2016 Presidential Horse Race

2016 Presidential Horse Race


  • Total voters
    183

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
I stand corrected on Bernie's PAC. I spaced the NNU. The money pales in comparison to what others have been supported with. And what you're saying about these PACs is true but only on technicality. It's beginning to get fuzzy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/opinion/how-super-pacs-can-run-campaigns.html
Oh for sure, the whole thing stinks of corruption. It's actually far worse than if Citizens United allowed unlimited contributions directly to campaigns. At least then there's full disclosure and everyone can be held directly accountable for whatever contributions they receive.

I just think Mr. Sanders is a bit disingenuous in his distaste for this kind of campaign financing. He's not refusing contributions from millionaires and billionaires out of some sense of civic purity. He just doesn't have any millionaires and billionaires that support him, simple as that.
 

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
Oh for sure, the whole thing stinks of corruption. It's actually far worse than if Citizens United allowed unlimited contributions directly to campaigns. At least then there's full disclosure and everyone can be held directly accountable for whatever contributions they receive.

I just think Mr. Sanders is a bit disingenuous in his distaste for this kind of campaign financing. He's not refusing contributions from millionaires and billionaires out of some sense of civic purity. He just doesn't have any millionaires and billionaires that support him, simple as that.

Huh? You are wrong.
Just to name a few Ben Cohen (Co-founder of Ben & Jerry's), Steve Wozniak and Will Ferrrell. All are worth a lot of money.

Also through Guy Saperstein in there as well.
 
Last edited:

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Huh? You are wrong.
Just to name a few Ben Cohen (Co-founder of Ben & Jerry's), Steve Wozniak and Will Ferrrell. All are worth a lot of money.
We're talking about Super PACs. By "support him" I clearly mean't "financially support him." Bernie would have you believe that he'd be outraged if one of those guys started a PAC and threw a few million dollars in there. I think that's BS.
 

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
I understand Trump saying it, I don't understand people believing it. "I bought off politicians my whole life" doesn't sound like a credible argument for "I will not be bought off now that I'm a politician."


You can't take money from Super PACs. That's now how Super PACs work. The whole point is that they're independent entities form the campaigns.


I can't remember the last time I neg repped someone, but it was many months ago. The "reasonable debate" I neg repped was when BleedBlueGold said he can't wait for Fox News viewers to die off.

I believe BleedBlueGold was referring to the average age of Republicans. Their inability to attract young voters in large numbers due to their aversion to gay rights, lack of cultural diversity, blaming the poor for their own misfortune, and lack of religious tolerance for non-Christian religions, etc. will result in a declining voting block for the Republicans as they age and die. The supporters of Democratic policies, who are younger overall, will outlive their Republican counterparts and increase their percentage of the electorate. Fox News has an older target audience as result of the Republican's inability to appeal to younger voters. Republicans shouldn't misinterpret gerrymandered victories in congressional and other local elections as a mandate for their policies. The Democratic voting block is increasing while the Republican voting block is in decline.

It isn't so much economic conservatism that turns off the younger voter. It is the Republican position on social issues that large numbers of younger voters find offensive.
 

dang227

Well-known member
Messages
6,596
Reaction score
2,101
I believe BleedBlueGold was referring to the average age of Republicans. Their inability to attract young voters in large numbers due to their aversion to gay rights, lack of cultural diversity, blaming the poor for their own misfortune, and lack of religious tolerance for non-Christian religions, etc. will result in a declining voting block for the Republicans as they age and die. The supporters of Democratic policies, who are younger overall, will outlive their Republican counterparts and increase their percentage of the electorate. Fox News has an older target audience as result of the Republican's inability to appeal to younger voters. Republicans shouldn't misinterpret gerrymandered victories in congressional and other local elections as a mandate for their policies. The Democratic voting block is increasing while the Republican voting block is in decline.



It isn't so much economic conservatism that turns off the younger voter. It is the Republican position on social issues that large numbers of younger voters find offensive.


I am a Republican, have been my whole life and don't believe in any of the things you claim all Republicans believe in. Please don't be an asshole and lump everyone together. I wouldn't do that even though you are obviously a Democrat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
2,489
We're talking about Super PACs. By "support him" I clearly mean't "financially support him." Bernie would have you believe that he'd be outraged if one of those guys started a PAC and threw a few million dollars in there. I think that's BS.

