Donald Trump on Muslim Ban: ‘Sure I’d Back Off On It’

[sinkspur]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-on-muslim-ban-sure-id-back-off-on-it/

Donald Trump on Muslim Ban: ‘Sure I’d Back Off On It’

by Josh Feldman | 7:25 pm, May 11th, 2016 VIDEO 689

       
Donald Trump indicated on Fox News tonight a willingness he hasn’t expressed before to go back on his Muslim ban idea as soon as possible.

Greta Van Susteren brought up concerns people had that the ban could “go on forever.”

Trump said, “It was never meant to be. I mean, that’s why it was temporary. Sure I’d back off on it, I’d like to back off it as soon as possible.”

He did go on to say there’s a serious problem with radical Islam that the U.S. needs to get to the bottom of, while allowing for exceptions in that ban––of which, again, Trump said, “Ultimately it’s my aim to have it lifted.”

 
“Ideally,” he concluded, “you won’t have a ban very long.”

[sinkspur]

The Muslim ban is gone.  Count on it.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Context is important on this one. He never said he would permanently ban Muslims. So when asked about concerns that such a ban would be permanent, he answered that it wasn't meant to be permanent. It was intended to be temporary until we can get a a system in place to thoroughly check backgrounds. (That'll never happen.)

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

That said, nothing is permanent anyway. Laws change. Presidents change. Executive orders change. Even SCOTUS overturns its own precedents.

[Mechanicos]

What part of "temporary" escapes ya. what happens when the Temporary ends? DUH.

Geeze the desperation to twist is strong here.

[sinkspur]

Context is important on this one. He never said he would permanently ban Muslims. So when asked about concerns that such a ban would be permanent, he answered that it wasn't meant to be permanent. It was intended to be temporary until we can get a a system in place to thoroughly check backgrounds. (That'll never happen.)

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

That said, nothing is permanent anyway. Laws change. Presidents change. Executive orders change. Even SCOTUS overturns its own precedents.

I disagree.  I think this is another "negotiable" issue and that it's gone when he needs it gone.

Plus, banning all Muslims from the Middle East is unenforceable and ridiculous.

[Mechanicos]

I disagree.  I think this is another "negotiable" issue and that it's gone when he needs it gone.

Plus, banning all Muslims from the Middle East is unenforceable and ridiculous.

Banning Muslim refugees is certainly conformable. So is banning any connected to terrorism/ISIS. Lot of dishonest reporting from Red State today. Guess the Globalists want their 3 million dollars worth of anti-Trump Agitprop.

[montanajoe]

Clinton should just sit back and let Trump talk..or put him on the payroll.

[cato potatoe]

Clinton should just sit back and let Trump talk..or put him on the payroll.

She ought to rent a house in Lucia for 6 months and let him flap his gums. 

[geronl]

He has never take a single stand on anything. "Everything is negotiable" undercuts everything else.

[libertybele]

Context is important on this one. He never said he would permanently ban Muslims. So when asked about concerns that such a ban would be permanent, he answered that it wasn't meant to be permanent. It was intended to be temporary until we can get a a system in place to thoroughly check backgrounds. (That'll never happen.)

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

That said, nothing is permanent anyway. Laws change. Presidents change. Executive orders change. Even SCOTUS overturns its own precedents.

Sure go ahead a give Trump a free pass on this one as well.  Is there any issue that he hasn't flip-flopped on??  He has another 6 months to change his mind again.  Nothing is permanent with Trump is an under statement. He has no core convictions, no compass morals or ethics and absolutely no integrity.  With Trump EVERYTHING is up for negotiation.

By the way, the Constitution has been our permanent document and Supreme law of our Country since September 17, 1787.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I don't see how it would be constitutional. Especially since the "no establishment of religion" clause in the 1st amendment is used to keep crosses off of public property.

[Mechanicos]

I don't see how it would be constitutional. Especially since the "no establishment of religion" clause in the 1st amendment is used to keep crosses off of public property.

Its simple really. The Constitution does not apply to foreigners in other countries.

[RedHead]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-on-muslim-ban-sure-id-back-off-on-it/

Donald Trump on Muslim Ban: ‘Sure I’d Back Off On It’

by Josh Feldman | 7:25 pm, May 11th, 2016 VIDEO 689

       
Donald Trump indicated on Fox News tonight a willingness he hasn’t expressed before to go back on his Muslim ban idea as soon as possible.

Greta Van Susteren brought up concerns people had that the ban could “go on forever.”

