the bar drastically to make me indifferent to a Clinton victory.

My greatest hope would be for the delegates to come up with a defensible reason to nominate someone other than Trump. Though Trump is doing a good job creating such a reason, I doubt it'll happen.

If that doesn't happen, I would prefer to see Hillary implode somehow giving the nomination to Biden. I would consider him an improvement. He's a goofball and perhaps more liberal than the Clintons, but I've never doubted his character or patriotism.
 
Horn6721 said:
On Trump ' s website is a pretty sound statement on the Orlando murders.
Click to expand...

Trump is renewing his proposal to ban Muslim immigration. But this attack was committed by a natural-born citizen who was raised here in the US. I don't have stats in front of me, but my impression is that most recent terror events fall into this category. Banning Muslim immigration will do nothing to confront such attacks.

Our biggest challenge is preventing US-born Muslims from becoming radicalized, and preventing US-born non-Muslims from converting to radical Islam. There are an estimated 3.3 million Muslims in this US. Even if 99.99% of them decide to live their lives without resorting to terrorism, that still leaves 330 terrorists.

My fear is that Trump's approach to terrorism -- bombing or invading Muslim countries (or threatening to), banning Muslim immigration, harping on the "Islamic" part of radical Islamic terrorism, and otherwise alienating the Muslim community -- will push that 99.99% number in the direction of 99.98% or, god forbid, 99.9%.

Every decision we make regarding terrorism has to include an analysis of the fundamental question "How will disaffected domestic Muslims react to this?" If the answer is that it will piss them off, we need to think twice before heading in that direction. This shouldn't be a litmus test, but it has to be a significant factor in the analysis.
 
NJlonghorn said:
Trump is renewing his proposal to ban Muslim immigration. But this attack was committed by a natural-born citizen who was raised here in the US. I don't have stats in front of me, but my impression is that most recent terror events fall into this category. Banning Muslim immigration will do nothing to confront such attacks.

Our biggest challenge is preventing US-born Muslims from becoming radicalized, and preventing US-born non-Muslims from converting to radical Islam. There are an estimated 3.3 million Muslims in this US. Even if 99.99% of them decide to live their lives without resorting to terrorism, that still leaves 330 terrorists.

My fear is that Trump's approach to terrorism -- bombing or invading Muslim countries (or threatening to), banning Muslim immigration, harping on the "Islamic" part of radical Islamic terrorism, and otherwise alienating the Muslim community -- will push that 99.99% number in the direction of 99.98% or, god forbid, 99.9%.

Every decision we make regarding terrorism has to include an analysis of the fundamental question "How will disaffected domestic Muslims react to this?" If the answer is that it will piss them off, we need to think twice before heading in that direction. This shouldn't be a litmus test, but it has to be a significant factor in the analysis.
Click to expand...

Here is the challenge with Trump's approach. He says the Muslim community needs to better police itself, including on informing on radicals that represents a partnership. This is a sensible stance that we'd all probably agree on. Then he advocates for blanket approaches like "ban Muslims from entering the country" which is anything but partnering. If you demonize and demagogue the Muslim community what is their incentive to be informants which is the single most effective solution in preventing these tragedies?
 
NJlonghorn said:
Every decision we make regarding terrorism has to include an analysis of the fundamental question "How will disaffected domestic Muslims react to this?" If the answer is that it will piss them off, we need to think twice before heading in that direction. This shouldn't be a litmus test, but it has to be a significant factor in the analysis.
Click to expand...

You're getting far too nuanced for Trumpism. Trump and "analysis" don't go together.
 
Trump is advocating a temporary ban until we can know who is coming. Why do people leave that part out?
Perhaps if we'd had a better vetting system Mateen's father who has expressed support for the taliban would not have been allowed in.
NJ
On American born kids of muslim immigrants you ask a good question. Why do so many turn radical and even join ISIS etc? Do the parents teach hatred of America? Do mosques?
It sure isn't because we taxpayers haven't given them enough benefits and opportunity.

