Trump Calls for Ban on All Muslims Entering US

[Underhill]

Even if trump gets elected the likelyhood he would be allowed to actually ban muslims is low. If he becomes the president then he will have to abide by the rules and laws of the govt. He will be subject to the constitution and further will be subject to scrutiny from the people. He will not be able to do whatever the hell he wants and if he wishes to keep his presidency he will have to keep the people happy. Trump is above all else a pragmatist... if the vast majority of the american population do not support his muslim ban then he will prob drop it. To do anything else would jeopardize his position and power.

My primary worry with Trump is foreign policy. That is the primary job of the president and he has about as much tact as my cat.

 

[esmith]

Even if trump gets elected the likelyhood he would be allowed to actually ban muslims is low. If he becomes the president then he will have to abide by the rules and laws of the govt. He will be subject to the constitution and further will be subject to scrutiny from the people. He will not be able to do whatever the hell he wants and if he wishes to keep his presidency he will have to keep the people happy. Trump is above all else a pragmatist... if the vast majority of the american population do not support his muslim ban then he will prob drop it. To do anything else would jeopardize his position and power.

Huh, the Obama didn't seem to have any problems with any of the issues you raise. Except for banning Muslims.

 

[Mycroft]

My primary worry with Trump is foreign policy. That is the primary job of the president and he has about as much tact as my cat.

He’s like a transatlantic Nigel Farage who’s unaware that his boiler leaks carbon monoxide.

 

[Revoltingest]

My primary worry with Trump is foreign policy. That is the primary job of the president and he has about as much tact as my cat.

Is he more worrisome than his competition?
Hillary looks more dangerous, but Bernie looks safer.
In a sense....Trump is just the median.

 

[Underhill]

Is he more worrisome than his competition?
Hillary looks more dangerous, but Bernie looks safer.
In a sense....Trump is just the median.

Hillaries strongest asset is her foreign relations experience. I don't know that I agree with all of her goals, but she's not likely to get us into world war 3 spouting racist propaganda.

And there is no way I can see Trump as the median. He is the lunatic fringe of the Republican party.

Hillary and Chris Christie are the closest we have to the median right now.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hillaries strongest asset is her foreign relations experience. I don't know that I agree with all of her goals, but she's not likely to get us into world war 3 spouting racist propaganda.

Experience can be either good or bad.
In her case, foreign experience is what I personally find to be the worst about her.
She voted to enter & continue funding the wars, & now threatens Iran.
This is fine with most Dems & Pubs, but I'm neither.
So I'll vote for a anti-war candidate....not some chimera of Dubya & Bama in a drab pantsuit.

And there is no way I can see Trump as the median. He is the lunatic fringe of the Republican party.
Hillary and Chris Christie are the closest we have to the median right now.

He's the median (mere mirthful jab) between Bernie & Hillary.....who has spouted some pretty loopy stuff too.

 

[Underhill]

Experience can be either good or bad.
In her case, foreign experience is what I personally find to be the worst about her.
She voted to enter & continue funding the wars, & now threatens Iran.
This is fine with most Dems & Pubs, but I'm neither.
So I'll vote for a anti-war candidate....not some chimera of Dubya & Bama in a drab pantsuit.

He's the median (mere mirthful jab) between Bernie & Hillary.....who has spouted some pretty loopy stuff too.

Voting for the war doesn't mean much. I and many others were for the war before we were against it. (pun intended) Election rhetoric aside I see her as a person who is generally level headed. I'm not talking about her particular politics but her methodology. I can't say that for Trump. I think this is as important, if not more so, than political rhetoric and talk about what they would "do" once in office. Most of that is hogwash anyway.

Middle of the road all depends on what subject we are talking about.

 

[columbus]

Election rhetoric aside I see her as a person who is generally level headed. I'm not talking about her particular politics but her methodology. I can't say that for Trump. I think this is as important, if not more so, than political rhetoric and talk about what they would "do" once in office.

This is the point to me. Not that Hillary is magically delicious. She is a competent politician who's schtick is better for the average USonian than any of the alternative choices, by a good deal.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Voting for the war doesn't mean much. I and many others were for the war before we were against it. (pun intended)

It doesn't mean much to many.
But to us in the anti-war camp, it's significant.
(Note: Those Dems who only oppose war when the prez is a Pub, & vice
versa, aren't really anti-war. Their opposition is strictly partisan based.)

Election rhetoric aside I see her as a person who is generally level headed. I'm not talking about her particular politics but her methodology. I can't say that for Trump.

These are public personas.
Be careful about voting for/against pols based upon emotional impressions of such things.
I care more about what agenda they'd actually implement in office.
Example:
Bernie looks appealing, despite his economic stance being opposite of mine.
Why?
He wouldn't be able to implement anything more leftish than would Hillary.
But he has a less corporate welfare orientation, which means his net economic effect would be slightly more libertarian.
The wars have devastated our economy, & Bernie has a record of less foreign adventurism.

