Hey, there! Log in / Register
Baker on Trump anti-Muslim proposal: Anti-American jerk
By adamg on Tue, 12/08/2015 - 6:35am
The State House News Service reports Gov. Baker got pretty angry after reading Trump's thoughts:
Baker noted that he had just celebrated the “miracle of Hanukkah” to commemorate the fight of the people of Jerusalem for religious freedom. That celebration took place in the State House, which he described as a mile from the Warren Tavern in Charlestown where “the patriots of this nation” held early conversations about securing freedom from the British crown. He said the earliest settlers, in fact, had come to America for the chance to practice their religion freely.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
And to think you thought all
And to think you thought all Republicans were the face of evil.
im not sure what you mean by this
and im not sure that you do, either
why stop at the face?
.....and no one has ever said "all"..some of my best fri....uh, never mind.
correct me if i am wrong
wasnt baker one of the people advocating for not allowing any refugees into MA like two weeks ago
What gov Baker and Trump are
What gov Baker and Trump are saying are quite different. Can't you understand words and sentences ?
i can. can you?
they didn't say the same thing but they definitely exist in the same echo chamber when it comes to sentiment.
edit: only sometimes though, depending on how baker feels that day, or what he ate for breakfast, or who he is talking to, or whatever.
No, no they don't
They're not the least bit similar, but nice try.
Mmm, okay
So grandstanding, blustering, and making constitutionally unacceptable statements is somehow better than grandstanding, blustering, and making constitutionally unacceptable statements if you say it in a kind of nice way.
Right.
I hope that you aren't a referee. I'd love to hear your argument that somehow being one foot out of bounds is really really different from being three feet out of bounds.
How would you even see the flag?
You're not even in the right stadium.
Charlie Baker (and about 30 other governors) said we are not accepting settlement of Syrian refugees in our state until you can share with us your plan for vetting the refugees to make sure people with known ties to those who would like to hurt us don't get in. That's common sense national security.
Donald Trump says "No Muslims". That's despicable.
This morning I heard that Trump's supporters are generally whites without a college education - and I'm guessing mostly male. Which explains why everyone I talk to doesn't just consider Trump a nut - increasingly they think he's dangerous - and these are no liberals.
Yes and no
Not disagreeing with you that there's a difference between Trump's and Baker's position, but how is it "common sense national security" to advocate a STATE course of action that you cannot actually carry out?
They both have leverage
And this can get tied up in the courts for years - but Obama can't just unilaterally force the states to do things - at least not without Congressional approval. Not saying he won't try - and has (as did Bush), but at some point you cross the legal lines/get a revolt - even from the Democratic states who will hold you hostage for the money to care for/transition these people.
How do we do this without tens/hundreds of millions of dollars - and where does Obama get that money without Congressional action?
Way too complicated for my pay grade - but I'm sure Charlie and the other governors can rally the resources to beat this back if they aren't satisfied.
It doesn't work that way
Oh, that Obama, he does everything.
Seriously, what makes you think this has anything to do with Obama? The right of free movement within the country has been around since the country was established, with a relatively brief four-year hiatus. It's blowhardiness of the first order to talk about Obama "unilaterally forc[ing] the states" to simply abide by the centuries-old law of the land.
You sound like someone who is more interested in shooting things down than listening to answers, but I'll take a stab at it anyway. It may surprise you that the United States has had refugee resettlement programs in place for some time now. In addition to the cost of their plane ticket which they must repay, the refugees who are resettled (after extensive screening) are given a $1000 stipend from the government. That's it, and it has to cover everything. They don't get subsidized housing or any other kind of subsidy, they have to compete on the open market. Nonprofits do the lion's share of the work when it comes to refugee assistance. Refugees also must apply for jobs if they're of working age. In short, their financial impact on your wallet is negligible, particularly compared to what red-white-and-blue corporate welfare recipients are getting.
