Now that Trump can't be president..

[crockett]

So now that Trump can no longer be president, how long before the GOP realizes they have to denounce him and will Trump try to run as an independent even though he can't take the oath of office?.. Or will he drop out claiming he dindu nuttins wrong?

If you wonder what I'm talking about.. Trump's commits on his anti Muslim ideals go against the 1st and 14th amendments of the US constitution and it's bill of rights. Now that he can not faithfully uphold the oath of the office he can't be president.. In the remote chance in hell that he could win an election, he will undoubtedly be caught up in law suits out the ass to have him be impeeched before he could sit at the desk..

So how's it play out now? Does he bow out gracefully, drag it out or was he always a secrect agent for Hillary? Inquiring minds want to know...

[Rochard]

I must admit watching Trump is rather amusing....

[dyna mo]

You know what's the weirdest thing about libtards? That they aren't completely ecstatic about trump. He's got the GOP calling each other Nazis and fascists. Has the women, Mexicans and all minorities rallied against the GOP and "guarantees a Hillary win". Yet they hate him. Says a lot about libtards really.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

You know what's the weirdest thing about libtards? That they aren't completely ecstatic about trump. He's got the GOP calling each other Nazis and fascists. Has the women, Mexicans and all minorities rallied against the GOP and "guarantees a Hillary win". Yet they hate him. Says a lot about libtards really.

Honestly.. I don't want the GOP calling each other Nazis and Facisits.. I want them to do their fucking jobs and work for the American people. Not cater to fringe groups and corporate overlords.

Their job is not to bitch and moan endlessly about Obama or Liberals. Their job is to work with the other elected officials which maybe Democrats or Republicans or whoever and work out common goals to fix problems in this country.. Not create new ones..

I don't want a useless bigoted GOP.. I want a GOP that does its job for all Americans as their oaths of offices dictates they do..

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by crockett

Honestly.. I don't want the GOP calling each other Nazis and Facisits.. I want them to do their fucking jobs and work for the American people. Not cater to fringe groups and cop rate overlords.

Their job is not tell bitch and moan about Obama or Liberals. Their job is to worth with the other elected officials which maybe Democrats and work out common goals to fix problems in this country..

I don't want a useless bigoted GOP.. I want a GOP that does its job for all Americans..

Lol, right. You and ********** both have yapped about the destruction of the GOP. And if what you say was the case, you wouldn't be so defensive about BO as well as acknowledge the dems certainly block plenty of progress.

[TCLGirls]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

You know what's the weirdest thing about libtards? That they aren't completely ecstatic about trump. He's got the GOP calling each other Nazis and fascists. Has the women, Mexicans and all minorities rallied against the GOP and "guarantees a Hillary win". Yet they hate him. Says a lot about libtards really.

Says that they do not want to perpetuate low-brow inflammatory attacks...but rather legitimate political discourse? Hmm imagine that.

[mineistaken]

What did I miss? Why "now" Trump can't be president?
I remember libby ********** posting in other thread something about his last speech, but since his last speech was not much different or most shocking out of all speeches I concluded that he was just being libby logical.
Or are you referring to that last speech which was nothing out of the ordinary by Trump standards as well?

[OldJeff]

Originally Posted by crockett

Honestly.. I don't want the GOP calling each other Nazis and Facisits.. I want them to do their fucking jobs and work for the American people. Not cater to fringe groups and corporate overlords.

Their job is not to bitch and moan endlessly about Obama or Liberals. Their job is to work with the other elected officials which maybe Democrats or Republicans or whoever and work out common goals to fix problems in this country.. Not create new ones..

I don't want a useless bigoted GOP.. I want a GOP that does its job for all Americans as their oaths of offices dictates they do..

Wow, you really do think that Democrats are not just as tightly attached to the corporate machine, don't you ?

[mineistaken]

Originally Posted by OldJeff

Wow, you really do think that Democrats are not just as tightly attached to the corporate machine, don't you ?

Demtard glasses. Sees everything bad in republicans and nothing in democrats.
Typical demtard is convinced that politics with D badges are that much more honest than politics with R badges.
Ridiculously dumb people..

[crockett]

Originally Posted by OldJeff

Wow, you really do think that Democrats are not just as tightly attached to the corporate machine, don't you ?

