Trump flip flops on the Muslim ban

I maintain that anti-illegal immigration nationalism is the backbone of Free Republic, but hating Muslims is a close second. And so when Trump continues hamfistedly pivoting towards the middle backing off his Muslim immigration moratorium by calling it 'only a suggestion' Freepers start to buck a bit.

But JimRob keeps them in line - he's not quite zotting all criticism of Trump, but he will spike most stories that cast him in a bad light, and will warn people who don't spin all of Trump's actions as smart and conservative.

Jim Robinson lays out his logic - Trump didn't really say this, and anyhow don't die on this hill:

Lack of principles? Placing a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration until we figure out what’s going on would indeed be a highly principled commonsense act, but I don’t think this was ever part of Trump’s original plan. And it was no part of anyone’s plan. If I remember correctly, Trump just kind of threw it out there during a campaign rally a day or two after the San Bernardino Muslim terrorist attack. It caught in like wildfire amongst his supporters, but the entire ruling class (other than possibly Jeff Sessions) and all fellow candidates and “conservative” pundits immediately pooh-pooed the idea as being unconstitutional.

We’ll see. I hope he gets it done, but it would be a Herculean task.

This is not the hill to die on.

fortheDeclaration will not have anyone keeping holding Trump to his Freepish promises!

Somebody has to hold Mr. Trumps feet to the fire because it is evident his diehard supporters will not. Happy to oblige. I don’t want to help Trump defeat Hillary only to find out he is Hillary’s evil twin brother.

Take a hike you phony!

Jim Robinson again steps in to lay out some vague triumphalism and vaguer boundaries about how 'anti-Trump' you can be:

Well, if Mr. Trump can not be criticized or held to account when he runs left here at FR then Jim is welcome to delete my account because I will not abide by those rules. No way, no how.

Just depends on how far anti-Trump you go and if your posts encourage others to follow suit. FR is anti-commie, anti-Hillary. Hope you come around. We’d hate to lose you.

We will not allow NeverTrumperism to usher in communism.

Reagan’s strategy to defeat communism: We win, they lose.

Jimmy McGill quickly gets back in line:

I’d take Trump over Hillary every day of the week.

For what it’s worth, my post wasn’t meant as a criticism of Trump (though I do think it’s important that we keep his feet to the fire, to make sure he doesn’t shift too far to the left for the general election).

fortheDeclaration again - there will be no criticism until after the election!!

Trump isn't in office yet, so when he gets there then you can talk about his policies.

Until then you can just keep your anti-Trump rhetoric to yourself.

It is either going to be Trump or Hillary, take your choice-snowflake.

JudyinCanada gets a lot of approval for out-notivisting Trump and coming out against all immigration:

He needs to change it to a ban on all immigration, as was done for forty years, until a certain criteria has been met. That criteria should consist of:

- the national debt being significantly reduced
- the REAL unemployment rate reaching an acceptable level
- the current crop of legal immigrants must be satisfactorily assimilated
- the illegals in the country must be summarily dealt with
- a very thorough and highly secure screening process for any new, legal immigration must be in place

If he halts all immigration, nobody can scream discrimination - there is no real way of screening out muslims....they have been known to avoid telling the truth.

I hear moderate conservatives yell at liberals for conflating illegal immigration and immigration generally. 'These awful things only apply to illegal immigration!' Well, you'd better check your base, guys...

combat_boots seems to think all Muslims are Iranians in the 1970s:

Carter and W both banned Muslims for awhile.

353FMG is not optimistic about Trump:

THIS CAN BE EXPECTED, (even from Trump).
He is becoming like most politicians.
Expect him to meet with some imam in a DC mosque to “discuss” the muzzie situation.

353FMG is one of those hoping for some terrorism to get America's mind right:

It is unconstitutional to be anti-muzzie
Of course all that will change when the first truck bomb goes off on Times Square and the walls are dripping with blood like they are in Baghdad today.

Aaaand then 353FMG starts with the unironic Naziism:

Alle Muzzies raus

HarleyLady27 is enthusiastic as usual, declaring this all a lie by the liberal media:

OH BOY here goes Clinton News Network at play again...

