Donald Trump

[Jman123]

http://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/poll-donald-trump-nearly-doubles-lead-in-new-hampshire. 

Trump is soaring
------

Washington (CNN)- Donald Trump has a growing lead among likely primary voters in New Hampshire, and both he and Marco Rubio have gained ground in the state since September, according to a new CNN/WMUR poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center.

Overall, 32% say they support Trump (up 6 points since September), with Rubio a distant second place with 14% (up 5 points). That 18-point lead is almost double the 10-point lead Trump held in September over businesswoman Carly Fiorina.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie holds third place in the new poll with 9%, followed closely by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (8%), Ohio Gov. John Kasich (7%), Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (6%), and both businesswoman Carly Fiorina and former neurosurgeon Ben Carson at 5%. Fiorina has dropped 11 points since the September poll.

The New Hampshire poll comes on the heels of CNN/ORC surveys in Iowa and nationally both showing Trump with growing leads over the rest of the GOP field. The poll was conducted almost entirely before Trump issued a policy statement calling for a temporary ban on allowing Muslims who are not U.S. citizens to enter the country.

Nearly 6-in-10 likely New Hampshire Republican primary voters now say they think Trump is most likely to win the GOP primary in the state, up 19 points from 40% saying so in September. No one else is in double-digits on this question. Looking ahead to the general, 34% think Trump has the best shot to win the White House, 17% say Rubio does, 7% say Christie and 6% Bush.

The landscape of the campaign has changed since the September poll, with foreign policy and national security taking a more prominent role. Half (50%) now call that a top issue, up from 21% in September, while the previous top issue -- jobs and the economy -- is now the most important issue for 18% of likely Republican primary voters.

Trump is seen as best able to handle ISIS, with 33% saying he is the candidate best able to handle the militant group. Republican voters appear divided on who else would do a good job on ISIS, with five other candidates all bunched together around second place: 11% name Bush, 9% Christie, and 7% each Cruz, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and Rubio.

On taxes and spending, Trump is the clear leader, with 42% calling him best able to manage government spending and 36% best able to handle taxation -- his next closest competitor in both cases is Bush at 10%. Trump also holds a wide lead as most trusted to handle immigration, 45% to 14% for Rubio and 11% for Bush.

There have also been some shifts in the poll in favorability ratings since September. Rubio is now viewed most favorably, with 61% holding a positive view of him and 23% unfavorable. That's not a significant change since his September rating, but others who were viewed more positively have lost significant ground. Favorable impressions of Fiorina have fallen from 62% in September to 49% now, and Carson has dropped from 60% in September to 47% now. Kasich's favorability rating drops from 45% to 36%, and there's also been an uptick in negative views of Bush, from 36% in September to 45% now.

The CNN/WMUR poll was conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center by telephone from November 30-December 7. The poll includes interviews with a random sample of 954 adult residents of New Hampshire, including 402 who say they plan to vote in the Republican presidential primary. For results among the sample of GOP primary voters, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.

[TheWhiteShadow]

Make America Great Again! Trump for President

[Patriarch]

You can't stump the Trump. '16. The next Coolidge. The Next Reagan. I think he could win by a landslide, perhaps? What say ye?

[TheWhiteShadow]

Boy the establishment is losing their minds over the possibility of Trump winning the nomination. It's a bit scary, but I'm loving every minute of it.

ACLU Board Member Resigns After Urging People To Kill Supporters Of Trump

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/12/11/aclu-board-member-resigns-after-urging-people-to-kill-supporters-of-trump/

Things are really getting exciting now. Trumps popularity just keeps rising

TRUMP 35.4%, CARSON 12%, RUBIO 10.5%, CRUZ 9.7%

http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TR130/filters/PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20151206-20151211/type/day

[dymphna17]

Mr Trump had better employ a taste tester!

[moneil]

Mr. Trump's comments on immigrants, and people of non European origin in general, are eerily reminiscent of what U.S. WASP's said about Catholic immigrants from Ireland, Italy, and Poland, as well as other countries, in a previous century.

Mr. Trump's remarks on foreign policy and national security need to be seriously vetted against St. Thomas Aquinas' Just War Theory, which builds upon the work of St. Augustine.

Just my humble observation.

[dymphna17]

Mr. Trump's comments on immigrants, and people of non European origin in general, are eerily reminiscent of what U.S. WASP's said about Catholic immigrants from Ireland, Italy, and Poland, as well as other countries, in a previous century.

Mr. Trump's remarks on foreign policy and national security need to be seriously vetted against St. Thomas Aquinas' Just War Theory, which builds upon the work of St. Augustine.

Just my humble observation.