I never said they weren't, but they certainly do more work for the people than Republicans do. They also have a functioning political party which isn't inundated with crazies who can't get anything done.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by mineistaken

Demtard glasses. Sees everything bad in republicans and nothing in democrats.
Typical demtard is convinced that politics with D badges are that much more honest than politics with R badges.
Ridiculously dumb people..

What do your whines about Democrats have to do about the fact Trump can't faithfully uphold the oath of office as the PoTUS?

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

Says that they do not want to perpetuate low-brow inflammatory attacks...but rather legitimate political discourse? Hmm imagine that.

what planet are you posting from?

https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...black-guy.html

jeez, i could spend a month just posting links like that from here alone.

[mineistaken]

Originally Posted by crockett

What do your whines about Democrats have to do about the fact Trump can't faithfully uphold the oath of office as the PoTUS?

I have no idea what you are talking about. You did not respond to the question what happened "now".

[SilentKnight]

Originally Posted by crockett

If you wonder what I'm talking about.. Trump's commits on his anti Muslim ideals go against the 1st and 14th amendments of the US constitution and it's bill of rights.

I'm not overly familiar with all the amendments to your constitution - but don't they apply only to Americans - and not people attempting to immigrate to the U.S.?

[crockett]

Originally Posted by SilentKnight

I'm not overly familiar with all the amendments to your constitution - but don't they apply only to Americans - and not people attempting to immigrate to the U.S.?

The 1st amendment disallows any laws being created to target any specific Relgion with specific laws against it. It also grants the right to practice any religion..

The 14th amendment among other things grants non citizens protection of the same laws as citizens of this country.

So if you combine the two.. We can not make laws or block immigration of any groups based on race, Relgion or any other reason. As long as it's legal to seek refuge status in this country or apply for visas or what ever its against the constitution to attempt to exclude any specific groups.

Trumps statements on banning Muslims from entering the country violate the very basic core values of the bill of rights. Not to mention his ideals about tracking the ones who are already here or whatever nonsense he can think of.

He has essentially broken the presidential oath before he's taken it and you can bet if there was any remote chance for him to become president, lawsuits would be filed as he's willfully gone aginst the oath of the office.

The GOP is now scrambling as even they realize he's crossed the line at this point. They will now have to do something.. Even the new speaker of the House has come out against him on this..

[crockett]

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

crocket, the US constitution only applies to US citizens. What part of this don't you understand, you fucking absolute retard?!

It does not apply to some towel head living in Syria or Iraq

Last time I looked the 14th amendment was part of the US constitution and it most certainly grants the same rights to non US citizens.. I've said this several times now, but you are too dumb to read it or understand it I guess...

[crockett]

Highest ranking GOP member the speaker of the House condemns Trumps Muslim ban as unAmerican and not what this country stands for..




The rest will follow suit..

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by mineistaken

What did I miss? Why "now" Trump can't be president??

Because crockett is trolling again.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by crockett

Highest ranking GOP member the speaker of the House condemns Trumps Muslim ban as unAmerican and not what this country stands for..




The rest will follow suit..

Not so fast

"Today the newly-elected speaker of the House said he would vote for Donald Trump for president if he?s the party?s nominee."

[Robbie]

It's funny to watch crockett and especially the media falling all over themselves to present Paul Ryan (and today on CNN even Dick Cheney) as incredible statesmen whom they love and respect.

Meanwhile, when Ryan was Romney's running mate crockett was busy calling him every name in the book and the media was tearing him a new asshole.

And that doesn't begin to even come close to the things that have been said about Cheney for decades.

And yet today...on CNN, the anchors are looking sternly into the cameras and "reporting" with a hushed tone that the great and mighty Ryan and Cheney whom they hold in such high regard have "weighed in" and declared Trump unworthy.

NEWSFLASH Dumbasses: Cheney and Ryan have also declared Hillary completely and totally unworthy (in their view). I didn't notice those same anchors reporting that as "Breaking News"

What a crock of shit (no offense CROCKett lol )

[crockett]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Not so fast

"Today the newly-elected speaker of the House said he would vote for Donald Trump for president if he?s the party?s nominee."

He let it be known tha what Trump said violated the Us constitution and was an impeachable offense. What he said is he would vote for the GOP nominee over Hillary.. He didn't say he would specifically vote for Trump.. There was also more to his quote than you mentioned..

?I?m going to support whoever the Republican nominee is,? the speaker replied, ?and I?m going to stand up for what I believe in as I do that.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by crockett

He let it be known tha what Trump said violated the Us constitution and was an impeachable offense. What he said is he would vote for the GOP nominee over Hillary.. He didn't say he would specifically vote for Trump.. There was also more to his quote than you mentioned..

