Donald Trump - Opinions?

[Federberg]

Trump is a Xenophobe? I know at least two of his wives have been foreign.

I'm not sure how else one can describe his comments about Mexicans and Muslims!

 

[brokenshoelace]

Trump is a Xenophobe? I know at least two of his wives have been foreign.

Mate, this sounds awfully similar to the laughable "some of my best friends are black" line of defense that many use.

 

 

[britbox]

Not really brother.. @shawnbm summed it up it better than I could.  Trump is talking about illegal immigrants not guys who have gone through due process.

 

[Federberg]

I very much doubt Mexican-Americans are going make the distinction, particularly when a large proportion of them initially entered the country illegally. Should they really believe that the rapist tag doesn't also apply to them?

Nor, for that matter, will Muslims make much of a distinction..

 

Quote.. “Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life”

 

How does that draw a distinction between Muslims already in America and a minority of nutters in the Middle East?

 

[Moxie]

I very much doubt Mexican-Americans are going make the distinction, particularly when a large proportion of them initially entered the country illegally. Should they really believe that the rapist tag doesn’t also apply to them? Nor, for that matter, will Muslims make much of a distinction.. Quote.. “Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life” How does that draw a distinction between Muslims already in America and a minority of nutters in the Middle East?

This is a very good point.  It's difficult to imagine that Mexicans, Mexican-Americans, US-born Muslims and otherwise Muslim residents in the US are not going to feel insulted by being painted with the same brush as rapists and jihadists, who are a minority in any population, or feel threatened by the anti-Mexican and anti-Muslim fervor that Trump deliberately stirs up.  He's playing to the worst fears and prejudices of people who don't necessarily have contact with either Mexicans or Muslims in the US.

 

[EdbergsGhost]

But is being aggressive, racist, egotistical and childish a resume for the most important office, arguably, in the world

<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title">.

It worked for Obama

 

[Federberg]

Moxie wrote:
<blockquote>
But is being aggressive, racist, egotistical and childish a resume for the most important office, arguably, in the world

.</blockquote>
It worked for Obama

Please explain

 

[Moxie]

Edbergs Ghost wrote:
<blockquote>
Moxie wrote:
<blockquote>
But is being aggressive, racist, egotistical and childish a resume for the most important office, arguably, in the world

.</blockquote>
It worked for Obama</blockquote>
Please explain

I would like to write a riposte to this, but I'm also interested to hear if @EdbergsGhost can defend it, first.

 

[Federberg]

Federberg wrote:
<blockquote>
Edbergs Ghost wrote:
<blockquote>
Moxie wrote:
<blockquote>
But is being aggressive, racist, egotistical and childish a resume for the most important office, arguably, in the world

.</blockquote>
It worked for Obama</blockquote>
Please explain</blockquote>
I would like to write a riposte to this, but I’m also interested to hear if @EdbergsGhost can defend it, first.

Guess that was a throwaway comment!

 

[Moxie]

Moxie wrote:
<blockquote>
Federberg wrote:
<blockquote>
Edbergs Ghost wrote:
<blockquote>
Moxie wrote:
<blockquote>
But is being aggressive, racist, egotistical and childish a resume for the most important office, arguably, in the world

.</blockquote>
It worked for Obama</blockquote>
Please explain</blockquote>
I would like to write a riposte to this, but I’m also interested to hear if @EdbergsGhost can defend it, first.</blockquote>
Guess that was a throwaway comment!

Maybe.  Obviously, it's not defensible, or EG might have tried.  I don't know how anyone would consider President Obama childish or racist.  And progressives consider him sometimes conciliatory to a fault.  I suppose anyone who considers themselves fit to be the POTUS has likely got a hefty ego, but the best use it for the benefit of all.  Trump has yet to demonstrate that this exercise of his is anything other than a gigantic ego trip.  He uses smirks, sneers and slurs as stand-ins for substantial policy platforms.  He is an unrepentant playground bully, and the Republicans are letting him get away with driving the conversation, which will cost them the election.  That, and the fact that their few rather plausible candidates have no legs.

 

[britbox]

I very much doubt Mexican-Americans are going make the distinction, particularly when a large proportion of them initially entered the country illegally. Should they really believe that the rapist tag doesn’t also apply to them? Nor, for that matter, will Muslims make much of a distinction.. Quote.. “Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life” How does that draw a distinction between Muslims already in America and a minority of nutters in the Middle East?

To play devil's advocate a little, he is directing the remark to "people that only believe in Jihad" so that wouldn't apply to law-abiding muslims, but I take your point to an extent - he is often guilty of making very sweeping generalisations that will obviously alienate a large number of people in specific groups.

