Trump is All In

all in 2

Trump’s speech on June 13th destroyed any hope by Republicans that he would pivot to the center or temper his language in an attempt to appear more Presidential. That moderated Trump lasted for a minute or so into his prepared remarks.

Then the RealDonaldTrump returned to take advantage of this national tragedy. He doubled down on his agenda of bigotry and xenophobia.

In no uncertain terms, he claimed that the very existence of our country was at risk because of Muslim refugees, immigrants, and even American citizens. He not only reiterated his call for a “temporary” ban on Muslim immigrants but threatened “big consequences” for Muslims living in this country if they failed to report suspected terrorists.

In doing so, Trump aligned himself with the far right nationalist anti-immigrant European movements.

Trump promises to ban all Muslim immigrants until he is able to guarantee a “perfect screen” to eliminate all potential dangers that any particular immigrant might pose. The head of the FBI has already testified that such a screen is impossible.

The Orlando shooter was born in New York. His ex-wife felt that he was violent and bi-polar. Though she said he was religious, he did not regularly attend services. He at various times bragged that he was affiliated with al Qaeda and Hezbollah. Al Qaeda is a Sunni group. Hezbollah is a Shia group. They are mortal enemies and both oppose ISIS. What they and he do share is a violent hatred for gays. Though we may never know all of the details, a picture is emerging of a confused mentally unstable guy who had frequented gay bars and was mostly interested in killing gay people.

That didn’t stop Trump from blaming the killer’s family who emigrated from Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation in the late ‘70’s. Reagan was conducting a proxy war at the time by funding the mujaheddin including Bin Laden. During those same years, 40% of all Afghanis who applied were admitted to this country because they were fleeing Soviet oppression. To hear Trump tell it, this event would have been prevented if we had had the foresight to deny this particular family’s request for asylum 40 years ago.  If we had the opportunity to turn back time, we might also convince Trump’s parents that the world would be a safer place if they stopped at three kids.

To cap it off, in interviews conducted before the speech, Trump suggested that President Obama might have secret motives for what Trump described is Obama’s unwillingness to confront Islamic terrorists.  This is continuation of the conspiracy-laden warnings that Trump started in 2008 when he claimed Obama wasn’t born in this country.  It also ignores recent news on the ground that the Obama lead ISIS strategy has been working in Syria, Libya, and Iraq.  But facts have never been Trump’s strong point.

Whether the Republican Party likes it or not, Trump is determined to make this election a referendum on Trump. In no uncertain terms, he is asking voters to decide whether Latino and Muslim citizens are real Americans.

If Trump wins, he will have his answer and act accordingly.

65 Responses to “Trump is All In”

  1. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Nice try and you are diverting, AGAIN!!!Bringing the case or not bringing it is changing the subject my good friend.

    No it’s not. The case for prosecution for perjury is at the heart of this whole discussion as proven in your next paragraph.

    Comey confirmed she lied about several things. Stop changing the subject. I posted the exact details of that exchange with Gowdy asking specific questions about specific answers Hillary gave to questions she was asked. (Mind you, she also did this consistently over the last year and a half.) She lied. Knowingly.

    Since we both trust that Comey did a thorough investigation, we both have to trust that if Comey could prove that Clinton knowingly lied under oath, he would have recommended prosecution and shared his proof with the public.

    The ONLY reason that he didn’t is because he couldn’t prove it.

    You, on the other hand, have already convicted Clinton WITHOUT proof because of your deep bias against her.

    There is no question that Comey found that some of Clinton’s previous statements to the committee weren’t in fact what happened. What he didn’t find is evidence to support any claim that Clinton was aware of the facts and deliberately lied about them.

    The email server was permitted

    The IG said it wasn’t permitted, but it wasn’t until the IG made their investigation that anyone at the State Department raised the issue that it wasn’t permitted. Comey called out a lax culture at the State Department regarding security. Everyone who received emails from Clinton knew that it was not a State Department server. Comey’s investigation didn’t turn up anyone who objected to that server and sent and email up the chain to Clinton suggesting she stop using it. So it is entirely possible that she had received BAD ADVICE regarding setting up her own server.

