Would you vote for Donald Drumph ?

1. 87

   Stacie Lposted 8 years ago

   Why Donald Trump trumps Donald Drumpf
   Trump’s German wine-growing ancestors were named Drumpf, according to journalist Gwenda Blair’s book “The Trumps: Three Generations That Built An Empire.” The family changed the name at some point during the Thirty Years’ War. America was first introduced to the Trump brand, however, by Donald’s father, Fred C. Trump, who named his real estate company and supermarket chains “Trump” and drove a navy blue Cadillac with “FCT” license plates.
   We’ve become so accustomed to the Trump brand that it’s hard to imagine The Donald by any other name. Yet, had he been born Donald Drumpf, his path might have been quite different. Trump, according to Laurel Sutton at the Catchword naming agency, is an “unusual name, . . . a single-word name, which sounds very grounded, very firm. It’s not a multisyllabic Romance-type name,” which makes it more “masculine-sounding.”
   https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2015/ … story.html
   certainly a name makes a difference...right?

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I guess when nothing else is available the only recourse is to ridicule the opponents name.  Or hair - that seems popular, too.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Normally I would agree with you, but sn't that what Trump would do?  Why is Stacie L  held to a higher standard than a man who wants to lead our country?

         replyreport
         1. 90

            IslandBitesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            In fact, he did... Before anyone mentioned anything about his name.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               PrettyPantherposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               But it's okay.  He's tough. And not PC. And tells it like it is.  Apparently, these qualities are admired in Trump but not in those who use his own tactics against him.

               replyreport
         2. 95

            wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Don't know - has he ridiculed opponents name?  If so, I haven't heard of it...

            replyreport
            1. 57

               Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               No wilderness, Mr. Jackass Drumpf just Ridicules a person's FACE, or Bodily Function, or RACE, or Ethnicity, or APPEARANCE or Religion or any other number of attributes ~
               
               But WHY on EARTH would anyone wanna' CHANGE such a Lovely, Affable sounding name like "Drumpf"  anyway?? Sounds like Vicente FOX caught Donald trying to cross the border then hit em' in his "Hair PLUGz" with a BIG Dirty Garbage Pail and it went something like DRUUUUmpf !!! ~

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Links, videos, etc., please?  Because I flat don't believe Trump ridiculed a religion, appearance, race or most of the rest either. 
                  
                  You, on the other hand, have used ridicule of his hair or anything other irrelevant thing you could think of with a vengeance.  Which is part of why I don't believe you.

                  replyreport
                  1. 57

                     Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                     STAY in that little BUBBLE called "Republican PRETEND-Land" wilderness, where FACTs are non-existent ~ I'll waste my time posting those links about the same time I post "PROOF of the Sun Setting" ~

                     replyreport
            2. 0

               PrettyPantherposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               Lol, l don't know if he's ever ridiculed anyone's name, but ridicule is his standard schtick, so to take someone to task for making fun of his name seems a little weird. Rubio's stand up comedy  routine implying Trump peed his pants must've really offended your sensibilities.

               replyreport
               1. 57

                  Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Apparently it's a pretty good "SCHTICK" cuz he's got RACISTs making Robo-Calls for him ~
                  
                  I guess some people are not keeping TABz on the "Donald" because just about everything he does or says is either "Weird", Bizzare, Racist, Bigoted, Dumb, Offensive, Unrealistic, Egotistical, Maniacal, Antagonistic, or just plain LIES ~
                  
                  Maybe that's WHY some of the ONLY Endorsements so far are from Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Chris Christy of New Jersey, who with a 27% Favorability Rating, the lowest in New Jersey HISTORY, is in VERY Deep with movements for a "Re-Call from Office" for his association with Trump and Negligecting his Job Duties according to news sources ~
                  
                  Perhaps everyone missed this or maybe FORGOT about it when "Jackkass" Trump said this to Carly and it was one of the most Offensive & Disgusting attacks I've ever heard of ~ WHY do you think Republicans are going insane trying to BLOCK his nomination? Because he's absolutely Un-Fit to serve as CEO of this Nation or any other Public Office & even Republicans are not so fond of presidents wearing BIG Pointy White Hats & Hoods in our White House ~
                  
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE1wRL-BRo0

                  replyreport
               2. 57

                  Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  That's right PrettyPanther and I would assume "Donald Drumpf" Fans don't think this is "Weird, Strange & Asenine" Behavior ~ UNREAL & Embarrassing for this entire country to watch a Presidential Candidate act like a complete idiot for the world to see ~
                  
