2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

ancapailldorcha

Why is it considered ok to impose these sanctions on Muslims entering the country but not on firearms which cause tens of thousands of deaths annually in the US?

skywanderer

Does anyone here think that Donald Trump may have more bark than bite? He says alot of inflammatory things but he also speaks some interesting points. His stance on Gay Marriage also was to allow the states themselves to sort it out, in a libertarian manner. I'm glad Ted Cruz didn't get the nod as he was the sort who sounded more dangerous in an end of days type scenario. I could see Trump adopting a more isolationist foreign policy and easing off on the rhetoric about Putin. America really has no business sticking its nose into other countries affairs and the entire Middle East has become a basket case since 2011 thanks to US meddling in their affairs, Ukraine also. Some of those countries were far better off under a benevolent dictator like Saddam or Gaddafi compared to their ridiculous situations today under democracy.

Christy42

skywanderer wrote: »

Does anyone here think that Donald Trump may have more bark than bite? He says alot of inflammatory things but he also speaks some interesting points. His stance on Gay Marriage also was to allow the states themselves to sort it out, in a libertarian manner. I'm glad Ted Cruz didn't get the nod as he was the sort who sounded more dangerous in an end of days type scenario. I could see Trump adopting a more isolationist foreign policy and easing off on the rhetoric about Putin. America really has no business sticking its nose into other countries affairs and the entire Middle East has become a basket case since 2011 thanks to US meddling in their affairs, Ukraine also. Some of those countries were far better off under a benevolent dictator like Saddam or Gaddafi compared to their ridiculous situations today under democracy.

Benevolent?!? Explain that to the Kurds.
Pretty sure most of the Ukraine's problems right now are not to do with the US.

20Cent

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why is it considered ok to impose these sanctions on Muslims entering the country but not on firearms which cause tens of thousands of deaths annually in the US?

Also how does he intend to identity who is a Muslim! Don't think terrorists would have a problem lying.

JPNelsforearm

InTheTrees wrote: »

A religious test to enter the USA will violate the first amendment.

Not to mention violating most of the principals the country was founded on.

And so does an extra judicial targeted killing of father and son for disseminating islamic propaganda. Clearly, an administration has leeway in wartime and threats against the US. You can ban travel in event of an outbreak, the US has already interned and killed its own citizens, there is no new ground being broken here. A travel ban is mild in comparison.

InTheTrees wrote: »

"Them"? How do you find out who they are? You have to ask everyone what religion they are as they enter the USA dont you?

Thats really going to work well.

"Them" as in muslims. Obviously they would just stop handing out visas to that part of the world, stop all refugee's entering, and investigate any visas to Europe with non EU names, that would go some way towards cutting the inflow. Its not hard to think of ideas with an unlimited budget and massive security and intelligence apparatus behind you.

Its not my plan or suggestion, however, Im just pointing out freedom and constitutional rights are fluid, targeted killings are a lot more heinous than a travel ban :pac:

B_Wayne

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Hate speech doesnt exist.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Prove "hate speech" exists, its an entirely recent phenomenon in Europe, and non existent under US law. Its an artificial distinction promulgated by anti free speech leftist agitators. Free speech means freedom to hate.

This assumption would require ignoring the second world, the populist hate speech that took over in terms of Hitler coming to power, it took advantage of distrust and hatred. Watch as it caricatures Jewish people as rats, this piece even names Jewish people involved in the supposed conspiracy. Trump actually accused a judge accused against of being Mexican, it wasn't true but sort of shows the attitude that he espouses, hate an individual for their nationality, for being religious but not even extreme...

Then you've got the reaction to the civil rights movement..... This image was not an uncommon sight, it was hate speech. The fact we didn't use names for it, doesn't reduce it from being true.


Hate speech is far from a modern phenomena. It requires ignoring history to claim it is...

oscarBravo

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

"Them" as in muslims. Obviously they would just stop handing out visas to that part of the world...

What part of the world? Muslimistan?

...investigate any visas to Europe with non EU names...

What's an "EU name"?

PopePalpatine

Ah shure it's only hate speech nowadays when it's out of the mouths of a Black Lives Matter activist or a feminist. :rolleyes:

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

What part of the world? Muslimistan?

What's an "EU name"?

Countries with majority muslim populations, who are for all intents and purposes muslim countries , North Africa, ME, Parts of Asia

Depends on the region, but say, Seamus Flanagan for Ireland and John Smith for England, as stereotypical names. A non EU name, Mohammed Mohammed

If you dont know how no fly lists in the US works, its practically that stupid. Look up the countless people put on them for having a name similar to that of a terrorist or wanted person. The NSA probably has all these people on a database anyway, and can track their movements, attempts to board flights or what have you.

