EPT*Get real*
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2653
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
*Get real* | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On December 13 2015 00:14 Deathstar wrote: Which makes sense because Trump isn't a nazi. Why is this so difficult for you? Making sense of your political perspective isn't difficult. Understanding the US bankruptcy code, for example, is difficult. Figuring out why some dude thinks that only a "left wing lens" portrays Trump as a nationalistic racist when both nazis and Republicans themselves find him distasteful is easy. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On December 12 2015 23:58 Deathstar wrote: Yes we can (Obama tm). It is constitutional. It's a matter of will. I think his ban comment was jumping the shark but you see Trump now making more nuanced statements such as banning people who originate from specific terrorist infested countries, etc. This meme of Trump being a fascist now makes everyone not even read his statements through objective lens but rather through left wing lens. And that's a shame because he's the front runner by 20+ points. I think Kickstart's point is partly that it's functionally impossible and pointless to ban Muslim non-citizens from entering the country. Which it is. Terrorists will lie. People who want into the country will lie. You cannot do a deep background check on all these people, plus they could always say they converted (once Muslim does not mean always a Muslim). It only affects people who we don't have much reason to keep out of the country. Also, his campaign originally said it would apply to citizens, which was strictly unconstitutional. He only walked back on that because he realized it was not going to fly with even his cult of personality. Not because he actually cares about the constitution. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11998 Posts
The question you should be asking if you really want to be a country that discriminates against people based on religion. Why don't you go with a much more reasonable stance of "The US shouldn't allow violent criminals or people who openly disagree with the core principles of liberty and democracy to enter it", or something along those lines? Solves the same problem, no terrorists entering, without any of the religious discrimination. I think at an earlier part of this discussion, the demand had already changed from "Stop all muslims entering" to "Stop violent muslims entering", at which point you might as well just drop the "muslim" altogether, and have a much more sensible regulation. Which probably is in place already, i don't know the exact details of US immigration laws, but that sounds like a regulation that most countries would have. | ||
|
killa_robot
Canada1884 Posts
On December 13 2015 00:33 TheTenthDoc wrote: I think Kickstart's point is partly that it's functionally impossible and pointless to ban Muslim non-citizens from entering the country. Which it is. Terrorists will lie. People who want into the country will lie. You cannot do a deep background check on all these people, plus they could always say they converted (once Muslim does not mean always a Muslim). It only affects people who we don't have much reason to keep out of the country. Also, his campaign originally said it would apply to citizens, which was strictly unconstitutional. He only walked back on that because he realized it was not going to fly with even his cult of personality. Not because he actually cares about the constitution. Pretty sure by "Muslim" Trump really means people from Arab countries that are mainly Muslim, which would be incredibly easy to do. | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
| ||
|
Deathstar
9150 Posts
On December 13 2015 00:33 TheTenthDoc wrote: I think Kickstart's point is partly that it's functionally impossible and pointless to ban Muslim non-citizens from entering the country. Which it is. Terrorists will lie. People who want into the country will lie. You cannot do a deep background check on all these people, plus they could always say they converted (once Muslim does not mean always a Muslim). It only affects people who we don't have much reason to keep out of the country. Also, his campaign originally said it would apply to citizens, which was strictly unconstitutional. He only walked back on that because he realized it was not going to fly with even his cult of personality. Not because he actually cares about the constitution. He pulled back because it's unpalatable for mainstream America at this moment. As for the base, Trump got a loud cheer when he made his initial statement of the ban. And sure the execution of the ban will be difficult (whatever subset it applies to). But just because something is difficult doesn't mean we don't do it. On December 13 2015 00:36 Simberto wrote: And even if it is constitutional to ban all muslims from entering the US, you need to realize that the US constitution isn't the eternal final word of wisdom. The question you should be asking if you really want to be a country that discriminates against people based on religion. Why don't you go with a much more reasonable stance of "The US shouldn't allow violent criminals or people who openly disagree with the core principles of liberty and democracy to enter it", or something along those lines? Solves the same problem, no terrorists entering, without any of the religious discrimination. I think at an earlier part of this discussion, the demand had already changed from "Stop all muslims entering" to "Stop violent muslims entering", at which point you might as well just drop the "muslim" altogether, and have a much more sensible regulation. Which probably is in place already, i don't know the exact details of US immigration laws, but that sounds like a regulation that most countries would have. People kept spreading the meme that the plan was unconstitutional. I was correcting them. US immigration laws currently in place and how they are enforced are different. If our laws were properly enforced, there wouldn't be 11+ million illegals in this country. | ||
|
Deathstar
9150 Posts
On December 13 2015 00:48 Kickstart wrote: I'm surprised by the number of people in the thread who seem to think a ban on all Muslims is a perfectly good idea. Sad really. I never said it was a good idea. But yeah so sad. Must be nice living in your imagined moral high ground. | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
I would still think that a challenge to such a ban would never hold because it is a blatant discrimination based on religious affiliation. But perhaps I am wrong~ | ||
