2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Billy86

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

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.

What is/was number? Even a rough figure?

oscarBravo

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Its not fear or bigotry when its a reality.

Well, yes. That's my point. You have to pretend it's reality in order to pretend it's not bigotry.

Multiculturalism is a dead experiment.

No bigotry here, no sirree bob.

How many deaths from muslims before its an issue?

When the number of "deaths from Muslims" (what a bizarre phrase!) approaches statistical significance, maybe.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

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.”

So far, so completely reasonable.

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.

...and we hear some equally stupid crap from fundamental Christians about how laws come from God, and not from the Constitution. Nobody's talking about banning Christians, though.

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.

I have no problem with establishing whether any individual is a threat to the US, and preventing those individuals from immigrating.

I have a problem with collectively preventing all Muslims from entering the country. You should have too: it's a bigoted notion, and the continuing rationalisation of it doesn't make it less so.

In the 1940s, over a hundred thousand Japanese Americans were interned. That was one of the most disgraceful and shameful chapters of American history, and this proposal is no better.

B_Wayne

Seems like this topic has some modern day Mccarthyism with added racism and xenophobia. Ban Europeans, Muslims, Mexicans.... The addition of using Putin, a modern fascist as a basis of how a society should work, sort of shows how Trump supporters tend to think tbh... Trump is very much a sexist bigot, he has generalised about women, Muslims, black people... His campaign has only made hate fester.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

I have a problem with collectively preventing all Muslims from entering the country. You should have too: it's a bigoted notion, and the continuing rationalisation of it doesn't make it less so.

In the 1940s, over a hundred thousand Japanese Americans were interned. That was one of the most disgraceful and shameful chapters of American history, and this proposal is no better.

Show me where Christianity has something akin to the Hijra, and the long-term strategy to transform America into a different type of society. A society that subjugates all other religions under Islam. Immigration for Islamic expansionism and immigration designed to subvert and subdue non-Muslim societies and pave the way for eventual, total Islamization?

And the Crusades no longer apply.

Yes, the Japanese Internment was a black mark on the country. But I bet most people have never heard of the Niihau Incident. A downed Japanese flyer on 7, December 1941 on a Hawaiian island quickly convinced three American locals of Japanese descent of their historical allegiance to the Empire of Japan, and received the assistance in overcoming his captors, finding weapons, and taking several hostages. This incident helped lead the US government to wonder where Japanese Americans allegiance really stood.

Brian?

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

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.

You'd basically ban anyone who doesn't agree with your narrow world view entering the USA. This is the exact definition of bigotry. I understand your unwavering support for Trump now.



I'm a communist and my son is a US citizen. Once he's 18, I'm going to move in and take the country down from the inside. Be warned

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

Show me where Christianity has something akin to the Hijra, and the long-term strategy to transform America into a different type of society.

Dominion Theology.

Yes, the Japanese Internment was a black mark on the country. But...

Seriously, that's a phrase that really shouldn't ever have a "but" after it.

I bet most people have never heard of the Niihau Incident. A downed Japanese flyer on 7, December 1941 on a Hawaiian island quickly convinced three American locals of Japanese descent of their historical allegiance to the Empire of Japan, and received the assistance in overcoming his captors, finding weapons, and taking several hostages. This incident helped lead the US government to wonder where Japanese Americans allegiance really stood.

You're making my point for me. Well over a hundred thousand American citizens were punished for the actions of an infinitesimal number among them.

It's absolutely OK to criticise the actions of the tiny minority without reservation - but when you start using those actions as an excuse to victimise other members of the same out-group, that's just plain and simple bigotry.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

Dominion Theology.

Please explain.

Seriously, that's a phrase that really shouldn't ever have a "but" after it.

‘But’ is apropos, as a matter of historical significance to the reasoning for the decisions that were made. The incident I noted and the top-secret "MAGIC" messages, which revealed the Japanese espionage threat on the West Coast, gives some light on it during a time of war and the threat of invasion loomed. Also nearly half were of European ancestry that resided in enemy alien internment camps. Also tens of thousands of ethnic Japanese were allowed to leave, and hundreds voluntarily chose to move in.

You're making my point for me. Well over a hundred thousand American citizens were punished for the actions of an infinitesimal number among them.

It's absolutely OK to criticise the actions of the tiny minority without reservation - but when you start using those actions as an excuse to victimise other members of the same out-group, that's just plain and simple bigotry.

