Republicans disavow Trump's call for Muslim database

[Jonathan Fairfield]

Republicans disavow Trump's call for Muslim database

JULIE PACE, Associated Press

JILL COLVIN, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential candidates on Friday swiftly condemned Donald Trump's call for requiring Muslims in the United States to register in a national database, drawing a sharp distinction with the front-runner for the party's nomination.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush called Trump's proposal "abhorrent." Ohio Gov. John Kasich said Trump was trying to "divide people." And Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who has largely avoided criticizing Trump throughout the 2016 campaign, said that while he was a fan of the billionaire businessman, "I'm not a fan of government registries of American citizens."

The unified pushback against Trump was rare. Republicans have vacillated in their handling of other inflammatory comments from the bellicose real estate mogul, wary of alienating the front-runner's supporters but also increasingly concerned that he's managed to maintain his grip on the Republican race deep with the first primary votes less than three months away.

The rebuke followed Trump's call Thursday for a mandatory database to track Muslims in the U.S. In a video posted on MSNBC.com, Trump was asked whether Muslims would be required to register. He replied, "They have to be."

He said Muslims would be signed up at "different places" and said the program would be "all about management."

The comments follow the terror attacks in Paris that killed 130 people and wounded hundreds more. The Islamic State group has claimed responsibility for the carnage, elevating fears of attacks in the U.S. and prompting calls for new restrictions on refugees fleeing war-torn Syria.

Trump, along with retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, has stunned the political world with his rise to the top of some polls in the crowded Republican nomination race. The two outsider candidates continue to overshadow established politicians such as Bush, the son and brother of former presidents who had been expected to become an early favorite.

Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton took to Twitter Friday and challenged all Republican candidates to disavow Trump's comments.

"This is shocking rhetoric," she wrote. "It should be denounced by all seeking to lead this country."

Several did just that.

"You're talking about internment, you're talking about closing mosques, you're talking about registering people, and that's just wrong," Bush said Friday on CNBC.

Cruz told reporters in Iowa that the Constitution "protects religious liberty and I've spent the past several decades defending the religious liberty of every American."

A spokesman for Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said the candidate "does not support databases based on one's religion."

Kasich, the Ohio governor, said requiring people to register with the federal government because of their religion "strikes against all that we have believed in our nation's history." Kasich has faced criticism following the Paris shooting for saying he would set up an agency with a "mandate" to promote what he calls "Judeo-Christian values" overseas to counter Islamist propaganda.

The campaign trail comments come amid a debate in Congress about refugees from the Middle East. The House passed legislation Thursday essentially barring Syrian and Iraqi refugees from the United States. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has slotted the bill for possible Senate consideration, though it's unclear whether the chamber could get enough votes to override a veto by Obama, who opposes the measure.

Religious and civil liberties experts said Trump's idea is unconstitutional on several counts. The libertarian Cato Institute's Ilya Shapiro said the idea also violates basic privacy and liberty rights.

"Individuals cannot be singled out for government surveillance and monitoring based on their religious beliefs," said Steven Shapiro, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Carson, who has challenged Trump's standing atop the Republican field, raised eyebrows Thursday when he compared blocking potential terrorists posing as Syrian refugees from entering the U.S. to handling a rabid dog.

"If there's a rabid dog running around in your neighborhood, you're probably not going to assume something good about that dog," Carson told reporters at a campaign stop in Alabama. "It doesn't mean you hate all dogs, but you're putting your intellect into motion."

The Council on American-Islamic Relations condemned both Trump and Carson's comments as "Islamophobic and unconstitutional."

"Donald Trump and Ben Carson are contributing to an already toxic environment that may be difficult to correct once their political ambitions have been satisfied," CAIR's Robert McCaw said in a statement.

The first reference to a database for Muslims came in Trump's interview with Yahoo News published earlier Thursday in which the billionaire real estate mogul did not reject the idea of requiring Muslims to register in a database or giving them special identification cards noting their religion.

"We're going to have to look at a lot of things very closely," Trump told Yahoo News.

He also suggested he would consider warrantless searches, according to Yahoo, saying, "We're going to have to do things that we never did before."

Asked by reporters Thursday night to explain his Yahoo comments, Trump suggested his response had been misconstrued. "I never responded to that question," he said.