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIotH8dKMwg

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     PrettyPantherposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                     On the contrary, their lizard brains eat it up!  He's "tough" and "tells it like it is" and "not politically correct." 

                     replyreport
                     1. 57

                        Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                        Con-Man Trump tries to use the phrase "Politically Correct" to justify acting like a COMPLETE Jackass in Public while Peddling Blatant Lies, Hate, Fear, Racism & Bigotry and of course ill-concieved shallow ideas which will NEVER work in the REAL World and he knows it ~
                        
                        He's got a "LOCK" on a very small Minority of Voters in America who are either very dumb, ignorant, or think likewise, or any combination thereof, but that's about it ~ The MOVEMENT to "Intervene & Rescue" the World from this Unfit, Mentally Un-stable Moron who constantly takes advantage of Americans by trying to "Fleece them of their Life Savings" has just begun ~ Let's see what happens ~
                        
                        P.S. ~ He would NEVER bring Jobs back from CHINA because first of all, he doesn't know how to, and secondly, he and his so called "Business-Partners" have a VESTED Interest in KEEPING jobs there and even Ex-Patriating MORE of our jobs to Foreign Communist Countries if possible ~ When you uncover the FACTs it's just NOT Good nor Pretty nor will it ever Benefit AMERICA ~

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           PrettyPantherposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                           Yeah, I'm pretty much with you.  Except, much to my general disbelief and specific disgust, some otherwise intelligent people are considering voting for the Trump the Entertainer as a protest against the establishment.  I get it, but I think they are making a terrible, terrible mistake.  In the last debate, which was uncharacteristically civil, Trump was exposed as having no depth of understanding of pretty much everything.  He couldn't rely on his trademark bullying and name calling, because the questions didn't warrant it.  As a result, it was clear he doesn't know what the he!! he's talking about.  His foreign policy position comes down to "I will make better deals."  Pretty pathetic.

                           replyreport
      2. 78

         colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Pst, wilderness...Syrian girl tweeted "Remember, Trump is the only strong Candidate who isn't calling for World War 3"
         
         
         
         She's out there fighting.  Pretty young Syrian ladies.   
         She is famous now!

         replyreport
      3. 60

         Popitposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Wilderness, people ridicule hair and names because making fun of someone defuses palpable fear; hence the many personal remarks made about Hitler as he rose to power, which were then used as propaganda during WW2.
         
         I would also like to point out that the word 'trump' in the UK is a polite word for fart.  Make of that what you will

         replyreport
         1. 71

            rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            "I would also like to point out that the word 'trump' in the UK is a polite word for fart.  Make of that what you will."
            
            I thought Trump was full of the other more solid expenditure from that region.

            replyreport
   2. 78

      Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Not a chance, it is all over the press that Trump refused to repudiate support from David Duke, saying that he was not familiar with the man. That is a lie. He says that he has nothing to do with it, but there is a reason why flies are attracted to honey or that other 'stuff'.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         "but there is a reason why flies are attracted to honey or that other 'stuff'"
         
         Same reason people are attracted to what they need, too.  Like food or honest politicians.
         
         But I've noted lots of this in the past few days in these forums; no real dirt can be found (yet) on Trump, so the haters resort to mud slinging that would put a politician to shame.  He's rude!  He's not PC!  He speaks his mind whether you like it or not!  He doesn't know every individual that supports him!  He doesn't remember a man he met one time for 10 seconds and doesn't know everything about everyone he speaks to!  He has bad hair!  And now his ancestors used to carry a different name, and one with a funny sound! 
         
         Like PrettyPanther said; He tells it like it is, and the lizard brains (man in the street) love him for it!  Yeah, they do - it's a real shock from a politician, and people like it.
         
         *Sigh*  Must be an election year - maybe I'll start selling truckloads of mud and make a fortune.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I suppose it boils down to what you consider to be dirt. I would think his comments against women and minorities would count as dirt. But, those who probably wish they could say what he is saying wouldn't see that.  I would think mocking the disabled would be dirt. But, those who probably mock the disabled wouldn't see it that way. I would think starting a fake university and being sued by one state and others would be some type of dirt. But, those who crave money at whatever cost might not see it that way. Running nothing but a negative campaign could be seen as dirt, or mud. But, those who support Trump only allow for him to do such.
            
            So, again. Dirt may be defined differently by Trump supporters and average people who are scratching their heads.

            replyreport
            1. 78

               Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

               Thanks, for this I was scratching my head over night as how far the supposed vituous has fallen.
               
