PRESIDENT TRUMP

Discuss world politics in relation to Islam and Muslims.
idesigner1
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 4:26 pm

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

Post by idesigner1 »

Hombre wrote:
idesigner1 wrote:President Trump and his advisors are pretty inarticulate and dumb about explaining his foreign policy, immigration and repeal of Obama care.

His new immigration policy of stopping sponsored relatives from getting immigration to installing merit base point system is not explained intelligently. Whole argument of " give me your sick" can be dismissed as idealism which is eutopian slogancant that can't be practiced as now health care is bankrupt :help: . Canada and Australia has merit point system. Also in old days there were no terrorist migrating to US. There was no welfare state when Statue of Liberty was installed! In those days only non English speaking Central European took the advantage of that slogan :yuk: !!Did US accepted sick from Asia and Africa!! Now among them ( Southern and Eastern Europeans ) most can speak English and are prosperous !All countries take able bodied immigrants. Refugee class is another category which no country can be forced to accept them in big numbers.
remind everyone that, Trump's own (3rd) trophy wife herself immigrated to US from non-English speaking Slovenia.

Did this idiot include her family too?.
Yes she did but she spoke good English. Also she had a decent job and made money from her modelling. Trump may have sponsored her relatives or she might have done but Trumps had financial resources to sponsor them. Many US citizens marry foreign women and sponsor them.
User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11602
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

Post by manfred »

Here is quite a funny and also useless piece of info:

Trump's grandfather was born in Bavaria in Germany. He avoided being drafted into the then Bavarian army by going to America as a very young man, only to find he hated it and when he returned later to "come home " to Bavaria, he was expelled as an unwelcome alien because he did not "do his duty" and first completed his military service before emigrating... He pleaded his case in a court of law, but lost and told he cannot stay and must go back to the US, which he hated.

So, funnily, Trump is from a refugee family...
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"
idesigner1
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 4:26 pm

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

Post by idesigner1 »

manfred wrote:Here is quite a funny and also useless piece of info:

Trump's grandfather was born in Bavaria in Germany. He avoided being drafted into the then Bavarian army by going to America as a very young man, only to find he hated it and when he returned later to "come home " to Bavaria, he was expelled as an unwelcome alien because he did not "do his duty" and first completed his military service before emigrating... He pleaded his case in a court of law, but lost and told he cannot stay and must go back to the US, which he hated.

So, funnily, Trump is from a refugee family...
Many German immigrant/ refugees got assimilated in American cultured and became patriotic American. Fought for US in all wars.

Some became very racist and many developed Nazi sympathies during world war 2. Lynchburgs was one example. Adolph Coors touted extremist racist positions! Schlumbergers( actually came via France) were most notorious in funding foreign wars in favour of colonist / slave powers!Many Germans were sent to jail during war time. By and large lots of them had Hitler sympathy. Many were good at hiding but known to sing Deutschland Uber when like minded got together.

Ifgrandpa Trump had stayed there, he would have joined Hitler army willingly! If you go by history very tine German/Christians opposed Hitler and his white supremacist philosophy Ofcourse after war they denied any atrocity, till this date, all propaganda of darn Jews!
User avatar
Equestrian
Posts: 488
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 8:44 pm

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

Post by Equestrian »

manfred,

I think it's quite evident that in our debate you've not provided any good reasons to oppose an immigration ban. In my previous post, I summarized the debate by listing your three main objections to which I responded in turn. Instead of addressing the three points of contention, you opted to focus on a trivial character argument.

I will address the arguments in your last post, but the invitation is still open for you to address the dilemma regarding the immigration crises.
manfred wrote:
Equestrian wrote:However, if I followed your logic, I could easily make the case that you care nothing about white people given the fact that you've shown absolutely no sympathy for European victims of immigrant violence.
You probably could, as you seem to be excellent at twisting what I said.


So you decide once again to accuse me of twisting your words with no explanation. It's a matter of protocol and common courtesy to show how I distorted your argument, but you didn't. You just left the empty accusation out their to fester. The fact is, I did not twist your words and I'll give you the courtesy of an explanation.

This is your argument reduced to a standard form deduction.

P1. Equestrian has shown indifference to the needs of foreign asylum-seekers

P2. Foreign asylum-seekers are of a non-white race

C. Therefore, Equestrian is apathetic to non-white people


You made this argument presumably to attack my character by implying that I'm some sort of racist. As I've stated previously, this argument is flawed because it assumes premises about my character that are not true. To demonstrate the flaw, I applied the same logic to you.

