Trump Thread Two

[Thorolfr]

They most certainly seems obsessed with them .20 Years ago Donald Trumps spouse had nude photos taken. Hillary Clinton’s spouse was sexually harassing women in the White House. By all means let’s make this election about how the presidential candidates spouses comported themselves 20 years ago

You’re right. We need to get back to how the candidates are comporting themselves now. Let’s hear what Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte has to say about Mr. Trump’s recent behavior:

“The Khan family deserves nothing less than our deepest support, respect and gratitude, and they have every right to express themselves in any way they choose. I am appalled that Donald Trump would disparage them and that he had the gall to compare his own sacrifices to those of a Gold Star family.”

 

[estesbob]

You’re right. We need to get back to how the candidates are comporting themselves now. Let’s hear what Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte has to say about Mr. Trump’s recent behavior:

What Khan said about Trump could’ve been said about Obama, Hillary ,Bill Clinton and either of the vice president picks . It’s interesting that we did not see the same outrage from the Democrats and the mainstream media when Hillary Clinton called the relatives of those she left to Die in Bengazi liars

 

[Thorolfr]

What Khan said about Trump could’ve been said about Obama, Hillary ,Bill Clinton and either of the vice president picks . It’s interesting that we did not see the same outrage from the Democrats and the mainstream media when Hillary Clinton called the relatives of those she left to Die in Bengazi liars

Mr Trump said, “I was viciously attacked by Mr. Khan at the Democratic Convention.” What he should realize is that a public fight with a Gold Star family is not a fight that he can possibly win. This fight will be just like the fight he had with Judge Curiel, a fight that he will lose and which will damage his campaign.

 

[estesbob]

Mr Trump said, “I was viciously attacked by Mr. Khan at the Democratic Convention.” What he should realize is that a public fight with a Gold Star family is not a fight that he can possibly win. This fight will be just like the fight he had with Judge Curiel, a fight that he will lose and which will damage his campaign.

There is nothing Khan said that did not apply to every single candidate for president and vice president in this election or to Barrack Obama Unlike with Hillary nobody died But I’m sure we’ll see a few more days of false outrage but in the end it matters not

 

[Thorolfr]

There is nothing Khan said that did not apply to every single candidate for president and vice president in this election or to Barrack Obama Unlike with Hillary nobody died But I’m sure we’ll see a few more days of false outrage but in the end it matters not

Perhaps you’re right that it won’t matter. But according to today’s New York Times:

Mr. Trump appeared to be caught on Sunday in perhaps the biggest crisis of his campaign, rivaling the uproar in June after he attacked a federal judge, Gonzalo P. Curiel, over his “Mexican heritage.” By going after a military family and trafficking in ethnic stereotypes, Mr. Trump once again breached multiple norms of American politics, redoubling pressure on his fellow Republicans to choose between defending his remarks or breaking publicly with their nominee.

I suspect that when Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte said that she is “appalled” by Mr. Trump’s behavior, she’s probably kind of worried that she might get drug down by her party’s presidential nominee this year and lose her seat in the Senate.

 

[estesbob]

Perhaps you’re right that it won’t matter. But according to today’s New York Times:

I suspect that when Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte said that she is “appalled” by Mr. Trump’s behavior, she’s probably kind of worried that she might get drug down by her party’s presidential nominee this year and lose her seat in the Senate.

Oh my!!!. The New York Times found Republican who doesn’t like Donald Trump!! Guess that means elections over.

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve heard that rationalization from Democrat Catholics about every Republican candidate for president in the last 30 years . Trump has given us a list of pro-life judges that he has promised to point to the Supreme Court. Again we’re being told to vote against Trump because of what he might do as opposed to what Hillary Clinton has adamantly declared that she will do.

Of course to vote for Hillary we to have to ignore her absolutely disastrous term as Secretary of State , her belief that people must change their religious beliefs to embrace abortion and the fact that all she has really accomplished in life is marry Bill Clinton

Promised?

Really? He used that word?

And even if he didn’t use that specific word, he has as much as given his word on this?

