Well, he said it so you are right, it probably is going to go nowhere...still, he did definitely say it:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...l-muslims-entering-us-san-bernardino-shooting
Temporary or otherwise, he said it. Plain and simple (sorry if you have comprehension problems).
I'm not interested in what may have been said in the heat of debate. He never specified exactly what he meant during the debates because there isn't enough time to provide a lot of detail because of the debate structure.
And, at the same time, he did say that it would be TEMPORARY, "until we can figure out what is going on."
The leftists, including you, love to just assume that he meant to ban people strictly because of their religion. In the time since then, he has specified what he meant -- and it is something that many on the left are unable to identify with ..... it's called common sense.
And common sense, in this case, means that it would be suicidal to bring in unknown people who will have terrorists walking among them. If we cannot properly identify every single individual -- specifically if they have the murders of American citizens on their minds -- they cannot be brought in.
And, for that matter, the USA is under NO obligation to admit any foreigners at all. We can legally stop all immigration any time we feel it is necessary. In fact, we ceased almost all immigration into this country from around 1924 until the 1970s in order to assimilate those who had already come in around the turn of the century.
Safety for the American people -- and protecting them from terrorists -- that is the bottom line.
much - do me a favor and return suit. I can't describe what I really think of Hillary here or what I have written in the past due to the language / profanity but I don't have take an element of cringe to explain. Trump may well indeed want to keep the nation safe, as may you - but Trump has no clue how to do it. I don't doubt that your heart is in the right place in trying to do it but I do have the urge to pat you on the shoulder and go "blesssss", because your competence is questionable given that you associate Trump with security.
The funny thing about your comments above is that you believe that Hillary DOES know how to do it. And, of course she does. But she chooses not to when her own political gain hangs in the balance. That is why she effectively killed our ambassador in Benghazi -- she allowed them to die in order to preserve her future political plans.
This automatically disqualifies her to be POTUS -- along with her other crimes both in and out of office.
Trump indeed also knows how to protect the country. And he WILL do it because he is not a politician with a political will to live. He is an American citizen who owes nothing to any special interest group.
In addition, he will have the best military advisors in the world to guide his decisions. As all presidents usually do.
In the meantime, I applaud you for not liking Hillary. Goes to show that even a broken clock is right twice a day -- as long as we're talking analog and not digital. LOL
I just said that - but that protection comes at a cost and part of that is repayment for the various amount of logistical tactical and strategic aid given to the US by other nations. I asked you to name one of them that is a socialist state though.
The cost, in terms of money and life, is much higher than we ever get back from those that we protect. For example, in Iraq (before Obama blew our victory and gave it all back), we never even asked for any of their oil as repayment for freeing their nation.
Again with the cringe-worthy "it's not fair" whining - something Trump is synonymous for.
Okay...why is it not fair?
Because Fair Trade =
http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/en/what-is-fairtrade
Free trade =
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade
So unless you / Trump are not happy with the price of bananas from Africa then I think it is not me that is displaying ignorance here. You are muddling up issues here. (Deep down, I think it would have just been easier to explain the reason why trade deals are not always fair, but I chose to go this route instead).
My apologies. I thought you already knew what we were discussing and didn't want to become overly obvious.
It is really nothing more than common sense. So, I guess I must become overly obvious again. There are MANY nations that we trade with, but they dump their products to us to make them dirt cheap. As a result, they make far more profit on imports to us than we do with exports to them.
There are nations where we have negative balances of trade that go into the BILLIONS every year.
That is called unfair trade. Trump, ever the businessman, knows how this works and is planning to restructure all of this so that the profits are more equitable for the USA.
So, you can put your dictionary away and just trust in your common sense.
Even if there are judges from the 80's (let's say even 1980) that would mean that they have been around for 36 years. You said the rest of the century. That would be 84 years from now, see the difference? In fact, even if they were in their 30's, they would have to live until 110+ just to live the rest of the century.
Are you still pulling out that math book of yours? Sheesh, will you please stop crunching numbers and just understand the overall focus here?
True - they could...of course the checks and balances afforded by the Senate should and would protect. Of course the Senate is likely to stay with the GOP - if it weren't for the down ticket effect of Trump. The entire system and foundations / principle the US is set up on is that of a Republic that allows such longevity ; that great Bastian you keep talking about. You want to talk about 220 years of greatness? That is what the greatness entailed - lifetime appointment of judges, treaties ratified by the Senate (Like FTA's) and guess what, an EC system that would allow for electors to chose a President. You either want this system, or you don't.
And yet, with all those alleged "flaws," the USA is still -- by far -- the greatest and most generous nation that the human race has ever seen. Does this drive you crazy?
Umm it is you that has been wrong on every single issue here, I am just correcting you, bit by bit, as I go along.
And also, with your logic, 2+2=3.
There would have to be 5 or 6 vacancies for that...since the end of WW2, only Eisenhower has appointed more than 4:
Dwight D. Eisenhower 5
John F. Kennedy 2
Lyndon B. Johnson 2
Richard Nixon 4
Gerald Ford 1
Jimmy Carter 0
Ronald Reagan 3
George H. W. Bush 2
Bill Clinton 2
George W. Bush 2
Barack Obama 2
Of those, none appointed more than 2 if they only served 1 full term ; you still have 2020 - try not to mess it up again.
Eisenhower appointed more than 4? So you have proven that a president does sometimes have many nominations to make. Thanks for the help.
P.S. You are arguing with the wrong person over this. I never stated, on my own, that the next prez might have 4-6 nominations to make for POTUS. It is the political commentators who have said it and I repeated it here for your benefit. And yes, you are welcome.
You believe that he will do that? ?He is lying to you / your base and making them look very gullible / foolish for believing him. He will sell you up the river as fast he can.
Why would you think he is lying? He is not a communist flavored candidate like Hillary. Hillary is the proven liar, so why would you want to pretend that Trump is the liar and Hillary is Mother Theresa?
And, in the end, we ALWAYS have to believe in what our candidates say they will do. All we can do is support the viable candidate that best matches our philosophy and HOPE they do what they say. In this, Trump is no different than anyone else. We hope he sincerely tries to govern as he is promising to do.
If you believe in giving up your guns, limiting your freedom of speech, stacking the supreme court with communists, imposing socialist healthcare on America, making America more & more susceptible to terrorism and keeping our military weak -- then Hillary is your choice.
If you believe in the 2nd amendment (another of those "traditional American values I taught you about), freedom of expression, restoring the supreme court with constitutionalist judges, replacing Obama/Hillarycare with a truly decent healthcare system, protecting America from terrorists and rebuilding our military -- then Trump is your choice.
Well what did you expect her to do - nominate conservative judges? When Sandra Day stood down Bush 43 replaced her with Scalia, hardly a like for like - this is what Presidents do.
Bush replaced her with a nominee who does what a SCOTUS judge is supposed to do -- interpret the constitution and NOT vote according to a personal political philosophy.
I am glad you brought this up - this is where Trump fans are a lot more comfortable - conspiracy theories and wild accusations. (Stolen elections / magic deaths, all sorts).
Apparently Hillary fans are MUCH more comfortable with stolen elections. Just talk to Bernie Sanders.
