Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Call it profiles in prejudice. Donald Trump said Monday police officers across the U.S. can't effectively hunt down terrorists because they're hamstrung by political correctness that doesn't allow them to racially profile. "Our local police, they know who a lot of these people are," Trump told Fox and Friends after he was asked how cops should investigate and respond to terror plots, like the explosion that rocked Chelsea on Saturday. "They are afraid to do anything about it because they don't want to be accused of profiling. And they don't want to be accused of all sorts of things. ... We don't want to do any profiling -- if somebody looks like he has a massive bomb on his back, we won't go up to that person and say I'm sorry because if he looks like he comes from that part of the world we're not allowed to profile. Give me a break."

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Throughout his campaign, he GOP nominee has pushed for using racial profiling -- particularly in Muslim communities -- as a police tactic to combat terrorism, disregarding the fact that the practice has not only been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court but also deemed ineffective by numerous studies.

The New York Civil Liberties Union said Trump was "talking out of both sides of his mouth" and said he didn't even know how to correctly refer to various police tactics.

In fact, since the New York Police Department disbanded a controversial unit that had been dedicated to surveilling the Muslim communities in April 2014, the department has thwarted at least 20 terrorist attacks.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Many countries do that and it works.

#1 | Posted by Sniper at 2016-09-20 12:30 PM | Reply

Headline is a lie which just shows how dishonest and biased the media is.

"CNN added the word "racial" to Donald Trump's Monday comments on terrorism and immigration and is running headlines reporting that the GOP presidential nominee spoke of using "racial profiling" to stop terrorism.

But a review of the transcript of Trump's comments to Fox News that CNN quoted shows that Trump never used the word "racial" in his comments to the network and only spoke of "profiling."

thehill.com

#2 | Posted by nullifidian at 2016-09-20 12:47 PM | Reply

MSM is getting desperate. They get bent on choosing the next president and will lie to achieve their goals. Thank God for Drudge and Fox News.

#3 | Posted by mysterytoy at 2016-09-20 01:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"We don't want to do any profiling -- if somebody looks like he has a massive bomb on his back, we won't go up to that person and say I'm sorry because if he looks like he comes from that part of the world we're not allowed to profile."

This comment is like something you'd hear from the babbling old drunk at the end of the bar who needs to be cut off.

It's fantasy without any connection to reality. Trump is out of his mind.

#4 | Posted by rcade at 2016-09-20 01:59 PM | Reply

Trump is out of his mind.

#4 | Posted by rcade at 2016-09-20 01:59 PM | Reply

That's what some who post here are looking for in a president.

#5 | Posted by Zed at 2016-09-20 02:14 PM | Reply

Trump is out of his mind.

#4 | Posted by rcade at 2016-09-20 01:59 PM | Reply

Donald, after all, just says out loud what his supporters are thinking---Crazy things.

#6 | Posted by Zed at 2016-09-20 02:14 PM | Reply

Maybe Trump could advocate certain people start wearing yellow stars on their clothing to help identify them as less trustworthy. Then those people could be forced to relocate to common neighborhoods. From there we could starts stripping them of their property possessions and wealth. Eventually we could put them on trains and ship them to work camps. The young and healthy can be put to work. And the elderly and sick can be retired.

#7 | Posted by ClownShack at 2016-09-20 02:21 PM | Reply

Trump never used the word "racial" in his comments to the network and only spoke of "profiling."

What other type of profiling do you assume he meant?

#8 | Posted by ClownShack at 2016-09-20 02:29 PM | Reply

Police already use racial profiling. Now trump wants to add religious profiling.

#9 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2016-09-20 09:05 PM | Reply

Height of PC stupidity to deny profiling should be used ...

#10 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2016-09-20 09:11 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Height of PC stupidity to deny profiling should be used ...

#10 | Posted by Greatamerican

You're right. But they should also profile gun owners because those people are much more likely to cause violence.

#11 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2016-09-20 09:27 PM | Reply

New York uses racial profiling, in Los Angeles they use covert airplanes to track entire minority neighborhoods. The only democracy in the middle east is proud of their racial profiling.

Trump says the obvious and heads explode...

#12 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2016-09-20 09:28 PM | Reply

I did a quick profile and "lone white male" is most likely to shoot up a movie theater.