    Confidential information

    The FBI was only able to find a couple of emails out of the 60K that they reviews that contained an obscure mark to indicate that some of the data in the email was confidential (not top secret). None of the top-secret email was marked. Comey said the SHOULD have known, but can’t prove that she DID know. If YOU can’t prove that she DID know, you like Comey can’t say that she DID lie.

    Lawyers read every email

    You don’t know what instructions she gave or lawyers or what sort of expectations her lawyers set for her. Comey was unable to find any evidence that she told her lawyers anything other than what she shared with the committee. Until you or someone else is able to come up with evidence that either her lawyers told her they were not going to read every email, or that she told them that just using search terms was OK; you have no proof that she lied. You only have proof that what she said isn’t what they did. That is the difference that you are unwilling to admit is even possible because your bias against this person is so deep.

    If you think she is extremely stupid, ignorant, and unprepared, I will give you that she believed she was being truthful. However, I don’t believe she is extremely stupid, ignorant or unprepared.

    What I believe and what you believe doesn’t make any difference. What Comey found is all that matters. What he found was no evidence that he felt could support a case.

    You are so invested in this meme regarding honesty, that you are unwilling to accept this simple fact. There is no proof. There is no case.

    The American voters are going to make a decision in November. If this is as big a deal as you claim it should be, Trump will win.

    If she wins, a majority of voters will have said that there are other things that they care more about than this.

    Until then I suggest we just put this aside because your only “proof” for this case is your belief that Clinton is untrustworthy. Until you have more proof than that, I consider this just one more of your “emotional” decisions (abortion is murder, climate change is not man-made, etc.) lacking factual support.

  2. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Maureen Dowd has made a career out of criticizing the Clintons. This is just another installment. I’m not impressed.

    She also has her own problem with the truth.

  3. Jeff Beamsley says:

    4 – 8 more years of this. Can’t wait

    I feel the same way regarding this whole conversation. 🙂

  4. Keith says:

    Comey did not put Hillary under oath. her statements contradict what she said under oath to the Benghazi committee. Why would he do anything about that that wasn’t his job.

    Not emotional my friend and neither are the two you mentioned but since but keep up that line of agreement. I find it funny.

    A fertilized egg begins growing unimpedated. A doc scraps or sucks it out. It’s no longer growing. It’s stopped unnaturally. I’m not interested when “science” determines life for their own reasoning and by their own premise. “I.e. development of certain things. This is true and relive t to their premise. It is not true and relevant to life. Appease your conscience however you like, from that argument to “survival out side of the womb.” My 90 year old mother can’t survive outside to womb indendently now. Are you prepared for that agreement one day when “science” argues when a life ISNT an life anymore? Not emotional at all dear Sir.

  5. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Most also say the email controversy won’t affect their vote choice in the presidential election.

    Forty-five percent of Republicans say the issue makes no difference in their vote -– likely meaning they wouldn’t have voted for Clinton anyway -– while another 47 percent say it makes them less apt to support her. Among Democrats, the email issue makes no difference to three-quarters, and 16 percent say it’s strengthened their support (likely given that she wasn’t charged) -– but one in 10 say they’re less likely to vote for her because of it.

    Most independents, 58 percent, say the issue won’t influence their choice, but those who say it’s made them less likely to support Clinton far outnumber those who say it’s made them more apt to vote for her, 33 percent vs. 5 percent.

    This is the beginning of July.

    The issue is already out of the headlines because of the Dallas shooting.

    Clinton is about to get a bump from Bernie and through the rest of the election between now and November, she continue to gain Bernie supporters who will simply be unable to vote for Trump.

    On Tuesday, Clinton will likely see another boost by Sanders himself, who is expected to endorse her.

    Meanwhile, two progressive groups that had backed Sanders in the primary but have held out on supporting Clinton are formally moving into her corner.

    The Dallas shooting is also likely going to help Clinton because it will solidify her support among minorities AND because Trump again appeared somewhat unorganized. He asked the NY Police for an opportunity to address the officers and was denied. Then his campaign chairman in Virginia tried to blame the Dallas shootings on Clinton and Virginia’s Democratic Lt. Governor. The Trump campaign had to respond that the spokesman didn’t speak for the campaign.