Speaking of money in politics, report is out that the DNC quietly reversed a decision to ban contributions from federal lobbyists. Speculation that it's all to benefit HRC, which is pretty funny how counter productive that will be considering one of the main focuses of this cycle has been money in politics and corruption.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-allowing-donations-from-federal-lobbyists-and-pacs/2016/02/12/22b1c38c-d196-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html

I believe BleedBlueGold was referring to the average age of Republicans. Their inability to attract young voters in large numbers due to their aversion to gay rights, lack of cultural diversity, blaming the poor for their own misfortune, and lack of religious tolerance for non-Christian religions, etc. will result in a declining voting block for the Republicans as they age and die. The supporters of Democratic policies, who are younger overall, will outlive their Republican counterparts and increase their percentage of the electorate. Fox News has an older target audience as result of the Republican's inability to appeal to younger voters. Republicans shouldn't misinterpret gerrymandered victories in congressional and other local elections as a mandate for their policies. The Democratic voting block is increasing while the Republican voting block is in decline.

It isn't so much economic conservatism that turns off the younger voter. It is the Republican position on social issues that large numbers of younger voters find offensive.

I'm trying to find the source, but IIRC, Fox News average viewer is like 68 years old and white. I was joking about them literally dying off. But my main point is that Fox News caters to the older, more conservative voter (better than their competition, I should add). However, it's a real problem for them because TV news viewership is on the decline while online news viewership and participation is way up. I think people are wildly underestimating the power of the internet as a source for credible information as well as the power of social media to spread said information. You really don't have to look any further than The Young Turks network, which dominates the online competition in most demographics until it eventually evens out with the older crowds (again, sorry I can't find the exact source for numbers). TYT is obviously biased to the left/progressive, but they bring news to millions and millions of young voters in a way that is basically the polar opposite of Fox, etc.
 

FightingIrishLover7

All troll, no substance
Messages
12,703
Reaction score
7,516
I am a Republican, have been my whole life and don't believe in any of the things you claim all Republicans believe in. Please don't be an asshole and lump everyone together. I wouldn't do that even though you are obviously a Democrat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He's speaking about the Republican party. When people speak on behalf of a party, they're usually referring to the "average" attributes of the party.

So, I highly doubt he believes that "all" Republicans have those beliefs.

You can catch me saying that players in the SEC don't care about school, because on average, they probably don't. But I know darn well there are exceptions.
 

dang227

Well-known member
Messages
6,596
Reaction score
2,101
He's speaking about the Republican party. When people speak on behalf of a party, they're usually referring to the "average" attributes of the party.

So, I highly doubt he believes that "all" Republicans have those beliefs.

You can catch me saying that players in the SEC don't care about school, because on average, they probably don't. But I know darn well there are exceptions.


Fair enough. I haven't followed this thread and popped in just now. If that is the case I apologize..
 

DomeX2 eNVy

New member
Messages
1,354
Reaction score
66
Sorry to break the news, but . . .



Jim Gilmore has dropped out.
I hope his supporter (singular) will be alright.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
How dare you suggest that any of the media is not liberal. Haven't you seen all those gays on TV?

FOX News is extremely dangerous to the American society. Thankfully their average aged viewer will die off shortly, along with O'Reilly's.

Wouldn't it be swell if we could take Fox off the air? #tolerance
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
That's an empty statement that Bernie keeps repeating. A candidate cannot use a Super PAC, by law. Right to Rise supports Jeb Bush, for example, but they don't contribute to Jeb Bush's campaign and Jeb Bush isn't allowed to discuss strategy or anything else with them. It's an independent group of people, not linked to the Jeb! 2016 campaign, that promotes a pro-Jeb! message. The fact that there's not a specific Super PAC supporting Bernie has absolutely nothing to do with anything Bernie has or hasn't done, it just means that nobody has bothered to start one to support him.

It's a lie anyways, because the Super PAC National Nurses United for Patient Protection has been supporting him.

