• Trump Details Immigration Policy in Phoenix, AZ - We WILL Have a Wall, and Mexico WILL Pay for It!
    120 replies, posted
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;50984170]Alright, what are your reasons for Trump? I want you to restate them here, I'm curious. Because you have lost credibility and I want you to maybe regain it by adequately explaining why you support Trump.[/QUOTE] He has a business history rather than a political history. I've always wanted non-politicians in major offices (especially scientists) because politicians do their work based on manipulating people, for better or worse. The business world is sink or swim in terms of success and forces people to continually do something productive. I would prefer that mentality running the country. As an engineering student, I am extremely interested in his plans to overhaul American infrastructure. The border wall is the most well known but not the most interesting to me. I would like to see how he plans to upgrade transportation and city infrastructure. I like some of his immigration policies compared to what we have now. No one has really attempted to fix or improve it as far as I know. I won't guarantee that the wall or deportation policies will work, but I don't see anyone else proposing new ideas on immigration reform that enforce coming to the country legally. Instead I see amnesty proposals for people who broke the law, and if you grant amnesty to people who don't go through our immigration system, then there's no point in having an immigration system, or a border, or even US Citizenship rights for that matter. 2nd Amendment wasn't a huge issue for me until Scalia died, and now the SCOTUS needs new justices. I think that the 2nd Amendment is a vital part of American culture, and the [I]opportunity[/I] to own a firearm is an American right. When criminals are using firearms to commit robbery, rape, murder, or massacres, I would prefer having the option to defend myself and others with a legally owned gun rather than submitting or waiting for the police to arrive. The 2nd Amendment could be overturned by liberal justices appointed by Clinton and rendered void. I respect gun control and background checks, however the SCOTUS situation concerns me.
So basically your support of him is based entirely on a bunch of maybes and assumptions than anything concrete ?
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50985356]2nd Amendment wasn't a huge issue for me until Scalia died, and now the SCOTUS needs new justices. I think that the 2nd Amendment is a vital part of American culture, and the [I]opportunity[/I] to own a firearm is an American right. When criminals are using firearms to commit robbery, rape, murder, or massacres, I would prefer having the option to defend myself and others with a legally owned gun rather than submitting or waiting for the police to arrive. The 2nd Amendment could be overturned by liberal justices appointed by Clinton and rendered void. I respect gun control and background checks, however the SCOTUS situation concerns me.[/QUOTE] generally the supreme court doesn't go back on old rulings - i doubt they'd be overturning any of that anytime soon also the supreme court has been dominated by republicans for like 40 years, it's not going to be a surprise if it becomes more left leaning because its been right leaning for ages now.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50985356]He has a business history rather than a political history. I've always wanted non-politicians in major offices (especially scientists) because politicians do their work based on manipulating people, for better or worse. The business world is sink or swim in terms of success and forces people to continually do something productive. I would prefer that mentality running the country.[/QUOTE] He's not a scientist. He's not making policy decisions backed by scientific evidence. He doesn't understand vaccines or autism. He doesn't understand climate change. He doesn't understand how the environment shapes economic decline or growth. He doesn't understand the importance of alternative energy as a means of energy independence and for geopolitical stability (which in turn means preventing future refugee crises). He's engaged in ethically gray business projects at best. [QUOTE] As an engineering student, I am extremely interested in his plans to overhaul American infrastructure. The border wall is the most well known but not the most interesting to me. I would like to see how he plans to upgrade transportation and city infrastructure. [/QUOTE] Trump says he wants to double [URL="https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/fixing-americas-infrastructure/"]Clinton's planned infrastructure spending[/URL]. The internet is included in infrastructure. Trump, by extension of the republican platform,[URL="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/532608358508167168"] is against Net Neutrality[/URL]. [URL="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/261673-trump-sides-with-rubio-over-cruz-in-nsa-surveillance"]Trump is also for additional internet surveillance of citizens[/URL]. [URL="http://www.cnet.com/news/trump-apple-iphone-san-bernardino-encryption-fbi-terrorist/"]Trump also wants tech companies to build in security back-doors for government agencies[/URL]. [URL="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/633739970985897984?ref_src=twsrc^tfw"]Trump wants the Keystone XL pipeline[/URL]. [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/27/trump-tells-california-there-is-no-drought.html"]Trump is against conserving and preserving water in drought stricken areas[/URL]. [URL="http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/13/donald-trump-iowa-love-ethanol/"]Trump is for the expansion of ethanol in fuel blends[/URL]. [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/21/science/donald-trump-global-warming-energy-policy-kevin-cramer.html"]Trump