Can you offer the text/video where he has made this “promise”?

bob, way back on page 19 I asked you this.

Would you mind addressing this?

Thanks.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Perhaps you’re right that it won’t matter. But according to today’s New York Times:

I suspect that when Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte said that she is “appalled” by Mr. Trump’s behavior, she’s probably kind of worried that she might get drug down by her party’s presidential nominee this year and lose her seat in the Senate.

The horrible Judge Curial comments cited there, for all their horribleness, Trump came back from that. If he can come back from that I think he can come back from this. The controversy about his comments seem to be about the questioning why Khzir Khan’s wife was quiet and the issue over sacrifices…

Khzir Khan has unfortunately delved into attacks, such as saying Trump has no soul, never made any sacrifices and attacked Melania Trump’s Speech… what does her speech have to do with anything to with the proposal of a temporary ban on immigration., I guess Khzir Khan attacked the speech because of what Trump said regarding his questioning why his wife did not say anything, and so perhaps Khan wanted to get back by saying something about Trump’s wife… I’m guessing though I could be wrong… but he didn’t need to go there with these various attacks. If he opposes the idea of a temporary Muslim ban from certain areas of the world, argue against that, but the personal attacks are disappointing to see.

I’ve also seen numerous people point out in Twitter that it was the war that Hillary Clinton voted in favour for, that Khzir Khan’s son ended up dying in.

What does he have to say about that? He spoke at the DNC, with the candidate being Hillary Clinton, who voted in favour of the Iraq war?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What Khan said about Trump could’ve been said about Obama, Hillary ,Bill Clinton and either of the vice president picks

But only Trump called for the banning of immigrants based on being of that man’s religion. That’s why Khan offered to lend Trump his copy of the constitution so he could read it.

 

[_Abyssinia]

But only Trump called for the banning of immigrants based on being of that man’s religion. That’s why Khan offered to lend Trump his copy of the constitution so he could read it.

But it’s not clear that it is unconstitutional. There are people with differing views, Even if it is not unconstitutional, that doesn’t mean it would be a good thing to do, but it’s just not clear it is unconstitutional. The temporary ban proposal can be seen as a response to terrorism and if the Obama administration and other governments had managed to deal with the threat of terrorism better, would such a ban have been proposed?

 

[Thorolfr]

What does he have to say about that? He spoke at the DNC, with the candidate being Hillary Clinton, who voted in favour of the Iraq war?

Who voted for the Iraq war is a non-issue in this campaign since Mike Pence voted for it. In fact, almost all the Republicans in the House (216) vote for it and only 6 voted against. 48 Republican Senators voted for it and only 1 voted against. That was every single Republican Senator but one.

 

[estesbob]

But only Trump called for the banning of immigrants based on being of that man’s religion. That’s why Khan offered to lend Trump his copy of the constitution so he could read it.

Hillary voted for the war . Hillary let four people die in Bengazi. Where’s Khans outrage over that ?

Trump did not pick a fight with the Goldstar family. They picked a fight with him . They’re nothing more than pawns used by Hillary to try to deflect attention from her terrible foreign-policy , criminal negligence in Benghazi and the repeated lies & corruption

 

[_Abyssinia]

Who voted for the Iraq war is a non-issue in this campaign since Mike Pence voted for it. In fact, almost all the Republicans in the House (216) vote for it and only 6 voted against. 48 Republican Senators voted for it and only 1 voted against. That was every single Republican Senator but one.

Trump brought up the fact that Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war on Twitter in a tweet regarding the Khans, so it’s something Trump is pointing out. I think there are areas where Pence and Trump disagree on, and this is probably going to be one of them… and Mike Pence is the VP candidate, not the presidential candidate, whereas Hillary Clinton who voted in favour of the war is the presidential candidate on the Democratic side.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Trump did not pick a fight with the Goldstar family. They picked a fight with him.

I think Khan’s family might say otherwise. They might say that Trump’s call for banning immigration based on being Muslim is an insult to them, so Trump picked on them first by insulting their religion.

