Browse By

Donald Trump Calls for the Exclusion of All Muslims from the United States Again — With No Exceptions

“He’s calling for a temporary shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until we can figure out what’s going on.” — narrator of Donald Trump’s first television advertisement.

“I’m Donald Trump and I approve this message.” — Donald Trump, in his first television advertisement.

There are no qualifications of this declaration in Donald Trump’s advertisement.  He just called for a “shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”  Period.

There are a lot of problems with Donald Trump’s blanket declaration.  I would like Donald Trump to meet one just of those problems.  I would like Donald Trump to meet an old college roommate of mine.  His name is Jeff.  He’s an American citizen.  He’s a Muslim.  He goes on business trips outside the country.  Donald Trump would prevent him from coming back.

Why?  Because Donald Trump hasn’t “figured out what’s going on.”

This is no way to lead a nation.  And if you think Donald Trump’s declaration blanket ban on Muslim travel out of and then back into the country is a good idea, then you’re part of the problem.

17 thoughts on “Donald Trump Calls for the Exclusion of All Muslims from the United States Again — With No Exceptions”

  1. DrRGP says:

    Ah, more needless worry for my friends at Irregular Times. Mr. Trump is predicted (by the redoubtable Kiplinger editors) to fade during the Iowa and N. H. primaries, and Mr. Cruze is expected to take the point, after which the GOP establishment, which hates Mr. Cruze almost at much as it hates Mr. Trump, will most likely back Mr. Rubio or a reemergent Mr. Christy (or someone else).

    But, in all foreseeable cases, Mr. Trump does not win the Republican nomination. And, no matter who wins that, Mrs. Clinton is the heavy favourite among the oddsmakers, who, as you must know, have the best overall record at predicting anything at all. Right now, $11 on Mrs. Clinton will get you $8 if she wins. Meanwhile, the Republican favourite, Mr. Rubio, is a 5 to 1 long shot.

    So try to get a good night’s sleep at Irregular Times. Rest assured, then, the country is going to hell with the Democrats leading the way.

  2. Korky Day says:

    Just because the ad doesn’t waste any of its 30 seconds mentioning exceptions doesn’t mean there won’t be any. You haven’t learned Donald Trump’s style. He’s a developer, not a lawyer.

    And DrRGP, I trust few to give unbiased opinions. They all might be trying to affect the outcome with their ‘predictions’. I think they and you are all underestimating Trump. When you don’t have to please your rich donors, you’re much more free to ‘wing it’ (be free and creative), which might just win it.

    1. J Clifford says:

      Korky, I’ve learned Donald Trump’s style.

      1. Pump up the hate and fear.

      2. Propose the persecution of a minority.

      3. Bask in the increased support from Republicans value nationalism and security over constitutional democracy.

      4. Repeat.

      I do agree with you Korky, that we should not underestimate the degree to which hate and fear will drive the Republican base to support Donald Trump. I didn’t think he’d last two months. It turns out that Republican voters are even more venal than I had thought they were.

      1. Korky Day says:

        The last Clinton administration persecuted the poor, which included a much larger share of racial minorities and women. Hillary is not apologizing for that. Donald Trump stirs up hope that he’d help the working class. The proven bad (Clinton) vs. the uncertain good promises (Trump). Trump appeals to all races. He’s never said a racist comment that I know of. Anti-religious, yes. Against law-breakers, yes. Sexist, yes, but he’s getting better. If Hillary can forgive Bill, Trump’s women supporters can see his improvement, too. Besides, though Trump has made typically sexist comments, none of his policies are sexist.

  3. Leroy says:

    DrRGP,

    An excellent point.

    Oddsmakers are, of course, in their business for economic reasons, that is how they make their living. And people actually do vote on election outcomes (just as they do with sporting activities, and pretty much anything else where there is any kind of public interest).

    So while pollsters might develop a survey question that would have a potentially biased inclined response (based on their opinion), that would be DISASTROUS for any oddsmaker. They win or lose very large amounts of money based on their research (very detailed research) so really keep opinions out of it (plus posted odds are generally the average of the top oddsmaker individuals / groups – who are all usually within fractions of points with each other).

    Obviously as facts would change, the odds can change. If Trump doesn’t get the nomination (or at some point through the primaries realizes that he isn’t going to) and pulls out to run as a Third Party independent, the oddsmaker would quickly scramble to change the POSTED odds. Let’s say that happens and Rubio does get the GOP nomination. The odds of Hillary winning the general election would skyrocket. And the odds against Rubio winning would likely go to at least 50-1 against. And of course the odds against Trump winning would be at least 100 – 1 against. Now those numbers are MY OPINION – but oddsmaker would tell you that they probably aren’t that far off. (Personally I hope that this is the sequence that unfolds, as watching Trump destroy the GOP would be delicious).

    I would imagine that such facts may be beyond the understanding of some of those in Canada who really don’t understand American electoral processes and how black and White issues are just that… black and White. Factual, not opinion. That when a candidate clearly says something, that it is exactly what they mean (and that especially cowardly ones don’t have a “special ability” to know what it was that the candidate “really meant” – which gets exceptionally nauseous over time).

    But I agree with the original poster overall. While the antics and Fascist positions and policies of Trump DO need to be highlighted, there also needs to be the rationale to understand that his likelihood of winning the GOP primary is minimal and of winning the general election non existent.

    (In fact, rather than giving him the fearful, horrified attention that attracts those extreme fringe voters – and non voters – that making fun of how irrational his positions / policies are and then otherwise ignoring him AFTER making that point… he craves the attention, I believe that is more importantly to him rather than if he ultimately wins or not and being ignored would drive him crazy… that same stance is a good one to use also with foreigners who are Chickenhawks who try to agitate the American voting process by highlighting the “love relationship” that they have with a certified war-mongering fascist Republican candidate).