wants more methane emissions allowed[/URL] and [URL="https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/economic-vision"]doesn't want the EPA to protect our waters[/URL]. [QUOTE] I like some of his immigration policies compared to what we have now. No one has really attempted to fix or improve it as far as I know. I won't guarantee that the wall or deportation policies will work, but I don't see anyone else proposing new ideas on immigration reform that enforce coming to the country legally. Instead I see amnesty proposals for people who broke the law, and if you grant amnesty to people who don't go through our immigration system, then there's no point in having an immigration system, or a border, or even US Citizenship rights for that matter. [/QUOTE] I agree that immigration is all kinds of messed up right now. I think the democrats are probably going to regret their amnesty programs in the long run as they're currently written. [QUOTE] 2nd Amendment wasn't a huge issue for me until Scalia died, and now the SCOTUS needs new justices. I think that the 2nd Amendment is a vital part of American culture, and the [I]opportunity[/I] to own a firearm is an American right. When criminals are using firearms to commit robbery, rape, murder, or massacres, I would prefer having the option to defend myself and others with a legally owned gun rather than submitting or waiting for the police to arrive. The 2nd Amendment could be overturned by liberal justices appointed by Clinton and rendered void. I respect gun control and background checks, however the SCOTUS situation concerns me.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-gun-control.html?_r=0"]Trump wants to suspend 2A rights for those on government watch lists[/URL]. EDIT: Added some sources
We could probably use the Rio Grande as a reason to not build a wall directly through all the way. The Rio Grande on her own is a beautiful natural barrier, why block it? :v: Also my views on the tenpoints: [quote]Number One: We will build a wall along the Southern Border.[/quote] I would be all for a simple unified border fence, seriously. Anything which provides some security theater and gets the militia groups to disengage from the border. [quote]Number Two: End Catch-And-Release[/quote] True Fact - The US Militia Movement actually has a policy where we check people's police records in other countries, and if they are seriously coming as immigrants, we are usually pretty chill with letting them go. The only groups who catch flak are the drug dealers, smugglers, and coyotes. Otherwise, the US Militia Movement on it's own practices catch-and-release. Hell sometimes they are willing to drive people to the nearest town with a consulate so they don't end up dead in the desert. [quote]Number Three: Zero tolerance for criminal aliens.[/quote] Good. If you come to our country with the intent of doing crime, you shouldn't be allowed in our country. [quote]Number Four: Block Funding For Sanctuary Cities[/quote] Yes, please do this! These cities are a fucking nuisance in the south because they openly allow any migrants to house within them, and effectively lockdown any chances of the US Border Patrol or ICE from doing much against them. Where the US Militia groups will actually deliver people to consulates or the USBP, these towns and cities have a bad habit of simply releasing actual criminals outside their city limits and leaving them be. [quote]Number Five: Cancel Unconstitutional Executive Orders & Enforce All Immigration Laws[/quote] If this is about the executive orders which are disallowing ranchers from dealing with people on their property and such, yeah I'm down. Someone would have to explain to me the full-nature of this statement before I give an honest view. [quote]Number Six: We Are Going To Suspend The Issuance Of Visas To Any Place Where Adequate Screening Cannot Occur[/quote] Good idea. We should also make it so if border crossings are not properly manned, the federal government will send US Military Police to aid with the screening of immigrants. [quote]Number Seven: We will ensure that other countries take their people back when we order them deported[/quote] Mexico and most Latin America countries tend to be good about this, but we have had cases in the past where some countries will refuse to take back their citizens and these folk in a really bad legal-limbo where they have the possibility of being detained for an unlimited amount of time or simply catch and released by the local areas they are found in. The only realistic way I could see this being implemented is by exchanging people in holding within the countries which the person is being deported too. [quote]Number Eight: We will finally complete the biometric entry-exit visa tracking system.[/quote] Oh my god, yes. Stuff like this should be implemented, anyway. It greatly reduces the amount of people trafficking drugs into our country, and would allow for redflags on people who have been caught before. This should be implemented without any further waiting. [quote]Number Nine: We will turn off the jobs and benefits magnet.[/quote] Impractical, but I understand why this would need to be done. In order to deal with illegal immigration, we would need to go after the agricultural and landscaping sectors which have a horrendous habit of hiring people from coyote dens and only giving them slave-tier wages. If we cannot hire people with at least a few dollars above minimum wage, we shouldn't be hiring. Its as simple as that. [quote]Number 10: We will reform legal immigration to serve the best interests of America and its workers[/quote] From what I can gather, the idea behind this point is that they intend on dealing with abuses relating to the current work-visa system, while also improving and shortening the time needed to become a naturalized US Citizen. I'm all for this, because overall immigration should be something which improves our nation as a whole, and not simply making certain companies richer by underpaying people.