The Donald Trump Score Card

Please do not equate a Muslim with they wish to cut our heads off. Please. A Muslim extremest does. That does not make up most Muslims. Obama never actually singled out our enemy as Muslim extremist. That has caused all sorts of political fodder and lots of ignorance in both parties. Now the Dems accuse the Reps as hating Muslims. No they hate Muslim extremist and wish to learn which ones are and are not. But please I do not hate Muslims or believe they are here to kill me. MOST of them are fine upstanding citizens that came here to leave their extreme world behind. They have done nothing to us and have no intentions to. The hard part is knowing the difference. I'd prefer we not let all Muslims stream in until we can identify those likely to be our enemy. We know how that's working out. Sad to say we are not allowed to make a distinction. Im sorry to say I agree that political correctness is now killing us.

 

I agree. We need to weed out the bad Muslims and let the good Muslims in. After that, I think we should weed out the stupid undesirable Christians, the violent ones, and send them back to where they came from. After all that work is finished, I would like to import some Zoroastrians, because they make great basket ball players. A handful of Capri islanders would add some color to the car sales business in Akron Ohio. Armenians are great singers. Cher Bono is one example. So, we should let them come in. I seem to remember Manix was also Armenian. He always reminded me of the guy who played Get Smart opposite Agent 99. He was Jewish, but the Republicans must have made a special exception in his case. You know how they like the Merit System.

 

That may be the problem,. Your pastor is a paranoid nutjob. We 've never had a Muslim President.

 

That's why I always supported a form of government which separates church and state. Now we need to reverse the Trump/Pence agenda, because it is so malodorous.

 

Who does not allow you to make a distinction between normal muslims and extremists? And for what reason?

 

The Democrats by not stating Muslim Extremist (They refuse to use that term) are our enemies. Then the next step they rely on is since we can't assume one Muslim is any different than the other and they are all assumed good people and should be let in equally. They are all treated as good until its too late after an attack happens. Hence they block any attempts at limiting Muslim entry because in a Liberal world they have convinced their ignorant voters that all Muslims must be treated as good since they are all simply Muslims. That base of ignorance gobbles it up.

Now we have the Republicans who use the opposite approach that all Muslims are bad until we can figure out the good ones. It's an easier sell to the ignorant Rep voters who have actually come to believe that if its Muslim its bad.Therefore they can sell that all Muslims are bad, by simply not using the term Extremist in their wording of how they wish to control their entry. That base of ignorance gobbles it up.

Both sides use ignorance to their advantage. Nothing new there.

Never has it become politically correct to state "Our enemy is Muslim Extremist" And then educate both sides on the differences. Let alone try to educate their voters that some Muslims are actually on our side. But they look like and have names like those that might not be. Its simply easier to sell garbage to both sides. Lets not try and separate one from the other, lets treat them all the same. (D=All Good R=All Bad). This won't work on either side of the political fence you wish to vote for, however it keeps their ignorance base of voters more easily manageable.

Now we have Dems calling Rep racist and bigots because they wish to stop a group of people that some may have intentions of trying to kill us. Its far easier for the Dems to shove that down the throats, than to try and allow the Rep to make an effort to actually make the word Extremist politically correct. That might make a Dem look bad in the end.

And we have Rep calling Dems the terrorist sympathizers because they are trying to treat all as the same. Its easier to sell that to their ignorant Rep voters.

Both sides have done an outstanding job of taking in a lot of ignorant voters by using the term "Muslim" as fodder now.

 

The Obama (and Bush) administration's stated reason for not using Fox's preferred term "islamic (or Muslim) extremist or terrorist" is that is links Islam with terror or extremism in a way that is both misleading and detrimental to our need for Muslim allies in our fight against terrorism. Most of the terrorist attacks in the U.S. have been by non-Muslims.
Most Of America’s Terrorists Are White, And Not Muslim | HuffPost
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/domestic-terrorism-white-supremacists-islamist-extremists_us_594c46e4e4b0da2c731a84df
So it's not just political correctness that's in play here. Given the fact that ISIS (not to mention alQaeda and the Taliban ) purports to be Islamic, is certainly extremist and terrorist, and recruits almost exclusively among Muslims, it doesn't seem unreasonable to restrict access to the U.S. from countries infected by jihadists. Throwing open our doors to Muslim refugees who could easily be infiltrated by the terrorists and who are culturally different enough from the majority population in the U.S. to cause culture clash, seems unwise. Hillary and the Donald were at different extremes on that issue, and I agree with you that both were off base. Extreme vettting is appropriate, and was already underway by the Obama administration, and if Trump had been more guarded in his comments and tweets and had started off with the current, more moderate, version of his travel restrictions, it could have been adopted without incident. I think it's likely that the courts will approve it in its current form, even though there are enough loopholes that I doubt we can feel much safer.