__

Colvin reported from Spartanburg, South Carolina. AP writers Bill Barrow in Mobile, Alabama, Steve Peoples in Sioux City, Iowa, and Julie Bykowicz and Mark Sherman in Washington contributed to this report.

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-11-21

[Usernames]

Here you have the MSM doing the work for their lapdog Jeb! What is clear is that Trump tied muslim registration to illegal immigration. And registration is what all LEGAL immigrants are required to do. It's called a Green Card. In fact, it used to be the case that, just like Thailand, the US required non-citizens to notify US immigration of any change in their address (although there was nothing like the 90 day report), just a notification of change of address. But even that was wiped out by Clinton in the pre 9/11 United States. The fact is the registration and monitoring of non-citizens has completely collapsed, making the building of terror networks all that much easier. Here is the real quote of interest.

Trump tied his reasoning for the database to the need to identify who is in the country legally.

"It would stop people from coming in illegally," Trump said. "We have to stop people from coming into our country illegally."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-says-he-would-certainly-implement-muslim-database-n466716

[Seastallion]

"Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton......."This is shocking rhetoric," she wrote. "It should be denounced by all seeking to lead this country."

Several did just that."

It's a pity that the Reps have to follow Hillary's advice. Aren't they independent thinkers?

[The manic]

Actually he is correct. All muslims should be registered on a separate data base and monitored constantly. They have no place in 'western democratic' society. They know it which is why they will not integrate, and ultimately seek to change their host society into the Islamic society from which 'fled'.

[Usernames]

I see Hillary finally crawled out from under her rock, where she has been hiding since the Paris/Beirut/Mali terror attacks. Watch and see. Trump's poll numbers will go UP after this.

[MaxYakov]

Here you have the MSM doing the work for their lapdog Jeb! What is clear is that Trump tied muslim registration to illegal immigration. And registration is what all LEGAL immigrants are required to do. It's called a Green Card. In fact, it used to be the case that, just like Thailand, the US required non-citizens to notify US immigration of any change in their address (although there was nothing like the 90 day report), just a notification of change of address. But even that was wiped out by Clinton in the pre 9/11 United States. The fact is the registration and monitoring of non-citizens has completely collapsed, making the building of terror networks all that much easier. Here is the real quote of interest.

Trump tied his reasoning for the database to the need to identify who is in the country legally.

"It would stop people from coming in illegally," Trump said. "We have to stop people from coming into our country illegally."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-says-he-would-certainly-implement-muslim-database-n466716

I totally agree. The whole thing was a bait and smear tactic.

NBC News's Vaughn Hillyard: "Should there be a database system here that tracks the Muslims in this country?"

This question, to me in reflection, is very poorly formed (or cleverly formed to appear that way) and could have been easily handled with a simple: "I don't understand the question. Can you be a little more specific?" would have given Trump more time to think about it and deal with it more effectively.

Trump looked tired and was certainly distracted by his book signings and didn't spot the potential of the question. Instead he switched to his routine "wall/border" position after a very nebulous:

"There should be a lot of systems. Beyond databases, I mean, there should be a lot of systems. And today you can do it. But right now we have to have a border, we have to have strength, we have to have a wall. And we cannot let what is happening to this country happen."

and did not realize with his further responses that what he was saying could be construed as his support of a Muslim-tracking database (the original question). He's usually pretty good thinking on his feet but often too impulsive an bombastic like the proverbial bull in the china shop.

He had successfully deflected a similar question earlier in the week, but his non-committal answers were, in my view, taken as acceptance of it.

He did, however, successfully deflect a second, similar question equating such a database to the tracking of the Jews by the Nazis with: "I don't know. Why don't you tell me?" (after asking the reporter what organization he was with). By that time he was apparently on to them.

This whole thing was a setup and NBC the GOP and even some opportunistic Republican candidates shouldn't be surprised if the public sees through this sham.

Both text and video of both questions and Trump's response HERE (www.vox.com)

Edited November 21, 2015 by MaxYakov

[up-country_sinclair]

All muslims should be registered on a separate data base and monitored constantly. They have no place in 'western democratic' society.

Are you familiar with the term "unintended irony"?

