DICKERSON: There are links between ISIS and this terror attack in San Bernardino, but there were no red flags. So, how do you stop this from happening again?But Trump won't let him get away with that. He goes back to the unexamined premise:
TRUMP: Well, I think there are red flags. And a lot of people knew what was going on in that house or that apartment. And people were not wanting to call because they thought it would be inappropriate to call.Dickerson is forced to bounce off Trump:
DICKERSON: Inappropriate why?Trump responds:
TRUMP: Well, they were saying that it was -- that they would have been profiling. And a person said, we sort of knew what was going on, but we don't want to profile. Can you believe this?Again, Dickerson must take his cue from Trump and ask "Should there be profiling?" And Trump says: "Well, I think there can be profiling." Dickerson fails to drag a meaning of "profiling" out of Trump, and Trump doesn't get too technical about it. The people who didn't call the police were afraid to be thought of as profiling, but Trump doesn't tell us what kind of profiling could be acceptable. He sticks to saying that it's "pretty bad" not to have called the police, because "People are dead." It's a problem that "everybody wants to be politically correct" and "a lot of people are dead right now."
Dickerson takes the new cue and asks if people have been "too politically correct with Muslims in America." I guess he's hoping to trap Trump in some significant way. But of course Trump thinks we're too politically incorrect. Dickerson pushes him: "where are you on the question of tracking Muslims in America?" Trump quickly switches to "radicals in the Muslim group," and Dickerson tries to get him back to "this idea of tracking Muslims in America, that's the thing." Trump focuses on "people that have to be tracked" and "If they're Muslims, they're Muslims." He's not talking about all Muslims, but Dickerson acts as though he is: "There are three million Muslims in America.... What should they feel about their place in American life now?" Trump is unfazed. The problem is "radical Islamic terrorism," and there's one person who won't even say that, "and it's called President Obama."
Dickerson reminds Trump that "the criticism of you is, that you are playing on fears that people have," and Trump interrupts to say he's "playing on common sense" and "we have a problem." He introduces the idea of going after the families of terrorists, notably the wives of the 9/11 terrorists. What exactly would he do to them? He's "going to leave that to your imagination," but it would be "very tough." Does Trump worry about going "too far" and thus "creating more terrorists"? "What's too far? What's too far? They're killing people...."
In the pundit segment of the show, Gwen Ifill tells us she "kept track of how many times John asked him about whether will you be tracking Muslims... Four times at least.... And each time he didn't answer the question." Well, yeah. Trump doesn't accept the questions as asked. He didn't say he wanted to track all Muslims. Dickerson kept trying to insert that. Trump never said it, and he also didn't bother to deny it. Is that evasive... or skillful management of the dialogue? Ifill replicates Dickerson's "three million!" talking point: "he's... continuing to stir up a lot of unhappiness about a subset. Three million people in this country." Trump isn't stirring that up. Dickerson and Ifill are saying it, and they're hoping they can make Trump say it so they can pin it on him.
The panel worked very hard trying to trash Trump. Jerry Seib of The Wall Street Journal accused Trump of "selling attitude, not agenda," of posing as "a tough guy" and not having any "details behind the toughness." But most campaigning is messaging at a fairly high level of abstraction, isn't it? If a candidate gets wonky and detail-heavy, it's because that's his abstract message: I'm the wonky, detail-heavy guy. There followed some rote discrediting of polls. Trump is — they'd like to say — losing support but the polls just haven't noticed yet. Then Seib takes an elitist shot at those little people who like Trump:
[They] are more downscale economically, they're lesser educated. They're a new kind of Republican voters and they're not concerned about values, social conservative values. They're not even concerned about issues. They are concerned about leadership.The tone is how could these utter nonentities be deciding an election? Everyone is like...
পোস্টগুলি
৫৮টি মন্তব্য:
The MSM is stumped by common sense. Literally stumped
Trump is the strong horse in this race. But not everyone likes the strong horse.
Then there are everyday American's who have been wondering for years, "How did we lose the profiling argument? Why can't we profile?"