Let's begin the roundup.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-09-20 09:42 PM | Reply

Lone White Males are also most likely to shoot abortion providers.
When do we send the lone white males to camps for our own safety?
It can't happen soon enough.

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-09-20 09:46 PM | Reply

(snark on) If someone looks Muslim, the cops should just pretend they're black. That ought to do it. (snark off)

#15 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2016-09-20 11:44 PM | Reply

When was the last time the police failed to act because somebody with a large bomb strapped to their back looked muslim?

#16 | Posted by truthhurts at 2016-09-21 07:05 AM | Reply

This is already integrated into their shoot to kill program.

#17 | Posted by nutcase at 2016-09-21 07:51 AM | Reply

How the hell did we get to the point the feelings of a terrorist are more important than any effort to put a 45 in their ear???

#18 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2016-09-21 07:59 AM | Reply

Conveniently left out by this blogger Dorky, was that "racial profiling" was not what Trump actually said. I saw his interview on Fox and he said it 3 times that he was for "profiling people like that which is done in Israel." He never used the words "racial profiling." The low information types are what bloggers, like this idiot masquerading as a journalist, try to influence with this crap called news.

#19 | Posted by Verneoz at 2016-09-21 09:33 AM | Reply

he was for "profiling people like that which is done in Israel." He never used the words "racial profiling."

#19 | POSTED BY VERNEOZ

Israel does racial profiling. So, by extension, that is what Trump is advocating.

So, speaking of "low information types", what type of profiling do YOU think Israel does if you think it does not include racial profiling?

#20 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2016-09-21 10:04 AM | Reply

How the hell did we get to the point the feelings of a terrorist are more important than any effort to put a 45 in their ear???

#18 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

We got to that point because we have a constitution that guarantees peoples rights, and for some reason Liberals are sticklers for actually following the constitution.

#21 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2016-09-21 10:07 AM | Reply

Headline is a lie which just shows how dishonest and biased the media is.
"CNN added the word "racial" to Donald Trump's Monday comments on terrorism and immigration and is running headlines reporting that the GOP presidential nominee spoke of using "racial profiling" to stop terrorism.
But a review of the transcript of Trump's comments to Fox News that CNN quoted shows that Trump never used the word "racial" in his comments to the network and only spoke of "profiling."
thehill.com

#2 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Yes! And the KKK never said they would "murder" black people. They only said they would hang them by the neck with a rope until they died. They didn't use the word "murder" so its wrong to say they advocated murder!

#22 | Posted by Sycophant at 2016-09-21 10:17 AM | Reply

#22 | Posted by Sycophant

Headline is still a lie. He didn't use the word "racial". Israel uses profiling successfully based on numerous criteria: country of origin, language, religion, age, gender, etc. Islam is not a race, it's an ideology.

#23 | Posted by nullifidian at 2016-09-21 01:47 PM | Reply

Nulli, are you really that naive, or just that invested in protecting Trump?

Ariel Merari, an Israeli terrorism expert who has written about aviation security, said ethnic profiling is both effective and unavoidable.
"It's foolishness not to use profiles when you know that most terrorists come from certain ethnic groups and certain age groups," he said. "A bomber on a plane is likely to be Muslim and young, not an elderly Holocaust survivor. We're talking about preventing a lot of casualties, and that justifies inconveniencing a certain ethnic group."

www.nbcnews.com

There is no way to know someone's religion based upon just looking at them (or at their passport). But, you can look at their ethnicity (and maybe their country of origin) and make a good guess at what their religion is. But that is "racial profiling".

I do not know of the Israeli government actually coming out and saying "yes, we racially profile", and they don't release any details on how they do profile. But anyone with two braincells to rub together can figure out that ethnicity plays a big part in it.

#24 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2016-09-21 02:28 PM | Reply

A bomber on a plane is likely to be Muslim and young, not an elderly Holocaust survivor.

Unless you live in Palestine.

Then the bomber may very well be the descendant of a holocaust survivor. Bombing the hell out of Palestinian neighborhoods. In order to expand Israeli settlements.

#25 | Posted by ClownShack at 2016-09-21 02:51 PM | Reply

Islam is not a race, it's an ideology.