Its not my plan, why are you asking me? Im sure you can use your intellect to fathom how it could work, its not hard.

AbusesToilets

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why is it considered ok to impose these sanctions on Muslims entering the country but not on firearms which cause tens of thousands of deaths annually in the US?

While I have no truck with Trump's inflammatory rhetoric, that's an entirely specious argument.

JPNelsforearm

B_Wayne wrote: »

This assumption would require ignoring the second world, the populist hate speech that took over in terms of Hitler coming to power, it took advantage of distrust and hatred. Watch as it caricatures Jewish people as rats, this piece even names Jewish people involved in the supposed conspiracy. Trump actually accused a judge accused against of being Mexican, it wasn't true but sort of shows the attitude that he espouses, hate an individual for their nationality, for being religious but not even extreme...

Hitler didnt get into power due to "hate speech", he got into power on the back of a jewish-led communist insurrection in 1919 which segued into a weak incompetent and debt ridden Weimer Rep, massive unemployment and economic stagnation. Hitler promised to fix those issues, and he did, so he stayed in power and had full support of the people because of economic success. The German people could not eat off the back of Hitlers words. No matter how much fiery rhetoric and blame he espoused if he did not fix the economic situation he would have been out on his ear and communists probably would have taken over.

Rhetoric<Economic performance.

I assume the Trump judge thing is over "Trump university" and the "accidental" leaking of sealed documents by a pro immigration judge and member of LaRaza? Highly convenient on his part wouldnt you say?

That is free speech. What is on their signs does not matter, its protected under the wonderful first amendment. That is merely someone exercising their democratic right. You can say you do not wish to associate with X, that is what freedom entails.

B_Wayne

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Hitler didnt get into power due to "hate speech", he got into power on the back of a jewish-led communist insurrection in 1919 which segued into a weak incompetent and debt ridden Weimer Rep, massive unemployment and economic stagnation. Hitler promised to fix those issues, and he did, so he stayed in power and had full support of the people because of economic success. The German people could not eat off the back of Hitlers words. No matter how much fiery rhetoric and blame he espoused if he did not fix the economic situation he would have been out on his ear and communists probably would have taken over.

Rhetoric<Economic performance.

I assume the Trump judge thing is over "Trump university" and the "accidental" leaking of sealed documents by a pro immigration judge and member of LaRaza? Highly convenient on his part wouldnt you say?

That is free speech. What is on their signs does not matter, its protected under the wonderful first amendment. That is merely someone exercising their democratic right. You can say you do not wish to associate with X, that is what freedom entails.

This doesn't negate it from being hate speech.... I'm pretty grateful that countries do legislate against it tbh. Saying that "It's not harmful" is up there with "stick and stones will hurt my bones". If you were in a group on the receiving end, I doubt you'd be very You're diverting over and over again on every issue...

Also in relation to hitler, it doesn't cease to be hate speech. He played on fears and he denigrated certain groups because people didn't mind so much. Even placed blame on them. Claiming it wasn't hate speech is rubbish. It was, there was centuries of hatred behaviour toward certain groups that build up to that point. Hitler also had a devout core support group in much the same way as Trump does. He could say anything and it wouldn't matter to them. That is what Trump has.

JPNelsforearm

B_Wayne wrote: »

This doesn't negate it from being hate speech.... I'm pretty grateful that countries do legislate against it tbh. Saying that "It's not harmful" is up there with "stick and stones will hurt my bones". If you were in a group on the receiving end, I doubt you'd be very You're diverting over and over again on every issue...

Also in relation to hitler, it doesn't cease to be hate speech. He played on fears and he denigrated certain groups because people didn't mind so much. Even placed blame on them. Claiming it wasn't hate speech is rubbish. It was, there was centuries of hatred behaviour toward certain groups that build up to that point. Hitler also had a devout core support group in much the same way as Trump does. He could say anything and it wouldn't matter to them. That is what Trump has.

I literally gave you an example of where I am in a group in the receiving end of it, guess what, I dont care. If you are offended or hurt by words, man up. Im not diverting, a muslim man should be able to hold up a sign calling for my beheading, thats freedom. And luckily its protected under the 1st amendment, so all the cries of hate speech are irrelevant in the Trump/US electoral context, its not. Its only in totalitarian Europe where as we have no protections, we have old ladies locked up for Holocaust denial and people jailed over jokes or comments on the internet. Totalitarianism, even though its cloaked in a nice multi hued "non discrimination" cloak is still totalitarianism. You are engaging in the politics of "Sin", whereby your moralism is the arbiter of what is sin and what isnt. Sixty years ago it would be sodomy and pornography, today its mean words, tomorrow? Criticism of government institutions, look to Turkey for an example.