Have you heard exactly what he said regarding immigrants or have you just heard the snippets of, "We need to ban immigrants" given out by the msm?  And what is it that you've heard him say about foreign policy and national security that should be vetted against the Just War Theory?  I'm not being confrontational, I would really like to know. 

[Sockpuppet]

Trump is actually for immigration , but has said it makes no sense we give welfare benefits to people who aren't supposed to be here but deny visas to highly skilled workers who would become taxpayers.

He's not against immigration. He's for reform of a broken immigration system.

[Flora]

Mr. Trump's comments on immigrants, and people of non European origin in general, are eerily reminiscent of what U.S. WASP's said about Catholic immigrants from Ireland, Italy, and Poland, as well as other countries, in a previous century.

What has he said about immigrants and people of non-European origin that's wrong? Just because Catholic immigrants were discriminated against in the past that means we should allow illegal immigrants to continue flooding into the country and allow muslims to infiltrate? I don't understand this line of reasoning because it uses a false analogy to draw a conclusion. Sodomite marriage supporters use this same sort of reasoning to argue that people who are against sodomite marriage are just like those who were against interracial marriage in the past. So therefore, we should allow sodomite marriage.

The difference between a Catholic and a muslim is that one follows the true religion while the other follows a false, demonic, and violent religion. Why should both get equal treatment?

One could argue that Trump is acting more in line with how Catholic monarchs acted with regard to muslims.

[moneil]

Have you heard exactly what he said regarding immigrants or have you just heard the snippets of, "We need to ban immigrants" given out by the msm?  And what is it that you've heard him say about foreign policy and national security that should be vetted against the Just War Theory?  I'm not being confrontational, I would really like to know. 

A thoughtful and appropriate question to ask 

I've heard the "soundbites" on the news (usually NPR).  When I open the "interweb" on my computer, before I get to what I got online for, I sometimes follow through on some of the news stories that appear on my opening Yahoo screen, and I try, time permitting, to follow the stories on two or more sources for proper context.  For example, if the first lead I read is the Huffiington Post I will also look at one from the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, or Fox.  Though these (which are give just as  examples of sources I might consult) might be considered "establishment", they are on the conservative side.  I am generally leery of "alternative news sources" regardless of where they fit on "the spectrum" as there is generally no way to vet the veracity of what they report.  If I happen to look at Alex Jones for example, it is to be informed on what the "tin foil hat" wearing crowd is thinking, and for humor, but never for actual fact.

Okay, that was "long winded".  I have followed through on his "immigration, race, and religion" thoughts and I'm convinced of my position there, especially as I have read on the history of Catholic migration in the 19th and early 20th centuries (by which my ancestors came to the U.S.).  My paternal grandmother was fired from her public school teaching job (early 1920's probable) solely for being a "mic papist" and I don't have a lot of patience for this kind of talk.

My second opinion involving Mr. Trump's foreign policy and Church teaching may be overstated, and I apologize for not having done my own vetting on that.  I was reacting to his verified statement "I would bomb the (insert crude work here that no civilized person, let alone a good Catholic, should utter) out of 'em.  I would just bomb those suckers."  Researching that more I find that in this specific statement he was referring to the oil fields from which ISIS derives their funding, and NOT a "carpet bombing" of civilian populations.

However, he as also said "And the other thing with the terrorists — you have to take out their families. When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families!  This statement needs to be "run by Aquinas" in my personal opinion.  To be fair, I also encountered some statements from Mr. Trump that are "anti-interventionist" in the affairs of other countries, and I can agree with this.

I hope that answered your question.

[Flora]

I've heard the "soundbites" on the news (usually NPR).  When I open the "interweb" on my computer, before I get to what I got online for, I sometimes follow through on some of the news stories that appear on my opening Yahoo screen, and I try, time permitting, to follow the stories on two or more sources for proper context.  For example, if the first lead I read is the Huffiington Post I will also look at one from the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, or Fox.  Though these (which are give just as  examples of sources I might consult) might be considered "establishment", they are on the conservative side.  I am generally leery of "alternative news sources" regardless of where they fit on "the spectrum" as there is generally no way to vet the veracity of what they report.  If I happen to look at Alex Jones for example, it is to be informed on what the "tin foil hat" wearing crowd is thinking, and for humor, but never for actual fact.

What specifically has he said about immigrants and non-Europeans that is wrong? His stance is that illegal immigrants are breaking the law and should be kicked out. That we need to stop the influx of illegal immigrants into this country because 1) they are breaking the law and are taking advantage of the hospitality of this country, demanding benefits, free education, free healthcare, etc., 2) bring nothing of value to us economically, 3) some of them are violent and commit crimes. The left wants a welfare state, yet don't understand that you can't simultaneously have a welfare state AND an influx of third-worlders. That system is not sustainable. How is that position wrong? He's also said that Chinese women often engage in birth tourism, where they come over to the USA and give birth just so their child can de facto become a US citizen and later on in life sponsor their families to immigrate to the US. This is an abuse of the system and is essentially taking advantage of this country.

