Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

[Puppycow]

First they came for the Muslims and I said, "So what? They're Muslims!"

How has nobody convinced Donald to fire her?

If I may make a slight tangent here, this reminds me about something I read last week about some Muslim Trump supporters. It was in an article about the Koch brothers but that's sort of a side point. You might think why on earth would a Muslim support Trump. And maybe they're the only ones but they exist.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.news...david-koch-donald-trump-afp-503496.html?amp=1

It’s no secret the Koch brothers don’t dig Donald Trump and have made it clear, despite repeated entreaties, that they will not be unleashing their formidable political network on his behalf. Mark Holden, the general counsel for Koch Industries, told Politico in May that the brothers would support only a candidate who “did not engage in personal attacks and mudslinging.” Not only does Trump not fit that bill, but he also mocks some of the central tenets of their free-market, libertarian-leaning philosophy, most notably on trade and entitlements.

Some activists within the Kochs’ network of advocacy groups, however, do not appear to have gotten the memo. “We’re Muslim, me and my family, but we’re voting for Trump, because I just have a gut feeling,” Mary Khalaf recently told me at the annual conference held by AFP. “My gut just says, ‘This is the person.’” Khalaf, who runs what she calls a “wellness house” in Ogden, Utah, to help those suffering from stress or mental illness, caucused for Trump in Utah during the GOP primary and then started volunteering with AFP after visiting its booth at the Republican convention in July.

Isn't that weird? "A gut feeling"?

I have more respect for the Kochs and their principles though. Even though I don't agree with their ideology at least they can recognize how odious Trump is and they want nothing to do with him. As for Mary Khalef though, I have no idea what she's thinking. Gut feelings aren't always the best thing to follow in my experience.

 

[sunmaster14]

First they came for the Muslims and I said, "So what? They're Muslims!"

How has nobody convinced Donald to fire her?

I'm pretty sure that the interpretation you're implying of that excerpt is wrong. Her point is that immigration from countries awash in terrorism should be banned. In response to her interlocutor's worry that perfectly harmless Muslim people will also be denied entry to the US, Katrina's point was that she didn't care that they were Muslim. The important factor is their country of origin.

 

[sunmaster14]

When Hillary wins, I am going to be extremely ungracious to every Donald follower that I know. Mostly I will tell them that their worst nightmare coming true (Hillary Clinton being elected the POTUS) is their fault. They are the ones that picked by far the worst nominee in modern history. I can't wait.

I can understand people being ungracious in defeat. I've never really understood people being ungracious in victory.

Edited by jsfisher: 

<snip> Edited for compliance with Rule 12 of the Membership Agreement.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I'm pretty sure that the interpretation you're implying of that excerpt is wrong.

Spin is not just a cycle on our washing machine.

I'll bet if they were discussing the Holocaust and Pierson said, "So what? They were Jews" you would find a way to spin that as well.

I'll repeat: Pierson scares me. Put her in a uniform and give her the title of Information Minister and she could be in a remake of "1984".

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I can understand people being ungracious in defeat. I've never really understood people being ungracious in victory. ...

Edited by jsfisher: 

Moderated content and response to same redacted.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I can understand people being ungracious in defeat. I've never really understood people being ungracious in victory. ...

Edited by jsfisher: 

Moderated content and response to same redacted.

 

[Sabrina]

Getting ready to "protect" polling areas from darkies and their evil liberal overlords. Will be proud and not ashamed while doing it, which is the far deeper and profoundly damning issue.

I categorically dare anyone to try this in my area.

I live in a predominantly African-American and Hispanic neighborhood (I'm like the only white person on my street, as far as I know).

 

[NoahFence]

I'm pretty sure that the interpretation you're implying of that excerpt is wrong. Her point is that immigration from countries awash in terrorism should be banned. In response to her interlocutor's worry that perfectly harmless Muslim people will also be denied entry to the US, Katrina's point was that she didn't care that they were Muslim. The important factor is their country of origin.

Its interesting that Trump supporters cannot for the life of them, take these statements from his campaign at face value. It doesn't strike you as odd that you have to re-interpret every statement that comes out of that cesspool?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Its interesting that Trump supporters cannot for the life of them, take these statements from his campaign at face value. It doesn't strike you as odd that you have to re-interpret every statement that comes out of that cesspool?

They have to re-interpret, how could anyone support them otherwise?

 

[Stacko]

Its interesting that Trump supporters cannot for the life of them, take these statements from his campaign at face value. It doesn't strike you as odd that you have to re-interpret every statement that comes out of that cesspool?

The Muslim ban is still on the campaign website despite the attempted spin to back off it.

 

[Tricky]

I can understand people being ungracious in defeat. I've never really understood people being ungracious in victory.