[Usernames]

Here you have the MSM doing the work for their lapdog Jeb! What is clear is that Trump tied muslim registration to illegal immigration. And registration is what all LEGAL immigrants are required to do. It's called a Green Card. In fact, it used to be the case that, just like Thailand, the US required non-citizens to notify US immigration of any change in their address (although there was nothing like the 90 day report), just a notification of change of address. But even that was wiped out by Clinton in the pre 9/11 United States. The fact is the registration and monitoring of non-citizens has completely collapsed, making the building of terror networks all that much easier. Here is the real quote of interest.

Trump tied his reasoning for the database to the need to identify who is in the country legally.

"It would stop people from coming in illegally," Trump said. "We have to stop people from coming into our country illegally."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-says-he-would-certainly-implement-muslim-database-n466716

I totally agree. The whole thing was a bait and smear tactic.

NBC News's Vaughn Hillyard: "Should there be a database system here that tracks the Muslims in this country?"

This question, to me in reflection, is very poorly formed (or cleverly formed to appear that way) and could have been easily handled with a simple: "I don't understand the question. Can you be a little more specific?" would have given Trump more time to think about it and deal with it more effectively.

Trump looked tired and was certainly distracted by his book signings and didn't spot the potential of the question. Instead he switched to his routine "wall/border" position after a very nebulous:

"There should be a lot of systems. Beyond databases, I mean, there should be a lot of systems. And today you can do it. But right now we have to have a border, we have to have strength, we have to have a wall. And we cannot let what is happening to this country happen."

and did not realize with his further responses that what he was saying could be construed as his support of a Muslim-tracking database (the original question). He's usually pretty good thinking on his feet but often too impulsive an bombastic like the proverbial bull in the china shop.

He had successfully deflected a similar question earlier in the week, but his non-committal answers were, in my view, taken as acceptance of it.

He did, however, successfully deflect a second, similar question equating such a database to the tracking of the Jews by the Nazis with: "I don't know. Why don't you tell me?" (after asking the reporter what organization he was with). By that time he was apparently on to them.

This whole thing was a setup and NBC the GOP and even some opportunistic Republican candidates shouldn't be surprised if the public sees through this sham.

Both text and video of both questions and Trump's response HERE (www.vox.com)

And here is who was on the other side of the camera asking questions. A 20 something who graduated from ASU less than two years ago. Trying to make a name for himself. https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/654543671568678912/pIfSR6Rz_400x400.jpg

[whybother]

Here you have the MSM doing the work for their lapdog Jeb! What is clear is that Trump tied muslim registration to illegal immigration. And registration is what all LEGAL immigrants are required to do. It's called a Green Card. In fact, it used to be the case that, just like Thailand, the US required non-citizens to notify US immigration of any change in their address (although there was nothing like the 90 day report), just a notification of change of address. But even that was wiped out by Clinton in the pre 9/11 United States. The fact is the registration and monitoring of non-citizens has completely collapsed, making the building of terror networks all that much easier. Here is the real quote of interest.

Trump tied his reasoning for the database to the need to identify who is in the country legally.

"It would stop people from coming in illegally," Trump said. "We have to stop people from coming into our country illegally."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-says-he-would-certainly-implement-muslim-database-n466716

I totally agree. The whole thing was a bait and smear tactic.

NBC News's Vaughn Hillyard: "Should there be a database system here that tracks the Muslims in this country?"

This question, to me in reflection, is very poorly formed (or cleverly formed to appear that way) and could have been easily handled with a simple: "I don't understand the question. Can you be a little more specific?" would have given Trump more time to think about it and deal with it more effectively.

Trump looked tired and was certainly distracted by his book signings and didn't spot the potential of the question. Instead he switched to his routine "wall/border" position after a very nebulous:

"There should be a lot of systems. Beyond databases, I mean, there should be a lot of systems. And today you can do it. But right now we have to have a border, we have to have strength, we have to have a wall. And we cannot let what is happening to this country happen."

and did not realize with his further responses that what he was saying could be construed as his support of a Muslim-tracking database (the original question). He's usually pretty good thinking on his feet but often too impulsive an bombastic like the proverbial bull in the china shop.

He had successfully deflected a similar question earlier in the week, but his non-committal answers were, in my view, taken as acceptance of it.

He did, however, successfully deflect a second, similar question equating such a database to the tracking of the Jews by the Nazis with: "I don't know. Why don't you tell me?" (after asking the reporter what organization he was with). By that time he was apparently on to them.