Okay, that was "long winded".  I have followed through on his "immigration, race, and religion" thoughts and I'm convinced of my position there, especially as I have read on the history of Catholic migration in the 19th and early 20th centuries (by which my ancestors came to the U.S.).  My paternal grandmother was fired from her public school teaching job (early 1920's probable) solely for being a "mic papist" and I don't have a lot of patience for this kind of talk.

You're acting as though only racist WASPs support Trump. My family are non-white immigrants who came here legally and have faced more discrimination from blacks and Hispanics because of their affirmative action policies than from imaginary "white supremacy". My relatives have been robbed multiple times by illegal Mexicans and a girl in our community was killed by a group of them a few years ago. Most liberal whites who support uncontrolled illegal immigration and the influx of violent muslims are those who live in their pristine gated communities under no immediate threat of being overrun.

[moneil]

Trump is actually for immigration , but has said it makes no sense we give welfare benefits to people who aren't supposed to be here but deny visas to highly skilled workers who would become taxpayers.

He's not against immigration. He's for reform of a broken immigration system.

A good friend of mine is an immigration attorney and we've discussed this very topic many times.  "... highly skilled workers who would become taxpayers" generally have no problem getting a visa in a timely manner, especially if sponsored by an employer who needs their skills.

What I'm concerned about is Mr. Trump's proposal to ban (albeit temporarily) ALL Muslims, based solely on their stated religion.  I work on a Land Grant University dairy farm.  Two Professors and Senior Scientists in the Theriogenology Department of our College of Veterinary Medicine, and a Resident in that department are all Muslim.  The first mentioned is married to a Catholic wife from the U.S., they met while he was earning his Ph.D. and the University of Minnesota.  To round out this crew, there are two Residents from the U.S. and one from Italy.  These professionals conduct research at our facility, provide weekly pregnancy detection and fertility exams for us, and are on 24/7 call to assist with dystocias, as well as providing emergency backup to the food animal medicine group when needed.

The three Muslims periodically travel home to visit family (one is from Morocco, two from Pakistan).  One has been consulting in a part of the former Soviet Union (I don't remember the country).  Another is an internationally recognized authority on the cameloids and frequently travels to the Middle East and the high Andes of South Americas (Llamas and Alpacas there) for professional work.  They also frequently travel to international conferences on theriogenology and veterinary medicine.

IF a Trump Administration were to arbitrarily ban them from reentering the U.S. based SOLELY on their stated or perceived religious affiliation, it would impact the results of ongoing research, endanger the lives of important research animals, impact the training of future veterinarians, and make my life miserable.  This IS NOT a political platform I can support, and my reasons are based on lived reality and actual fact.

[moneil]

I am afraid some of my actual views have been misunderstood or misconstrued, and I apologize for not expressing myself with more clarity.

As a broad discussion of U.S. immigration policy is beyond the scope of this thread I started a new thread here: http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=13166.0 in the event anyone is interested.

[dymphna17]

Here is what Mr Trump actually said about Muslim immigration:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/07/trump-calls-complete-shutdown-muslims-entering-united-states/

Donald Trump Calls for 'Complete Shutdown Of Muslims Entering the United States'

by MICHELLE FIELDS7 Dec 201531,469
Presidential candidate Donald Trump is calling for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

In a statement released Monday, Trump pointed to a poll from Center for Security Policy to show that segments of the Muslim population detest Americans.

According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah."

Trump reiterated in the statement that America must understand radical Islam before allowing Muslims into the country.

Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. *Snip

[Flora]

IF a Trump Administration were to arbitrarily ban them from reentering the U.S. based SOLELY on their stated or perceived religious affiliation, it would impact the results of ongoing research, endanger the lives of important research animals, impact the training of future veterinarians, and make my life miserable.  This IS NOT a political platform I can support, and my reasons are based on lived reality and actual fact.

So you don't support the banning of muslims solely because it would negatively affect your work? I feel like that is a small thing compared to the negative impact of a mass migration of muslims into the West. Islam is a demonic religion that is one of the most militant enemies of Christianity. Allowing its adherents into this country will only help to spread its influences among our people. The spread of islam and the proliferation of muslims within US borders is surely a much more important issue than a few research animals being endangered. Not to belittle your work...I just think that curbing the spread of islam is a much more important priority and that while the banning of muslims might have some negative effects (as in your case), it's for the greater good.