P1. Manfred has shown indifference to European victims of foreign immigrants

P2. Europeans are of the white race

C. Therefore, manfred is apathetic to white people


The logic in this argument parallels yours in exactly the same way, showing that your character attack equally imputes you.

Essentially this is an ad hominem fallacy relative to the debate, for even if I were a Third Reich jackboot, it does not change the calculus. The legitimacy of an argument is not measured by the person's character. In short, attacking my character, even if successful, does not defeat my argument.

manfred wrote:Let's see where we would get if we follow your line to its logical conclusion... according to you, if even one immigrant/ asylum seeker commits a crime against a local, then the entire nation of his origin should be permanently prevented entry to the country. Somehow "criminal inclination" is liked to place of birth.

So Dr Crippen, a Canadian physician who lived in London, killed his wife. This means no Canadian should be allowed to come to the UK, ever. Right? Would my "sympathy" to this murder be measured in the number of Canadians I kill in response?

Or does this approach of yours of assigning blood guilt only apply to non-white people? Let the white people in but not the others? Much like Goebbels. really.... To him Jews were a disease, to you people with brown skin.

To me "sympathy" to the victims of a crime is not measured in the amount of injustice I would be willing to endorse in revenge.
This is a dishonest distortion of my argument and ought to be beneath you, manfred. Your argument here exemplifies an actual straw man. I made it clear over and again that an immediate and indefinite ban on all 3rd world immigration is the optimal short term solution to prevent the collapse of western civilization.

This can in no way be construed as collective punishment or assigning blood guilt to non-white people, yet here you are shamelessly impugning my character and grossly distorting my argument. Furthermore, immigration is not a human right, therefore an immigration ban cannot be equated to retaliatory punishment.

As an analogy, consider a scenario where I decry it a retaliatory punishment for having been barred from entering your home. Regardless of your reasons for not allowing me entrance, I have no right to enter your home. The accusation of retaliatory punishment is utterly senseless.

It should be clear by now that my argument has nothing to do with revenge, retaliatory punishment or racial angst, so in the spirit of honest discourse, I request that you stop using this kind of language to describe me or my views.

manfred wrote:And for the umpteenth time, I have no problems with immigration controls as such, at all. I also agree that the current influx of people into Europe is a serious problem. But because we are faced with a problem does not mean that we can abandon own principles. We need to find ethically justifiable solutions.
The fact that you recognize the immigration crises and favor immigration controls is not the point of contention, so repeating it over and again doesn't change anything. My solution to the immigration crises is a 3rd world immigration ban, you oppose a 3rd world immigration ban. That is the crux of the disagreement

You continue to press the argument that we can't abandon our principles in light of the immigration crises. I've addressed this in my previous post, yet you ignored it.
Equestrian wrote:As moral agents, I contend that all nations are morally obligated to aid refugees if resources allow, but not at the expense of national interests. Housing and citizenizing asylum-seekers or refugees is certainly not an integrate pillar of western civilization nor is it an obligation exclusive to western nations
We are not abandoning any principles by enacting an immigration ban. Again, an immigration ban does not violate human rights and given the crises, it is the most ethically justifiable solution.

manfred wrote:In assessing what to do about Muslims it is fair to take into account the history and teachings of Islam in reaching a decision, but it is also important to accept that you cannot simply judge an individual on the basis of the behaviour of others who in some way share a similarity.

Clearly, Islam has a specific age old agenda but that is not to say that absolutely every Muslim shares that. Some people are merely nominal Muslims, others escape a Muslim society. In fact, of you ever meet any Iranians in London, technically they are Muslims, bit often you would not think they could possibly be if you hear them talking about Islam and their experience of it.
Thanks for the lecture and the anecdotes, but this is in no way an argument against an immigration ban. Sure, not all Muslims are active jihadists, Islamists or ethnic tribalists, but most fall into one of the three categories. Most Muslim asylum-seekers fall into one of the three categories.

