BBC: Trump sensibly calls for outright ban on Muslim immigration to the U.S.

[RichA]

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has called for a "total and complete" halt to Muslims entering the US, in the wake of the deadly California shootings.

He said that polling showed a "hatred" by Muslims towards Americans that could put the nation at risk.

The border shutdown should remain "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on".

[moviePig]

He's trying to convince Muslims who *don't* hate America that they're
seriously out of step. Isis is pissed, because that's *their* job...

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[Barb May]

RichA wrote:
> Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has called for a
> "total and complete" halt to Muslims entering the US, in the wake of
> the deadly California shootings.
>
> He said that polling showed a "hatred" by Muslims towards Americans
> that could put the nation at risk.
>

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/07/donald-trumps-call-to-ban-muslims-from-coming-to-the-u-s-has-a-very-bad-poll-at-its-center/

The Center for Security Policy is an organization run by Frank Gaffney,
who is identified as an anti-Muslim extremist by the Southern Poverty
Law Center. The survey Trump cites was conducted earlier this year on
behalf of the organization.

1. This was an online survey of 600 people. The only available
information about how the poll was conducted indicates that it was
conducted online; Georgetown University's Bridge Initiative has reported
that it was conducted using an opt-in Internet survey

2. The questions asked were agree/disagree, which can favor an "agree"
response.

3. Many U.S. Muslims are first generation immigrants, who may speak
English as a second language. According to Pew, 63 percent of U.S.
Muslims were born in another country, suggesting that their ability to
read and write English may be limited. In which case a nuanced survey
question may be more difficult to navigate.

4. The organization conducting the survey matters. There is no question
that the results of the survey - which would certainly bear retesting if
accurate - were influenced by the organization that paid for it. The
Center for Security Policy likely sought poll numbers showing that a
significant number of Muslims were supportive of violence against the
United States, and the center got what it paid for.

There is, in fact, no reliable evidence that a large percentage of
Muslims in the United States - or, for that matter, Muslims hoping to
travel to the United States - support doing harm to the country or plan
to commit acts of violence.

------------------------------------------------

--
Barb

[FPP]

So has anybody given any thought as to how we identify muslims?

Or do we just go with "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of
the Muslim religion?"

That has a nice ring to it, you know...
--
"Two people can see the same thing, disagree, and yet both be right.
It's not logical; it's psychological." - Stephen R. Covey

[Ashton Crusher]

The simple way to get started is to do what Carter did, simply ban
immigration from any of the predominately Muslims countries.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261062/carter-banned-iranians-coming-us-during-hostage-daniel-greenfield

Making a list of those countries would be quite easy. Anyone who is a
citizen of the countries on that list is not allowed in. Problem of
"identifying" Muslims solved.

[Barb May]

Ashton Crusher wrote:
> The simple way to get started is to do what Carter did, simply ban
> immigration from any of the predominately Muslims countries.

That's not what Carter did, you lying POS.
--
Barb

[FPP]

Which is NOT what Trump advocated.

The little fascist also wants to keep American citizens, who are
muslim, from returning to this country, if they've been abroad.

He is, in effect, revoking their citizenship because of their religion.

How does that sit with you Constitutional geniuses, anyway?
--
Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. -Twain

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

Carter's ban on Iranian citizens was a diplomatic sanction against the government of Iran for not releasing the US Embassy hostages. The sanctions were not against Muslims, but Iranians, which in 1980 included many Jews and Christians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews#Islamic_Republic_.281979.E2.80.93present.29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Iran#Current_situation



http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=33233

First, the United States of America is breaking diplomatic relations with the Government of Iran.

Second, the Secretary of the Treasury will put into effect official sanctions prohibiting exports from the United States to Iran

Third, the Secretary of Treasury will make a formal inventory of the assets of the Iranian Government, which were frozen by my previous order, and also will make a census or an inventory of the outstanding claims of American citizens and corporations against the Government of Iran.

Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States

[KalElFan]

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
news:ar1f6bhpk7tu2jj8v...@4ax.com...

> The simple way to get started is to do what Carter did,
> simply ban immigration from any of the predominately

> Muslims countries...
>
> ... Making a list of those countries would be quite easy.

> Anyone who is a citizen of the countries on that list is
> not allowed in. Problem of "identifying" Muslims solved.

What's most fascinating is the knee-jerk reactions Trump
gets and the way he dominates the news cycle, to the
point ongoing news about the actual attack itself has
taken second place the last couple of days. He has all
the pundits on the left proclaiming it's unconstitutional,
and all of his mostly Republican establishment rivals
agreeing with the left while in many cases having very
similar plans themselves (e.g. they all wanted "pauses"
on immigration until the FBI, Homeland yada yada yada
all certified that yada yada yada...)

It was specifying "Muslim" that most set the firestorm
off, but everyone knew that all the other plans were
also targeting Muslims and just couching it differently.
Thus Trump again makes his anti-PC point, and the only
question is how the latest outrage-fest will affect his
poll numbers.

[FPP]

And just what do you propose to do when Americans are banned from
traveling to European countries, like France?
Any idea, genius?

Because France will certainly start barring Americans from traveling
there, after we start banning French citizens from coming here.

You DO realize that's what we will be doing, right? I mean, there are
a lot of European citizens of the Muslim persuasion that will be banned
from coming here. And a lot of those countries are close allies of
this country.

Or don't you think other countries are going to reciprocate after we
start the bigot ball rolling? Who will this Trumptastic plan hurt the
most? Because unless you think it's going to be America, you're not
thinking at all.

You can't be that shortsighted. Be sure to answer quickly because if
Adolph Jr. gets his way, you won't be answering it over the Internet
for long.

Benito Trump has a plan to shut down that, too!
--
"Life sucks… buy a fucking helmet." - Denis Leary

[trotsky]

On 12/8/15 9:11 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 12/7/2015 6:41 PM, RichA wrote:
>> Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has called for a "total
>> and complete" halt to Muslims entering the US, in the wake of the
>> deadly California shootings.
>>
>> He said that polling showed a "hatred" by Muslims towards Americans
>> that could put the nation at risk.
>>
>> The border shutdown should remain "until our country's representatives
>> can figure out what is going on".
>
> He's trying to convince Muslims who *don't* hate America that they're
> seriously out of step. Isis is pissed, because that's *their* job...

Mpig, please don't encourage that stupid motherfucker. He is LYING
about what the BBC "said", and he does this repeatedly as his current
form of trolling. Responding as if his brain isn't full of dog feces
only encourages him.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 6:42:08 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
> The border shutdown should remain "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on".

Since the shooter was born in the US and came from Chicago, the
proposal makes no sense.

AFAIK, Muslims weren't involved in any other of the mass shootings,
such as that southern church, Newton school, Colorado movie theatre,
Columbine, etc.

[Obveeus]

On 12/9/2015 10:43 AM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 6:42:08 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
>> The border shutdown should remain "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on".
>
> Since the shooter was born in the US and came from Chicago, the
> proposal makes no sense.

So, he came from CHI-RAQ?

Side note: Is anyone outside the war zone seeing that film?

[Invid Fan]

In article <43a653dd-0b33-4505...@googlegroups.com>,

<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 6:42:08 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
> > The border shutdown should remain "until our country's representatives can
> > figure out what is going on".
>
> Since the shooter was born in the US and came from Chicago, the
> proposal makes no sense.
>

As the Daily Show said, it actually does. The US is a dangerous place
for Muslims now, so they should be kept out for their own safety until
we can figure out what's wrong with the country.

