pacino wrote:

Brantt wrote:

pacino wrote:you are setting up something that can't be proven to a definite and asking people to prove it before we let people in again. that's just stupid.

you are so scared. it's really quite sad.

LMAO. So what is your solution? Let everyone into the country and hope they aren't Jihadits? And you call me stupid?

My God.

And yes, I am absolutely scared for the future of my 4 year old and 2 year old. I believe as a nation we are more unsafe now than at any point certainly in my lifetime. If the problem is not confronted, it will get worse in a hurry.

You have acted like a petulant child throwing a tantrum during this discussion. You really bring nothing to the table and pale in comparison on an intellectual level to drsmooth and others in this thread. JV team as Obama would say.

There's nothing to argue. he's a bigot and it is a reflection on you for agreeing with him. Putting a religious test into anything is illegal. We already vet out the ass and it's very successful. We are not in Europe's position, not even close. You don't stop immigration because something bad happened once. That's a reactionary response to something. As td stated, his family would not be allowed in if we were using this method. You think that's fair when it most decidedly is not.

We are also actually safer than in any time in your lifetime. Statistics show this, your feelings notwithstanding. Your children are far more likely to be killed in a run of the mill gun crime or accident than in a terrorist act. Far more likely. They are more likely to be in a car accident. They are more likely to choke on some grapes.

Terrorism WILL happen. It has for hundreds of years. You recently stated that Trump would take ISIS out in a month and then we'd have to have a force there such as Afghanistan. This, combined with not letting in visitors/refugees/immigrants, is your solution. I guess we can't let in Europeans of Arab descent. What about persians? Our allies the Kurds? Turks who are in NATO? This isn't well thought out. I didn't insult you by saying I feel sad for you. I really do. You can insult me, I don't really care.

Brutal.

Just brutal.

Enjoy your day.

Brantt wrote:So, some interesting polls this morning from Rasmussen in regards to Trump's temporary ban on Muslims:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... muslim_ban

This is the problem the Republican establishment, Democrats and the media have...............people in this country agree with him. And it's not just right-wing Republicans (30% of Democrats surveyed support the plan).

Here's the problem in simplest terms:

Turnip DOES NOT HAVE A PLAN. A "plan" has been superimposed on his ravings. He, himself, has no "plan".

It's like idiot media types using the word "strong" to describe him. He's a coward, a weakling, a fraidycat. No creature with gonads regards his bellowing ass as "strong". He is a joke. A revolting, filthy joke. An embarrassment. He needs to be removed from my country. He does not belong in it.

Sorry if you have been deluded by his corrosive bullshit, Brantt. You've probably been hoodwinked many times before. I feel sorry for you. I pity you.

Why do I feel the only vetting plan that Brantt would find acceptable is precognition.

logistically I'd love to know how you would execute the following of Trump's promises

1) deport every illegal immigrant in a short period of time (millions)
2) build a wall on the border and have Mexico pay for it
3) bar any Muslim from entering the US
4) destroy ISIS in a month

it's all fool's gold even if you agree with the ideas

if you agree with the ideas then you're not smart enough to see the flaws

it's brilliant actually

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:logistically I'd love to know how you would execute the following of Trump's promises

1) deport every illegal immigrant in a short period of time (millions)
2) build a wall on the border and have Mexico pay for it
3) bar any Muslim from entering the US
4) destroy ISIS in a month

it's all fool's gold even if you agree with the ideas

you be a leader and put the right people in the right places. our current administration has no clue, no clue. it's amazing!

drsmooth wrote:

Brantt wrote:So, some interesting polls this morning from Rasmussen in regards to Trump's temporary ban on Muslims:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... muslim_ban

This is the problem the Republican establishment, Democrats and the media have...............people in this country agree with him. And it's not just right-wing Republicans (30% of Democrats surveyed support the plan).

Here's the problem in simplest terms:

Turnip DOES NOT HAVE A PLAN. A "plan" has been superimposed on his ravings. He, himself, has no "plan".

It's like idiot media types using the word "strong" to describe him. He's a coward, a weakling, a fraidycat. No creature with gonads regards his bellowing ass as "strong". He is a joke. A revolting, filthy joke. An embarrassment. He needs to be removed from my country. He does not belong in it.

