2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

B_Wayne

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The curbs will come when he is president.

It won't be an all out ban, but will be greater scrutiny of visa applications, greater intelligence gathering etc.

Why doesn't he specify now what his curbs are? At moment, he wants to ban all muslims. This is according to his own website.

Fr Tod Umptious

B_Wayne wrote: »

Why doesn't he specify now what his curbs are? At moment, he wants to ban all muslims. This is according to his own website.

Because that's the kind of candidate he is, it's all a load of nothing, it's literally all talk.

But when he becomes president he will start doing things, he'll have to.

B_Wayne

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Because that's the kind of candidate he is, it's all a load of nothing, it's literally all talk.

But when he becomes president he will start doing things, he'll have to.

These are a lot of conclusions that individuals are running to though... The fact nobody has any clue what he'll do in government is concerning.......

20Cent

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

No one is suggesting a traditional "invasion".

The threads I am taking about are bombs at transport hubs, sports events, murders of people out on a Friday night, all in the name of Islam.

That's what ordinary people are worried about and they have every right to be worried about it.

Americans have more chance of being shot by a toddler than a terrorist.
It's the reaction to the threat that the terrorists want.
They want division, fear hatred.
Trump is giving it to them.
Very foolish strategy.
Makes nice soundbites where he can talk tough but counterproductive not to mention unconstitutional and impossible to enforce. Still his followers listen.

Brian?

FA Hayek wrote: »

Wow, just wow! See this is one of the reasons why Trump is so popular, its this kind of smugness and cocky assuredness of people who think they speak for others when they have no idea really what the working class man on the street really thinks or goes through.

Vox of all places did a write up about this. Worth a read.
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism



Smacks the ball out of the park and it would be worth reading it before the usual retort of 'they are all racists, so I'm always right'.

I always enjoy when I get not one, but 2 "wows". It's been a while, so thanks.

2nd I'm a lot closer to the working class man on the street than Trump. Given that I work for a living and didn't inherit a decent sized fortune. Trump "connects" with the "man on the street" using wonderful blend of fear mongering, demagoguery and downright lies.

3rd aren't the protesters "men(and women) on the street" that Trump hasn't connected with?

4th You're accusing me of being a smug liberal? I'm not now and never have been a liberal. I am now and have been for a very long time an anarchist/libertarian socialist. I'm pretty smug about that sometimes, my true weakness.

It would be wonderful if you could summarise your opinion on smug liberals without posting an article that's so badly
written, it's painful to read.

Fr Tod Umptious

20Cent wrote: »

Americans have more chance of being shot by a toddler than a terrorist.
It's the reaction to the threat that the terrorists want.
They want division, fear hatred.
Trump is giving it to them.
Very foolish strategy.
Makes nice soundbites where he can talk tough but counterproductive not to mention unconstitutional and impossible to enforce. Still his followers listen.

The murder is also something the terrorists want, and it's the fear of being murdered at a concert, or at an airport, or at a marathon by radical Muslims that people are rightly worried about.

K-9

FA Hayek wrote: »

Wow, just wow! See this is one of the reasons why Trump is so popular, its this kind of smugness and cocky assuredness of people who think they speak for others when they have no idea really what the working class man on the street really thinks or goes through.

Vox of all places did a write up about this. Worth a read.
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism



Smacks the ball out of the park and it would be worth reading it before the usual retort of 'they are all racists, so I'm always right'.

That makes an assumption that all those types of "right wingers" didn't exist pre Trump. We know they did, Palin as an example. Basically they are arguing that all this hate from Trump supporters never existed before, but everybody knows it was always there.

As for working man stuff, Sanders gathers up that support too.

K-9

Can we leave grammar nazism out of it please, post deleted.

KingBrian2

The so called liberals take apart everything Trump said but don't show the same level of contempt for Clinton's policy via Saudi Arabia. Before we go into the Muslim debate Saudi Arabia does not speak for all Muslims. I could name at least 6 secular Muslim countries without referencing any from the Gulf.

