4 ms·

> The police also have no obligation to protect any particular person, but when they refuse to protect someone based on their religion, it becomes a civil right

> The police also have no obligation to protect any particular person, but when they refuse to protect someone based on their religion, it becomes a civil rights violation. Again, he's really talking on the context of terrorism and refugees in Europe. He's not talking about throwing out all the Muslims or stamping a tattoo on their arms. Also, it would make GREAT sense to have a database of every Muslim(and everyone else) that enters our country... I'm pretty sure we already have that. I'm just saying I think people take his brash no-bullshit no-filter style and run with it too far...

jeremysmyth 10y ago
I'm just saying I think people take his brash no-bullshit no-filter style and run with it too far... His "no-filter style" frequently results in him saying things that are factually incorrect, based on mistaken beliefs, describing illegal policies, or in contradiction to things he's already stated. His words describe his vision, and by extension, his vision lacks integrity and stability. A company with a CEO like that would not last long, and the CEO of a country could cause a lot of damage.
learc83 10y ago
A reporter specifically asked him if we should have a full database of ALL Muslims. She asked him this several days after the whole thing started in order to clarify what his position was. He said we should start thinking about it. He either wasn't paying attention to what she was saying at all, or he thinks a database of all Muslims could be a good idea. That he even entertains the idea that requiring members of a specific religion to register with the government is absurd. > I'm just saying I think people take his brash no-bullshit no-filter style and run with it too far... So when he said that we should "Take out" the family members of terrorists as a deterrent, and then defended his statement the next day, we shouldn't worry about it? He was just bullshitting, not actually advocating committing a war crime? I don't know which situation is scarier. A president who actually plans on doing the things he says he will, or a president with no filter who just says the first thing that pops into his head.

jeremysmyth 10y ago

I'm just saying I think people take his brash no-bullshit no-filter style and run with it too far... His "no-filter style" frequently results in him saying things that are factually incorrect, based on mistaken beliefs, describing illegal policies, or in contradiction to things he's already stated. His words describe his vision, and by extension, his vision lacks integrity and stability. A company with a CEO like that would not last long, and the CEO of a country could cause a lot of damage.

learc83 10y ago

A reporter specifically asked him if we should have a full database of ALL Muslims. She asked him this several days after the whole thing started in order to clarify what his position was. He said we should start thinking about it. He either wasn't paying attention to what she was saying at all, or he thinks a database of all Muslims could be a good idea. That he even entertains the idea that requiring members of a specific religion to register with the government is absurd. > I'm just saying I think people take his brash no-bullshit no-filter style and run with it too far... So when he said that we should "Take out" the family members of terrorists as a deterrent, and then defended his statement the next day, we shouldn't worry about it? He was just bullshitting, not actually advocating committing a war crime? I don't know which situation is scarier. A president who actually plans on doing the things he says he will, or a president with no filter who just says the first thing that pops into his head.