2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And you keep taking the extreme suggestions from Trump and bare-faced lies from Fiorina, substituting what a reasonable person would say under the same circumstances, and then pretending that we're discussing the putative reasonable person's remarks.

Fiorina isn't criticising Planned Parenthood. She's lying about them in grotesque terms, calculated to inflame hatred against an organisation that's already a target for extreme violence.

Now, maybe you think that what she's saying is reasoned criticism, in which case we don't share a common language to discuss the topic.

I don't think anyone, including Trump, has suggested that all Muslims are terrorists.

No. He has just advocated collective punishment instead.

Trump is surely aware that any effort to prevent American citizens from entering their own country would quickly be struck down as unconstitutional, per the Supreme Court precedent in Aptheker v. Secretary of State.

Honestly? I don't know. I still haven't figured out whether Trump is stupid or evil. I'm pretty sure he's one or the other.

If he knows that his proposal is unconstitutional, then he's evil. A proposal for collective punishment that can't possibly succeed is nothing more than a rallying cry for those who will use less legitimate tactics for such collective punishment.

If he doesn't know that it's unconstitutional, then he's stupid and unfit for office.

I interpret Trump's remarks as calling for a temporary ban on non-US Muslims from entering the country until screening procedures can be improved, with the goal of preventing radicalized Islamic terrorists from carrying out further attacks.

You can interpret it how you like, but he specifically said that his proposal included American citizens.

Look: there's no point discussing any of Trump's proposals as if they were sane. It merely lends his idiocy legitimacy. It needs to be recognised for what it is: demagoguery. He is pandering to the basest fears of his base, and fanning the flames of those fears.

He is far from alone in this. The entire Republican slate has one key message for its base: be afraid. Be very, very afraid. Cower in fear. Shrink from the brown menace. Mistrust everyone of an entire religion because of the radical actions of a tiny, tiny minority of its adherents - you never know which of your neighbours is a sleeper terrorist, so fear them all. Because if there's one thing America was built on, it's cowering in terror.

Oh, and guns? Those things that are actually killing Americans? Not up for discussion.

And where do you get that from? I already stated above that I don't agree with Trump's proposed ban.

You're tacitly defending it, to the extent of producing statistics showing how many Americans agree with it.

When someone says something as outrageous as that, there are three ways you can respond. One is to call him on it, in no uncertain terms. Another is to agree with it. And the third is to try to reframe it so that it starts to seem more reasonable.

Only one of those is a valid response to demagoguery and bigotry.

Permabear wrote: »

A mass shooting in San Bernardino by radical Islamists leaves 14 dead and 21 injured -- but according to you, Donald Trump is the terrorist.

Are you denying that the consistent message from all the Republican candidates is that Americans should live in constant fear?

oscarBravo

frostyjacks wrote: »

Let's ignore the fact that twice as many Muslims in the UK are joining ISIS than the British Army.

That's not a fact; it's a wild guess.

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/have-more-british-muslims-really-joined-isis-than-the-british-army--xyyRhQiIQe

Trump is the real bad guy in all of this.

You think he's a good guy?

johnnyskeleton

frostyjacks wrote: »

Of course we have nothing to fear from them. Let's ignore the fact that twice as many Muslims in the UK are joining ISIS than the British Army. Let's ignore the organised gangs grooming underage girls for sex. Trump is the real bad guy in all of this.

Mod Note:

Frostyjacks, you have already been in trouble a lot in another forum for this kind of posting and it is not acceptable in this forum, or indeed anywhere on boards.ie.

I've decided to give you a chance to read the charter and up the standards of your post. However, if you still think that a valid response to a criticism of Trump's comments re: Muslims is to go full Ray-Gun on it, then you will be banned from the forum.

frostyjacks

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's not a fact; it's a wild guess.

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/have-more-british-muslims-really-joined-isis-than-the-british-army--xyyRhQiIQe You think he's a good guy?

ISIS aren't kind enough to reveal their membership list, but it's reckoned to have 2,000 British Muslims in their ranks, and only 600 Muslims serve in the British Army. Why aren't there petitions on this, instead of one making Trump out to be the next Hitler? It's just people jumping on the bandwagon, same as the Tyson Fury petition.