    Again, DrGRP, thank you for a well reasoned post.

    1. Leroy says:

      By the way, DrGRP, did you catch this:

      “Video footage later in the ad shows people apparently streaming freely across a border as a narrator says Trump will ‘stop illegal immigrants by building a wall on our southern border that Mexico will pay for.’

      Facing questions from news outlets, the Trump campaign acknowledged in a statement Monday that the border images were of a Spanish enclave in Morocco, not the U.S.-Mexican border.”

      Apparently he was called out on this LIE by Bill O’Reilly (will wonders never cease) and Trump got quite grouchy about it!

      Also Mexico continued to insist that it most assuredly is NOT paying for such a wall.

      (I hope that he does build one though as I am putting together a consortium that is going to buy old fishing trawlers, have them gutted of everything but engines and running controls and barely renovated mechanically and then use them to transport illegals from coastal areas of eastern Mexico to deserted areas along the southern COAST of the U. S. – there’s a huge strip that stretches from the tip of Texas to the tip of Florida with lots of areas that are undeveloped – along the Gulf. With what “mules” currently charge illegals for crossing by vans and pick-up, the way that the vast majority come across, not by walking, we should make a fortune… if the depleted Coast Guard, thanks to GOP cuts, should begin to intercept a trawler here or there then the crew simply puts out an SOS, abandon ship on the one small lifeboat available, setting off short fused incendiary and explosive devices as they leave. The trawler burns and sinks, the legal crew – the only known documented passengers, are recovered and another old fishing trawler is sunk by “accident”… of course the 100-200 illegals jammed on board – it’s it a few hours nighttime operation – are killed of course, but they are just lousy illegal immigrants who are mostly felonious criminals anyway)

    2. Leroy says:

      Also, as reported in one major media:

      Mr Trump, in a news release announcing the advert, said that his campaign is currently $35 million (£24 million) “under budget”. He added that he wasn’t sure he needed to spend money on television commercials, but “I don’t want to take any chances”.
      While Mr Trump spent about $300,000 on three radio adverts last fall, the release says his new television campaign will cost about $2 million (£1.4 million) a week in the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire.

      According to a recent report in the New York Times, however, the Trump campaign has yet to reserve airtime in either state – which casts some doubts about the actual size of the advertising purchase.

      The content of the advert has some analysts scratching their heads, however. According to the Atlantic’s David Graham, a new television campaign traditionally aims to appeal to voters not already in the candidate’s camp.

      “If the point of these ads is to win over new voters, is a recap of months-old messages the most effective way to do it?” he asks.

    3. Korky Day says:

      Hi, Leroy. You haven’t mentioned that the oddsmakers give Trump the third-best odds, behind only Clinton and Rubio.

      http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner

      I hope that in November it’s
      Donald Trump vs. Bernie Sanders vs. Jill Stein.
      (And those are my preferences in reverse order.)
      Even if Trump bolts, he still has an excellent chance of winning. Most US Americans are sick of the Duopoly. That’s why Ross Perot almost won in 1992.

  4. DrRGP says:

    Thank you for your well-informed, balanced, and workmanlike rejoinder.

  5. Leroy says:

    Meanwhile, our local homegrown White insurrectionists aren’t getting the public response that they had hoped for.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/oregon-militants-referred-yallqaeda-vanillaisis-armed-2016-1

    What a shame (LOL!)

      1. Korky Day says:

        Thanks, Leroy, for that article by Eugene Robinson, ‘The Dividing Lines of Race, Ethnicity, and Religion’.
        Too short and a little disappointing, but I agreed with most of it.

        I guess that Eugene Robinson is Black, but he doesn’t make it clear. He tried to show unity with other non-Whites and with Muslims, which is the worst idea of the article. American-heritage Blacks are unlikely to become mass killers of civilians or to become suicide bombers, even if they are Muslim. Other Muslims are more likely to, and not just statistically, but BECAUSE OF their bloodthirsty, stupid, intolerant religion.

        Brown Armenians like me are also unlikely to be problems in that way. Christianity is less likely to create killers of random civilians than is Islam. Both religions, though, are dangerous, especially when combined with psychiatry, which makes people crazy with psychiatric drugs, pretending to cure or ‘manage’ them.

        Most of the mass killings in the USA by non-Muslims have been by people made crazy (or kept crazy) with psychiatric drugs. So the instigators of intentional death we have most to fear are the Koran, psychiatric dope, and guns.

  6. Korky Day says:

    The last I looked, Trump’s odds have improved in just a few days from ‘1 in 8’ chances to ‘1 in 6’. He’s closing in on Clinton and Rubio.

    1. Korky Day says:

      Donald Trump has moved up in likelihood to win the presidency, according to the bookies. He’s now tied for second place with Marco Rubio at 11/2 odds. Before that he was third with 6/1 odds (one chance in 6).

  7. Korky Day says:

    The bookies have just moved Donald Trump up to undisputed second place, with Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio both slipping.

    Decimal odds:
    1st Clinton 1.91
    2nd Trump 5.5
    3rd Rubio 7

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner

  8. DrRGP says:

    Korky Day: “Decimal odds”? Thanks for the update, but what, in layman’s terms, do 1.91 and 5.5 mean? Thanks, RGP

    1. Korky Day says:

      I am a rank amateur, DrRGP, and have never formally bet. If you click on the link, you’ll see as much as I know.

      I guess if you bet a dollar on Hillary, you’ll get 1.91$ if she wins, and if you bet a dollar on Trump, you’ll get 5.50$ if he wins. All the others are deemed less likely to win, so if you bet, you win more $ but it’s less likely you’ll win.

      You can click on the left to switch between fractions and decimals.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!