Excuse me? Is your pay grade "citizen of the United States"? Then it damn well is not "way too complicated" for you to educate yourself about, and if you don't, you're just way too lazy.
I'll go in reverse
a) I was talking about the legal issues - I'm not a lawyer - but I'm sure the governors opposed could tie this up in any number of ways. I'm not exactly going to go to law school to figure this out.
b) Are you kidding me?
Yep - tens of thousands of people are going to show up here from a foreign country with $1000 in their pockets and get jobs immediately and not need a dime from our own broke governments. This isn't about shooting things down - it's reality. Do you read the papers? We are draining our rainy day fund, wasted $500 million on a crappy website (when we had one that worked perfectly well before Obama and his minions forced us to get a new one) and the T is stone broke - and that's just the state and just for starters. And that's not even the issue for the governors - it's the question of security.
c) That's the hard part for the states
First - apparently the only person that can authorize this (that actually will) is Obama - and his administration. The states are saying - fine - but show us your vetting process. But if the feds don't satisfy Baker et. al that the process is sufficient, they can't stop these people from coming - but they can make it very hard to settle in their states without government benefits - which they are not going to dole out to non-residents. If, for example, California wants them to go there - sure. Just don't blame Charlie Baker when one of these guys turns out to be closet ISIS and pulls off another San Bernardino. I wouldn't want to be the governor on the evening news in a file photo hugging the "refugees" getting off a plane that just blew up their government subsidized apartment building making pipe bombs in the bath tub.
I have no problem with these people coming in. HOWEVER - they had better have a pretty good trail - diplomas, internet presence, social media, job history etc. that proves they are civilized members of society. I know a lot of these people don't have that. Sorry - but Saudi Arabia can take them in. There are plenty that do that can come here.
Wow
You really are amazing, Donald Trump. You absolutely refuse to believe well-established and well-documented facts. I've done enough googling on your behalf -- you're willfully ignorant because remaining ignorant allows you to continue believing in falsehoods. You should pray that you're never in a situation where you need help from another human being -- you live in the world you make.
What would those be
What am I not believing?
I don't have to google anything. In this day and age requesting that people who are coming from an area that is home to a hornet's nest of terrorists be properly vetted isn't a case of believing or not believing in established facts. It's called making the world we live in safe for ourselves and our families. It's the principal role of government. Once they are satisfactorily vetted I have no problem with them coming in. I'll leave the definition of "satisfactorily vetted" to those whose job it is.
Why on God's green and blue earth is that too much to ask?
Not too much to ask
That all those passengers stay aboard the St. Louis until and unless they're properly vetted.
Same demographic as Baker.
Same demographic as Baker. Look at the maps of Baker country, he didnt win in minority neighborhoods but he did really well in areas with undereducated whites.
Moreover, Trump's supporters are complete dupes.
It's hard to believe that people are gullible enough to support this guy. Charlie Baker was correct to call Trump what he is (an anti-American jerk.), but I don't trust Charlie Baker either, on the long run, as he helped screw our MBTA system up, big time, as well.
Yeah Baker says no refugees
Yeah Baker says no refugees in my state and Trump says no refugees in my country. Big difference.
Baker never said no refugees,
Baker never said no refugees, as much as people wish it.
Baker, and I agree with him, and other governors would like the Fed's to explain their vetting process.
After last week's incident in San Bernadino, I would think it is common sense, but then again common sense is getting to be a thing of the past.
It is easy to paint anyone questioning this fine administration as a racist, bigot, etc... but I remember a time when dissention was patriotic.
After last week's incident in
Which is entirely irrelevant seeing as neither of them was a refugee.
No but maybe visit the Visa
No but maybe visit the Visa process as she came over under a "fiance" visa - K1?. Weren't the Tsarnev brothers on expired visa's? Were they student or refugee status? If they were refugee status, someone should've noticed the trips back home. Again, with this terrorist from last week, she didn't even give her correct address on the visa application and no one caught it.
Now they come out and say this couple have been involved in terrorist teachings for some time. Again, our government missed it.