Image

There are certain circumstances where the ethnicity of a person is clearly relevant information. Ethnicity in and of itself is a statistical fact respective to trends.
The image above is a housing complex in Germany. Perhaps the Muslim "Germans" proudly heralding their Turkish flags are not jihadists, perhaps they are even law abiding citizens, but they certainly are loyal to Turkey and to the Ummah. How do you think German culture, institutions, and law will fare when those loyal to the Ummah become the majority, most of which, on an individual basis, is your average non-jihadist Muslim?

Ethnicity, culture, and nation of origin must be calculated when devising immigration policy.


Once again I invite you to address this dilemma in regards to the immigration crises.

1. Continue to citizenize 3rd world asylum-seekers until civilizational collapse.

or,

2. Institute an indefinite prohibition on all 3rd world immigration.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" ~Carl Sagan
User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11602
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

Post by manfred »

Sure, not all Muslims are active jihadists, Islamists or ethnic tribalists, but most fall into one of the three categories. Most Muslim asylum-seekers fall into one of the three categories.
Most Muslims are murderous jihadis.... :shock: really? Just a tad prejudiced perhaps? Do you actually know any Muslims? I do...

So even if you were right you are saying that the innocent minority should be treated the same way regardless. Perhaps you want to put all Muslims already here in concentration camps too? Or at least make them wear half moon stickers?
"strawman"
Really? You repeatedly say that people should be treated with discrimination based on origin, and religion. Those who you selected for such discrimination are all of a dark skin colour.

You say that a crime committed by a Muslim requires wide ranging responses against all Muslims, but a crime by, say, a white Canadian does not.

That is only fair to actually point out.
Once again I invite you to address this dilemma in regards to the immigration crises.

1. Continue to citizenize 3rd world asylum-seekers until civilizational collapse.

or,

2. Institute an indefinite prohibition on all 3rd world immigration.

A ridiculous assertion and a false alternative.

a) we had immigration from many parts of the "third world" in the UK and for the most part it has been very helpful for all. SOME immigration less so.
b) A complete stop on immigration is a good sound bite, but does not actually stop jihadi attacks. Most of these attacks were actually carried out by people already here.

A proper solution is needed, not an over simple one. Immigration must be managed, and tailored to the needs of the country. At the same time it is wrong to turn your back on people in dire need. That does NOT meed you allow them automatically to come here, but we do have a moral obligation to help. If you had an road accident and needed an ambulance, you would rightly expect ANYONE finding you to call one, and not first check your religion, skin colour or whatever.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"
User avatar
Fernando
Posts: 4949
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:27 pm

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

Post by Fernando »

I'd like to draw Equestrian and Manfred closer together, but it's such a thorny topic that it's easier make matters worse than smooth them out. I'd like to chip in a few points though.

It's said that hard cases make bad law. In this case, the plight of some would-be immigrants is used by leftists and globalists to urge the opening of borders to anyone and everyone. A much more realistic approach would be, at least in the case of economic migrants, to spend money not on supporting those that make it but in trying to help in their home countries. This is not easy, as has been shown by the UK's bureaucracy's frantic attempts to spend 0.7% of our GDP on foreign aid. Some of that has been swallowed up by greedy agencies, some looted, some lost to corruption, some stolen by dictatorships and some lavished on dubious projects. Looting, corruption and dictatorships are some of the things driving people out of their home countries, so to that extent "aid" is counter-productive. I don't know the answer, but I wonder whether politicians have even looked for one.

Moving on, Manfred says
we had immigration from many parts of the "third world" in the UK and for the most part it has been very helpful for all.
The question is, helpful for whom? A leavening with a sprinkling of foreing culture is one thing: horizons can be widened without upsetting people. But why is it necessary to import foreign workers at any level of skills, certainly in the long term? With a population over 50 million, should the politicians not have arranged things such that the necessary work in the country got done by the population that existed here in the 1950's? Nobody to dig graves? Build them mini-exavators and pay them more. Not enough doctors? Break the medical profession's clamp on the number of medical students (interestingly, recenty reinforced by government but perhaps relaxed in the past day or two). And so on and so forth. The people really benefitting from most immigration are the politicians and businesses provided with quick, cheap and - for them - easy solutions.

Thirdly, history - both ancient and modern - shows the difficulty of two religions living side by side: in our case Protestants and Catholics. Indistinguishable by sight, trivial differences in theology led them to burn each other alive in the days of Elizabeth and Mary. Underlying differences in allegience - native queen or foreign pope - probably exacerbated matters and both factors are surely at play today. Even before more visible factors like appearance, language and habits are considered. The politicians' answer to this: paralled cultures, exacerbating the differences.

