Wednesday, March 2, 2016

Trump: “We have a big big problem – radical Islamic terrorism – big, big problem, not only for us but look at Germany, Sweden, Brussels – it's a disaster!"

This was from Donald Trump's Super Tuesday victory speech/press conference last night. The reporter's question was impossible to hear, but it presumably referenced Trump's promise to temporarily halt Muslim immigration into this country. Here was his response:
Gotta find out what's going on. We got a big problem. We have a big, big problem. I'll tell it like it is. We have a big, big problem. We gotta figure it out. We're gonna figure it out--radical Islamic terrorism--big, big problem. Not only for us. You take a look at Germany, You take a look at Sweden. You take a look at Brussels. You look at some of these places--it's like a disaster. And we're not going to allow people to come into our country, who we have no idea who they are, we have no idea where they come from, they have no paperwork, they're young and they're strong. You look at that migration line. They're young, they're strong, they're powerful and you say why aren't they back fighting for their country?
Watch the full video below. The above comment comes at approximately 22:46:

Chris Christie, who had just introduced Trump, is one of the most pro-Muslim politicians in the Republican party (see here, here, here and here) so it was interesting to watch his facial expressions as Trump defended his immigration ban. But then Christie would suck up to anyone, especially if offered a free all-you-can-eat buffet pass at the Trump Taj Mahal.

On the issue of Islam, I was critical of Trump here. But concerning this most important political issue of our time, I don't think there's any question that short of coming out full-on Muhammad-was-a-pedophile-Islamophobe, the part of his answer where he addresses the crisis in Europe is spot on. The interesting thing is that neither Sweden nor Germany has had a terror attack in the last few years (though they have probably foiled a number of them) so Trump is also referencing the crime, social disruption and general level of fear that large scale Muslim immigration has created in those countries. Thus, I suppose Trump's "radical Islamic terrorism" is partly a euphemism. But I think we all understand what he means.  

In Florida last night, Trump called what was happening in Europe a disaster. A few minutes later in Texas, Ted Cruz also used the word "disaster," but this time it was to describe the potential GOP nomination of Donald Trump.

Trump is looking and acting more and more like a winner. It's hard to see how those who take the Islamic threat seriously shouldn't at least be considering the possibility that this may not be such a horrible thing. 


  1. We were always Sen. Cruz supporters. But Donald Trump is the right man at the right time. Millions of Americans see how it is and what trouble we are in for many reasons. We see what the sellout GOP is doing and how the media is far too powerful and intrusive. Things are apparently going to get even more ugly, as now they are using a phony "controversy" about the KKK to imply Donald Trump is a bigot and racist, when there is no evidence at all this is the case.
    We agree with him 100% on Muslim immigration and all immigration. We completely disagree with the pope and the USCCB on this topic, among others.

  2. Trump talks and talks and says nothing. Look at your excerpt again. "It's a problem." "Big problem." "Big big Problem" "And we're going to fix it."

    He starts to imply that his immigration program will screen people and will keep the unscreened would-beimigrants out, that it will be stricter: "Why aren't these young, strong men fighting for their cvountries?" but he offers no specifics. He's all sales and no demonstration or test-drive.

  3. Trump is as much a Statist as is Obama. His entertaining notions of exec-ordering the 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, 2nd Amendment out of existence, practically deleting the role of Congress, and his love affair with PP should be warnings, no?

    But if you're campaigning for War Against the Muslims, Rubio is your guy, not Trump.

  4. Trump is hated by a vast majority of America, and nearly every poll (including Fox News) shows him losing to Hilary. In contrast, nearly every poll shows Cruz (and even lamesauce Rubio) beating Hilary in the general election. What is he going to say to Hilary? He donated to her for years! Trump is anything but a winner. Moreover, how can anyone trust someone who broke the most fundamental and basic promise a man can make, to love and care for his wife for the rest of their natural lives together...and broke it three times! Do you really think he will honor this "promise?" Remember, this is the guy who said just two weeks ago, "And once you get to a certain level, it changes. I will be changing very rapidly. I’m very capable of changing to anything I want to change to." Read that again. He's a congenial liar. His phony holding up of "his mother's bible". You're seriously buying that? What about his use of illegal immigrants in his building projects? Trump is a complete and total fraud.

    Also, does he even have executive authority to do that? The answer is unequivocal: no, he clearly does not. He is not the emperor of America. The President is not an autocrat. Moreover, even if he did have this power, which he doesn't, a blanket ban on muslims would be immediately shot down by every Federal court in the country as a violation of the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act. You may not like that, but what you like is irrelevant in our judicial system. None of these "promises" are things Trump can ever even hope to accomplish. Look, I agree with you, but Trump is simply incapable of delivering. First because he's totally unelectable, second because he's legally prohibited from doing these things. There is also no way in hell he'd ever get the Congressional support he'd need to do half the stuff he claims he'll do.

    You're being totally clowned. Can't you see that? The media love Trump because they know his nomination makes Hilary a shoe-in. It won't even be close. Why do you think they give him almost unlimited free airtime? Because they know he's got no chance against Hilary, that's why. If he did get the nomination, the Media would have no trouble destroying him. He's one of the most high-profile sleaze bags in America. They'll get him nominated, then expose him as the despicable person he is. He's a scandal machine- four bankruptcies, fraud lawsuits for his sham "Trump University," appearing on the cover of Playboy, his daddy buying his way into Wharton, countless affairs, abuse of eminent domain, giving thousands to the Clintons, a rabid abortion supporter for decades and only switching when it was politically expedient, alluding to an incestuous relationship with his daughter, saying he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue (hyperbole, yes, but still a sick thing to say), his filthy and vulgar tongue, threatening to sue for negative stories about him, creating an "enimies list" of people he will take down when elected, a clueless idiot who is absolutely unfit and unqualified to nominate a Supreme Court Justice, the litany just goes on and on.

    You seem like a smart guy, but supporting Trump is a massive error of judgment. I won't be surprised if you don't post this. Despite their claim for loving tough talk, I've found most Trump supporters don't handle facts or people who disagree with them very well.

  5. Aneas: With respect, read the post again. It's not exactly a letter of support for the man or his candidacy. I don't necessarily disagree with most of what you or the other anti-Trump people said. But summing up the pros and cons of Trump as a whole was not the point of the piece.

    I will disagree on two things though:

    1. If it came down to Trump vs. Hilary or Sanders, I'd vote for Trump in a nanosecond. That's if the race were close. If it were not close, I'd vote for some third-party candidate and then brag to my friends about how pure and principled I am.

    2. I think Trump would be the strongest candidate against Clinton. I'm not saying that because I like him better than Cruz or whatever. I'm saying that because of how I read the evidence--the actual votes, turnout and exit poll answers, etc. I know you'll come back at me with those polls that suggest he's the weakest candidate. I think those polls are wrong. I'm not saying that because I want them to be wrong. Actually I want the favorable one about Cruz to be right. But I do not think it is.

    Whether you like Trump or not, most people on both sides have massively underestimated him. The prediction markets give him a 75% chance of winning the nomination and a 33% chance (much higher than any other Republican) of winning the presidency.

    One thing is for sure, though. If the Romney-McCain model is chosen again, the Republicans will lose again.

    1. Well, we differ in at least this respect: if Trump is the nominee, no matter HOW close it is, I will NOT vote for him.

      Nor will I vote for the (D) puke, of course.

      Can't support at Statist. With HRC, the indictment will keep her from doing anything, anyway.

  6. He appears to believe Brussels is a country.