    In a speech today, Trump declared himself the “law and order” candidate.

    Not sure how that is going to work for him.

    Critics of Nixon and subsequent Republican candidates who used the slogan described “law and order” as code words for cracking down on African Americans.

    The pro-Clinton group Correct The Record mocked Trump’s claims, noting that he once said he would like to punch a protester in the face and on another occasion discussed paying the legal fees of a supporter who did in fact punch a protester.

    “He is no man of law and order — let alone compassion,” the group said in statement.

    Not much there about email.

  6. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Comey did not put Hillary under oath. her statements contradict what she said under oath to the Benghazi committee. Why would he do anything about that that wasn’t his job.

    Did the FBI release a transcript of their investigation?

    How do you know what she said to the FBI versus what she said to the committee? The committee engaged the FBI. They instructed the FBI to determine if facts squared with her testimony. The FBI came back and said that the facts did not square with her testimony, but her testimony DID square with her understanding at the time she provided it.

    Not emotional my friend and neither are the two you mentioned but since but keep up that line of agreement. I find it funny.

    I’m not interested when “science” determines life for their own reasoning and by their own premise.
    My 90 year old mother can’t survive outside to womb indendently now. Are you prepared for that agreement one day when “science” argues when a life ISNT an life anymore? Not emotional at all dear Sir.

    You say it isn’t an emotional decision and then you discount the unemotional fact-based source of data (science) because you don’t like what they say. Then you raise this absurdist argument regarding the definition of survival. Please do yourself a favor and just admit that this is an emotional/religious issue and we can be done with it.

    Appease your conscience however you like

    My conscience is fine thank you.

    Our government kills in many ways. We kill people using drones and our soldiers. We kill people we’ve convicted of crimes. Our police kill people. We kill people with poverty, addiction, and poor healthcare.

    The Bible tells us to render under Ceasar the things that are Ceasars. The Bible also tells us that we should refrain from judging and instead focus on our own salvation. I pray for guidance and strive to do the best that I can ever day. I don’t worry about the things that I can’t control, but trust that God is the one with the power and doesn’t need my help to sort things out. It’s me that needs His help every day to find my way.

  7. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Police shootings.

    Very interesting article. Thanks for posting it.

    The challenge is, as always the data.

    IMHO, here are the most important paragraphs in the article.

    The study did not say whether the most egregious examples — the kind of killings at the heart of the nation’s debate on police shootings — are free of racial bias. Instead, it examined a much larger pool of shootings, including nonfatal ones. It focused on what happens when police encounters occur, not how often they happen. (There’s a disproportionate number of tense interactions among blacks and the police when shootings could occur, and thus a disproportionate outcome for blacks.) Racial differences in how often police-civilian interactions occur have been shown to reflect greater structural problems in society.

    Official statistics on police shootings are poor. James Comey, the F.B.I. director, has called the lack of data “embarrassing and ridiculous.” Even when data exists, the conditions under which officers decide to fire their weapons are deeply nuanced and complex.

    This last paragraph in particular is key to the issue.

    We don’t know why officers are deciding to use their weapons. What we do know is that officers engage in a higher number of tense interactions with black people because poor neighborhoods have higher crime and poor neighborhoods have a higher percentage of black people.

    eliminating the biases of all police officers would do little to materially reduce the total number of African-American killings

    Looking at the statistics, the best way to reduce the number of blacks being killed is to reduce the number of black getting arrested.

    Jens Ludwig, an economist at the University of Chicago who also directs the Crime Lab there, points out: “Living in a high-poverty neighborhood increases risk of violent-crime involvement, and in the most poor neighborhoods of the country, fully four out of five residents are black or Hispanic.”

    We will not sharply reduce police killings of African-Americans unless we understand the social institutions that intimately tie race and crime. In her book, “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness,” Michelle Alexander argues that the American criminal justice system itself is an instrument of racial oppression. “Mass incarceration operates as a tightly networked system of laws, policies, customs and institutions that operate collectively to ensure the subordinate status of a group defined largely by race,” she says.

    It shouldn’t be surprising that it always comes back to poverty and institutional racism. Hopefully we can find the will in the (hopefully) Clinton administration to take on the issue of poverty and institutional racism. These are the root causes of violence. If we don’t address them, we will continue to experience the racial strife that we are dealing with today.