?I?m going to support whoever the Republican nominee is,? the speaker replied, ?and I?m going to stand up for what I believe in as I do that.

So the BO WH lied about what Paul Ryan said? Was that before or after they were making fun of Trump's hair?

[Coup]

I'm really glad trump can't be president any more. Thanks OP that was a close one. Whew.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

So the BO WH lied about what Paul Ryan said? Was that before or after they were making fun of Trump's hair?

I don't care what the BO WH said.. I showed you what Trump said and that it violates the constitution and I showed you what Paul Ryan said because you mis quoted him. He didn't say he would vote for Trump.. He clearly played his words in a way he didn't have to answer the question..

Others can assume he means one thing or another, but only he knows what he means, which was Exactlly what he was trying to do by not saying yes or no, but rather walking around the question..

Why is it you complain so often about "gotcha questions" then attempt to ask them?

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Robbie

It's funny to watch crockett and especially the media falling all over themselves to present Paul Ryan (and today on CNN even Dick Cheney) as incredible statesmen whom they love and respect.

Meanwhile, when Ryan was Romney's running mate crockett was busy calling him every name in the book and the media was tearing him a new asshole.

And that doesn't begin to even come close to the things that have been said about Cheney for decades.

And yet today...on CNN, the anchors are looking sternly into the cameras and "reporting" with a hushed tone that the great and mighty Ryan and Cheney whom they hold in such high regard have "weighed in" and declared Trump unworthy.

NEWSFLASH Dumbasses: Cheney and Ryan have also declared Hillary completely and totally unworthy (in their view). I didn't notice those same anchors reporting that as "Breaking News"

What a crock of shit (no offense CROCKett lol )

What makes you think I like Paul Ryan.. What he said was important because he's the highest elected Republican in our govt.

If he says a presidential canidate of his own party has violated the US constitution. Then it's going to carry weight with in his own party.. I still think he's a ass hat, but possibly less of an ass hat than Boehner was..

[fitzmulti]

Originally Posted by crockett

Last time I looked the 14th amendment was part of the US constitution and it most certainly grants the same rights to non US citizens.. I've said this several times now, but you are too dumb to read it or understand it I guess...

Read again:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article

[baddog]

What's funny is that constitutional law experts say he could do it and there is precedence

[baddog]

Originally Posted by crockett

What makes you think I like Paul Ryan.. What he said was important because he's the highest elected Republican in our govt.

If he says a presidential canidate of his own party has violated the US constitution. Then it's going to carry weight with in his own party.. I still think he's a ass hat, but possibly less of an ass hat than Boehner was..

You really twist shit with that crockett science

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by crockett

I don't care what the BO WH said.. I showed you what Trump said and that it violates the constitution and I showed you what Paul Ryan said because you mis quoted him. He didn't say he would vote for Trump.. He clearly played his words in a way he didn't have to answer the question..

Others can assume he means one thing or another, but only he knows what he means, which was Exactlly what he was trying to do by not saying yes or no, but rather walking around the question..

Why is it you complain so often about "gotcha questions" then attempt to ask them?

Haj, I didn't misquote anything. That quote was WH press secretary earlier today on this very topic.

It wasn't a gotcha question. You've yet to realize you're wrong on everything in this thread.

[DonJon69]

[Joshua G]

crockett. you are not an educated person. you are a lazy intellect, brainpower that is too lazy to do homework & ensure you make ideas based on facts.

in this case you are wrong because yes the president can ban muslims. lincoln suspended habeus corpus. the japanese were interned. in times of war, the executive does whatever it wants. when was the last time congress declared war? 5 wars ago? doesnt the constitution require congress to declare war? the government now only resembles what the constitution intended. in reality, it does whatever it wants, with the original text being only guidelines. you think the supreme court follows the constitution? gitmo? abu graib? patriot act? LOL.

stupid crockett, its 8th grade history class stuff & you have no clue.

[Mutt]

A candidate can say anything he/she wants, make any campaign promise he wants including bringing back slavery, enslaving women and be elected President. Once in office of course based on his ACTIONS, he can be impeached and his laws challenged before the court.

Unless there are several more Jihadism influenced terror attacks in the US I bet the courts of today would strike down a law banning immigration for Muslims. On the other hand a few more attacks and I could see a ban happening and it being upheld.