               "I could have made Mitt Romney bend to his knees for the nomination in 2012"
               
               He has no loyalties, treating everyone and everything with a sense of expediency, this is not acceptable from the man who would be  King. He is but that coarse brut and thug that he attracts to his rallies. As if being the richest man in Chicago was going to make Al Capone a gentleman?
               
               "One of my department stores is worth more money than Mitt Romney'
               
               Trump will not be the first wealthy person to have held the office of President, but he does bring it to a new low.  The Kennedy's, Roosevelts and even Ronald Reagan placed the emphasis on public service, not the thickness of their wallets.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes. Some semblance of common decency and a sense of civility would go a long way toward smoothing the rough Trump edges.
                  
                  It's funny. If that guy decided to post on the political forums of Hub Pages, anonymously, he'd probably be banned within the first day. And, few would put up with such arrogant, air headed gibber jabber.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     PrettyPantherposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                     You are SO right.  He would be considered disrespectful and be shown a copy and paste of the Hubpages Forum Rules.  LOL

                     replyreport
      2. 73

         mrpopoposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Could you provide a source establishing that Trump knew who this man was?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Factcheck.org

            replyreport
            1. 73

               mrpopoposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               Thanks. So Trump knew who this man was 16 years ago, and condemned him back then. This is hardly the stuff of controversy.

               replyreport
         2. 78

            Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

            cmon, is Trump taking us all for fools? It is pretty hard with all of those 'good people' that he is to surround himself with, to not know David Duke and the significance of this man on the political scene.

            replyreport
            1. 78

               colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               Trump basically rejected the Klan back in 2001 when he said he was leaving the Reform Party because David Duke was in it. -- Now, the media keeps asking Trump if he will disavow the KKK, and he has several times publicly. But they act like he hasn't and ask him the same question over and over again, and cut his audio off...and splicing video footage!   ---  That's the unethical liberal MSM...its called mind control.   (and, Obama made propaganda legal for the press to do by signing it into law). 
               
               Paint Trump guilty, while they ignore Hillary and Bill Clinton's guilt.   
               http://hubpages.com/politics/forum/1354 … ologists--
               
               Yeah, that is dumb stuff that brainwashed people believe!  That's what the MSM wants us to believe, so I think they are doing a great job.
               
               This is the whole corrupt establishment coming against Trump.

               replyreport
               1. 57

                  Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  If those who have been "CONNED" by Trump would simply step OUT of that little "BUBBLE of DENIAL" within "Republican PRETEND-Land" just long enough to get a crisp clean breath of FRESH Un-Tarnished AIR, they would certainly realize WHY the Vast Majority of not only AMERICANs, but Global Citizens are lined Up against this Bigoted Swindler ~
                  
                  There is a very good chance Chris Christie will be FIRED from his governorship for his Association with this radioactive guy, and that's a FACT ~
                  
                  Progressives are actually PRAYING this Maniacal Con-Man wins the Nomination and that should tell you ALL you need to know ~

                  replyreport
            2. 73

               mrpopoposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               How relevant is David Duke on the political scene? What is his significance? For that matter, what is the significance of the KKK? They have what, 5000 members? That's 0.002% of the population.
               
               It's a ridiculous notion to think that you must publicly reject votes based on perceived moral flaws. Should he also publicly reject all votes from criminals? All votes from liars? All votes from drunkards?
               
               Aside from that, there is no reason to think that those who strongly believe an ideology, however ridiculous, insane or bigoted that ideology may be, are incapable of developing thought reasoned perspectives on other issues. A racist may be perfectly capable of understanding chemistry, economics, engineering etc. despite his racism. Religious extremists exemplify this perfectly. Look no further than some of the highly-educated engineers who blew themselves up thinking they were going to paradise.
               
               With that in mind, why should he disavow a vote from a racist if the vote is because they agree with his immigration and trade policies?
               
               All this is is a media attempt at guilt by association to paint Trump as a racist, following this train of thought:
               
               Duke was a member of the KKK 40 years ago
               Duke supports Trump
               Trump does not immediately disavow support
               ∴ Trump is racist
               
               It's ridiculous.

               replyreport
               1. 90

                  IslandBitesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  I agree. And, at least for me, that wasn't the issue. He could've said that while he doesn't support those ideals, any person is free to vote for the candidate they like or something like that. But he opted, like he frequently does, to give lame excuses. And what it worse, he contradicted himself (again, like he frequently does). He says he has the greatest memory, yet, he said he didn't knew who David Duke was when he clearly does.

                  replyreport
                  1. 73

                     mrpopoposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                     "He could've said that while he doesn't support those ideals, any person is free to vote for the candidate they like or something like that"
                     
                     I agree, this would have been a better answer.
                     