Oh dear, so many explanations, so few answers. Sorry, I don't think I'm helping, Equestian and Manfred. Have a nice (American?) day.
‘Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.’ Muhammad Ali Jinnah
idesigner1
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 4:26 pm

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

Post by idesigner1 »

Trumps immigration policy is neither racist nor extremists,

His Muslim ban etc. will be heard by Supreme Court. It will be decided this September.

Muslim ban is half ass job which bans Muslims from some wild countries where US can't check back ground of visa seekers.
No matter how nice are Muslims or educated, their Umma and majority decides whether to integrate or ceate problems for host countries .
If immigration ban can raise wages of poor toiling minimum wage earning American citizens and immigrants nothing wrong with the curtailment of immigration. But that doesn't seem the intention of his policy. In US there is quite an abundance of unskilled labor. This keeps wages depressed and benifit their certain high income earners. That's true for farm labors. Construction wages.

If US doesn't want to take any refugees or any new immigrants it's within its power. Right now there is no race base discrimination. Their policy of taking sponsored relatives was pretty absurd and increased welfare and health benefit claimants. All countries take young, productive, technically skilled immigrants.Canada has point system. Unchecked immigration of immigrants and refugees in Europe and Australia has created lots of sociology economic and political problems.
User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11602
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

Post by manfred »

Fernando, immigration is not the root of all evil per se. Without immigrants our schools and hospitals in London would mostly have to close.
If US doesn't want to take any refugees or any new immigrants it's within its power. Right now there is no race base discrimination.
I agree with you. However equestrian suggests something well beyond what Trump has thought of.

If he were to discuss bad parking, he would suggest this:
Once again I invite you to address this dilemma in regards to bad parking

1. Abolish all traffic regulation of all kinds until road transport fails to exist and chaos rules.

or,

2. Kill all car drivers who own cars not manufactured in the US
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"
Nosuperstition
Posts: 3815
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:45 am

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

Post by Nosuperstition »

peterpin wrote:I agree with equestrian.
All the f^cking Muslims should be rounded up and killed, slowly and painfully, and in public. The garrotte would be good. And all the bleeding heart lefties like the mammoth straight after.

And don't spare the kids, they grow up and take revenge
.

Then they learn to stay away from civilised countries.
Will you stop at that or will your final solution to cover up the the crimes of your contemporaries in stealing oil go further?
Balls of Titanium wrote:Secondly, if you are talking about most Pakistanis, then know that your ancestors dravidians were raped and gang raped by Brahamins who imposed casteism on them and treated them like dogs. You ancestors were called Shudras. They were considered fit only to clean gutters.
/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=704&p=15505&hilit=grand#p15505" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Land grants were made to Brahmins in South India by both the Satavahana and Ikshavaku dynasties around circa 250 B.C to 250 A.D.Might be if the local aborigines who were conquered opposed such grants force might have been used upon them by the new landlords who were non-veggie eating back then.So this is a logical conclusion rather than any solid evidence that to cover up crimes religion was used to erase collective memory.
The conquerors sent priests as missionaries to southern India. And occasionally these missionaries felt mistreated and warrior nobles went to their rescue. But southern India remained independent of northern rule.
http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/india1.htm

And since erasing collective memory is rather a difficult task,I think you will favour the final solution of Hitler.The above sentence also seems to be the inevitable logical conclusion or speculation or conjecture rather than any solid evidence based assessment.
Last edited by Nosuperstition on Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
palli or halli in Dravidian languages means a village just like gaav in Aryan languages means a village.palli or halli in Aryan Mauryan Imperial era around 200 B.C designates a tribal hamlet.So many of those in South India are indeed descendants of tribals and are still keeping up that heritage.
User avatar
Equestrian
Posts: 488
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 8:44 pm

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

Post by Equestrian »

manfred wrote:
Sure, not all Muslims are active jihadists, Islamists or ethnic tribalists, but most fall into one of the three categories. Most Muslim asylum-seekers fall into one of the three categories.
Most Muslims are murderous jihadis.... :shock: really? Just a tad prejudiced perhaps? Do you actually know any Muslims? I do...

So even if you were right you are saying that the innocent minority should be treated the same way regardless. Perhaps you want to put all Muslims already here in concentration camps too? Or at least make them wear half moon stickers?