Sorry if you have been deluded by his corrosive #$!&@, Brantt. You've probably been hoodwinked many times before. I feel sorry for you. I pity you.

Just remember dude, that offer to hire you is still on the table.

You're my #1 "go to" poster on this board.

Someone has to persuade me that it's not in the best interests of at least one of the R POTUS candidates to call out Turnip during the next debate. To get up on the stage and call for him to end his candidacy for the Republican nomination, because he's a repellent bigot whose own words disqualify him from serious consideration by American voters from any office, much less as the R's candidate for POTUS (they can use any words they like, but it must involve declaring him out, gone, finito as an R candidate).

It won't be one of the soft-hands, never-have-done-anything senators who are running; it won't be Fiorina. It has to be one of the governors. It won't be Jeb?® It ought to be Christie. Or Kasich. Neither, really, has anything to lose, because Turnip's "performance" to date has already eliminated almost any chance of an R nom actually winning in '16. And they're not winning in IA or NH or SC or anywhere else anyway.

What they'll be doing taking action to save the R party to fight another day, and rendering Turnip a ridiculous, loud-fart-in-church footnote in the story of the run-up to Campaign 2016.

Tell me why that shouldn't be what one of them ought to do.

JUburton wrote:Why do I feel the only vetting plan that Brantt would find acceptable is precognition.

Guessing because you think anyone who doesn't agree with you is a racist or a bigot.

Just a guess though.

Come on, Brantt. The stuff Trump is spouting is deliberately designed to bring out the bigots. You have to see that. Whether or not you're one of those bigots is besides the point. You can't have religious tests on things, it's not American. People died to make sure everyone had those rights. Calling for an end to those rights is an incredible disservice to those who died defending them.

Even if you agree with his plans, they simply won't work. It's as big of a fantasy as the Iraqis greeting us as liberators.

And you have to have some problem with the string of lies that have come out of his mouth. Verifiable lies. This isn't a matter of opinion, he just doesn't care what the truth is, yet you believe him when he says he'll build a fence and make Mexico pay for it and he'll destroy ISIS in a month. It's the type of thing some drunk guy says in a bar and nobody pays him any mind, yet Trump is being taken seriously. Those of us who don't support him find him dangerous and dishonest. It's not a character flaw to call a liar a liar.

Monkeyboy wrote:Come on, Brantt. The stuff Trump is spouting is deliberately designed to bring out the bigots. You have to see that. Whether or not you're one of those bigots is besides the point. You can't have religious tests on things, it's not American. People died to make sure everyone had those rights. Calling for an end to those rights is an incredible disservice to those who died defending them.

Even if you agree with his plans, they simply won't work. It's as big of a fantasy as the Iraqis greeting us as liberators.

And you have to have some problem with the string of lies that have come out of his mouth. Verifiable lies. This isn't a matter of opinion, he just doesn't care what the truth is, yet you believe him when he says he'll build a fence and make Mexico pay for it and he'll destroy ISIS in a month. It's the type of thing some drunk guy says in a bar and nobody pays him any mind, yet Trump is being taken seriously. Those of us who don't support him find him dangerous and dishonest. It's not a character flaw to call a liar a liar.

Couple of things.....

1. Trump didn't say he would destroy ISIS in a month. That's how long a couple of generals felt it would take to basically wipe them out in Syria.

2. As I said the other day, I agree you cannot bar people based on religion. I believe he should have proposed to put a temporary ban on all visitors and Visas until the government comes up with a vetting process that is stronger than what currently is in place (which nearly everyone agrees is not good enough). I don't think he is a bigot against Muslims. I think he recognizes that 10% (maybe more) of Muslims are believers in radical Islam and Sharia law and wish to do harm to the west. That is not a few individuals perverting the religion.....that's a sect. Obviously the vast, vast majority of Muslims are peaceful people who contribute to society and their community.........but when you are talking about non-US citizens entering the country, why take a chance until you feel confident you know exactly who is coming in? Sorry, I'm not in the pacino camp of "terrorism happens.....people will die. Nothing to see here."

3. Some of his commentary is over the top for sure..............welcome to a GOP primary election. I find it beyond hysterical when a guy like Karl Rove criticizes Trump on ethics given the blatant crimes he's committed against other candidates in the past. And of course some of his plans wouldn't work or see the light of day. That goes for any candidate running for President. Trump's are just more bombastic.