To say that the status quo is fine is wrong, in my opinion.
And, someone need not be brow beaten to suggest a look at any holes in our current system.
Both Tsarnaev brothers...
... were legal residents and the younger brother was a US citizen.
Yes and I believe they came
Yes and I believe they came over and was granted asylum status, but the facts that led the feds to grant the famiy asylum are now questionable.
Considering they went back home a few times would make me doubt their need for asylum, or at least revisit their claims.
And, considering Russia had warned us about them yet we turned a blind eye to that, or our federal and state agencies don't talk to each other so it was missed just makes me think we do need to revisit our current visa and more importantly, the cooperation between government agencies.
it's more complicated than that
The Tsarnaevs were forcibly moved from Chechnya to Kyrgyzstan (where Dzhokhar was born), and then sought asylum in the U.S. To this day, Chechnya is a dangerous place. I don't mean to excuse the Tsarnaev brothers for what they did at all. I just want to point out that this isn't a clear case of terrorists lying about their circumstances in order to get into the United States. Their family had good reason to seek asylum. The brothers didn't have any good reason to kill and maim so many people, but no one ever does.
Almost
Look, I came over here on refugee status myself as a kid, so I'm not gonna rock the boat too badly, but the story that seems to have came out about the Tsarnaevs after the fact was the the old man got into trouble with the local mafia and dressed up the details a bit to get refugee or asylum status for his family.
And unsurprisingly, when you let in the sort of people that get into hot water with the mob and lie about their education and career to make it look like they have prospects when they really don't, they don't always become productive members of society. And their kids turn out just as defective, and criminals. And with them there was a body count, and sadly it was here.
So, Trump can go rot, but it's neither racist nor evil to be careful about you let in, and it's not too far off from common sense to hold the federal government accountable to make sure it happens, especially when said federal government is headed by folks who let their instinct for PC get ahead of their better judgment from time to time.
important lesson
Elected officials will always only ever do what is politically advantageous to ensure that they are elected. If politicians at the federal level think that their careers will best be served by catering to so-called "PC" interests, they'll swing that way. If they think those interests will best be served by playing the part of a frothing racist, they'll swing that way instead.
The way the system is set up, we are careful about whom we allow into this country - but some people still fall through the cracks. The only solution to preventing that would be Trump-like: building literal and figurative walls to prevent anyone from ever entering this country again. However, that is - for a whole host of reasons - irresponsible and inhumane, so I personally am against it.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=state
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=state+department+refugee+program
You can also easily find information about visas by using The Internet, but nobody on the news told you to be scared about them yet, only about refugees.
but that doesn't answer the
but that doesn't answer the two in San Bernadino... her application wasn't properly vetted I assume.
per the NY Times
Sounds like it was as thoroughly vetted as these things ever are.
yes and that is the point.
yes and that is the point.
uh
It didn't sound like the point you were making. It sounded like you were attempting to insinuate that (a) terrorists commit fraud to enter the U.S. (Tsarnaevs), and/or (b) the U.S. is just too lazy/incompetent to bother screening any of these nasty people entering the country as thoroughly as they ought to (Malik). Forgive me if I've misinterpreted your meaning.
In any event, I hope we've cleared up the Tsarnaev issue; and as far as legal immigration procedures in this country, I think they're mostly pretty safe. Bad people can still get in, unfortunately. Good people can get in and then turn bad later on. The only way to prevent that is to slam the borders shut. I find that a morally reprehensible stance to take, but that's just my opinion.
Order of operations matter
It was and if she became radicalized as a result of her husband turning to ISIS as a solution to his problems with co-workers or whatever reason he chose, then it happened after she came here. Immigration/asylum/refugee screening isn't pre-cognition. It doesn't figure out who is *going* to turn bad.
What's that dragging sound?
Oh, it's the sound of shifting goalposts. Carry on!