I understand that you're on a vainglorious mission to portray me as the mustache twirling villain, but I would advise you to read carefully lest you fall off your moral high horse and bruise your ego.

Read the quote again, I said that most Muslims fall into one of three categories - Jihadist, Islamist, and Tribalist. Being a long time member of this forum, I assumed you would be keenly aware of the fact that their are degrees to religious fidelity and practice. We use terms to describe these degrees when illustrating distinctions. These terms should not be foreign to you.

1. Jihadist - a militant who participates in holy war as prescribed by the tenets of Islam.

2. Islamist - an advocate or supporter of the jihad doctrine and Islamic law, but does not engage in Islamic militancy.

3. Tribalist - one who has a strong ethnic identity and kinship to the Ummah, but does not necessarily adhere to the "Verse of the Sword".

Most Muslims fall into one of these three categories, the third would arguably make up the largest segment. This is far removed from the claim that shocked your sensibilities.

manfred wrote:
"strawman"
Really? You repeatedly say that people should be treated with discrimination based on origin, and religion. Those who you selected for such discrimination are all of a dark skin colour.
Goodness, you are grasping at straws. Just concede the frigging point, there is no shame in it.

By your reasoning, to criticize Islam is to criticize dark skin people, as large tracts of the Muslim population have dark skin. This is preposterous.

Of course, the immigration ban discriminates against foreign cultures that are antithetical to western values, that's the point. The immigration policy you support also discriminates in that way. All immigration policies discriminate in one form or another. The fact that foreign cultures are largely espoused by non-white people is due to the fact that most non-western nations are racially homogeneous. Perhaps you should lecture them on the benefits of diversity, oh but that might be racist of you. It seems that racism is reserved exclusively to white people or those you presume to be white, like this mustache twirling villain.

manfred wrote:
Once again I invite you to address this dilemma in regards to the immigration crises.

1. Continue to citizenize 3rd world asylum-seekers until civilizational collapse.

or,

2. Institute an indefinite prohibition on all 3rd world immigration.
A ridiculous assertion and a false alternative.


It's not an assertion manfred, it's a dilemma. Once again, a dilemma predicated on the following.
3rd world immigration rates combined with native low fertility rates will result in the end of Europe as we know it and by extension western civilization. This is supported by works from politicists like Douglas Murray, Mark Steyn, and just basic math.


To provide further context, these are excerpts from Douglas Murray's newly released book 'The Strange Death of Europe'.

"...the civilisation we know as Europe is committing suicide and that neither Britain nor any other Western European country can avoid that fate because we all apear to suffer from the same symptoms and maladies. As a result, by the end of the lifespans of most people currently alive Europe will not be Europe and the peoples of Europe will have lost the only place in the world we had to call home."

"Europe today has little desire to reproduce itself, fight for itself or even take its own side in an argument. Those in power seem persuaded that it would not matter if the people and culture of Europe were lost to the world. Some have clearly decided to dissolve the people and elect another because, as a recent Swedish conservative Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt put it, only 'barbarism' comes from countries like his whereas only good things come from outside."

"There is no single cause of the present sickness...But the final act has come about by two simultaneous concatenations from which it is now all but impossible to recover. The first is the mass movement of peoples into Europe...The places that had been European gradually became somewhere else. So places dominated by Pakistani immigrants resembled Pakistan in everything but their location... Streets in the cold and rainy northern towns of Europe filled with people dressed for the foothills of Pakistan or the sandstorms of Arabia."

"All the time Europeans found ways to pretend this could work. By insisting, for instance, that such immigration was normal...All the time we waved away the greater likelihood that it just wouldn't work. This is a conclusion that the migration crises of recent years has simply accelerated."

"Which brings me to the second concatenation. For even the mass movement of millions of people into Europe would not sound such a final note for the continent were it not for the fact that at the same time Europe lost faith in its beliefs, traditions and legitimacy."



You listed two reasons why you think the dilemma I provided is false. Let's explore them.
manfred wrote:a) we had immigration from many parts of the "third world" in the UK and for the most part it has been very helpful for all. SOME immigration less so.


3rd world immigration in the UK has been mostly very helpful, how so?