And Trump challenges that never argued battle that was so easily lost. He says, "Sure we can and we should profile!" and the media is stumped, "But wait, you lost that argument, you can't profile! We said so!"
But there are a lot of people out there who ask themselves, "Why can't we profile? Why does grandma have to take her shoes off right along with the middle eastern guy with the beard?"
The one sized fits all policies that emanate from D.C. confuse a lot of people and Trump throws a grenade at those policies and blows them to smithereens.
Why bother anymore trashing Trump? He does that himself very well. I think it's time to give him more rope. Liberals and Democrats should step back and let the Republican Party deal with him.
Blogger Georgie said...
Why bother anymore trashing Trump? He does that himself very well. I think it's time to give him more rope. Liberals and Democrats should step back and let the Republican Party deal with him
Until he wins the primaries. Then you'll have to deal with him.
"DICKERSON: Inappropriate why?"
Seriously?
I appreciate Althouse's incisiveness on the actual words spoken here, rather than the personalities that spoke them.
It is a sad thing that the Appointed Journalists can't do the same.
I realize I am not saying anything new about our journalists, but do want to send a nod of appreciation to the author of this post.
I am Laslo.
Jeb and Marco's platform of open borders, dismantling Social Security and Medicare, and massive tax cuts for the ultra wealthy isn't resonating with people pulling in $1,000 per week. Go figure!
"Should there be profiling?" Why shouldn't there? (By the way, let's ask HRC, with lots of follow-up questions, of course--be sure to ask her at least 4 times Gwen. And by the by the way, has any journalist ever asked HRC any question 4 times?)
"give him more rope." Their rope is his ammo.
And you notice also that Donald Trump just casually mentioned - repeatedly - taht teh september 11, 2001 terrorists had sent their wives hom before the attack and that their wives and families surely knew?
He got no contradiction or question from Jon Dickerson - obviously because John dickerson was not confident enough about the 9/11 facts to say anything.
The terrorists who carried out the attack were not married, and had no children that I know of. One of them wanted to marry his Turkish girlfriend, and the others were eventually able to persuade him to get back into the plot. He was the pilot of the plane that was supposed to crash into the Capitol building but instead went down in Pennsylvania after the passengers staged a rebellion.
There were Saudis accused of leaving the country quickly, and of being allowed to without being questioned, but that was AFTER the attack.
Also, the Saudi chief of intelligence abruptly resigned or was fired ten days before Sept 11th, 2001.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turki_bin_Faisal_Al_Saud
From 1977 to 2001, Prince Turki was the director general of Al Mukhabarat Al A'amah, Saudi Arabia's intelligence agency, resigning the position on 1 September 2001, some ten days before the September 11 attacks in which 14 Saudi nationals hijacked commercial American airliners. Prince Turki subsequently served as ambassador to the Court of St. James's and the United States.[1][2]
This raises the possibiliy that he, or someone working for him, had started the plot or aided the plot, but now couldn't stop it, at least without revealing guilt, so they let it go ahead in order not to be implicated.
But Donald Trump is not saying anything like that - just this nonsense about the wives and families of the plotters having left the country before Sept 11th.
This post and Althouse's take down of media idiots is why I like to come here and read her blog. Well done! I read this post aloud to my husband and he likes it too. We are not Trump supporters, well not yet but like what he is doing and how he is doing it. We are rich, well educated, not Republicans, and we may very well vote for Trump. Deal with it, (Obama) suckers.
The MSM is stumped by common sense. Literally stumped
I do not believe that Trump will ever “lose” an interview. He can run circles around any of the clueless MSM types that he’s liable to be interviewed by. One thing he is good at is forcing them out of their usual vagueness and implication and into specifics that he can then easily bat away.
Trump may sort of lose a debate in that he may not have a ‘big moment’ or may not get much camera time in a crowded field which results in Trump afterwards merely holding his lead in the polls or only slightly improving it – but be bested by a talking head in a one on one interview? Never happen.