--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'

[KalElFan]

[crossposts added; I didn't start the original thread on
rec.arts.tv -- it's gone about 14 posts -- but I responded
recently and now I'm adding some info]

> On rec.arts.tv. "KalElFan" wrote in message
> news:dcqjs0...@mid.individual.net...

Fox News did a South Carolina poll in which his before-
the-Trump-firestorm-component lead was 30%, but his
after-lead increased to 38%.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/09/fox-news-poll-trump-clinton-dominate-primary-races-in-south-carolina.html

"... It looks like his comments help him in South Carolina.
Support for Trump increased eight points after his
statement -- from 30 percent the first two nights vs. 38
percent the last two nights..."

That's within the sampling error and some may "blame" it
on South Carolina, but today Rasmussen has Trump's plan
favored by 66% of likely Republican voters and only 24%
are opposed (10% are undecided). Among all voters the
poll has 46% favoring, 40% opposed and 14% undecided.
The sample was 1,000, a respectable polling size, +/- 3%
with 95% confidence.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/december_2015/voters_like_trump_s_proposed_muslim_ban

So it LOOKS like the question mark I put in the subject line
may not be needed as more polls come in. If that proves
true, it'll probably mean Trump is invulnerable because
the left and the Republican establishment were all throwing
everything they had at him over this.

Much has been made of polling of Muslims and their views
on violence. Here's a link and excerpt quoting from polling
by Pew. It's followed by an actual Pew source link:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-trump-and-muslims-by-the-numbers/article/2577962

"On the question of violence, Pew asked Muslims around
the world the following question: "Some people think that
suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian
targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies.
Other people believe that, no matter what the reason, this
kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel
that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam,
sometimes justified, rarely justified or never justified?"

"Muslims mostly say that suicide bombings and other forms
of violence against civilians in the name of Islam are rarely
or never justified, including 92 percent in Indonesia and 91
percent in Iraq," Pew reported. On the other hand, in some
countries, the "justified" answers are quite high. In Afghanistan,
for instance, 18 percent say such violence is often justified,
21 percent say sometimes justified, 18 percent say rarely
justified and 40 percent say never justified. Four percent say
they don't know."

"In the United States, Pew found that 81 percent of U.S.
Muslims say such violence is never justified, 5 percent say
it is rarely justified, 7 percent say it is sometimes justified
and 1 percent say it is often justified. Six percent say they
don't know."

"Read the numbers however you like. Some stress that
large majorities of Muslims in the United States and in
some other countries oppose such violence under all
circumstances. Others point to those Muslims in the United
States who believe it is justified in at least some cases —
13 percent — and say that is an unacceptably high number.
And of course, Trump's proposal targets Muslims from other
places in the world coming to the United States, which
involves some Muslim-majority countries in which approval
of violence in the name of Islam is alarmingly high."

Here's the Pew article:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/07/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/

"In the United States, a 2011 survey found that 86% of Muslims
say that such tactics are rarely or never justified. An additional
7% say suicide bombings are sometimes justified and 1% say
they are often justified in these circumstances..."

The above paragraph has Pew lumping the 5% who "rarely" say
it's justified with the 7% saying sometimes and 1% who say it's
often justified, so the same 13% total.

The Pew link cites a 2011 poll that estimated there were 1.8
million Muslim adults in the United States. If we ignored the
5% who said "rarely" and took only the 8% who said sometimes
or often, that would mean 1.8M * 8% = 144,000 saying violence
is sometimes or often necessary. If we took just the 1% who
say often, it's 18,000. Statistically, those from some countries
such as Afghanistan would increase the total, and perhaps most
importantly so would self-selection. ISIS is TRYING to get the
terrorists in for example, and encourage those already in the
United States. The FBI has already said they have ISIS-related
active cases / surveillance in all 50 states, but it's probably
nowhere near the 18,000 number prone to violence and/or
ISIS influence. It's not surpising some like the San Bernardino
killers can fall through the cracks, and ISIS "success" rates are
clearing rising.

[Lee]

KalElFan wrote:


>
> The Pew link cites a 2011 poll that estimated there were 1.8
> million Muslim adults in the United States.

So Trump, like Hitler, plans to gain power
by marginalizing and objectifying a minority too
small to affect the vote (Mexicans initially, now
muslims).

[KalElFan]

"Lee" wrote in message
news:rrKdnWx7gNWHVvTL...@giganews.com...

The Hitler baloney helps a lot too! ISIS are the fascists, not
Trump.

His proposals on this and the Wall have always been about
non-citizens, i.e. protecting U.S. citizens from terrorists, loss
of jobs, etc., when illegals and terrorists are let in.

[FPP]

Trump is the perfect fascist. He's almost the definition of fascist.

> Definition of FASCISM
>
> a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and
> often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized
> autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic
> and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Wait... I take that back. He *IS* the exact definition of a fascist.
Even conservatives are finally admitting it.

> "Trump is a fascist. And that's not a term I use loosely or often. But
> he's earned it," Max Boot, a military historian and foreign policy
> advisor to Republican presidential candidate and Florida Senator Marco
> Rubio, posted on Twitter.
>
> "Forced federal registration of US citizens, based on religious
> identity, is fascism. Period," added John Noonan, a national security
> advisor to White House hopeful and former Florida governor Jeb Bush.
>
> In a Wednesday editorial, the Seattle Times used similarly strong
> language to denounce Trump’s "button-pushing lie after button-pushing
> lie."
> "Trump's campaign message reflects a kind of creeping fascism," the
> newspaper said. "It needs to be rejected."
>
> Ohio Governor and Republican presidential candidate John Kasich has
> launched a one-minute video ad online that links Trump to Nazi Germany.

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/11/26/439267/Trump-Muslims-fascist

And that's just some Republicans sounding off...
--
Light moves faster than sound. That's why some folks appear bright
until you hear them speak...

[Ashton Crusher]

The polls taken after his comments show his numbers are up. Pretty
much across the board.

[Ashton Crusher]

I take it you object now to the way Nazi's in Europe are treated. They
are a minority and are vilified and their publications seized. I'm
sure that bothers you.

[Ashton Crusher]

On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:42:06 -0500, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2015-12-10 15:26:43 -0500, "KalElFan" <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> said:
>
>> "Lee" wrote in message news:rrKdnWx7gNWHVvTL...@giganews.com...
>>
>>> KalElFan wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Pew link cites a 2011 poll that estimated there were
>>>> 1.8 million Muslim adults in the United States.
>>>
>>> So Trump, like Hitler, plans to gain power by marginalizing
>>> and objectifying a minority too small to affect the vote
>>> (Mexicans initially, now muslims).
>>
>> The Hitler baloney helps a lot too! ISIS are the fascists, not
>> Trump.
>>
>> His proposals on this and the Wall have always been about
>> non-citizens, i.e. protecting U.S. citizens from terrorists, loss
>> of jobs, etc., when illegals and terrorists are let in.
>
>Trump is the perfect fascist. He's almost the definition of fascist.
>
>> Definition of FASCISM
>>
>> a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and
>> often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized
>> autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic
>> and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
>
>Wait... I take that back. He *IS* the exact definition of a fascist.
>Even conservatives are finally admitting it.
>

He's nothing like that definition. Typical of you liberals, smear
people who you disagree with.

[Ashton Crusher]

Why are you such a strong supporter of the Islam religion? What is it
about the religion that attracts you to it? Is it it's relentless
calls for jihad against any who do not accept the religion as the only
true one? Is it the way it makes woman second class citizens? Is it
the way it punishes woman who are raped for having inflamed the men's
passions? Please tell us how wonderful the Islamic religion is and
why we should give a crap if it were to be wiped off the face of the
earth. It's little better then Nazism yet you liberals want to see it
spread all over the world.