Is it the charm of acid attacks that grace the streets of London? is it the exotic tradition of FGM? perhaps the increase in violent and sex crimes catches your fancy. Could it be the subtle elegance of creeping Sharia? it must then be the exquisite diversity of no-go zones.



If 3rd world immigration is a net-positive to the UK as you claim, then it is not detrimental to the UK. This begs the question, if 3rd world immigration is for the most part very helpful, then why support any immigration controls? After all, Islamic law will enrich the dull tapestry of British culture.

This, of course, is absurd and quite frankly bizarre. In order to defend your position, you have inadvertently delved into the library of Islamist propaganda.
manfred wrote:b) A complete stop on immigration is a good sound bite, but does not actually stop jihadi attacks. Most of these attacks were actually carried out by people already here.
Once again, the immigration ban is a short term solution to prevent the collapse of western civilization, not to stop jihadi attacks. Unfortunately, the jihad terror attacks will continue even with an immigration ban given the large Muslim presence in Europe. But again, this is yet another "very helpful" feature of 3rd world immigration.
manfred wrote:A proper solution is needed, not an over simple one. Immigration must be managed, and tailored to the needs of the country. At the same time it is wrong to turn your back on people in dire need. That does NOT meed you allow them automatically to come here, but we do have a moral obligation to help. If you had an road accident and needed an ambulance, you would rightly expect ANYONE finding you to call one, and not first check your religion, skin colour or whatever.
Wonderful, something we can agree on. Highlighted in yellow is what I've intimated in my response to aiding refugees. An immigration ban will not inhibit the kind of policies that will aid foreigners in need. In fact, an immigration ban will foster policies that will aid foreigners in their own countries as opposed to displacing them. A good example with respect to the Syrian conflict is to create safe zones. This way Syrians will not be compelled to migrate to western nations, which to them, are alien cultures.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" ~Carl Sagan
User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11602
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

Post by manfred »

END OF TRUMP? President preparing to RESIGN and will be GONE by autumn, says former ally
Donald Trump could step down in a matter of weeks, the ghost-writer of his best-selling memoir The Art of the Deal said today.

Tony Schwartz said Mr Trump will resign in exchange for immunity in the investigation into Russia’s alleged interfering with last November’s presidential election.

Mr Schwartz, who became close to Mr Trump while spending 18 months shadowing the business mogul during the 1980s while researching the book, said today: “The circle is closing at blinding speed.

“Trump is going to resign and declare victory before Mueller and Congress leave him no choice.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/842 ... y-schwartz" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

True or wishful thinking? Him going quite so soon would be bad news for the UK, who is hoping to sort out a trade deal as promised, and an Obama like administration would not be interested.

As to the Russia thing, to me this sounds too much like a silly conspiracy to worry about. And the Charlotteville comments may not have been "politically correct" but they were factual. The "anti-fascist" brigade is as bigoted and potentially violent as the people they oppose.

If he were to go after such a short time, his supporters would not forgive him, and the next election would be a landslide for the Democrats.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"
idesigner1
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 4:26 pm

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

Post by idesigner1 »

Finally US got a president who is honest and sincere about setting record straight and feels for his own people. He defends right of his southern brothers, their history, their heritage, their great warrior heroes like Robert E.Lee, Stonewall Jackson. These are deified southern heroes who were really brave, compassionate and cared for their slaves and believed to treat them humanly.
Thanks Trump. Though of German lineage. No southern heritage to claim but has humane, Just out look,.

Now President is in trouble about that Gen. Pershing and his pork soaked bullets. Many on this forum had proof about this Philippine Muslims getting killed with pork soaked bullets or buried with dead pigs. I saw it being discussed here. Let's dig it up, prove CNN wrong. There must be some 2nd WW cuttings. We have many southern gentlemen here. They should help Trump White House.

Rise South rise!
User avatar
Fernando
Posts: 4949
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:27 pm

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

Post by Fernando »

manfred wrote:Fernando, immigration is not the root of all evil per se. Without immigrants our schools and hospitals in London would mostly have to close.
Ah, but with no immigrants the schools in London would be half empty! My argument is based on my concerns about overpopulation and my disgust that generations of politicians and administrators have failed to ensure that a population of over 50 million people can be self supporting in terms of labour and training.
‘Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.’ Muhammad Ali Jinnah
glitch
Posts: 924
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 10:18 pm

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

Post by glitch »

manfred wrote:Here is quite a funny and also useless piece of info:

Trump's grandfather was born in Bavaria in Germany. He avoided being drafted into the then Bavarian army by going to America as a very young man, only to find he hated it and when he returned later to "come home " to Bavaria, he was expelled as an unwelcome alien because he did not "do his duty" and first completed his military service before emigrating... He pleaded his case in a court of law, but lost and told he cannot stay and must go back to the US, which he hated.