This whole thing was a setup and NBC the GOP and even some opportunistic Republican candidates shouldn't be surprised if the public sees through this sham.

Both text and video of both questions and Trump's response HERE (www.vox.com)

It's a pretty simple question with an even more simple answer. It's a bit too difficult for some people though.

[stevenl]

Here you have the MSM doing the work for their lapdog Jeb! What is clear is that Trump tied muslim registration to illegal immigration. And registration is what all LEGAL immigrants are required to do. It's called a Green Card. In fact, it used to be the case that, just like Thailand, the US required non-citizens to notify US immigration of any change in their address (although there was nothing like the 90 day report), just a notification of change of address. But even that was wiped out by Clinton in the pre 9/11 United States. The fact is the registration and monitoring of non-citizens has completely collapsed, making the building of terror networks all that much easier. Here is the real quote of interest.

Trump tied his reasoning for the database to the need to identify who is in the country legally.

"It would stop people from coming in illegally," Trump said. "We have to stop people from coming into our country illegally."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-says-he-would-certainly-implement-muslim-database-n466716

I totally agree. The whole thing was a bait and smear tactic.

NBC News's Vaughn Hillyard: "Should there be a database system here that tracks the Muslims in this country?"

This question, to me in reflection, is very poorly formed (or cleverly formed to appear that way) and could have been easily handled with a simple: "I don't understand the question. Can you be a little more specific?" would have given Trump more time to think about it and deal with it more effectively.

Trump looked tired and was certainly distracted by his book signings and didn't spot the potential of the question. Instead he switched to his routine "wall/border" position after a very nebulous:

"There should be a lot of systems. Beyond databases, I mean, there should be a lot of systems. And today you can do it. But right now we have to have a border, we have to have strength, we have to have a wall. And we cannot let what is happening to this country happen."

and did not realize with his further responses that what he was saying could be construed as his support of a Muslim-tracking database (the original question). He's usually pretty good thinking on his feet but often too impulsive an bombastic like the proverbial bull in the china shop.

He had successfully deflected a similar question earlier in the week, but his non-committal answers were, in my view, taken as acceptance of it.

He did, however, successfully deflect a second, similar question equating such a database to the tracking of the Jews by the Nazis with: "I don't know. Why don't you tell me?" (after asking the reporter what organization he was with). By that time he was apparently on to them.

This whole thing was a setup and NBC the GOP and even some opportunistic Republican candidates shouldn't be surprised if the public sees through this sham.

Both text and video of both questions and Trump's response HERE (www.vox.com)

As your source concludes: "The wording of the questions was not in any way ambiguous, and Trump did specifically endorse the database and appeared to be citing its technical feasibility."

The question was clear and the answer was equally clear.

[Jingthing]

Now that we have entered a new war launched anew in Paris by the Islamist Jihadists, this USA election will largely be about seeking a WAR president. Hillary would work. Bush too many bad memories. The only credible choices left on the republican side are Rubio and Kasich. Kasich would be a much better choice, but Rubio more likely.

[BuaBS]

Doesn't the NSA already have a complete database ? Or are they too busy with getting nudie pics & financial data from their "terrorist" citizens ?

[Jingthing]

Doesn't the NSA already have a complete database ? Or are they too busy with getting nudie pics & financial data from their "terrorist" citizens ?

Of all Muslims? I'd say no. Of suspected terrorists? I'd say hopefully yes.

Trump's suggestion is indeed pretty darned offensive in the American context. A nation with a secular government and priding itself on freedom of religion.

Perhaps surprising to some people, but I reckon the demographic group most offended by this except for of course American Muslims is American Jews. Jews know about such lists. Not cool!

To add, Dr. Carson if he has any dignity should just exit right now based on some lie about family reasons. Based on the new political climate and his complete lack of credibility on foreign policy, his candidacy is totally absurd. It already was but now most everyone sees that.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Jingthing

[Enoon]

Muslims...oooh they're scary:

Best Arab Vine 2013 - YouTube

Edited November 21, 2015 by Enoon

[elgordo38]

I see Hillary finally crawled out from under her rock, where she has been hiding since the Paris/Beirut/Mali terror attacks. Watch and see. Trump's poll numbers will go UP after this.

