"It's a temporary ban. It hasn't been called for yet. This is just a suggestion until we find out what's going on."
Just a suggestion. Just an idea he's throwing out there.
I suspect all of his policy notions are subject to softening like that. If softening is called for. Hardening... he can do that too. As circumstances call for it.
Between him and Hillary, it's going to be quite a dance.
May 11, 2016
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
48 comments:
Trump: "I got yer hardening--right here!"
I'm not sure where the BBC gets that he's softening his stance. He's always said the ban on Muslim's entering the U.S. was temporary. His position now is no different than he first brought up the idea.
This is exactly what he said before.
"I suspect all of his policy notions are subject to softening like that. If softening is called for"
"Whaddayamean, softening? Take the wall. Everybody's going on about the wall. Trump is mean. Trump is racist. Trump doesn't like brown people. Wrong. I love brown people. My whole campaign is about love. I am about love. America is love. So the wall. The wall is gonna be the nicest wall in the world. It's gonna be a welcoming wall. It's gonna be a wall that says, come in, that way, follow the arrow. It's gonna be a wall made of gauze. Gauze made in America, none of that cheap Chinese stuff. So everybody on the other side can see the American dream. But you're darn right, I'll do what is called for to make America great again. Great deals will make America great again. I will make great deals."
This is not a stance change. Trump has always said that we should have a temporary ban/halt on immigration of Muslims and from Muslim countries UNTIL we get our immigration system fixed.
There is no change or softening.
A "Softening". What a crock!
It was never, even from the first time he said it, a "ban ban" (the immigration analog of a "rape rape"). It was always qualified by "...until we can figure out what's going on over there".
And for the BBC to be pushing this! Hey, Europe, there isn't one Trumpian "wall" keeping mostly Muslim immigrants from traipsing up from Greece -- there are now several! How many European countries have now either de jure or de facto or both shut down immigration, especially from Muslim countries? Even France has, for who knows how long, shut down immigration.
What Trump offhandedly proposed that time on the stump already happened, & it wasn't in the US. It happened in Europe. It would be a good thing for Europe to face up to this fact.
Next thing, he's going to say that he wouldn't punish women who get abortions. Is he now aiming for the Democrat nomination?
Trump will erect a 50 story condo inside Gramma's OODA loop. It'll be YUUUUUUGE! He will live in the penthouse.
Every time you read that Trump says so and so, when you hear the whole clip, he did not quite say that.
Quite a dance indeed.
That reminds me that I should stop fretting so much about this ridiculously crappy set of candidates vying to head up the government of this nation I love, and just enjoy the show.
You will see him walk back most of his pronunciations.He has a lot of walking back to do.
(cont) as others have said, he's already said this before. But there is the IDEA out there that he meant all muslims. So he would need to CLARIFY. A little clarity goes a long way. Especially if your enemies are going to take your statement and make you out to be Hitler.
"His position now is no different than he first brought up the idea."
Agreed. Of course, BBC now has a Muslim Mayor.
"You will see him walk back most of his pronunciations.He has a lot of walking back to do."
Dream on.
A headline from Reuters two weeks ago:"Austria plans fence to stop migrants at major border crossing with Italy". But Trump is nuts, right? Here's some video of protests at the Italian/Austrian border. But the US is uncivilized, right? Her's a headline from the London Daily Express:"" Furious migrants stage violent protests & hurl rocks at police van in Greek border camp" But Trump is nuts, right?
The earliest Trump would become President is January 20, 2017. He can't impose his ban on Moslems any earlier than that.
Trump could prepare by making a list of foreigners who are known to be Moslems. For example, London's mayor is known to be a Moslem, so his name could be placed on the list and banned almost immediately after Trump's inauguration.
@Mike,
London's mayor is known to be a Moslem, so his name could be placed on the list and banned almost immediately after Trump's inauguration.
Well, turnabout is said to be fair play.
I, for one, look forward to one thing during a Trump presidency. Hillary will not be making decisions affecting the US from a government office. That simple fact should make everyone in the US breathe a sigh of relief.
I've never seen such demonization of the GOP POTUS nominee as with Trump. For those here 55+, was it ever this bad in 1980?
Let's see his tax returns. If he is truly a teflon I don't care what you think tough guy what's he afraid of? Bottom line they will show he is worth a lot less than he claims, so maybe (definitely) not the master deal maker, he donates about zero cash to charities but gives away free golf rounds and hotel nights, and he is involved in some pretty sketchy deals with sketchy partners. If he's worried about the fact that americans might not get correct image from tax returns (like Mitt Romney) then he's pretty soft.