 

Q. What's the biggest accomplishment of Trump in 2017?
A. Golfing to become a better President.

Make America Golf Again


The White House says playing golf helps Trump be a better president
Hunter Walker White House Correspondent
Yahoo News•January 2, 2018

The White House says playing golf helps Trump be a better president

excerpts:

"On the campaign trail in 2016, Trump repeatedly promised he would be too busy to play golf if he was elected.

“I’m going to be working for you. I’m not going to have time to go play golf,” Trump said at an event in August 2016.

There is no definitive list of all of Trump’s golf partners or an exact count of how many times he’s hit the links as president because the White House does not release this information. The White House often repeatedly declines to comment on what Trump is doing when he visits his courses. This silence has even extended to instances when he was photographed on the links by media outlets or other golfers. Last Wednesday, a truck blocked reporters as they attempted to film Trump from public property adjacent to his Florida course."

 

White Evangelicals Believe They Face More Discrimination Than Muslims
A new study suggests different groups of Americans see their country in radiclly divergent ways.
Jose Cabezas / Reuters
Emma Green
Mar 10, 2017

White Evangelicals Believe They Face More Discrimination Than Muslims

From the article:

"Other factors besides hate crimes and Trump’s policies have likely shaped white evangelicals’ perceptions. The questions about discrimination were included in a survey about LGBT issues, and for good reason: More than any other issue, changing cultural and legal norms around same-sex marriage and gender identity have raised objections from Christians. A number of court decisions from the last half decade or so may feed into white evangelicals’ perception that Christians face discrimination, including Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage.

That decision kicked off a wave of new challenges around religious conservatives’ right not to participate in gay wedding ceremonies, among other issues. Around the country, these cases are largely being resolved not in favor of religious plaintiffs: The Washington State Supreme Court recently ruled against a Christian florist who did not want to provide services at a gay couple’s wedding, for example.

These numbers cannot explain how different groups develop their perceptions of bigotry, whether it’s the media they consume, their geographic locations, or simply the communities they know best. But the survey does suggest something remarkable: White evangelicals perceive discrimination in America in vastly different terms than all other religious groups, including their minority peers."

graph: White Evangelicals See More Discrimination Against Christians Than Muslims

 

^
Snowflakes

 

It's all in the eye of the beholder. Playground bullies feel they're being persecuted and discriminated against when the teacher keeps them after school for clobbering the hell out of other kids.

 

"what I'm sure upsets so many is that a Caucasian president can be so successful." The hell is the matter with you? Successful? You can't call a mentally ill child successful. And that is exactly what we have "running" this country. I still say when it gets serious --real serious --Trump will do something outrageous---like b--b the shit out of something. He needs to be thrown out before he ruins everything in the government. The man is too dumb to KNOW he's too dumb to run anything. As for his followers--what can you say about people that admire and believe his lying orange mouth. "my button is bigger than your button--and mine works!" Good lord, what an idiot!!

 

From the New York Times.....today....

link

Opinion | The Republicans’ Fake Investigations

Quoting


"
The Republicans’ Fake Investigations
By GLENN R. SIMPSON and PETER FRITSCHJAN. 2, 2018

Continue reading the main story Share This Page

• Share
• Tweet
• Email
• More
• Save

Photo


Credit Harry Campbell
A generation ago, Republicans sought to protect President Richard Nixon by urging the Senate Watergate committee to look at supposed wrongdoing by Democrats in previous elections. The committee chairman, Sam Ervin, a Democrat, said that would be “as foolish as the man who went bear hunting and stopped to chase rabbits.”

Today, amid a growing criminal inquiry into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, congressional Republicans are again chasing rabbits. We know because we’re their favorite quarry.

In the year since the publication of the so-called Steele dossier — the collection of intelligence reports we commissioned about Donald Trump’s ties to Russia — the president has repeatedly attacked us on Twitter. His allies in Congress have dug through our bank records and sought to tarnish our firm to punish us for highlighting his links to Russia. Conservative news outlets and even our former employer, The Wall Street Journal, have spun a succession of mendacious conspiracy theories about our motives and backers.

We are happy to correct the record. In fact, we already have.

Three congressional committees have heard over 21 hours of testimony from our firm, Fusion GPS. In those sessions, we toppled the far right’s conspiracy theories and explained how The Washington Free Beacon and the Clinton campaign — the Republican and Democratic funders of our Trump research — separately came to hire us in the first place.