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50983934]Cool, people will take my words out of context. I'm used to it by now. People think that's the reason I'm voting for Trump and won't listen any of the actual reasons I'm voting Trump. I put it out there for arguments sake and if people want to think of me as a [insert label here] because I brought it up then I can't stop them.[/QUOTE] I don't know why you are trying to walk away from this, I thought you made a compelling argument. I'm now voting for Trump because I'm a straight white male. [QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50985356]He has a business history rather than a political history. I've always wanted non-politicians in major offices (especially scientists) because politicians do their work based on manipulating people, for better or worse. The business world is sink or swim in terms of success and forces people to continually do something productive. I would prefer that mentality running the country.[/QUOTE] He wrote a book describing how he manipulated people to make money. Is this post real. [QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50985356]As an engineering student, I am extremely interested in his plans to overhaul American infrastructure. The border wall is the most well known but not the most interesting to me. I would like to see how he plans to upgrade transportation and city infrastructure.[/QUOTE] Selling a wall on the border as an infrastructure project in the same vein as bridges and roadways is disingenious, but that aside, what specifically has Trump said about infrastructure that he wants to do, and how will he institute these plans with a tax program that would cost the US government billions of dollars over successive years? [QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50985356]I like some of his immigration policies compared to what we have now. No one has really attempted to fix or improve it as far as I know. I won't guarantee that the wall or deportation policies will work, but I don't see anyone else proposing new ideas on immigration reform that enforce coming to the country legally. Instead I see amnesty proposals for people who broke the law, and if you grant amnesty to people who don't go through our immigration system, then there's no point in having an immigration system, or a border, or even US Citizenship rights for that matter.[/QUOTE] Clinton and Johnson both have comprehensive immigration plans that align with their party platform. Just because they aren't building a wall and promising deportations beginning immedietly upon swearing in doesn't mean they don't have immigration reform. [QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50985356]2nd Amendment wasn't a huge issue for me until Scalia died, and now the SCOTUS needs new justices. I think that the 2nd Amendment is a vital part of American culture, and the [I]opportunity[/I] to own a firearm is an American right. When criminals are using firearms to commit robbery, rape, murder, or massacres, I would prefer having the option to defend myself and others with a legally owned gun rather than submitting or waiting for the police to arrive. The 2nd Amendment could be overturned by liberal justices appointed by Clinton and rendered void. I respect gun control and background checks, however the SCOTUS situation concerns me.[/QUOTE] Genuinely one of the few reasons I can see why people would vote Trump over Clinton, there is no argument that he is better on guns, but the idea that SCOTUS would overturn the second amendment is absolutely ludicrous and pure baseless propaganda from the Trump campaign.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50985356]He has a business history rather than a political history. I've always wanted non-politicians in major offices (especially scientists) because politicians do their work based on manipulating people, for better or worse. The business world is sink or swim in terms of success and forces people to continually do something productive. I would prefer that mentality running the country.[/QUOTE] Call me crazy, but politicians usually know how to manipulate people because they know how the law actually [I][B]works[/B][/I] Sure, we want all actual scientists and engineers actually participating in the decision making process, but can we expect them, people already trained and especialized in a single complicated field, to [I]also[/I] know and remember all the laws and regulations involved? [B]That[/B] is why they have scientists, economists, engineers and other people as advisors. The politician is the one with the power and ability to actually get the project [B]moving[/B] Jesus, I can't believe I'm actually trying to defend them. Your argument is just THAT awful
[QUOTE=T553412;50985708]Call me crazy, but politicians usually know how to manipulate people because they know how the law actually [I][B]works[/B][/I] Sure, we want all actual scientists and engineers actually participating in the decision making process, but can we expect them, people already trained and especialized in a single complicated field, to [I]also[/I] know and remember all the laws and regulations involved? [B]That[/B] is why they have scientists, economists, engineers and other people as advisors. The politician is the one with the power and ability to actually get the project [B]moving[/B] Jesus, I can't believe I'm actually trying to defend them. Your argument is just THAT awful[/QUOTE] 2016 is the year of "We don't need politicians or experts". I'm pretty sure most Trump supporters don't even want a businessman, they want a strongman to confirm their biases and promise them the stars with no real path to get there.
