2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Amazingfun

Black Swan wrote: »

Answered already by JPNelsforearm:



"Disingenuous" Trump is synonymous with insincere, dishonest, untruthful, false, deceitful, duplicitous, lying, mendacious hypocritical.

Nice try at deflection, but I purposely focused on the word "bigot" as being the label in need of explanation. And what has been proffered by him hasn't explained it at all. He just added more erroneous labels.

Also, because a Boards poster claims Trump is disingenuous is not evidence he is, btw.

Black Swan

Amazingfun wrote: »

Nice try at deflection, but I purposely focused on the word "bigot" as being the label in need of explanation.

Washington Post: "Trump in this campaign has gone after African Americans, immigrants, Latinos, Asians, women, Muslims and now the disabled." There is substantial support for this conclusion by the WP throughout this thread, with quotes out of Trump's mouth posted here several times already.

Amazingfun

Black Swan wrote: »

Washington Post: "Trump in this campaign has gone after African Americans, immigrants, Latinos, Asians, women, Muslims and now the disabled." There is substantial support for this conclusion by the WP throughout this thread, with quotes out of Trump's mouth posted here several times already.

A nasty Washington Post snippet, along with the opinions of some posters here, is not sufficient to satisfy the label bigot,including vague reference to such statements emerging from Trump himself . The fact is, he is not a bigot.

oscarBravo

Amazingfun wrote: »

On the back of recent terrorist acts carried out by radical Islamists in the USA, Trump has proposed a temporary stoppage of any further immigration from the group they emerge from, Muslims, until they can "figure out what is going on". This is called sanity, something I know many of us in Europe are wishing we'd hear from our own.

No, it's not. It's bigotry.

Several orders of magnitude more people are killed each year in the US by firearms than by radical Islamists. Trump hasn't proposed a temporary suspension of the second amendment, until they can "figure out what is going on".

Instead, he has focused on a definable out-group. Now, by any rational definition of bigotry, that fits the bill. But - as I said already - if that doesn't strike you as bigotry, it's far from clear what will.

Brian?

Amazingfun wrote: »

No he isn't. Is this now the standard of posting here btw? I was under the impression more substance than name calling was required.

Spare me the outrage at posting standards. Trump had made many bigoted statements, you choose to believe that they're not bigoted.

It's a pointless discussion that's been done to death on this thread, I honestly regret re engaging in it.

Amazingfun

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, it's not. It's bigotry.

Several orders of magnitude more people are killed each year in the US by firearms than by radical Islamists. Trump hasn't proposed a temporary suspension of the second amendment, until they can "figure out what is going on".

Instead, he has focused on a definable out-group. Now, by any rational definition of bigotry, that fits the bill. But - as I said already - if that doesn't strike you as bigotry, it's far from clear what will.

American citizens having challenges with shootings is not relevant to the temporary halting of the allowing of non-citizens into the country.

It is not bigotry to assess a problem in the Government's vetting process in relation to Muslims (as we saw in the recent California mass-killing by radical Islamists, one of whom entered just this way) as needing further study and the taking of time to fix those problems.
It is sanity.

ancapailldorcha

Amazingfun wrote: »

No he isn't. Is this now the standard of posting here btw? I was under the impression more substance than name calling was required.

If you have a problem with a post, report it and let one of us deal with it.

Brian?

Amazingfun wrote: »

American citizens having challenges with shootings is not relevant to the temporary halting of the allowing of non-citizens into the country.

It is not bigotry to assess a problem in the Government's vetting process in relation to Muslims (as we saw in the recent California mass-killing by radical Islamists, one of whom entered just this way) as needing further study and the taking of time to fix those problems.
It is sanity.

That one idea in itself doesn't constitution bigotry. It's the habitual singling our of those who are different that I'm referring to. I'm leaving this here.

In English the word "bigot" refers to a person whose habitual state of mind includes an obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerance of the people who hold them

Amazingfun

He has no such habit, and so is not a bigot. Proposing a plan to try and fix the broken system which failed to keep out a mass-murderer is not bigotry.

But sure, we can leave it here, no problem.

Christy42

Amazingfun wrote: »

He has no such habit, and so is not a bigot. Proposing a plan to try and fix the broken system which failed to keep out a mass-murderer is not bigotry.