[FPP]

Kim Jong Il's numbers are pretty good, too!
--
You see three Branches of Government. I see firewood.

[FPP]

Liberals? I quoted Republicans, you fucking dimwit! And, no, he is
EXACTLY like that.

You sticking your fingers in your ears won't change the fact that it's
Republicans who are calling him a fascist, as well as Democrats.

Only the ignorant and ill informed don't see it... but, then, how
bright are they, since they support a clown like Trump because he plays
(and preys) on their worst fears.
--
"A man's face is his autobiography. A woman's face is her work of
fiction." -Oscar Wilde

[FPP]

Because I'm a fucking American, you stupid twit!

That's what America stands for, and one of the main principals it was
founded on. Read the first Amendment!

People CAME to this land and founded THIS country in order to have the
freedom to worship (or NOT worship) as they saw fit. ALL of the
people, and ALL of the religions, or NONE of the religions.

It isn't the religion of Islam that attracts me, it's the Religious
FREEDOM that American has enshrined that attracts me.

If you don't understand that, you don't understand ANYTHING!

If you think waving a flag makes you an American, our schools have done
a piss-poor job at educating you.
--
"Don't sweat it - it's not real life. It's only ones and zeroes." -Spafford

[KalElFan]

"FPP" wrote in message news:n4cuv9$isn$1...@dont-email.me...

> Trump is the perfect fascist. He's almost the definition of fascist.
>
> Definition of FASCISM
>
> a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often
> race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic
> government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social
> regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

The definition you cite is as anti-Trump as it gets, but you're a
delusional loon and think it does.

> Even conservatives are finally admitting it.
>
> "Trump is a fascist. And that's not a term I use loosely or often. But
> he's earned it," Max Boot, a military historian and foreign policy
> advisor to Republican presidential candidate and Florida Senator Marco
> Rubio, posted on Twitter.

Thanks for posting that. Maybe CNN will ask Marco a question next
week, along the lines of "Senator Rubio, your foreign policy advisor
says Trump is a fascist. Do you agree or disagree?" Then maybe a
follow-up depending on his answer, e.g. if he disagrees will he fire
his foreign policy advisor for defaming the runaway leader in the
polls, or if he agrees Trump is a fascist does he also believe that the
66% of Republicans supporting what Trump said in the Rasmussen
poll are also fascists, and how and why exactly does he think he
(Marco!) has a snowball's chance in hell of not tanking in the polls
after expressing that opinion. This would be good TV! Marco might
also sweat a bit, and Trump could have fun pointing that out like he
did in a prior debate.

> "Forced federal registration of US citizens, based on religious identity,
> is fascism. Period," added John Noonan, a national security advisor to
> White House hopeful and former Florida governor Jeb Bush.

Sorry, not biting on that one. I thought Jeb was out now that he's down
at 3%. It's really embarrassing that he's still hopeful. It suggests he's
even more delusional than you! :-)

> In a Wednesday editorial, the Seattle Times

They're not out of business yet? Give it time. Sorry, but the
Philadelphia paper with the Trump-is-Hitler front-page photo
beats their "kind of creeping fascism" barb. They "kind of"
just missed the boat.

This last one here I love, though it's poignant:

> Ohio Governor and Republican presidential candidate John
> Kasich has launched a one-minute video ad online that links
> Trump to Nazi Germany.

Before Trump entered the race I opined that a Kasich-Rubio ticket
might be the Republican's best bet. Ohio was necessary for the
Republicans, their economy was good, and Kasich had this
folksy bible-quoting and not-gonna-trash-Trump-or-others-running-
yada-yada-yada pitch that also seemed good. And of course now
it's gag me with a lying' and lashin-out spoon and Jeb numbers.
Iconically Sad, and Very Bad. Boo. Trump pointing out that the
Kasich Ohio Miracle was nothing but Fracking-Fueled must have
sent John over the edge.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Lee's probably an *IslamoFascist*

I'll bet Lee speaks out for Islamic terrorists and the Fascists.

Ask him if he hates Jews.

*The ideology of Liberalism is a never ending stream of contradictions*

[BTR1701]

In article <n4dfer$5l0$3...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Actually, they're not. They don't do polls in North Korea. The
government just makes shit up and publishes it as fact.

[FPP]

On 2015-12-10 22:39:13 -0500, "KalElFan" <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> said:

> "FPP" wrote in message news:n4cuv9$isn$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>> Trump is the perfect fascist. He's almost the definition of fascist.
>>
>> Definition of FASCISM
>>
>> a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often
>> race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic
>> government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social
>> regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
>
> The definition you cite is as anti-Trump as it gets, but you're a
> delusional loon and think it does.

The fuck he isn't! Here... let me make an idiot of you, in detail.

------

"exalts nation and often race above the individual"

Trump:
> "Make America Great Again"

Trump on race:
Called for Obama to show his birth certificate, and his school records.
Called for black teens in Central Park jogger case to get the death
penalty. (They weren't guilty, and afterward, Trump said that "These
young men do not exactly have the past of angels".

http://www.alternet.org/trumps-racism-nothing-new-4-times-he-got-away-anti-black-smears

------
"forcible

suppression of opposition" (see Brownshirts)
At a Trump rally a heckler was beat up by the crowd:
> Donald Trump on his Black Lives Matter heckler: "Maybe he should have
> been roughed up"

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-protester-roughed-up-2015-11

> A top security guard for Donald Trump smacked a protester in the face
> after the man chased him for snatching a banner.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trump-security-guard-hits-protester-face-video-article-1.2348516

------
"centralized

autocratic government"
Trump:
> The centralized, autocratic management style that can be found in so
> many examples from his career isn’t a style that can work for everyone.
> It works for Trump because he believes it can.

http://www.adviseamerica.com/donald-trump-leadership-style/

------
"headed by a dictatorial leader"
Trump is going to set tariffs on American businesses and products
coming from nations he doesn't like, even though, as President, he
would have no authority to do so. That power belongs to Congress - but
he says he'll just "call them up".
>
> “That 20% tax would be an absolutely straightforward violation of
> probably every trade law the United States has with any other country,”
> Joshua Meltzer, a fellow in global economy and development at the
> Brookings Institution, told msnbc.

Not going to even mention the Wall he's going to build - and charge
Mexico for... as if anyone BUT a dictator would have the power to do
that.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-trump-wants-tax-the-world-even-legal

TRUMP IS THE CLASSIC FASCIST. He hits all the high marks, and does it
with absolutely NO shame.

If HE isn't ashamed, they why are you?
--
"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your
informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant." -Ellison

[FPP]

Oh... like Fox?

[Barb May]

FPP wrote:
> People CAME to this land and founded THIS country in order to have the
> freedom to worship (or NOT worship) as they saw fit. ALL of the
> people, and ALL of the religions, or NONE of the religions.

Actually that's not true. The Pilgrims wanted freedom to practice their
religion, but not for any other religion. As soon as they got to the New
World they started enforcing their rules, mostly based on religious
beliefs, on everyone. Non-conformists were delt with harshly.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas-true-history-of-religious-tolerance-61312684/?no-ist
In the storybook version most of us learned in school, the Pilgrims came
to America aboard the Mayflower in search of religious freedom in 1620.
The Puritans soon followed, for the same reason. Ever since these
religious dissidents arrived at their shining Òcity upon a hill,Ó as
their governor John Winthrop called it, millions from around the world
have done the same, coming to an America where they found a welcome
melting pot in which everyone was free to practice his or her own faith.