[QUOTE=T553412;50985708]Call me crazy, but politicians usually know how to manipulate people because they know how the law actually [I][B]works[/B][/I] Sure, we want all actual scientists and engineers actually participating in the decision making process, but can we expect them, people already trained and especialized in a single complicated field, to [I]also[/I] know and remember all the laws and regulations involved?[/QUOTE] Exactly, [i]lawmakers[/i] tend to have a background in law because they need to understand current legislature very well, not because lawyers are especially slimy and manipulative, or whatever. Obviously having scientists in an advisory role is very beneficial, but anyone who wants the government to be run by scientists or a full-blown technocracy has no idea how shitty academic politics are.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50985356]He has a business history rather than a political history. I've always wanted non-politicians in major offices (especially scientists) because politicians do their work based on manipulating people, for better or worse. The business world is sink or swim in terms of success and forces people to continually do something productive. I would prefer that mentality running the country.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure businessmen have a history of manipulating and even lying to people to force out as much profits as possible
[QUOTE=MasterKade;50985758]I'm pretty sure businessmen have a history of manipulating and even lying to people to force out as much profits as possible[/QUOTE] The [URL="http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.VZ5lrLeKyV5"]oil industry did exactly that when you look at climate change[/URL].
Again The joke writes itself. Let's rival Chinese infrastructure spending with a [b]fucking wall[/b]
I don't understand how Mexico will pay for the wall. They already said they won't so how is "they don't know it yet" going to happen?
I'm voting Trump primarily because I disagree with how the Democrat party handles the 2nd Amendment, how the Democrat party's platform is carelessly letting over 12 million people into our country without much thought of the implications, cannot stand how the Democrats are being sorta taken over by the same SJW-types that made feminism and atheist movements unbearable to be apart of... Just a lot of things really. Another set of issues I have is with how the likes of welfare is handled, as some of you know I'd rather push for something called the Nomad Migration Act, which states that we go about the creation of a federal agency which has it's focus with equipping people with the experience to get a job, introduces them to job sites across the country, and helps with expenses to move and house oneself and their family when finding a new job. It also is in my belief that we need to create a program similar to the "government cheese" program of the 70's - 90's. By making it somewhat illegal to throw away "bruised" foods and having it so these foods are sent to government centers where they are then delivered to poorer populations. Not only does this deal with food scarcity issues in the poorer economies, but it also makes sure that we don't constantly waste a great deal of food which is usually subsidized by the federal government. Overall, if we are going to help the poor, we shouldn't be just throwing money into a hole. We need to put systems in place which help people get better and put their feet on the ground to get the American Dream that most people want. oh... And every state should have a state bank, akin to the Bank of North Dakota. States should be responsible for their incomes, and those incomes need to be made in such a way where states would need to be competetive with other states.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50985779]Again The joke writes itself. Let's rival Chinese infrastructure spending with a [b]fucking wall[/b][/QUOTE] How am I going to fix immigration? Well it's simple folks. We're going to build a great, great wall. A wall bigger and better than the Chinese wall. I mean, china beats us in wall building. When China builds walls they put work into it. America needs a bigger and better wall than China, and I'm going to build it. This wall will be the best wall around believe me folks. It's gonna be so tall only giraffes can see over it. Do you know how many giraffes live in America? How many zoos we got? Mexico is building zoos for their giraffes and we can't build those zoos because Mexican giraffes are killing us. When America goes great we will make it great for giraffes I can assure you. There are like a thousand zoos in America - I can assure you of that look it up folks. These zoos have giraffes, lots and lots of giraffes. Have you ever seen a giraffe in New York? People call me up and say "giraffes in Manhattan?" listen folks, they were there on 9/11. I sold dvds on giraffes, I pay good money for American giraffes. Giraffes love me, they love America, and they love you all. Thank you so much fellas I love you all. Make America great again!