Trump Hitler, comparison, ha. I suppose it is the current year. So what if Hitler or Trump, denigrated people, its still just words, this push against free speech is abhorrent.

Have a read of this. Good speech by Hitch.

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2014/09/30/christopher-hitchens-freedom-of-speech-means-freedom-to-hate/

Jawfin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

So what if Hitler or Trump, denigrated people, its still just words, this push against free speech is abhorrent.

Wasn't really just words in Hitler's case, was it?

JPNelsforearm

Jawfin wrote: »

Wasn't really just words in Hitler's case, was it?

Technically, to be pedantic, it was, and even at that, it was mostly insinuation, no direct calls for literal genocide, also you wont find anything in writing re: Pogroms, ethnic cleansing, death camps, einzatgruppen etc. etc. Nothing that would stand up in court.
Its beside the point anyway, Im not going to get into defending Hitler to defend Donald Trump and free speech. Hitlers actions or ordered actions are the issue, not his speech.

JPNelsforearm

Leaving aside all the talk of Donald Trump and his haaaaate speech, interesting to note the actions of his opposition last night
Burning American flags, attacking innocent people, rioting.

https://twitter.com/dcbigjohn/status/738562105733873669/video/1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmBXNE8gZvI

https://twitter.com/SaraMurray/status/738559069737222144?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw



https://twitter.com/marcusdipaola/status/738572899808743424
https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/status/738567898965233664
https://twitter.com/smahaskey/status/738570881392214017

Yeah though, tell me Trump is the problem. Lets reverse the roles and imagine the outcry and outrage on here if Trump supporters were attacking Hillary and Bernie Sanders events. You are all quick enough to jump on harmless words, not a peep when its left wing violence and actual quantifiable harm.

This is the issue, its people being unable to accept a differing opinion and responding with violence when their shouting down and temper tantrums dont work.

Here is an editor of Vox, suspended for encouraging rioting in response to Trump.http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/03/media/vox-editor-suspended-trump-riots/
https://twitter.com/emmettrensin/status/738583628855156742?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw



Who is the danger to democracy? Its not Trump, its not having free speech, since when can one have too much freedom?

oscarBravo

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Its not my plan, why are you asking me? Im sure you can use your intellect to fathom how it could work, its not hard.

Of course it's hard. It's impossible. That's the beauty of Trump's ideas: they appeal to people who like superficial ideas that don't require the painful effort of thinking.

I mean, don't get me wrong: you could base an immigration policy on something as breathtakingly stupid as "does it sound like an EU name?", but anyone who isn't captivated by the delightful idea of a politician mouthing empty-headed xenophobic rhetoric and who actually bothers to think about it knows that it's not a remotely workable policy.

oscarBravo

I have no trouble condemning any idiot who physically attacks the supporters of any candidate. It's stupid, it's counter-productive, it's illegal and it's wrong.

I would also cheerfully condemn any politician who encouraged his supporters to physically attack anyone else - unlike some of the weasel words we've seen from some on here when Trump advocated violence against protesters.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Who is the danger to democracy? Its not Trump, its not having free speech, since when can one have too much freedom?

If I had the freedom to cause you physical harm, would that be too much freedom?

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Of course it's hard. It's impossible. That's the beauty of Trump's ideas: they appeal to people who like superficial ideas that don't require the painful effort of thinking.

I mean, don't get me wrong: you could base an immigration policy on something as breathtakingly stupid as "does it sound like an EU name?", but anyone who isn't captivated by the delightful idea of a politician mouthing empty-headed xenophobic rhetoric and who actually bothers to think about it knows that it's not a remotely workable policy.

The US military is getting the F35, a trillion dollar turkey of an aircraft to work for a multitude of different roles through sheer bloody mindedness and a bottomless pit of money and engineering know how.

In comparison, an immigration/visa program based on religion and geo location with an already existing intelligence and security infrastructure at every legal point of entry is not impossible, to say it is, is laughable. Manpower, intelligence capacity, numerous services, huge budgets. The USA could implement any border program they like, to maintain they cant is the height of delusion about the capabilities of the US security apparatus.

The US already does base it on something as stupid as a name, look at the "no fly list", there is multitudes of articles and TV programs written on it and people being stopped from travelling due to a suspicious name.