4. Trump is being taken seriously because of his track record of success. He's built a very successful company and obviously has top of the line management skills. I would argue his track record in life is much more impressive than most everyone he is running against who are simply bought and paid for politicians who do whatever they are told to do by those who own them. He's also an alpha-male who talks a big game who is thriving in a time where the American public has lost faith and trust in the President and simply think he's soft. There is no rise of Donald Trump if either party had any type of even average leadership whatsoever.

5. All that being said, the main reason I am supporting Trump is simple. To this point he has succeeded in taking money out of the political process. That is an amazing accomplishment in itself. He's got the entire political establishment scared to death that he may actually pull this thing off. Big money donors have no clue what to do since they are literally scared to attack him and scared they are a year away from having no candidate to buy and tell what to do. Up to this point in a national election, really only Jesse Ventura has been able to pull this off. I don't think Trump will, but he has a shot.

6. Calling people who support Trump a bigot or racist is just so lazy. Of course some of his supporters are, but you will find bigots and racists in every single walk of life. I'm absolutely a socially liberal voter and my Presidential voting record is Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Obama. I have finally reached the point (and Hillary Clinton being the Democrat's nominee was the final straw) where I'm throwing ideology out the window and going for anything that has even the smallest shot of shaking up this entire disgusting racket. Obama's performance and handling of ISIS has made me dig in all the more.

Obviously most if not all will disagree with me, but it's all good. Maybe I'll be back on your side in 2020!

dinesh dsouza is a fast-talking idiot

Rahm Emanuel gonna go buh-bye.

Harry Reid returns from the dead with a decent zinger

"The only difference between the ideas endorsed by Trump and Scalia, is that Scalia has a robe and a lifetime appointment."

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Rahm Emanuel gonna go buh-bye.

i hope his crocodile tears dont save him

anyone want to bet on the date that PA passes a budget?

all anti-Assad groups except maybe one agree to peace talks in Riyadh. the one that may? have turned it down is Ahrar al-Sham which wants to create (by ballot box) an Islamic state.

Brantt wrote:
Trump is being taken seriously because of his track record of success. He's built a very successful company and obviously has top of the line management skills.

This is completely non-obvious. No competent businessperson I have ever worked with, or read of, acts or communicates the way he does. Fortune, WaPo and others have reported that had someone taken the dough he amassed from real estate deals he bankrolled with dough his old man left him - beginning in the 80s, which is a long time ago - and socked it in an index fund, he'd be worth far more today than his "big deals" have garnered him. That he hasn't fumbled it all away is, for him, a happy accident.

So basically, as a businessman, a big deal maker, over the past 30 years, Turnip's become a fraud. A phony. It's painfully transparent. He is an entertainer, of a sort. A fatter, uglier Pauly Shore.

He's got the entire political establishment scared to death that he may actually pull this thing off

No he doesn't. No one serious observer believes he can win a general election, or even possibly that he is genuinely committed to doing so. Not one. Pundits pretend that they believe it in public because hey, they need some kind of horserace to report on. Turnip is a failure who will fail at this as he's failed at so many other things he's confidently predicted he would 'win' at.

Obama's performance and handling of ISIS has made me dig in all the more.

You are not qualified to assess Obama's performance with any degree of precision, of certainty. Neither am I. Complex situations like the sociopolitical cauldron of the middle east are maddeningly difficult to resolve, because so many forces and factors enter into their resolution. The middle east has bedeviled our planet for a millennium, at least. To imagine any political figure, even a POTUS, can wave their hands and right things, let alone substantially improve things, in the ME is deluding themselves. Any political figure asserting such things merits only ridicule. Dismissal. "Good management procedures" is a series of three words; it is not a plan.

You may be allowing the ravings of the likes of Ted Cruz, and maybe Rush Limbaugh, and people even LESS qualified to assess presidential performance to taint your impression of the Way Things Are. I suggest you try not to do that.

Listened to that podcast regarding the Bowe Bergdahl interview tapes. Dear God does that podcast lady like hearing herself talk, to the extent it was insufferable. Out of 44 minutes, lucky if there was 4 minuted of the Bergdhal interviews.

Welcome! are you new to BSG??