Yea. But we're not profiling ideologies.

We're profiling a race.

Middle Easterners to be specific.

It's why sikhs are attacked.

Because they're racially profiled.

By idiots.

Who assume all Middle Easterners are muslims.

#26 | Posted by ClownShack at 2016-09-21 03:00 PM | Reply

All of the rhetoric here is fine on discussion boards, left or right leaning threads. Problems come when left wing stooges see the headline and pass the incorrect headline along to the next stooge they see....using the radical leftists "super duper secret handshake and password", of course...and purposely leave out the fact that the word "racial" was not used by the gop nominee. Then they tell the next stooge and before you know it.....you've got the....

THREE STOOGES......

Sorry, it was one of those things that had to be done.

lol

#27 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2016-09-21 04:50 PM | Reply

#27

You don't think there's a chance he implied "racial" when making the comment?

#28 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2016-09-21 04:51 PM | Reply

The implication comes from the writer who added it, just as people as conservatives all over the airwaves predicted.

When just the headline is seen, the image of blacks being pulled behind trucks, white cops shooting blacks, black boys with their hands up ( false according to the DOJ ) white men with white hoods carrying a cross and a box of matches, dogs going after blacks, white cops with fire hoses, whites standing in voting area doors demanding proof of citizenship, gangs of white kids singing "old black Joe" and ....rounding up people and putting them in camps...OH WAIT....THAT WAS A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT....

but you get the picture.....

It's about stirring up the casual observer who still thinks that CNN and now even CBS is fair in coverage of the election and who votes for someone because they're a glib speaker or have the 'right' skin color.

#29 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2016-09-21 05:18 PM | Reply

or the right "plumbing"...

#30 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2016-09-21 05:20 PM | Reply

Many rich people use drugs. We should stop and frisk Trump constantly.

#31 | Posted by Sycophant at 2016-09-21 05:49 PM | Reply

#29 | POSTED BY AFKABL2

Speaking of being on drugs...

#32 | Posted by Sycophant at 2016-09-21 05:50 PM | Reply

I'm sorry that you can't identify comments with a definite point but also points with a slight dose of, dare I say humor, and even a less than serious bent.

It must be hard on you to keep the future of the world on your shoulders....

aaaahhahaaa....

#33 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2016-09-21 06:02 PM | Reply

serious ANNOUNCEMENT from the liar's AG and the Clintons" bag lady" in the DOJ.....

.AG LYNCH has THREATENED AMERICANS WITH A LOSS OF THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS......HER definition of "anti-muslim" rhetoric....

once again...this administration after an attack PROVES they're more worried about Muslims than they were the rest of us before the attack......

#34 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2016-09-21 06:03 PM | Reply

-You don't think there's a chance he implied "racial" when making the comment?

Irrelevant. It's not the job of honest journalists--a species verging on extinction--to put words in a candidate's mouth. CNN got caught flat-out lying on behalf of Rodham.

#35 | Posted by nullifidian at 2016-09-21 06:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

. It's not the job of honest journalists--a species verging on extinction--to put words in a candidate's mouth.

But it is their job to explain what those words mean.
He talked about racial profiling in New York, and how successful it was.
It's reasonable to infer that Trump wants implementation of that policy, presumably nationally.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-09-21 06:27 PM | Reply

#36

No it isn't.

Trump isn't lying only when he tells you something you don't want to believe.

He's lying when he says ---- like this too

#37 | Posted by eberly at 2016-09-21 06:53 PM | Reply

No it isn't.

Sure it is.

He's lying when he says ---- like this too

What he said is quite consistent with what he's been saying all along, even going back to his "Bring back the death penalty, bring back our police!" full page ad in 1991.

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-09-21 07:09 PM | Reply

Per usual, Nulli nails it and the usual suspects defend the indefensible.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-09-22 02:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I am still unsure what the basis of your argument is when you say Trump was not talking about racial profiling. Are you saying that Israel does not profile racially? Or are you saying that while he complimented Israel's profiling efforts in the same speech, that he was not saying that we should use their same methods (racial profiling)?

So, while I can agree with you that journalists should not put words in other people's mouths, it IS the job of journalists to provide perspective and background. And since Trump said (in so many words) that we should profile like Israel does, and since Israel uses racial profiling in their security efforts, it is actually GOOD JOURNALISM when they connect the dots for their readers and point out what he is actually saying we should do.

