Rump already back pedaling on Muslim ban

Search

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
22,991
Tokens
[h=1]Donald Trump Back-Pedals on Banning Muslims From U.S.[/h] [h=2]Republican candidate moves toward more nuanced policy targeting countries with record of terrorism[/h]
(The way his lackeys are scurrying to "clarify" his position is hilarious)

By Beth Reinhard and Damian Paletta Updated June 28, 2016 1:28 a.m. ET



Donald Trump appears to be backing away from one of his signature and most controversial proposals—banning Muslims from entering the U.S.—as polls show him falling slightly behind Hillary Clinton.
Since Mr. Trump essentially clinched the GOP presidential nomination in May, amid widespread popularity of his proposed ban among primary voters, he has gradually moved away from a blanket religious ban and toward a more nuanced policy targeting countries with a record of terrorism.
Mr. Trump’s policy director, Stephen Miller, said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal on Monday, “The best way to prevent continued radicalization from developing inside America is to suspend temporarily immigration from regions that have been a major source for terrorists and their supporters coming to the U.S.”



But the evolution of the policy has come in fits and starts, with conflicting statements by Mr. Trump that have confused some of his strongest supporters on Capitol Hill. Mr. Trump has never said he was wrong about the temporary Muslim ban or explicitly said he was abandoning that policy.
Asked about the confusion, one of Mr. Trump’s top foreign-policy advisers, retired Rear Adm. Charles Kubic, said he was “working with the campaign to address this issue.” He said he expected a statement from the campaign headquarters this week.
Campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks said Mr. Kubic was not advising the campaign on this issue. But another Trump representative, Katrina Pierson, confirmed the policy was being clarified. “Mr. Trump is going to be refining his policy, putting out specifics, which everyone’s been asking for,” she said on CNN.
Mr. Trump was tied with Mrs. Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, in late May and now lags by more than 6 percentage points, according to the Real Clear Politics polling average. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey showed him with 41% support, compared with 46% for Mrs. Clinton.
Counter-terrorism and national-security experts who disagreed with a Muslim ban said a geographic immigration policy still raised concerns, because Mr. Trump so far had not detailed which countries would qualify and how he would measure their records on terrorism. Among the questions: Would it apply to Northern Ireland, which has weathered terror attacks that weren’t carried out by Islamic extremists, and Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of most of the 9/11 hijackers that is also a top American ally?
Typically, presidential candidates travel abroad to flaunt their foreign-policy chops, but Mr. Trump’s first trip overseas this past weekend was focused on promoting his new golf course in Scotland. When pressed by reporters for details on his national-security policies, Mr. Trump said he would block immigrants from “countries with great terrorism.” Muslims from Scotland or other parts of Great Britain “wouldn’t bother me,” he said.
Two of Mr. Trump’s foreign-policy advisers on Monday said they were unavailable for comment or didn’t have permission to speak to reporters.
Carl Paladino, the 2010 Republican gubernatorial nominee in New York and a top Trump supporter, said he didn’t think Mr. Trump was changing his national-security policy.
“I don’t think it was ever a ban directed at religion,” said Mr. Paladino, who attended a recent speech by Mr. Trump in Manhattan that focused on banning Syrian refugees who haven’t been properly vetted, rather than Muslims.
He added: “Expecting a clear definition is a little bit much in the middle of a presidential campaign.”
Exit polls showed that large majorities of Republican primary voters and caucus-goers backed Mr. Trump’s proposal, made in December, to temporarily block Muslims from the U.S.
A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released Monday found that 49% of registered voters oppose a temporary Muslim ban, suggesting that the proposal could be an obstacle in the general election. Some 34% of voters supported the proposed ban. A number of top Republican leaders, including House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, denounced the proposal.
For Mr. Trump, retreating from the Muslim ban carries risks and rewards: He could alienate staunch, rank-and-file supporters but also could engender goodwill in a Republican political establishment still wary of his candidacy.
Mr. Trump’s supporters on Capitol Hill have discussed the confusion surrounding the issue in recent weeks and asked the campaign for clarifications, according to people familiar with the private meetings. Several members would prefer Mr. Trump replace his religious test with a geographic one, pointing to bipartisan legislation passed by the House last year that would suspend immigration from Syria and Iraq.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a prominent Trump supporter who is considered a potential running mate, said the candidate’s policy “may be evolving.”
“It may evolve as the facts evolve and as he learns more,” Mr. Gingrich said on Fox News Sunday. “He has changed things as he has learned more. He will keep changing.”
In December, days after the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif., Mr. Trump called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the U.S. until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”
His first television ad in January depicted images of the suspects in the San Bernardino attacks and of Islamic State militants and said, “That’s why he’s calling for a temporary shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”
After Mr. Trump’s final two rivals withdrew from the GOP primary in May, his position on the Muslim ban appeared to soften. “This is just a suggestion until we find out what’s going on,” he told Fox News Radio.
In a June 13 speech billed as his response to the mass shootings in Orlando, Fla., Mr. Trump seemed to reinforce the Muslim ban. “I called for a ban after San Bernardino and was met with great scorn and anger, but now…many are saying that I was right to do so. And although the pause is temporary, we must find out what is going on,” he said at St. Anselm College in New Hampshire.
But then he added: “When I am elected, I will suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the U.S., Europe or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats.”
The campaign didn’t answer requests for clarification at that time.
Terror attacks or attempted attacks against the U.S. and its European allies have been carried out in recent years by people from the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, United Arab Emirates, Nigeria, United Kingdom, Iraq, Syria, France and Belgium, among other places.
“If we’re just talking about jihadi terrorism, it’s a global movement, including inside the U.S.,” said Jessica Stern, a research professor and terrorism expert at Boston University’s Pardee School of Global Studies. “If we’re talking about every kind of terrorism, that’s even more the case.”
Mr. Trump has in the past moved to clarify some of his more controversial positions, particularly following blowback from national-security experts.
In March, following months of saying he would authorize the military to torture suspected terrorists, Mr. Trump said he wouldn’t direct anyone to violate the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit torture. Instead, he said he would work to change the Geneva Conventions, because, he said, governments need more flexibility to prevent terror attacks.
Muslim community leaders remain unconvinced that Mr. Trump’s policy is changing.
“I don’t know that he knows himself because it’s a minute-by-minute thing based on who is asking the question,” said Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,117
Tokens
:pointer::pointer::pointer::):):):):):)@):mad:@):mad:@):mad:
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,117
Tokens
you can only laugh at the fucking idiots