No, we are in a war with radical Islam. It is only prudent to discover who are our friends and who might be our enemies before handing over the keys to the castle. Foreign Muslim 'would-be' immigrants are not victimized.

Personally, I would prefer to keep EVERYONE out until a thorough check was made. Barring that, I think focusing first on a group which represents the highest threat to national security is prudent.

How many Muslim refugees has Ireland taken in recently? And if not many, why not?

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

Please explain.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dominion+theology

‘But’ is apropos, as a matter of historical significance to the reasoning for the decisions that were made.

"It was a disgraceful blot on our national history, but there were reasons for it" is every bit as valid as "discriminating against Muslims is blatant bigotry, but there are reasons for it".

No, we are in a war with radical Islam.

So discriminate against radical Islamists, not all Muslims.

What is it with America and its constant declarations of war on abstract concepts, anyway?

It is only prudent to discover who are our friends and who might be our enemies before handing over the keys to the castle.

Absolutely. But we're not talking about keeping enemies out; we're talking about keeping Muslims out because a tiny minority of them might be enemies.

Foreign Muslim 'would-be' immigrants are not victimized.

Not now, no. But Trump wants to victimise them (along with Muslim Americans who happen to be abroad, despite some of his supporters on here claiming that even though he was very clear about that being what he meant, that's not what he meant).

Personally, I would prefer to keep EVERYONE out until a thorough check was made.

Fine. It's a bit of a cowardly approach for a nation that prides itself on how powerful it is, but at least it's not bigoted.

Barring that, I think focusing first on a group which represents the highest threat to national security is prudent.

Absolutely. But Muslims are not a threat to national security. Radical Islamist terrorists are, but Muslims are not.

How many Muslim refugees has Ireland taken in recently? And if not many, why not?

I don't know. I do know for a fact that nobody here is seriously proposing barring all Muslims from entering the country - at least, nobody that anyone listens to.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

I do know for a fact that nobody here is seriously proposing barring all Muslims from entering the country - at least, nobody that anyone listens to.

They may not be 'proposing' it, but it sounds like they pretty much are in methodology.

Billy86

oscarBravo wrote: »

What is it with America and its constant declarations of war on abstract concepts, anyway?

Cold War syndrome, I'd reckon. The USSR certainly lost the Cold War, but only a fool would tell you the USA 'won' it.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dominion+theology

Never heard of it. How many innocents have the 'believers' killed through acts of terror in recent years?

B_Wayne

Amerika wrote: »

They may not be 'proposing' it, but it sounds like they pretty much are in methodology.

Not really, we haven't agreed to particularly great numbers of refugees(we have problems in our system due to poor treatment tbh) . But we have agreed from what I gather. Secondly, I know plenty of Muslims in every day life. I work with them, have family members that are Muslims.(weren't born in Ireland )

But I can definitely say, nobody credible is proposing barring Muslims from Ireland so we are not in effect doing so...

Amerika wrote: »

Never heard of it. How many innocents have the 'believers' killed through acts of terror in recent years?

And Muslims have been pretty significant victims of terror. Then there's the stereotyping of people because they are Muslims. There's been increases in attacks against Muslims. Some pretty brutal crimes.

Amerika

B_Wayne wrote: »

Not really, we haven't agreed to particularly great numbers of refugees(we have problems in our system due to poor treatment tbh) . But we have agreed from what I gather. Secondly, I know plenty of Muslims in every day life. I work with them, have family members that are Muslims.(weren't born in Ireland )

But I can definitely say, nobody credible is proposing barring Muslims from Ireland so we are not in effect doing so...



And Muslims have been pretty significant victims of terror. Then there's the stereotyping of people because they are Muslims. There's been increases in attacks against Muslims. Some pretty brutal crimes.

'But we have agreed from what I gather.'

And that could always change, I gather. Actions mean more than words. I also have Muslim friends. I even went to the local Mediterranean Deli the afternoon of 9/11 to help protect them in the event any anger against them might happen. We also watched over a young Syrian girl (a friend of my daughter from school and recent immigrant) the other summer while her parents sought employment. But none of that changes the fact that we should be more diligent in our efforts, as intelligence notes radical Islam is infiltrating the refugee numbers. There is a distinction between Muslims already in the country and those coming in who might have terrorists amongst their ranks since the rise of ISIS. Why can't people see the difference?

