Poll: Giant inflatable Trump in KKK robe. Fair depiction of Trump's campaign? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 27, 2024, 12:43:02 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Poll: Giant inflatable Trump in KKK robe. Fair depiction of Trump's campaign? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Protesters made a giant inflatable Trump wearing a KKK robe. Is this a fair depiction of Trump's campaign ?
#1
Yes, 100% fair depiction of trump's campaign
#2
Yes, somewhat fair depiction of trump's campaign
#3
No. This is not a fair depiction.
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results


Author Topic: Poll: Giant inflatable Trump in KKK robe. Fair depiction of Trump's campaign?  (Read 1955 times)
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,976
United States


WWW
« on: June 19, 2016, 10:45:07 PM »

Totally unfair, and people know it.
Logged
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,976
United States


WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 20, 2016, 06:07:34 PM »

Totally unfair, and people know it.

Uh huh, sure. Do you seriously believe Trump won't seize Hispanics and Muslims's property to give it to #hardworking Americans like you?

No, I don't believe he'll seize property through eminent domain without proper and equitable compensation for the property owner(s).

And, yes, I am a hard worker.  I've worked 2 jobs for most of the last 10 years, and I'm 59 years old now.  I support a wife and our grandson, who we have legally adopted (he's 10, and my wife is 61).

I don't know you from Adam.  I will say that, in my experience, folks who look down on the hard work of others generally haven't done much with their lives, other than go to school (and, sometimes, get degrees they aren't using yet).  Maybe you're the exception.  Then again, maybe you're a know-it-all with education, but no real accomplishments.  Folks like that seem to be in abundance; their contempt for the working folks of society is where the roots of anti-intellectualism take hold.  And I'm not anti-intellectual; anti-intellectualism has resulted in the tragic dumbing down of our culture, especially in the civic sense. 
Logged
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,976
United States


WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 20, 2016, 06:19:54 PM »

Fair? Perhaps not when you get down to the nuances of it.

Deserved? Absolutely!

The laws of our country, laws that were formulated before Trump had his first date with Ivana, call for the deportation of folks who are in the country illegally.

Is it racist to expect these laws be enforced?  Trump didn't write them, but he is calling for their enforcement.  Is he wrong?

I understand the counter-argument for this (well, one of the counter-arguments, anyway).  It's the call for broad-based reform that addresses the problem of our porous border along with some kind of amnesty for those already here.  It's sensible to a point, and I am open to an exception for "Dreamers" who were brought here by their parents and who know nothing of life anywhere else. 

But I also note that this has been tried before, and the porous borders have never been addressed.  On top of that, the Democratic Party is SO beholden to the Hispanic vote that they pretty much advocate a policy of "If you get here, you can stay here!".  The Democrats haven't come out with that yet, but I predict they will in time.

Our immigration laws aren't racist.  They're protectionistic, but what's wrong with that?  It's one thing for our government to help create opportunity for other Americans, but it's NOT our job to create opportunities for the rest of the world.  We don't need any more immigrants, and we need to enforce our current laws to have an effect on those who would think about illegally entering the United States, or illegally overstaying their visa.  Is that outrageous?
Logged
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,976
United States


WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 20, 2016, 06:48:58 PM »

Fair? Perhaps not when you get down to the nuances of it.
Deserved? Absolutely!

The laws of our country, laws that were formulated before Trump had his first date with Ivana, call for the deportation of folks who are in the country illegally.

Is it racist to expect these laws be enforced?  Trump didn't write them, but he is calling for their enforcement.  Is he wrong?

I understand the counter-argument for this (well, one of the counter-arguments, anyway).  It's the call for broad-based reform that addresses the problem of our porous border along with some kind of amnesty for those already here.  It's sensible to a point, and I am open to an exception for "Dreamers" who were brought here by their parents and who know nothing of life anywhere else.  

But I also note that this has been tried before, and the porous borders have never been addressed.  On top of that, the Democratic Party is SO beholden to the Hispanic vote that they pretty much advocate a policy of "If you get here, you can stay here!".  The Democrats haven't come out with that yet, but I predict they will in time.

Our immigration laws aren't racist.  They're protectionistic, but what's wrong with that?  It's one thing for our government to help create opportunity for other Americans, but it's NOT our job to create opportunities for the rest of the world.  We don't need any more immigrants, and we need to enforce our current laws to have an effect on those who would think about illegally entering the United States, or illegally overstaying their visa.  Is that outrageous?

And what about trump's derogatory remark towards U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, an American citizen born in Indiana, of Mexican origin.
Was this a racist comment ? Of course it is !
Was it wrong for trump to say this ? Yes !

This is the problem with you block of trump supporters. Somehow you can block things like this from reaching your brain cells (with the little yall have). You only concentrate on the things that make you "feel good," but the bad stuff from trump just doesn't exist.


Over my lifetime, I have seen all sorts of American-born politicians throw national interest to the wind to advocate policies that reflect the sentiments of their ethnic group, or their constituents of their ethnic group.  I've seen Jewish-American politicians urge rejection of the Iranian trade deal because Bibi Netanyahu is against it, but I've seen Arab-American politicians (Former Democratic Sen. James Abouresk of South Dakota comes to mind.) vote against measures designed to support Israel down the line.  I've seen Greek-American politicians vote against aid to Turkey when Greece and Turkey were in conflict on Cyprus, regardless of the fact that at the time, Greece was ruled by a military junta and Turkey was an indispensable  Cold War ally.  I've seen Irish-American politicians not hide their support for Noraid, which funded the IRA in Northern Ireland, eschewing more moderate voices that (thank God) ultimately prevailed.