                     "But he opted, like he frequently does, to give lame excuses"
                     
                     The question itself was far lamer. Given that he later disavowed him anyway, I don't see why people are taking issue.
                     
                     "And what it worse, he contradicted himself"
                     
                     I doubt any of the candidates have not contradicted themselves. On the list of priorities, gay rights (which Obama and Clinton both flip-flopped on) takes precedence over not immediately disavowing some forgotten ex-KKK member's vote.
                     
                     "He says he has the greatest memory, yet, he said he didn't knew who David Duke was when he clearly does."
                     
                     I don't think being hyperbolic about one's memory is the central cause of the controversy.

                     replyreport
               2. 78

                  Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  In AMERICAN politics, sometimes the whole is more significant than its component parts.  The idea of white supremacy just starts with the Klan and hardly ends there.
                  
                  BTW, Trump has recently repudiated David Duke, ok
                  
                  This is not Canada, racial issues and matters are very touchy within the United States. If I see a lot flies circulating around something, I can be sure that it is 'Chanel No.5'. Where ever the flies are, is where I am not.
                  
                  Declared racism from any candidate is not acceptable in American politics, Period.....
                  
                  White supremist groups are the 'flies' because it is not just David Duke, solely.
                  
                  Duke is still a leader among the white supremacist movement.
                  Duke along with any number of white supremist organizations support Trump, I am sure that all these guys are attracted to his immigration and trade policies.
                  
                  Trump may claim not to be a racist, maybe he can tell me why he attracts so many flies?

                  replyreport
                  1. 73

                     mrpopoposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                     "The idea of white supremacy just starts with the Klan and hardly ends there."
                     
                     Okay, where does it end? The reporter only provided KKK and Duke as outdated examples.
                     
                     "This is not Canada, racial issues and matters are very touchy within the United States"
                     
                     That does not give people license to fallaciously associate Trump with racism.
                     
                     "If I see a lot flies circulating around something, I can be sure that it is 'Chanel No.5'. Where ever the flies are, is where I am not. "
                     
                     Then you're employing guilt by association. Manure both enriches soil and attracts flies.
                     
                     "Declared racism from any candidate is not acceptable in American politics, Period"
                     
                     Fortunately, I've yet to see a candidate spout racist views.
                     
                     "I am sure that all these guys are attracted to his immigration and trade policies."
                     
                     Maybe they would be. Yet their approval of his policies doesn't somehow invalidate his policies.
                     
                     "Trump may claim not to be a racist, maybe he can tell me why he attracts so many flies?"
                     
                     This is still guilt by association. Look into it: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie … ation.html

                     replyreport
                     1. 73

                        mrpopoposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                        Example 2 is actually quite similar to the current situation:
                        
                        Jen and Sandy are discussing the topic of welfare. Jen is fairly conservative politically but she has been an active opponent of racism. Sandy is extremely liberal politically.
                        Jen: "I was reading over some private studies of welfare and I think it would be better to have people work for their welfare. For example, people could pick up trash, put up signs, and maybe even do skilled labor that they are qualified for. This would probably make people feel better about themselves and it would get more out of our tax money."
                        Sandy: "I see. So, you want to have the poor people out on the streets picking up trash for their checks? Well, you know that is exactly the position David Count endorses."
                        Jen: "Who is he?"
                        Sandy: "I'm surprised you don't know him, seeing how alike you two are. He was a Grand Mooky Wizard for the Aryan Pure White League and is well known for his hatred of blacks and other minorities. With your views, you'd fit right in to his little racist club."
                        Jen: "So, I should reject my view just because I share it with some racist?"
                        Sandy: "Of course."

                        replyreport
                        1. 78

                           Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                           I looked at your link, thank you.
                           
                           Here's my take
                           
                           http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/us/po … .html?_r=0
                           
                           Merely being conservative in of itself does not attract these kinds of people. What is it besides conservatism that makes these people see Trump as the 'heir apparent'? The GOP has never fielded candidates that get these kinds of endorsements, what dimension  does the Trump candidacy bring that serves as invitation for all the muck of far rightwing politics?
                           