I don't care that Hillary looks poised & calm.
I don't even know what Bernie sounds like.
Those are just distracting personal traits.
A cautionary old saying about Massachusetstan....
Voters take a good hard look at the issues,
& then go out to vote for the best looking candidate.

 

[Revoltingest]

General comment.....
The cavalier attitude by members of the Big Two (Dem & Pub) parties
towards the millions of people they'd kill overseas in wars (1 million in
just Iran so far) which don't serve our defense is why I'm a third party type.
We have very different values & concerns.

Note:
Even if Hillary changed her stripes to become an anti-war civil libertarian,
I'd still mock her pantsuits. Low hanging fruit always calls to me.

 

[Underhill]

General comment.....
The cavalier attitude by members of the Big Two (Dem & Pub) parties
towards the millions of people they'd kill overseas in wars (1 million in
just Iran so far) which don't serve our defense is why I'm a third party type.
We have very different values & concerns.

I am not ambivalent towards the wars. I simply cannot get angry about a politician who fell for the same garbage I did. I had serious problems with the Bush administration for both why we went to war (the reality, not the line we were fed) and how it was handled. Obama improved on the second, although getting us out quicker would have been nice (the outcome would probably not have been all that different but if things are going to go to hell, why waste time and money putting it off right?)

Note:
Even if Hillary changed her stripes to become an anti-war civil libertarian,
I'd still mock her pantsuits. Low hanging fruit always calls to me.

I like her pant suits.

 

[Underhill]

These are public personas.
Be careful about voting for/against pols based upon emotional impressions of such things.
I care more about what agenda they'd actually implement in office.
Example:
Bernie looks appealing, despite his economic stance being opposite of mine.
Why?
He wouldn't be able to implement anything more leftish than would Hillary.
But he has a less corporate welfare orientation, which means his net economic effect would be slightly more libertarian.
The wars have devastated our economy, & Bernie has a record of less foreign adventurism.

I don't care that Hillary looks poised & calm.
I don't even know what Bernie sounds like.
Those are just distracting personal traits.
A cautionary old saying about Massachusetstan....
Voters take a good hard look at the issues,
& then go out to vote for the best looking candidate.

There is a difference between voting based upon how a candidate looks and how he/she composes himself. Trump has always been a clown. Persona or not, that matters. Nobody in the international community would take him seriously.

With Clinton it is the same. I'm not talking about the show she puts on. I'm talking about how she has handled herself as a state senator and the SoS. She has credibility on the world stage and I am confident that when things go to hell, she would handle things the same way she has for the last 30 years she has been in the lime light.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am not ambivalent towards the wars. I simply cannot get angry about a politician who fell for the same garbage I did.

I'm not angry at pols who threaten & pursue wars.
But I won't vote for them.
I find it easy to not fall for their "garbage"....
If they threaten, start or wage needless wars, then this is strong evidence that they're dangerous hawks.

I had serious problems with the Bush administration for both why we went to war (the reality, not the line we were fed) and how it was handled.

It was different for me.
I opposed the wars regardless of the merit or vapidity of the reasons.

Obama improved on the second, although getting us out quicker would have been nice (the outcome would probably not have been all that different but if things are going to go to hell, why waste time and money putting it off right?)

Where I blame Obama was in not ending them as soon as he gained office.
He merely continued the Bush agenda.

I like her pant suits.

I don't know if she has any better alternative.
But they're an oddly mockable signature....like Trump's hair.

Were I in office, people would be making fun of my loud shirts.
Just the other day, I wore one with Santa in his sleigh being pulled
from the chest over me shoulder by reindeer on the back.
And yes, I wore it in public.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is a difference between voting based upon how a candidate looks and how he/she composes himself. Trump has always been a clown. Persona or not, that matters. Nobody in the international community would take him seriously.

Were he prez, I've no doubt the international community would take Trump very seriously.
Why? He'd wield great power.
What matters to me is the agenda he'd implement.

With Clinton it is the same. I'm not talking about the show she puts on. I'm talking about how she has handled herself as a state senator and the SoS. She has credibility on the world stage and I am confident that when things go to hell, she would handle things the same way she has for the last 30 years she has been in the lime light.

Credibility is questionable for her.
But I take her seriously when she repeatedly supports & threatens needless war.

I don't give a hoot whether foreign leaders like or respect her.
It's about what the president actually does in office.
I greatly disagree with the agenda I see her likely to implement.