if he wants to stop illegal immigration completely he should also make plans to build a wall around the US-Canadian border
[QUOTE=Scorpo;50985873]if he wants to stop illegal immigration completely he should also make plans to build a wall around the US-Canadian border[/QUOTE] Also we need to make it out of ice. Also enlist a border patrol that criminals can be sent to join as punishment. The patrol has to take life long oaths of service to the wall, never breaking your oath, and never marrying. It also needs to be 3 miles tall. We need to keep out the Snarks, Grumpkins, and Others.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;50984045]Haha, so are we going to hear any retractions from the people who were saying that he flip-flopped on this issue?[/QUOTE] Why? This was from just a few days ago: [quote]Trump told the group of conservative Hispanic leaders he would announce a plan to grant legal status "that wouldn't be citizenship but would allow them to be here without fear of deportation," Monty said.[/quote] [url]http://www.univision.com/univision-news/politics/trump-now-says-he-plans-to-legalize-some-undocumented-immigrants[/url] He's shifting back and forth pretty blatantly.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50985728]2016 is the year of "We don't need politicians or experts". I'm pretty sure most Trump supporters don't even want a businessman, they want a strongman to confirm their biases and promise them the stars with no real path to get there.[/QUOTE] Maybe, just MAYBE that sentiment wouldn't have risen if the establishment didn't totally shit the goddamn bed in 2015 while being insanely arrogant about it. Plus, it isn't like the establishment has been great with actually solving issues either. Especially in Europe, and especially that one leader who Clinton wants to emulate as much as possible. She also made ridiculous promises that in no way could be fulfilled to the continent that ended up backfiring hard within no time.
[QUOTE=Jordax;50985993]Maybe, just MAYBE that sentiment wouldn't have risen if the establishment didn't totally shit the goddamn bed in 2015 while being insanely arrogant about it. Plus, it isn't like the establishment has been great with actually solving issues either. Especially in Europe, and especially that one leader who Clinton wants to emulate as much as possible. She also made ridiculous promises that in no way could be fulfilled to the continent that ended up backfiring hard within no time.[/QUOTE] Voting for Trump as an anti-establishment candidate doesn't really make sense. Sure, he's not someone from within the political machine, but he's backing big oil, the worst of agribusiness, coal, insurance companies, and big business in general. He's also proposing to shrink civil liberties all over the place. The last I checked these were fairly establishment positions. The only thing that's sort of anti-establishment would be some of his immigration policies, but a lot of what he's proposed is either already going on, or used to be our policy before we revised things. Voting for Trump because he's an "outsider" isn't really based in reality considering his policy proposals and the fact that he has regularly consorted with these politicians for years anyway.
[QUOTE=Jordax;50985993]Maybe, just MAYBE that sentiment wouldn't have risen if the establishment didn't totally shit the goddamn bed in 2015 while being insanely arrogant about it. Plus, it isn't like the establishment has been great with actually solving issues either. Especially in Europe, and especially that one leader who Clinton wants to emulate as much as possible. She also made ridiculous promises that in no way could be fulfilled to the continent that ended up backfiring hard within no time.[/QUOTE] Comparing Clinton to Merkel falls apart when you realize that they are opposed on nearly every major policy position, including immigration, particularly immigration from Syria and other Middle Eastern countries. If the best you have is the fact that you don't like Merkel and Clinton said she likes Merkel once and so therefore Americans should abandon logic and rally behind someone who has no experience and seemingly no interest in governance then I remain unconvinced.