I saw him interviewed by phone by the MSNBC morning show staff a few weeks ago after one of his supposedly campaign-killing remarks. He had them eating out of his hand within seconds – chuckling and laughing fondly at the brashness of his verbiage and the playfulness of his attitude.
There’s a lot of talk about how Trump would not stand a chance against Hillary. My personal opinion is that he would destroy her in the general election. The way he is able to define his opponents with a devastating phrase or two, the unflattering contrast between his openness and her constipated personality, and best of all he is Obama’s exact opposite – which I believe is the real key to his success – all this is to Hillary’s disadvantage.
The fact that ISIS is not waiting until after the election to attack America does not bode well for Hillary. Actually ANY GOP candidate has a big advantage if homeland security remains the top issue during the general election. ISIS may be handing the election to the GOP.
When will Huff Po move coverage of Trump off the 'Entertainment Section' of their web site? When the primaries begin? When Trump wins a few primaries? If he wins the nomination? If he wins the general election? Will be strange for Huff Po to cover the POTUS on their Entertainment pages.
Are these journalists so clueless that they don't recognize the techniques that Trump pulls on them are taught in every sales course in the country, i.e. how to steer the customer's questions about your product on to grounds that you, the salesman, control?
Trump is, first & foremost, a salesman. I say that with great respect, because it's a skill I need but suck at. It is, actually, very instructive to watch him work a crowd or the press. But, for the punditry not to see how he works his magic, I mean, jeez, you really gotta ask "Just how fuckin' stupid are these people?".
Trump does not give away points in an argument. Losers do that.
As a trial lawyer the first and greatest commandment was never to give your opponent any testimony from your witness that he cannot get introduced from his own witnesses. Don't call them. The corollary rule is once your testimony has won, to sit down.
Hillary knows that too. But she need never fear hard return questions. She just tells them off once and they go silent. Somehow I cannot see Trump going silent.
The really funny thing is hearing a repeated meme that Trump offers no real answers, when he is the only one who offers real answers, and then he repeats them plus adds new ones everyday.
"They're a new kind of Republican voters"
Yes, they are called Democrats and it should scare the shit out of Hillary as she contemplates losing the last 10% of the white vote plus a significant share of the black vote which might just stay home.
I don't like Trump but he makes excellent points about "tracking," for example. What happened to visa holders who just disappear after arrival ? We don't know. My impression was that Trump's original statement concerned less than all Muslims. He was probably talking about Muslim visa holders who SHOULD be tracked and aren't. Most sentient people are now aware that Mohammed Atta's visa renewal was mailed to his PO box six months after 9/11.
This panel and the terrorists have one thing in common.
They hold the culture of Trump's supporters in complete and utter contempt. They think they can act this way without reproach, as those folks are too stupid to insult.
I have to think part of Trump's appeal within the Republican party is that in a debate or an interview, he's never going to be thrown by a journalist lying on prime TV. He is not a gentleman, and he doesn't labour under the delusion that anyone else in the media or politics is.
I appreciate Althouse's incisiveness on the actual words spoken here, rather than the personalities that spoke them.
I had a related thought but it led to a different place. Althouse is a careful examiner of language, but she tends to focus on only those words present in a given exchange. That's how it should be if you're talking about a debate or evaluating a legal matter or dissecting an argument, but the panelists are not evaluating Trump in the isolation of a single interview.
And it IS true that a lot of what Trump says is carelessly close to dangerous stuff: Here is the original exchange that launched the Muslim database discussion:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-says-he-would-certainly-implement-muslim-database-n466716
Absolutely there are ways to analyze what Trump said there and excuse or explain it away. At first it seems like maybe Trump is answering a different question. Maybe Trump, as Althouse points out, means a database only for certain Muslims, perhaps just the bad ones.
But Trump seems heedless to the obvious historical parallels that the reporter later hits him with. Trump may not be any of the things that his worst critics claim, but he also doesn't care how close he gets to those lines. That fearlessness thrills his supporters, but this is a guy who has never had power over another person beyond the ability to discontinue doing business with them.