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

Never heard of it. How many innocents have the 'believers' killed through acts of terror in recent years?

No idea. But let's try a thought experiment: if Dominionists committed terrorist atrocities, would you be in favour of preventing all Christians from entering the United States? Because that's an exact parallel.

Amerika wrote: »

There is a distinction between Muslims already in the country and those coming in who might have terrorists amongst their ranks since the rise of ISIS. Why can't people see the difference?

Why can't people see the difference between "Muslims" and "terrorists"?

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

No idea. But let's try a thought experiment: if Dominionists committed terrorist atrocities, would you be in favour of preventing all Christians from entering the United States? Because that's an exact parallel.

If it were happening from Christians entering the US, who's ranks were reported to include 'terrorists,' then yes, I would prefer a hold until we better figure out who is coming into the country, just like Muslims.

Why can't people see the difference between "Muslims" and "terrorists"?

How do you tell who are terrorists? What is the most prevalent common denominator of terrorists coming into western countries today? Christian?

K-9

Amazingfun wrote: »

I am not speaking to "all polls", I am specifically addressing the one cited in your link as its issues are worse than most, based on deceptive polling.

Also, Trump's words are not "damaging to himself", he merely acknowledged poll numbers presented to him. Unless he begins to lose a lot of the upcoming States, that there has been any "damage" at all remains an open question.

You are thinking too short term, the problem will be in a Presidential election. Trump has a high unfavourable rating amongst women, even more than Clinton's amongst men.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

If it were happening from Christians entering the US, who's ranks were reported to include 'terrorists,' then yes, I would prefer a hold until we better figure out who is coming into the country, just like Muslims.

So it seems terrorists (of any denomination) who are not currently in the country are to be feared, while terrorists (of any denomination) who are already in the country are nothing to worry about.

How do you tell who are terrorists?

Intelligence.

What is the most prevalent common denominator of terrorists coming into western countries today?

Again, I'm fascinated with the obsession over terrorists crossing borders. Christian terrorists already in the country? Meh. Muslim immigrants who are almost certainly not terrorists? Leave them to rot, you can't be too careful.

Billy86

Amerika wrote:

How do you tell who are terrorists? What is the most prevalent common denominator of terrorists coming into western countries today? Christian?

In the US from 1980 - 2005 (the most up to date info I could find off a solid source - the FBI), the following were the most common causes of terrorist acts:
1. Latino gangs & cartels
2. Extreme Left Wing Groups
3. Jewish Extremists
4. Muslims extremists
https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05#terror_05sum

In Europe, from 2011-2014 Muslims were responsible for 1% of terror attacks despite making up 6% of the population - so it's not them there either.
https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05#terror_05sum

Amerika

Billy86 wrote: »

In the US from 1980 - 2005 (the most up to date info I could find off a solid source - the FBI), the following were the most common causes of terrorist acts:
1. Latino gangs & cartels
2. Extreme Left Wing Groups
3. Jewish Extremists
4. Muslims extremists
https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05#terror_05sum

In Europe, from 2011-2014 Muslims were responsible for 1% of terror attacks despite making up 6% of the population - so it's not them there either.
https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05#terror_05sum

What the FBI 'classifies' as terrorism and what we all consider terrorism to be in the general sense, seems to be worlds apart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

What the FBI 'classifies' as terrorism and what we all consider terrorism to be in the general sense, seems to be worlds apart.

Yes, the FBI are wrong on their definition of 'terrorism' and you are right. Which, by the way, would mean that the Oxford dictionary is also wrong, and you are right, as both they and the FBI agree on their definitions.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”Sep 13, 2011

terrorism Pronunciation: /ˈtɛrərɪzəm/ NOUN
[MASS NOUN]
The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims:
the fight against terrorism
international terrorism



Not only is the FBI wrong on what this word means, but so is the English language itself. Makes sense.

oscarBravo

Billy86 wrote: »

Yes, the FBI are wrong on their definition of 'terrorism' and you are right.

Well, duh. We all know that only Muslims are terrorists.

K-9

Amerika wrote: »

They may not be 'proposing' it, but it sounds like they pretty much are in methodology.

Ireland is taking about 4/5,000 plus family members and we aren't a part of the conflict.

The US doesn't seem to want Syrian refugees at all despite being a combatant in the war, expecting others to clean up their mess.

Billy86

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, duh. We all know that only Muslims are terrorists.