Nope
Nope
Well
Banning gun sales to those on the no-fly list is also irrelevant, as neither shooter was on that list, but that doesn't stop those w/an agenda from using this tragedy as a rallying call. Assholes who politicize everything (refugees, gun control, faith) do so on both sides of the aisle.
Also, Trump didn't mention refugees
He made a blanket statement of all Muslims, regardless of national origin or reason for migration.
In sum-
Baker- we want all Syrian refugees (regardless of religion) vetted before we accept them in Massachusetts.
Trump- no Muslims allowed.
I don't get how people cannot get the less than subtle differences.
Except..
Baker - ignoring the fact that they ARE vetted. Dope.
True, but
Once again, to make it clear, he is not singling out Syrian Muslims.
Also, he'll walk away from his original rhetoric, while the Donald is doubling down.
How about 2 weeks ago
How about 2 weeks ago terrorist attack in Colorado? The terrorist was Christian and came from South Carolina, should Baker bar South Carolinians from entering MA? One of the terrorists in Paris was Belgian, and several French. Should Baker bar French and Belgians from entering our state? Baker doesn't have any real views any more than Romney did, he will change them (or make up fish stories and cry) according to what pols best.
Careful now
I'm with you on banning crazies from entering Massachusetts (though that might diminish our population by a large fraction of the 30% or so that are committed Democrats).
I'm gonna let you figure out the flaw in your use of "French" and "Belgians" to argue against what I think you're arguing against.
Do I hear the sound of ethnic identity politics?
So, if your ancestry is anywhere other than France, you can't be French? How far back do you have to go -- to Vercengetorix or just Louis XIV?
Born there, holding citizenship -- if that's not enough to be French or Belgian, then you're just talking pure ethnic identity politics. Shame on you.
All Muslims are refugees or all refugees are Muslim?
Can I get a Ven diagram up in here?
"NO refugees"
would actually be quite legal. A country has the right to limit immigration. No refugees based on religion might be a bit more problematic.
On the other hand, noted progressive Franklin Delano Roosevelt locked up a whole race based on their...race.
Trumps comments were not
Trumps comments were not limited to refugees. He's literally advocating for blocking all people of the Muslim faith from entering the country - on vacation, business, etc.
Not to defend the internment camps...
... but not "a whole race" -- only Japanese on the Pacific coast of the continental United States -- not in Hawaii (where they were so numerous and vital that imposition of such a detention policy would have wrecked the territory's economy) or in the remainder of the country. Which made the policy even more arbitrary, stupid and cruel. Not Roosevelt's finest moment.
Tis the season
To ban middle-eastern refugees
But when Baker says it, it's good.
Trump says something one inch farther out, and it's bad.
The question is, did Baker find there are limits to his weaselly grandstanding, or is it just because Trump said it?
trump is scary and dangerous
and so are those that support him. if i read the article right it sounds like trump is advocating for muslims that are american citizens to not even be allowed here?
the irritating part about it all is that trump is not (by my estimation) a stupid man. he knows that all of his rhetoric and BS is what it is- rhetoric and BS. but the fact is that he understands that there are a considerable amount of people that want to hear it, and that those people vote.
the man has some considerable guile. oh well. baker is probably an even bigger turd, taking any opportunity to look like he knows what the hell he is doing even if he contradicts himself.
I read something recently
that said the key to understanding Trump is to understand how he deals. He even said recently, paraphrasing, that you ask for three times what you want and when you settle, you have what you want.
He throws out these ideas, probably, as 'feelers' to gauge the response. He can walk back a bit, no problem. I've read that his official website makes no such claims as to 'deporting every Mexican' or round up the Muslims.
via CNN
preemptively blaming muslims for attacks similar to one that killed 3k and injured 6k more seems really smart and awesome
have we been attacked by any radical groups that we DIDNT fund/support at one point in time? maybe instead of calling them muslims, we should call them "former co-conspirators". or maybe if i am being as fair as i know how to be, some of them we maybe didn't outright fund, we just created by causing a power vacuum and massive instability.