Althouse, it seems to me, holds the reporters to strict and fair account on their use of language. Given the power of the press, that is as it should be. But she seems to give Mr. Trump greater latitude. Why? He accent does not make him sound as educated as Mr. Dickerson, but he should not be held to a lower standard - especially given the power we are considering giving to the man.
How is Trump any less qualified than Obama or Bush?
@Writ Small
I was aware of that earlier thing, but it was never clear. It involved him responding to something on the fly. So Dickerson was trying to get him to say it and itynotable that he wouldn't. A database of all Muslims would be a ridiculous proposal, and I don't think that should be pinned on him. But he might want his antagonists to keep bellyaching about it.
Donald Trump:
The problem is "radical Islamic terrorism," and there's one person who won't even say that, "and it's called President Obama."
This is how Obama dealt with that subject tonight. (it was about the best part of his speech, although that's not saying much - Obama even had details about the case wrong.)
http://heavy.com/news/2015/12/president-obama-isis-terrorism-san-bernardino-attacks-shooting-speech-full-text-transcript-oval-office-read-terror-december-6-2015-today-tonight/
That does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities. This is a real problem that Muslims must confront, without excuse. Muslim leaders here and around the globe have to continue working with us to decisively and unequivocally reject the hateful ideology that groups like ISIL and al Qaeda promote; to speak out against not just acts of violence, but also those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity.
But just as it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization, it is the responsibility of all Americans — of every faith — to reject discrimination. It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country. It’s our responsibility to reject proposals that Muslim Americans should somehow be treated differently. Because when we travel down that road, we lose. That kind of divisiveness, that betrayal of our values plays into the hands of groups like ISIL. Muslim Americans are our friends and our neighbors, our co-workers, our sports heroes — and, yes, they are our men and women in uniform who are willing to die in defense of our country. We have to remember that.
Obama also called it a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war against America and the West.
That's not the half of it! It doesn't just call for war - it calls for what amounts to war crimes and crimes against humanity.
And he spoke against "growing efforts by terrorists to poison the minds of people like the Boston Marathon bombers and the San Bernardino killers."
The person who wouldn't say "radical Islamic" was Hillary Clinton.
It's notable
it's more accurate to say screen, for various factors including Salafi sympathies, they seem to be expanding the pool of candidates,
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/06/isis-jihadis-can-enter-u-s-90-day-fiance-visas-without-face-face-check/
Not needing them to reach an audience, Trump is not trying to ingratiate himself with them.
I'd imagine in front of a camera is really difficult to, on the one hand try to please someone, while at the same time skillfully dodge their stealthy gotcha questions.
Its a different dynamic from that of the other candidates. Trump's television experience gives him a priceless edge.
What we all know is that a government that cannot launch a web site, cannot track anybody. I have to register at some OPM website which promises to protect me against the use of the personal data that was stolen from OPM while it was being run by the "The First Latina OPM Director !"
That brilliant Latina Director placed a Chinese national who does not live in the US in charge of the database that contains personal information about government employees, like secret agents and stuff.
Here's Donald Trump saying something completely incorrect on Face the Nation today. -I have no idea what he's basing it on even - not even allegations. I can guess where it came from, but in hat case Donald Trump has got the facts all garbled in any case. John Dickerson does not stop him, probably because he has no idea whether he's right or wrong, and maybe because he's focused on other matters.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-nation-transcripts-december-6-2015-trump-christie-sanders/
I'm not playing on fears. I'm playing on common sense. We have a problem. The World Trade Center came down. And, by the way, speaking of coming down, they put their families on airplanes a couple of days before, sent them back to Saudi Arabia, for the most part. [?!!]
Those wives knew exactly what was going to happen. And those wives went home to watch their husbands knock down the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and wherever the third plane was going, except we had some very, very brave passengers, wherever that third plane was going.
Hey, there were 4 planes, not three. There were three destinations. This is probably just a slip.
Those wives knew exactly what was happening.
DICKERSON: You mentioned the families, going after the families. What does that -- what does that mean? How would it work?
TRUMP: Well, I would go after -- well, at least I would certainly go after the wives who absolutely knew what was happening.