 

[_Abyssinia]

"Mr. Trump’s policy director, Stephen Miller, said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal on Monday, “The best way to prevent continued radicalization from developing inside America is to suspend temporarily immigration from regions that have been a major source for terrorists and their supporters coming to the U.S.”

wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-back-pedals-on-banning-muslims-from-u-s-1467058774

That doesn’t sound like it would be only Muslims that would be temporarily banned from coming to the USA? It sounds like the proposal has been changed somewhat from what it was months ago?

 

[Little_Sheep]

I trust her. Implicitly.

Thank you for your voice in this thread.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But it’s not clear that it is unconstitutional. There are people with differing views, Even if it is not unconstitutional, that doesn’t mean it would be a good thing to do, but it’s just not clear it is unconstitutional. The temporary ban proposal can be seen as a response to terrorism and if the Obama administration and other governments had managed to deal with the threat of terrorism better, would such a ban have been proposed?

You are trying to justify the ban on Muslims, but that is not the point. The point is there is a reason why only Trump was the target of Mr. Khan’s criticism. Rightly or wrongly, Trump is different from Clinton or any other candidate. This is a direct response to the claim that “Anything Khan said about Trump could also be said of any other candidate running”. That was clearly false.

As for what the temporary ban can be seen as, the temporary Japanese internment during WWII could also be seen as a response to the threat of Japanese sabotage and invasion. That did not make it right.

 

[_Abyssinia]

You are trying to justify the ban on Muslims, but that is not the point. The point is there is a reason why only Trump was the target of Mr. Khan’s criticism. Rightly or wrongly, Trump is different from Clinton or any other candidate. This is a direct response to the claim that “Anything Khan said about Trump could also be said of any other candidate running”. That was clearly false.

As for what the temporary ban can be seen as, the temporary Japanese internment during WWII could also be seen as a response to the threat of Japanese sabotage and invasion. That did not make it right.

I’m not trying to justify a Muslim ban, I am simply trying to understand why Trump proposed it in the first place and the reason presumably is a response to the way terrorism has been dealt with, and by the way it’s not clear at all it is a Muslim ban, see post #340. It appears now to be a ban for people from certain areas of the world and not specified by religion, but area.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I’m not trying to justify a Muslim ban, I am simply trying to understand why Trump proposed it in the first place and the reason presumably is a response to the way terrorism has been dealt with, and by the way it’s not clear at all it is a Muslim ban, see post #340. It appears now to be a ban for people from certain areas of the world and not specified by religion, but area.

That is an improvement. But the fact is that when Trump first announced his plan, it was “Muslims”. Perhaps his advisors finally convinced him that such wording was problematic, so he changed it. The post of mine that you responded to was my attempt to explain why Mr. Khan could reasonably target Trump with his remarks, and no one else.

 

[Thorolfr]

I’m not trying to justify a Muslim ban, I am simply trying to understand why Trump proposed it in the first place and the reason presumably is a response to the way terrorism has been dealt with, and by the way it’s not clear at all it is a Muslim ban, see post #340. It appears now to be a ban for people from certain areas of the world and not specified by religion, but area.

Donald Trump has said people from France and Germany could face ‘extreme vetting’ before entering the United States because their countries have been ‘compromised by terrorism’.

In his nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, he said he wanted to crack down on immigration with countries where terror attacks were rife.
He expanded on his aggressive policy on NBC’s Meet The Press where he blamed France and Germany for letting terror flourish, saying: ‘It’s their own fault… They allowed people to come into their territory.’

‘Here’s my plan - here is what I want: Extreme vetting. Tough word. Extreme vetting,’ he told Chuck Todd.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3705400/Trump-says-French-Germans-face-extreme-vetting-entering-compromised-terrorism.html

So it looks like we can count out even allowing French and German tourists coming to visit the US for some time under a Trump presidency. There are probably also a lot of potential terrorists in Britain, so we probably wouldn’t want anyone entering the US from there either. Belgians should also be ruled out since a number of terrorists have been arrested there as well.