Skip to content

Donald Trump says ban all Muslims traveling to US

Political Discussion
82 15 2.0k
  • @clevfan4life said:

    yeah but partial mediated isolationism is possible and probably is what needs to happen.

    Rand Paul 2016 <----

    Small government teabags and right wingers are the loudest group right now. You'd think Rand would get more traction given he actually has thought out plans, is a real small government guy, and knows what he's talking about.

    I disagree with him on a bit, but I'm 100% with him on foreign policy - no idea why the Republican party isn't giving him the time of day. Not bible thumping anti gay and such enough I guess.

    @bbedward said:

    Small government teabags and right wingers are the loudest group right now. You'd think Rand would get more traction given he actually has thought out plans, is a real small government guy, and knows what he's talking about.

    I disagree with him on a bit, but I'm 100% with him on foreign policy - no idea why the Republican party isn't giving him the time of day. Not bible thumping anti gay and such enough I guess.

    Who gives a flying fuck what you guess?

  • @bbedward said:

    Small government teabags and right wingers are the loudest group right now. You'd think Rand would get more traction given he actually has thought out plans, is a real small government guy, and knows what he's talking about.

    I disagree with him on a bit, but I'm 100% with him on foreign policy - no idea why the Republican party isn't giving him the time of day. Not bible thumping anti gay and such enough I guess.

    Who gives a flying fuck what you guess?

    @diehardbrownsfan said:

    Who gives a flying fuck what you guess?

    Sadly, not enough people

  • @logicisforsquares said:

    I guess I am just disagreeing with Chris and not pissed off at him.

    I very rarely get legit pissed off at anything but in my original statement I said it wasn't possible. What more do you want?

    @the-cysko-kid said:

    I very rarely get legit pissed off at anything but in my original statement I said it wasn't possible. What more do you want?

    I wasn't bagging on you.

  • I wasn't actually directing that at you although it was in response to your post.

    I apologize to chris as well. I've had a rough day.

  • The reason Rand isn't getting the hype, is he's not a TV star. The rep's think the only way they can win is by having some reality TV guy on the ticket.

    If some no name person said the things Trump has said, or had the background Trump has, he wouldn't even be considered.

    But in 2015/2016, you need a blow hole with TV cred to even have a chance.

    That's why Hillary will win. She's nothing but a blow hole with TV cred. She has very little in the way of ACTUAL gov't experience, just like Trump, but she doesn't say crazy things like Trump.

    It's like Trump just flings crazy at the wall, and if it sticks, he runs with it, And if it doesn't he moves on and no one cares about his crazy, because he's Trump

  • @the-cysko-kid said:

    The economy is already in dire need of a full overhaul. But as I think I said in my original statement that isolationism is impossible and isn't going to happen

    It's also a ridiculous idea that would fall flat on its face.

    @gftchris said:

    It's also a ridiculous idea that would fall flat on its face.

    Stuart

    From 1924 to 1965 the US shut down all immigration. It can be done.

    Your democrat idol FDR rounded up all the Japs. It can be done.

    Most troubling is that we are about to accept 9000 Muslim refugees but have no room for Syrian Christians.

    What do you make of that you silly ass liberal?

    http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/228670-no-room-in-america-for-christian-refugees

  • @gftchris said:

    By calling out your stupidity?

    by being a bitch. If you say you'd like something theoretically to happen but it's impossible how is that stupid. I'd like to fuck Megan Fox too but it's probably impossible. Want to pick that apart?

    @the-cysko-kid said:

    by being a bitch. If you say you'd like something theoretically to happen but it's impossible how is that stupid. I'd like to fuck Megan Fox too but it's probably impossible. Want to pick that apart?

    It's not the impossibility of it happening that's stupid, I get it's a hypothetical. The idea itself is what I was criticising. I'm sorry if I inadvertently was a bit of a dick about it, it wasn't my intention (yesterday was a shitty day, this is a shitty week).

    The idea of completely isolating the US from the entire outside world is ridiculous - not the logistics, the actual outcome of it. The logistics are pretty trivial, really.

  • I wasn't actually directing that at you although it was in response to your post.

    I apologize to chris as well. I've had a rough day.

    @the-cysko-kid said:

    I wasn't actually directing that at you although it was in response to your post.

    I apologize to chris as well. I've had a rough day.

    No worries.

  • I know it's tough but can't you guys read the next line where he says until this administration knows what's going on?

    WSS

  • I know it's tough but can't you guys read the next line where he says until this administration knows what's going on?

    WSS

    @westside-steve said:

    I know it's tough but can't you guys read the next line where he says until this administration knows what's going on?

    WSS

    Does that make banning a group of people based on their religion any better?

  • @westside-steve said:

    I know it's tough but can't you guys read the next line where he says until this administration knows what's going on?

    WSS

    Does that make banning a group of people based on their religion any better?

    @mld-woody said:

    Does that make banning a group of people based on their religion any better?

    Yes.

    WSS

  • Leftists go on and on and on about context when it's something that behooves them but they're known to ignore context when something out of context would benefit them. Such as right now.

  • why would anyone disagree with protecting our nation?

  • Because bigots and safe spaces and microaggressions

  • why would anyone disagree with protecting our nation?

    @hammertime said:

    why would anyone disagree with protecting our nation?

    Good point.

    I'll need access to all of your phone calls, emails, anything through the mail, pictures, etc. We'll monitor your from now on as well.

    Just to be safe

  • Leftists go on and on and on about context when it's something that behooves them but they're known to ignore context when something out of context would benefit them. Such as right now.

    @the-cysko-kid said:

    Leftists go on and on and on about context when it's something that behooves them but they're known to ignore context when something out of context would benefit them. Such as right now.

    That context being...?

    (I'll give you the opportunity to word it how you see fit)

  • "Until this administration figures it out"

  • I don't need to word it any way. It's already worded. You're just choosing to focus on some words more than others

  • if I were of the religion or race that was declaring war on the USA then yes, id have to accept the ramifications.

    You think that's wrong?