Trump said, “It was never meant to be. I mean, that’s why it was temporary. Sure I’d back off on it, I’d like to back off it as soon as possible.”

He did go on to say there’s a serious problem with radical Islam that the U.S. needs to get to the bottom of, while allowing for exceptions in that ban––of which, again, Trump said, “Ultimately it’s my aim to have it lifted.”

 
“Ideally,” he concluded, “you won’t have a ban very long.”

Trump has said that the ban would be in place until the government "figures out what they're doing."  What is the definition of that?  And when has Washington ever "figured out what they're doing?" 

[RedHead]

Banning Muslim refugees is certainly conformable. So is banning any connected to terrorism/ISIS. Lot of dishonest reporting from Red State today. Guess the Globalists want their 3 million dollars worth of anti-Trump Agitprop.

But Trump didn't say he wanted to ban just immigrants.  His position is "a total and complete shutdown on Muslims entering the country" until that magical moment when Congress can "figure out what's going on," as if they've ever been able to do that.

[RedHead]

Context is important on this one. He never said he would permanently ban Muslims. So when asked about concerns that such a ban would be permanent, he answered that it wasn't meant to be permanent. It was intended to be temporary until we can get a a system in place to thoroughly check backgrounds. (That'll never happen.)

It it'll never happen then it will be, by default, permanent.

That said, nothing is permanent anyway.

And nothing seems to be less permanent than a Trump campaign promise.

[Mechanicos]

But Trump didn't say he wanted to ban just immigrants.  His position is "a total and complete shutdown on Muslims entering the country" until that magical moment when Congress can "figure out what's going on," as if they've ever been able to do that.

Its common sense. We cannot tell who is going to have sudden Jihad Syndrome. I would prefer that Islam never take hold here in the US. Since its too late for that the next best thing is to keep the population small so as to prevent the problems other Western countries have. One suggestion that might work is to use something like how Israel screens people coming in.  Its not politically correct but it works apparently.

[kjam22]

Its common sense. We cannot tell who is going to have sudden Jihad Syndrome. I would prefer that Islam never take hold here in the US. Since its too late for that the next best thing is to keep the population small so as to prevent the problems other Western countries have. One suggestion that might work is to use something like how Israel screens people coming in.  Its not politically correct but it works apparently.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[RedHead]

Its common sense. We cannot tell who is going to have sudden Jihad Syndrome. I would prefer that Islam never take hold here in the US. Since its too late for that the next best thing is to keep the population small so as to prevent the problems other Western countries have. One suggestion that might work is to use something like how Israel screens people coming in.  Its not politically correct but it works apparently.

So how will it work?  Will the screening be done at the point of origin for the flight destined for the U.S.?  Or will the weeding out be done once they get here?  And how will they tell the Muslims from the non-Muslims? 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

So how will it work?  Will the screening be done at the point of origin for the flight destined for the U.S.?  Or will the weeding out be done once they get here?  And how will they tell the Muslims from the non-Muslims?

Make them eat a pork hot dog? 

[kjam22]

So how will it work?  Will the screening be done at the point of origin for the flight destined for the U.S.?  Or will the weeding out be done once they get here?  And how will they tell the Muslims from the non-Muslims? 

LOL..... I want that job.  I want to be in a Saudi Arabia screening people bound for the U.S.    "Hey... you gotta eat this BLT and these Pork Rinds first.... and you gotta publically proclaim that Mohammad was a child molester.... then we'll let you on the plane."

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

LOL..... I want that job.  I want to be in a Saudi Arabia screening people bound for the U.S.    "Hey... you gotta eat this BLT and these Pork Rinds first.... and you gotta publically proclaim that Mohammad was a child molester.... then we'll let you on the plane."

You have to present a variety of pork products:

1) Wendy's Baconator
2) Hot Dogs
3) Egg McMuffin
4) Rack of ribs
5) Salad with bacon bits, for "health conscious" travelers.

Etc. etc.

[RedHead]

Make them eat a pork hot dog? 

Then you also exclude Jews, vegetarians, Seventh Day Adventists, and some Orthodox Christian sects. 

[kidd]

The Muslim ban is gone.  Count on it.

How long until the wall promise is gone?

[ConstitutionRose]

Then you also exclude Jews, vegetarians, Seventh Day Adventists, and some Orthodox Christian sects.

Eat not ear.
Correct. Also many simply do not  ear pork for health reasons.

[Eowyn]

He has never take a single stand on anything. "Everything is negotiable" undercuts everything else.

Exactly.