That's the third time he says it. what wives??
Even if any of them were married, they didn't take their wives to the united states. Does he mean Saudi diplomats? Who wasit who left BEFORE the attacks??
And I guess your definition of what I would do, I'm going to leave that to your imagination. But I will tell you I would be very tough on families, because the families know what is happening.
Now that's the 4th time he says that.
Then he says:
Even in this last instance, I see everybody knew. So many people knew. They thought that this man and this woman, whether he was radicalized or how he became, they thought something was going on. Why don't these people report it to the police? Why wouldn't they report it to the police?
It might actuaklly have been reported, because somebody thought police had been called there maybe for a domestic violence complaint. The people who didn't wnat to report something - I don't know what house they were talking about - if it's the same, is it the one in Redlands or the one in Riverside or some other place altogether. And when was this and what was the state of their knowledge - it's all a vague anonymous news report.
Now, they said it was profiling. They didn't want to profile. Can you believe this? They didn't want to profile, even though they thought something very bad was going on.
No, they thought something bad *might* be going on. Meanwhile the investigation is running toward the idea that there was nobody else involved, although I don't know if there as sufficient money for that.
DICKERSON: But his sister said she didn't know what was going on. She was crestfallen for the victims here.
TRUMP: I probably don't believe the sister.
DICKERSON: You don't believe the sister.
TRUMP: No.
DICKERSON: So, you would go after her?
TRUMP: I would go after a lot of people, and I would find out whether or not they knew. I would be able to find out, because I don't believe the sister.
I would be able to find out, because I don't believe the sister.
DICKERSON: Do you worry about creating more terrorists?
TRUMP: No. We have to stop terrorists. And the only way you're going to stop them, in my opinion, is that way.
You know, they say they don't mind dying. I think they do mind dying. But I can tell you this. They want their families left alone. We have to stop terrorism.
Interesting statement about Trump voters by liberal reporter Jerry Seib of The Wall Street Journal: "they're lesser educated. They're a new kind of Republican voters...."
If they are a new kind of Republican voter, it seems an admission that previously they were Democrat voters, i.e., low information voters voted Democrat.
Is it possible Trump is conflating this?
https://newrepublic.com/article/94796/peretz-miami-herald-evidence-9-11
A more relevant recent issue might be Syed Sr.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/12/06/dad-san-bernardino-shooter-agreed-isil-obssessed-israel/76890108/
"He said he shared the ideology of al-Baghdadi to create an Islamic state, and he was obsessed with Israel," the father told a reporter in an interview outside the home of this other son, Syed Raheel Farook, in Corona, Calif.
<
The father said he counseled his son to be patient because, he said, in time political changes in the Middle East will accomplish his desires.
"I kept telling him always: stay calm, be patient, in two years Israel will no longer exist," the elder Farook told the newspaper. "Geopolitics is changing: Russia, China, America too, nobody wants the Jews there."
--
Coupled with the circumstances of Syed Jr #1's marriage..
The phrase "they're lesser educated" doesn't sound very educated to me.
I can assure Mr. Seib - and all the Coastal Elite - that I am not 'lesser educated'. I am Ivy-educated. My wife is Ivy-educated. Two of my children are Ivy-educated. The only one of us who is not Ivy-educated is my Midwest-educated daughter, who is a Senior Producer for a Network News Division, living in Manhattan.
They loathe her opinions in production meetings.
"Nicolos, who are those cretins out in the snow?"
"Just proles. The more downscale economically, they're lesser educated, they're not concerned about values, they're not even concerned about issues. They are concerned about leadership."
"Go order them to move off. They are scaring precious Anastasia"
"Certainly, dear. I will be just a moment..."
"Managed" is a great verb choice.
Trump may not be any of the things that his worst critics claim, but he also doesn't care how close he gets to those lines. That fearlessness thrills his supporters, but this is a guy who has never had power over another person beyond the ability to discontinue doing business with them.