I never claimed to be in favour of a blanket ban, Im just pointing out its easily implemented. Its a total lie to say its unworkable.

This is a replica of the "EU immigration crisis", where we have billions of dollars in naval and air assets up against dinghy's and we are told, "its impossible to stop illegal immigration". Once you have the hardware and the intelligence, most things are possible.

oscarBravo

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

In comparison, an immigration/visa program based on religion and geo location with an already existing intelligence and security infrastructure at every legal point of entry is not impossible, to say it is, is laughable.

If I had said that, we could have a conversation about whether it was laughable.

What I was laughing at was the utter nonsense of basing an immigration system on "EU-sounding names". What's even more laughable is that you'd present such stupidity as if it was a rational argument in an intelligent discussion.

I get it, I do: you admire Trump because he mouths off about things that sound plausible to people who don't want to think about issues beyond "Muslims bad, problem solved". Meanwhile, in the real world, things are more nuanced than that.

What's really ironic is that Trump isn't stupid, which means he's probably enormously entertained by people who think that the idiotic ideas he proposes should be taken seriously. Hell, he doesn't even take them seriously: he contradicts himself every time he opens his mouth.

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

If I had said that, we could have a conversation about whether it was laughable.

What I was laughing at was the utter nonsense of basing an immigration system on "EU-sounding names". What's even more laughable is that you'd present such stupidity as if it was a rational argument in an intelligent discussion.

I get it, I do: you admire Trump because he mouths off about things that sound plausible to people who don't want to think about issues beyond "Muslims bad, problem solved". Meanwhile, in the real world, things are more nuanced than that.

What's really ironic is that Trump isn't stupid, which means he's probably enormously entertained by people who think that the idiotic ideas he proposes should be taken seriously. Hell, he doesn't even take them seriously: he contradicts himself every time he opens his mouth.

Please stop, you literally have not researched this at all. The US is already operating such a system as regards travel and communications, shifting that info over to passport control is not exactly an onerous task. It may be stupid, but the US is literally putting people on lists because they have muslim names, visit/call certain locations etc. What you are arguing against already exists.



http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/23/muslim-sounding-names-add-air-travel-indignity-bigotry-flying-southwest-airlines
http://www.mintpressnews.com/startling-number-of-americans-are-on-terrorist-watchlist/194356/
https://www.wired.com/2014/07/snowden-leaks/
http://chicagomonitor.com/2014/07/nsa-fbi-spying-on-muslims-old-story-new-target/
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/nsa-surveillance-muslim-arab-americans

"One of the draconian consequences of 9/11 is racial profiling. Bollywood Muslim actor Shah Rukh Khan became the latest victim of what some call “flying while a Muslim” after he was singled out by US airport authorities allegedly because of his Muslim surname “Khan”"
http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/08/%E2%80%9Cyour-name-is-common%E2%80%9D-racial-profiling-in-the-us/


But yea, continue on about how Im a xenophobe mouthbreather blah blah blah solely because Im trying, in vain, to explain how such a policy could work without ever having agreed with said policy.

KingBrian2

Billy86 wrote: »

Where did he mention Islamists in his statement, Brian?

He mentioned Muslims, Brian. Three times he mentioned them. No mention of Islamists, is there?

You actually think you're doing a good job of attempting to change subjects Brian, don't you? You said he is "all for religious toleration" - sorry, but you have been proven wrong beyond debate. And the reason I say that is because you refuse to debate it.

There you go again Brian, where in his statement does it specifically mention he is only refusing to tolerate Jihadists but will support Muslims, Brian? Where does it say that in his statement?

There you go again Brian, trying to fit what Trump is around what you want him to be.

"I believe in God. I am Christian. I think The Bible is certainly, it is THE book..First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica Queens is where I went to church. I’m a Protestant, I’m a Presbyterian. And you know I’ve had a good relationship with the church over the years. I think religion is a wonderful thing. I think my religion is a wonderful religion."
- Donald Trump

"[I go to church] as much as I can. Always on Christmas. Always on Easter. Always when there’s a major occasion. And during the Sundays. I’m a Sunday church person. I’ll go when I can."
- Donald Trump

Yes, this Donald Trump...


I take it you can back this statement up with reliable sources and statistical information. And yes Brian, much like your "he is all for religious toleration" comment, I will be asking you this over and over if you fail to provide one.

But Brian, Brian... I thought this was only about Jihadists? You're quickly moving that to a wider set now, Brian... it's only a matter of time before you tell us how you really feel!