So you trump supporters, how about getting him to Man up on this and be transparent on his finances or are we going to have another Crony Capitalist? Remember Federal law requires this of the president as well as putting his assets in blind trusts or otherwise in a form that his decisions as president cannot favor him or his family. Shall we begin to put money where his mouth is?
I'm still waiting to hear how they will determine who is a Muslim for purposes of keeping them out. Are we relying on self-reporting, which will weed out terrorists who are unwilling to lie to us? Or are we just going to ban people who "look" Muslim, ruling out a lot of Iranians and Arabs but scooping up plenty of Hindus and Christians from the Mediterranean?
6 mos. of 24/7 Trump. Even die hard Trump supporters will lose interest at a certain point. It's inevitable ie human nature.
The daily minutiae of bullshit is already at a fever pitch.
>
Oh, re: the kinder/gentler Trump not gonna happen as a leopard can't change its spots. And his supporters don't want him to change and would be pissed if he did.
It's a catch-22 plus Trump can't help himself.
A man for all seasons er chameleon doesn't do him justice. ok, he changes his spots daily so hopefully he doesn't end up confusing himself.
Still eagerly awaiting the kumbaya moment at the Cleveland convention.
This is the Clinton problem right here - Hilary herself, like most politicians, is just a figurehead for a clique, a tribe. This, here, below, and the whole department she operates, is the very soul of that tribe, which sometimes calls itself the Democratic party.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/epa-administrator-we-rock-writing-rules
Sheer howling insanity.
No idea or mention of costs, of damage, of consequences.
And they are ALL like that, down to every lawyer and clerk, and all their State analogues are like this as well. All of them happy to destroy the economy in a state of smug self satisfaction. If you want to know who you need to defeat, it is this woman and her 250,000 helpers.
Whatever else Trump is, he's no ideologue. He's a pragmatic man who is selling himself as a doer, focusing on doing the things ordinary Americans want done. Those who scoff and question his ideaolgocal credentials don't realize he's not running on ideals, he's running as a man of action. Dare I say Ike?
The "until we know what is going on" qualification has been there from the beginning, media hype notwithstanding.
"What does Trump stand for?"
He stands for anything BUT he won't stand for "that"!
@Brando,
I'm still waiting to hear how they will determine who is a Muslim for purposes of keeping them out.
All immigrants from potentially Muslim countries will be invited to an all-you-can-eat BBQ ribs hoedown, & if they don't jump at the chance --- whoosh! --- yer out of the line!
Blogger dmoelling said...
Let's see his tax returns. If he is truly a teflon I don't care what you think tough guy what's he afraid of? Bottom line they will show he is worth a lot less than he claims,
How? His income tax returns will show his income (That's why they are called income tax returns.) They have to do with income, not wealth. The two are only loosely related. You can have lots of wealth and little income. Or you can have lots of income and little wealth. Your statement is mindbogglingly stupid.
Look at Warren Buffett. His annual income tax returns show income in the $40-50 million range of income. Does that mean he falsifying his net worth $70 billion or so? Not a bit of it. All it means is that he had $40-50mm in income. It tells us nothing whatsoever about his wealth. (Buffett's wealth is mainly in Berkshire-Hathaway which as a matter of policy has never paid dividends.)
I am still waiting for someone to go through Trump's 90 page financial disclosure to the FEC that shows his worth to be $9bn or whatever. If he is only worth $3bn, I am sure one of his opponents or the press would have reported on the discrepancy by now. They would have gone line by line saying "He claims this building is worth $50mm but we think it is only worth $30mm." and so on.
Has anyone done that?Got links?
You and Chuck keep saying his disclosure form is substantially wrong but never tell us how it is wrong. What assets is he overvaluing and by how much.
Otherwise you should stop making a fool of yourself. Chuck, you too, since you keep making the same dumb statement and never reply when I ask where the overvaluation is.
John Henry
It is common to restrict rights by nation, organization, affiliation, and commonly held principles (e.g. philosophy). This is not pro-choice, i.e. selective exclusion or discrimination of a politically unfavorable class or human life.
"For those here 55+, was it ever this bad in 1980?"
It was not this bad with Reagan but Nixon was removed in a coup d'etat if you don't believe it,
We now know that Mark Felt, who died last week, was the “Deep Throat” source for Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in their coverage of the Watergate scandal. Felt was the number #3 man in the FBI hierarchy at the time J. Edgar Hoover died. He expected to be named as Hoover’s successor but Nixon appointed an outsider, L Patrick Gray. Gray had had an outstanding career but was vilified in the Watergate story. He never spoke of it again until he commented on Felt’s admission of his role three years ago.
Reagan was merely "An Amiable Dunce " to Clark Clifford.
Meanwhile, in news about the elites, Tony Blair is fucking Murdoch's ex-wife.