But sure, we can leave it here, no problem.

It is when you are happy to have mass murders of other races. Seriously how many mass murders does the USA have? How many are Muslim? Now how do you feel banning them indefinitely (yes I know he said temporary but he didn't give a date) will solve anything. What is next , banning brown eyed people from entering because one brown eyed person kills someone? Would banning blue eyed/blonde people from places in ww2 have done anything?

Then there is the wall just for the generic symbolism of keeping them foreigners out. It is like spending 100 to save 50. Dem foreigners are not the big problem in the us budget as it stands. Again though he is happy to leave the rest alone as they don't give an opportunity to give out about foreigners.

He is a liar. He said he will have a wall built by Mexico given that ain't gonna happen he is either a liar or monumentally stupid.

Let's be honest though. I have no idea how much of a bigot he is. Maybe he believes what he is saying and maybe he doesn't. This entire thing is an ad campaign that got out of hand.

The Randy Riverbeast

How long is temporary? The USC was also temporary but as we see, there needs to be some sort of actual plan. Trump is going by

1. Reduce religious freedom
2. ????
3. Profit An end to terrorism!

Black Swan

The North Dakota Republican caucus is today (1 April). Unlike other states with primaries or caucuses, the 28 delegates to the national convention are committed to whoever their heart desires, so we may not know who wins ND until July. Because a panel of 11 North Dakota Republican Party leaders will select 25 of the preferred delegates, if this panel is GOP, odds are they may favour Cruz or Kasich leaning delegates, rather than outsider Trump. Who knows? Time will tell.

BoJack Horseman

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Reduce religious freedom

What is the "reduce religious freedom" policy?

Interesting to read it, as it would surely be unconstitutional?

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

"Disingenuous" Trump is synonymous with insincere, dishonest, untruthful, false, deceitful, duplicitous, lying, mendacious hypocritical.

Hillary Clinton is as much (if not more so according to public opinion) insincere, dishonest, untruthful, false, deceitful, duplicitous, lying, mendacious hypocritical, and 'disingenuous' as Donald Trump. Email system set up to avoid government scrutiny, the Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, Wall Street, and the list goes on and on.

oscarBravo

Amazingfun wrote: »

American citizens having challenges with shootings is not relevant to the temporary halting of the allowing of non-citizens into the country.

He didn't say anything about non-citizens; he specifically said all Muslims, and his campaign later clarified that this includes Muslim American citizens.

As always, it's bizarre the lengths his supporters will go to in order to convince themselves that he said something slightly less overtly offensive than what he actually did say.

It is not bigotry to assess a problem in the Government's vetting process in relation to Muslims (as we saw in the recent California mass-killing by radical Islamists, one of whom entered just this way) as needing further study and the taking of time to fix those problems.
It is sanity.

It's absolutely sane to assess any problems in a vetting process; to study them further; to take time to fix those problems.

But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about collectively punishing everyone who happens to share a religion with the people who are committing these atrocities. If it was suggested that all gun owners should be collectively punished for the actions of those involved in mass shootings, there would be outrage.

I have to keep coming back to this point: if you genuinely believe that collective punishment of an out-group for the actions of an infinitesimal fraction of its membership isn't bigotry, then you don't have a definition of the word that fits into a rational conversation on the topic.

Manach

Given large segments of leftist groups reflexive hostility to organisised relgion, but especially to Christian churches, their newly found.come to Jesus type support of any form of religious toleration or linking a few to a many failings: a bit of a stretch.

Billy86

Amazingfun wrote: »

American citizens having challenges with shootings is not relevant to the temporary halting of the allowing of non-citizens into the country.

It is not bigotry to assess a problem in the Government's vetting process in relation to Muslims (as we saw in the recent California mass-killing by radical Islamists, one of whom entered just this way) as needing further study and the taking of time to fix those problems.
It is sanity.

Do you know how many mass shootings there were in the US last year?

Seriously, this kind of denial and bizarre cognitive dissonance is exactly why people are saying if Trump were to suggest a 'final solution' to the 'muslim problem' that a large number of his fans would completely get behind it. I'm not even saying this to be snarky, it's the truth - there is a severe disconnect going on in the Trump fan base, and we're into full on cult of personality mode at this point, to the point where even if Trump himself says he is suffering in a demographic of voters, his fans will try to convince themselves that the demographic in question supports him now more than ever.