K-9

frostyjacks wrote: »

ISIS aren't kind enough to reveal their membership list, but it's reckoned to have 2,000 British Muslims in their ranks, and only 600 Muslims serve in the British Army. Why aren't there petitions on this, instead of one making Trump out to be the next Hitler? It's just people jumping on the bandwagon, same as the Tyson Fury petition.

Mod:

U.S. Politics thread, keep it U.S. related, thanks.

cowboyBuilder

I have defended Trump before and said he has balls to say things as they are - however I think his latest statements have been a bit extreme.
I think he means well and has genuine concerns, but his solutions do deal with them are a bit wild - but I think this is hard talk to get coverage
and support from hard line Republicans.

However people comparing him with Hitler is just as ludicrous.

MightyMandarin

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

However people comparing him with Hitler is just as ludicrous.

How is it ludicrous? This is exactly the type of thing the Nazi's would've supported if it was directed towards Jews. Who's to say that Trump won't go further and seek deportation of Muslims, or ban them from certain activities or segregate them from everyone else? Trump has crossed the line so many times already; there's nothing to say that he won't keep going.

Black Swan

Republican candidate Trump's polling numbers climbed significantly when comparing the 2 most recent CBS/NY Times polls from 22% (taken 21-25 Oct) to 35% (taken 4-8 Dec), better than twice the percentage lead over 2nd place Ted Cruz 16% and 3rd place Carson 13%, with all remaining GOP contenders for the presidential nomination in the single digits. Carson took a big hit losing half his position dropping from 26% in October to 13% December, while Cruz jumped from 4% to 16%. Given that percentages are descriptive and not inferential, we can only guess what variables may be effecting the shift in the polls.

Although Trump signed a pledge to not run as an independent last September, he is now suggesting that he would break that pledge if not treated "fairly" by the Republican party; i.e., if they don't nominate him for president 2016 while he leads in the polls. It should be noted that polls are not the same thing as an election, and that there may be other factors the GOP considers before nominating their candidate for president.

cowboyBuilder

MightyMandarin wrote: »

How is it ludicrous? This is exactly the type of thing the Nazi's would've supported if it was directed towards Jews. Who's to say that Trump won't go further and seek deportation of Muslims, or ban them from certain activities or segregate them from everyone else? Trump has crossed the line so many times already; there's nothing to say that he won't keep going.

All true , but I doubt he will be setting up death camps ..

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This is akin to a child writing a letter - "Mr President Obama, my daddy has no job, please fix this" - and somebody stating that he has correctly identified the problems within the American economy and issued a call to address the issue.

JPNelsforearm

MightyMandarin wrote: »

How is it ludicrous? This is exactly the type of thing the Nazi's would've supported if it was directed towards Jews. Who's to say that Trump won't go further and seek deportation of Muslims, or ban them from certain activities or segregate them from everyone else? Trump has crossed the line so many times already; there's nothing to say that he won't keep going.

Like Israel already does? The whole nazi thing has been done to death, a state has a right to decide who can enter and reside in it, otherwise its not a state and doesnt serve its people and should be toppled.

Also, stop with the "who's to say" and then insert your own fear mongering. Trump is suggesting a temporary ban on muslim immigrants, thats it, calm down. The gulf states and Israel have an outright ban on those very same immigrants due to terrorism fears, its not some wacky radical idea, its self preservation

MightyMandarin

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

All true , but I doubt he will be setting up death camps ..

Ok so he mightn't want a 'final solution' to it all, but my point is that there's nothing to say that his discriminatory plans won't get more severe, and besides, discrimination should be a thing of the past especially in the 'land of the free'.

The bare notion that he's even suggested this makes it fair to compare his plans with other discriminatory regimes of the past, such as the Nazi's.

MightyMandarin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Like Israel already does? The whole nazi thing has been done to death, a state has a right to decide who can enter and reside in it, otherwise its not a state and doesnt serve its people and should be toppled.

Also, stop with the "who's to say" and then insert your own fear mongering. Trump is suggesting a temporary ban on muslim immigrants, thats it, calm down. The gulf states and Israel have an outright ban on those very same immigrants due to terrorism fears, its not some wacky radical idea, its self preservation

The fact Israel has a ban is irrelevant imo. This is the same state who recklessly bombs Palestinians in retaliation for a couple of stones thrown and some of their tin-can rocket strikes. This also the same state who's bullied the people of Gaza and imposed ridiculous embargos on basic humanitarian supplies.