If people honestly think the wall is the best way to solve immigration problems they shouldn't be able to vote. It surprises me how they can even breathe
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;50986105]If people honestly think the wall is the best way to solve immigration problems they shouldn't be able to vote. It surprises me how they can even breathe[/QUOTE] I'm in favor of a secure border, because if it's not secure there is no reason to have a border, but what OvB suggested earlier seems much more practical to me. I'm opposed to the wall purely for its inefficiency in solving a problem I don't necessarily disagree needs solving. As it stands though, when illegal immigration is on a downward trend one has to argue if it's worth investing more in border security at all. It's like creating more gun laws when gun crimes are already on the decline.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50986142]I'm in favor of a secure border, because if it's not secure there is no reason to have a border, but what OvB suggested earlier seems much more practical to me.[/QUOTE] What I mean is the whole Trumpwall [editline]1st September 2016[/editline] And does everyone forget that the last time a successful nation built a wall to keep people out they got conquered anyways
[QUOTE=MasterKade;50984529]If you wanted controversial change, it's not a good idea to vote for the guy [B]who calls Hillary and Obama the creators of a terrorist organization[/B], an incredibly fucking extreme accusation, double down on it, then turn your back on it saying it was sarcasm, and then saying it was sarcasm but also not really you should have voted sanders[/QUOTE] People take things too damn literally. What he meant was simply that their foreign policy in Iraq created a situation that left fertile breeding grounds for a group like ISIS to come into play. It doesn't take a scholar to figure that out. What, do you think he literally means that Obama and Hillary sat down and actually founded ISIS together? I'm not defending Trump - I would say the same thing if Hillary said it, but people seriously need to stop taking every word at face value (IN BOTH PARTIES). This is the same thing when he called himself "Mr. Brexit" and news sites were saying that everyone was baffled by this comment. It takes about 10 seconds of thought to figure he was comparing himself to brexit because brexit voters were against the establishment in the way that really nobody in the government wanted to leave. This is like how Trump keeps saying he's running against the establishment.
[QUOTE=Blazyd;50986414]People take things too damn literally. What he meant was simply that their foreign policy in Iraq created a situation that left fertile breeding grounds for a group like ISIS to come into play. It doesn't take a scholar to figure that out. What, do you think he literally means that Obama and Hillary sat down and actually founded ISIS together? I'm not defending Trump - I would say the same thing if Hillary said it, but people seriously need to stop taking every word at face value (IN BOTH PARTIES).[/QUOTE] [QUOTE] In an interview with radio personality Hugh Hewitt, Trump said his decision to use the term “founder” was “no mistake.” “You meant that [Obama] created the vacuum, he lost the peace,” said Hewitt. “No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS, I do,” responded Trump.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Blazyd;50986414]People take things too damn literally. What he meant was simply that their foreign policy in Iraq created a situation that left fertile breeding grounds for a group like ISIS to come into play. It doesn't take a scholar to figure that out. What, do you think he literally means that Obama and Hillary sat down and actually founded ISIS together? I'm not defending Trump - I would say the same thing if Hillary said it, but people seriously need to stop taking every word at face value (IN BOTH PARTIES). This is the same thing when he called himself "Mr. Brexit" and news sites were saying that everyone was baffled by this comment. It takes about 10 seconds of thought to figure he was comparing himself to brexit because brexit voters were against the establishment in the way that really nobody in the government wanted to leave. This is like how Trump keeps saying he's running against the establishment.[/QUOTE] At the time he did mean that Obama was the literal founder of ISIS. A conservative radio host tried to say that he meant Obama's foreign policy paved the way for them, but Trump interjected & said that Obama was the founder of ISIS. It was only a few days latter after the negative backlash did he claim he was being sarcastic. There's no deeper meaning to his statements. He just says outlandish things because they appease his voting base. [B]Edit[/B]: ^^What Raidyr posted^^
[QUOTE=Blazyd;50986414]People take things too damn literally. What he meant was simply that their foreign policy in Iraq created a situation that left fertile breeding grounds for a group like ISIS to come into play. It doesn't take a scholar to figure that out. What, do you think he literally means that Obama and Hillary sat down and actually founded ISIS together? I'm not defending Trump - I would say the same thing if Hillary said it, but people seriously need to stop taking every word at face value (IN BOTH PARTIES). This is the same thing when he called himself "Mr. Brexit" and news sites were saying that everyone was baffled by this comment. It takes about 10 seconds of thought to figure he was comparing himself to brexit because brexit voters were against the establishment in the way that really nobody in the government wanted to leave. This is like how Trump keeps saying he's running against the establishment.[/QUOTE] just keep drinking that orange kool aid
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.