I COULD NOT DISAGREE MORE with this
"Every decision we make regarding terrorism has to include an analysis of the fundamental question "How will disaffected domestic Muslims react to this?" If the answer is that it will piss them off, we need to think twice before heading in that direction. This shouldn't be a litmus test, but it has to be a significant factor in the analysis."

let's ask the parents and families of the people murdered by that 'disaffected domestic Muslim" if they think we need to worry about pissing the muslims off. How much more pissed off could Mateen have been? the Boston brothers? the San Bernardino killers? Major Hasan?
That is a really disturbing statement which means the Islamic terrorist have won.:brickwall:
 
Joe Fan said:
Uh oh. Going directly to insult = concession
Click to expand...

Actually, it doesn't, but I'm not interested in engaging a pissing match. My point here is that your assumption false, so it's a pointless exercise to assume it for the sake of argument (or "arguendo" if you're going for pretentiousness).
 
mchammer said:
Which candidate is willing to say "radical Islamic terrorism"? Probably only one.
Click to expand...
So does the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" have some magical power that I need help in discerning. If Obama said it would it have the affect like "Abracadabra" and the terrorists would start being nice?
 
Horn6721 said:
let's ask the parents and families of the people murdered by that 'disaffected domestic Muslim" if they think we need to worry about pissing the muslims off. How much more pissed off could Mateen have been? the Boston brothers? the San Bernardino killers? Major Hasan?
That is a really disturbing statement which means the Islamic terrorist have won.:brickwall:
Click to expand...

Mateen couldn't have been more pissed off, or at least not meaningfully so. The question is how many more people will get to that point? If we react in a stupid way, we could drive the numbers of home-grown terrorists through the roof. But at least we'll feel good about having done something.
 
Crockett said:
So does the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" have some magical power that I need help in discerning. If Obama said it would it have the affect like "Abracadabra" and the terrorists would start being nice?
Click to expand...
Need to name the issue before you can stop it. Blaming the attacks on intolerance have different end results.
 
mchammer said:
Need to name the issue before you can stop it. Blaming the attacks on intolerance have different end results.
Click to expand...

That's a good bumper sticker but what does it mean. Does it change how we prosecute our war against ISIS? Does it change the way FBI/CIA conduct their jobs in rooting out domestic terrorists?

Who is blaming this on intolerance? What some are saying is that intolerance can add more fuel to the existing fire.
 
NJ
I feel very sorry for you . When you worry more about pissing off disaffected domestic terrorists more than you worry about innocent people like the ones murdered you have let the terrorists win.
IF the FBI had kept this muslim under surveillance and prevented him from buying more guns CAIR and probably ACLU would have screeched loudly about profiling just because he was a muslim which of course would have pissed off your disaffected muslims. But that could have prevented to loss of all those innocents.
Would you have been ok with the FBI preventing him from buying guns, out of an abundance of caution of course? Knowing what all the FBI knew it appears they might have followed your philosophy; do not do anything to piss of muslims.
 
Horn6721 said:
NJ
I feel very sorry for you . When you worry more about pissing off disaffected domestic terrorists more than you worry about innocent people like the ones murdered you have let the terrorists win.
IF the FBI had kept this muslim under surveillance and prevented him from buying more guns CAIR and probably ACLU would have screeched loudly about profiling just because he was a muslim which of course would have pissed off your disaffected muslims. But that could have prevented to loss of all those innocents.
Would you have been ok with the FBI preventing him from buying guns, out of an abundance of caution of course? Knowing what all the FBI knew it appears they might have followed your philosophy; do not do anything to piss of muslims.
Click to expand...

I think most on the left would have been OK with anyone being stopped from purchasing guns. You must be getting your issues confused because it's the Republicans (proxy for the NRA) that think terrorist watch lists can stop people from flying but not from purchasing assault rifles.
 
?No you are trying to deflect the issue. The terror watch list is NOT the same thing as the FBI putting someone on list to stop them from buying guns
And if you are honest you will acknowledge that CAIR and likely the ACLU would have screamed to every media outlet they could get to listen that the FBI had profiled Mateenand violated his civil rights
Which would have pissed off the disaffected domestic muslims.
 
Croc,
So how should the FBI have handled this ?
They did nothing ,so no new muslims were pissed off but 50 innocent gays died.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top