And on it goes.
This Muslim Invasion issue is the one totally clear one.
Trump wants to do whatever it takes to stop Christians and other infidels from murderous attacks by Arabs.
Hillary has sold out to Arabs to do whatever they want done to help them infiltrate into position to slaughter Christians and other infidels.
The only question left is whether a voter is a Christian or other infidel.
In the immediate aftermath of the San Bernardino massacre it was reported that Tashfeen Malik had posted her desire to kill Americans on social media, yet she was allowed into the United States on a K-1 visa and later issued a green card. Moreover as part of being issued the visa and the subsequent green card she had to have passed "extensive" background security screenings. Something seems wrong here, doesn't it? She expressed a desire to kill Americans online and yet the Obama administration allowed her to come in anyway? Is that not a broken process? Should that process be fixed before we allow more Muslims into the United States?
According to Wikipedia, James Comey has since claimed that there were no such postings on social media, only private messages between the couple. Well, this administration would claim that as a fact if it was true, but they would claim it if it was not true, since it offers them a fig leaf to duck behind. Bottom line is that this country needs to do a better job of screening immigrants before we invite them in. Absolutely we need to do this for everybody, but Muslims would be a good place to start.
@Big Mike,
And, while they were at it, our "Top Men" in immigration might have wondered why an Urdu woman had an Arabic boy's name "Tashfeen". If they had done some looking they might have found reference to this "Tashfeen Malik":
Tashfeen Malik (King) is a nom de guerre for a Muslim Jihadist from the annals of Muslim history. As he is known to Muslims “تاشفين ملك الموحدين” Tashfeen Malik Al-Muahideen, in English: Tafhseen King of the Unitarians (Muslims) and the conquerer of the west. The history stems from when Yusuf ibn Tashfin led the Muslim forces in the Battle of Zallaqa/Sagrajas. He came to Andalusia from Morocco to help the Muslims fight against Alfonso VI, eventually achieving victory and allowing the Muslims to remain in Spain for centuries. The battle has been symbolic for Muslim victory against the Christians.
Not sure why it is up to The USA to have to come up with a reason to not let someone in. How about people have to have a good reason to come in?
A free society is based on the foundation of a moral populace. That means when you go out your front door you can trust 99% of the people you see and that the 1% you can't trust are scared of the 99%. It takes a vanishingly small number of people in a population to break this trust.
More than a small number of Muslims believe in sharia law. Sharia law explicitly calls for women to be treated as property, gay men to be thrown off roof tops(lesbians are just women anyway), apostates to be buried to their waste and have rocks thrown at them til they die, and infidels are killed or become Dhimi. If a young girl is raped she has to marry her rapist or be killed to save teh family honor.
Muslims are not compatible with a free society. They are proving this in Europe, the US, and everywhere else they have numbers around the world. Only stupid people want them to come here in numbers.
I don't think it is a change in position. After all the original outcry after he first said it, I googled a day or two later and ran into some interview in which he suggested (at that time) that Congress put in a six-month ban until our vetting procedures could be improved.
This is the BBC; they aren't the souls of accuracy.
It was always a temporary thing:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/
"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," a campaign press release said.
It hasn't hurt him, because as it leaked out in the wake of the SB massacre, a foreigner can be posting jihadi stuff all over and still get a US visa. Not only don't they check, the agents had been forbidden to check on the grounds that it was discriminatory.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/secret-us-policy-blocks-agents-social-media-visa/story?id=35749325
Fearing a civil liberties backlash and "bad public relations" for the Obama administration, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson refused in early 2014 to end the secret U.S. policy that prohibited immigration officials from reviewing the social media messages of all foreign citizens applying for U.S. visas, according to a former senior department official.
"During that time period immigration officials were not allowed to use or review social media as part of the screening process," John Cohen, a former acting under-secretary at DHS for intelligence and analysis. Cohen is now a national security consultant for ABC News.
@dmoelling -- Do you have a cite for the legal requirement for Trump to release his tax returns? If not, then too bad. There's also no way to divine someone's net worth from an income tax return -- only an idiot would think that you could.
He has already discussed the transition of his assets to a blind trust if elected. That information is on the "Internet" if you're curious.
A lot of you are arguing a straw man. Yes, it was always supposed to be temporary. No one, including the BBC, is disputing that as far as I can tell. What is obviously a softening of his stance is that it's just a "suggestion", that "no one's called for it" yet. Bullshit. He called for it, he said he was going to do it, it wasn't just some offhand hypothetical "let's think about the possibility" nonsense.
And curse you all for making me defend the BBC. But I read the article, and nowhere do they say that it's the "temporary" part that is softening. In fact, they acknowledge at the beginning that a "temporary ban" was his original stance.