                           The only person in modern times that attracted these kinds of people to the same extent was George Wallace, and we all knew what he was all about.

                           replyreport
                           1. 78

                              colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                              People who read the NYT are going to get distorted.  That is the #1 MSM news site that is on the Clinton's leash. 
                              
                              I have faith in you, Cred.  c'mon

                              replyreport
                              1. 78

                                 Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                 According to you guys everything that in not breitbart or fox news is distorted media, and I don't buy it....
                                 
                                 No, your faith is not misplaced. Responsible mainstream media outlets, only.

                                 replyreport
                           2. 73

                              mrpopoposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                              But however limited the practical implications of their support may be, the symbolic implications seem clear.
                              
                              “You can’t help who admires you, but when white supremacists start endorsing you for president, you ought to start asking why,” said Richard Cohen, the president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks white-power groups.
                              
                              This article again utilizes guilt by association. The title alone implies guilt by association.
                              
                              It's probably because Trump doesn't have a filter and they agree with his immigration policy. Whatever the reason is, it doesn't invalidate his policies nor does it make him a racist.
                              
                              If you want to discredit Trump you'll need to actually attack his policies, not his character, and definitely not the characters of those tenuously associated with him.

                              replyreport
                              1. 78

                                 Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                 Yes, I attack his policies which are Xenophobic, boorish, simplistic, pompous, mysogynistic.
                                 
                                 We can agree to disagree....
                                 
                                 So, if he can issue a blanket discriminatory statement just banning an entire group because of their religious affiliation, it is a reminder the Third Reich to me, the kind of thing the white supremacists lap up.  But, I have to ask you if Hitler had come along would you have found a way to justify him regardless of so many saying otherwise?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 73

                                    mrpopoposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                    "Yes, I attack his policies which are Xenophobic, boorish, simplistic, pompous, mysogynistic."
                                    
                                    In this thread you started with David Duke. He's not a policy. Which policy do you consider xenophobic or misogynistic?
                                    
                                    "So, if he can issue a blanket discriminatory statement just banning an entire group because of their religious affiliation"
                                    
                                    Between ignoring religious extremism when it happens, and implementing a temporary blanket policy, I'd take the latter. It's a simplistic, hamfisted approach, one I disagree with, but it's better than not having the conversation to begin with. By ignoring the actual problem you end up with cases like Rotherham and Cologne - actual incidences of misogyny and xenophobia.
                                    
                                    "it is a reminder the Third Reich to me"
                                    
                                    I don't remember the Third Reich stating they were going to temporarily ban Jewish immigration until they figured out the problem of Jewish terrorism.
                                    
                                    "But, I have to ask you if Hitler had come along would you have found a way to justify him regardless of so many saying otherwise?"
                                    
                                    Are you implying that recognizing Islamic terrorism as a threat is comparable to Nazi ideology?

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 78

                                       Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                       Banning all Muslims in an attempt to control influx of Islamic extremists is like banning all Christians to fight off the violent 'Christian Identity Sect'. It is an imposition on a broad group that is fascist in its origins and unjustified.
                                       
                                       Xenophobia: Idiocy about building a wall that Trump says will be paid for by the Mexican government involutarily. It sounds tough, but as with so many other things that he says, it means nothing.
                                       
                                       The man who wishes to be the next president needs to be careful what he says, when he speaks of blood coming from a variety of female orifaces, it is pretty crude. Or are we just being 'political correct' by noting his disrepect for people and groups other than ourselves?
                                       
                                       The Muslim thing, the solution to the southern border are extreme, as are his comments about both groups.
                                       
                                       In any case, I hope the GOP nominates his so that the people of a more evolve sensibility can destroy both Trump and bring the GOP to the brink of extinction.

                                       report
                                       1. 95

                                          wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                          Refusing to accept thousands of unvetted Muslims into the country is the same as banning all Muslims from the country?  Say that again?
                                          
                                          Building a wall means nothing but is xenophobic?  How can it be both?  Keeping illegal aliens out of the country while welcoming legal immigrants is xenophobic?
                                          
                                          Buying health insurance for everyone in the country, with money we don't have, isn't "extreme"?  Or is it only things you disagree with that carry that label?
                                          
                                          Truly, it appears that you are desperately grasping for any straw that might discredit the man, whether it makes sense or not, or whether it must be twisted completely away from what was meant.