Yup.
"outright fund, we just created by causing a power vacuum and massive instability."
We had an occupational force in Germany for years, in Japan it was converted to 'guests of the nation' in 1952 or 3.
Both stable democracies, Japan being a feudal society until then. Full sufferagette rights after that.
Could have happened in Iraq if we were committed to the long run, but your genius president had to play politics...
Oh, please, knock it off with the 'Bush did it' bullshit. This one's on the White House and our clever President and Secretary of State.
Add to : Partitioning of the
Add to : Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire
''The partitioning of the Ottoman Empire (30 October 1918 – 1 November 1922) was a political event that occurred after World War I. The huge conglomeration of territories and peoples that formerly comprised the Ottoman Empire was divided into several new states.[1] The partitioning brought the creation of the modern Arab world ''
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitioning_of_the_Ottoman_Empire
Most of today's worst geopolitical problems...
... are the result of horrible decisions made by the United Kingdom and France after World War I (after the United States decided it didn't care anymore about what happened abroad after that war ended).
ww1
is the single most relevant happening in the world to this point*, it truly was the Great War. for anybody that has a passing interest in history but hasn't exercised that muscle in awhile, read up on the tensions that lead to WW1 as well as the way it was handled when it was over. if you're good at connecting dots or at least eager to read you'll find it startlingly relevant to today.
on the plus side i'm sure VIP motorcades learned a lot from good ol' franz.
Edit: well, maybe not single most important. mastering the science of fire and inventing the wheel and domesticating animals was pretty important too but i think it still conveys my point
It is surprising how little attention...
... is paid to such an important event (and its still-enduring consequences).
you might want to seek medical help
because you're delusional if you think i've even mentioned bush
you might consider also looking at some of the biggest financial supporters of the mujahideen, which would be the united states and our friend and our friends in saudi arabia, including noted best amigo of the USA, osama bin laden
and then connect a few more dots and see how that ended up playing out ~20 years later
I'll bite
US forces were removed from Iraq with a deadline of December 31, 2011, per the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement signed by President Bush in 2008.
Anybody who blames this on Obama was sleeping through the whole thing. Obama was just following the law Bush signed. Believe it or not, presidents don't just get to do what they want all the time, no matter what the laws say or other signatories to treaties think.
Obama's administration entered negotiations for a new SOFA in November 2010, with the goal of maintaining thousands of US troops in Iraq past 2011, but Iraq did not want more than an embassy and a couple of consulates there anymore, and refused to grant legal immunity for US troops outside those walls, so only 160 US troops were left garrisoned at the embassy after 2011.
This is history. You can go read up on it. Try Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement
Well, no
Not for quite some time. Google "Meiji Restoration".
you said it.
If Trump believes the things he's saying, he's an idiot. If he doesn't - and he's just doing this to fire up the crazies - he's a sociopath. There's no other explanation.
Other explanation
He's just trolling.
He made a gentlemen's bet with Clinton that he could win the Republican nomination.
He's having the most fun he can in winning that bet.
that doesn't disprove my point
If he's trolling on this scale, he's a sociopath.
hitlers last words
"it was 4 teh lulz"
alternatively
"told u i was hardcore"
and also
"please make sure you burn my body so those nasty Russians can't see that I'm rowing with only one oar :("
Assuming....
the Gentleman's bet with Clinton, does that put Clinton in the same camp?
well
I doubt any of that premise is true - but I'm no fan of Hillary, so my cynicism regarding HRC runs deep enough that I wouldn't be surprised if it had happened.
#feelthebern
yes
not everybody that thinks trump is a bag of shit is a hillary or bernie supporter, or even necessarily on the left side of the political spectrum.
However...
...it sure looks like only those on the left side of the political spectrum are doing a damn thing about it.
Well to be fair
Nearly no one on the 'left side of the political spectrum' will be able to do bupkis about Trump unless/until he runs in the general election.