My question is about the Republican Party, which isn't a governmental body - could it legally ban Trump from running for its presidential nomination?

[crockett]

Perhaps it's you who should read again..

Originally Posted by fitzmulti

Read again:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they resid.No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article

Why do you think they keep all those so called terrorists in prison over in Cuba and abroad in other places? Why, it's because if they brought them to the US they would be protected by the constitution and its bill of rights. As long as they keep them off US soil the rules don't apply.. Which is honestly questionable at best as it's not as it was intended but they do it..

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Joshua G

crockett. you are not an educated person. you are a lazy intellect, brainpower that is too lazy to do homework & ensure you make ideas based on facts.

in this case you are wrong because yes the president can ban muslims. lincoln suspended habeus corpus. the japanese were interned. in times of war, the executive does whatever it wants. when was the last time congress declared war? 5 wars ago? doesnt the constitution require congress to declare war? the government now only resembles what the constitution intended. in reality, it does whatever it wants, with the original text being only guidelines. you think the supreme court follows the constitution? gitmo? abu graib? patriot act? LOL.

stupid crockett, its 8th grade history class stuff & you have no clue.

We are not at war with Muslims.. We are at war with terrorists.. Your 8th grade education didn't teach you to tell the diffrence?

[MetaMan]

Originally Posted by crockett

We are not at war with Muslims.. We are at war with terrorists.. Your 8th grade education didn't teach you to tell the diffrence?

This may shock you but ISIS stands for:
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria

Thus the nationality of the ISIS caliphate is muslim. USA is at war with the caliphate. So yes the USA is at war with a nation that is muslims.

Try to wrap your head around that.

[EonBlue]

Jimmy Carter, 1980:

Jimmy Carter: Sanctions Against Iran Remarks Announcing U.S. Actions.

Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.

10 November 1979: Carter orders 50,000 Iranian students in US to report to immigration
office with view to deporting those in violation of their visas. On 27 December 1979, US appeals court allows deportation of Iranian students found in violation. (CRS 1981, 38, 71)

------------------------------

Maybe not identical to the current situation but Trump's plan is not entirely without precedent.

I think Trump's rationale is to prevent the buildup of a sizable fifth column inside of the US.



.

[CDSmith]

You'd think by the flood of these threads all over the board the election was next week rather than nearly a year away.

American politics has no equal.

[Sednub997]

I watched his speech, he was reading all the time.

[MetaMan]

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

Trump 2016

TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP!

rabble: "he makes to much money! we hate him!"

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

You know what's the weirdest thing about libtards? That they aren't completely ecstatic about trump. He's got the GOP calling each other Nazis and fascists. Has the women, Mexicans and all minorities rallied against the GOP and "guarantees a Hillary win". Yet they hate him. Says a lot about libtards really.

Hi Dnya,

I can see the point you are trying to make, but it's not true.

As a liberal thinker, I want to see a democrat win because I tend to believe what they believe, and the general direction they want to take your country in, and disagree with most of the republican views.

Donald Trump's views are now neither of these. He is now so far beyond the pale that republicans from all over, even Dick Cheeney for crying' out loud, is now denouncing Trump.

I like the fact that Democrats are running and like the fact that Republicans are losing, but I don't like WHY republicans are losing, if that makes sense.

Even the most die-hard true republican / conservative on GFY should be hating Trump right now.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by MetaMan

This may shock you but ISIS stands for:
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria

Thus the nationality of the ISIS caliphate is muslim. USA is at war with the caliphate. So yes the USA is at war with a nation that is muslims.

Try to wrap your head around that.

Well then you better start rounding up the 12 million of them who are already in this country as well as the 5 thousand who serve in our armed forces..

Let me know how that works out for you...

Oh and since we are using this kinda logic, we better start rounding up Christians and the extreme right wing as they are responible for more terror attacks on US soil than any other terrorist groups in the world.

[sandman!]

you really think he is done ?

people have been saying this for months


lol

[crockett]

Originally Posted by EonBlue

Jimmy Carter, 1980:

Jimmy Carter: Sanctions Against Iran Remarks Announcing U.S. Actions.



10 November 1979: Carter orders 50,000 Iranian students in US to report to immigration
office with view to deporting those in violation of their visas. On 27 December 1979, US appeals court allows deportation of Iranian students found in violation. (CRS 1981, 38, 71)

------------------------------

Maybe not identical to the current situation but Trump's plan is not entirely without precedent.