it's too bad they don't suffer when the economy is horrific, butt free stuff is still free so it doesn't matter much to the parasites
 

New member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
78,682
Tokens
[h=2]HILLARY CLINTON BACK PEDALS ON LATE TERM ABORTIONS[/h]


Hillary Clinton is trying to run away from her radical pro-abortion record, but there’s no way she’s going to be able to.Confronted about her vocal support for abortion at a Fox News debate, moderator Bret Baier questioned Clinton about her stance on the case before the Supreme Court regarding the issue. Although she boasted about her unshakable support for a woman’s right to “choose”, she seemed less proud of her stance when she was pushed on the issue.Trying to gauge what exactly Clinton had in mind when she said the issue should be left to women to make, Baier asked if there were any possible exceptions in which she would oppose abortion. Taken aback by this, Clinton quickly explained that, of course, she was against late-term abortion and always was.


Hillary’s answer about late-term abortions might sway low-information voters, but committed pro-lifers will know that this is classic Clinton triangulating. Having already clinched the support of most Democrats, she now is trying to reach out to moderate voters who will make or break her in November. Judging by the reaction of people like Marjorie Dannenfelser, it’s not working:
“Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List pro-life organization, wrote last month that Clinton’s middle-of-the-road ‘exception’ stance ‘is a loophole so big as to make the underlying restriction meaningless,’ and can essentially be taken as a late-term abortion endorsement.‘It applies to anyone who claims to feel ‘mental distress’ at the thought of having a baby,’ Dannenfelser said. ‘And it’s hard to take seriously the idea that a woman who stood by as her husband vetoed a law to prohibit the gruesome practice of partial-birth abortion now opposes the very abortions the technique was designed to administer.’Clinton’s sentiments are similar to those espoused by DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz last year when pressed by Sen. Rand Paul on whether she would agree with aborting a late-term baby.‘Sounds like her answer is yes, that she’s okay with killing a seven-pound baby,’ Sen. Paul said.‘But Debbie’s position, which I guess is the Democrat Party’s position, that an abortion all the way up until the day of birth would be fine, I think most pro-choice people would be really uncomfortable with that,’ he added.”