Until then, the only people who can and are doing anything to stop his run for office are registered republicans, most of whom I assume we'd both place on the 'right side' of the spectrum.
Sure, if
pointing and laughing is a damn thing
Trump on American Muslims
Trump later "clarified" his statement on Good Morning America, saying that American Muslims would be "free" to travel abroad and come back. What is completely unclear is how the "no foreign Muslims" policy would work, since religion is not noted on a person's passport. Do you have the immigration officer ask? Assume that anyone from certain countries is Muslim unless they can prove otherwise?
we can look to hitler again for this answer
perhaps a crescent moon and star adorned to their clothing if they smell or look muslim?
also sock_puppet
i meant to articulate that at some point too, which really might be the most annoying thing about it. because of where he is charlie baker can probably get away with saying trump is full of hot air and a jerk while then echoing a similar sentiment as trump within the same week
You're not wrong
What exactly did Baker think the great Syrian refugee freakout was really about?
Charlie Pot
Charlie is trying to distract from his own haterade by acting like there are shades of unacceptable.
Why the association?
It's disheartening that "Muslim" is said, and "refugees" is heard.
Why?
It's not like there are Christians in Iraq or Syria
because they both point to the larger issue
of rampant xenophobia
it really is that fucking simple.
Well
I won't get in the way of your political paint-by-numbers parade.
Lol
Lol
No class.. Harvard graduate ...
He got the blue collar type vote that got him elected.
these are the same tough talkin blue collar voters who now want Trump as President , The same blue collar voters if you ask them where is Syria on the global map they wouldn't have a clue where it is.
Do you always paint blue
Do you always paint blue collar voters in such a broad brush?
Gee, us blue collar types should be grateful to you for your infinite wisdom. But you don't even realize that the lowly blue collar types are the ones that build your roads, bridges, buildings, repair your toilet, install your electricity - heck even pick up your trash!
Yes, those ignorant people should just keep to themselves, amiright?
Maybe we should revisit the voting requirements? Maybe some kind of intelligence test?
But whatever we do, do not require an ID.
Am I reading you right so far?
Nothing I hate more than smarmy condescending know it alls who think they are pretty classy all the while spewing such bullshit.
Oh Charlie...
Oh Charlie...
The Warren Tavern wasn't built until around 1794 and was one of the first buildings put back up in the area after the fire and revolution.
Paul Revere and George Washington did eat there, but not during the run up to 1775.
Warren Tavern
Their official history says they opened in 1780. (And it mentions Washington and Revere.)
YHBT HAND
And of course the more Trump says stuff like this, the more attention the buffoon gets, which is by design. Trump is saying the stuff an awful lot of people in this country truly believe and want. He's one of the first honest politicians we've seen run for office in a while. And with the media and other pols giving him this much attention rather than ignoring him, it's only helping him get his message out to his potential voters and raise his popularity.
Baker just lost a lot of
Baker just lost a lot of support among Republicans.
Republicans didn't elect Baker. The un-enrolled did.
Though it is fun to watch this real life Frankenstein created by republican demogogurey for the last 30 + years. The voices of that party, Limbaugh, Faux, Savage, Levin, Beck, O'Reilly etc, have received exactly what they wanted. An unapologetic megalomaniac, much like themselves.
No, no he didn't.
The average Mass. Republican thinks Trump is a fool. Baker lost zero support stating the obvious.
Trump is up by 14 points in the latest MA republican poll
No Trump is up by 14 points in the latest MA republican primary pol. The average MA republican might be a fool, but they are overwhelmingly supporting Trump.
Massachusetts Republican Presidential Primary Boston Globe/Suffolk Trump 32, Rubio 18, Carson 5, Cruz 10, Bush 7, Fiorina 4, Christie 4, Kasich 2, Paul 1, Graham 0, Huckabee 0 Trump +14
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
Trump is easily leading the
Trump is easily leading the polls among republicans in MA. The average Republican is an intolerant dummy in all 50 states.