As for the Muslim links, the US has been very cozy with firebrand clerics. The lets be nice to clerics under the mistaken premise that all Muslims will start liking the US is not gaining traction in the Arab/Muslim world. To put it in other words we have been nice to the Muslims they don't like us, we be unpleasant they equally don't like us.

What needs to be heard is the promotion of human rights, respecting minorities in which the most religious Muslim states don't care much about. Abolishing the death penalty, ending the recruitment campaigns for Jihadism. Taking down the propaganda site down and much more. Better governance in the Arab states and respecting international law.

The whole lets be okay about a religion that sanctions stoning of apostates and gender segregation is incompatible with the 21st century and most secular Muslims would agree with me on this.

Christy42

KingBrian2 wrote: »

To put it in other words we have been nice to the Muslims they don't like us, we be unpleasant they equally don't like us.

Abolishing the death penalty

The whole lets be okay about a religion that sanctions stoning of apostates and gender segregation is incompatible with the 21st century and most secular Muslims would agree with me on this.

First point. I know several Muslims who like me. Why shouldn't I like them?

Liberals agree on the death penalty point in general. Has Trump said he would abolish it? Seems fairly ingrained in the US but I would be impressed if he got rid of it. I fully support that goal.

Is Trump running for president in an Arab nation? If not there is very little he can do about laws in Muslim nations. I agree that countries like Saudi Arabia or Iran (which is Persian, I know I specified Arab earlier but anyway) are run according to some horrific morals. There is a reason why many are campaigning against the world cup in Qatar. Trump is however running for President in the US and can't control what they do without a lot of bloodshed and more issues trying to stabilise middle eastern countries.

Manic Moran

On a tangential note, since I'm voting tomorrow, I'm browsing the candidates for the other positions. I'm not entirely sure about the qualifications or positions of some of the candidates for US Senate.

http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2016/primary/en/pdf/candidate-statements.pdf

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

On a tangential note, since I'm voting tomorrow, I'm browsing the candidates for the other positions. I'm not entirely sure about the qualifications or positions of some of the candidates for US Senate.

Kamala Harris will win Tuesday 7 June 2016, and consequently replace Boxer; and because the Democratic party winner of the primary is a shoo-in for 8 November 2016 in the Golden State (there being no serious Republican contenders). Once sworn in late January 2017, Harris will oppose Trump.

JPNelsforearm

Presidential candidate Vermin Supreme experiences "free speech" at a Hillary Clinton event.... Bizarre exchange..... Interesting this heavy handed police presence wasnt on hand to deal with violent mexican flag waving thugs "protesting" at the Trump rally.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q03s4th4PPw

Suryavarman

Clinton is officially the presumptive nominee after the Puerto Rico primary and a number of superdelegates announce for her. The Sanders campaign still maintains that it has a chance of clinching the nomination. At this point I'm pretty sure the Sanders campaign is just one big troll organised by 4Chan.

Magnate

Suryavarman wrote: »

Clinton is officially the presumptive nominee after the Puerto Rico primary and a number of superdelegates announce for her. The Sanders campaign still maintains that it has a chance of clinching the nomination. At this point I'm pretty sure the Sanders campaign is just one big troll organised by 4Chan.

The Sanders campaign saw this coming a mile away.
I'd say they're still holding out for indictment, although an upset win in California along with the other states he's expected to win will mean Sanders has won more states than Hillary. That coupled with the fact that he polls better than Hillary versus Trump in every state by much greater margins suggests he's the stronger candidate to go up against him in November. I do think he could make a strong case at the convention in July and flip enough superdelegates, especially as the email scandal worsens in the coming weeks.


That's not to mention the major election fraud suits that have just been filed.

The email scandal is not something that can just be swept under the rug. It goes far deeper than the mishandling of classified information. That's only the tip of the iceberg. They're going after the Clinton Foundation.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/737806568201330688/
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12605

Suryavarman

Magnate wrote: »

The Sanders campaign saw this coming a mile away.
I'd say they're still holding out for indictment, although an upset win in California along with the other states he's expected to win will mean Sanders has won more states than Hillary. That coupled with the fact that he polls better than Hillary versus Trump in every state by much greater margins suggests he's the stronger candidate to go up against him in November. I do think he could make a strong case at the convention in July and flip enough superdelegates, especially as the email scandal worsens in the coming weeks.