And the truth will set you free(and raise your poll numbers) The rest of the GOP wannabe's better be careful what they say about the Donald. The voters upset, mad and are looking for change and Donald is the only one offering this. Their words could come back to haunt them.

[spidermike007]

Trump is a hate monger. It is his way. He is decisive and venomous. It is his nature. He has a black heart. That is who he is. He steals, he lies, and he hates.

[Jingthing]

Trump is a hate monger. It is his way. He is decisive and venomous. It is his nature. He has a black heart. That is who he is. He steals, he lies, and he hates.

Well, that's what he's projecting in his politics, that's true.

As far as what is in his heart, I am not sure what's in there.

People who know him personally say he's a sweetheart.

Weird dude indeed!

Having him as president (unlikely but possible) would be both embarrassing and entertaining, but not nearly as scary as a Carson or even a Cruz.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Jingthing

[MaxYakov]

Here you have the MSM doing the work for their lapdog Jeb! What is clear is that Trump tied muslim registration to illegal immigration. And registration is what all LEGAL immigrants are required to do. It's called a Green Card. In fact, it used to be the case that, just like Thailand, the US required non-citizens to notify US immigration of any change in their address (although there was nothing like the 90 day report), just a notification of change of address. But even that was wiped out by Clinton in the pre 9/11 United States. The fact is the registration and monitoring of non-citizens has completely collapsed, making the building of terror networks all that much easier. Here is the real quote of interest.

Trump tied his reasoning for the database to the need to identify who is in the country legally.

"It would stop people from coming in illegally," Trump said. "We have to stop people from coming into our country illegally."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-says-he-would-certainly-implement-muslim-database-n466716

I totally agree. The whole thing was a bait and smear tactic.

NBC News's Vaughn Hillyard: "Should there be a database system here that tracks the Muslims in this country?"

This question, to me in reflection, is very poorly formed (or cleverly formed to appear that way) and could have been easily handled with a simple: "I don't understand the question. Can you be a little more specific?" would have given Trump more time to think about it and deal with it more effectively.

Trump looked tired and was certainly distracted by his book signings and didn't spot the potential of the question. Instead he switched to his routine "wall/border" position after a very nebulous:

"There should be a lot of systems. Beyond databases, I mean, there should be a lot of systems. And today you can do it. But right now we have to have a border, we have to have strength, we have to have a wall. And we cannot let what is happening to this country happen."

and did not realize with his further responses that what he was saying could be construed as his support of a Muslim-tracking database (the original question). He's usually pretty good thinking on his feet but often too impulsive an bombastic like the proverbial bull in the china shop.

He had successfully deflected a similar question earlier in the week, but his non-committal answers were, in my view, taken as acceptance of it.

He did, however, successfully deflect a second, similar question equating such a database to the tracking of the Jews by the Nazis with: "I don't know. Why don't you tell me?" (after asking the reporter what organization he was with). By that time he was apparently on to them.

This whole thing was a setup and NBC the GOP and even some opportunistic Republican candidates shouldn't be surprised if the public sees through this sham.

Both text and video of both questions and Trump's response HERE (www.vox.com)

As your source concludes: "The wording of the questions was not in any way ambiguous, and Trump did specifically endorse the database and appeared to be citing its technical feasibility."

The question was clear and the answer was equally clear.

NBC News's Vaughn Hillyard: "Should there be a database system here that tracks [only] the Muslims in this country?"

The missing "only" is what made the question unclear and left Trump an out, if he'd insight and/or the time to spot it. Did Mr. Hillyard omit the "only" because he is a sloppy, young twit or because he felt that its presence might warn Trump?

AFAIC the original question was "above his knowledge grade", listening to him pontificate on other issues and estimating that his knowledge of existing and/or future, government or private database systems is virtually nil. I do give him credit for being generally good at "quick draw" shooting, but we know what kind of accident can occur with those types of displays.

How about this question?:

Should there be a database system here that tracks all people and includes their stated religion?

Such a database would enable the tracking of Muslims, as well people of any other religion, assuming the individual data is correct. It would be difficult to track anyone by "religion" if they didn't want to be tracked, for the same reason a refugee religious test would not be reliable if it depended solely on the unverified testimony of the individual.

There! Is that as clear as a Trump answer?

Edited November 21, 2015 by MaxYakov

[arjunadawn]

We have not entered a new war. This is the same tired war for a long, long time, and the same tired stage of this war in the modern era. It is indisputably correct that what attacks the West is only topically "terrorism."