 

New member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
78,682
Tokens
[h=1]Hillary Clinton Back-Pedals on Two-States[/h]April 22, 2016 By Richard Silverstein



In reading the transcript of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton’s remarks during the recent Democratic debate, I was struck by a major waffle in her position on a Palestinian state. To paraphrase John Kerry: she supported one before she didn’t. And all in the same debate.
Here is her first pass at the subject, where she robotically repeats the standard line:
You have a right to defend yourself.
That does not mean that you don’t take appropriate precautions. And, I understand that there’s always second-guessing anytime there is a war. It also does not mean that we should not continue to do everything we can to try to reach a two-state solution, which would give the Palestinians the rights and the autonomy that they deserve.
Note, that even in her standard two-state shpiel, she doesn’t so much embrace it as wink at it as the ideal, but hard to achieve, outcome. In other words, she’s saying: sure, we’d like a two state solution. But we can’t do more than we’re already doing to get there. And if we don’t get there, then who can blame us? This is essentially the continuation of the same failure of the Obama administration over the past eight years.
Also note, that Hillary steers far clear of talking of a Palestinian nation. Instead she uses the far vaguer terms “rights.” Then she levels the death knell by invoking the tepid term, “autonomy.” This is yet another Likudist locution which lets Israel off the hook quite nicely in its battle against Palestinian nationhood.
In his follow-up, Sanders correctly notes that her Aipac speech didn’t contain a single word about the Palestinians. With her back is against the wall, all she can manage is this:
I was absolutely focused on what we needed to do to make sure that the Palestinian people had the right to self-government. And I believe that as president I will be able to continue to make progress and get an agreement that will be fair both to the Israelis and the Palestinians without ever, ever undermining Israel’s security.
These are two qualitatively different statements. The Israeli far right, which has governed the country for most of the past forty years, also favors Palestinian “self-government.” In fact, it claims that the current Palestinian Authority constitutes self-government. It refuses to offer anything further that comes remotely close to a Palestinian state.
So in back-pedaling from a two-state solution, Clinton is deliberately throwing red meat to her pro-Israel supporters in New York. She can now point to two locutions on the subject, one that mollifies liberal Zionists and the other which mollifies the far-right Israel Lobby organizations. She believes she’s satisfied everyone, but really satisfied no one. This type of triangulation will continue the same festering rot which has led to thousands of Palestinian dead, and hundreds of Israeli dead over the past eight years.
Hillary’s pro-Israel consigliere, Haim Saban
It now appears that barring any major scandals or melt-downs on her part, that Hillary Clinton is likely to become the next president. Working on such an assumption, her policy toward Israel-Palestine will, if it’s possible, be even worse than Obama’s. The waffling in the debate will be precisely the sort of tap-dancing she’ll try to get away with as president. She will put a gloss on peace without making a dent in the issue.
My teen-age son reminded me of a timely saying by John F. Kennedy, which I’ll recast in this context: “Those who resist a two-state solution, make a one-state solution inevitable.” Hillary is doing, and will do nothing to bring about a two-state solution. It will be eight totally wasted years. As a result, a one-state solution is inevitable.
Her chief donor/policy consigliere will be Haim Saban. Of course, he’s smart enough to stay out of the kitchen. He’ll exert his control in a careful, calibrated fashion. He will ensure his appointees are selected to run Israel-Palestine policy. But he won’t decide he knows how to prepare a French tart better than the chefs. But he’ll make sure to hire the chefs and tell them which ingredients they should use.
His control of the levers of power will mean the return of the Zio-Mandarins, Dennis Ross and Aaron David Miller. Or if they’re deemed too much the eminences grise, their younger disciples will take a similar role. There will be no George Mitchell’s in a Hillary White House. You should expect no new ideas. Instead you should expect more, far more death and destruction including new wars by Israel against Lebanon and Gaza.
It’s also worth noting that during the Bush administration, then Rep. Jane Harman desperately wanted to be named head of the House Intelligence Committee. So did Aipac and apparently the Israeli government. Justice Department officials even murmured about an Israeli “asset” intervening on Harman’s behalf with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. That individual was Saban. So in the next administration where will Saban’s allegiance lie? With Hillary or Bibi? It will be a fine line he tries to walk. Ultimately his allegiance is to Israel and not to Hillary or the U.S. But he, like most Israel Lobby disciples, doesn’t view there being any difference between the two. But that’s another problem for another day.
Now that Hillary has swept the field, leaving Bernie no path to win the nomination, she’s resorting to magical thinking in claiming Bernie’s supporters will flock to her. How do we go from a Revolution to a coronation? Does she think her virtue alone will persuade Bernie voters that she’s worthy? After reading what I wrote above, can anyone who cares about the Middle East believe she has anything to offer? Why would any such person vote for her?
Bibi Just Spilled the Beans About Syria
Like Hillary, Israel’s prime minister just let slip some disturbing news revealing a major change in policy–this one toward Syria. For years, Israel has sworn to a policy of neutrality regarding the Syrian conflict. The world and Israeli media have dutifully followed this false line. Even as they reported major Israeli air strikes on Syrian territory, they repeated the mantra of neutrality. Very few of them reported that Israel was offering full intelligence and logistical support to the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, the al-Nusra Front as it fought for control of the Syrian side of the Golan. This was Israel’s attempt to carve out its own sphere of influence on its northern border, just as it did decades before in southern Lebanon. In other words, Israel opposed Assad along with his major allies Iran and Hezbollah.
Now, as its allies grow weaker and Assad and his Russian allies are in the ascendancy, Netanyahu has taken the gloves off. While observing a military drill on the northern border, Netanyahu finally fessed up, admitting that Israel had struck Syria “tens of times.” Here is Shmuel Meir’s reporting of this story in 972 Magazine. All this means that the prime minister is laying down a marker for the Russians, telling them that Israel will restrain itself as long as neither Russia nor Assad moves against it in the Golan.
It’s a typically bluff, brazen Israeli move. If you’re a little dog, but bark like you’re a big one, then maybe the big guys will back off and let you have your way, even though it’s not in their interest to do so.