WARNING!!! WARNING!!! WARNING!!!

Do not believe anything you read from CNN...they support Hillary and Hillary only and her ilk....

Trump: Save America...

Hillary: Screw America...

RedWulf agrees - every time Trump looks bad it's just media trickery:

Still haven’t seen or heard the recording of Trump saying it was a suggestion. The media has been misquoting Trump for ages trying to make him look like a flip flopper.

UKrepublican exhorts Freepers to not be purist. Freepers, be less purist?! What an age we live in:

The purists should realize its just not going to happen on their terms.

One step at a time - if Trump builds that wall and throws the illegals out - you may just have a chance to save your country.

Without that you are utterly finished, everything else is mute.

MamaTexan holds out hope for banning every Muslim nation:

LOL! CNN spins like there's no tomorrow, but even if that's what he said - so what?

Just because they aren't banned on the basis of religion doesn't mean they still won't get banned. The majority of the US legal system is based on nationality, not religion.

Jamestown1630 thinks no immigrants have rights:

I don’t understand how something can be ‘unconstitutional’ when it doesn’t affect citizens...?

napscoordinator thinks the problem is with every judge in America, and also America:

This would be considered unconstitutional. There is no way they couldn’t find a judge to stop it. Trump is being realistic. Our country sucks. I guess Trump could have continued saying it to make us all happy but there was no way this would ever happen.

Chgogal  explains that by saying it's a suggestion Trump just means Giuliani is on the case!

Original Trump Statement:

Donald J. 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,” a campaign press release said.

That means UNTIL the Government run by Trump figures out how to handle Muslims coming to the US, none will come in.

THEN yesterday Trump announced this:

Donald Trump said Wednesday that he may tap Rudy Giuliani to lead a commission on terrorism that also would study his controversial plan to block Muslims from entering the US.

Now all the NeverTrump crowd say he is backing down. Again, BullenScheisse!

Behind the Blue Wall knows it was more of a slogan, and details come later anyhow:

I knew from the start that it was more of a campaign slogan than a policy proposal. But from that starting point it’s certainly possible to construct a constitutional, effective, fair policy that would severely limit immigration from population that include a disproportionate number of terrorists.

It’s not Trump’s job to figure out the details of that; there will be phalanxes of various kinds of experts who will slave night and day to come up with something. The point is his priority is protecting us, not the would-be immigrants.

Talisker has one of those extended analogies I love:

Trump thinks from the general to the specific.

If there’s an unstoppable fire, the first thing he’s going to say is that “we’ve got to stop this fire.” That frames the subject, it establishes the starting point so that a solution can be found by comparing ideas to that standard for proper evaluation of potential effectiveness.

If the end result is, therefore, to run from the fire because it can’t be stopped, it is incorrect to say that the premise of stopping the fire was wrong. Rather, one can say that by the time running away is decided upon, one knows, for a fact, that there was no other alternative. In that way, failure analysis is automatically accomplished, and learning and future prevention and ideas for ongoing modification of behavior automatically take place.

sargon is so eager to give Trump power, he gives Obama the power to unilaterally do immigration reform. Then he explains that whatever Trump says, he's one of us.

My understanding is that, statutorily, the President has arbitrary power to exclude foreigners from immigrating to this country, based on any criteria whatsoever. Religious tests for immigration are explicitly mentioned as an example somewhere in the US Code, if I'm not mistaken.

"Softening" his rhetoric on this issue is certainly nothing for any hysterical critic of Donald Trump to hang his/her hat on. Donald Trump has made his intent clear, and his reasons for advocating the policy have been stated.

Vote Trump

Cementjungle gets right down to it - Trump is lying to get elected, but he's secretly still with Freepers:

I believe he understands the problem, and I think he's about the only one who will actually deal with it. And, since he's a results-oriented sort of person, he'll not only try but succeed.

But first, he has to get himself elected... so he needs to appeal to as many voters as possible.

UnwashedPeasant is more right than he knows:

It is not a lie. It is a gullibility test.