Psychologists are going to have an absolute field day off studying this election cycle for a very long time.

Amazingfun

oscarBravo wrote: »

He didn't say anything about non-citizens; he specifically said all Muslims, and his campaign later clarified that this includes Muslim American citizens.

As always, it's bizarre the lengths his supporters will go to in order to convince themselves that he said something slightly less overtly offensive than what he actually did say. It's absolutely sane to assess any problems in a vetting process; to study them further; to take time to fix those problems.

But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about collectively punishing everyone who happens to share a religion with the people who are committing these atrocities. If it was suggested that all gun owners should be collectively punished for the actions of those involved in mass shootings, there would be outrage.

So he clarified a point, so what? It was obvious to most he meant Muslim immigration, lol, no one thought he would prevent US citizens from coming home should they find themselves outside the country at the point of any ban becoming law. It's really not the drama you imagine it to be. It's common sense. But things being the way they are in our world of "safe spaces", clarify he had to.

As well as that, you claiming " this is what we are talking about" does not make it so. And I see too you cannot grasp ***the horror*** that a country might decide it simply does not want to play Russian roulette with the chance of more ISIS affiliated persons coming in under the guise of immigrants, refugees or the like. That is within their rights, and you banging the drum about other problems facing the USA and her citizens does nothing to strengthen your position.

I have to keep coming back to this point: if you genuinely believe that collective punishment of an out-group for the actions of an infinitesimal fraction of its membership isn't bigotry, then you don't have a definition of the word that fits into a rational conversation on the topic.

"Collective punishment" is an odd way to view a country deciding it both needs and wants the time to overhaul its own immigration procedures in an age of Islamic terrorism. Despite your outrage, they do not have to give you a timeline of any description. I don't find much "rationality" in your perspective at all, tbh, quite the opposite in fact.

Anyways, I already have had this go around with Brian, no need to re-hash it with each of you

Billy86

Manach wrote: »

Given large segments of leftist groups reflexive hostility to organisised relgion, but especially to Christian churches, their newly found.come to Jesus type support of any form of religious toleration or linking a few to a many failings: a bit of a stretch.

Small problem though is that left of Trump (or left of the GOP) does not equal 'leftism'. Christ, left of what the Democrats usually isn't even leftist.

As well as that, liberally minded folk tend to have a more open view to religious freedoms, because they tend to not be as dyed in the wool of their own faith as their more conservative counterparts. They just don't want religions imposing themselves on their daily routine, in legislature, etc. It is this unwillingness to 'pick a side' that frequently frustrates conservative Christians and leads them to make claims that "godless libruls are destroying the world" (not attributing that to you, by the way!) and whatnot.

This election cycle is just another example of that. Some people want to vilify Muslims in this election, with Trump's fans being chief among them. They point to Muslim terrorist attacks/risks, and get frustrated or angry when people bring up the fact that there have been more Christian terrorist attacks on US soil than any religion. They point to Muslim terrorist incidents in Europe, and get flat out angry when it is mentioned that Muslims make up 6% of Europe, but only 1% of European terrorist attacks. They point to terrorism in the rest of the world but ignore Christian terrorist groups (google Lords Resistance Army, funny how they were simply referred to as 'African warlords' and not 'Christian terrorists' during their peak!). They try to implicate other Muslims by association for not condemning terrorists at the start and end of every sentence, but then try to stone wall deny every instance of Christian terrorism put in front of them.

Basically, the Christian conservative crowd don't like being called on their double standards. Not one bit.

oscarBravo

Amazingfun wrote: »

So he clarified a point, so what? It was obvious to most he meant Muslim immigration, lol, no one thought he would prevent US citizens from coming home should they find themselves outside the country at the point of any ban becoming law. It's really not the drama you imagine it to be. It's common sense. But things being the way they are in our world of "safe spaces", clarify he had to.

It's hilarious, it really is: "ignore what Trump says, I want to discuss what I personally believe he means".

As well as that, you claiming " this is what we are talking about" does not make it so.

I'm talking about Trump's stated policies; you're talking about your watered-down interpretation of his statements, because it's marginally less offensive.

