Posted on 12/12/2015 10:45:26 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
PBS: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's comments on banning Muslims from entering the U.S., a campaign surge for Sen. Ted Cruz, plus assessing Speaker of the House Paul Ryan’s first month on the job.
Brooks says Republican Senators would rather vote for a Democratic Majority Leader than "universally unpopular" Ted Cruz.
JUDY WOODRUFF, PBS NEWSHOUR: When it comes to Trump, David, I know we have been talking about him, but this week, with the statement about keeping Muslims out of the country, is this just more of the same of what we have been hearing from Donald Trump, or are we hearing something at a completely new level?
DAVID BROOKS: I think it’s a different level.
The man is a genius for attention, an addict of attention, and therefore a genius of getting it. And so this I think is a different level for a couple of reasons. First, it is bigotry of a naked sort. The Mexican stuff was bigotry, too, but this strikes me as a higher level.
Second, an offense against religious liberty. And, third, because of the way Trump has now risen to prominence, it has reverberations around the globe, in the way the stuff even he said earlier about Latin Americans didn’t...
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
And you no doubt were laughed off as a curmudgeonly old crackpot “hater.”
I run into this all the time with my naive, scatterbrained daughter.
David Brookes - his clones are running rampant on FR....
FU Brooks!
Putting America first is now considered bigotry. Never thought I would see the day.....
Yes. Damage among degenerate moozlum terrorists.
What exactly do you mean by your post at #25?
I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt and ascribe your post to either a inadequate command of English or poor conveyance of a concept, but your subsequent posts don’t make either of those likely.
So, someone who makes the statement that we should limit or stop open acceptance with no bar to a group of people who will not assimilate and wish harm on us is “submission to craven animalism”?
Please expand on that, because I would like to hear exactly what your standards are. If that is “craven animalism”, what is the indiscriminate and bloody slaughter of people because they are not followers of your religion?
Please educate the rest of us on your views. Or are you just going to drop in, make a stupid comment, and run away? Come on, don’t be a coward, if you believe in what you say, explain it to the rest of us.
Yeh I always go to the Libtards for the real straight talk.
Yes, it’s important our elites ‘look good’ in the eyes of the world... much more important than the lives and safety of Americans in flyover...
No, actually I thanked these 2 polite students (a real RARITY, trust me--most of them would tell me "F___ you, I gonna kill you wid a knife you diss my homeboy Bernie!" for an interesting conversation and the boy thanked me for the information. The girl was a little too far gone in her indoctrination to waver from what she'd been taught to believe. She was the Bernie fan. I don't think critical thinking was quite her forte.
My point is, ONLY the Democrap candidates were used for this assignment. No evidence of Republican candidates even being considered. That frightened me.
pBS sure has gone to crap, huh?
in fact, some of it has petrified..
and calls itself a ‘News’ Hour. lolol
Mark Shields, David Brooks and Judy Woodruff feel Americans in flyover should allow their children to die so liberal elites can pretend our country is ‘above it all’ - superior - and dare I say it? Upper class?
Trump’s taking them on... elites don’t like that...
The delusions of DC elites matter. It’s all that matters.
So stop complaining and let your children die on the alter of liberal elite superiority... it’s the least we can do for ‘our betters’...
Besides, THEIR children are safe. Their workplaces have armed guards, their neighborhoods are NOT at risk... Elites are safe..
So shut up...
Trump said, “UNTIL WE CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON”... He didn’t say ‘forever’... he said until we can figure out what the hell is going on. That’s NOT good enough for elites... ELITES MUST LOOK GOOD IN THE EYES OF THE WORLD’S ELITES. THAT’S ALL THAT MATTERS.
Mark Shields, David Brooks and Judy Woodruff feel Americans in flyover should allow their children to die so liberal elites can pretend our country is ‘above it all’ - superior - and dare I say it? Upper class?
Trump’s taking them on... elites don’t like that...
The delusions of DC elites matter. It’s all that matters.
So stop complaining and let your children die on the alter of liberal elite superiority... it’s the least we can do for ‘our betters’...
Besides, THEIR children are safe. Their workplaces have armed guards, their neighborhoods are NOT at risk... Elites are safe..
So shut up...
Trump said, “UNTIL WE CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON”... He didn’t say ‘forever’... he said until we can figure out what the hell is going on. That’s NOT good enough for elites... ELITES MUST LOOK GOOD IN THE EYES OF THE WORLD’S ELITES. THAT’S ALL THAT MATTERS.
So is that his preposterous position or his real position?
Finally, Brooks outs himself as an SJW.
We're in a war with radical Muslims. At this point in time we CAN'T tell the difference between radical Muslims and peaceful Muslims. Getting it wrong could mean the lives of our children.
Trump's calling for a moratorium... time to ‘figure this out’... Since his comments aren't focus tested and scripted by a speech writer... it could have been smoother. He's opening the discussion...
Many years ago - some months after 9/11 I was talking with a Muslim friend who was horrified that he was able to fly without being checked when grandmothers were being searched.
He said to me, “Don't your people know it's people who LOOK like me who are the terrorist?” I tried to explain how we wanted to be ‘fair’ and he kept saying he didn't want to die on an airplane because we wanted to ‘be fair’.
I was unable to make him understand. Today I would know how... back then I just said we didn't want to hurt people's feeling. He thought Americans were nuts after his experience.
THIS WEEK with what’s his name showed a clip of Trump reading his statement. They cut it off BEFORE he said UNTIL WE GET THINGS FIGURED OUT.
I am sorry you are logically challenged-— but, there are places for intellects with your capacity in our society-— That place is just not commenting on or influencing public policy in America....
Your post #20-” It just never even occurs to the liberal media..that showing strength and being strong against Islamic terrorism would influence Muslims to attempt to reach out in a moderate way to Christians and attempt to seek common ground with them...”
Now, if you cannot see the childish lack of reason, in your statement- I surrender to your lack of understanding. Thank you.
See #78. Please feel free to write another essay, in response.
You are keen observer, indeed.
Thank you, professor rlmorel.
To be honest, I cannot understand the point you wish to make with either the post at #25 or your recent post to me at #79. May I ask you two questions?
Question #1: Do you believe that American citizens should have a say about who is admitted into this country as either a refugee or immigrant, and what the process should be, or do you believe decisions regarding the refugee/immigration process should be a mandate from the executive branch of the government?
Question #2: Do you believe America (or any sovereign nation) is under an obligation to accept refugees regardless of any concerns about the safety of doing so? If so, from where does that obligation come from?
Let's engage in some civil discourse.
This isn't a trick, a trap, or anything like that. I am not interested in playing those types of games, but I am genuinely curious about both your answers to my two questions, and your comment about animalism at post #25 in response to post #20.
I may or may not agree with the premise by Freeper freespirit2012 in post #20, since I am not convinced that anything we do from strength or weakness in the West is likely to help us find common ground with Islam (I have reached the point where I feel that dealing from strength as an adversary is going to be our only choice) but I did not think freespirit2012's post merited what appeared to be a derogatory response you answered with.
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.