Trump may not be politically correct but Americans, before it is all said and done, will be registering those from whom the threat originates, even if they decorate it differently- there is simply no other mechanism to preserve and target assets- the threat has a known source but it is imbued with a special protective amulet called religion- a guy in the clouds thing- where circumspection is prohibited. How retarded. If all the terrorists came from Detroit we would look in Detroit. If all the terrorists ate cheesecake we would look in Cheesecake factories. If all of the terrorists spoke Basque we would look to the ETA. If all of the terrorists said In nomine Patris et fillii et Spiritus Sancti before attacks we would look in churches. Say al lah akbar and we undress the old and disabled and infants. The same progressive ideology that makes us vulnerable to this disease also effectively disables a meaningful response. Read PC!

Where and how the FBI surveyed the Italian mafia, the Irish mafia, the IRA in the US, the flying dragons, etc., says all we need to know. They did not go to soccer games, Ethiopian eateries, British pubs, or Swedish massage parlors to observe the threat sources. Not chained by PC and interference of a dangerous executive, they went to the perceived source of the threats. The protective aura of claiming victimization in the US has a palpable benefit, in this case non circumspection of the agar. America will absolutely reach the point where the absurdity of not profiling and assessing the source of this disease is costing too many lives and they will database. Currently in the US, the word islam or muslim has been redacted from all investigative literature because of the above chains of political correctness.

Peaceful muslims must not define themselves by "not in my name" but by "what is in their name?". It is not good enough to say the terrorists do not represent you- clearly no one is listening. They must define themselves by what does represent them or the forces external to their community will capture the narrative and make this association by default. Non action is action. Looking for muslim terrorists among muslims is distasteful on first glance but it is actually the only place that muslim terrorists come from. Someone must clean the house.

[MaxYakov]

We have not entered a new war. This is the same tired war for a long, long time, and the same tired stage of this war in the modern era. It is indisputably correct that what attacks the West is only topically "terrorism."

Trump may not be politically correct but Americans, before it is all said and done, will be registering those from whom the threat originates, even if they decorate it differently- there is simply no other mechanism to preserve and target assets- the threat has a known source but it is imbued with a special protective amulet called religion- a guy in the clouds thing- where circumspection is prohibited. How retarded. If all the terrorists came from Detroit we would look in Detroit. If all the terrorists ate cheesecake we would look in Cheesecake factories. If all of the terrorists spoke Basque we would look to the ETA. If all of the terrorists said In nomine Patris et fillii et Spiritus Sancti before attacks we would look in churches. Say al lah akbar and we undress the old and disabled and infants. The same progressive ideology that makes us vulnerable to this disease also effectively disables a meaningful response. Read PC!

Where and how the FBI surveyed the Italian mafia, the Irish mafia, the IRA in the US, the flying dragons, etc., says all we need to know. They did not go to soccer games, Ethiopian eateries, British pubs, or Swedish massage parlors to observe the threat sources. Not chained by PC and interference of a dangerous executive, they went to the perceived source of the threats. The protective aura of claiming victimization in the US has a palpable benefit, in this case non circumspection of the agar. America will absolutely reach the point where the absurdity of not profiling and assessing the source of this disease is costing too many lives and they will database. Currently in the US, the word islam or muslim has been redacted from all investigative literature because of the above chains of political correctness.

Peaceful muslims must not define themselves by "not in my name" but by "what is in their name?". It is not good enough to say the terrorists do not represent you- clearly no one is listening. They must define themselves by what does represent them or the forces external to their community will capture the narrative and make this association by default. Non action is action. Looking for muslim terrorists among muslims is distasteful on first glance but it is actually the only place that muslim terrorists come from. Someone must clean the house.

Yes, well ... I wouldn't hold my breath for any "house cleaning".

Eventually things get so bad it becomes time to bulldoze and rebuild.

Edited November 21, 2015 by MaxYakov

[Nomyai]

theres 1 koran. the only difference between moderate muslim and extremist is the moderate wont act out and KILL.

But they both believe the same thing. convert or die.

[Nomyai]

Trump is a hate monger. It is his way. He is decisive and venomous. It is his nature. He has a black heart. That is who he is. He steals, he lies, and he hates.