Candidates can't use Super PACs the same way political donations aren't bribes...or the same way the ND staff do not comment on recruits to ISD...

A candidate cannot "use" a Super PAC, but to deny what is happening is absurd. Candidates' teams work practically hand-in-hand with Super PACs leadership. They can even talk out-loud in the same damn room as the PAC management. We've all seen movies of three teenagers in a scene when two go "Stacy, please tell Jessica I'm supppper pissed at her and not talking to her." and the other one goes "Stacy, please tell Morgan I totes don't care." Replace teenage angst with political strategy and it's the same damn loophole that is completely legal.

Candidates can even leave footage in the far corners of YouTube that some Super PACs just happen to find and use to make commercials out of, like Ted Cruz did. (WARNING: 11/10 creepiness factor)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KqpHTFJO4mE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

When you say "not linked to the Jeb! 2016 campaign," you're choosing to ignore that he openly helped raise $103 million for his-but-not-his-wink-wink Super PAC . I mean you've got to be a special sort of ignoramus to be interested in politics and not know the relationship between candidates and Super PACs.

What Sanders is obviously saying is that his campaign isn't going around helping a Super PAC raise funds to support him, which is the name of the game right now. He of course has no power to stop this nurses' brigade or whatever from doing what they want to do, which oddly enough directly proves your "it just means that nobody has bothered to start one to support him" to be rather totally freaking false.
 
Last edited:
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
Wouldn't it be swell if we could take Fox off the air? #tolerance

Or maybe bring back a regulation that worked well for four decades. Let's make American media great again and undo the Telecommunications Act of 1996 while we're at it.

But I make no apologies for saying that Fox News and conservative media have been enormously destructive in a way that just doesn't exist on the liberal end:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PP0AY4PNVlg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And it's no secret what Roger Ailes' intentions have been since the 1970s:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/g8UyFCVOGKI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Side note, where does MSNBC go to get all of their anchors? Like there has to be one place in America producing all of these grating voices and slappable faces who make each second of watching their coverage an arduous task.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Or maybe bring back a regulation that worked well for four decades. Let's make American media great again and undo the Telecommunications Act of 1996 while we're at it.


"in the Commission's view"...those words are the first that jumped right the hell off the screen at me as I read the Wiki. If the commission was constructed of government employees...OH HELL NO! If said commission were to be constructed of a reasonable diversity of media and viewpoints, by means out of the reach of ANY politician or government agency...I'm down with it. Government guidance, but no government employees on the commission.

Question...what are you seeing that does not meet the letter/language of the doctrine (yea clearly not the intent). Lets use Fox News and MSNBC....admittedly I'm not an avid viewer of either but I see them...model seems the same...they both have Boobs playing the role of contrarian, who summarily get beat down...and shown to be...a boob. Stupid, contrived...yea. BUT does that not meet the stated purpose of the doctrine on its face..."Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. "

I ask because I'm not sure it would be easy to do what you want here...both could point to the puppet show as already meeting the intent.
 

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
I am a Republican, have been my whole life and don't believe in any of the things you claim all Republicans believe in. Please don't be an asshole and lump everyone together. I wouldn't do that even though you are obviously a Democrat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

First, I never used the word "all" in reference to Republicans. But over the course of the last year, Donald Trump, one of your presidential candidates, has referred to Mexicans as criminals and rapists. Another, Mike Huckabee, stood with a Kentucky public employee to block gay couples from obtaining a marriage license in defiance of a Supreme Court ruling. Donald Trump stated he would block all Muslims from entering the United States. And several of your candidates support cutting government programs that help the poor or the elderly. I don't remember you calling them out on any of their policy suggestions, let alone the ones I listed.

If, as you stated, you are opposed to those positions I listed as characteristic of Republicans in general, then you must be one of the few remaining moderates in the Republican party.

Finally, even though I disagree with the Republican policies on many things, I will not call you or your presidential candidates any derogatory names. Since you claim to be a more moderate Republican, I would hope you'd offer me the same courtesy in the future.
 

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
But over the course of the last year, Donald Trump, one of your presidential candidates, has referred to Mexicans as criminals and rapists.

Yeah, except that he didn't. When you say "has referred to Mexicans as criminals and rapists", you insinuate that he was lumping ALL Mexicans into the same generalization, which he was CLEARLY not doing.


