Posted on 02/24/2016 8:36:14 PM PST by Night Hides Not
Donald Trump's boast that if he had been president, the September 11 jihad terror attacks would not have happened because "if I were running things, I doubt those people would have been in the country," has been gaining him even more notoriety and cheers from foes of Obama's immigration policies. What Trump would do to prevent jihad terror attacks by domestic jihadis, or Sharia encroachment on American freedoms, however, is far less clear than his stance on immigration, and some of the things he has said about these matters should give even the most full-throated of his enthusiasts considerably less to cheer about.
Several weeks ago, in the midst of Ben Carson's remarks on sharia, Eric Bolling of Fox News asked Trump: "Would you want the president or a candidate to say, 'I will promise to uphold the Constitution over the Sharia law'?" Trump replied: "Well, I think it's an argument I don't want to get into, it's not my argument, so it's an argument that I won't get into."
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
Trump is ignorant and doesn’t understand or give a damn about the constitution.
Liberals started calling me "babykiller" and other niceties when I was a senior in high school. Using adjectives as liar and lunatic are like shooting spitballs at a battleship.
Over the course of a couple of months in 1980, I turned my German neighbors into Reagan supporters. I know a conservative when I see one, and Trump doesn't fill the bill. Trump used to be my #2, but I would prefer he start acting more presidential.
Your hinges are becoming unhinged.
Wow! Their energy level was off the charts last night...wore me out, as well as my two co-teachers. I fondly looked back to the first couple of weeks, when they were shy and knew but a few of their classmates (we usually have 5-7 middle schools represented).
At first, I was reticent to post this, owing to its age, i.e. 4 months old. I was satisfied with my FR search that it hadn't been posted, so I went with it.
As a Cruz supporter, I see the handwriting on the wall: Trump has the momentum, while Cruz, and his people, have made tactical and strategic errors, not unexpected given this is his first try at the ring. Although I attend Mass regularly and contribute to my parish, I am far from a devout Catholic. My wife (who is devout) and I agree that Cruz' emphasis on the evangelical vote, at the expense of his Constitutional Conservatism, is his biggest blunder.
IMO, here's what we're down to: disagree with Obama, and you're a racist, homophobe, etc. Disagree with the potential next President, and you're a liar, a lunatic, a traitor, etc. And this one tiny thread bears this out.
So tell me, FRiends...why would I exchange one bully for another, one who has said he'll make deals with the Democrats, and who has been extremely flexible on many issues?
Trump going after Islamists is one of his most popular statements so the GOPe looked for any way to try and blunt that.
What I find laughable are any statements by people on here that pretend "they were all for Trump until this clip came to light". Spare us the BS.
The suggestion that Trump would allow Sharia law in the USA is as laughable as the idea that the GOPe wants to really build a wall now with Mexico.
All Trump said was he did not want comment on Carson's position. Why? Because it would have boosted Carson in front just as Trump was getting ready to break out of the pack - he was not always leading in the polls you know.
So nice try with this "Mississippi 14" BS tactics. I feel sorry for Republican voters who are easily fooled and manipulated by the GOPe with such campaigns.
And nice try yourself, lumping a Cruz supporter like me in with GOPe. You’ve definitely got your facts wrong.
---
Your side aka the pro Cruz side is joining in on the GOPe BS that is this report and presenting this like a "Wow! Gee Golly Whiz! Did you hear this about Trump being pro Islam" moment.
And last but not least - Cruz has been a life time govt employee. Hoe has worked with and for the govt his entire professional life as a lawyer while at the same time claiming he is for smaller govt and less govt jobs. Govt jobs for me but not for thee.
For clarification's sake, is the first word of your response "He" or "Ho", as in "whore". Either of these would not be unexpected, based on my viewing of your posting history.
In regards to your major complaint, that Ted's been in government, that is a valid concern. However, a reasonable person would understand that there are legitimate functions of government as outlined in the Constitution.