And I see too you cannot grasp ***the horror*** that a country might decide it simply does not want to play Russian roulette with the chance of more ISIS affiliated persons coming in under the guise of immigrants, refugees or the like. That is within their rights, and you banging the drum about other problems facing the USA and her citizens does nothing to strengthen your position.

You can keep rationalising a bigoted policy to your heart's content, but all you're doing is trying to claim that it's OK to be bigoted.

As for those "other problems", I'm highlighting them to give the lie to the idea that banning Muslims from entering the country is based on some sort of rational risk assessment. The risk to the average American citizen of being killed by a Muslim immigrant is effectively zero. The risk of being killed by a legally-held firearm is orders of magnitude higher - but your favourite candidate isn't proposing any drastic measures to reduce those risks.

So stop trying to defend the proposal on the basis that there's anything remotely rational about it. It's a knee-jerk idea designed to appeal to some people's prejudices against members of out-groups. It's bigotry, pure and simple.

"Collective punishment" is an odd way to view a country deciding it both needs and wants the time to overhaul its own immigration procedures in an age of Islamic terrorism.

I have no problem with the country reviewing its immigration procedures. I have a problem with the idea that it's OK to discriminate against people on the basis of their religion while doing so.

Despite your outrage, they do not have to give you a timeline of any description.

I'm not looking for a timeline. I'm pointing out that the idea is inherently bigoted.

I don't find much "rationality" in your perspective at all, tbh, quite the opposite in fact.

Well, you wouldn't: you think it's rational to collectively punish all Muslims for the actions of an infinitesimal number of radicals. We have different ideas of rationality.

oscarBravo

Manach wrote: »

Given large segments of leftist groups reflexive hostility to organisised relgion, but especially to Christian churches, their newly found.come to Jesus type support of any form of religious toleration or linking a few to a many failings: a bit of a stretch.

Not really. It's actually completely internally consistent: no religion should have any special privileges; neither should any be targeted unfairly.

We secular humanists are annoyingly egalitarian in that way, unlike (say) those Christians who advocate separation of Church and State - as long as it's not their Church that's being separated.

Christy42

Manach wrote: »

Given large segments of leftist groups reflexive hostility to organisised relgion, but especially to Christian churches, their newly found.come to Jesus type support of any form of religious toleration or linking a few to a many failings: a bit of a stretch.

What?
Erm sure many people have an issue with some things people have done in the name of Christianity but no one is suggesting to stop all Christian immigrants to the US so it isn't the same thing.

I mean you support gay marriage and think that people shouldn't be have different rights based on their religion.

I am really trying to understand this complaint. We are defending someone's right to not be discriminated against on the basis of religion on one hand and arguing against a religion from imposing it's will on others on the other hand. These stances are not contradictory. And yes I am aware of the issue of Islamic laws in Saudi Arabia. I disagree with them and they aren't a justification for a Christian version in the west.

12Phase

eire4 wrote: »

To my mind politics in the US really is in a very sorry state. The 2 party monopoly of the Democrats and Republicans is not serving America well. A large number of seats in congress are not really up for grabs as the districts have been gerrymandered. The new money is speech supreme court decisions have made things even worse in my opinion as well. Washington politicans in general seem to be more about representing the clients who pay to get them elected then the actual people they technically represent.
I think it would be great if the US moved toward some form of PR for elections.

The problem is that any meaningful electoral reform would have to be initiated by the same politicians who thrive in the status quo.

Like attempts to reform the Seanad here, it's not going to happen because the powers that be are happy with the status quo. However, the seanad is only about an fear ceding political power from the Dail chamber, the US situation is at least a million times worse as it's driven by vested interests with massive money.

I don't know how the current US system isn't considered highly corrupt. It's turned into the best democracy money can buy and seems to have morphed into something basically run by and for lobbyists.
Just because it's legal in their system doesn't mean it's right.

The reason that Americans are so unlikely to vote isn't that they're disengaged dumbbells who don't care. Many look at their options and don't like any of them or feel that their votes don't matter.

I mean you're going to get a choice between Trump and Clinton. A scary populist who won't rule out nuking Europe and stated that women seeking abortions should be punished (among many other things) or you can vote Clinton, a party insider and wife of a former president who has also flipflopoed on umpteen fundamental issues over the years.