I have been consistent throughout. Trump has been opposed to Jihadism in America, Jihadism is the same as Islamism. Islamism is the rejection of American values and to be one is to repudiate the Republic. Trump's bellicose is directly at those extremists. People like you are grouping all the Muslims together and shouting Islamophobe, Islamophobe to your hearts content.

Now as for that eloquent quote you have of him when talking to religious leaders. Trump has courted the Christian Right who have a very different view on Muslims. In America you have to flaunt your Christian Credentials in order to do well in the GOP. Barack Obama was savaged for his lack of religion during both his election campaigns.

I'm not a fan of his religious base having said that the vile forms of extremism is coming from Islamism and you really want us all to belief that Muslims in America are being discriminated against. This is blatantly untrue as America is not and has never been a sectarian country.

What we see on the ground in America is the material lifestyle of Americans is incompatible with Islamism. America can handle religious tolerance even of sectarian religions, what it cannot deal with is Jihadi movements that wish to impose a their own standards on everyone else who share American citizenry.

The Randy Riverbeast

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I have been consistent throughout. Trump has been opposed to Jihadism in America, Jihadism is the same as Islamism. Islamism is the rejection of American values and to be one is to repudiate the Republic. Trump's bellicose is directly at those extremists. People like you are grouping all the Muslims together and shouting Islamophobe, Islamophobe to your hearts content.

Now as for that eloquent quote you have of him when talking to religious leaders. Trump has courting the Christian Right who have a very different view on Muslims. In America you have to flaunt your Christian Credentials in order to do well in the GOP. Barack Obama was savaged for his lack of religion during both his election campaigns.

I'm not a fan of his religious base having said that the vile forms of extremism is coming from Islamism and you really want us all to belief that Muslims in America are being discriminated against. This is blatantly untrue as America is not and has never been a sectarian country.

What we see on the ground in America is the material lifestyle of Americans is incompatible with Islamism. America can handle religious tolerance even of sectarian religions, what it cannot deal with is Jihadi movements that wish to impose a their own standards on everyone else who share American citizenry.

Just the GOP and its supporters are? I'm sure Catholic would agree. They have never been a target of sectarianism.

KingBrian2

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Just the GOP and its supporters are? I'm sure Catholic would agree. They have never been a target of sectarianism.

Their has been sectarian outbursts throughout America's history but they were never condoned.

InTheTrees

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

And so does an extra judicial targeted killing of father and son for disseminating islamic propaganda. Clearly, an administration has leeway in wartime and threats against the US. You can ban travel in event of an outbreak, the US has already interned and killed its own citizens, there is no new ground being broken here.

Standing in front of the Supreme Court attempting to justify implementing a law that goes against the basic principals the founding fathers stood for and using the argument that the military has killed US Citizens isnt going to be enough.

InTheTrees

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Its not hard to think of ideas with an unlimited budget and massive security and intelligence apparatus behind you.

No quite right. Its easy to think up fantasy plans with "unlimited budgets" and Super Giant Intelligence behind you.

Unfortunately in the real world budgets have to be passed by Congress and laws have to be constitutional.

InTheTrees

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Please stop, you literally have not researched this at all. The US is already operating such a system as regards travel and communications, shifting that info over to passport control is not exactly an onerous task.

Researching the likely constitutionality of a religious test to enter the united states should probably be first.

Worrying about the logistics is a bit premature.

blackcard

I get the feeling that Trump is going to come out one of these days and say his candidacy for the presidency has been one big joke and that he couldn't believe how so many people were so gullible to be taken in by it. Hell, the more outrageous and idiotic the comments he made, the more people jumped on the bandwagon. He makes Homer Simpson look like a statesman. The one thing Trump has got going for him is that the alternative is Hilary Clinton. Hilary can trump this by saying that the alternative is Trump.

Billy86

oscarbarvo wrote:

but anyone who isn't captivated by the delightful idea of a politician mouthing empty-headed xenophobic rhetoric and who actually bothers to think about it knows that it's not a remotely workable policy.

Whoa Whoa Whoa, easy there buddy! We're still on the basics of the English langauge. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Fr Tod Umptious

oscarBravo wrote: »

I have no trouble condemning any idiot who physically attacks the supporters of any candidate. It's stupid, it's counter-productive, it's illegal and it's wrong.

I would also cheerfully condemn any politician who encouraged his supporters to physically attack anyone else - unlike some of the weasel words we've seen from some on here when Trump advocated violence against protesters.

If I had the freedom to cause you physical harm, would that be too much freedom?

So it's Trump's fault then ?