Another, Mike Huckabee, stood with a Kentucky public employee to block gay couples from obtaining a marriage license in defiance of a Supreme Court ruling.

First of all, no gay couples were blocked from obtaining a marriage license in Kentucky. They may have had to go to one of Kim Davis' deputies to get it, but they were absolutely able to obtain it.

Secondly, what Huckabee did was stand up for the rule of law. Kim Davis was imprisoned despite the protections afforded her by the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which states, in part:

The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A “burden” shall include indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.

The State of Kentucky had no right to jail her for exercising her rights under this law. THAT is what Huckabee stood with.

Donald Trump stated he would block all Muslims from entering the United States.

Once again, except that he never said this. What he said was that he would block all UNVETTED Muslims from entering the country. But, hey........... don't let facts cloud your judgement. Maybe we should just hang the guy?

And several of your candidates support cutting government programs that help the poor or the elderly.

I would submit that there is no difference between a Republican President scaling back entitlement programs, and Bernie Sanders having to get rid of them completely once he has bankrupted the entire Federal Government?
 

DillonHall

Tommy 12-2
Messages
3,093
Reaction score
1,737
First, I never used the word "all" in reference to Republicans. But over the course of the last year, Donald Trump, one of your presidential candidates, has referred to Mexicans as criminals and rapists. Another, Mike Huckabee, stood with a Kentucky public employee to block gay couples from obtaining a marriage license in defiance of a Supreme Court ruling. Donald Trump stated he would block all Muslims from entering the United States. And several of your candidates support cutting government programs that help the poor or the elderly. I don't remember you calling them out on any of their policy suggestions, let alone the ones I listed.

If, as you stated, you are opposed to those positions I listed as characteristic of Republicans in general, then you must be one of the few remaining moderates in the Republican party.

Finally, even though I disagree with the Republican policies on many things, I will not call you or your presidential candidates any derogatory names. Since you claim to be a more moderate Republican, I would hope you'd offer me the same courtesy in the future.

Gay marriage was only recently legalized nationwide. I don't think it's "extreme" to oppose it.
 

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
Yeah, except that he didn't. When you say "has referred to Mexicans as criminals and rapists", you insinuate that he was lumping ALL Mexicans into the same generalization, which he was CLEARLY not doing.




First of all, no gay couples were blocked from obtaining a marriage license in Kentucky. They may have had to go to one of Kim Davis' deputies to get it, but they were absolutely able to obtain it.

Secondly, what Huckabee did was stand up for the rule of law. Kim Davis was imprisoned despite the protections afforded her by the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which states, in part:



The State of Kentucky had no right to jail her for exercising her rights under this law. THAT is what Huckabee stood with.



Once again, except that he never said this. What he said was that he would block all UNVETTED Muslims from entering the country. But, hey........... don't let facts cloud your judgement. Maybe we should just hang the guy?



I would submit that there is no difference between a Republican President scaling back entitlement programs, and Bernie Sanders having to get rid of them completely once he has bankrupted the entire Federal Government?

That is absolutely incorrect. She forbade her employees from doing it. Then she was sent to jail and her employees escaped jail by saying that they would give them out. She absolutely was not letting gay people get married in her county.

To the second bold, yes they did. She had to let gay people get married. She was taken to court and she would not abide by the court order so she was in contempt of court. Jail is an option for contempt of court.
 

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
Yeah, except that he didn't. When you say "has referred to Mexicans as criminals and rapists", you insinuate that he was lumping ALL Mexicans into the same generalization, which he was CLEARLY not doing.




First of all, no gay couples were blocked from obtaining a marriage license in Kentucky. They may have had to go to one of Kim Davis' deputies to get it, but they were absolutely able to obtain it.

Secondly, what Huckabee did was stand up for the rule of law. Kim Davis was imprisoned despite the protections afforded her by the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which states, in part:



The State of Kentucky had no right to jail her for exercising her rights under this law. THAT is what Huckabee stood with.



Once again, except that he never said this. What he said was that he would block all UNVETTED Muslims from entering the country. But, hey........... don't let facts cloud your judgement. Maybe we should just hang the guy?