 

[metis]

I am not ambivalent towards the wars. I simply cannot get angry about a politician who fell for the same garbage I did. I had serious problems with the Bush administration for both why we went to war (the reality, not the line we were fed) and how it was handled. Obama improved on the second, although getting us out quicker would have been nice (the outcome would probably not have been all that different but if things are going to go to hell, why waste time and money putting it off right?)

I agree with you on the above, but you should also remember that even Colin Powell got tricked by that administration as well, citing his speech at the U.N. for the administration as being the lowest point in his long political career, so don't beat-up on yourself too badly.

Obama got us out of Iraq about as fast, and some say too fast, as he could in reality. I've heard military experts in the past state that it takes about a full year to pull a large deployment of troops out because of the logistics and dangers involved.

As far as Afghanistan is concerned, even though I wished we would have pulled out asap, I do worry about what the Taliban would likely do with the girls in school and any people who supported us or the Afghan administration. There could easily be a bloodbath, and the education of girls would probably be over.

I like her pant suits.

Now here I fully disagree with you. OK, so what if I'm rather ol-- er, mature-- and somewhat traditional?

 

[esmith]

What I can't understand is those that thinks that Hillary is the peacnick in a pantsuit vice tie dyes. Some say she fell for the Iraq war but was hoodwinked into doing so doesn't say much for her intelligence or just maybe she was really for it. Remember she is the same person that pressed for the removal of Omar Kadafia (which the Pentagon and some Democrats objected to by even trying a back door deal) which lead to a vacuum that Islamic terrorist are now filling (seems like that has happened before and the same Hillary supporters blame Bush for ISIS but not Hillary...just saying). Hillary is pressing for a no-fly zone in Syria which could easily lead to a military confrontation between Russia and the US. Isn't Hillary calling for the removal of Assad without any idea who would replace him. Sound familiar? Oh that's right Iraq and Saddam. (of course she has flopped on Assad first he was a reformer before he is evil and must go) . Now about her and the middle class. Why is it that Wall Street loves the Hillary? Is it because she would impose new rules, regulations, and taxes on Wall Street? Yeah, that's it. She has won over the hearts and minds of those big money people on Wall Street and they are blinded by her charm(?). So it appears that the Hillary will win the Democrats nomination for president and if the pundents are right about a Trump primary win will give the Hillary the White House. I'm sure that the Democrats will love their Big Money, Hawk in pantsuits as the President.
Who knows it could be a orange pantsuit in the White House.

 

[columbus]

What I can't understand is those that thinks that Hillary is the peacnick in a pantsuit v

Nobody thinks that as far as I know. In a USA where the electorate seems very willing to count on military power and giving up their freedom to obtain "security", being a peacenik would cost her votes.
So she is not one, nor does she pretend to be one.
Tom

 

[Underhill]

I don't know if she has any better alternative.
But they're an oddly mockable signature....like Trump's hair.

Were I in office, people would be making fun of my loud shirts.
Just the other day, I wore one with Santa in his sleigh being pulled
from the chest over me shoulder by reindeer on the back.
And yes, I wore it in public.

I'm not sure if they are even mockable. I mean yeah, she's a woman, and as such must wear pant suits or skirts. So...how is that odd or funny?

 

[metis]

Some say she fell for the Iraq war but was hoodwinked into doing so doesn't say much for her intelligence or just maybe she was really for it.

Tons of people got hoodwinked, including Powell and a great many Democrats and Republicans. The intelligence was slanted, with really not much to go on to counter it. It was a sell job all the way and, unfortunately, a very successful one. I opposed us going in on the basis that the radioactive testing was coming back 100% negative, and weapons can be hidden but radioactivity can't. Were you opposed to it?

 

[esmith]

Tons of people got hoodwinked, including Powell and a great many Democrats and Republicans. The intelligence was slanted, with really not much to go on to counter it. It was a sell job all the way and, unfortunately, a very successful one. I opposed us going in on the basis that the radioactive testing was coming back 100% negative, and weapons can be hidden but radioactivity can't. Were you opposed to it?

Let's put it this way. I saw Saddam as a threat to the quasi-peace in the area. We know that he had ambitions to expand his rule in the area. So, yes I supported the war but not just because the threat of WMD (which he had by the way). However, the follow-up actions taken by the military (based on civilian control) was totally misguided. The idea that we could bring two sides together by playing the "nice guys" was asinine. The military control of the country was predicated on foggy bottom idealism. When you break a country you are totally responsible for it. If the US had done what MacArthur did in Japan I suspect that we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now. However, the destruction of various quasi-military entities probably would not have been accepted by the politicians. Yes, we would have been committed to stay in Iraq considerably longer than what the Obama administration would and did allow. So I blame the Bush/State Dept for the inept way they handled the war and the Obama/State Dept for not taking the advice of their military advisers and pulling out leaving a vaccume and a vindictive religious party in charge.