Trump Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vouthon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Alex_H said:
Interesting.
Click to expand...
Even more interesting…
The U.S. Constitution allows barring would-be immigrants who would subvert our Constitution. Imagine an American government official, interviewing an alien seeking admission to our country from, say, Syria:
Click to expand...
U.S. official: “Will you support the United States Constitution?”
Click to expand...
Syrian alien: “Well, sure, except that I believe the government should be overseen by a caliph, who must be Muslim and male, and who must rule in accordance with Islamic law, which no man-made law may contradict. None of this ‘We the People’ stuff; Allah is the sovereign. Non-Muslims should not be required to convert to Islam, of course, but they must submit to the authority of Islamic law — which requires them to live in the second-class status of dhimmitude and to pay a poll tax for that privilege.” “I also believe women must be subservient to men, and that men are permitted to beat their wives if they are disobedient — especially if they refuse sex, in which they must engage on demand. There is no such thing as marital rape, and proving non-marital rape requires testimony from four male witnesses. Outside the home, a woman should cover herself in drab from head to toe. A woman’s testimony in court should be worth only half of a man’s, and her inheritance rights similarly discounted. Men should be able to marry up to four women — women, however, are limited to marrying one man.” “Oh, and Muslims who renounce Islam should be put to death . . . as should homosexuals . . . and blasphemers . . . and adulterers — at least the ones we don’t let off with a mere scourging. The penalty for theft should be amputation of the right hand (for highway robbery, the left foot is also amputated); and for drinking alcohol, the offender is to be scourged with 40 stripes.” “There are a few other odds and ends — you know, jihad and whatnot. But other than that, will I support the Constitution? Sure thing.”
Click to expand...
U.S. official: “Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on a second. That’s not supporting the Constitution. That would be destroying the Constitution.”
Click to expand...
Syrian alien: “Yeah, maybe so. But it’s my religion.”
Click to expand...
U.S. official: “Oh, your religion. Why didn’t you say so? I thought you were spouting some anti-American political ideology. But as long as you say it’s your religion, no problem. C’mon in!”
Click to expand...
Read more at: nationalreview.com/article/439203/immigration-religious-freedom-islamic-sharia-supremacists-can-be-denied-admission
Click to expand...
 
Peter_Plato said:
The redeeming qualities and known leadership of the “British leader” didn’t make their appearance until the British leader was put to the test. If the Brits had gone with their initial impressions of Churchill, the world would be in a very different state.

So the question revolves around whether Trump, like Churchill, should be given the opportunity to prove himself, as Churchill eventually did, or whether he shouldn’t even be given the opportunity because of the “flaws” which were similarly apparent in Churchill early on?

Churchill was given the opportunity. You are advocating not giving Trump the opportunity, but going, rather, with someone who has not shown her mettle but has, instead, consistently shown a predilection for using political power as a source of lucre for herself and those close to her. It doesn’t appear that she is even interested in perusing her “redeeming qualities” unless there is money to be made from those.
Click to expand...
I’m just curious how old was Churchill before he got to prove himself by being tested, and how old is Trump now?
 
gilliam said:
Trump meets with Hispanic leaders in New York cbsn.ws/2bvZ44h
Click to expand...
Trump has said enough things for the Hispanic community to know that he will turn his back on them.

Are Hispanics going to vote for him? Of course they will, but he will not get president Bush (43) numbers.
 
***How many people does Trump himself personally employ?
THOUSANDS.

22,450

or

34,000

And they all seem to like working for him.

money.cnn.com/2015/09/03/news/economy/donald-trump-jobs-created/

A CNNMoney analysis calculates at least 34,000 jobs attributable to the Donald.
It’s not the most straightforward calculation. His company, The Trump Organization, is private, so it does not have to disclose information publicly about how much money it makes or how many people it employs. His campaign didn’t give a specific figure either.
CNNMoney turned to PrivCo, which researches and tracks privately-held companies.
According to PrivCo, the Trump Organization has 22,450 employees and brought in $9.5 billion in annual revenue last year.

In addition, when a television program interviewed contractors who were working on his airplane, they were hoping that Trump would hire them directly. They really like him.
 
chero23 said:
Trump has said enough things for the Hispanic community to know that he will turn his back on them.

Are Hispanics going to vote for him? Of course they will, but he will not get president Bush (43) numbers.
Click to expand...
Trump’s actual deeds contradict what you are saying.

People like him … because he is generous and because he keeps his word.
 
lmachine said:
Entry requirements for immigrants do not apply to someone who has obtained citizenship.
Click to expand...
So do you support those gaining citizenship who would work to undermine the Constitution or who hold adamant beliefs that are contrary to it? The only reason such people can now obtain citizenship is because there is nothing preventative that stops them from doing so.

So, once again, are you in favour of granting citizenship to those whose views are inconsistent with the Constitution and would work to fundamentally change to nature of governance in the country?
 
Peter_Plato said:
So do you support those gaining citizenship who would work to undermine the Constitution or who hold adamant beliefs that are contrary to it? The only reason such people can now obtain citizenship is because there is nothing preventative that stops them from doing so.

So, once again, are you in favour of granting citizenship to those whose views are inconsistent with the Constitution and would work to fundamentally change to nature of governance in the country?
Click to expand...
I believe the primary requirement for citizenship for the current regime is indication they will vote Democrat
 
Peter_Plato said:
So, once again, are you in favour of granting citizenship to those whose views are inconsistent with the Constitution and would work to fundamentally change to nature of governance in the country?
Click to expand...
Anyone who satisfies citizenship requirements should be granted citizenship. If they want to change things about how our government works then they are free to lobby for it just like anyone else. Plenty of people have views that are inconsistent with the Constitution and work to change it.
 