I have to disagree with you
I have to disagree with you there. I know lots of moderate Massachusetts Republicans, who are generally voting based on economic/tax issues. The Massachusetts Republican is an entirely different political species than the mainstream of the national party, which is becoming increasingly paranoid and xenophobic. But I don't think you can point to members of either party on a broad scale and call them intolerant dummies.
however
you can point to the leading republican candidate to be the president of our country and say that he is a guy that wants to ban everybody of a certain religion from being allowed in this country
I won't argue with you there.
I won't argue with you there. At the risk of Godwinning, Trump is basically running on the same platform that Hitler did in 1932. I just think calling an entire political party dummies is painting with too broad a brush. Just remember what that rhetoric looks like when it comes from the right (and is taken to the extreme).
Well, Godwin...
The more centrist of both parties can communicate. It's when you have the raging lefties getting microagressioned and the super right getting all butthurt that the communication breaks down.
Leading the polls is not winning
Nate Silver did a meta-study of polls, and factored in margin of error. His conclusion was that the breakdown of voters is about 5% Trump, 13% the rest of the field and 80% undecided. By that measure, Trump is no closer to winning the Republican nomination than I am.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dear-media-stop-freaking-out-about-d...
actually
he's orders of magnitude closer than you are and if you think that anybody else is catching that GOP nomination as things stand right now you're severely misguided
i mean, i like where your head is at, but lets not kid ourselves.
On my hyperbole, I agree. I
On my hyperbole, I agree. I am not winning the nom before Trump.
On your second point, I very much disagree. If you want to split the hair of "right now" then fine, if we voted today maybe Trump gets it. But his supporters, in their current cohort, are not, lets say, serious people. They are an extremely agitated and vocal group, but I'm fairly certain that they do not, and will not, represent the voice of the Republican electorate. He has no shot of winning the nomination. I will eat my hat if he does.* The Silver piece linked above makes my case for me, and it is a very enlightening read.
FTA:
*I will not eat my hat. Perhaps a hat-shaped cake or bread boule.
Zero chance
Trump is the GOP nominee, take it to the bank.
Let's not sugarcoat things
They came for that, and also for the chance to freely murder others who didn't want to practice that same religion with them.
That's how we ended up with the memorial for the Quaker woman who was burned to death at the site of the current State House, and the entire state of Rhode Island.
That said, our values evolved in a wonderful way and we should be embarrassed that any modern American would propose anything as ludicrous as what Trump is proposing.
True, and a good reminder that
"Religious freedom" doesn't mean just the freedom to practice YOUR religion. The irony is that a lot of these same Trump followers (who seem to have decided that the short-fingered vulgarian is now some kind of Christian) are the same ones who are doing their best to break down the wall between church and state.
was just reading an article
that said much the opposite, and that certain sects of christianity might be one of the only ways to foil trump. something about him losing iowa and their demographics there.
Mary Dyer was not burned at
Mary Dyer was not burned at the stake, she was hung. The only people known to be burned at the stake in Boston were two slave women who were both accused of murdering their masters. Hanging was the preferred method of execution for accused heretics around here.
Mostly true, but just a couple of corrections...
Mary Dyer wasn't burned, she was hanged, and not on the site of today's State House, or on the Common, but at the town gallows, which were located somewhere on Boston Neck, which is today's South End, and was roughly the area between the intersection of Washington and East Berkeley Streets, and Franklin and Blackstone Squares.
The Quaker martyrs were all
The Quaker martyrs were all hanged on Boston Common. Nobody was burned, and executions were never carried out on the current site of the State House.
No Quakers were burned
Slaves, on the other hand ...
J.L. Bell has more.
Baker
Baker, just another fake Republican.