That's not to mention the major election fraud suits that have just been filed.

The email scandal is not something that can just be swept under the rug. It goes far deeper than the mishandling of classified information. That's only the tip of the iceberg. They're going after the Clinton Foundation.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/737806568201330688/
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12605

Oh get a grip. HILLARY CLINTON IS GOING TO BE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE. Hillary isn't going to be indicted. The email scandal will disappear because she has done something that every secretary of state that used an email address has done. The email scandal is a blown up Republican talking point.

He polls better against Trump because the Republicans have never attacked him whereas they've been attacking Clinton for around 25 years. Sanders claims to be a socialist where calling someone a socialist is considered an insult. The Republicans will have a field day attacking him in the general election. The reason the Republicans have been attacking here so much and not attacking Sanders at all is because she is the bigger threat.

He can't make a strong case at the convention with superdelegates. To claim that he could is the most far fetched claim in the entirety of his ridiculous campaign. Hillary's superdelegate count is currently increasing. It isn't falling or stagnating, it is increasing. How does anyone with a brain in their head consider it to be plausible that hundreds of superdelegates, that have sided with one candidate for months, are suddenly going to completely subvert the will of the people to elect a cranky old man that's spent months attacking the Democrat party?

Hillary has won 31 contests so far compared to 21 for Sanders. Even if you leave out territories but leave in the Americans abroad she leads 26-21. She's going to win New Jersey so that brings her to 27. Sanders would then have to win all remaining contests to have a majority. It's unlikely that he'd be able to do that convincingly. Hillary has also won a majority of the delegates. Hillary is currently leading the popular vote by 3 million votes. Hillary has consistently beaten Sanders in diverse states and among minority groups. Nominating him at this stage would disenfranchise a huge number of minorities. It really is ludicrous at this stage to act like Sanders has a realistic shot at the nomination.

FA Hayek

Brian? wrote: »

I always enjoy when I get not one, but 2 "wows". It's been a while, so thanks.

2nd I'm a lot closer to the working class man on the street than Trump. Given that I work for a living and didn't inherit a decent sized fortune. Trump "connects" with the "man on the street" using wonderful blend of fear mongering, demagoguery and downright lies.

3rd aren't the protesters "men(and women) on the street" that Trump hasn't connected with?

4th You're accusing me of being a smug liberal? I'm not now and never have been a liberal. I am now and have been for a very long time an anarchist/libertarian socialist. I'm pretty smug about that sometimes, my true weakness.

It would be wonderful if you could summarise your opinion on smug liberals without posting an article that's so badly
written, it's painful to read.

I already stated my opinion on smug liberals and used your post as example of one. You may call your self an anarchist or a socialist but when push comes to shove in the next few weeks you will bat for the same team. Read the article its quite well referenced for a vox article. Another snippet.

On November 6, 2000, during his final pre-election stump speech, Bush explained his history of political triumph thusly: "They misunderesimated me."

What an idiot. American liberals made fun of him for that one for years.

It is worth considering that he didn't misspeak.


He did, however, deliberately cultivate the confusion. He understood the smug style. He wagered that many liberals, eager to see their opponents as intellectually deficient, would buy into the act and thereby miss the more pernicious fact of his moral deficits.

He wagered correctly. Smug liberals said George was too stupid to get elected, too stupid to get reelected, too stupid to pass laws or appoint judges or weather a political fight. Liberals misunderestimated George W. Bush all eight years of his presidency.

George W. Bush is not a dumbass hick. In eight years, all the sick Daily Show burns in the world did not appreciably undermine his agenda.

Going back, in essence you are excusing violence against people going about their normal day to day business where expressing their mandate to vote/support/volunteer for a political candidate. Political violence should be unequivocally be condemned. No buts or ifs.

The excuses I have read are very "I am not racist but..."
We are getting the 'I condemn violence but... its Trumps fault and those hicks are stupid bigots, so they deserve a smack in the gob' As you said intolerance is a virtue :roll eyes:

You say that you are intolerant of violence but you are not, you are only intolerant of violence when it suits the cause.