The state absolutely has the right to say who can and can't enter the country; they just cannot do it based on the religion of those people. Not only is it completely unconstitutional,contrary to everything the USA was founded upon, unethical, discriminatory and just plainly unfair, it is absolutely comparable to the Nazi's because this is exactly the type of thing they would've supported.

It's not scaremongering at all. Trump has drastically escalated his 'plans' in the past few months because he's realised that the more racist and mean he is, the more airtime he receives. Again, I don't care what Israel does, this the USA we're talking about.

Fr Tod Umptious

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The bit in bold reminds me of how little people on this thread, and Irish people in general, know about everyday Americans.

It's not as simple as GOP = Bad Dems = Good as many seem to think it is.

It's far more complex than that, there are multiple crossovers.

An example would be older generation Irish and Irish American.
They tend to have conservative views on abortion, gay marriage etc, plus they tend to have a racist slant, but we have an assumption that they all vote Democrat.

I blame the mainstream media in Ireland for failing to properly portray the American voter, and especially the ones that vote GOP.
The GOP are all crazy line is easier to use it seems.

WarZ

Im not saying all republicans are racist and homophobic. But all racists and homophobes are republicans.

I jest.

JPNelsforearm

MightyMandarin wrote: »

The fact Israel has a ban is irrelevant imo. This is the same state who recklessly bombs Palestinians in retaliation for a couple of stones thrown and some of their tin-can rocket strikes. This also the same state who's bullied the people of Gaza and imposed ridiculous embargos on basic humanitarian supplies.

The state absolutely has the right to say who can and can't enter the country; they just cannot do it based on the religion of those people. Not only is it completely unconstitutional,contrary to everything the USA was founded upon, unethical, discriminatory and just plainly unfair, it is absolutely comparable to the Nazi's because this is exactly the type of thing they would've supported.

It's not scaremongering at all. Trump has drastically escalated his 'plans' in the past few months because he's realised that the more racist and mean he is, the more airtime he receives. Again, I don't care what Israel does, this the USA we're talking about.

No its not unconstitutional, the constitution doesnt apply to foreigners...:rolleyes:

Eh, its more akin to the Israeli policy, or the policy the US had in place pre 1965, the whole nazi thing is getting ridiculous, calm down, I mean nazis, lol.

MightyMandarin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

No its not unconstitutional, the constitution doesnt apply to foreigners...:rolleyes:

Eh, its more akin to the Israeli policy, or the policy the US had in place pre 1965, the whole nazi thing is getting ridiculous, calm down, I mean nazis, lol.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-anti-muslim-proposal-probably-illegal

“I believe Trump’s unprecedented proposal would violate our Constitution,” said Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, “both the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses and the equality dimension of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.”

:rolleyes:

JPNelsforearm

MightyMandarin wrote: »

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-anti-muslim-proposal-probably-illegal



:rolleyes:

Zero case law in your favour.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924

MSNBC are clowns

ancapailldorcha

This is a serious discussion forum. If you are planning to post smileys, links and nothing else then please refrain.

MightyMandarin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Zero case law in your favour.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924

MSNBC are clowns

That's not case law, that's a statute.

That statute is also irrelevant, as it limited the amount of immigrants from one country. Trump's plan limits people based on their religion, not nationality, and sets that limit at 0%, whereas this statute set it at 2%.

I also don't care about your opinions on MSNBC, because that quote came from a Harvard Law professor, not a news anchor.

JPNelsforearm

MightyMandarin wrote: »

That's not case law, that's a statute.

That statute is also irrelevant, as it limited the amount of immigrants from one country. Trump's plan limits people based on their religion, not nationality, and sets that limit at 0%, whereas this statute set it at 2%.

I also don't care about your opinions on MSNBC, because that quote came from a Harvard Law professor, not a news anchor.