In fact, they acknowledge at the beginning that a "temporary ban" was his original stance.
Up until now that has never been acknowledged by the Hillary forces in the press. My daughter told me he was going to make Muslims wear badges. The willful misrepresentation of Trump's position by the press in order to demonize him just helps him with people who actually listen to him.
It won't be a "dance" "lawprof", it will be a stomping, and that criminal old bitch will deserve it. Sorry in advance for Trump's lack of "civility".
"You're so not getting this. Hint, the travel request forms can include identification of family members. Any OIC state citizen - add OPEC or any other hostile supranational organizations to that if you like - gets to fill out extended forms. If they want to exempt out on grounds of being a protected demographic, say a Copt or Maronite or Yazidi et al, document that and consider it."
Extended forms from certain countries of origin I get--we already do that. My question though is this--if the only way to identify a Muslim is by self-identification (or as you suggest identification of family members, associates, etc.) how would this screen out someone who can simply lie on those forms or have their friends lie for them?
I'm all for heightened scrutiny for anyone with "red flags"--countries of origin, meeting certain background profiles (e.g., they are related to someone with associations with dangerous groups, or were identified as attending a radical meeting). But the idea of screening "Muslims" as if there's some way to identify them against their will makes no sense.
"I don't know what you mean but it sounds nasty. Like, "nobody darker than this paper bag," is that what you're trying to say?"
That is what I'm trying to say, and yes it does sound nasty. But not just nasty, also completely unworkable, as Muslims don't have a "look" anymore than non-Muslims do.
Jim Webb could have been measuring the drapes for the White House already.
"The willful misrepresentation of Trump's position by the press in order to demonize him just helps him with people who actually listen to him."
This. SO much this.
Do the people misrepresenting Trump really think their lies aren't going to backfire? "Oh, they lied about what Trump said? Guess I'd better trust them when they say Hillary or Bernie's the best candidate, then!"
SMH. If you're caught in a lie, or a 'willful misrepresentation' - your credibility disappears like mashed potatoes down a garbage disposal. It puts EVERYTHING you say past that in the 'Questionable/Probably Lie' category. It takes a long time to earn trust - it just takes seconds to destroy it.
Look, Walker was my first choice, then Cruz. But honestly - the more I look at Trump the better HE looks against Hillary and Bernie. I'm results-oriented - what I see with Hillary is someone angry and wanting to be unquestioned in her ideas that she wants to force on all of us - and who'll duck any consequences for being wrong. In Bernie - I see someone who's stuck in the '70s politically, still thinking Communism/Socialism is the 'wave of the future' when that wave's already receded and the tide's gone out leaving massive piles of bad results in plain view.
Trump's failed at things? Trump's learned. That's more than practically all of our political class can say - where if something fails you just do it again and throw more money at it until you get out of office or retire.
Compared to Hil or Bernie, Trump looks pretty darn acceptable at this point.
""You will see him walk back most of his pronunciations.He has a lot of walking back to do."
He has already done so. Nearly every statement he's made that's been suggested as a policy has been walked back a day later. He's not the most precise guy in the world. I think you, as a trumpeter, are a bit over forgiving of his gaffes.
Jim Webb could have been measuring the drapes for the White House already.
Well, since he's not currently, a Senator, he might as well be an interior decorator. Gotta make $$ somehow.
"All immigrants from potentially Muslim countries will be invited to an all-you-can-eat BBQ ribs hoedown, & if they don't jump at the chance --- whoosh! --- yer out of the line!"
They can do a test like in History of the World part 1 where the Romans are trying to figure out which eunuch is actually not a eunuch. And so they get a really hot woman to dance in front of them to see the if they have any sort of reaction.
"He is a eunuch."
He.... is a eunuch"
"He's Dead."
Finally they have her do the dance in front of Gregory Hines who can't hide his erection. Busted.
So, in this case they could do it a lot of ways. offer ham sandwiches, hold up a cartoon of Prophet Mohammad, have a scantily clad woman ask the questions. There are plenty of options.
OK, we Trump supporters surrender.
Trump has been exposed as a President that wants to get laws passed by Congress in deals that are made with the people's Representatives, and him a Tyrant.
Oh, the shame of it!
Like speaking of Trump's way of handling Demonstrators at his Rallies, he is reported as being too tough on them and a Nazi, or as being a helpless wimp. Whichever way he does it the dishonest Media says is a flip flop. It is almost funny.
I'm still waiting to hear how they will determine who is a Muslim for purposes of keeping them out.
Easy! Just ask them to draw Muhammed. If they refuse, keep them out.
Post a Comment