The problem is that this tidy narrative is an American myth. The real
story of religion in AmericaÕs past is an often awkward, frequently
embarrassing and occasionally bloody tale that most civics books and
high-school texts either paper over or shunt to the side. And much of
the recent conversation about AmericaÕs ideal of religious freedom has
paid lip service to this comforting tableau.

From the earliest arrival of Europeans on AmericaÕs shores, religion has
often been a cudgel, used to discriminate, suppress and even kill the
foreign, the ÒhereticÓ and the ÒunbelieverÓÑincluding the ÒheathenÓ
natives already here.

The much-ballyhooed arrival of the Pilgrims and Puritans in New England
in the early 1600s was indeed a response to persecution that these
religious dissenters had experienced in England. But the Puritan fathers
of the Massachusetts Bay Colony did not countenance tolerance of
opposing religious views. Their Òcity upon a hillÓ was a theocracy that
brooked no dissent, religious or political.

------------------------------------------------

--
Barb

[moviePig]

Love your god more than you love your fellow man, or else.

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[FPP]

On 2015-12-11 16:53:44 +0000, "Barb May" <bar...@gmx.com> said:

> FPP wrote:
>> People CAME to this land and founded THIS country in order to have the
>> freedom to worship (or NOT worship) as they saw fit. ALL of the
>> people, and ALL of the religions, or NONE of the religions.
>
> Actually that's not true. The Pilgrims wanted freedom to practice their
> religion, but not for any other religion. As soon as they got to the New
> World they started enforcing their rules, mostly based on religious
> beliefs, on everyone. Non-conformists were delt with harshly.

I should have specified. They (the Puritans) first came to American
for the freedom to Worship.
The second part of my post was referring to the actual founding of the
US, as a nation.

Everybody thinks of Pilgrims, Plymouth Rock, etc... but it was Roger
Williams, who founded Rhode Island, that made the case for ALL
religions.. He came to America in 1653 , and specifically founded
Rhode Island with the idea that people should be free to worship as
they wished. Complete Religious Tolerance.

> Williams purchased land from the Narragansett Indians and established
> the settlement of Providence, Rhode Island.
>
> Williams founded the colony of Rhode Island based upon principles of
> complete religious toleration, separation of church and state, and
> political democracy (values that the U.S. would later be founded upon).
>
> It became a refuge for people persecuted for their religious beliefs.
> Anabaptists, Quakers, and Jews settled in Rhode Island. After forming
> the first Baptist church in America, Williams left it to seek
> spirituality in different ways.

It's the reason that the First Synagogue (Touro) was built in Rhode
island before the Declaration of Independence was drafted...

> The Touro Synagogue is a 1763 synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island, that
> is the oldest synagogue building still standing in the United States,
> the oldest surviving Jewish synagogue building in North America, and
> the only surviving synagogue building in the U.S. dating to the
> colonial era.

It's the reason that the First Baptist Church was built in Rhode
Island, also before the Declaration was signed.

> The oldest Baptist church congregation in the United States, it was
> founded by Roger Williams in Providence, Rhode Island in 1638. The
> present church building was erected in 1774–75 and held its first
> meetings in May 1775. Located at 75 North Main Street in Providence's
> College Hill neighborhood, it is a National Historic Landmark.

Religious freedom was alive and well before we decided to declare, and
win, our Independence. It was a founding principal, the Pilgrims
notwithstanding.

[KalElFan]

In the Limbaugh group, "Tom Sr." wrote in message
news:cbe76718-c94a-4b12...@googlegroups.com...

> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 3:26:53 PM UTC-5, KalElFan wrote:
>
>> ... ISIS are the fascists, not Trump.
>
> They BOTH *are* ...

Just using this post to move on from "FPP". after this paragraph. The
far left have jumped the shark, largely because of Trump nuking their
politically correct underpinnings. What's left of the left, :-), is to
make the usual noise to less effect. Mostly it just makes them look
stupid, e.g. not knowing the difference between groups that chop
people's heads off and want to terrorize and rule the world, versus
Trump who got Obama to release his birth certificate (the first thing
FPP mentioned). They have less than nothing.

Some other info and observations. Forbes had a piece on a Zogby
poll, taken after the firestorm, that shows Trump at 38% and 25%
ahead of his nearest rival, Ben Carson at 13%. So between the two
of them, Trump and Carson alone have 51%. Marco Rubio is at 12%
and Ted Cruz at 8%, so the 20% there would make a whopping 71%
for the top 4. Despite some obscure Rubio "advisor" mentioned
earlier in the thread, Rubio has declined to go after Trump with the
expletives, likewise Cruz and Carson.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnzogby/2015/12/09/zogby-analytics-trump-leads-by-25-points-over-nearest-rival/

There are a couple of other polls out there from loon media (CBS,
NBC) intentionally designed in either the wording or methodology
to limit the Trump-steamroller damage a bit. But mainly I think
it's over now. Trump is *almost* invulnerable. He will win the
nomination *unless* by some miracle the almost-defunct and so-
called "Republican Establishment" can cobble together a theft,
as they've threatened to via plausible-deniability proxies and
rules like requiring 50%+ in eight states or some such. If they
can keep Trump sufficiently under 50 in enough states, or get
him off the ballot as some morons in New York of all places may
want to, then maybe they can get a brokered convention and get,
say, Rubio.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/11/politics/ben-carson-donald-trump-leave-republican-party-threat/

http://nypost.com/2015/12/11/ben-carson-threatens-to-leave-the-republican-party-over-backroom-dealings/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-ben-carson-20151211-story.html

Which is why I think Ben Carson *COULD* play a key role here,
if he wanted to and his anti-theft tirade today suggests that he
might. He's fairly well liked, but because of some miscues has
zero chance of winning now. He must know this on some level.
Before his numbers decline further, why not cite the attempted
theft as his reason for ending his campaign and asking all his
supporters to support Donald Trump? I'd love to see it.

Inevitably Trump would win Iowa, New Hampshire, and South
Carolina, Nevada and Florida after that. He may win those
anyway, but with Carson's endorsement, and possibly Cruz will
see the light soon thereafter, he wins majorities. It would
drive a stake into the Republican Vampire Establishment
heart. :-)

Even better, maybe the establishment could fold? Or is it
more likely they get Romney to make a fool of himself again? :-)

[FPP]

And you have NO IDEA how the looney left would celebrate a Trump nomination.

While Benito Trump might appeal to a certain segment of the ill
informed, low information voter - he would certainly lose in a general
election.

Lose? It would be a bloodbath, both up, and down the ticket.

So, sure... go ahead. Advocate for Trump to be the nominee. In fact,
where can I sign up?
I'll do everything in my power to assure Trump gets the GOP nomination,
because a Trump nomination would be a boat anchor around the Republican
neck.

Fuck, I hope you nominate him again in 2020, 2024, 2028, and 2032.

[Ashton Crusher]

Jesus you are stupid. The first amendment is about SEPERATION of
church and state. The EXPRESSED TEACHINGS of Islam are that Church
and State are INSEPEABLE and that in ANY conflict between the two
CHURHCH GOVERNS.

And you want to promote the people who believe that crap!!!!

[BTR1701]

In article <n4fc16$tdr$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> And you have NO IDEA how the looney left would celebrate a Trump
> nomination.

Then why are the working so hard to discredit and undermine him?