 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
Donald Trump Back-Pedals on Banning Muslims From U.S.

Republican candidate moves toward more nuanced policy targeting countries with record of terrorism


(The way his lackeys are scurrying to "clarify" his position is hilarious)

By Beth Reinhard and Damian Paletta Updated June 28, 2016 1:28 a.m. ET



Donald Trump appears to be backing away from one of his signature and most controversial proposals—banning Muslims from entering the U.S.—as polls show him falling slightly behind Hillary Clinton.
Since Mr. Trump essentially clinched the GOP presidential nomination in May, amid widespread popularity of his proposed ban among primary voters, he has gradually moved away from a blanket religious ban and toward a more nuanced policy targeting countries with a record of terrorism.
Mr. Trump’s policy director, Stephen Miller, said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal on Monday, “The best way to prevent continued radicalization from developing inside America is to suspend temporarily immigration from regions that have been a major source for terrorists and their supporters coming to the U.S.”



But the evolution of the policy has come in fits and starts, with conflicting statements by Mr. Trump that have confused some of his strongest supporters on Capitol Hill. Mr. Trump has never said he was wrong about the temporary Muslim ban or explicitly said he was abandoning that policy.
Asked about the confusion, one of Mr. Trump’s top foreign-policy advisers, retired Rear Adm. Charles Kubic, said he was “working with the campaign to address this issue.” He said he expected a statement from the campaign headquarters this week.
Campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks said Mr. Kubic was not advising the campaign on this issue. But another Trump representative, Katrina Pierson, confirmed the policy was being clarified. “Mr. Trump is going to be refining his policy, putting out specifics, which everyone’s been asking for,” she said on CNN.
Mr. Trump was tied with Mrs. Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, in late May and now lags by more than 6 percentage points, according to the Real Clear Politics polling average. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey showed him with 41% support, compared with 46% for Mrs. Clinton.
Counter-terrorism and national-security experts who disagreed with a Muslim ban said a geographic immigration policy still raised concerns, because Mr. Trump so far had not detailed which countries would qualify and how he would measure their records on terrorism. Among the questions: Would it apply to Northern Ireland, which has weathered terror attacks that weren’t carried out by Islamic extremists, and Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of most of the 9/11 hijackers that is also a top American ally?
Typically, presidential candidates travel abroad to flaunt their foreign-policy chops, but Mr. Trump’s first trip overseas this past weekend was focused on promoting his new golf course in Scotland. When pressed by reporters for details on his national-security policies, Mr. Trump said he would block immigrants from “countries with great terrorism.” Muslims from Scotland or other parts of Great Britain “wouldn’t bother me,” he said.
Two of Mr. Trump’s foreign-policy advisers on Monday said they were unavailable for comment or didn’t have permission to speak to reporters.
Carl Paladino, the 2010 Republican gubernatorial nominee in New York and a top Trump supporter, said he didn’t think Mr. Trump was changing his national-security policy.
“I don’t think it was ever a ban directed at religion,” said Mr. Paladino, who attended a recent speech by Mr. Trump in Manhattan that focused on banning Syrian refugees who haven’t been properly vetted, rather than Muslims.
He added: “Expecting a clear definition is a little bit much in the middle of a presidential campaign.”
Exit polls showed that large majorities of Republican primary voters and caucus-goers backed Mr. Trump’s proposal, made in December, to temporarily block Muslims from the U.S.