We walked investigators through our yearlong effort to decipher Mr. Trump’s complex business past, of which the Steele dossier is but one chapter. And we handed over our relevant bank records — while drawing the line at a fishing expedition for the records of companies we work for that have nothing to do with the Trump case.

Continue reading the main story

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story
Republicans have refused to release full transcripts of our firm’s testimony, even as they selectively leak details to media outlets on the far right. It’s time to share what our company told investigators.

We don’t believe the Steele dossier was the trigger for the F.B.I.’s investigation into Russian meddling. As we told the Senate Judiciary Committee in August, our sources said the dossier was taken so seriously because it corroborated reports the bureau had received from other sources, including one inside the Trump camp.

The intelligence committees have known for months that credible allegations of collusion between the Trump camp and Russia were pouring in from independent sources during the campaign. Yet lawmakers in the thrall of the president continue to wage a cynical campaign to portray us as the unwitting victims of Kremlin disinformation.

Newsletter Sign Up
Continue reading the main story
Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.


You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.

• See Sample
• Privacy Policy
• Opt out or contact us anytime

We suggested investigators look into the bank records of Deutsche Bank and others that were funding Mr. Trump’s businesses. Congress appears uninterested in that tip: Reportedly, ours are the only bank records the House Intelligence Committee has subpoenaed.

We told Congress that from Manhattan to Sunny Isles Beach, Fla., and from Toronto to Panama, we found widespread evidence that Mr. Trump and his organization had worked with a wide array of dubious Russians in arrangements that often raised questions about money laundering. Likewise, those deals don’t seem to interest Congress.

We explained how, from our past journalistic work in Europe, we were deeply familiar with the political operative Paul Manafort’s coziness with Moscow and his financial ties to Russian oligarchs close to Vladimir Putin.

Finally, we debunked the biggest canard being pushed by the president’s men — the notion that we somehow knew of the June 9, 2016, meeting in Trump Tower between some Russians and the Trump brain trust. We first learned of that meeting from news reports last year — and the committees know it. They also know that these Russians were unaware of the former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele’s work for us and were not sources for his reports.

Yes, we hired Mr. Steele, a highly respected Russia expert. But we did so without informing him whom we were working for and gave him no specific marching orders beyond this basic question: Why did Mr. Trump repeatedly seek to do deals in a notoriously corrupt police state that most serious investors shun?

What came back shocked us. Mr. Steele’s sources in Russia (who were not paid) reported on an extensive — and now confirmed — effort by the Kremlin to help elect Mr. Trump president. Mr. Steele saw this as a crime in progress and decided he needed to report it to the F.B.I.

We did not discuss that decision with our clients, or anyone else. Instead, we deferred to Mr. Steele, a trusted friend and intelligence professional with a long history of working with law enforcement. We did not speak to the F.B.I. and haven’t since.

After the election, Mr. Steele decided to share his intelligence with Senator John McCain via an emissary. We helped him do that. The goal was to alert the United States national security community to an attack on our country by a hostile foreign power. We did not, however, share the dossier with BuzzFeed, which to our dismay published it last January.

We’re extremely proud of our work to highlight Mr. Trump’s Russia ties. To have done so is our right under the First Amendment.

It is time to stop chasing rabbits. The public still has much to learn about a man with the most troubling business past of any United States president. Congress should release transcripts of our firm’s testimony, so that the American people can learn the truth about our work and most important, what happened to our democracy."

 

What is your definition of a Muslim extremist and how do you spot one? Have you ever seen one of 'em?

 

Scratch, Bannon just turned on Trump in a very big way. Apparently a guy named Michael Wolf wrote a book after 200 some interviews and is reporting on the Trump/Russian lawyer meetings in Trump Tower. The book says after DonnyJr met with the Russians, they all went upstairs to meet Big Daddy Trump. Bannon has verified this and is saying Manafort, Kushner, and Trumpy were doing a money laundering thing. Trump is now saying Bannon lost his job and now lost his mind. So, it's getting real intense to say the least. Like Paul Harvey used to say: Stand by for more news!

 

Every president has been domestically successful in some way. Bush was domestically successful in giving use the stupid Patriot Act. Reagan was successful in giving us the stupid tax law of 1986. Hoover was successful in giving us the stupid and not so great Great Depression.

 

What's Bannon's deal...not only has he turned on Trump but he insinuated Breitbart is illegitimate news. Interesting.

 

At least that Kenyan could spell Business: BUSINESS

 

I knew it! Hot Diggity Dog!