I would submit that there is no difference between a Republican President scaling back entitlement programs, and Bernie Sanders having to get rid of them completely once he has bankrupted the entire Federal Government?

To the first part he did say that he would ban Muslims from entering the U.S. then he walk it back later. Classic Trump.

To the Sanders part, if taxes are raised to go along with the increased spending then no, of course we always hear about the Republicans talk about going to war but they never have to explain how they will pay for it but God forbid someone want to increase spending on people here in the U.S. and everyone wants to know how he will pay for it (which he has outlined many times).

Proof for the Trump part
Donald Trump: Ban all Muslim travel to U.S. - CNNPolitics.com
"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.
 
Last edited:

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
To the first part he did say that he would ban Muslims from entering the U.S. then he walk it back later. Classic Trump.

To the Sanders part, if taxes are raised to go along with the increased spending then no, of course we always hear about the Republicans talk about going to war but they never have to explain how they will pay for it but God forbid someone want to increase spending on people here in the U.S. and everyone wants to know how he will pay for it (which he has outlined many times).

You know what the difference is between "clarifying his comments", and "walking back his comments"?

Whether or not you agree with him. I could just as easily claim that the press misreported his comments.



Great........... Sanders will keep the government afloat by driving the economy into the ground. 40% of Democrats in the Senate, and 58% of Democrats in the House voted FOR the Iraq War Resolution......... but yeah, Republican warmongers.
 

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
To the first part he did say that he would ban Muslims from entering the U.S. then he walk it back later. Classic Trump.
Proof for the Trump part
Donald Trump: Ban all Muslim travel to U.S. - CNNPolitics.com

Classic political chicanery. What did Trump ACTUALLY say?

From your "proof":

"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.

In other words............... until we can properly vet them. So he's not against any and all Muslims coming into the country; he's against letting them in without proper vetting.
 

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
You know what the difference is between "clarifying his comments", and "walking back his comments"?

Whether or not you agree with him. I could just as easily claim that the press misreported his comments.




Great........... Sanders will keep the government afloat by driving the economy into the ground. 40% of Democrats in the Senate, and 58% of Democrats in the House voted FOR the Iraq War Resolution......... but yeah, Republican warmongers.

Did you see that I went back and posted a quote about his press release. He used the words total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the country. Maybe you need to learn the difference between walking back and clarifying because he sure as fuck walked it back.

As to the point about Dems and the Iraq war, what does that have to do with the current Presidential election? Sanders is pretty anti-war and wants to spend the money here at home, while the R's are falling over themselves (besides Paul) trying to have a dick measuring contest about waging war with ISIS. So again tell me who is the warmongers?

Also as to the Democrats voting for the Iraq war resolution it is wonderful of you to leave out the Republican Stats, so lets include them all

Senate:
D 58% voted for it
R 98% voted for it

House
D 40% voted for it
R 97% voted for it

jeez look at those two numbers and tell me which is the warmongers. Next time post the complete numbers instead of presenting half of it.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
But the single biggest issue this election is going to be the Supreme Court. The next President will have these Justices:

(Lib) Ginsburg: 83 years old
(Con) Scalia: 80
(Mod) Kennedy: 80
(Lib) Breyer: 78
(Con) Thomas: 68
(Con) Alito: 66
(Con) Roberts: 62
(Lib) Sotomayor: 62
(Lib) Kagan: 56

So the next President will likely be replacing four members of the Supreme Court. I for one simply cannot trust the current Republican Party with that responsibility.

Z5ji6o3.gif
 

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235

Will the Republican party, which was so fond of saying that elections have consequences following the 2010 and 2014 mid-term elections, permit the President of the United States to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice? Or will they stonewall his nominee(s) with the hope of winning the presidency in 2016? Choosing the latter could very well fire up the Democratic base and increase voter turn-out. A large voter turn-out usually doesn't bode well for Republican presidential candidates.
 

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
Did you see that I went back and posted a quote about his press release. He used the words total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the country. Maybe you need to learn the difference between walking back and clarifying because he sure as fuck walked it back.