As, said wow!

Manic Moran

I'm a little less interested in the figures of how many states each person won, than I am in how many states which allowed non democrats to vote each person won

Black Swan wrote: »

Manic Moran wrote: »

On a tangential note, since I'm voting tomorrow, I'm browsing the candidates for the other positions. I'm not entirely sure about the qualifications or positions of some of the candidates for US Senate.

Kamala Harris will win Tuesday 7 June 2016, and consequently replace Boxer; and because the Democratic party winner of the primary is a shoo-in for 8 November 2016 in the Golden State (there being no serious Republican contenders). Once sworn in late January 2017, Harris will oppose Trump.

Depends on who she's going up against in November. Presuming it'll be another democrat, then the democratic vote will likely be split, and the independents and republicans will likely throw their vote in for the more moderate of the two.

Brian?

FA Hayek wrote: »

I already stated my opinion on smug liberals and used your post as example of one. You may call your self an anarchist or a socialist but when push comes to shove in the next few weeks you will bat for the same team. Read the article its quite well referenced for a vox article. Another snippet.

I find the above quote bizarre. You used my post as an example of a "smug liberal". I'm not a liberal and never have been. I'd appreciate if you'd accept that instead of implying I'm a liberal by default. I actually don't have a "team" In the election to "bat for".

You did not "state your opinion on smug liberals". You stated my post was an example of a smug liberal, which it is not, and posted a link to an article. The least you could do is parrot the opinion as your own in a coherent form. Link posting kills debate IMO.

I read the article. It's horribly written nonsense. What do you mean by well referenced? Why do you think I didn't read it?

Going back, in essence you are excusing violence against people going about their normal day to day business where expressing their mandate to vote/support/volunteer for a political candidate. Political violence should be unequivocally be condemned. No buts or ifs.

The excuses I have read are very "I am not racist but..."
We are getting the 'I condemn violence but... its Trumps fault and those hicks are stupid bigots, so they deserve a smack in the gob' As you said intolerance is a virtue :roll eyes:

You say that you are intolerant of violence but you are not, you are only intolerant of violence when it suits the cause.

As, said wow!

A third "wow ". You're really spoiling me.

Where did I advocate violence? Violence in any and all circumstances is wrong. Another quirky belief I hold is pacifism.

I supported the protesters right to protest. If they can't protest peacefully, they shouldn't protest at all. Passive, non violent resistance is the perfect answer to Trump and his chicken hawk antics.

Billy86

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I am putting it to you that Trump is not anti Muslim he is anti Jihadist.

Well Donald Trump himself disagrees with you, and here is why.

For probably about the 10th time (seriously) go and find where he specifically mentioned terrorists, jihadists, extremists or Islamists in his official statement from his website. You know, the same official Donald Trump website that you accused of tying to distort it's own message. :pac:

​DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON PREVENTING MUSLIM IMMIGRATION

(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.

Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. 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. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again." - Donald J. Trump

You refuse to concede that his comments are directed at extreme Islam as opposed to Muslims themselves.

I refuse to 'concede' that his comments are aimed at extremists because... they literally are not aimed at extremists. See above, and continue trying to cod yourself that "it is media spin" despite me literally posting a video of him literally saying that after me literally putting the above statement literally (taken from his official website) right in front of your eyes literally over a half dozen times.

You're basically becoming a meme at this point, Brian.

Trump is a very popular person and part of that is his view that Jihadists are threatening America's security. Now he is putting forward the very controversial belief that this ideology is being exported into the west. In this he bares a strong resemblance with on the left who equally belief Jihadism is a threat across the world.

He is putting forward the proposal to ban all Muslims from entering the US, which is the opposite of religious tolerance.

You might as well claim he can fly, because you have as much evidence of that as you do of him 'only targeting extremists' (despite him literally saying that he is targeting ALL Muslims on his official statement on his official website, that he literally read out in a video I posted).