For example, my liberal "friends" chided me when they found out I was working for the FDIC in the aftermath of the bank crisis. My response was simple: don't you want someone with 25+ years of accounting and financial services experience to maximize the return of funds to the Deposit Insurance Fund?
Cruz has been consistent with his views on limiting the role of government, Trump is far more "flexible" in his views.
Have a good day, FRiend.
--
Hoe = He typo.
Cruz's "limited govt views are hypocritical coming from a lifetime govt employee. Even when he was briefly in the private sector as a lawyer he worked on govt related issues (they hired him because of his links to govt).
The true conservative position is a private individual from the private sector enters politics - serves for a while then goes back to the private sector.
How much more of this hypocritical ideal will we endure as limited govt Republicans? Rubio has never been anything but a govt employee.
What executive experience does Cruz have? Has he ever had to make payroll? What has he built? How many employees as he managed as an executive? How many people has he hired and fired throughout his life? He is a govt lawyer. That is all and living off my tax dollars as his salary. At least his wife works in the private sector.
Trump replied: "Well, I think it's an argument I don't want to get into, it's not my argument, so it's an argument that I won't get into."
Promising to uphold the Constitution over sharia is not an argument that Trump wants to get into?
he was revealing that he was
willing to acquiesce to sharia restrictions on the freedom of speech.
This shows a 'loss for words' by everyone. :( :( :(
With this said, I'll step out and take some time to try to figure all this out (as if whatever I deduce will be relevant)
***********************************
***********************************
"Your article supplies lots of "opinions" derived from one sentence? There was no mention of Sharia in the question asked of Trump, yet you twist it into this?"
5 posted on February 24, 2016 at 10:49:17 PM CST by datura
__________________________________________
My point was that Trump, in the interview, was focused on the Carson question and answered badly because of it, like misspeaking. I do not believe that Trump does not understand that the POTUS is supposed to uphold and defend the Constitution.
28 posted on February 24, 2016 at 11:48:01 PM CST by sockhead
__________________________________________
You see, it doesn't actually matter if there's any truth to the claim, the goal is to create an absurd hurricane wind of inbound attacks driven with increasing ferocity by the corporate media who will demand the candidate to respond.
37 posted on February 25, 2016 at 12:38:59 AM CST by onyx
___________________________________________
"Eric Bolling of Fox News asked Trump: "Would you want the president or a candidate to say, 'I will promise to uphold the Constitution over the Sharia law'?" Trump replied: "Well, I think it's an argument I don't want to get into, it's not my argument, so it's an argument that I won't get into."
That is a very disconcerting answer, to put it mildly. Is it possible that Trump (at the time of the interview) didn't know what Sharia Law was, and avoided answering because he didn't want to show his ignorance? But even if that's true, a safe answer would've been "as President, I'd be swearing to uphold the Constitution, period."
13 posted on February 24, 2016 at 10:55:11 PM CST by Mr. Mojo
[...LET me inject here -that the way the moderators were constantly pushing for a continuing FAST pace, that Trump, with little/no time to give a lot of thought for a quick response - - -didn't think to quickly say.......
"......as President, I'd be swearing to uphold the Constitution, period." ]
_____________________________________
"Oh for God's sake. Trump probably didn't want to make an off the cuff remark about a legal question he's unsure of. Nobody knows the answer to every question they get asked. If Trump answers wrong the press will skewer him for it. It does not mean he wants Sharia law."
17 posted on February 24, 2016 at 11:02:27 PM CST by Georgia Girl 2
Much ado about nothing.
:)
Good Lordy, I do hope so!
This is guy is just another slimy and lying liberal as Whitman is a Democratic Party political pollster and of course, he's going to say something like this.
Trump said he did not want to get into the issue during the debate.
Trump never said he favored Sharia Law over the Constitution.
Trump is outspoken on wanting to restrict Muslims from coming to the USA.
And yet we now have someone claiming that Trump is soft on Sharia law?
You can’t make this stuff up.
Now based on one line in the debate you say Trump wants to institute Sharia Law.
This is just silliness.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.