I think Trump's rationale is to prevent the buildup of a sizable fifth column inside of the US.



.

I realize it's tough for you to come to grips with this.. But Iran is a functioning state and has citizens with passports.

A Muslim a member of a Relgious group not a citizen of a specific country, a race of people or the color of their skin.. The constitution of this country, very clearly states we can not single out any Relgious group or make specific laws to pertaining to it..

I realize you are not the brightest example of a Canadian, but it been spelled out rather clearly in this topic several times now..

[dyna mo]

crock may want to take a gander at that other thread. you know, the one that Trumps this thread with law on inadmissible aliens.


dohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[MetaMan]

Originally Posted by crockett

Well then you better start rounding up the 12 million of them who are already in this country as well as the 5 thousand who serve in our armed forces..

Let me know how that works out for you...

Oh and since we are using this kinda logic, we better start rounding up Christians and the extreme right wing as they are responible for more terror attacks on US soil than any other terrorist groups in the world.

What are you even rabbling about again?

He is talking about visa eligibility. Citizens don't need a visa to enter the country.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by MetaMan

What are you even rabbling about again?

He is talking about visa eligibility. Citizens don't need a visa to enter the country.

Perhaps you should watch the Paul Ryan video again.. You can't make Relgion a qualifier question..

We can stop people from specific countries but we can not stop people of a Relgious group. It violates the constitution and the very core values this country was founded on..


Why do you guys hate the US Constitution so much?

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by EonBlue

Jimmy Carter, 1980:

Jimmy Carter: Sanctions Against Iran Remarks Announcing U.S. Actions.



10 November 1979: Carter orders 50,000 Iranian students in US to report to immigration
office with view to deporting those in violation of their visas. On 27 December 1979, US appeals court allows deportation of Iranian students found in violation. (CRS 1981, 38, 71)

------------------------------

Maybe not identical to the current situation but Trump's plan is not entirely without precedent.

I think Trump's rationale is to prevent the buildup of a sizable fifth column inside of the US.


.

WHAT?!?!?!?

A President has already done this before? And he was a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT President!!?!?!


Are you trying to tell me that the media and the RNC and DNC are once again (for the umpteenth time) trying to gin up some kind of "controversy" designed to destroy Trump?

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Robbie

WHAT?!?!?!?

A President has already done this before? And he was a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT President!!?!?!


Are you trying to tell me that the media and the RNC and DNC are once again (for the umpteenth time) trying to gin up some kind of "controversy" designed to destroy Trump?

It's amazing that some of you are so stupid, that you can't tell the diffrence between Muslim and citizens of a specific country..


I bet if we started banning Christians entry to the country you would suddenly figure out the diffrence..

Holy fuck you are dumb as rocks.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by crockett

It's amazing that some of you are so stupid, that you can't tell the diffrence between Muslim and citizens of a specific country..


I bet if we started banning Christians entry to the country you would suddenly figure out the diffrence..

Holy fuck you are dumb as rocks.

I'm not dumb. And I'm not stupid.

I would suggest to you that Trump is referring to people coming in from Muslim COUNTRIES. Especially ones that are known to have high numbers of terror cells already.

It's the media who are pretending they don't understand what he meant. And you are just playing along with that.

And quite frankly...I personally would love to ban Christians and anyone else who is an adult and believes in superstitions. lol

But what I'm trying to show here is...this is just this week's attempt to destroy Trump.
How many times have they tried now? It's usually once a week.

And when the smoke clears, Trump is still standing.

Why? How can that be?

Because MOST people (not you crockett), can see right through what the RNC and the media are trying to do.
They can hear what he says and then listen in shock at the media twist it.

I personally don't think I like the idea of stopping travel from Muslim countries.
Just like I don't agree with a lot of Trump's positions.

But just because I'm not a Trump supporter doesn't mean that I don't have eyes to see the Republican "good ol' boy" establishment and the media teaming up to try and take him out.

Maybe you should open your eyes and stop being a pawn to the establishment.

[Sly]

Originally Posted by crockett

It's amazing that some of you are so stupid, that you can't tell the diffrence between Muslim and citizens of a specific country..


I bet if we started banning Christians entry to the country you would suddenly figure out the diffrence..

Holy fuck you are dumb as rocks.

So you would have no problem if he said Syrians instead of Muslims?

Shit even I have a problem with that.