Well, that's what he's projecting in his politics, that's true.

As far as what is in his heart, I am not sure what's in there.

People who know him personally say he's a sweetheart.

Weird dude indeed!

Having him as president (unlikely but possible) would be both embarrassing and entertaining, but not nearly as scary as a Carson or even a Cruz.

Obamas not embarrassing? hahahahahaha. he sided with IRAN, he is for IRAN. Iran needs ISIS to wreck havoc in middle east so they can take over.

Some peeps (the idiots) are asking why affordable kare act isnt affordable.................hahaha.

[The manic]

All muslims should be registered on a separate data base and monitored constantly. They have no place in 'western democratic' society.

Are you familiar with the term "unintended irony"?

It is not so much Irony but a contradiction. The contradiction is in dealing with political extremism disguised as a religion. It is an intended consequence of the Islamic manipulation of the West's democratic structures that we are faced with such conflicts. So let me explain this situation that will not cause you to crack wise. When a the body politic is attacked by a cancer the cure is similar as to when a human body has cancer. The treatment be it surgery or chemotherapy does damage to the body but that is not irony: it is the unfortunate side effects of the treatment.

[MaxYakov]

All muslims should be registered on a separate data base and monitored constantly. They have no place in 'western democratic' society.

Are you familiar with the term "unintended irony"?

It is not so much Irony but a contradiction. The contradiction is in dealing with political extremism disguised as a religion. It is an intended consequence of the Islamic manipulation of the West's democratic structures that we are faced with such conflicts. So let me explain this situation that will not cause you to crack wise. When a the body politic is attacked by a cancer the cure is similar as to when a human body has cancer. The treatment be it surgery or chemotherapy does damage to the body but that is not irony: it is the unfortunate side effects of the treatment.

I agree, but I believe the "unintended irony" he was eluding to was that by eliminating them from "western democratic society" there would not be a need for registration and monitoring of Muslims (in the West).

Given current events such as the Metrojet bombing and many other attacks that are initiated outside the West, that would not be the case would it? Anyway, a Muslim-tracking database would be untenable and useless and monitoring them would be impossible.

A database of violent psychopaths, including sources of weapons, etc. and which is not religion-specific is what is needed.

Also, if we're discussing miracles, I need to win the lottery this week.

Edited November 21, 2015 by MaxYakov

[Credo]

So, how will it work? Everybody will be entered into a data base with their religion, or you just have to answer whether you are Muslim or not?

[The manic]

So, how will it work? Everybody will be entered into a data base with their religion, or you just have to answer whether you are Muslim or not?

I would use the same system as they use in Saudi Arabia, Libya, Kuwait etc. All foreigners are registered and if well behaved are allow to stay and work but not become citizens. It is that simple. I and millions of expats around the world have lived like that.

[MaxYakov]

So, how will it work? Everybody will be entered into a data base with their religion, or you just have to answer whether you are Muslim or not?

Muslim database - unworkable and useless , IMHO (unless the data is loaded by a mind-reader).

If we had such mind-readers, we wouldn't need such a database.

Under the direction of the mind-readers, we could simply send out the troops to pick up the jihadists, latent jihadists, violent psychopaths, etc. This fantasy was the subject of Minority Report (2002) movie and TV series.

In any event, the FBI claims to be tracking 1,000 terrorists/cells in all 50 US states. I hope they are using a database and are not so sensitive about identifying them by religion. At least I hope they are using a real database and not some shared, yellow legal pads!

Anyway, maybe I could somehow get my winning lottery numbers from the mind-readers, hopefully.

Edited November 21, 2015 by MaxYakov

[stevenl]

Here you have the MSM doing the work for their lapdog Jeb! What is clear is that Trump tied muslim registration to illegal immigration. And registration is what all LEGAL immigrants are required to do. It's called a Green Card. In fact, it used to be the case that, just like Thailand, the US required non-citizens to notify US immigration of any change in their address (although there was nothing like the 90 day report), just a notification of change of address. But even that was wiped out by Clinton in the pre 9/11 United States. The fact is the registration and monitoring of non-citizens has completely collapsed, making the building of terror networks all that much easier. Here is the real quote of interest.

Trump tied his reasoning for the database to the need to identify who is in the country legally.