Peter_Plato said:
Not that far apart, actually.
Churchill was about 66, Trump is about 70.
Click to expand...
Well, if you only focus on when Churchill became Prime Minister, he was 66. But he was 26 when he first served in Parliament, and 37 when he was first appointed Lord of the Admiralty. So by the time he was 66 and became PM, he had a long history of public service in which he had already proven himself numerous times.

Trump, on the other hand, has never served in a public office, and he is already 70. It is a little too late to start learning what public service is all about.
 
Millie123 said:
I think that Trump sounds sooo naive regarding the black vote
I think that when Trump didn’t disavow the endorsement he received by David Duke and the KKK, he alienated his opportunity to gain any significant support from the black community. Strategically speaking, that was a very poor decision. The black community has been predominantly democrat since the 1960’s and the era of the civil rights movement. Trump should have been courting the black vote from the beginning of his campaign if he had any hope of gaining any significant amount of their support to win the election. If he thinks now is the time to start wooing the African Americans, I think he’s doing far too little and much too late.
Click to expand...
Peter_Plato said:
Not that far apart, actually.
Churchill was about 66, Trump is about 70.
Click to expand...
Churchill was in his sixties when he became prime minister, but he served in the military and then in government beginning in his twenties. By the time he became prime minister he had forty years of military and government experience, including during WW I. So actually pretty far apart.
 
Millie123 said:
I think that Trump sounds sooo naive regarding the black vote
I think that when Trump didn’t disavow the endorsement he received by David Duke and the KKK, he alienated his opportunity to gain any significant support from the black community. Strategically speaking, that was a very poor decision. The black community has been predominantly democrat since the 1960’s and the era of the civil rights movement. Trump should have been courting the black vote from the beginning of his campaign if he had any hope of gaining any significant amount of their support to win the election. If he thinks now is the time to start wooing the African Americans, I think he’s doing far too little and much too late.
Click to expand...
Thorolfr said:
This statement was especially naive:

“Look how much African-American communities have suffered under Democratic control. To those I say the following: What do you have to lose? You’re living in poverty. Your schools are no good. You have no jobs - 58 percent of your youth is unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose?”

He makes it sound as if all black people are living in poverty, send their children to bad schools and have no jobs.
Click to expand...
He’s not really trying to get a significant share of the black vote - he knows that is not possible. He is trying to soften his image so he does not continue to lose more segments of the white vote.
 
Its being reported this morning that Trump completely shifted his immigration strategy during his recent meeting with Hispanic leaders. He apparently said he is now open to a path to some kind of legal residency status for undocumented immigrants.

univision.com/univision-news/politics/trump-now-says-he-plans-to-legalize-some-undocumented-immigrants

His spokesperson apparently said that it “remains to be seen” whether Trump still supports the deportation plan he promised during the primaries.

Pretty dramatic shift.
 
TMC said:
He’s not really trying to get a significant share of the black vote - he knows that is not possible. He is trying to soften his image so he does not continue to lose more segments of the white vote.
Click to expand...
Maureen Dowd at the New York Times mocked the sincerity of Mr. Trump’s recent apology for saying the “wrong things” in a pretended “Open Letter From Mr. Trump”: “I’m sorry I asked African-Americans ‘What do you have to lose by supporting me?’ in front of a crowd of white people. I’m sorry I can never find my African-American.”
 
oneofmany said:
LOL, she IS the gridlock in Washington.
Click to expand...
I have to agree at least she is the dishonesty in politics… poster girl…

I hear those negative things they say about Trump and I don’t know enough to say why they are saying that. If it has to do with Mr. Romney… is it sour grapes? Is it something deeper? As for those other people who should be in the know… what do they know? I don’t know but when they start painting Hilary with a beautiful, cooperating, healing, helping brush I just don’t feel the warm fuzzy I’m supposed to. I keep thinking of all the little ditties I’ve heard over the last 40 years and it’s a feeling I get when I hear her name, like I don’t trust her so I’m looking for the REAL story to come out.

When I heard the name of Mike Pense. I didn’t get a feeling one way or the other so I was eager to learn.
When I heard the name of Kaine I didn’t get a feeling one way or the other so I was ready to learn.

I’m still listening. I watch Trump because I really didn’t have a feeling about him at the beginning but I thought he MIGHT be someone we could trust. I’m trusting him more and more and Hil less and less… JUST MHO!
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Well, if you only focus on when Churchill became Prime Minister, he was 66. But he was 26 when he first served in Parliament, and 37 when he was first appointed Lord of the Admiralty. So by the time he was 66 and became PM, he had a long history of public service in which he had already proven himself numerous times.

Trump, on the other hand, has never served in a public office, and he is already 70. It is a little too late to start learning what public service is all about.
Click to expand...
Go back and read what Meltzerboy asked.

He didn’t ask when Churchill started public service he asked when he proved himself.

Churchill had some radical misconceptions about what public service entailed until the beginning of the war when he proved himself. Prior to that he made some egregious political miscalculations, was not well liked and considered a crank.
 
TMC said:
Churchill was in his sixties when he became prime minister, but he served in the military and then in government beginning in his twenties. By the time he became prime minister he had forty years of military and government experience, including during WW I. So actually pretty far apart.
Click to expand...
And you, too, need to go back and read the series of posts leading to that one. In particular, my post 697 where I spell out why Churchill’s years of public service prior to the war were not as stellar as some suppose.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14121877&postcount=697

I am well aware of when his political career started, but that is not the issue, now is it? The issue concerns when he actually got things right as a public servant. Advocating the use of chemicals on Kurdish tribesmen or pushing for the sterilization of the mentally infirm is not what I would call “getting things right.” Would you?

Meltzerboy followed the discussion and asked the correct question. I don’t think rehashing the same points will get us anywhere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top