A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released Monday found that 49% of registered voters oppose a temporary Muslim ban, suggesting that the proposal could be an obstacle in the general election. Some 34% of voters supported the proposed ban. A number of top Republican leaders, including House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, denounced the proposal.
For Mr. Trump, retreating from the Muslim ban carries risks and rewards: He could alienate staunch, rank-and-file supporters but also could engender goodwill in a Republican political establishment still wary of his candidacy.
Mr. Trump’s supporters on Capitol Hill have discussed the confusion surrounding the issue in recent weeks and asked the campaign for clarifications, according to people familiar with the private meetings. Several members would prefer Mr. Trump replace his religious test with a geographic one, pointing to bipartisan legislation passed by the House last year that would suspend immigration from Syria and Iraq.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a prominent Trump supporter who is considered a potential running mate, said the candidate’s policy “may be evolving.”
“It may evolve as the facts evolve and as he learns more,” Mr. Gingrich said on Fox News Sunday. “He has changed things as he has learned more. He will keep changing.”
In December, days after the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif., Mr. Trump called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the U.S. until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”
His first television ad in January depicted images of the suspects in the San Bernardino attacks and of Islamic State militants and said, “That’s why he’s calling for a temporary shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”
After Mr. Trump’s final two rivals withdrew from the GOP primary in May, his position on the Muslim ban appeared to soften. “This is just a suggestion until we find out what’s going on,” he told Fox News Radio.
In a June 13 speech billed as his response to the mass shootings in Orlando, Fla., Mr. Trump seemed to reinforce the Muslim ban. “I called for a ban after San Bernardino and was met with great scorn and anger, but now…many are saying that I was right to do so. And although the pause is temporary, we must find out what is going on,” he said at St. Anselm College in New Hampshire.

But then he added: “When I am elected, I will suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the U.S., Europe or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats.”
The campaign didn’t answer requests for clarification at that time.
Terror attacks or attempted attacks against the U.S. and its European allies have been carried out in recent years by people from the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, United Arab Emirates, Nigeria, United Kingdom, Iraq, Syria, France and Belgium, among other places.

“If we’re just talking about jihadi terrorism, it’s a global movement, including inside the U.S.,” said Jessica Stern, a research professor and terrorism expert at Boston University’s Pardee School of Global Studies. “If we’re talking about every kind of terrorism, that’s even more the case.”
Mr. Trump has in the past moved to clarify some of his more controversial positions, particularly following blowback from national-security experts.
In March, following months of saying he would authorize the military to torture suspected terrorists, Mr. Trump said he wouldn’t direct anyone to violate the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit torture. Instead, he said he would work to change the Geneva Conventions, because, he said, governments need more flexibility to prevent terror attacks.
Muslim community leaders remain unconvinced that Mr. Trump’s policy is changing.
“I don’t know that he knows himself because it’s a minute-by-minute thing based on who is asking the question,” said Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
dude-you-fucking.jpg
He has no fucking idea what he's talking about. He's a kid who didn't read the book, but is standing in front of the class, giving a book report, trying to bluff his way through. And luckily for him, lots of his graders couldn't care less, and buy whatever BS the Con Man is selling.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,807
Messages
13,573,363
Members
100,871
Latest member
Legend813
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com