Trump supports racial profiling

[Wells]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/17/trump-suggests-racial-profiling-and-says-of-omar-mateens-father-id-throw-him-out/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And if the browns aren't with us they're against us! Only Trump knows how to deal with these people.

[Sir Mohamed]

He expressed his support for this already a few months ago. Another of the countless proves, that this man is not fit for office.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/17/trump-suggests-racial-profiling-and-says-of-omar-mateens-father-id-throw-him-out/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And if the browns aren't with us they're against us! Only Trump knows how to deal with these people.

Don't forget his linked implication that we need an East-German style police state, where people are imprisoned for failure to rat out their friends, neighbors, and family members to the authorities.

[LLR]

But he wouldn't throw out convicted pedophile Mark Foley. Sad!

[Phony Moderate]

So do many supposedly reasonable, centrist politicians.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

But he wouldn't throw out convicted pedophile Mark Foley. Sad!

Trump supports pedophiles. That's why he donates to NAMBLA.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

But he wouldn't throw out convicted pedophile Mark Foley. Sad!

If we're gonna keep throwing out this absurdity, at least get the fact right. Criminal charges weren't even filed, let alone a conviction reached.

But, yes, racial profiling is a mainstream American position that many Hillary hacks on AAD are completely behind, thus

So do many supposedly reasonable, centrist politicians.

This is nothing compared to how he places blame on family members, who were not involved.

[Seriously?]

But he wouldn't throw out convicted pedophile Mark Foley. Sad!

Better a non-convicted alleged pedophile than the father of a terrorist.

[Slander and/or Libel]

But he wouldn't throw out convicted pedophile Mark Foley. Sad!

Better a non-convicted alleged pedophile than the father of a terrorist.

Better an alleged pedophile than somebody related to a criminal? Great priorities, pal.

[Sorenroy]

But he wouldn't throw out convicted pedophile Mark Foley. Sad!

Better a non-convicted alleged pedophile than the father of a terrorist.

My God, man. Just stop. I'm like 80% sure you're just trolling, but still. Mark Foley resigned from office over that and the rally he went to Trump specifically said that not just everybody sits there; it's just the people that know the campaign. Seddique Mateen shouldn't have been put behind Clinton, but it seems like the only reason he was is because the team felt she needed more diversity behind her.

[HAnnA MArin County]

But he wouldn't throw out convicted pedophile Mark Foley. Sad!

Better a non-convicted alleged pedophile than the father of a terrorist.

Better an alleged pedophile than somebody related to a criminal? Great priorities, pal.

Family values!

[Xing]

Mr. "Mexicans are rapists" supports racial profiling? Truly a shocking revelation.

[ag]

And water is watery. Very profound.

[LLR]

But Democrats are the real racists!!!

[wolfsblood07]

You make it sound like racial profiling is a bad thing.  Common sense says if most terrorist acts in the world are committed by Muslim men of a certain age, then should law enforcement pay as close attention to a 65 year old white lady standing on a corner during a big parade as they would 3 young Muslim guys?  Profile away, I say!  And let's elect a president not afraid to tell it like it is, Donald J. Trump.

[Wells]

You make it sound like racial profiling is a bad thing.  Common sense says if most terrorist acts in the world are committed by Muslim men of a certain age, then should law enforcement pay as close attention to a 65 year old white lady standing on a corner during a big parade as they would 3 young Muslim guys?

You also brought up age and gender, which is misleading. A better analogy would be if law enforcement should focus on a young white guy or a young Arab guy. And they shouldn't focus on either more than the other. Racial profiling is a bad thing, because it's racist.

[ProudModerate2]

But he wouldn't throw out convicted pedophile Mark Foley. Sad!

Better a non-convicted alleged pedophile than the father of a terrorist.

Better an alleged pedophile than somebody related to a criminal? Great priorities, pal.

(Towards Serioulsy ....)
My God, man. Just stop. I'm like 80% sure you're just trolling, but still. Mark Foley resigned from office over that and the rally he went to Trump specifically said that not just everybody sits there; it's just the people that know the campaign. Seddique Mateen shouldn't have been put behind Clinton, but it seems like the only reason he was is because the team felt she needed more diversity behind her.

The true colors of Seriously (and other trump supporters) come out .... again.
In Seriously's world, if you are non-white, and a loved one does something horrible (ie mass shooting) then you must also automatically be a terrible person (like a father, mother or brother/sister of the perpetrator).

[Gass3268]

You make it sound like racial profiling is a bad thing.  Common sense says if most terrorist acts in the world are committed by Muslim men of a certain age, then should law enforcement pay as close attention to a 65 year old white lady standing on a corner during a big parade as they would 3 young Muslim guys?  Profile away, I say!  And let's elect a president not afraid to tell it like it is, Donald J. Trump.

Most terrorists in the Untied States are white men, so...

[Fight for Trump]

You make it sound like racial profiling is a bad thing.  Common sense says if most terrorist acts in the world are committed by Muslim men of a certain age, then should law enforcement pay as close attention to a 65 year old white lady standing on a corner during a big parade as they would 3 young Muslim guys?

You also brought up age and gender, which is misleading. A better analogy would be if law enforcement should focus on a young white guy or a young Arab guy. And they shouldn't focus on either more than the other. Racial profiling is a bad thing, because it's racist.