Hmmm. So … true “fearlessness” should be credible only if it is exhibited by someone who has wielded ‘real’ yet undefined power, instead of the ‘false’ or nonexistent power that is on Trump’s resume?
Mocking Trump supporters must be fun, therapeutic or both because it has been common from the start. Frustration is probably relieved a bit by venting even in this backhanded, implied manner. Instead of being ‘impressed’ by Trump’s non-PC courage Trump supporters are “thrilled” by Trump’s false “fearlessness.” Maybe a thrill up their legs? That kind of Chris Matthews Hardball thrill?
If I’m missing the point I’ll be glad to be corrected.
I’m a Fiorina person myself but realistically the best she can hope for at this point is the VP slot. I think she killed her slim chances for the nomination during the baby-parts controversy. She can’t say she saw something when she didn’t. Only Trump can do that.
Althouse … seems to give Mr. Trump greater latitude.
I think she had a post after one of Trump’s early triumphs in which she said, “We’re screwed.” Right after the first debate? I certainly do not see her as a Trump supporter but how she’ll vote is unpredictable. She’s an independent and I’m sure she has criteria which are unknown to us.
Trump's support from Blue Collar voters is what is propelling him in the polls. If he can consolidate this group and combine it with most of the standard Republican coalition that will be a recipe for a landslide. This used to be a lock democrat constituency.
If Trump is the nominee there will be a shift. The Democrats will gain a lot of support from republicans that want more immigration. Yes there are a some of them. My district in Eastern Washington State sends a Republican to DC that invariably supports "immigration reform" because the agricultural economy over here is dependent on the immigrant labor. The democrats will also get what is left of the "pork" vote. People who make their living off of DC. You are going to see the rest of the country move to the republican party. This new coalition will consist of all the people who are hurt by huge influxes of cheap labor among other things. You will be seeing some of the Black Pastors who are coming out for Trump right now.
We live in interesting times.
YoungHegelian: "Are these journalists so clueless that they don't recognize the techniques that Trump pulls on them are taught in every sales course in the country, i.e. how to steer the customer's questions about your product on to grounds that you, the salesman, control?"
YH is absolutely correct.
In sales parlance, Trump Is Always Closing. Always.
Images of Glengarry Glenn Ross comes to mind.
Look, I am a firm believer in the notion that a conservative should vote for the most conservative candidate who can win.
I will never, ever, pull a lever for Trump. He is not a conservative.
But I find it laughable that people who have had no problem pulling the lever for Bush -- worst president in the history of the US!, according to many -- or Obama -- the furthest left president in the history of the US! according to many -- think Trump is not acceptable as president.
What would he do? Use the power of the feds to persecute some poor bastard who made some anti-Islamic video? Destabilize some country like Libya?
I have been getting the impression lately that the reason that journalists have a hard time cross-examining Trump is that the bullshit he throws out is so fast and furious, that it is hard to sort it all out just to ask the next question. Trump's language is so loaded with so many fabulisms, it is hard to organize it into a reasonable exchange.
What exactly are we supposed to find so attractive about Trump? That he takes on the mainstream media? I'm all in favor of that, but Cruz and Rubio do it better, and they don't get all wound up in stupid comments that the fact checkers demolish.
I'm not at all impressed with any Trump policy. Taxing the Ford Motor Company on Mexican assembly plants? Come on.
I haven't once heard him acknowledge that our greatest problem area with illegal aliens is with people who overstay their Visas; not border-crossers in Texas. (I'm no softie on immigration; I'm an Ann Coulter fan.)
Nominate Trump if you must. But he will never win a general election. I am not looking forward to Hillary Clinton with the opportunity to replace Justice Scalia and perhaps a couple others on the Supreme Court. We're not electing the president of the frat house.
Oh my! "America, where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average." I wager
Next November Mr. Seib will learn that by definition 2/3rds or more of America is "lesser Educated."
I need to print up some T shirts, "lesser Educated and loving it!" It'll probably be forbidden in the public schools as a micro aggression – even though 3/4s of us are and are destined to remain part of the 90 million underemployed and unemployed, at least until government shrinks to half its size, like Warren Harding did and nobody died or even starved, and the Roaring Twenties boomed.