The fact is, it imposed a limit on people from certain regions and wasnt deemed unconstitutional.
They recently removed HIV screening.http://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/laws-regs/hiv-ban-removal/final-rule.html

The government can impose any arbitrary limits or remove them. That law professor has no evidence, what he suggests is that the US cannot discriminate who enters and crosses its borders, when it has done so for the majority of its existence, as has practically every other nation.
the Federal Governement can ban people from entering from organisations it deems a threat, there is no eveidence that cannot be extended on a religious basis.

MightyMandarin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

The fact is, it imposed a limit on people from certain regions and wasnt deemed unconstitutional.
They recently removed HIV screening.http://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/laws-regs/hiv-ban-removal/final-rule.html

The government can impose any arbitrary limits or remove them. That law professor has no evidence, what he suggests is that the US cannot discriminate who enters and crosses its borders, when it has done so for the majority of its existence, as has practically every other nation.
the Federal Governement can ban people from entering from organisations it deems a threat, there is no eveidence that cannot be extended on a religious basis.

The fact is, it's still not relevant. Muslims don't just come from the middle east, so a ban on people coming from certain regions is incomparable to that statute.

That law professor has also shown evidence that it is likely unconstitutional because it goes against the 1st amendment, because discrimination shouldn't happen to people because of something they believe in.

Amerika

An alarming report has come out that ISIS may be printing authentic-looking passports themselves on their own captured machines, and may have infiltrated American and European borders. I believe you will see more candidates proposing temporary bans on people coming in from places like Syria, Iraq, Yemen, some African Countries, and more, until the government can better get a handle on who poses threats.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/us-intel-isis-passport-printing-machine-blank-passports/story?id=35700681

JPNelsforearm

MightyMandarin wrote: »

The fact is, it's still not relevant. Muslims don't just come from the middle east, so a ban on people coming from certain regions is incomparable to that statute.

That law professor has also shown evidence that it is likely unconstitutional because it goes against the 1st amendment, because discrimination shouldn't happen to people because of something they believe in.

The US constitution doesnt apply to foreigners. If it did the likes of Bin Laden would have had to be brought in for trial.

Once outside of US jurisdiction they are owed nothing and the US can and has created laws that discriminate against them. Provide a single case or statute that says different. The staute is relevant, as is the lifting of HIV testing, also the ban on people travelling during the ebola scare, from certain regions. Obama could bring in a ban on all non US muslims getting a travel visa and their is nothing anyone could do about it.

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

First Up

How does Trump propose his idea be enforced? Religion is not listed on passports. Would it mean that certain nationalities would be assumed to be Muslim and excluded on that basis? There are Muslims with Israeli passports. Turkey, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan are among the non Arab countries that are predominantly Muslim. Are they all blacklisted? What about Muslims with British or other EU nationality?
The whole thing just demonstrates the pig ignorance of Trump and those who support him.

Amerika

Calm down and carry on. I believe Trump knows exactly what he is doing. Right after Barack Obama came out and assured us that tolerance, gun control, and climate change would save us from ISIS (and the people cried in unison... WTF, this president doesn’t have a clue), Trump demanded we bar Muslims from entering this country. It caused just about every other Republican to align themselves with Obama the Clueless. Trump knows he cannot ban Muslims from entering the country, and the most he could do legally is get a temporary ban of people from select countries that are hostile to the US (like Jimmy "Trump" Carter did in 1980). Trump knows this and will negotiate to a compromise position that is acceptable and which the majority of US citizens will get behind. But for now he demands the moon... and the politics of what he has done has caused him to rise, once again, in the polls.

First Up

Indeed but Trump's problem is that at the moment the polls are being conducted only among the idiots who equate ignorance with strength.

eire4

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No but there is a substantial portion of the US electorate that is bigoted and or racist.

eire4

First Up wrote: »

How does Trump propose his idea be enforced? Religion is not listed on passports. Would it mean that certain nationalities would be assumed to be Muslim and excluded on that basis? There are Muslims with Israeli passports. Turkey, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan are among the non Arab countries that are predominantly Muslim. Are they all blacklisted? What about Muslims with British or other EU nationality?
The whole thing just demonstrates the pig ignorance of Trump and those who support him.

Maybe something along these lines is how Trump plans on finding out who is Muslim:)


ModSNIP






Seriously though I would go further and say this whole disgusting policy of Trumps is just yet another classic example of Trump the demagogue.