                                          report
                                          1. 0

                                             PrettyPantherposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                             Trump discredits himself with his boorish behavior.  Last night's debate was disgusting, stupid, incredibly ugly.  Trump boasting about what's in his pants.  Really?  This is what you want for President?  When it comes to Trump, policies be damned.  At this point, I wouldn't care if his policies matched my wishes to a "T."  The man does not need to be in charge of a country, solely based upon his behavior.  However, his "policies" (such as they are), are dangerous.  Putin loves him; David Duke loves him; Sessions loves him; Chris Christie (a minor bully compared to Trump, Duke, and Putin) loves him.  You all who defend him are in great company.

                                             report
                                          2. 78

                                             colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                             +1 ...wilderness! 
                                             

                                             report
                                       2. 73

                                          mrpopoposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                          8 US code /# 1182- Inadmissible Aliens allows the US government to stop anyone or any group they deem as a danger to the US from entering:
                                          
                                          "(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
                                          Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
                                          
                                          As Trump stated it would be a temporary ban, it's likely he would use the ban to develop stricter screening for future Muslim entry to the US.
                                          
                                          Your analogy would be accurate if the number of violent Christians were in the hundreds of millions, or if most terrorist incidents were perpetrated by Christians. If Christians were attacking at such rates and held beliefs incompatible with modern western societies, proposing a temporary ban on Christians to (presumably) implement a system to vet acceptable Christians is a far cry from an unjustified, fascist action.
                                          
                                          This is of course, assuming Christianity and Islam are exactly the same. Unfortunately, the present case is that 15-25% of Muslims are considered radical extremists, and that most terrorist incidents are perpetrated by Muslims. There are no equivalent Christian groups to ISIS, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Boko Haram, Al-Shaabab, Hamas, Hezbollah etc.
                                          
                                          Obviously, regarding any ban of any group you are going to be broadly imposing restrictions on individuals who may not fit the characteristics you are trying to restrict. During the Iran hostage crisis president Jimmy Carter banned the entry of Iranians and added secondary screening requirements to the few Iranians who would be allowed entry for humanitarian or national interests. It should go without saying that the Iranians he banned were not necessarily supportive of Islamic terrorism. By comparison, Trump's proposal makes more sense: he's banning people based on ideology. Carter banned people based on nationality. I'd hardly call Carter a fascist, though.
                                          
                                          Regarding the wall - I'm to assume that any restriction on illegal immigration is considered xenophobic to you? Why? I don't think it's the greatest idea in the world, but it's far from the worst. If he manages to get the Mexican government to pay for his own wall I'd applaud him for his audacious ingenuity, but I'm leaning towards it being hyperbole.
                                          
                                          I'm of the opinion that a crude joke about menstruation shouldn't automatically disqualify a candidate. It's not my cup of tea, but there are bigger fish to fry. As it is, he's disrespectful and crude about everyone, including himself. But if I were to choose between being politically correct to the point of ignoring mass child sexual abuse cases in several different cities, and making unflattering comments towards an individual, I'd take the latter.
                                          
                                          I'm not sure if it is apt to call Trump's solutions "extreme" without looking at the alternative; that is to say, "do nothing." If your arm were trapped in a rock, it would be extreme to cut off your own arm to escape. It would be far more extreme to do nothing and slowly die.
                                          
                                          These two quotes sum up some of my feelings regarding this subject:
                                          
                                          "The same failure of liberalism is evident in Western Europe, where the dogma of multiculturalism has left a secular Europe very slow to address the looming problem of religious extremism among its immigrants. The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists." - Sam Harris, https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the … liberalism
                                          
                                          (Note how Harris identifies sense and reason in fascists)
                                          
                                          "Without a sensible, mainstream counter-narrative, who are the uninformed, frustrated and fearful going to look to when those elected are clearly lying (at least to themselves) about the problem? It’s no surprise that some people may opt for Trump’s wrong ‘solutions’ over no clear solutions at all. Trump is at least ‘in the right ball park’ as they say Stateside, insofar as the problem is related to Islam. It’s just that he’s swinging like a lunatic and isn’t fit to play the sport." http://www.gspellchecker.com/2016/01/sa … ald-trump/

                                          report
                                    2. 78

                                       Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                       Am I mistaken, did Trump not promote a general ban against Muslim immigration?
                                       
                                       Forcing another nation to build and pay for the wall is NOT a practical, but it will make the rightwinger's heart skip a beat or two.
                                       
                                       The man discredits himself, and like you say about Obama not doing anything well, I say the same thing about Trump. My instincts are different from yours. Check out Live to Learn's most appropriate to one of your earlier posts, that I believe is on this thread.