[FPP]

On 2015-12-12 00:44:32 +0000, Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net> said:

> Jesus you are stupid. The first amendment is about SEPERATION of
> church and state. The EXPRESSED TEACHINGS of Islam are that Church
> and State are INSEPEABLE and that in ANY conflict between the two
> CHURHCH GOVERNS.
>
> And you want to promote the people who believe that crap!!!!

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the
making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the
free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing
on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably
assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of
grievances.

The words "Separation of Church and State" is found nowhere in the
Constitution.
So, wrong again.

The First Amendment is about prohibiting Congress from passing laws to
restrict those specific freedoms. That's it.
Jesus Christ, it's short, and to the point... so why not just read it
and see what it says:

>> Amendment I
>> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
>> speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
>> assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I have no fucking idea what you were trying to say... but it made
absolutely no sense whatsoever.
You really are piss-poor at this...

[FPP]

Where am I undermining him? I'm loving him.

Everybody KNOWS he lying, and that's not causing any of his supporters
to drop their love of their Trumpster Fire.

[BTR1701]

In article <n4g5m4$gsb$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 2015-12-12 02:22:48 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
> > In article <n4fc16$tdr$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> And you have NO IDEA how the looney left would celebrate a Trump
> >> nomination.
> >

> > Then why are they working so hard to discredit and undermine him?

>
> Where am I undermining him? I'm loving him.

Oh, so *now* you encompass the entire left?

[FPP]

I don't see where I said that anywhere... did you?
--
"Didn't believe we needed to "Make America Great Again" - until I saw
the people we're seriously considering putting on the Presidential
ballot." - Kelly Hines 2015

[BTR1701]

In article <n4g70l$jm7$2...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> On 2015-12-12 04:15:52 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
> > In article <n4g5m4$gsb$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2015-12-12 02:22:48 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
> >>
> >>> In article <n4fc16$tdr$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> And you have NO IDEA how the looney left would celebrate a Trump
> >>>> nomination.
> >>>
> >>> Then why are they working so hard to discredit and undermine him?
> >>
> >> Where am I undermining him? I'm loving him.
> >
> > Oh, so *now* you encompass the entire left?
>
> I don't see where I said that anywhere... did you?

Well, when I said the Left is working hard to discredit and undermine
Trump, you denied that you were undermining him.

That indicates that you believe yourself to be the Left.

[FPP]

Oh, right, I forgot. If one person on the left does something, then it
means that ALL people on the left agree with it.

I forgot you're an idiot.

[BTR1701]

In article <n4gha6$c6o$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> On 2015-12-12 06:45:17 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
> > In article <n4g70l$jm7$2...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2015-12-12 04:15:52 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
> >>
> >>> In article <n4g5m4$gsb$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 2015-12-12 02:22:48 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article <n4fc16$tdr$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> And you have NO IDEA how the looney left would celebrate a Trump
> >>>>>> nomination.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Then why are they working so hard to discredit and undermine him?
> >>>>
> >>>> Where am I undermining him? I'm loving him.
> >>>
> >>> Oh, so *now* you encompass the entire left?
> >>
> >> I don't see where I said that anywhere... did you?
> >
> > Well, when I said the Left is working hard to discredit and undermine
> > Trump, you denied that you were undermining him.
> >
> > That indicates that you believe yourself to be the Left.
>
> Oh, right, I forgot. If one person on the left does something, then it
> means that ALL people on the left agree with it.

Yep, that's what you seem to be implying. I mention the Left in general
and you reply with "No, I'm not!" as if you personally embody the entire
movement.

[Jimmy Bly]

BTR1701 pretended :

> Yep, that's what you seem to be implying. I mention the Left in general
> and you reply with "No, I'm not!" as if you personally embody the entire
> movement.

Call me old fashioned, but we should have banned the fucking Catholics when
they were bombing London England and killing innocent Protestants.

Why doesn't that fucking Irish American Cocksucker Paul Ryan confess to the
dirty deeds of his kind?


All the Catholic assholes from the IRA wanted to do was to kill people.

Innocent Protestants!


That bastard and his kind belong in prison!


You can tell a damn Mick by how he hates real God lovers.

All they did in the 1970s was bomb and kill people. Good people, who
weren't Catholics.

[FPP]

Now you're just ranting.

Keep it up. I love it.

[trotsky]

On 12/11/15 8:22 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <n4fc16$tdr$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> And you have NO IDEA how the looney left would celebrate a Trump
>> nomination.
>
> Then why are the working so hard

What?

[trotsky]

On 12/12/15 1:13 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 2015-12-12 06:45:17 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
>> In article <n4g70l$jm7$2...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Well, when I said the Left is working hard to discredit and undermine
>> Trump, you denied that you were undermining him.
>>
>> That indicates that you believe yourself to be the Left.
>
> Oh, right, I forgot. If one person on the left does something, then it
> means that ALL people on the left agree with it.
>
> I forgot you're an idiot.

I didn't.

[BTR1701]

In article <n4gvbm$mn2$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

And this is the point where you realize "Oh, shit, he's right. I
actually did do that," so you drop the issue and resort to calling names
and personal insults.

[Barb May]

Your original comment was wrong. The Left isn't working hard to
discredit Trump. The Right are the ones trying to undermine him. The
establishment-Right is terrified that he'll get the nomination and sink
the entire party -- as they should be.

--
Barb

[BTR1701]

In article <n4hkbh$pb7$1...@news.albasani.net>,

Baloney. I sat and watched the reliable leftists on the TODAY Show spend
the whole first half-hour of the show Friday doing everything they could
to torpedo Trump.

[Barb May]

Oooh! More anecdotal evidence quoting "reliable leftists" that can't be
verified. And, "doing everything they could to torpedo Trump" that must
be more of your "figure of speech" lying.

Marveling at Trump's poll numbers despite all his crazy talk does not
constitute trying to "torpedo" Trump.

--
Barb

[BTR1701]

In article <n4hrqs$8sk$2...@news.albasani.net>,

I'm sure you could watch the TODAY archives and verify to you heart's
content, "Barb May".

[FPP]

When you make a cogent point. I haven't seen one yet, and given your
track record, it's highly unlikely I get to that point.

[FPP]

... by playing clips of him, and repeating what he said, verbatim, in
his own words.

That's all it's going to take to torpedo him.

[Barb May]

The burden of proof is on you, not me, and you claiming "it's in the
archives" is not proof.
--
Barb

[BTR1701]

In article <n4i57b$qdv$1...@news.albasani.net>,

Sure it is. I gave you the source. Whether you decide to check it out or
not is on you, not me.

[FPP]

Wow. Almost every book ever written is in the Library of Congress.

Can I just site that the next time you ask for proof?

[trotsky]

I'm not sure I see your point. Is your point a) Trump is a piece of
shit so who cares who torpedoes him? Is it b) Trump is a piece of shit
who you care deeply about because he has the completely unAmerican
concept of banning an entire religious group from the country as a
campaign platform so he is the "victim" here? Is it c) Trump is a piece
of shit but you like his hair so he should be left alone?

Please clarify, because your ringing endorsement of Trump seems to have
been lost in the diarrhea spewing from your cyber mouth.

[FPP]

Here are a few "Leftists" that have criticized Donald the Trumpster Fire:

Lindsay Graham:
"Donald Trump has done the absolutely worst possible thing you can do
as an American political leader, and that's declare war on the faith
itself,"
Every candidate for president needs to do the right thing & condemn
@Realdonaldtrump's statement.