Baker is referring to the
Baker is referring to the freedom to practice religions which oppress women and indigenous people. People unjustly died because of this. Sorry, but as a woman, I don't celebrate the freedom to practice extreme religions at the expense of women, children and people of different faiths or no faith. It's time to celebrate peaceful co-existence not freedom of religious extremism. Moderation and tolerance for all will make the world a better place.
so youre
referring to christianity i assume
I'm referring to any extreme
I'm referring to any extreme practice of any religion. I believe that human rights trump all else. There is nothing virtuous about oppression. Do you require any additional clarifications?
yawn
sure, i'll play ball and pretend thats what you meant
for me, I'd prefer...
...if you didn't use "trump" and "human rights" in the same sentence.
give credit where credit is due.
at least someone on the red side of the aisle is saying something.
Bay State Not Founded on Kumbaya
Applaud Gov. Baker for appealing to the better angles of our nature, but fear of immigrants of different religions is as old as Plimouth Colony, where the pilgrims fretted openly about whether to ban English hooligans from landing and diluting the old colony's religious piety and social cohesion. Father north in Boston, the Puritans were even less tolerant of Christians from other denominations. This religious based fear continued long after the English Civil War and the arrival of the first Royal (Anglican) Governor, reaching a fever pitch during the Know Nothing era and the nativist hysteria during the trial of Sacco and Vanzetti. The historical truth is, the Bay State was no shining city on a hill on when it came to religious tolerance.
And...so...
And this has exactly what bearing on the present situation and those currently in/running for office?
Baker is a phony Democrat
What Mr. Trump proposes is much more benevolent than Democrat Franklin Roosevelt's internment camps during similar times. Muslims who are here now may stay but no more in until the situation is figured out. The same press that is outraged at Trump's policy will also report with a straight face that Syrian refugees will be vetted, even though Obama's FBI Director and most others know that is impossible. Baker's stance emboldens a future left-wing Democrat opponent while alienating moderates and conservatives who will stay home, ala Scott Brown. Voters will reject a phony Democrat as Truman wisely said.
Amendment 1
I know you are a cop and all, but you might be interested in reading some of this document here:
No one has a right to
No one has a right to immigrate here.
yeah?
Dude...
that may be what you want to hear, but that's not what Trump said. Or more precisely, that's not what Trump told his flunkies to say the first time around, so he can "walk it back" himself later.
British Slang
Trump.
Definition: Northern to midlands slang for a fart, expelling of wind from the anus.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trump&defid=876052
Sound and fury, signifying nothing
The Republican Party could oust Trump. They could kick him out of their party. Before the convention, the GOP could refuse to allow him to debate as a Republican. After the convention, even if Trump won as a write-in, they could refuse him party funds and go with the winner among party-recognized candidates.
They aren't, and they won't, and they have all shown how ball-free they are.
The GOP has spent the past 40+ years narrowing its platform and demanding an ideological adherence absent from any party since the Know-Nothings. Gone are the days when being a pro-choice Republican wasn't like being a two-headed duck. Gone are the days when as many Republicans were concerned about the environment as Democrats. Gone are the days when non-ideological issues were also non-partisan; why the hell should the GOP oppose gay marriage as part of their platform, or oppose teaching evolution? When did the GOP give up fighting monopolies?
The GOP has happily taken money from the Moral Majority and its descendants, from the Pioneer Fund, from anti-environmental groups like the Heartland Institute and the Alliance for America, from the NRA, and from so many other groups feeding on fear and hatred and ignorance that it is amazing that the GOP rank and file isn't made up wholly of lobotomized sociopaths. The GOP has,very literally, sold its soul and rented out its conscience. The GOP sat back as its members went on racist screeds against Obama, said that atheists should lose citizenship, goaded their ranks to assume anyone brown or black is a criminal, lied to the public that all their precious guns were going to be taken away.
Trump is the comb-over chicken home to roost.
If notable Republicans want to do something about the idiocy and hatred that is spewing from Trump and other nominees, they could. But as long as they sit on their hands, the money keeps coming in.
You...
I hereby award you one internet.
indeed but he looks more like a badger to me...