This kind of thing is why I said earlier that I reckon this election cycle will be looked at for years by psychologists. I'm not even saying this to be snarky or whatnot, but I've never even seen this much confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, and point blank denial of reality anywhere in my whole life, even in comedies specifically covering those areas.

Amazingfun

K-9 wrote: »

You are thinking too short term, the problem will be in a Presidential election. Trump has a high unfavourable rating amongst women, even more than Clinton's amongst men.

We'll see. People have been explaining to Trump and his supporters from Day One of his announcing his run for President that he cannot win, and yet he has managed to still be around in the top 3 of a formerly 17 person pack months and months later. Not too shabby.

KingBrian2

Trump is hated by the media because he is a mirror of the strengths and weaknesses of America. He reflects a vast swathe of Americans who are tired of fighting wars and giving away trade deals. He is a charismatic person that commands great attention from the devoted masses. He is this generations Ronald Reagan and like Reagan his views are very controversial. In the tradition of American politics all this dirty politics is nothing new.

It happened to JFK the first Catholic American President. Abraham Lincoln founder of the GOP was loathed by the early Americans who believed slavery was enshrined in the constitution. Lincoln was a radical of the 1860's and it goes to show you don't have to be liberal to be a Radical. Radical Conservatives have made major changes in society.

I am watching with great fun how Trump has turned the campaign on its head to come out of top. Nobody in Washington wants him in power. They all have ganged up against him as if he is the obstacle to change. A lot of his arguments concerning America and the world are very close to reality.

Black Swan

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Trump is hated by the media...

Trump is manipulating the media expertly to draw as much attention as possible to himself by frequently saying "outrageous" and "sensationalist" things about Muslims, Mexicans, Blacks, "torture works," advocating violence against protesters, punishing women for having abortions, etc., etc., in agreement with his press manipulation strategy stated on page 56 of his 1987 book The Art of the Deal (e.g., "outrageous" and "sensationalist" are Trump's words). The "Trump is hated by the media" is an attempt to make Trump appear as the victim, and has been stated so often by him and his supporters that it's already becoming very cliché. In reality BOTH Trump and media are benefiting from each other, with Trump getting daily headlines to keep his name before the public, and the media benefiting by increased ratings and ROI driven by his "outrageous" and "sensationalist" statements. In summary, from a business standpoint TRUMP IS LOVED BY THE MEDIA, and from a "Kingfish" Huey Long political visibility standpoint TRUMP LOVES THE MEDIA.

vetinari

Exactly the media loves Trump, he's making them a fortune.
He's been getting more coverage than the rest of the candidates combined.

The strange thing about all this demonising of Muslims in the States is that Muslims are actually reasonably well integrated in the US, far better than parts of Europe. The US's risk of Islamic Terrorism is not that high compared to Europe. The Boston marathon bombing has arguably been the only major Islamic terrorist incident since 911. The San Bernardino attack would have barely registered nationally if the attackers weren't Muslim. It wasn't all that different to the multiple lone wolf style shootings that have occurred over the years. Tbh, the US is not at more risk of large scale attacks from Islamic terrorists today than it was 5 years ago.

WarZ

Black Swan wrote: »

Trump is manipulating the media expertly to draw as much attention as possible to himself by frequently saying "outrageous" and "sensationalist" things about Muslims, Mexicans, Blacks, "torture works," advocating violence against protesters, punishing women for having abortions, etc., etc., in agreement with his press manipulation strategy stated on page 56 of his 1987 book The Art of the Deal (e.g., "outrageous" and "sensationalist" are Trump's words). The "Trump is hated by the media" is an attempt to make Trump appear as the victim, and has been stated so often by him and his supporters that it's already becoming very cliché. In reality BOTH Trump and media are benefiting from each other, with Trump getting daily headlines to keep his name before the public, and the media benefiting by increased ratings and ROI driven by his "outrageous" and "sensationalist" statements. In summary, from a business standpoint TRUMP IS LOVED BY THE MEDIA, and from a "Kingfish" Huey Long political visibility standpoint TRUMP LOVES THE MEDIA.

The consistent mention of the book is getting a bit irksome. I know it's a valid point but you don't have to repeat it ad nauseam

Amerika

Trump is a dead man walking, so to speak. There is one factor, and probably the most important one, that will keep him from becoming POTUS... He has a 77% unfavorability rating amongst women. And there is no winning in this life when you piss off the womenfolk.