Chris Christie:
"We do not need to endorse that type of activity, nor should we. "You
do not need to be banning Muslims from the country. That's, in my view,
that's a ridiculous position and one that won't even be productive."
"This is the kind of thing that people say when they have no experience
and don't know what they're talking about.

Jeb!? Bush:
Donald Trump is unhinged. His "policy" proposals are not serious

John Kasich:
"This is just more of the outrageous divisiveness that characterizes
his every breath and another reason why he is entirely unsuited to lead
the United States,"

Marco Rubio:
I disagree with Donald Trump's latest proposal. His habit of making
offensive and outlandish statements will not bring Americans together.

And the Dark Lord of the Sith Himself, Dick Cheney:
"I think this whole notion that somehow we can just say no more
Muslims, just ban a whole religion, goes against everything we stand
for and believe in," he told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt. "I
mean, religious freedom has been a very important part of our history
and where we came from.

When half cyborg Dick Cheney thinks you've gone too far, how far away
from the norm must you be?

There are about a dozen, or so more... but you get the gist.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/11/lindsey-graham-trump-has-done-the-worst-thing-you-can-do.html

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/12/christie_trumps_muslim_immigration_ban_ridiculous_1.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-muslim-ban-jeb-bush-2015-12

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dick-cheney-donald-trump-muslims_5666345ae4b079b2818fe17c


--


On Climate Change: "To be fair, leaving a lifeless husk of a planet to
our grandkids would be a CLASSIC prank." - Patton Oswalt

[Nawskrad]

On 13/12/2015 5:18 AM, FPP wrote:

> And the Dark Lord of the Sith Himself, Dick Cheney:
> "I think this whole notion that somehow we can just say no more Muslims,
> just ban a whole religion, goes against everything we stand for and
> believe in," he told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt. "I mean,
> religious freedom has been a very important part of our history and
> where we came from.
>
> When half cyborg Dick Cheney thinks you've gone too far, how far away
> from the norm must you be?

Even a war criminal guilty of having Muslims tortured thinks Trump's
Islamophobia has crossed a line. Hmm.

[KalElFan]

"FPP" wrote in message news:n4fc16$tdr$1...@dont-email.me...

> And you have NO IDEA how the looney left would celebrate a

> Trump nomination...

Most are behaving like they're absolutely terrified of him getting
nominated, same as the Republican Establishment -- which makes
it kind of funny to watch. It's especially funny that BOTH those
sides had reason to like him in the past. Trump's point about him
always being able to get along with people remains true. Trump
will have no trouble at all pivoting to the general election and
appealing to both sides. He'll get Republicans, Independents
and Democrats for similar (e.g. safety/security) and different
(e.g. anti-bad trade agreements) reasons. He'll do deals.

ISIS, safety, security and the like are in the forefront and here's a
Wall Street Journal piece from an interesting perspective, with
some interesting info. I don't agree with all of it (the writer takes
a jab at Trump somewhere in here I think) but I'll put some
separate excerpts indented in quotes and then my comments
after each one:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-beat-islamic-state-1449850833

"This struggle can be won, but it will not be easy. Over the
past few years, in survey after survey, attitudes in the U.K.
have reflected a worrisome trend. A quarter of British Muslims
sympathized with the Charlie Hebdo shootings in Paris, according
to a February poll by ComRes for the BBC. A 2008 YouGov poll
found that a third of Muslim students believe that killing for
religion can be justified, and 40% want the introduction of Shariah
as law in the U.K. Another poll, conducted in 2007 by Populus,
reported that 36% of young British Muslims thought apostates
should be “punished by death...”

I posted the American (Pew) data upthread from the other articles,
but the obvious difference is that it's worse in Europe -- Britain and
France being often mentioned. It portends what can happen in the
United States, as ISIS becomes more influential. Yes, the U.S. is
more of a melting pot but it won't stop the carnage.

It's not enough to *say* ISIS *will_be* destroyed, it has to actually be
destroyed. It should never, as a state, have been allowed to exist for
two years now. It's given ISIS far too much ability to expand their
influence. They need to be relegated to non-state nobodies, hiding
in caves like bin Laden or tents in the desert. It'll be a long process
to completely transform minds and the like -- get those awful poll
numbers down -- but Dead Isis Fighters, en Masse is what's most
needed.

Issue warnings that human shields -- families of Isis and the like --
will be ISIS's responsibility. Every ISIS leader who lives, every ISIS
bomb maker who lives will only result in the deaths of more civilians
in the West. Some Leaders in the West may think it's a noble policy
to wait for some perfect moment, but it's not. It KILLS our own citizens,
and we know this now two years in. Give them the warning and it's
on them.

"... decades of Islamist propaganda had already primed these
young Muslims to yearn for a theocracy. The same YouGov survey
I cited above found that 33% of young British Muslims expressed
a desire to see the resurrection of a world-wide caliphate"

If that's the 2008 survey, it was before ISIS. The "success" of
ISIS since will probably increase the 33% UNLESS Isis is destroyed.

"A key part of our counterinsurgency response should involve
getting the Iraqi and Syrian Kurds off the sidelines. Yes, this will
be uncomfortable for our allies in Turkey, and it will trouble Iraq’s
rulers. But the Kurds have proven themselves over and over
again to be the only effective fighting force on the ground
against Islamic State...

If that means a Kurdish state, so be it. Outside of the continuing
experiment in Tunisia in North Africa, a Kurdish state could
become the only democratic, secular Muslim-majority state
in the Middle East. It could become a political and religious
beacon for the region. Our diplomacy until now has inexcusably
neglected the possibilities this presents."

I agree strongly with this point about the Kurds and may have
more to post in a followup.

[>>>Ashton Crusher]

On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 22:55:06 -0500, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2015-12-12 02:22:48 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
>> In article <n4fc16$tdr$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> And you have NO IDEA how the looney left would celebrate a Trump
>>> nomination.
>>
>> Then why are the working so hard to discredit and undermine him?
>
>Where am I undermining him? I'm loving him.
>
>Everybody KNOWS he lying, and that's not causing any of his supporters
>to drop their love of their Trumpster Fire.

What "everybody" knows is that you are delusional.

[FPP]

You think Trump is going to be President.

I can't think of anything more delusional than that.
--
Half of the American people have never read a newspaper.
Half never voted for a President.
One hopes it is the same half. -Gore Vidal

[Bob]

On 12/18/2015 6:46 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 2015-12-19 00:14:35 +0000, ">>>Ashton Crusher" <de...@moore.net> said:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 22:55:06 -0500, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2015-12-12 02:22:48 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>>>
>>>> In article <n4fc16$tdr$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And you have NO IDEA how the looney left would celebrate a Trump
>>>>> nomination.
>>>>
>>>> Then why are the working so hard to discredit and undermine him?
>>>
>>> Where am I undermining him? I'm loving him.
>>>
>>> Everybody KNOWS he lying, and that's not causing any of his supporters
>>> to drop their love of their Trumpster Fire.
>>
>> What "everybody" knows is that you are delusional.
>
> You think Trump is going to be President.
>
> I can't think of anything more delusional than that.

If Obama can be elected President, anyone can.

[FPP]

That's obvious... but we're not talking about anyone, here. We're
talking about a guy who has already done everything in his power to
assure that he will not have sufficient support to win.

He has systematically alienated almost every segment of voter he needs
to win. And he shows no sign of slowing that march to the sea.

Trump is possibly the single major candidate with the worst chance of
being elected... EVER.

