Rush: Drive-Bys Lie and Claim Donald Trump Said Register All Muslims

[240B]

Since this has devolved into the thread about nothing, I suppose it would not be too out of line for me to discuss the banana nut muffins with cinnamon spice that I just made. Any objections?

No. Ok

Well it started when I noticed that I had two bananas in the kitchen which were turning brown. I thought, whatever shall I do? Then, hey I know!...yada, yada, yada...muffins.

That's the end for me. Good night all..

[Scottftlc]

Perhaps I will try to end this thread on a positive note...

For all of you who are backing Rubio here and who really dislike (I use a moderate term for the feeling, I know) another candidate for the nomination, Trump or Cruz or Carson or even Bush or any other in the field: Everyone who is a member here will vote for Rubio, should he become the nominee. Of course I don't know that absolutely, but I don't think I'm very wrong in saying that.

And should Rubio not be the nominee, no one here on this forum will be responsible for that. He will rise or fall from much, much larger forces than anything that happens here. So realizing this, it should not be that difficult to be reasonably civil in our discussions - as much of a cold wet blanket as that thought might be.

[aligncare]

Bringing it back on topic for one moment.

I listened to the audio. There is no question but that this was a media hit piece on Trump -- the premise was suggested by the reporter [sic] (Trump's answer was about 'the wall') -- the false premise ("rounding up Muslims") was then amplified (picked up by a different source) and then the falsity echoed throughout the media as if it were true.

It's what the media does to republican candidates -- what they always do. And some of you (sink) fall for it every time. Especially if it concerns Trump, Carson and Cruz. (Say, that'd make a great name for a power trio)

[Machiavelli]

Reporter: Should there be database that tracks the Muslims that are in this country?
Trump: There should be a lot of systems, beyond database. We should have a lot of systems and today you can do it. But right now we have to have a border, we have to have strength, we have to have a wall, and we cannot let what's happening to this country happen any longer.

Reporter: But that's something your White House would like to implement?
Trump: Oh, I would certainly implement that. Absolutely.

Reporter: What do you think the effect of that would be, how would it work?
Trump: It would stop people from coming in illegally.

Reporter: Would they have to legally be in this database?
Trump: They have to be--, they have to be--, the key is people can come to this country but they have to be here legally.

Source, with video clip, and mostly pro-Trump analysis from a snarky lefty.

[Machiavelli]

From the article:

The reporter is asking about the database, but Trump is talking about his beloved wall, as his very next answer makes clear.

Reporter: What do you think the effect of that would be, how would it work?
Trump: It would stop people from coming in illegally.

[Machiavelli]

Bringing it back on topic for one moment.

I listened to the audio. There is no question but that this was a media hit piece on Trump -- the premise was suggested by the reporter [sic] (Trump's answer was about 'the wall') -- the false premise ("rounding up Muslims") was then amplified (picked up by a different source) and then the falsity echoed throughout the media as if it were true.

It's what the media does to republican candidates -- what they always do. And some of you (sink) fall for it every time. Especially if it concerns Trump, Carson and Cruz. (Say, that'd make a great name for a power trio)

The reporter set a trap. Trump fell into it by not replying clearly enough.

[mystery-ak]

Interesting.

Would you have adjusted a gif I posted to fit? Somehow I doubt it.


"Stopping the insults" only applies to one side of this argument, it appears.

In case you haven't noticed sink I do that for everyone..if the photo is too big I adjust it to fit...

[Fishrrman]

Scott wrote above:
"Everyone who is a member here will vote for Rubio, should he become the nominee. Of course I don't know that absolutely, but I don't think I'm very wrong in saying that."

Be careful!

I can't stomach Rubio, and can say without equivocation that I won't be voting for him in any election, for any office, ever. He's an opportunist who can't be trusted and who will betray us when the chips are down.

Sorry.

[sinkspur]

Scott wrote above:
"Everyone who is a member here will vote for Rubio, should he become the nominee. Of course I don't know that absolutely, but I don't think I'm very wrong in saying that."

Be careful!

I can't stomach Rubio, and can say without equivocation that I won't be voting for him in any election, for any office, ever. He's an opportunist who can't be trusted and who will betray us when the chips are down.

Sorry.

But you'll vote for that Democrat Trump. 

[240B]

But you'll vote for that Democrat Trump.

You need to drop that,  Trump is a Democrat!!, mantra you keep pushing. It is a loser play. Nobody cares. Can you get that in your head? I don't think you can.

Even if Trump was running as a formal Democrat, instead of Hillary, I would still vote for him, over Jeb or Rubio.

You are too hung up on labels over substance.

I don't think anyone except people like you care about which letter a person puts in front of his name. It's meaningless anyway. Which party a person claims to represent has no bearing at all in terms of how they vote, or what kind of representative they will be.

In today's political environment, party affiliation is purely cosmetic. It has no meaning. It is not meaningful in any way.

[sinkspur]

You need to drop that,  Trump is a Democrat!!, mantra you keep pushing. It is a loser play. Nobody cares. Can you get that in your head? I don't think you can.

Even if Trump was running as a formal Democrat, instead of Hillary, I would still vote for him, over Jeb or Rubio.

You are too hung up on labels over substance.

I don't think anyone except people like you care about which letter a person puts in front of his name. It's meaningless anyway. Which party a person claims to represent has no bearing at all in terms of how they vote, or what kind of representative they will be.

In today's political environment, party affiliation is purely cosmetic. It has no meaning. It is not meaningful in any way.

Of course you'd vote for a Democrat.  You would be a DEMOCRAT if you could be, but you're a Brit, so you can't vote in American elections.

Adios.

[240B]

Your ascription of my loquacious style of writing combined with my Socratic debating methods, to my being a member of the Royal British Empire, is a laudatory albeit undeserved accolade indeed.

I would never view this as being any sort of a pejorative attribution. On the contrary. I consider your erroneous assumption to be quite complementary.

I must away to bed now, as the sunrise is nigh. If I dally, the ever luminescent rays of our dear Sol may shine too brightly in my bed chamber and disturb whatever fleeting slumber I may gather ere the morrow awakens in earnest.

Adieu my good chap, until perchance we meet again