"It would stop people from coming in illegally," Trump said. "We have to stop people from coming into our country illegally."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-says-he-would-certainly-implement-muslim-database-n466716

I totally agree. The whole thing was a bait and smear tactic.

NBC News's Vaughn Hillyard: "Should there be a database system here that tracks the Muslims in this country?"

This question, to me in reflection, is very poorly formed (or cleverly formed to appear that way) and could have been easily handled with a simple: "I don't understand the question. Can you be a little more specific?" would have given Trump more time to think about it and deal with it more effectively.

Trump looked tired and was certainly distracted by his book signings and didn't spot the potential of the question. Instead he switched to his routine "wall/border" position after a very nebulous:

"There should be a lot of systems. Beyond databases, I mean, there should be a lot of systems. And today you can do it. But right now we have to have a border, we have to have strength, we have to have a wall. And we cannot let what is happening to this country happen."

and did not realize with his further responses that what he was saying could be construed as his support of a Muslim-tracking database (the original question). He's usually pretty good thinking on his feet but often too impulsive an bombastic like the proverbial bull in the china shop.

He had successfully deflected a similar question earlier in the week, but his non-committal answers were, in my view, taken as acceptance of it.

He did, however, successfully deflect a second, similar question equating such a database to the tracking of the Jews by the Nazis with: "I don't know. Why don't you tell me?" (after asking the reporter what organization he was with). By that time he was apparently on to them.

This whole thing was a setup and NBC the GOP and even some opportunistic Republican candidates shouldn't be surprised if the public sees through this sham.

Both text and video of both questions and Trump's response HERE (www.vox.com)

As your source concludes: "The wording of the questions was not in any way ambiguous, and Trump did specifically endorse the database and appeared to be citing its technical feasibility."

The question was clear and the answer was equally clear.

NBC News's Vaughn Hillyard: "Should there be a database system here that tracks [only] the Muslims in this country?"

The missing "only" is what made the question unclear and left Trump an out, if he'd insight and/or the time to spot it. Did Mr. Hillyard omit the "only" because he is a sloppy, young twit or because he felt that its presence might warn Trump?

AFAIC the original question was "above his knowledge grade", listening to him pontificate on other issues and estimating that his knowledge of existing and/or future, government or private database systems is virtually nil. I do give him credit for being generally good at "quick draw" shooting, but we know what kind of accident can occur with those types of displays.

How about this question?:

Should there be a database system here that tracks all people and includes their stated religion?

Such a database would enable the tracking of Muslims, as well people of any other religion, assuming the individual data is correct. It would be difficult to track anyone by "religion" if they didn't want to be tracked, for the same reason a refugee religious test would not be reliable if it depended solely on the unverified testimony of the individual.

There! Is that as clear as a Trump answer?

Try to spin as you want, both question and answer were clear.

[Usernames]

So, how will it work? Everybody will be entered into a data base with their religion, or you just have to answer whether you are Muslim or not?

Go back and listen/watch the NBC link I provided in my first post on this thread. This is NOT what Trump was talking about. He was talking about registration of immigrants. We do that already. In a Green Card. It was the REPORTER who brought up the database and Trump was barely paying any attention to him.

[arjunadawn]

So, how will it work? Everybody will be entered into a data base with their religion, or you just have to answer whether you are Muslim or not?

I would use the same system as they use in Saudi Arabia, Libya, Kuwait etc. All foreigners are registered and if well behaved are allow to stay and work but not become citizens. It is that simple. I and millions of expats around the world have lived like that.

Beloved Indonesia too, for which Obama waxes nostalgically, requires religious registration. You must declare.

Edit: I want to be clear: there is something fundamentally wrong and borderline profoundly wrong when you have to walk down the road of identified people by belief. There is no good end irrespective of the reasons why.

Yet, in the absence of any meaningful tools to combat and preempt terrorism it is hardly surprised that people who are sick of it would grasp at straws. Then, left with hardly any alternative means to battle the losing tide, apologists complain that [they] want a database of religions. Not the finest hour for solutions but then there have been zero effectively solutions offered by the liberal enablers who foment islamic jihad. What is the answer? Probably first starting with the plethora of tools this side of excessive- the one's either always protested or, like in NY, the prior tools that enables investigators to go where jihad foments, within the communities. Also, remove government censorship of all federal documents that redact the source of these terrorists.

Edited November 21, 2015 by arjunadawn