But if you doubt the scale of his fearmongering, here's an example where he explains that continuing the Obama administration's policies is "committing suicide" as a nation:
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-july-24-2016-n615706
What part of that strikes you as fear mongering? Just the fact that he used the word "suicide"? That's pathetic. We have real examples of fear mongering everywhere, using descriptive language doesn't get there. Particularly not in a quote where he references the Constitution at least four times. It's called context. Or do you think Rachel Maddow was "fear mongering" when she referred to "suicide" later in the same transcript?
Here's a tweet from DJT about the TRO on his immigration order:
Our legal system is broken! "77% of refugees allowed into U.S. since travel reprieve hail from seven suspect countries." (WT) SO DANGEROUS!
He is obviously trying to scare people, and make them fear for their own safety. He is not expecting people to use logic and math to understand this. Logic would involve understanding the current vetting procedures and evaluating their success and whether there are any gaps. Math and logic would confirm that a high proportion of refugees would be expected to come from bad and scary places.
You're not using logic or math either. You seem to believe that there is some amount of terrorism we should agree to accept as a trade off for bringing in refugees. The facts on the ground are that if you bring in enough refugees you will be brining in a future terrorist. It's not a scare tactic to acknowledge that and address it.
So what is your acceptable incidence rate for Americans killed by refugees? Is it one American dead per 1000 refugees admitted, or is it greater or lower?
For my part, I don't think Trump understands these things. I think he's being prodded and flattered by Bannon and others who are smarter than he is.
I don't understand this fascination by the left to believe that prominent Republicans are dumb and its their advisers that control everything. What do you get out of it? Is it just the ability to make accusations against shadowy manipulators who you know don't have a platform to respond, or it something else?
But that doesn't mean his tactics get a pass. And it doesn't mean that his fear mongering should go without a response.
Well then, acknowledge the problem with your position and make a case. What number of American citizens being killed by terrorism is reasonable per 1000 refugees?
There is an extremely thorough and prolonged vetting process before the refugees are allowed to come here. Trump consistently pretends (or indulges the delusion) that there is no vetting, and that Obama ignored the danger. That's a big chunk of the justification for one of his campaign planks, and his immigration orders. He hasn't identified any specific failing of the existing system - in court his lawyers couldn't provide a shred of evidence for the urgency of his ban to get the TRO overturned - he is just putting on theater to convince the dumbest of his followers that he's going to fulfill his misguided campaign promises.
You should really do more research into the news, not just what's spoon fed to you. He has specifically stated that the original 7 countries were selected and identified because they had been identified as having their records compromised. Iraq was removed in the latest order specifically because the administration was assured their records could be trusted.
How "extremely thorough" can vetting be, if the records of the region from whence the refugees came are compromised? Since you seem to have a strong opinion that this was "extremely through" vetting, how was it accomplished? Will you represent, here and now, that it can't have been manipulated and that no one could easily have broken it? Did it include say probing questions that might determine radicalized positions, and/or vetting of social media accounts or contacts?
I'm going to posit, that you have no idea what it entailed, and that most likely you wouldn't agree to use it to evaluate a person who you'd have to trust with your life.
You don't see anyone trying to put BLM into "perspective" and point out that the actual percentage of black people getting murdered by police officers is rather small compared to other causes of death.
I sure do. I see constant efforts to misrepresent and undermine BLM using just that kind of argument. All in an effort to distract from the uncomfortable reality that racism across many institutions allows unjustified killings to go unpunished.
Out of curiosity, how does it "misrepresent" BLM to point out that death by cop is far less likely and far more avoidable than death by gang member? And that increased police presence is one of the few things that can lead to real decreases in that second point?
I'm not aware that "racism" lets any unjustified killings go unpunished. Please prove this point with a real example.
Why play stupid about it now and pretend that it's about statistical death when you cannot produce a single frakking quote, even from Trump, to that effect? Trump says enough dumb stuff on his own; you don't have to go making stuff up.
You're getting ahead of yourself. Me not jumping to meet your arbitrary demands doesn't demonstrate a thing, Pete.
It kind of demonstrates you're arguing with strawmen instead of real arguments.
You're the reason this site sucks now.
Pete's been grumpy lately, but that's a bit much.