                                       report
                                    3. 78

                                       Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                       To Mr. Popo:
                                       
                                       Thanks for your considered reply to my inquiry.
                                       
                                       8 US code /# 1182- Inadmissible Aliens allows the US government to stop anyone or any group they deem as a danger to the US from entering:
                                       
                                       
                                       Yes, conservatives consistently reference this power of the President to support a blanket ban. This is on the books, but it is in error to say that President Carter's response to Iranian nationals which was in direct response to act of war by Iran compares to using this in a cavalier way to eliminate anybody you don't like without any real foundation (Jews,Communists,Moslems) we are not attacking combatants but philosophies and ideas, which for the political right is always problematic. Of course there would be a problem with either German or Japanese nationals during WWII, that is the difference
                                       
                                       http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security … cts-please
                                       
                                       According to this article by a trusted and renown publication, the percentage of the global Muslim population at risk of being radicalized (that is still a far cry from taking up arms against Western Governments) is around 1 percent. This is hysteria and a witch hunt led by rightwing fanatics that are afraid of any threat to the hegemony of Christianity in America.There is virtually no correlation between being a Muslim and being a violent participant in Jihad. People like Trump play to our most base and unsubstantiated fears and insecurities. This is not 21st century leadership but is reminiscent of worse tyrants of the 20th century.   
                                       
                                       
                                       Seems like everyone seeking entry into the United States needs to be properly vetted as terrorism can come from any number of sources. We cannot forget the homegrown type that killed hundreds in Oklahoma City in 1995.
                                       
                                       
                                       I don't know about your facts but they are incorrect according to my sources as with1.6 billion Muslims  15 to 25 percent is 200-400 million that are radical extremists, if that were the case we would be on defcon 5 every day. So, it has to be ridiculous on its face. On the contrary it makes more sense to ban enemy aliens, than ban innocents over some blanket perception of Muslim ideology. Where is it established that Muslim=Jihad? Carter is not a fascist as he used the provision correctly, Trump, on the other hand, does not use it correctly.
                                       
                                       
                                       Of course we need to be concerned about illegal immigration, but looney toon solutions does not get us any closer. How is he going to get Mexico to pay for the wall. It is not good enough to just say that as he did to Bill O'Reilly one day, 'Just leave that to me'. Collecting 12 million illegals from American soil is not going to be neither humane nor wonderful. I wouldn't be so quick to applaud him, as only his statements are audacious ingenuity.
                                       
                                       While anyone can slip up, Trump behavior is of a pattern. This is not the first time he has relished on racial and sexist comments. It is not going to play well on an general electorate that is overall much more moderate than the rightwing GOP. We can do better than Trump and his solutions on immigration, ISIS, islamic terrorism, etc. I am not convinced that it is either Trump or nothing.
                                       
                                       To be honest, If I were living in Europe I would have a different attitude as the problems of immigration over the continent is magnitudes worse. In Europe there is a danger of overrun by the refugee crisis. Leaders of these societies have to make choices balancing the traditions of open borders welcoming refugees while at the same time not losing their own national identities.

                                       report
                                       1. 73

                                          mrpopoposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                          Your source is comparing the risk of Muslim radicalization in Europe with the risk of Muslim radicalization globally. It oddly pointed this out itself, but went on to compare the two figures anyway and did not disprove Gabriel's original claim anywhere:
                                          
                                          "Is this figure accurate?
                                          
                                          Not according to Angel Rabasa, who is a senior political scientist at the RAND corporation. While conducting research for a 2014 book he coauthored, "Euro Jihad," he found that Western European intelligence agencies estimated that less than one percent of the Muslim population living within their borders are at risk for becoming radicals.
                                          
                                          Note that this is an extrapolation of estimates gathered in Europe; Gabriel’s claim refers to a percentage of Muslims worldwide."
                                          
                                          1% is not an insignificant number, certainly not small enough to dismiss as hysteria. Your article's own source Angel Rabasa says it's potentially dangerous. Here is the full quote by Rabasa in his book, Eurojihad:
                                          
                                          "Even a support level of just 1 percent in a national Muslim community of 3.4 million (Germany) or 1 million (Spain) represents a substantial and potentially dangerous level. (The 1 percent figure is difficult to demonstrate empirically, but it is consistent with the assessments of some European intelligence agencies.)
                                          