I'm not saying Clinton is remotely in the Trump category of scary but still it's not like you're voting for some fresh new ideas or reform. It's just more of the same.

It's hardly much of a choice.

Basically; in general
Republicans are offering barking mad populism, anti science, religious fundamentalism to mention but a few.

Democrats offer you lots of versions of Mayor Quimby.

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not really. It's actually completely internally consistent: no religion should have any special privileges; neither should any be targeted unfairly.

We secular humanists are annoyingly egalitarian in that way, unlike (say) those Christians who advocate separation of Church and State - as long as it's not their Church that's being separated.

Key word there being unfair, how many deaths does it take for the targeting of a specific relgion or any belief system(eg Communism/Marxism) to be deemed "fair", 100? 200? 2000? Its the governments job to protect its citizens, not worry about hurting the feelings of some potential immigrant.

oscarBravo

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Key word there being unfair, how many deaths does it take for the targeting of a specific relgion or any belief system(eg Communism/Marxism) to be deemed "fair", 100? 200? 2000? Its the governments job to protect its citizens, not worry about hurting the feelings of some potential immigrant.

How many deaths does it take for gun control to be deemed a worthy topic of conversation?

This isn't about keeping Americans safe, and no amount of blithely repeating that platitude will make it true. It's about pandering to fear of out-groups: it's about bigotry.

12Phase

oscarBravo wrote: »

How many deaths does it take for gun control to be deemed a worthy topic of conversation?

This isn't about keeping Americans safe, and no amount of blithely repeating that platitude will make it true. It's about pandering to fear of out-groups: it's about bigotry.

They simply don't care. Gun ownership has become a dogma in the US amongst a sizable part of society.
You might as well be taking to a brick wall as to try to get them to change their minds on it.

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

How many deaths does it take for gun control to be deemed a worthy topic of conversation?

This isn't about keeping Americans safe, and no amount of blithely repeating that platitude will make it true. It's about pandering to fear of out-groups: it's about bigotry.

Murders are dropping steadily, remove minorities and suicide from gun stats and its a non issue.

Its not fear or bigotry when its a reality. Multiculturalism is a dead experiment.


How many deaths from muslims before its an issue?

Billy86

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Key word there being unfair, how many deaths does it take for the targeting of a specific relgion or any belief system(eg Communism/Marxism) to be deemed "fair", 100? 200? 2000? Its the governments job to protect its citizens, not worry about hurting the feelings of some potential immigrant.

How many do you think it takes? What's the threshold number that has been hit which caused you think it's now acceptable to ban Muslims on their faith alone?

JPNelsforearm

Billy86 wrote: »

How many do you think it takes? What's the threshold number that has been hit which caused you think it's now acceptable to ban Muslims on their faith alone?

We have long passed the threshold, an attack on the scale of any of 7/7, 9/11, Paris 1 and 2 or Brussels, any one of those attacks would be enough.

I would ban communists, EUrocrats and multiculturalists on their faith alone from entering the country on anything other then a very short term visa. I would ban any political/religious extremist that works to undermine a nation and people, just like Putin has done by banning George Soros Open society groups.
So putting a visa ban an overtly destructive group/religion is a non issue. Whilst I have no issue with so called "radical" or "hate" preachers being invited here to give a talk or anyone coming here to fill an acute gap in the labour market, there is a difference between that and giving them a permit to stay indefinitely.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

I have no problem with the country reviewing its immigration procedures. I have a problem with the idea that it's OK to discriminate against people on the basis of their religion while doing so.

You might have a problem with it but for more than 60 years the US has a law in place that bars the immigration of people who wish to overthrow our government, commit acts of sabotage (including murder) or teach or preach these ideas.

Chapter 2, Section 212 of The Immigration and Nationality Act says entry to the U.S. should be prohibited if the person belongs to an organization seeking to overthrow the U.S. government by “force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.”

The Koran (and the Hadiths) present Sharia and demand submission to Islam, and therefore opposed to the foundation of our nation and the U.S. Constitution. The faith demands you adhere to Sharia Law over and above the U.S. Constitution.

It doesn’t bar Muslims from immigrating into the US, but it does give lawful support Trump’s intention to better establish whether or not they pose a threat to the US before immigrating.