Where's my popcorn? Who owns the football pool on the size of Mr. T’s landslide? It’s probably illegal given today’s SEC, but maybe we could get away with it if we donated the proceeds to charity. We can’t have a real poll putting the campaign consultants, pundits and newspapers out of business. i.e. “no vote before its time :-)
Oh my squared! A football pool, $1 per vote, per person, per U.S. billing address as verified by the bank permitting the use of their debit or credit card. Maybe "know your customer can be used for something worthwhile, not government overreach. No multiple votes for same person. The individual voter could change their vote as many times as they'd like for another dollar. Probably not that many undocumented folks voting or those that can't afford a stamp, much less the bus fare to get to polling place. The banks could even add it to their ATM options. "Vote now, It's for the Children!" Better yet we'll see who care's about a secret ballot. "Lesser educated and proud of it!"
Unless something has changed in the last couple of years, we don't really know the real names of the 9/11 culprits. Sure we have names--lots of them. Names they gave to the airlines that matched documents they were carrying. Different names that they had used at various times when we could track them. But none of those matched the DNA of the parents that could be tracked down by the FBI and various intelligence agencies when they were compared with the DNA samples taken from the remains. And that is why anyone displaying confidence in the ability to vet any foreigner is a fool. The international ID system is broken beyond repair. Unless DNA is brought into the mix, we have no chance.
I like how they describe his supporters so negatively. It's so clearly manipulative. They must be scared to have thrown subtlety to the wind like that.
Love him or hate him, Trump is entertaining when he pokes fingers in the eyes of newspeople who never held Obama to account during his campaigns and apparently do not plan to hold HRC to account for her many lapses, errors and lies.
I do agree with the point that some people knew what was happening with that couple in San Bernardino, starting with the man's mother who shared the home where they had stashed TWELVE PIPE BOMBS and other relatives who observed his retreat from past habits. It's hard to comprehend standing by when you think a family member might be planning to kill people, if only because he most likely would be caught and killed himself.
Love him or hate him, Trump is entertaining when he pokes fingers in the eyes of newspeople who never held Obama to account during his campaigns and apparently do not plan to hold HRC to account for her many lapses, errors and lies.
I do agree with Trump's point that some people knew what was happening with that couple in San Bernardino, starting with the man's mother who shared the home where they had stashed TWELVE PIPE BOMBS and his father, who told an Italian reporter (but not the police) that his son had embraced radical Islam.
It's hard to comprehend standing by when you think a family member might be planning to kill people, if only because he most likely would be caught and killed himself.
It is almost too funny to see the same people who think using the no-fly list or terrorist watch list as a "common sense" gun control measure freaking out about "tracking" muslim people.
I trust all Muslims giving them the benefit of the doubt,,,,until they fail the verification process. This is also known as profiling not racism or discrimination based on race that the left has used to stifle free speech. In addition, failure to profile for fear of being labeled a 'phone of some sort has gutted the laws that would prevent mental cases from obtaining weapons. Ultimate profiling to prevent gun violence would be an effort by psychiatrists and psychologists to determine whether a person is capable of handling the responsibility of carrying a weapon and that includes drug abuse violations.
Hey, isn't Gwen the woman who was chosen to moderate a debate in 2008 when she had a book coming out about Obama right after the election?
Profile by behavior, not by race. There are a reported one billion Muslims around the world. The most populous Muslim nation isn't in the Middle East, it's Indonesia. If you only look at young Middle Eastern men, you'll likely catch quite a few potential terrorists but by no means all of them.
If 99.99% of all Muslims on Earth rejected ISIS (and I don't believe the percentage is quite that high), then you're talking about 100,000 who follow ISIS. The Paris attacks directly involved 8 people with a few more in the background. The Fort Hood attack was the act of a single man. The Boston Marathon attacks were the result of two men. The Chattanooga attacks were the acts of one man. The San Bernardino attacks were the result of one man and one woman. 9/11 directly involved 16 men with an unknown (but likely very small) number of supporting people in the background. Those 100,000 people could mount tens of thousands of attacks.