Billy86

Brian? wrote: »

I find the above quote bizarre. You used my post as an example of a "smug liberal". I'm not a liberal and never have been. I'd appreciate if you'd accept that instead of implying I'm a liberal by default. I actually don't have a "team" In the election to "bat for".

Wait, you don't think of global politics as essentially a sports game where you deeply entrench yourself on one side before knowing the whole story and defend it to the hilt, claiming "your guy" never said what they did even when you know you are lying, trying to convincing yourself that when they said "Muslims" they didn't mean actually mean "Muslims" despite saying "Muslims" over and over and over, or just ignoring every single piece of information put in front of you that makes them look less than perfect?

It's nothing short of f'ing stunning how some see Clinton/Trump as no different than the Evra/Suarez spat a few years ago between Man Utd/Liverpool, or Conor McGregor and whoever he is lined up to fight. Stunning and pathetic.

KingBrian2

Billy86 wrote: »

Well Donald Trump himself disagrees with you, and here is why.

For probably about the 10th time (seriously) go and find where he specifically mentioned terrorists, jihadists, extremists or Islamists in his official statement from his website. You know, the same official Donald Trump website that you accused of tying to distort it's own message. :pac:



I refuse to 'concede' that his comments are aimed at extremists because... they literally are not aimed at extremists. See above, and continue trying to cod yourself that "it is media spin" despite me literally posting a video of him literally saying that after me literally putting the above statement literally (taken from his official website) right in front of your eyes literally over a half dozen times.

You're basically becoming a meme at this point, Brian.




He is putting forward the proposal to ban all Muslims from entering the US, which is the opposite of religious tolerance.

You might as well claim he can fly, because you have as much evidence of that as you do of him 'only targeting extremists' (despite him literally saying that he is targeting ALL Muslims on his official statement on his official website, that he literally read out in a video I posted).

Are you not reading what I am reading, he mentions the word Jihad in complete contradiction with what you just said. You just said he does not say the word Jihad but if your actually read what he said as I have been saying. He mentioned the word Jihad. Do you not see the word Jihad written. You keep omitting this very important fact.

AbusesToilets

Suryavarman wrote: »

Oh get a grip. HILLARY CLINTON IS GOING TO BE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE. Hillary isn't going to be indicted. The email scandal will disappear because she has done something that every secretary of state that used an email address has done. The email scandal is a blown up Republican talking point.

It's really not. She and her staff have been shown to have deliberately circumvented established protocol with respect to handling classified materials. If a regular employee had done what she has, they would, at best, lose their clearance and be banned from ever holding one again. A much more likely outcome is that such a person would find themselves facing a substantial fine and jail time.

Billy86

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Are you not reading what I am reading,

I don't think any of us are reading what you are reading.

he mentions the word Jihad in complete contradiction with what you just said.

How is it in contradiction, Brian? He never mentions 'Jihadists', he mentions banning MUSLIMS Brian, as in ALL MUSLIMS, because 00.005% of Muslims are in Jihadists.

Don't even pretend that you don't know the difference, it's even more transparent than it is dishonest.

You just said he does not say the word Jihad

I never said that, Brian. I said he never uses the word 'jihadists'. And again, don't pretend to not know what the difference between these two statements...

- Because of Jihadists, we should ban all Muslims.
and
- We should only ban Jihadists, not all Muslims.

but if your actually read what he said as I have been saying.

What you are saying is completely different to what is in that statement, hence your utter inability to find the words 'jihadist', 'terrorist', 'extremist' or 'Islamist' as the specific people he wants to ban. Muslims are the specific people he wants to ban, Brian. Hence why he mentions them three times and literally names the statement "Preventing MUSLIM Immigration."

He mentioned the word Jihad. Do you not see the word Jihad written. You keep omitting this very important fact.

Well done Brian, good on you. Now all you have to do is add an 'ist' on the end of that word, and he would be describing preventing Jihadists from entering the US, not Muslims as a whole.

Is this starting to get through, or are you going to keep shoving your fingers in your ears?

Billy86

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It's really not. She and her staff have been shown to have deliberately circumvented established protocol with respect to handling classified materials. If a regular employee had done what she has, they would, at best, lose their clearance and be banned from ever holding one again. A much more likely outcome is that such a person would find themselves facing a substantial fine and jail time.

