Trump flipflops on crucial issue of importing Muslim refugees

Here is, word for word, in context, what Donald Trump said Tuesday about admitting Muslim refugees from the Middle East:

Bill O'Reilly: You know thousands will come to the United States. Now do you object to migrants who are getting out of the Middle East and North Africa coming to the USA?

Trump: I hate the concept of it but on a humanitarian basis with what's happening you have to.

Here is, word for word in context, what Donald Trump said on Wednesday about admitting Muslim refugees from the Middle East:

Hannity: Should we allow any of them [Muslim Middle Eastern refugees] into this country?

Trump: Look, from a humanitarian standpoint I'd love to help but we have our own problems, we have so many problems we have to solve.

On Tuesday Trump said we had to admit them for humanitarian reasons, on Wednesday Trump said we didn't have to admit them for humanitarian reasons.

As I've said before, on the campaign trail it is easy to misspeak. But this is a very fundamental issue and it doesn't look like a slip of the tongue. He clearly said "you have to" in answer to a question about admitting thousands of them. If Trump were to admit large numbers of Muslims to America, we would be importing the intolerant version of Islam that is practiced in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, complete with Sharia law, clitorectomies, and honor killings. And then, of course, there would be the terrorism.

I've voiced my concern about Donald Trump before because he has no history of conservatism; in fact, his history is the direct opposite.

My post #18: Some of us were correct to point out Trump's initial mistake and the bots amongst us called us liars for doing so.

Note your post 18. You were the one to call Trump supporters or people on the other side of this "bots." Whining now about "name calling" just makes you sound like a thin-skinned sissy.

No you should reread my post #18. I didn't call all Trump supporters "bots". It was you who made the assumption that bots = Trump supporters. Trump supporters (or supporters of any candidate) who call folks liars for disagreeing with them, are bots.

You sound like somebody who has reading comprehension problems... and a "sissy" boy too for thinking people are picking on you, when they aren't.

Another thing I wanted to mention is that I doubt anyone actually called you a liar in the past on this topic, as I remember reading the thread and never saw anything like it. If you can post the example, I might be willing to apologize. But otherwise, I just took it as another one of your attacks on Trump and those who disagree with you.

You bring up a good point. His initial reaction is to let them in and then after some thought and probably listening to advisors he trusts; he realized that won’t go over too well with the base conservatives. Besides that; in his speech to let us know he is running for Prez he used immigration as the key issue. Well; seems to me that letting in refugees is just another form of immigration.

Something I don’t understand about letting in refugees. Are they legal to stay and work and for how long until they have to go home or is it permanent? If it’s permanent; why? When it’s safe to go back home to their home country; why should they stay?

Also, in listening to how he vocalizes his thoughts, I sense he isn’t very good at being clear about what exactly he means when he says something. He’s used to talking to people on the same wavelength he’s on but the general public is not on that wavelength. He needs to learn to be more clear in how he says things. Maybe try to say things like he’s talking to a class of 5th graders or something.

OKAY, so you did get called a liar by one guy, so I apologize. Though you are stretching when you impute that on a a plurality of people, when that guy just seems to have gotten excited with you. It is also true that a failure to note the context is indeed heavily misleading.

That said, if you intend to use personal attacks so frequently, you shouldn’t complain about them being used on you, even if it was in retaliation. You have to have thick skin.

Though you are stretching when you impute that on a a plurality of people.

Actually there have been others. And I'm not just singling out Trump supporters.

That said, if you intend to use personal attacks so frequently, you shouldn’t complain about them being used on you, even if it was in retaliation.

No not at all.

I was simply responding to a poster in kind. I don't initiate personal attack. Thus I will point-out personal attack when I want to or I will respond in kind when I want to. Either option is appropriate for one who doesn't initiate it. Whatever option I think that will stop the spam is the option I use.

However I will apologize for taking a fight from one thread to another. That is not appropriate.

You have to have thick skin.

Yes you do.

Okay then don't assume that I do.

You do! The guy who whines about the personal attacks always is the weakest on the subject. It's better to retaliate than to complain about it. It's basically a subset of victim mentality. You will never hear me actually get offended by being called something. In fact, if I'm not getting insulted or taking flak, it means I must be doing something wrong!

No not at all. That's a very simplistic rule.

A few points.

To point out that somebody has made a personal attack is to simply make a statement of fact . To say that it's a whine is your characterization of it and perhaps a projection. One could just as easily call your complaint about my statement of fact, a whine.

One could say that the need to retaliate to mere verbal insults, which is according to you the only correct course of action, is a sign of being thinned skinned, insecure or being the weakest on the subject.

One could say that the need to initiate personal attack is a sign of being the same.

I have been here over 16 years and I don't post atta boy posts. Instead I challenge posters when I think that they are wrong. As one could guess I have gotten also sorts of responses including many personal attacks.

Responding to those baseless attacks by either ignoring them, retaliating for them or just simply pointing them out are all appropriate responses that can be used depending on the reasonableness of the person making the baseless attacks. The goal is to eliminate the spam which is a waste of time.

When you find yourself arguing over nothing but personalities and about insults, take a deep breath and move on.

I don’t know. It SHOULD be his downfall. But look how many otherwise intelligent people here rationalize every single thing he says or does that should sink him.

Then you consider that in the general population you have a LOT of people who aren’t that well informed, and well, you can probably get where I’m going.

It almost makes me wonder if indeed we’re not destined to perhaps have a President Trump and if people aren’t even being blinded in some way by God to allow it to happen.

I don’t know. We get who and what we deserve no matter who gets elected.

Ugh, but constantly reading ongoing and continual debating about personal insults (as opposed to issues) and things of that sort certainly does put you on the whiny side of things. The lady doth protest too much about the protests. When you find yourself arguing over nothing but personalities and about insults, take a deep breath and move on.

No not at all. You are the one who has initiated round-after-round the whine on the subject.

You are projecting. Look in the mirror lady.

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.