 

[calitennis127]

He is definitely not another vanilla candidate. He speaks freely and not in careful language; he talks like regular folks–and that resonates with the populace. He is attacked as being a fear mongering blowhard, but there is a lot to fear since Paris and San Bernadino. Muslim terrorism is not some fad or silly thing that is just going to go away if we only try to reason with them. That is not going to happen, so he says what many here think–let’s not be fools; let us secure our borders and only let in those who can be vetted. Lets deport illegal aliens and then let them in once they wait in line like everybody else. Lets not take Syrian refugees, in particular, if they are Muslim because of how easily terrorists can infiltrate the throngs coming our way and elsewhere. Let us not play games but destroy ISIS where they are. Working in the minds of Muslim youth can come later. That message resonates with millions and he is not a hateful guy; he’s pragmatic in the face of real worrisome issues.

Well-stated shawnbm, but the likes of Federberg simply deserve the pain that is coming their way because of their stupid ideas. In a way, I wish there was no Trump because these people do not deserve any semblance of sane leadership.

 

[calitennis127]

Federberg wrote:
<blockquote>
Moxie wrote:
<blockquote>
Federberg wrote:
<blockquote>
Edbergs Ghost wrote:
<blockquote>
Moxie wrote:
<blockquote>
But is being aggressive, racist, egotistical and childish a resume for the most important office, arguably, in the world

.</blockquote>
It worked for Obama</blockquote>
Please explain</blockquote>
I would like to write a riposte to this, but I’m also interested to hear if @EdbergsGhost can defend it, first.</blockquote>
Guess that was a throwaway comment!</blockquote>
Maybe. Obviously, it’s not defensible, or EG might have tried. I don’t know how anyone would consider President Obama childish or racist. And progressives consider him sometimes conciliatory to a fault. I suppose anyone who considers themselves fit to be the POTUS has likely got a hefty ego, but the best use it for the benefit of all. Trump has yet to demonstrate that this exercise of his is anything other than a gigantic ego trip. He uses smirks, sneers and slurs as stand-ins for substantial policy platforms. He is an unrepentant playground bully, and the Republicans are letting him get away with driving the conversation, which will cost them the election. That, and the fact that their few rather plausible candidates have no legs.

Obama has been a total idiot of a president. He has made as much of a mess of Libya and Syria as Bush did of Iraq. Saying that Obama has substance while Trump does not is akin to saying that Karlovic is a great mover while Isner is not.

 

[calitennis127]

Federberg wrote:
I very much doubt Mexican-Americans are going make the distinction, particularly when a large proportion of them initially entered the country illegally. Should they really believe that the rapist tag doesn’t also apply to them? Nor, for that matter, will Muslims make much of a distinction.. Quote.. “Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life” How does that draw a distinction between Muslims already in America and a minority of nutters in the Middle East?

This is a very good point. It’s difficult to imagine that Mexicans, Mexican-Americans, US-born Muslims and otherwise Muslim residents in the US are not going to feel insulted by being painted with the same brush as rapists and jihadists, who are a minority in any population, or feel threatened by the anti-Mexican and anti-Muslim fervor that Trump deliberately stirs up. He’s playing to the worst fears and prejudices of people who don’t necessarily have contact with either Mexicans or Muslims in the US.

Moxie, I should not expect you to know anything about any issues, nor do I. But allow me to correct you. Mexico is one of the most violent countries in the world, and Central America is one of the most violent regions in the world. There is a huge problem with Latino gangs sprouting up in California that the media refuses to talk about. There have been a number of illegal alien murders in recent years, most notably that of Kate Steinle in California. Asking for legal immigration is nothing but a bare minimum for any normal country.

Second, "anti-Muslim sentiment" has been entirely provoked by Muslims themselves, with countless acts of terrorism in Europe, North America, and across the world. These attacks have constantly been rationalized or else fostered by supposedly mainstream Muslim communities. The main Muslim civil rights organization in America (CAIR) has had 5 members convicted on terrorism charges, and of course at every turn it claims that raising any concerns about Islamic terrorism is indeed "Islamophobic". Just last week there were terrorist attacks by Muslims in Istanbul, Jakarta, Burkina Faso, and Afghanistan. This happens every week anymore.

Furthermore, the actions of Islamic jihadists are supported and justified by Islamic texts. People repeatedly insist that their actions are un-Islamic, but when the jihadists cite Qu'ranic verses in conjunction with stories from the Hadith, no one offers any refutation. Take this example. Anjem Choudary cited two stories from the Hadith to justify the Charlie Hebdo attacks last January. No one can offer any refutation to this, least of all ignorant leftists like you or Federberg:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjGcJlrMzHI

 

 

[calitennis127]

I very much doubt Mexican-Americans are going make the distinction, particularly when a large proportion of them initially entered the country illegally. Should they really believe that the rapist tag doesn’t also apply to them? Nor, for that matter, will Muslims make much of a distinction.. Quote.. “Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life” How does that draw a distinction between Muslims already in America and a minority of nutters in the Middle East?