  8. Keith says:

    I am not suggesting Trump will win. If you look back at my comments over the years i rarely if ever make predictions. Yours above are wrong.

    Cbs poll 40/40. Rasmussen 44-37 Trump.

    Again I am NOT calling Trump the winner and I doubt, unfortunately, that he will.

    Science says a fertilized egg in the womb is a “life” at some point. I accept that science says that and every reason science says that. Science points a a set of conditions where life begins/is call life. So that must be there starting point. I don’t think you would argue those fact?

    It’s a fact also that preceding those sets of facts, and that science appointed time, that 100% percent of the time a sperm fertilized an egg. Every time. Science can’t not reach their appointed point in time, or set of definables, without first the Soren and the egg. At no point is science able to create it’s set of facts to determine life prior to the sperm meeting with the egg. Never. The condition for life does not exist, only after. Those are facts… No emotion here Jeff. Your set of life facts do not exist without first the sperm and egg, ever. Thus, life begins at Soren and egg. Facts.

  9. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Cbs poll 40/40. Rasmussen 44-37 Trump.

    Again I am NOT calling Trump the winner and I doubt, unfortunately, that he will.

    There is still a long way to go before the election.

    Trump is enjoying a bump because of the FBI report on Clinton. But the REAL bump is the growth in the undecided. So far Trump has been able to capture only a small portion of the voters that Clinton lost. She will continue to gain Bernie voters. Not sure where any of Trump’s future gains will come from. We should check again after the conventions when traditionally the REAL campaign starts.

    Trump also has his own legal problems looming. The Trump U judge may rule that the public deserves to see the video’s of the depositions that Trump provided. If so, that will likely drive some of the undecided back into Clinton’s camp.

    Science says a fertilized egg in the womb is a “life” at some point. I accept that science says that and every reason science says that. Science points a a set of conditions where life begins/is call life. So that must be there starting point. I don’t think you would argue those fact?

    As I’ve posted before, science does not agree on when life human life begins.

    Assuming that fertilization and implantation all go perfectly, scientists can reasonably disagree about when personhood begins, says Gilbert. An embryologist might say gastrulation, which is when an embryo can no longer divide to form identical twins. A neuroscientist might say when one can measure brainwaves. As a doctor, Horvath-Cosper says, “I have come to the conclusion that the pregnant woman gets to decide when it’s a person.”

    Even the question of fetal viability is unsettled (from the same article).

    But earlier this year, Bell published a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine showing reasonably good outcomes in preemies born at 22 weeks of gestational age. Two key technologies have pushed that date: the use of steroids, which can speed up fetal development, and surfactants that prevent lungs from collapsing after birth. Still, setting an absolute cutoff for fetal viability is impossible. “It depends on how you define it. Is it some babies survive? Half survive? Or most babies survive?” Bell says. At 22 weeks, many of the babies that survive end up with permanent health problems or disabilities.

    Science generally doesn’t worry about when life begins. They simply differentiate between something that is living and something that is not living. Again as I’ve said before, life doesn’t have a starting point. It is a process. You, however, have a hard time accepting that fact because it undermines your emotional commitment to conception being the point where life starts. It’s not. It’s the point where the process of living starts. But a fertilized egg itself does not satisfy the scientific definition of something that is living.

    There is no value from a scientific or legal perspective to attempt to identify that point either. That’s because IT DOESN’T MATTER. The SCOTUS decided that until that fetus can survive outside the womb of the mother, the mother’s rights to terminate her pregnancy supersede any rights that the fetus might have. You consider it murder. If so, it isn’t the ONLY time that our government decides that the rights of society overrule the rights of the individual. It is no different than the government deciding that society has the right to murder someone convicted of a capital crime, a soldier has the right to murder an enemy combatant on the field of battle, an airman has the right murder a suspected terrorist with a drone strike, a police officer has the right to murder a civilian in the course of doing their job, or (at least in Florida) a gun owner has the right to murder an unarmed civilian.