Something both interesting and worrying about the email scandal for me, and that ties in with what I mentioned earlier about people confusing politics and politicians for sports teams and athletes (the "pick your side and stick to it no matter what" mentality) is that she is not the first - both 2008 VP Candidate Sarah Palin who is looking eagerly for a spot in Trump's campaign, and 2012 Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, both did the same.

http://www.businessinsider.com/governor-mitt-romney-used-personal-email-like-secretary-of-state-clinton-2015-3
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-dunn/sarah-palin-hillary-clinton-emails_b_6924830.html

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I can't see how Sanders can win. But yeah I he loses California it's curtains.

As much as I dislike Clinton, Bernie needs to stand down his campaign and get behind her ASAP. Infighting only helps Trump.

KingBrian2

Billy86 wrote: »

I don't think any of us are reading what you are reading.

How is it in contradiction, Brian? He never mentions 'Jihadists', he mentions banning MUSLIMS Brian, as in ALL MUSLIMS, because 00.005% of Muslims are in Jihadists.

Don't even pretend that you don't know the difference, it's even more transparent than it is dishonest.

I never said that, Brian. I said he never uses the word 'jihadists'. And again, don't pretend to not know what the difference between these two statements...

- Because of Jihadists, we should ban all Muslims.
and
- We should only ban Jihadists, not all Muslims.

What you are saying is completely different to what is in that statement, hence your utter inability to find the words 'jihadist', 'terrorist', 'extremist' or 'Islamist' as the specific people he wants to ban. Muslims are the specific people he wants to ban, Brian. Hence why he mentions them three times and literally names the statement "Preventing MUSLIM Immigration."

Well done Brian, good on you. Now all you have to do is add an 'ist' on the end of that word, and he would be describing preventing Jihadists from entering the US, not Muslims as a whole.

Is this starting to get through, or are you going to keep shoving your fingers in your ears?

It says it right there in the text banning those that believe in Jihad. He is talking about those that believe in Jihad. You keep getting confused with Muslims. Incase you did not know Muslims are a broad category and the Jihadi group is a distinct element of the Muslim religion something you refuse to acknowledge because you still have not stated if you would like Muslims who believe in Jihad to be admitted into the US.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

I can't see how Sanders can win. But yeah I he loses California it's curtains.

As much as I dislike Clinton, Bernie needs to stand down his campaign and get behind her ASAP. Infighting only helps Trump.

I feel the exact opposite. Why should he get behind a candidate so mired in controversies and who is likely to make Obama look like a unity figure if elected.

The Democrats seem determined to give the Republicans control of Congress for the foreseeable future.

Billy86

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It says it right there in the text banning those that believe in Jihad.

No he's not, Brian. Quote where he says what you are saying he is.

He is talking about those that believe in Jihad.

Quote where he specifically says to only ban Jihadists.

You keep getting confused with Muslims.

You keep getting confused with basic reading comprehension. Just go ahead an quote where he says to ban only those interested in Jihad, and not all Muslims.

Incase you did not know Muslims are a broad category

Yes Brian, it is. Over 1 billion Brian. Over 1 billion people Trump wants denied any access to the US.

Apart from London Mayors, who he feels the need to say he might make a specific exception for.

and the Jihadi group is a distinct element of the Muslim religion something you refuse to acknowledge

What else is going on in that head of yours, seriously?

Now go and quote where Trump makes the distinction to ban all Muslims.

because you still have not stated if you would like Muslims who believe in Jihad to be admitted into the US.

Your confirmation bias knows no odds. Tell me, when I said...

Billy86 wrote: »

Obviously not, Brian.

Did you just see a blank screen?


No go and find the passage where Trump explicitly says he only wants Jihadists banned from entering the USA in his official statement entitled STATEMENT ON PREVENTING MUSLIM IMMIGRATION that starts with Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.

Because, as you have proven to us all Brian, not once in the entire statement does he use any of the words Islamists, Jihadists, terrorists or extremists.