**** Elections thread *****

[Poopadoop]

I don't think anyone here has stated they are in love with the guy's entire playbook. You can't please all of the people all of the time. But just because I don't pile on the guy at every turn doesn't mean I'm some kind of apologist.

For someone who's not an apologist,you sure spend a lot of time defending him.

See, either you're being deliberately incendiary, or you're ignorant of the issues. An immigration pause on 7 countries is not a "muslim ban". There are still some 40 something muslim-majority countries that are not impacted in the slightest. There is no religious component to the travel ban whatsoever. You're simply using the term "muslim ban" to make it sound worse than it is. Either that, or you're so poorly acquainted with the facts, that you believe what's happening is worse than it is.

He called for a muslim ban during his campaign. Now who's being deliberately ignorant?

[BananaStand]

For someone who's not an apologist,you sure spend a lot of time defending him.

Confirmation bias. You're reading what you want to read from me. When he's gone wrong, I've stated such. I'm a staunch opponent of the wall. I thought the travel ban was poorly communicated down through the chain of command. And I think he was wrong to threaten to revoke federal funds from UC Berkely. All of those dissensions are documented in this forum.

He called for a muslim ban during his campaign. Now who's being deliberately ignorant?

You are. How do you not recognize the fact that a candidate and a president can and should have different perspectives.

This is liberals talking out of both sides of their mouth. They didn't like the "muslim ban" proposed by Candidate Trump. They want a less extreme policy. So when Trump obliges but implementing a less extreme policy, one side of their mouth says "Nope, we're still gonna call it a muslim ban, and focus on a non-existent religious component". The other side of their mouth says "well, Trump's not doing what he promised to do during the campaign, so he's a just a blowhard who's full of shit"

[Poopadoop]

You are. How do you not recognize the fact that a candidate and a president can and should have different perspectives.

This is liberals talking out of both sides of their mouth. They didn't like the "muslim ban" proposed by Candidate Trump. They want a less extreme policy. So when Trump obliges but implementing a less extreme policy, one side of their mouth says "Nope, we're still gonna call it a muslim ban, and focus on a non-existent religious component". The other side of their mouth says "well, Trump's not doing what he promised to do during the campaign, so he's a just a blowhard who's full of shit"

No, you're changing what I said again.

First, I said 'I hope he doesn't keep some of his promises, like the one about the muslim ban and jailing his political opponents.'

You're response is 'zomg it's not a ban' and blah blah blah for a few paragraphs about why it's not a ban.

And I said, 'he argued for a ban in his campaign'

And now you're argument is 'he doesn't have to keep all his promises to be a good president'.

I mean, no offense, but you can't even seem to keep it straight in your head from one post to the next what you're arguing about.

[BananaStand]

No, you're changing what I said again.

No, you're talking in circles.

First, I said 'I hope he doesn't keep some of his promises, like the one about the muslim ban and jailing his political opponents.'

So you got your wish!!!! So why this:

The 'myth' was that he would try to impose a bunch of laws people didn't want. The fact that the most egregious of these was stopped (at least temporarily) doesn't remove the danger of him trying.

It also seems quite likely that, like so many Trumpers have said, they believed he should be taken seriously but not literally. I think a lot of them never thought he would go through with a lot of his crazier sounding ideas. Now they're seeing the light.

You're response is 'zomg it's not a ban' and blah blah blah for a few paragraphs about why it's not a ban.

I think it's important for you to realize that you got your wish. He implemented a different policy than a muslim ban. You still seem upset at an imaginary policy suggested during a campaign, and are equating it with a much more moderate policy implemented by a president. It's important that you get this.

And I said, 'he argued for a ban in his campaign'

So? Now he's obligated to that exact policy, with no compromises, forever? It's AMAZING to me that people think like this and call Trump a fascist.

And now you're argument is 'he doesn't have to keep all his promises to be a good president'.

NO. To be a good president he has to serve ALL the people, not just the ones who voted for him. Often times, that means compromises. Trump eliminated any kind of religious component, which was the main complaint against the policy he suggested in his campaign. The policy he actually implemented was limited in scope, temporary, and addressed the concerns of his opposition. So, what's your beef?

I mean, no offense, but you can't even seem to keep it straight in your head from one post to the next what you're arguing about.

I can see why you think that when you yourself are thinking in circles and twisting my words at the same time. How do you keep anything straight?

[Poopadoop]

No, you're talking in circles.


So you got your wish!!!! So why this:




I think it's important for you to realize that you got your wish. He implemented a different policy than a muslim ban. You still seem upset at an imaginary policy suggested during a campaign, and are equating it with a much more moderate policy implemented by a president. It's important that you get this.


So? Now he's obligated to that exact policy, with no compromises, forever? It's AMAZING to me that people think like this and call Trump a fascist.


NO. To be a good president he has to serve ALL the people, not just the ones who voted for him. Often times, that means compromises. Trump eliminated any kind of religious component, which was the main complaint against the policy he suggested in his campaign. The policy he actually implemented was limited in scope, temporary, and addressed the concerns of his opposition. So, what's your beef?


I can see why you think that when you yourself are thinking in circles and twisting my words at the same time. How do you keep anything straight?

Ok, whatever you say.

[BananaStand]

Ok, whatever you say.

So, can you explain to me why you have a problem with Trump compromising and backing off from an extreme policy that you hated to begin with? Can you explain why people who didn't take Trump literally at every turn should now "see the light"?

Because earlier, it was pretty clear that you were equating the actual travel ban policy with a hypothetical 'muslim ban' policy presented during the campaign.

If a president decides to take the least disruptive course of action (it's only 7 countries, and it's temporary), how is that, in your words "egregious", or "dangerous"?

It seems like you're equating the moderate policy with an extreme one. Rather than admit that the president is not the fascist monster you thought he was, you now seem to be saying that this moderate policy is just the first step toward the extreme policy.

The fact that the most egregious of these was stopped (at least temporarily) doesn't remove the danger of him trying.

[Poopadoop]

So, can you explain to me why you have a problem with Trump compromising and backing off from an extreme policy that you hated to begin with? Can you explain why people who didn't take Trump literally at every turn should now "see the light"?

Because earlier, it was pretty clear that you were equating the actual travel ban policy with a hypothetical 'muslim ban' policy presented during the campaign.

If a president decides to take the least disruptive course of action (it's only 7 countries, and it's temporary), how is that, in your words "egregious", or "dangerous"?

It seems like you're equating the moderate policy with an extreme one. Rather than admit that the president is not the fascist monster you thought he was, you now seem to be saying that this moderate policy is just the first step toward the extreme policy.

How do you see it as anything other than a muslim ban is a better question. It's aimed specifically at 7 muslim majority countries.

Guiliani as much as said Trump asked him for advice on putting in the muslim ban. Does this sound like someone who's taking a compromise position?

Finally, you do realise the ban was overturned by the court as unconstitutional because it is based on religion? How do you reconcile that with it not being a 'muslim ban'?

Better obviously would have been not to try the muslim ban in any shape or form in the first place.