    If Clinton wins, there will be sufficient support on the SCOTUS to preserve the basic rights outlined in Rowe. The liberal judges will retire and new younger ones will get appointed to replace them. If this occurs, it is HIGHLY unlikely that Rowe will be overturned in your or my lifetime. That’s because there will be whole set of additional SCOTUS decisions over the next 8 years which support that basic decision. The more supporting law, the harder it is for ANY court to take it off the books.

    So my prediction is medical science and millenials will come up with cheap effective long term contraception that will be administered to women (or maybe men) before they are able to bear children in the same way that the human papilloma vaccine is administered today. Parents can choose to opt out, as they can today, but then the only women who will be having unplanned pregnancies will be the children of conservative parents – which seems appropriate (or maybe liberal parents with anti-vaccine biases). Abortion will be strictly a medical option for women who otherwise have chosen to become pregnant but whose pregnancies have medical issues.

    There will be some small group that will continue to argue on religious grounds that preventing conception is also murder, but they will be overruled by the majority of the population who point to the greater good of reducing unwanted pregnancies and reducing demand for elective abortions.

    What will really be interesting to see is how the political industry which feeds off this controversy will pivot once their cash cow in the pro-life/pro-choice controversy goes away. We may see that group (both pro’s) join forces to oppose the widespread application of the vaccine.

  10. Keith says:

    Over all you are correct I think. Clinton is losing support but Trumo has yet to gain her lost support. If he does, he wins. I doubt at the end of the day he does to any degree.

    Life begins at conceptions. Whatever, or whenever, it is that science says it’s a life is always preceded, in every case except Jesus, by a sperm fertilizing an egg. You are missing this simplest of points. If you can’t follow along with that then I can’t help you. Your life started when this happened, mine too.

    I am very concerned about what’s going to happen in Cleveland this week. I’ve seen black lives matter people interviewed on TV saying they have no intent in yielding to police orders should they be given. I’ve also seen where bikers for Trump intend to come and help keep order. I pray nothing crazy happens but both those two groups seem to be wanting it. I’ve seen business owners in that area very concerned about their places of business.

    Let’s see who starts the trouble, if it happens, and how it gets spun. Currently the black lives matter folks have spoken up that they will be the aggressors. I pray nothing happens.

    Please join me in condemning the violence against the police. Without authority we will have anarchy….

  11. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Life begins at conceptions. Whatever, or whenever, it is that science says it’s a life is always preceded, in every case except Jesus, by a sperm fertilizing an egg.

    If you are talking about human life, that is the case. There are plenty of examples of fertilization in other species that doesn’t involve sperm. We also have the technology to create zygotes without sperm (cloning), but that has not yet been attempted with humans.

    You are missing this simplest of points. If you can’t follow along with that then I can’t help you.

    You are purposely ignoring science when you insist that life begins at fertilization. It is just as arbitrary a point as many of the others along the way. When an egg is released into the Fallopian tube. When the woman’s body changes chemistry to send the sperm in the right direction and juice them up with sugar to finish their journey. When the cell first divides. When the zygote implants in the womb. When the fetus gets past the point where it can divide into two or more identical copies. When the heart first starts beating. When the brain gets connected to the nervous system. When the lungs are capable of breathing air. When the fetus can survive outside the womb. When the baby is born. There is NOTHING more special about fertilization than any of these other points. Pregnancies can and do fail at each of these points. If you can’t follow along with that then I can’t help you.

    Violence breeds violence.

    You simply won’t see the same confrontations at the Democratic convention because the Democrats have consistently rejected violence during the campaign.

    I condemn all violence. Violence against the police. Violence against civilians. Violence against peaceful demonstrators. Violence against women. Violence against LGBT people. Violence against immigrants. Violence against the poor. Violence against Muslims. Violent speech coming from political candidates. Hopefully you are just as willing to expand your scope.

  12. Keith says:

    Violence against Jews, Christians? Wondering why you singled out Muslims, or Mooselums Bernie would say, instead of people of faith?

    Let’s just watch the actions of the right and left over the next few weeks. I can assure you, most, conservatives won’t be protesting the dem convention. Ive always found it odd the left protests and the right doesn’t seem to.

    Yes all violence. Including in the womb 55 million times.

Leave a Reply