The fact that a majority of Republican voters don't see that is
astounding... and it's astoundingly good luck for Democrats.
--
When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President; I'm
beginning to believe it. -Clarence Darrow

[KalElFan]

"Bob" wrote in message
news:c830a$5675f05e$4107e27c$22...@news.flashnewsgroups.com...

> [Bob was responding to FPP]

>
> If Obama can be elected President, anyone can.

Not anyone, but Trump yes of course. Reagan was I think
at 35% in the polls in the summer of 1980? The only real
reason Trump has slipped a bit in the general (though he's
above 35%) is that media, polls, etc. have been lying through
their teeth and trying to use the supposed slippage as a
bit of a weapon. It isn't working, but they have little else.

Even the whole thread title above lies. The "outright ban"
is temporary, there are exceptions, the objective is not
to target religion but to ensure security, he's also said
that we need Muslims to help and there've been some
indications this latter message might get through. For
example here we have CAIR blaming the victims but a
second link to a "CAIR doesn't speak for me" piece:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/04/muslim-leader-from-cair-tells-cnn-america-bears-some-blame-for-terror-attacks.html?intcmp=hpbt1

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/17/dont-speak-for-me-new-muslim-groups-reject-cair-representation.html?intcmp=hpbt1

IF other attacks occur, it will just get worse and worse
in terms of backlash. To blame Trump is just blaming
the messenger, and he's been a magnificent one with
his PC-nuking campaign. Muslims will be much better
off if we in the West become more successful in the
struggle against ISIS and its fascism, and have the
strong support of good muslims especially in doing
that.

IIRC even Obama said we need the help of muslims
in his first Sunday address to the nation, and he ordered
the review of the visa program that let the female
terrorist in. These Obama steps effectively "target
muslims" same as all these plans do, and virtually all
the Republican candidates have one. We need to be
better at distinguishing the good ones from the bad,
and the polling data upthread (conservative, it could
be worse) demonstrate there are definitely bad ones.
But for example...

The Kurds are mostly muslim and mostly sunni, but
as a group they're as "safe" as it gets. They've been
our allies, they've been magnificent fighters for many
years now, and they were gassed by Saddam and his
brand of sunni (such as it was) before that. That
article I posted upthread is exactly right, and I'd add
that at least one thing Biden was right about is that
Iraq should have been split in three (at least in terms
of autonomy, but at this point Kurdistan, Sunnistan,
and Shiastan is probably a better way to go).

The reported coalition of 34 countries Saudia Arabia
has started may also help, though a few of those
countries have been a big part of the problem by
tolerating some of the islamo-fascist hate schools,
mosques etc. over many years. Donald Trump had
nothing to do with it.

[FPP]

On 2015-12-20 20:03:16 +0000, "KalElFan" <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> said:

> The only real reason Trump has slipped a bit in the general (though he's
> above 35%) is that media, polls, etc. have been lying through
> their teeth and trying to use the supposed slippage as a bit of a weapon.

Oh, right... the whole "Unskewed polls" line of bullshit.
Is that still a thing?

How did the Romney Landslide work out for you "poll deniers"?
--
Always go to other people's funerals, otherwise they won't come to
yours. -Yogi Berra

[>>>Ashton Crusher]

Time after time we see how easily the typical voter is duped by the
politicians. Typical voters memories don't go beyond 4 weeks. What
Trump is saying now, way before the campaign for the general election
starts, will be long forgotten by the time the general campaigning
begins.

[>>>Ashton Crusher]

On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 15:16:32 -0500, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2015-12-20 20:03:16 +0000, "KalElFan" <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> said:
>
>> The only real reason Trump has slipped a bit in the general (though he's
>> above 35%) is that media, polls, etc. have been lying through
>> their teeth and trying to use the supposed slippage as a bit of a weapon.
>
>Oh, right... the whole "Unskewed polls" line of bullshit.
>Is that still a thing?
>
>How did the Romney Landslide work out for you "poll deniers"?

I don't recall any significant group of people thinking Romney was
going to win, much less in a landslide. Romney never captured
anyone's imagination.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

>> Trump is possibly the single major candidate with the worst chance of
>> being elected... EVER.

Except for Hillary...

--
That's Karma

[Nawskrad]

On 20/12/2015 9:51 PM, >>>Ashton Crusher wrote:

> Time after time we see how easily the typical voter is duped by the
> politicians. Typical voters memories don't go beyond 4 weeks. What
> Trump is saying now, way before the campaign for the general election
> starts, will be long forgotten by the time the general campaigning
> begins.

No, it won't. You forget that these days everyone uses social media, and
you forget that the Internet has an elephantine memory.

[Nawskrad]

Pictured above: standard-issue Republican historical revisionism. (If
you think that example is bad, wait till you see some of what they've
said about the Civil War!)

[FPP]

Both you and Donald seem to forget that videotape exists.

Video of Trump saying Mexicans are rapists, women are fat slobs and
dogs, Iowans are stupid, muslims are killers, and the Internet needs to
b shut down.

Fortunately, Hillary hasn't.
--
It's good to keep an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall
out. -Dawkins

[FPP]

On 2015-12-21 03:23:42 +0000, Beam Me Up Scotty <"Liberalism has been
exposed as a never ending stream of

contradictions"@spacealiens.nebulax.com> said:

>
>>> Trump is possibly the single major candidate with the worst chance of
>>> being elected... EVER.
>
> Except for Hillary...

Why?

Is the killer going to be Benghazi! (tm)?

Or her email server?

What a joke you guys are.
--
"How many times you have to be hit on the head before you figure out
who's hitting you?" -Harry S. Truman

[FPP]

Then your memory is worse than that of the average goldfish.
Romney hadn't even written a concession speech because he was so
confident in the "real" polls showing he was going to win in a
landslide.

Do you REALLY deny knowing anything about the "unskewed polls"?
Really? Do you really deny it?

All I can say is that either your lying about that, are in total
denial, or are galactically ignorant of what happened just 3 years ago.
So, which is it?

Here... let me, once again, educate the uneducated:

> What was different this time was the spectacle of a whole slate of
> Obama-hating conservatives who claimed that despite very clear polling
> evidence to the contrary, that Mitt Romney would win the election in a
> "landslide." Not only would the Republican defeat Obama, but he'd also
> do it sweeping, historic fashion.
>
> • Dick Morris: "Prediction: Romney 325, Obama 213"
> • Glenn Beck: "321-217 victory for Romney in the electoral college."
> • Rush Limbaugh: "Everything -- Except the Polls -- Points to a Romney
> Landslide"
> • Michael Barone: "Romney Beats Obama, Handily"
> • George Will: Romney 321, Obama 217
> • Newsmax: "Expect a Mitt Romney Landslide"
> • Larry Kudlow: "I am now predicting a 330 vote electoral landslide."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/07/the-romney-landslide-that-wasnt/191203

> But in one misguided sense, who could blame them? Anyone who regularly
> watched Fox News, listened to AM talk radio or read the hot house
> conservative media for the last four years must have been convinced
> Obama's 2008 victory was a massive mistake and that it was only a
> matter of time before voters corrected their blunder.

Remember when I just said that videotape exists? Well, so it does!
You would do well to write it down on the palm of your hand, so that
you'll remember it for fifteen minutes... or at least for the duration
of the next revolution around the bowl, Goldie.
--
Professionals built the TITANIC. Amateurs built the ARK. Idiots believe this.