How do you draw a distinction between moderates and radicals?

The Chattanooga shooter grew up in America and was on the wrestling team in high school (I am sure he was the kind of big bad jock that Moxie thinks she understands). He got a college degree. He spoke fluent English. He wore blue jeans. But then in his early 20s he started to become more pious, went on a couple trips to the Middle East, starting reading hardline Islamic websites, and, bam, he became a jihadist. On the surface, he seemed perfectly normal and regular in society, but in reality he was a Muslim jihadist.

Likewise, the San Bernardino couple before the shooting was a textbook example of how Muslims are supposedly well-integrated. Syed Farooq had a college degree and a well-paying job, and he and his wife had a baby that made them seem sweet and lovely to everyone. But privately they hated the surroundings of infidels. How do you draw a distinction between the good Muslims and the hardline Muslims? And when do you know whether someone will cross into the dark side?

 

[calitennis127]

britbox wrote:
Trump is a Xenophobe? I know at least two of his wives have been foreign.

Mate, this sounds awfully similar to the laughable “some of my best friends are black” line of defense that many use.

Mate, the issue of who is friends with who is entirely the product of leftist emphasis on "empathy". It is leftists who cannot make an argument without asking if their opponents have friends from a certain group. When I bring up friendships or knowing people from a certain group, it is mostly to make a point about knowledge/understanding, not feelings. Moxie and Federberg, for instance, clearly have no black friends who would ever be the types to get in trouble with police. If they have black friends, they are not typical black males but more than likely a tiny minority of blacks such as gay men.

Good day, mate.

 

[calitennis127]

britbox wrote:
Trump is a Xenophobe? I know at least two of his wives have been foreign.

I’m not sure how else one can describe his comments about Mexicans and Muslims!

So it is xenophobic to ask for legal immigration and - gasp - legal immigration of people who do not want to attack America and/or transform it radically into something that would be far less successful and prosperous (like a Shariah land)?

Oh, how frightening.

 

[calitennis127]

But is being aggressive, racist, egotistical and childish a resume for the most important office, arguably, in the world, just because you’re not “boring?” If the Republican party can’t put up a plausible candidate, that’s their fault. If they allow Trump to pull their rhetoric to the extreme of divisive, and they lose the general election because of it, that’s their fault, too. I get the idea that iconoclasts and those out of the beltway can be appealing, but they have to have some notion of what they want to do. Chris Christie (Gov. NJ) is also a plain-speaker, but, like Trump, he’s generally seen as a bully. And neither one of them has a coherent foreign policy. Some may be disenchanted with the political mainstream, but it doesn’t mean you have to choose a xenophobe or a thug.

 

Moxie, this post just illustrates once and for all how hypocritical and erroneous your worldview is. For one thing, Obama is a complete incompetent on foreign policy. The only good thing he has done is avoid war with Iran. Other than that, everything he has done has been horrible. He has destabilized both Syria and Libya beyond repair. He has carried out drone strikes and little pinprick targeting against ISIS which does not defeat them but serves as a major recruiting tool. And at home he has simply emboldened Islamic activists to feel that they can get away with anything. The man is a pathetic excuse for a commander-in-chief, and Trump would have to be utterly awful to surpass Obama's incompetence.

As for the rest, I will create a separate thread.

 

 

 

[calitennis127]

Federberg wrote:
I very much doubt Mexican-Americans are going make the distinction, particularly when a large proportion of them initially entered the country illegally. Should they really believe that the rapist tag doesn’t also apply to them? Nor, for that matter, will Muslims make much of a distinction.. Quote.. “Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life” How does that draw a distinction between Muslims already in America and a minority of nutters in the Middle East?

This is a very good point. It’s difficult to imagine that Mexicans, Mexican-Americans, US-born Muslims and otherwise Muslim residents in the US are not going to feel insulted by being painted with the same brush as rapists and jihadists, who are a minority in any population, or feel threatened by the anti-Mexican and anti-Muslim fervor that Trump deliberately stirs up.

No, Muslims generally hate their infidel surroundings and despise contemporary Westerners like you and Federberg for their weakness and incipient dhimmitude. They think you all are pliable sapheads in their ultimate designs, and, alas, they are correct.

Mainstream Muslim communities repeatedly shield and rationalize the behavior of hardcore jihadists. These people pray at the same mosques and hide themselves within the mainstream. There is much more sympathy for them than you apparently recognize, which is why the French police had to do massive raids throughout France after the Paris attacks.

My favorite excuse to date from Muslim activists is that the mother of Syed Farooq in San Bernardino did not know that her son and his daughter had turned the downstairs into a weapons factory because "she spent most of her time upstairs". Absolutely comical.

 

[Federberg]

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/21/george-soros-donald-trump-doing-work-isis