                                          To reiterate: the 15-25% source is a global estimate, not European, and includes radicals who do not utilize violence to accomplish their goals of Sharia, as outlined in your own source by Rabasa. It's harder to justify military intervention when the radicals are operating using nonviolent means (incidentally, Defcon 1 is the "danger" setting).
                                          
                                          Of course there's a correlation between being Muslim and participating in violent Jihad (I am wondering how you came upon this conclusion after citing a source based on the book "Eurojihad"). In fact it's a causal relationship because it's explicitly stated in the Koran and Haddiths. This isn't just a radical idea that people of all ideologies succumb to at random. Only Muslims are Jihadists. Obviously the causal link isn't strong but it's still significant even if we were to speculate that it's at 1%. And violent Jihad is not the only form of Jihad anyway, nor is it the only issue in Islamic ideology.
                                          
                                          You're right, Trump and others like him are preying on people's fears. The problem is that these fears aren't entirely unsubstantiated, or even mostly unsubstantiated. Since these concerns haven't been adequately addressed by sensible voices and instead have been routinely excused, people like Trump dominate the discussion, even if their solutions are hamfisted and simple-minded.
                                          
                                          It seems your only contention to that approach is that Carter responded to an act of war and banned enemy aliens. Acts of war are not the requirement in the relevant US code, danger is, and any group that is deemed dangerous can be banned from entry, not just enemy aliens. However, I've seen plenty of atrocities committed by Jihadists and Islamists that would fall under not just acts of war, but crimes against humanity. Do they represent all Muslims worldwide? No. But the terrorists in the hostage crisis didn't represent all Iranians either. Unfortunately, blanket restrictions and stricter entry is sometimes the only practical way of dealing with such threats.
                                          
                                          I am not applauding Trump - I said I would be if he were successful in obtaining an international business deal where he doesn't even have to pay for his own wall. It would be a masterful display of business negotiation. As I recognize that part of the proposal as hyperbole I'm not taking it seriously.
                                          
                                          I think the racist and sexist comments are intentional. People are tired of unfounded accusations of racism and sexism, especially when it's getting people fired from jobs, ruining reputations or worse, allowing criminals to get away with crimes. Hell, even Sanders has been accused of sexism by Clinton for the use of the word "shouting." When they see a candidate relish in making offensive comments, it's refreshing. Personally, I don't consider anything he's said as directly sexist or racist, but maybe it's because I've been numbed to such accusations. When people throw labels like bigot, racist, homophobe and sexist like it's candy, it gets a bit dull.
                                          
                                          Funny enough, your last paragraph sounds an awful lot like what I've heard from David Duke and other white nationalists who agree with Trump. Food for thought

                                          report
                        2. 71

                           rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                           Guilt by theoretical association. The ultimate PC stance to knock somebody off their footing. If that were true you could put it this way. Do you breath? Well Hitler breathed too. So you must live a life like Hitler.

                           replyreport
         3. 90

            IslandBitesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyJWUwG7oJ0

            replyreport
            1. 78

               Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

               Thanks for that "Island Bites" proof positive that Trump is lying, so where are all the Trump supporters coming to his defense over this matter?

               replyreport
2. 57

   Alternative Primeposted 8 years ago

   One of the BIGGEST Con-Men & Liars you'll ever see ~ MORE recently,  approximately 1 week ago ~ ~ A little contradiction wouldn't you say ?
   
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9geYl9J_Mc

   replyreport
3. 78

   colorfuloneposted 8 years ago

   

   replyreport
4. 87

   Stacie Lposted 8 years ago

   I think many of the posters missed my point...is Donald is so proud of his family's history then why change his name?

   replyreport
   1. 73

      mrpopoposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      He didn't change his name, unless he's his own time-traveling grandfather (Futurama, anyone?).

      replyreport
   2. 90

      IslandBitesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Truth is he didn't. But that wasn't the point of Jamie anyway.

      replyreport
   3. 78

      colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Both of my Grandfathers changed their last names before they came to America.  They took easier names for English speaking people to be able the pronounce.  It was and is very common to do. 
      
      They even changed their first and middle names a bit for the sake of becoming Americans.

      replyreport
5. 0

   ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

   Sometimes we have to swallow the bitter pill people ! If trump is the "wrong guy " why does he have the numbers working for him , and not even at your expense ?    Someone explain that ?  Without telling a majority of people .....You're wrong ?
   
   By the way , go look at the colonial or old English spelling of any name , at your own name , you may be surprised .

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Yep. My father's side was originally Daffys. We've got a politician around here who has been in office for some time and his name is Loser.

      replyreport