So, to back up your argument that their connection was wrong, can you show me a link to someone in the campaign (or Trump himself) clarifying what type of profiling he was talking about actually using and that he was not talking about racial profiling? Because it seems to me that if you can't, then you are just as guilty of interpreting what he was or was not saying for your own ends as you are accusing them of.

#40 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2016-09-22 03:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Also, this might be a little easier if your party would pick a candidate who could speak above a sixth grade level. Because, honestly, no one can say for sure what the heck Trump is saying in any speech. And he never clarifies his positions. I think his campaign actually thrives on that because his supporters can just interpret his words to mean whatever they want them to mean, while actual intellectual debates an their meaning get nowhere because anything he says has to be subjectively interpreted by each person from "Trump-speak" into actual English (and is bound to be interpreted slightly differently by each person).

#41 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2016-09-22 03:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

GOOD JOURNALISM when they connect the dots for their readers and point out what he is actually saying we should do.

That's not good journalism; it's bad speculation. Good journalism quotes their sources verbatim. Good journalism seeks clarification to comments like the one Trump made in lieu of just inserting what they want to make it appear that he said.

This is a case study in BAD journalism. But when most journalists are biased hacks and are water-carriers for the Democratic Party....

#42 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-09-22 03:40 PM | Reply

While I obviously disagree with #40 I do agree with #41.

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-09-22 03:41 PM | Reply

I am still unsure what the basis of your argument is when you say Trump was not talking about racial profiling.

You pretty much nailed it in #40&41.

Sycophants will be sycophants.

#44 | Posted by ClownShack at 2016-09-22 03:51 PM | Reply

While I obviously disagree with #40

There's nothing in #40 to disagree with.

#45 | Posted by ClownShack at 2016-09-22 03:54 PM | Reply

Putting aside the CNN definitely lied - the is nothing wrong with using race in a criminal profile as long as its done professionally.

When the FBI profiles a serial killer and says "the guy will be white", we have no problem with that. And we shouldn't. We have no problem saying that serial killers and spree shooters are most likely to be white too. Because its true. It would be foolish to leave this out of any discussion related to preventing these crimes.

If you're going to bother to make a profile of who is most likely to commit a specific crime - such as bombing an airplane - you'd be ignorant to exclude race and other demographics.

The reason why "profiling" is such a dirty word is that street cops tend to just say certain groups are more likely to be criminals in general and then they use that declaration to harrass people. They aren't looking to solve or prevent a specific crime. They are just bothering people in their own neighborhoods. Combine that with modern police forces having managed to make it OK for a cop to shoot someone when he's scared and we can see why allowing police to come up with a general profile for "scary bad guy" is a really bad idea.

#46 | Posted by Sully at 2016-09-22 04:26 PM | Reply

Sully, seeing as you fit the profile for a serial killer, what next? How should law enforcement act on that intel?

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-09-22 04:41 PM | Reply

Sully, seeing as you fit the profile for a serial killer, what next? How should law enforcement act on that intel?

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-09-22 04:41 PM | Reply

I do? I hit on a few superficial check boxes- race and age. That's hardly fitting a profile.

Now if I actually did fit the profile of an actual serial killer and the cops had reason to believe I had access to victims of the serial killer, I suppose I would have to answer some questions.

#48 | Posted by Sully at 2016-09-22 04:52 PM | Reply

Are you figuring out that serial killers are profiled after the killings have occurred and we're talking here is about profiling people with no particular crime in mind?

Just holler back if you get that or not.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-09-22 04:56 PM | Reply

Just holler back if you get that or not.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-09-22 04:56 PM | Reply:

Read #46 again and then try to digest what I actually said a little bit. Would help if you ignore that voice in the back of your head that is screeching "OMG, he's not taking an absolute position against profiling!"

Pretty sure that its obvious that I'm against street level profiling. Preventative profiling only really makes sense in very specific situations like such as protecting the president. I'm sure the Secret Service has an interest in knowing how a person who may be consideirng harming the president is likely to look and behave.

#50 | Posted by sully at 2016-09-22 05:05 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

Drudge Retort