[>>>Ashton Crusher]

On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 22:41:22 -0500, Nawskrad <naws...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

We've had many elections since the Internet became ubiquitous. And the
voters memories have not gotten any longer. The same horrible people
keep getting reelected regardless of all the bad, stupid, demonstrably
wrong stuff they did. There is no reason at all to think voters
memories will be any different this time then the past 100 times.

[>>>Ashton Crusher]

And videos exist of Hilary saying the exact opposite of what she says
now. Voters don't CARE. The biggest factor is going to be what they
say and do in the final month or two.

[>>>Ashton Crusher]

On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 22:42:11 -0500, Nawskrad <naws...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Nothing is being revised. Here's the final polling. No indication at
all the Romney was going to win, much less in a landslide.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

[>>>Ashton Crusher]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

[FPP]

Exactly...
>
that was the REAL mainstream polling, not the Right Wing polling.

The Republicans had deluded themselves into thinking that all the
conventional polling was DEAD wrong... and that they had the "real"
unskewed numbers.

Do you have a short memory? I just posted the right wing polls,
showing that Romney thought he had it in the bag. Christ Jesus... he
didn't even have a concession speech written!

Does that sound like a man who believed the legitimate polls? You can
pretend to be ignorant all you want... but the fact is that the Right
Wing thought Romney was going to be the clear winner... right from the
candidate himself, right down to the pundits and pollsters.

But, hey... don't take MY word for it.

> Romney So 'Shellshocked' By Election Loss He Didn't Write A Concession Speech
>
> After all the major networks had called the election for President
> Barack Obama Tuesday night, Sheppard Smith of Fox News sat across from
> a panel of politicos wondering why Mitt Romney hadn’t yet conceded.
> Earlier in the day the Republican candidate joked that he was so
> confident he’d only written a victory speech. To an audience of
> millions, Smith wondered aloud: He couldn’t have been serious, could he?
>
> “I just finished writing a victory speech. It’s about 1,118 words
> long,” Romney said. “I’ve only written one speech at this point.
> Intellectually I’ve felt that we’re going to win this, and I’ve felt
> that for some time.”
>
> Although most polls pointed to an Obama win in the last days, Romney
> and his top advisers were genuinely stupefied that he, and they, had
> lost.
>
> “We went into the evening confident we had a good path to victory,” one
> senior adviser told CBS News. “I don't think there was one person who
> saw this coming.”

http://www.ibtimes.com/romney-so-shellshocked-election-loss-he-didnt-write-concession-speech-866316
--


"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans." -A Saunders

[FPP]

Like
>
I wrote...

What was different this time was the spectacle of a whole slate of
Obama-hating conservatives who claimed that despite very clear polling
evidence to the contrary, that Mitt Romney would win the election in a
"landslide." Not only would the Republican defeat Obama, but he'd also
do it sweeping, historic fashion.

Do you have reading comprehension problems? You just confirmed EXACTLY
what I was saying... real polls tole the real story. The Right Wing
pollsters flat out refused to believe them.
--
Only the mediocre are always at their best. - Giraudoux

[David Johnston]

On 1/1/2016 11:31 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 2016-01-02 04:23:50 +0000, ">>>Ashton Crusher" <de...@moore.net> said:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 22:42:11 -0500, Nawskrad <naws...@nospam.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 20/12/2015 9:54 PM, >>>Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 15:16:32 -0500, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2015-12-20 20:03:16 +0000, "KalElFan" <kale...@yanospamhoo.com>
>>>>> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The only real reason Trump has slipped a bit in the general
>>>>>> (though he's
>>>>>> above 35%) is that media, polls, etc. have been lying through
>>>>>> their teeth and trying to use the supposed slippage as a bit of a
>>>>>> weapon.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, right... the whole "Unskewed polls" line of bullshit.
>>>>> Is that still a thing?
>>>>>
>>>>> How did the Romney Landslide work out for you "poll deniers"?
>>>>
>>>> I don't recall any significant group of people thinking Romney was
>>>> going to win, much less in a landslide. Romney never captured
>>>> anyone's imagination.
>>>

Well, just followers of Limbaugh and Beck. And Fox News.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5Pa9YvAqLs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK7LJGkeSsM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FUfAOFZ9rQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI_IyTi4oVI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACHvCWL8C_Y

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/09/romney-will-win-in-landslide-las-vegas-oddsmaker-doubles-down-on-prediction.html

[clairbear]

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:n67qr4$j7p$1...@dont-email.me:

Just like those who said Gore and Kerry would beat Bush, Romney's
support believed he had a chance Opinion polls have been wrong before
they will be wrong again Pundits get it wrong on occasion too

>
> Do you have reading comprehension problems? You just confirmed

You are always accusing others of a lack of comprehension yet it seems
that you are projecting your own faults on others

> EXACTLY what I was saying... real polls tole the real story. The
> Right Wing pollsters flat out refused to believe them.

The only poll that really counts is the one in November Only the
election results actually matter in the end

[FPP]

>>>>> • Dick Morris: "Prediction: Romney 325, Obama 213"
>>>>> • Glenn Beck: "321-217 victory for Romney in the electoral
>>>>> college." • Rush Limbaugh: "Everything -- Except the Polls --

>>>>> Points to a Romney Landslide"

>>>>> • Michael Barone: "Romney Beats Obama, Handily"
>>>>> • George Will: Romney 321, Obama 217
>>>>> • Newsmax: "Expect a Mitt Romney Landslide"
>>>>> • Larry Kudlow: "I am now predicting a 330 vote electoral

I won't argue that... but what became obvious in 2012 was that
Conservatives just refused to believe the polls that showed Obama
beating Romney.

They even made up their own website, called "Unskewed Polls" - that
simply doctored the numbers to show Romney beating Obama. They didn't
have any scientific rationale... they simply added points to Romney's
numbers because they didn't BELIEVE the real numbers.

THAT. IS. NUTS. ... and here's how you can tell:

> Dean Chambers, the founder of UnSkewedPolls.com, wrote in a piece on
> Examiner.com that the "Obama Regime definitely won the election" by
> suppressing votes from would-be supporters of Mitt Romney and
> committing "massive voter fraud in the key swing states" – although he
> offered no evidence for either claim.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/unskewed-polls-founder-i-was-only-wrong-because-i-didn-t-consider-voter-fraud

http://www.thewire.com/politics/2012/11/guy-who-unskewed-polls-has-sad-sequel-unskew-vote/59199/

And

as far as Ashton's comprehension... all he did was take exactly what I
said, and repeat it back to me - as proof that I was wrong.

Guess what. THAT. IS. NUTS. TOO.
--
"The only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn't get
worse every time Congress meets." - Will Rogers

[clairbear]

coo...@loon.com wrote in news:6rdg8bd6v47sjend2...@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 12:03:49 -0600, clairbear <clai...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>>The only poll that really counts is the one in November Only the
>>election results actually matter in the end
>

> The only election that should count--is one where the Winner gets the
> most votes
>
> In 2000---that wasn't the case.
>
> Bush lost by popular vote
>
> Gore lost because of rightwing use of tricks
Actually the electoral college system was what won the election for bush
Get your facts straight
> The USSC "decided", not the electorate
No the vote counters in Florida proved that the result was corect
> Remember?
>
>
u

[>>>Ashton Crusher]

If you were dumb enough to believe fake polls that's your problem. All
these campaigns push this kind of crap polling as part of their
"strategy". They hope the notion of "were winning" will pull people
into their camp because some people just want to be on the winning
side. Really, nothing to see here.

[>>>Ashton Crusher]

Gee, politicians engaging in political shenanigans! I'm shocked!!!!
Unlike you, many of us were not born yesterday.