Trump Proposes Ideology Test for Immigrants

Not surprising when you realize that he doesn't believe in press freedom.

It is not "freedom of the press" when newspapers and others are allowed to say and write whatever they want even if it is completely false!"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/764870785634799617

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/08/trump-vows-to-stay-true-to-himself.html

Now Trump proposes a new ideological test for new immigrants.

"Donald Trump is expected on Monday to propose screening immigrants with an ideological questionnaire."

"According to The Associated Press, the Republican presidential nominee plans to present a proposal during an address in Youngstown, Ohio, to create an ideological admissions test that would question potential immigrants on positions such as religious freedom, gender equality and gay rights. The test, in addition to combing social media and interviewing friends and families, would be used to determine whether potential immigrants support American values."

"Mr. Trump's speech will explain that while we can’t choose our friends, we must always recognize our enemies,” Trump campaign senior policy adviser Stephen Miller said Sunday.

"In his address on combating terrorism and defeating the Islamic State, Trump will also “describe the need to temporarily suspend visa issuances to geographic regions with a history of exporting terrorism and where adequate checks and background vetting cannot occur,” Miller added.

Trump has also proposed temporarily banning all Muslims from entering the U.S., a policy he has since modulated to instead focus on immigrants from so-called “terror states.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-immigrants-screening-questionnaire-227006#ixzz4HPHEjxGw

Note how broad this is: it would target literally every immigrant who comes to the country in principle.

An ideology test to prove you believe in American values is quite ironic as American values means that there is no ideological purity test. That's not what being an American is about.

In other news Trump is approaching 'zero hour' according to the pollsters:

"Pollsters: Trump approaching zero hour."

"Candidates polling ahead after the conventions have won the popular vote in 16 straight elections."

"No candidate in Donald Trump’s position at this stage of the campaign has gone on to win the popular vote in November in the modern polling era."

"That’s the sobering news confronting the Trump campaign as it seeks to rebound from his recent slump."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/pollsters-trump-approaching-zero-hour-227000#ixzz4HPIINQ19

"In still other news, some liberals need to get real."

"Hillary Clinton’s Edge in a Donald Trump-Centric Race Has Liberals Wary."

"Liberal Democrats and progressive activists have grown wary of the state of the 2016 presidential race, chafing at Hillary Clinton’s big-tent courtship of Republican leaders they have long opposed and fearing the consequences of shaping the contest as a referendum on Donald J. Trump."

"While few have questioned the electoral strategy of bringing Republicans into the fold by casting Mr. Trump as a singular threat to democracy, both skeptics and some admirers of Mrs. Clinton have come to view her decisive advantage in the polls with mixed emotions."

"She may win by a mandate-level margin, they say. But what, exactly, would the mandate be for?"

"In a matter of weeks, beginning with the party conventions, the policy-driven debates that animated the Democratic primary race have largely disappeared from the political foreground, giving way to discussions of Mr. Trump’s temperament, his inflammatory remarks and even his sanity."

“If she’s going to get anything done as president, she is going to have to have a mandate,” said Robert B. Reich, a secretary of labor in Bill Clinton’s administration who supported Bernie Sanders in the primary.

"The subject of Mr. Trump’s temperament was unavoidable, Mr. Reich said, “but temperament doesn’t give you a mandate to do anything.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/hillary-clinton-democrats.html?ribbon-ad-idx=2&rref=politics&module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Politics&action=keypress&region=FixedRight&pgtype=article

Listen, can we please? First, and foremost she has to beat Donald Trump. Can we agree on that much? This actually comes back to a philosophical difference in strategy. Many of the Bernie people wanted an ideological battle. Hillary instead chose to run on temperament and fitness to the job.

This makes sense when you realize that more people agree that the President needs to be up to the job and has the right basic temperament than necessarily agree on every ideological point of the Left.

As for this mandate thing, this is what LBJ ran like. He ran on Goldwater being a huge threat to the nation and its standing in the world, that Goldwater had an itchy finger with the nuclear button.

Some progressives get it:

"Adam Green, a founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said Mrs. Clinton’s efforts to cast a wide net and train voters’ attention on Mr. Trump amounted to a “double-edged sword.”

“Republicans in Congress won’t grant as easily after the election that we won a huge mandate on progressive issues, but thanks to Donald Trump, we might have more progressives and majorities in Congress,” Mr. Green said. “I’d rather have a Republican minority in denial about what just happened than a Republican majority standing in the way.”

The more Democrats you have in Congress the more you can do on liberal issues. LBJ followed up a landslide win in 1964 by doing civil rights and the Great Society.

First progressives claimed she wasn't exciting enough to beat Trump handily. Now we have proof she can beat him handily so now they worry over mandates. Winning gives you a mandate.