1  2  Next

Trump thinks it's a good idea. But why stop there? Why not register everybody? If you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about, right? They could make people wear insignia to indicate their religious affiliation. Just remember the yellow star of David is already taken.

   

Trump and Carson need someone to sit them down and tell them the powers that presidents have and the ones they don't have. This is the problem with those two morons, and too many of the other GOPers. They're playing like the president has a virtual magic wand and can literally do anything he wants. In reality this dumb-fuck ID idea won't even get past the most conservative lower courts, much less survive in the more balanced federal courts or SCOTUS. It's kind of been written in stone what is and isn't allowable by/from a president, not just by the Constitution but also by about two hundred and forty years worth of pretty consistent judicial rulings.

   

That hasn't stopped Obama from trying.

   

The other problem is that these ass clowns are playing to the idiot GOP base. The same crowd that cheers nazi comparisons with Obama yet are so stupid that they don't realise that they're advocating a 21st century version of the Nuremberg laws.

I swear, if trump or Carson get anywhere near the White House, the British need to invade and declare the American Revolution, while having a good run, a failure if complete cretins like that are the will of the voting public.

   

Except...did Trump really say what Andy's accusing him of?



I'm not a Trump fan or anything, but I do enjoy watching you guys get all lathered up over something it's not hard to believe he wasn't actually meaning. It isn't the question we hear, it's the form of the answer that gives that impression. He claims he wasn't even responding to that particular question.

But yeah it's unlikely Fox viewers will care as much about this as you guys seem to, because they'll be working with the handicap of having actually heard both sides. They'll most likely just write it off as just another Prog media hatchet job.

Here it is explained in text.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/11/ ... veillance/

   

Now that's one hell of a good idea.

We register guns because, apparently they kill people well, it's been proven that Muslims kill people so, why should they be exempt.

   

Maybe they should just register muslims who own guns then the NRA wold shut this down as a 2nd amendment thing.

   

Registering Victoria Secret models would be better.

   

Register Progressives. Then you can get them the special ed they require.

   

I'll agree halfway on this one. He didn't explicitly say it that's true. A reporter asked him that. But the problem still is he agreed with it. He didn't repudiate it right away.

   

He claimed he wasn't responding to the question we heard on the video. The answer he gave would make that claim sound reasonable.

   

Even the Daily Slime says he's for it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -dogs.html

   

Wouldn't it be simpler just to get terrorists to register?

   

Well, most Muslims are terrorists or sympathizers anyway. Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet.

   

Yes, the video you didn't click shows that, but he says he was responding to a different question. He says he was talking about a registry for refugees, and his response appears to support that as it goes on.

He says he is not supporting a registry for Muslims. He is supporting a registry for refugees.

Today it is only you and activists who are trying to make an issue of something that doesn't exist who are saying he says that.

Although you are right. We might be able to add the The Daily Mail to that list. The Mail is correct in their claim of what the video appeared to say, but Trump claims that was not his meaning. The Mail is doing a CBC there by neglecting to tell you that. I expect better from them. I've seen a few CBC style tricks surface in the Mail's Muslim stories lately. I'm starting to worry that somebody got to them.

   

1  2  Next