So, funnily, Trump is from a refugee family...
Actually, Trump is a US Citizen, who was born in the country, and he shouldn't be judged for his gradnfather's hatred.
User avatar
Centaur
Posts: 2206
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 8:14 pm

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

Post by Centaur »

you know the kind of educated smart city dwellers who are taught how to think, and they are not like the uneducated red state people who voted Trump,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4PguR-8hdY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Click to win $50,0000 :rock:

only 2% of KKK are radical, the rest are peaceful law abiding moderates
Islamic Football Team: Striker:Extremist; Defender: Moderate One; Goallie :Leftist
User avatar
Hombre
Posts: 3740
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:18 am

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

Post by Hombre »

Centaur wrote:you know the kind of educated smart city dwellers who are taught how to think, and they are not like the uneducated red state people who voted Trump,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4PguR-8hdY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
let's cut the crap centaur.
While I agree, a student who doesn't know whom is she protesting against (or for) is indeed dumb. But, the guy's labeling "lefties" himself is bullshet at best.

On the right, we have 30 million dumb right wing white Americans, who worship Trump. Watch them cheer him, while he is telling them point blank - he is doing everything he can, to take away their Medicaid & throw them back on the street to fend for themselves in case of medical need.
glitch
Posts: 924
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 10:18 pm

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

Post by glitch »

Hey Hombre, why don't you cut the crap. you and every other lefty on here wants to spout that trump is bad, but you don't concede crap when he does something good.

All you ever do is say its the right who attacked obama. Hardly.
glitch
Posts: 924
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 10:18 pm

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

Post by glitch »

Hombre wrote:
Centaur wrote:you know the kind of educated smart city dwellers who are taught how to think, and they are not like the uneducated red state people who voted Trump,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4PguR-8hdY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
let's cut the crap centaur.
While I agree, a student who doesn't know whom is she protesting against (or for) is indeed dumb. But, the guy's labeling "lefties" himself is bullshet at best.

On the right, we have 30 million dumb right wing white Americans, who worship Trump. Watch them cheer him, while he is telling them point blank - he is doing everything he can, to take away their Medicaid & throw them back on the street to fend for themselves in case of medical need.
Again, anyone who voted for trump is stupid. no other reason. We just dumb. How fair as usual.
User avatar
Hombre
Posts: 3740
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:18 am

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

Post by Hombre »

glitch wrote:Hey Hombre, why don't you cut the crap. you and every other lefty on here wants to spout that trump is bad, but you don't concede crap when he does something good.

All you ever do is say its the right who attacked obama. Hardly.
Here is one thing (only one thing) Trump is doing right - his accusation of China stealing intellectual properties from US. He is right. Lets see what is he going to do about it - beside blaster.

Otherwise, the noose is tightening around his neck, with everyday new revelations about his shady contact with Russia. Also his firing of Comey to attempt obstruct justice.

We Just learned that IRA's criminal division has made all its resource available for Mueller's investigation into Trump's financial dealing with Russia along with thorough examination his Tax returns.

Keep living is La la land of Trump fantasy & stick to this criminal Trump.
User avatar
Hombre
Posts: 3740
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:18 am

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

Post by Hombre »

glitch wrote:Again, anyone who voted for trump is stupid. no other reason. We just dumb. How fair as usual.
Well, most of those whites who voted for Trump & now worship him are the blue collar workers, who lost heir jobs, and now blame others for their lack of skill to find new higher paying jobs.

There is no question that - either, they have no Medical Insurance - or if they do have, it is through Medicaid program mandated by ACA. Trump & GOP wish to eliminate these program - clearly warned by CBO that 25M of them will have no Insurance. Yet! these people cheer him - even when he tells them he wants to take that away from them.

Few low income people did Trump insidious plan for them, DID raise hell to their Congressional representatives, against repeal of ObamaCare - other stupid duds like that black guy behind him with cardboard "Blacks for Trump" & other whites do cheer him.
Post Reply