Sort of like Trump when he won the nomination?

 

[sunmaster14]

Spin is not just a cycle on our washing machine.

I'll bet if they were discussing the Holocaust and Pierson said, "So what? They were Jews" you would find a way to spin that as well.

You really bet that? I'm surprised, and more than a little bit disappointed in you. I think it's quite obvious what she meant. Did you even watch the clip?

I'll repeat: Pierson scares me. Put her in a uniform and give her the title of Information Minister and she could be in a remake of "1984".

It appears you're letting your feelings about her color your interpretation of her remarks. Kind of a slippery slope there, but it's an understandable cognitive error.

 

[NoahFence]

You really bet that? I'm surprised, and more than a little bit disappointed in you. I think it's quite obvious what she meant. Did you even watch the clip?



It appears you're letting your feelings about her color your interpretation of her remarks. Kind of a slippery slope there, but it's an understandable cognitive error.

This is interesting.

It's almost as if a person or persons who are in the national spotlight need to be measured in what they say, and use what brains they were given to make sure what they say isn't misinterpreted.

 

[phiwum]

You really bet that? I'm surprised, and more than a little bit disappointed in you. I think it's quite obvious what she meant. Did you even watch the clip?

I watched the clip. Your charitable interpretation never crossed my mind.

I've watched it again. It still seems a stretch.

 

[sunmaster14]

I watched the clip. Your charitable interpretation never crossed my mind.

I've watched it again. It still seems a stretch.

Seems like your bubble is thick. I am absolutely sure that's what she meant. It has been Trump's policy (the far more moderate and reasonable policy), for months now, that immigration should be restricted based on country of origin, not religion per se. Her point is that we shouldn't care that they're Muslim. The problem is the country they come from, if in fact it is rife with Islamic terrorism. She's acknowledging that most of the people affected by such a ban will be Muslim, but as long as the ban is not based on religion specifically, it's not our problem.

ETA: Perhaps it would help you understand better if you inserted an implicit "so" in her statement, and perhaps a "so what?" at the end. To wit, "Who cares? [So] they're Muslim. So what?"

 

[NoahFence]

Seems like your bubble is thick. I am absolutely sure that's what she meant. It has been Trump's policy (the far more moderate and reasonable policy), for months now, that immigration should be restricted based on country of origin, not religion per se. Her point is that we shouldn't care that they're Muslim. The problem is the country they come from, if in fact it is rife with Islamic terrorism. She's acknowledging that most of the people affected by such a ban will be Muslim, but as long as the ban is not based on religion specifically, it's not our problem.

ETA: Perhaps it would help you understand better if you inserted an implicit "so" in her statement, and perhaps a "so what?" at the end. To wit, "Who cares? [So] they're Muslim. So what?"

Trump does not deserve, and will not get the benefit of the doubt. He's proven himself to be a serial xenophobic piece of human garbage, LONG before he entertained a run for the White House.

 

[JPK]

Why is it that everything Trump and his surrogates say, need to be re-interpreted to mean the opposite of what they actually say?

 

[JPK]

Why is it that everything Trump and his surrogates say, need to be re-interpreted to mean the opposite of what they actually say? Can a Trump supporter explain that?

 

[slyjoe]

Seems like your bubble is thick. I am absolutely sure that's what she meant. It has been Trump's policy (the far more moderate and reasonable policy), for months now, that immigration should be restricted based on country of origin, not religion per se. Her point is that we shouldn't care that they're Muslim. The problem is the country they come from, if in fact it is rife with Islamic terrorism. She's acknowledging that most of the people affected by such a ban will be Muslim, but as long as the ban is not based on religion specifically, it's not our problem.

ETA: Perhaps it would help you understand better if you inserted an implicit "so" in her statement, and perhaps a "so what?" at the end. To wit, "Who cares? [So] they're Muslim. So what?"

Why do you feel you need to change Pierson's quote? The actual quote was:

"So what. They're Muslims".

 

[phiwum]

Seems like your bubble is thick. I am absolutely sure that's what she meant. It has been Trump's policy (the far more moderate and reasonable policy), for months now, that immigration should be restricted based on country of origin, not religion per se. Her point is that we shouldn't care that they're Muslim. The problem is the country they come from, if in fact it is rife with Islamic terrorism. She's acknowledging that most of the people affected by such a ban will be Muslim, but as long as the ban is not based on religion specifically, it's not our problem.

ETA: Perhaps it would help you understand better if you inserted an implicit "so" in her statement, and perhaps a "so what?" at the end. To wit, "Who cares? [So] they're Muslim. So what?"

It's conceivable that's what she meant. It's not obvious that's what she meant, not by a long shot.