I note that Trump's lawyers aren't asking for a recusal, and I agree that Trump probably should have shut up on the issue.  But Judge Curiel is just another politician, and Trump has seen the things I've seen over time.  Not too many folks on either side of the aisle and spectrum TRULY put America First.  Remember the response in debate Trump received when he suggested he could serve as an "Honest Broker" in the Israeli-Palestinian matter?  Were people even open to the principle that such a role by an American President might be in America's best interest?

Trump's campaign is an "America First" campaign, and it's long overdue.
Logged
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,976
United States


WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 20, 2016, 07:38:15 PM »

Fair? Perhaps not when you get down to the nuances of it.
Deserved? Absolutely!

The laws of our country, laws that were formulated before Trump had his first date with Ivana, call for the deportation of folks who are in the country illegally.

Is it racist to expect these laws be enforced?  Trump didn't write them, but he is calling for their enforcement.  Is he wrong?

I understand the counter-argument for this (well, one of the counter-arguments, anyway).  It's the call for broad-based reform that addresses the problem of our porous border along with some kind of amnesty for those already here.  It's sensible to a point, and I am open to an exception for "Dreamers" who were brought here by their parents and who know nothing of life anywhere else.  

But I also note that this has been tried before, and the porous borders have never been addressed.  On top of that, the Democratic Party is SO beholden to the Hispanic vote that they pretty much advocate a policy of "If you get here, you can stay here!".  The Democrats haven't come out with that yet, but I predict they will in time.

Our immigration laws aren't racist.  They're protectionistic, but what's wrong with that?  It's one thing for our government to help create opportunity for other Americans, but it's NOT our job to create opportunities for the rest of the world.  We don't need any more immigrants, and we need to enforce our current laws to have an effect on those who would think about illegally entering the United States, or illegally overstaying their visa.  Is that outrageous?

And what about trump's derogatory remark towards U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, an American citizen born in Indiana, of Mexican origin.
Was this a racist comment ? Of course it is !
Was it wrong for trump to say this ? Yes !

This is the problem with you trump supporters. Somehow you can block things like this from reaching your brain cells (with the little yall have). You only concentrate on the things that make you "feel good," but the bad stuff from trump just doesn't exist.


Over my lifetime, I have seen all sorts of American-born politicians throw national interest to the wind to advocate policies that reflect the sentiments of their ethnic group, or their constituents of their ethnic group.  I've seen Jewish-American politicians urge rejection of the Iranian trade deal because Bibi Netanyahu is against it, but I've seen Arab-American politicians (Former Democratic Sen. James Abouresk of South Dakota comes to mind.) vote against measures designed to support Israel down the line.  I've seen Greek-American politicians vote against aid to Turkey when Greece and Turkey were in conflict on Cyprus, regardless of the fact that at the time, Greece was ruled by a military junta and Turkey was an indispensable  Cold War ally.  I've seen Irish-American politicians not hide their support for Noraid, which funded the IRA in Northern Ireland, eschewing more moderate voices that (thank God) ultimately prevailed.

I note that Trump's lawyers aren't asking for a recusal, and I agree that Trump probably should have shut up on the issue.  But Judge Curiel is just another politician, and Trump has seen the things I've seen over time.  Not too many folks on either side of the aisle and spectrum TRULY put America First.  Remember the response in debate Trump received when he suggested he could serve as an "Honest Broker" in the Israeli-Palestinian matter?  Were people even open to the principle that such a role by an American President might be in America's best interest?

Trump's campaign is an "America First" campaign, and it's long overdue.

My right arm is itching, and you go and scratch my left arm.
Complete denial and deflection in your entire response.
First of all, Curiel is not a politician, he is a federal judge.
So your entire statement goes out the window. It's convenient for you to try to portray Curiel as "a politician" to fit your argument. But you fail greatly.
The next thing trump and his campaign will fool his followers, is to get them to believe that the bag-boy at my local supermarket, is also "technically a politician."
Ugggggggggggg.


A Federal Judge is not a politician?  That's news to me.  He's part of the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government, and the process by which Judge Curiel got to where he is now is INTENSELY political.  I would assume that Judge Curiel did not get his position without the support of Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-IN), just as Republican Federal Judges don't get their position without the approval of the Senator(s) of their party from their state.

What is the biggest issue for the GOP; the issue that will, according to many, unite the GOP and save Trump?  Why, it's "Judicial Activism" (liberal-style, of course).  Trump's saving grace, in the eyes of a whole host of GOP pols, is the belief that he will appoint Federal Judges and SCOTUS Justices that will maintain CITIZENS UNITED, throw out ROE v WADE, and the like.  And liberals play this card as well; Hillary tantalizes Democrats with the possibility of multiple SCOTUS appointments, including appointing the replacements to Scalia, Kennedy, and maybe even Thomas or Alito. 

And don't think that lower Federal Court appointments are trivial.  Someone observed when Haynesworth and Carswell were rejected by the Senate that it was like not making a bad cop chief of police, but putting him back on the street with a gun in his hand.  Lower Federal Courts make law.  It's why the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is far more liberal than Circuits in the South.  It's important, and it's political.

Judge Curiel's not a politician?  He's not supposed to show it, but that doesn't mean that he isn't.  (This goes for a slew of Federal Judges as well.)
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.037 seconds with 13 queries.