Profiling means paying closer attention to certain people who match high-risk profiles, not giving them a kangaroo trial and locking them up or executing them. It's not racist, it's protecting the public. If racial profiling is racist, do you think gender profiling is sexist? Your post suggests otherwise.

[Fight for Trump]

Omar Mateen's father is a Taliban supporter and his views almost certainly contributed in turning Mateen into the Islamist terrorist that he became, so let's stop pretending that he is innocent.

[Cruzcrew]

You make it sound like racial profiling is a bad thing.  Common sense says if most terrorist acts in the world are committed by Muslim men of a certain age, then should law enforcement pay as close attention to a 65 year old white lady standing on a corner during a big parade as they would 3 young Muslim guys?

You also brought up age and gender, which is misleading. A better analogy would be if law enforcement should focus on a young white guy or a young Arab guy. And they shouldn't focus on either more than the other. Racial profiling is a bad thing, because it's racist.

Profiling means paying closer attention to certain people who match high-risk profiles, not giving them a kangaroo trial and locking them up or executing them. It's not racist, it's protecting the public. If racial profiling is racist, do you think gender profiling is sexist? Your post suggests otherwise.

Even black police chiefs like Ben Watson use racial profiling to more effectively police profiles more likely to commit crimes.

[angus]

Good for him.  I don't much care for Trump, and I know I won't vote for him, but of course they're profiling people.  Racially, ethnically, religiously, by economic status.  The only questions you should have about profiling are:  "Is it effective?" and "Is it legal?"

I think that the answer to both is yes.

Don't get me wrong.  I generally don't have a warm fuzzy feeling about cops.  They're thugs and bullies.  They have murdered people and grand juries don't have the balls to indict.  I'm glad that no one in my family is a cop and that I don't know any personally.  FBI and CIA are even worse.  It's dirty work, but someone has to do it.  Still, putting together patterns in a logical fashion, although morally unfashionable right now, makes sense to me.  If I were a cop, I'd use every statistical model available, and if a model told me that a purple guy with green testicles is more likely to steal doughnuts than anyone else, I'd focus on that.  Yes, I know that being purple and having green testicles has nothing to do with stealing or doughnuts physically, but if the statistics bear that out, then it makes sense to make that part of the investigation.  Don't let moral fashion get in the way of an investigation.

Racial profiling support is one of the few intelligent positions Trump takes.  I don't think he came up with that all by himself, by the way.  He has advisors who have told him that it makes sense.  My suspicion is that most politicians share that conclusion, and that most politicians also haven't put much thought into it, but fortunately our bloated government is so big and full of experts that they don't really have to think for themselves.  They only need to use our tax dollars to pay others to think for them.  That of course is a problem, but don't blame it on Trump.  They're all doing it.  Some kneejerk against "racial profiling" because their advisors have told them that focus groups respond negatively to it.  Some are for it because their advisors have told them that it sells in their districts.  None of that is a good thing.  It'd be nice to have a president who thinks for himself, but don't hold your breath because neither of the major candidates is planning on doing that.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike Trump.  This is not one of them.

[Ogre Mage]

Trump is just trying to drive up more white fear and hatred of us nonwhites in the United States, what else is f**king new. 

How low can his numbers with nonwhite voters go?  I am genuinely interested to see the answer in November.

[Boston Bread]

Is this really news? I thought racial profiling was the mainstream GOP position.

[Badger]

Good for him.  I don't much care for Trump, and I know I won't vote for him, but of course they're profiling people.  Racially, ethnically, religiously, by economic status.  The only questions you should have about profiling are:  "Is it effective?" and "Is it legal?"

I think that the answer to both is yes.

Don't get me wrong.  I generally don't have a warm fuzzy feeling about cops.  They're thugs and bullies.  They have murdered people and grand juries don't have the balls to indict.  I'm glad that no one in my family is a cop and that I don't know any personally.  FBI and CIA are even worse.  It's dirty work, but someone has to do it.  Still, putting together patterns in a logical fashion, although morally unfashionable right now, makes sense to me.  If I were a cop, I'd use every statistical model available, and if a model told me that a purple guy with green testicles is more likely to steal doughnuts than anyone else, I'd focus on that.  Yes, I know that being purple and having green testicles has nothing to do with stealing or doughnuts physically, but if the statistics bear that out, then it makes sense to make that part of the investigation.  Don't let moral fashion get in the way of an investigation.

Racial profiling support is one of the few intelligent positions Trump takes.  I don't think he came up with that all by himself, by the way.  He has advisors who have told him that it makes sense.  My suspicion is that most politicians share that conclusion, and that most politicians also haven't put much thought into it, but fortunately our bloated government is so big and full of experts that they don't really have to think for themselves.  They only need to use our tax dollars to pay others to think for them.  That of course is a problem, but don't blame it on Trump.  They're all doing it.  Some kneejerk against "racial profiling" because their advisors have told them that focus groups respond negatively to it.  Some are for it because their advisors have told them that it sells in their districts.  None of that is a good thing.  It'd be nice to have a president who thinks for himself, but don't hold your breath because neither of the major candidates is planning on doing that.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike Trump.  This is not one of them.

Oh Angus? Kindly go f%$k yourself.