No. He didn't walk it back. Your own quote of his contained the phrase "...until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." His position hasn't changed on the idea that the shutdown is only to allow for proper vetting to happen, then let those who pass proper vetting come in.

As to the point about Dems and the Iraq war, what does that have to do with the current Presidential election? Sanders is pretty anti-war and wants to spend the money here at home, while the R's are falling over themselves (besides Paul) trying to have a dick measuring contest about waging war with ISIS. So again tell me who is the warmongers?

Also as to the Democrats voting for the Iraq war resolution it is wonderful of you to leave out the Republican Stats, so lets include them all

Senate:
D 58% voted for it
R 98% voted for it

House
D 40% voted for it
R 97% voted for it

jeez look at those two numbers and tell me which is the warmongers. Next time post the complete numbers instead of presenting half of it.

I didn't need to post the Republican numbers because I was not trying to deny anything about the Republicans and the runup to war. You were the one who said:

of course we always hear about the Republicans talk about going to war but they never have to explain how they will pay for it

Well it wasn't just the Republicans who voted to authorize the war without any extra funding, so quit bitching about it. If the Dems had overwhelmingly opposed it, then you would have a point. But they didn't, so you don't.
 

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
Classic political chicanery. What did Trump ACTUALLY say?

From your "proof":



In other words............... until we can properly vet them. So he's not against any and all Muslims coming into the country; he's against letting them in without proper vetting.

Really? How do you vet them? How do you even know if they are Muslims? Again it was a bullshit idea from a bullshit candidate. I have seen many passports when I worked as a manager at a bank and I haven't seen any that list religion (though I did hear that the Pakistan passport might list religion). Again the idea that we can "keep Muslims out till we can vet them" is utter bullshit. There is no way to vet them because there is no way to know if they are Muslim. The truth is that he pandered to get votes. There is no way to vet someone if you don't know who they are, and that is not the point that he is making anyways. Look at the bold, it isn't about vetting.

Trump doubles down on vow to bar Muslims | Fox News
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump doubled down Tuesday on his plan to slam the door on Muslims seeking to enter the U.S., including refugees, tourists and, potentially, even Muslim Americans returning from trips abroad.

“We have no idea who is coming into our country, no idea if they like us or hate us,” Trump told supporters in South Carolina Monday night. “I wrote something today that is very salient…and probably not very politically correct. But I don’t care.”

The sweeping proposal for what Trump called a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” has drawn condemnation from Muslim groups, civil rights advocates, Democrats and Trump’s rivals for the GOP nomination. But in typical Trump fashion, the tough-talking tycoon is not walking back anything. Appearing on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Tuesday, Trump invoked former President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s World War II proclamation that German, Italian and Japanese people, including American citizens, were potentially “enemy aliens” who could be detained if in the U.S.
“Look at what FDR did many years ago, and he’s one of the most respected presidents,” Trump said. “We have people in this country that want to blow up our country — you know it and so do I. They’re looking at the jihad. They want a jihad.”


Trump also appeared on CNN’s “New Day,” and MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” where repeated his pledge.

"You're going to have many more World Trade Centers if you don't solve it -- many, many more and probably beyond the World Trade Center," Trump told CNN anchor Chris Cuomo.

On MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Trump raised the ire of host Joe Scarborough after he repeatedly interrupted co-host Mika Brezezinski while she attempted to ask questions.

“Go to break, go to break,” an exasperated Scarborough said when Trump filibustered the hosts.

“Go to break, then, Joe. Go to break,” Trump taunted before the segment abruptly ended.

Trump’s proposal came five days after a radical Muslim couple killed 14 people and injured 21 at a holiday office party in San Bernardino, Calif., and as President Obama is seeking to resettle thousands of Syrian refugees in the U.S. Critics have questioned whether the refugees can be effectively screened, but none have gone so far as to call for a ban on all Muslims.

“Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life,” Trump said in a statement.

Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski told The Associated Press that Trump's proposed ban would apply to "everybody," including Muslims seeking immigration visas as well as tourists seeking to enter the country.

Trump did not respond to questions about whether any ban would also include Muslims who are U.S. citizens and travel outside the country - or how a determination of someone's religion might be made by customs and border officials.
eWa3iho.gif


giphy.gif
 
Top