Why does John Dickerson- why would anyone- pretend they don't know what Trump is talking about with profiling?
This is a serious matter. Clock boy was all about stopping profiling. BLM wants to end profiling. "Zero tolerance" policies teach children not to use their judgement. This is a society we are creating, and there are parts of it - like this- that are to our detriment.
Blogger Chuck said..
I haven't once heard him acknowledge that our greatest problem area with illegal aliens is with people who overstay their Visas; not border-crossers in Texas.
--
so you're not talking about the sheer numbers, but country of origin?
I don't like Trump, but have to admit that I enjoy watching him film flam the press. He has, as YH says, the great salesman's ability to boil down a paragraph of persuasion into a sentence or even a phrase. What he says may not be 100% accurate and may not stand up to extended scrutiny, but at the time he presents the phrase it hits a note that reverberates and obtains a visceral reaction of agreement.
As bad as Trump is, whenever the press tries a gotcha, they almost invariably come off worse than Trump.
Dickerson is the guy Trump refers to when he says the press is dishonest. For example, Trump says that neighbors didn't report the things going on at the terrorists house for fear of being accused of racial profiling. Dickerson then asks if there should be profiling and assumes in all subsequent questions that Trump advocates the kind of racial profiling Dickerson implies.
Trump's point was simple and clear and consistent with his positions all along. Political correctness will get us into trouble. Now it has.
YoungHegelian: "Are these journalists so clueless that they don't recognize the techniques that Trump pulls on them are taught in every sales course in the country, i.e. how to steer the customer's questions about your product on to grounds that you, the salesman, control?"
Absolutely!!! This is crystal clear to me, since I spent my life in a sales type profession as a financial planner, stock broker, insurance etc. Sales and keeping the client focused on the goal.
The other thing that strikes me about Donald Trump's speeches and why they are so different and well received by the audience is that they are not just your normal stump speeches. After years of being in the corporate world, I recognize a motivational speech when I hear one.
Listen, I mean really listen, on youtube one of his speeches. Be aware of the audience keenly listening too. There isn't a lot of the typical candidate making statements....waiting for the crowd to cheer....making more statement....pausing for more cheering. This is the normal rhythm of a political stump speech. Rah rah ...cheer. rah rah....cheer. conclusion and then a Rocky victory lap around the stage. The crowd is just a prop for the politician.
No. Motivational..... and he is masterfully drawing the crowd into being part of the motivational speech and allowing them to internalize the motivations.
Masterful!
The whole TV industry, including Fox, suffer from Pauline Kael syndrome. They just cannot believe that it is they who are the out of touch.
Did anyone see that picture of what is supposed to be those two in Irvine California that shows him without a beard and her with her face uncovered and looking more Hindu than Moslem? Is it them?
It's on page 5 of today's New York Post. I don't know how to find it on the Internet. I have it saved, though.
It's hard to comprehend standing by when you think a family member might be planning to kill people, if only because he most likely would be caught and killed himself.
I don't think they thought that. Not even the mother probably understood what was happening and if she did she was part of it, but it's unlikely she would agree.
Conspiracies usually are more succeasful when they operate on a "need-to-know" basis.
If 99.99% of all Muslims on Earth rejected ISIS (and I don't believe the percentage is quite that high), then you're talking about 100,000 who follow ISIS.
I would think that would give ISIS ENORMOUS security problems.
It's not, in fact, only 00.01% aupport but they still have to be very careful whom they recruit and do it slowly, having their recruits pass many tests.
What percentage of gang members or Mafia members do you think have to defect to make the organization incapable of doing anything? I'd say it couldn't handle even a 10% defection rate without being severely disabled.
Lol. I think what you meant to say is "because Trump lies."
Or "because Trump makes stuff up."
But fascinating that you have a very academic and scientific analysis for what he does: "Phrasing his fabrications in the form of a question or speculation." Yes, brilliant stuff.
It's Trump Jeopardy.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন