Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus For Trump!

[betsy]

Trump's platform could only appeal to the religious - the fundamentalists! Religion of different stripes.

I think, his latest "scandalous" comment about a hypothetical future America where-in abortion is illegal.....and that he thinks a woman who had abortion should have some form of punishment, is a very calculated statement aimed at the religious fundamentalists.

For the life of me, I don't know what the fiasco was all about his comment. If abortion is illegal in that hypothetical future America, obviously the woman who's had an abortion has committed something illegal. Anyway.....

Of course, that comment was used by every opposition candidate, including Clinton. And media lapped it up again.

It got a lot of air time yesterday! Never mind that it was a hypothetical question about a hypothetical USA.....it's an excellent piece to show him as an anti-woman. Finally, this must be the comment that'll make Trump dead!

Whooo-hoo! Ted Cruz brought out his wife, his mom, and even Carly Fiorina.

But wait......a few hours later, he backtracks from that statement, which I think is also a very calculated move: he's now courting the pro-lifers, who were aghast at his previous statement: no, the doctor who performed the abortion is the one who should be punished! The woman is also a victim.

I think, it was a brilliant calculation on his part.

And I think, his opponents (and the leftist media) just realized what they'd just unwittingly done.

Darn! They fell for it again!

They probably thought about all the religions that are opposed to abortion, pre-marital sex and promiscuity!

Perhaps they visualized these religious fundamentalists shouting out in unison, "Well, it's about time!"

The jubilant anti-Trump are all suddenly quiet today - so far no mention of Trump and his controversial comments on tv news channels.

Anyway, back to supporters from various religious factions.

Meet the Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus supporting Trump

By Brajesh Upadhyay BBC Urdu, Washington DC

• 10 March 2016

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump's barbs against Muslims and immigrants may have offended many, but there are a few people within the same communities now rooting for the billionaire.

Right after his victory in the Nevada caucuses, Mr Trump was quick to flaunt the support he got from some Hispanic voters. Now he can add Hindus for Trump, American Sikhs for Trump and even American Muslims for Trump to his list.

While these groups in no way reflect the thinking of the wider Hindu, Sikh or Muslim community in the US, they are nevertheless making headlines in the diaspora media.

The Hindus for Trump Facebook page, which has 500 "likes", has gone so far as to place the business tycoon on the same pedestal as some of the most revered Hindu gods.

They have come out with a poster where Mr Trump is seen sitting in a yoga posture on a lotus with the "Om" symbol—an uncanny resemblance to the Hindu Gods Brahma and Vishnu.

In Hindu beliefs, Brahma is the creator of the world and Vishnu the protector and restorer of moral order.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35758156

Interesting......

Edited March 31, 2016 by betsy

[WestCoastRunner]

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35758156

Interesting......

The Hindus for Trump Facebook page, which has 500 "likes", has gone so far as to place the business tycoon on the same pedestal as some of the most revered Hindu gods.

Yep, 500 'likes' out of 2.5 million Hindus. He's on a roll.

[betsy]

The Hindus for Trump Facebook page, which has 500 "likes", has gone so far as to place the business tycoon on the same pedestal as some of the most revered Hindu gods.

Yep, 500 'likes' out of 2.5 million Hindus. He's on a roll.

I didn't say it's a landslide. But, don't underestimate DIASPORA media. It just might snow ball.

It would be nice to be a fly on the wall and listen to the conversations around dinner tables of various religious fundamentalists.

Edited March 31, 2016 by betsy

[rotary]

So in other words he demonstrated he has no clear policy on the issue. I think he realized he made a screw up and tried to contain the backlash. It would be a rather large stretch to characterize that as a brilliant strategy.But I suppose his followers are willing to believe just about anything he tells them.

[betsy]

So in other words he demonstrated he has no clear policy on the issue. I think he realized he made a screw up and tried to contain the backlash. It would be a rather large stretch to characterize that as a brilliant strategy.But I suppose his followers are willing to believe just about anything he tells them.

How do you know he has no clear policy? His position is aligned with Biblical teachings, and a lot of religion share some values. He hasn't backtracked on that!

Right now, he's doing what every candidate is doing: courting votes!

Edited March 31, 2016 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

Trump is about as far as one could be from religious fundamentalists on social issues. But some constituencies can be exploited for their willingness to believe what they want to believe.

[Guest]

Trump is about as far as one could be from religious fundamentalists on social issues. But some constituencies can be exploited for their willingness to believe what they want to believe.

Exactly. I've never before known a politician whose entire campaign was based on pandering. That's what makes this so much fun to watch. At what point is someone, anyone, going to turn round and say "exactly how is it going to be great?"

[betsy]

Exactly. I've never before known a politician whose entire campaign was based on pandering.

Well, ask yourself: how can Trump be pandering to Muslims and Latino's when he's saying he'll temporarily ban Muslims from entering the USA, and he'll deport all illegal Mexicans? Can you explain, how you see that as "pandering?"

On the other hand, listen to Democrats!

Democrats have been pandering to women's groups, LGBT, pro-choice and abortionists, Islamist regimes like Iran, environmentalists, students and young people, the UN (whose panels are peopled by a lot of dictators and Islamists),

illegal immigrants......and Hollywood!

Now, they even pander to criminals, by saying that in a hypothetical future America where abortion is illegal, any woman who had an abortion (and, therefore had committed a crime), shouldn't be punished at all!

Btw, I wonder if they pander to prostitutes in the USA, too?

In Canada, it's against the law for a man to engage with a prostitute, but it's not illegal for a prostitute to sell herself to customers! Go figure that double standard.

At what point is someone, anyone, going to turn round and say "exactly how is it going to be great?"

Exactly. Democrats should explain that!

How is it going to be great when you're trying to please everyone and in the process, changing parameters of rules, and constant tweaking of the Constitution just so to be able to pander to various groups?

Edited April 1, 2016 by betsy

[BC_chick]

I didn't say it's a landslide. But, don't underestimate DIASPORA media. It just might snow ball.

It would be nice to be a fly on the wall and listen to the conversations around dinner tables of various religious fundamentalists.

So the whole acrimonious relationship between Hindus and Muslims has nothing to do with Hindus supporting Trump, it's his one day old policy on abortion!

[kimmy]

Now, they even pander to criminals, by saying that in a hypothetical future America where abortion is illegal, any woman who had an abortion (and, therefore had committed a crime), shouldn't be punished at all!

You have a point. Logically, Trump's position made sense, for the 3 hours that it lasted, at least.

But politically, it was terrible for the pro-life cause, which is why even people like fetus-fanatic Ted Cruz denounced Trump's comments.

I don't know if you noticed, but among the maddest about Trump's 3-hour position were pro-life groups like March for Life and Susan B Anthony List. That's because they know that this kind of language is damaging to public opinion of their cause. They're trying so hard to create this loving, supportive image. "Women are victims of abortion too, they need our sympathy and love, not condemnation" .. which is completely at odds with the idea of throwing them in prison. "They need our sympathy and love... but we're going to put them in jail if we catch them!"

Ultimately, voters are leery of the idea of criminalizing women if something happens to their fetus. It's the reason the Personhood Amendment failed even in ultra-conservative, ultra-religious Mississippi.

It's the same reason pro-life politicians (including Trump, and every other Republican candidate except Cruz) support exemptions for rape and incest. Logically, if abortion is murder, then it's murder even if the fetus was conceived by rape or incest. But politically they know that forcing women to carry their rapists' baby to term is an unpopular idea, so they agree to exceptions in these circumstances.

If you want the real pro-life candidate, go with Cruz... he's the one with uncompromising principles on this issue. (I'm pretty sure he's also the candidate that the real religious fundamentalists will be supporting.)

-k

[betsy]

So the whole acrimonious relationship between Hindus and Muslims has nothing to do with Hindus supporting Trump, it's his one day old policy on abortion!

I don't know what their relationship has anything to do with what Trump said! You should explain.

I'm talking about fundamentalists like me, who try to adhere to their written books.

There are fundamentalists who aren't happy about the morality of the current climate,

because they go against their religious belief.

Edited April 1, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

You have a point. Logically, Trump's position made sense, for the 3 hours that it lasted, at least.

But politically, it was terrible for the pro-life cause, which is why even people like fetus-fanatic Ted Cruz denounced Trump's comments.

I don't know if you noticed, but among the maddest about Trump's 3-hour position were pro-life groups like March for Life and Susan B Anthony List. That's because they know that this kind of language is damaging to public opinion of their cause. They're trying so hard to create this loving, supportive image. "Women are victims of abortion too, they need our sympathy and love, not condemnation" .. which is completely at odds with the idea of throwing them in prison. "They need our sympathy and love... but we're going to put them in jail if we catch them!"

Ultimately, voters are leery of the idea of criminalizing women if something happens to their fetus. It's the reason the Personhood Amendment failed even in ultra-conservative, ultra-religious Mississippi.

It's the same reason pro-life politicians (including Trump, and every other Republican candidate except Cruz) support exemptions for rape and incest. Logically, if abortion is murder, then it's murder even if the fetus was conceived by rape or incest. But politically they know that forcing women to carry their rapists' baby to term is an unpopular idea, so they agree to exceptions in these circumstances.

If you want the real pro-life candidate, go with Cruz... he's the one with uncompromising principles on this issue. (I'm pretty sure he's also the candidate that the real religious fundamentalists will be supporting.)

-k

I like the platform of Trump. It's not only limited to abortion.

Like I've said, I weigh my decision on what would benefit the most people. I've listed and illustrated some of my reasons somewhere (in response to WestCoastRunner).

As for his statement, I suspect it may've been a deliberate, calculated move on his part. His first statement (that the woman should have a form of punishment) could've been aimed at religious fundamentalists. He tickled these fundamentalists by giving them an insight about his position on abortion (and women who have abortions) - no doubt, fundamentalists think the same (if not a whole lot worse by some religion, as what these women ought to really deserve). Think about those who adhere to Sharia Law, as an example. They would be aligned with Trump as to his remarks about punishments.

Because his remarks were seen as an anti-woman statement, the media and every candidate attacked him for it.

All candidates who attacked him for it, automatically contradicts the ideals of religious fundamentalists! By the whole media coverage of Trump's remarks - he's been able to send that message to religious fundamentalists.

Diaspora media - media that's meant for specific communities like Muslims, Hindus, etc.. - will surely chew on that, and there will be discussions about it. Discussions will no doubt be heavily based on their own culture, and religious belief.

Most likely, their religious leaders will have a say on it, too.

Thus I'm so interested to know what the discussion is around dinner tables.

Btw, CTV Power Play by Mercedes - something, yesterday, covered that Trump remark (but edited the part that it was a hypothetical question about a hypothetical future America where-in abortion is illegal).

She simply took it all out of context by saying that's what Trump thinks should happen to women who have abortion.

CTV Power Play has just shown they are not trustworthy as a news outlet, for accuracy!

I haven't seen any more coverage from US news channels like CBS, or NBC, or ABC. The news channels were all noisy about it a day before, and now suddenly....it's all quiet. Or maybe I just missed them?

Assuming they're indeed mum about it now, I think they now realized what just happened back there that Trump used them to sound off to religious fundamentalists.

Edited April 1, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

But politically, it was terrible for the pro-life cause, which is why even people like fetus-fanatic Ted Cruz denounced Trump's comments.

-k

Ted Cruz wasn't thinking logically when he attacked Trump for his hypothetical answer.

At least you'd seen how sensible Trump's answer was - which say so much for Ted Cruz!

Cruz is desperate that he's shooting from the hip, latching on to anything.......without even thinking about what's being said, and his senseless reply to it. UNLESS he's deliberately trying to be dishonest by using a senseless smear tactics on Trump.

Pro-lifers should make a decision what their priorities are! Saving the unborn, or supporting feminism?

You can't have it both ways. Society's judgement on the woman (in that hypothetical scenario)....will have to depend on individual cases in this scenario.

If pro-lifers believe abortion is murder, it's hard to go both ways when the mother is basically instigating, or is an active accomplice to the murder of her child. If the woman doesn't want to kill her child, I don't think any sane doctors will

use force to kill the unborn.

Edited April 1, 2016 by betsy

[kimmy]

Ted Cruz wasn't thinking logically when he attacked Trump for his hypothetical answer.

At least you'd seen how sensible Trump's answer was - which say so much for Ted Cruz!

Cruz is desperate that he's shooting from the hip, latching on to anything.......without even thinking about what's being said, and his senseless reply to it. UNLESS he's deliberately trying to be dishonest by using a senseless smear tactics on Trump.

Pro-lifers should make a decision what their priorities are! Saving the unborn, or supporting feminism?

You can't have it both ways. Society's judgement on the woman (in that hypothetical scenario)....will have to depend on individual cases in this scenario.

If pro-lifers believe abortion is murder, it's hard to go both ways when the mother is basically instigating, or is an active accomplice to the murder of her child. If the woman doesn't want to kill her child, I don't think any sane doctors will

use force to kill the unborn.

Well, like I said, I agree with you.

But pro-lifers like Cruz and the groups I mentioned have obviously come to the decision that getting abortion illegal is more important than punishing women who have illegal abortions.

They obviously believe that they will have a better chance to outlaw abortion if the public believes that women won't be prosecuted for making "mistakes" when they're vulnerable and afraid. Like I said, the mainstream pro-life movement has been trying very hard to create the image that they love and support women in these stressful circumstances... "we're accepting! We're forgiving! We just want to help!" They are trying to fight the image that pro-life is anti-women.

Hilary Clinton was probably pretty happy about what Trump said, though. She was telling people "see? this is what you get if you put a Republican in the White House."

-k

[betsy]

Well, like I said, I agree with you.

But pro-lifers like Cruz and the groups I mentioned have obviously come to the decision that getting abortion illegal is more important than punishing women who have illegal abortions.

They obviously believe that they will have a better chance to outlaw abortion if the public believes that women won't be prosecuted for making "mistakes" when they're vulnerable and afraid. Like I said, the mainstream pro-life movement has been trying very hard to create the image that they love and support women in these stressful circumstances... "we're accepting! We're forgiving! We just want to help!" They are trying to fight the image that pro-life is anti-women.

Hilary Clinton was probably pretty happy about what Trump said, though. She was telling people "see? this is what you get if you put a Republican in the White House."

-k

I don't get why getting abortion illegal wouldn't go hand in hand with punishing women who commits something illegal. When asked what kind of punishment should it be, Trump said, he didn't know......that it's something complicated.

That's being honest - to admit that.....because, it is, complicated.

Like I said, in that hypothetical scenario, it has to depend on individual cases.

So many women are getting repeat-abortions this days, too - which no longer make them "victims."

We punish distracted drivers, drunk drivers, drivers under the influence of illegal substance - most of whom are probably struggling with alcohol problems/drug addiction, thus we should view them as victims - but we have no problems of punishing them when they cause death(s) or injuries. Also, punishments can take on different forms appropriate for the circumstance(s) and the crime committed. We are outraged by repeat offenders by violent crimes!

Why should it be any different for a woman committing murder, just because she's a woman?

Edited April 1, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

Hilary Clinton was probably pretty happy about what Trump said, though. She was telling people "see? this is what you get if you put a Republican in the White House."

-k

.......Until she realized that religious fundamentalists also consists of women who take their religious belief seriously.

The message of Trump was aimed for the fundamentalists.

Not all people agree with Hillary either, regardless whether they're religious or not.

Edited April 1, 2016 by betsy

[kimmy]

I don't get why getting abortion illegal wouldn't go hand in hand with punishing women who commits something illegal.

It's about politics. The important first step is getting it illegal at all, right? So take the path to building public support for that.

Like I said, in that hypothetical scenario, it has to depend on individual cases.

All the Republican candidates promise that they're going to ban abortion, so it's not really a hypothetical, it's more a question of finding out what's going to happen when they deliver on their promise.

-k

[kimmy]

Until she realized that religious fundamentalists also consists of women who take their religious belief seriously.

The message of Trump was aimed to the fundamentalists.

I don't think Hillary is the least bit afraid of losing votes from religious fundamentalists. She knows they were never going to vote for her anyway. But there are lots of undecided women voters out there... and if Trump continues to scare them away, Hillary will have the election in the bag. I think Hillary will be thrilled if Trump continues to make extreme statements to court religious fundamentalists.

-k

[betsy]

It's about politics. The important first step is getting it illegal at all, right? So take the path to building public support for that.

All the Republican candidates promise that they're going to ban abortion, so it's not really a hypothetical, it's more a question of finding out what's going to happen when they deliver on their promise.

-k

The question was still hypothetical. It refers to a hypothetical future America if abortion were illegal.

The hypothetical question refers to a done deal that abortion is illegal.

Most video clips from news channels had edited, and eliminated the first part of the question: In a hypothetical future America.......

........if abortion were illegal .....should the woman be punished?

Edited April 1, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

I don't think Hillary is the least bit afraid of losing votes from religious fundamentalists. She knows they were never going to vote for her anyway. But there are lots of undecided women voters out there... and if Trump continues to scare them away, Hillary will have the election in the bag. I think Hillary will be thrilled if Trump continues to make extreme statements to court religious fundamentalists.

-k

I don't know if she's worried about fundamentalists or not. My point is not about her being worried.

My point is that the message of Trump resonates with religious fundamentalists. The media and all the candidates unwittingly helped Trump reach out to fundamentalists.

Edited April 1, 2016 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

Exactly. Getting the law involved means getting the law involved. If someone is uncomfortable with that, then they need to reconsider their pro-life stance.

[BC_chick]

I don't know what their relationship has anything to do with what Trump said! You should explain.

I'm talking about fundamentalists like me, who try to adhere to their written books.

There are fundamentalists who aren't happy about the morality of the current climate,

because they go against their religious belief.

I was saying that Hindus and Muslims have a very sordid history (the whole Pakistan/India thing, for example). If Hindus have been supporting Trump, it's more likely for Trump's anti-Muslim policies than anything to do with Trump's stance on abortion.

[BC_chick]

I don't know if she's worried about fundamentalists or not. My point is not about her being worried.

My point is that the message of Trump resonates with religious fundamentalists. The media and all the candidates unwittingly helped Trump reach out to fundamentalists.

Sarah Palin backed thrice-married Trump over extreme pro-lifer Ted Cruz. Same with Ben Carson and Mike Huckabee. Same with with the self-proclaimed 'fundamentalist' such as yourself.

Clearly Trump hasn't had an issue with attracting the 'fundamentalists' (sorry, I usually use that term in a derogatory way so I have to quote you to indicate that they're your words).

I'm not sure why you think abortion will make any impact to sway the vote. Especially since he has three different positions within 2 days.

[betsy]

I was saying that Hindus and Muslims have a very sordid history (the whole Pakistan/India thing, for example). If Hindus have been supporting Trump, it's more likely for Trump's anti-Muslim policies than anything to do with Trump's stance on abortion.

Trump isn't anti-Muslim, and he isn't anti-Latino. That's just what the opposition and the media want to paint him.

You may have a point there. I found this. Although there's nothing specifically said about Muslims, the referral to "terrorism" may be the clue.

Indian-Americans form committee to support Trump

"This is only the first step. We are on the side of Trump for this election," Mr. Amar told PTI after the announcement.

Hailing Donald Trump as U.S. “best hope”, a group of Indian-Americans has formed a political action committee to campaign for the Republican presidential front-runner and asserted that the community would benefit the most from his policies.

‘Indian—Americans for Trump 2016’, which was registered as a political action committee (PAC) on January 21 with the federal election commission, is aimed at garnering support of Indian-Americans to have Mr. Trump become the next U.S/ President.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/indianamericans-form-committee-to-support-trump/article8162946.ece

However, morality is also an issue for some Hindus.

They have come out with a poster where Mr Trump is seen sitting in a yoga posture on a lotus with the "Om" symbol—an uncanny resemblance to the Hindu Gods Brahma and Vishnu.

In Hindu beliefs, Brahma is the creator of the world and Vishnu the protector and restorer of moral order.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35758156

Edited April 1, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

SIKHS AND MUSLIMS Hold Rally in DC in Support of TRUMP

Jim Hoft Mar 7th, 2016

A group of Sikhs and Muslims mostly from South Asian countries have joined the Donald Trump bandwagon in the US state of Maryland, asserting that the Republican presidential frontrunner is “not against” their communities.

Under the banner of “Sikh Americans for Trump” and “Muslim Americans for Trump” scores of Sikhs and Muslims held their first meeting in a suburb of Washington DC in Maryland, wherein a representative from the Trump campaign addressed them.

Organisers of the event – from both the Sikh and Muslim communities – argued that the view of Trump about minority community has been “twisted” and “taken out of context” by the mainstream media and claimed that the 69-year-old billionaire real estate magnet would create more jobs in the country which would benefit he minorities.

“He (Trump) is not at all against the Sikhs or the Muslim community. What he says is given spin. The mainstream media gives a spin. Because they are scared of him. He is not the status quo. He is not taking anybody’s money,” said Jasdip Singh, who helped organised the “Sikh Americans for Trump” in Maryland.

A prominent member of the Sikh community, Singh is Chairman of the Maryland Governor’s Commission on South Asian Affairs and Chairman of the Board of Sikh Associations of Baltimore.

“When he talks about Muslims, he does not talk about all Muslims or American Muslims. He spoke in the context of the refugee crisis that was happening in Syria. We (Sikhs) agree with him. Muslim (Americans) agree with him that we should not bring people into this country before we can vet them. And this was a temporary measures proposed by him,” Singh said.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/03/sikhs-and-muslims-hold-dc-rally-for-donald-trump/

Now, imagine these people talking in their respective communities!

The polls aren't accurate. I wouldn't be surprised if polls are deliberately distorted by left-wing media in their attempt to show that Trump will lose to Hillary. They're trying to scare off Republicans from choosing Trump as the Republican nominee.

The Dems are scared of Trump!

Edited April 1, 2016 by betsy