|
Deathstar
9150 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On December 13 2015 00:50 Deathstar wrote: He pulled back because it's unpalatable for mainstream America at this moment. As for the base, Trump got a loud cheer when he made his initial statement of the ban. And sure the execution of the ban will be difficult (whatever subset it applies to). But just because something is difficult doesn't mean we don't do it. People kept spreading the meme that the plan was unconstitutional. I was correcting them. Well, the original plan-that everyone cheered for, as you put it-was unconstitutional. You cannot limit citizens moving in and out of the country based on their religion (or any of the 14th Amendment equal protection components). Not hard to see why they're saying such when Trump hasn't even issued a correction saying it wouldn't apply to non-citizens on his site. And no, it won't be difficult, it will be impossible. You cannot give a good way to do it. Trump cannot. That's why he hasn't. Just like how he hasn't mentioned a good way to keep jobs in this country, or make Mexico build the wall, or negotiate with China, or deal with ISIS, and instead just says he can do it because he's capable: he doesn't know how. Edit: Also, when some people say Trump would like to ignore constitutional rights, they're not necessarily saying that *his current policy* does that. They're saying that his ideal policy-the one he initially gave his campaign to disseminate-would do that. Which, as you tacitly admitted, it would. Edit2: It's also interesting that a group (not saying it's you) that spent years misquoting Benjamin Franklin out of context about how people that would give up liberty for security deserve neither would be so quick to give up the liberties of others...but that's just how people are I guess. | ||
|
Cowboy64
115 Posts
On December 13 2015 00:30 Kickstart wrote: Are you implying that a government banning all peoples of a given religious isn't government impeding on the free exercise of religion? *Get real* US Code 1182: "Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate." | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On a more serious note, the recent trouble between Trump and Cruz after the audio leak is interesting. It felt like they had a cease fire until now. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22598 Posts
On December 13 2015 05:01 Mohdoo wrote: This shit is downright fucking weird. Trump benefiting from his Muslim ban thing. At this rate, if he advocated for beheading all Muslims, would he therefore win the general election? On a more serious note, the recent trouble between Trump and Cruz after the audio leak is interesting. It felt like they had a cease fire until now. Do not mistake Trumps numbers under Republicans with the general election. | ||
|
DemigodcelpH
1138 Posts
On December 13 2015 00:31 farvacola wrote: Making sense of your political perspective isn't difficult. Understanding the US bankruptcy code, for example, is difficult. Figuring out why some dude thinks that only a "left wing lens" portrays Trump as a nationalistic racist when both nazis and Republicans themselves find him distasteful is easy. This. It's quite an embarrassment to my country that someone like Fuhrer Trump is leading the Republican polls at all. Not only is he a bigot, but he literally speaks at a 4th grade level. The lowest of all candidates. He's also the most dishonest GOP candidate running right now. Then again there's a good portion of the country that is racist and bigoted, and this portion happens to comprise a lot of the Republican base. However there are not as many Republicans as Democrats. So he may be able to capture the vote of the worst 30% of the Republican party, but that doesn't mean he will win the primary, and even if he wins the primarily it would give Republicans the worst loss in the general election in perhaps all of history. It's objectively impossible for Republicans to win the general without winning Florida, and guess who will never win Florida back after Obama carried it twice? Trump by alienating Hispanics. The only one who can contest Hillary or Sanders in a general election right now would be Rubio, and even then he'd still lose. Trump, however, would instalose the general because without Florida it's mathematically impossible for Republicans to win, and in terms of popular vote he'd lose 60%/40% just because the base his appeals to (uneducated rural whites, and above 55 years old) is small outside of primary polls, and because a fascist will motivate young people to the polls like no other. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On December 13 2015 00:50 Deathstar wrote: He pulled back because it's unpalatable for mainstream America at this moment. As for the base, Trump got a loud cheer when he made his initial statement of the ban. And sure the execution of the ban will be difficult (whatever subset it applies to). But just because something is difficult doesn't mean we don't do it. People kept spreading the meme that the plan was unconstitutional. I was correcting them. US immigration laws currently in place and how they are enforced are different. If our laws were properly enforced, there wouldn't be 11+ million illegals in this country. exactly. And let's not forget that his innitial statement you just mentioned included american citizens for the ban. People were indeed cheering for that. Even if he backpaddled 1 day later to say that it only affects non-US citizens while the US ones like people from the armee who were out of the country for their service will get stasi'd | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On December 13 2015 00:40 killa_robot wrote: Pretty sure by "Muslim" Trump really means people from Arab countries that are mainly Muslim, which would be incredibly easy to do. There is not a hint of that in anything he said. Keeping out individuals from Middle Eastern countries is not at all the same as keeping out Muslim individuals, which is his directly stated policy. Not a whisper of keeping out Christians or other denominations out in anything he has said which would be a consequence of a country-level immigration cessation. The word "country" only appears referencing the U.S. Everything else is about religion, not nationality. You're trying to look for rationality in a man devoted purely to fueling a PR campaign. Do yourself a favor and stop. It's also not terribly hard to bypass those passport logistics problems either...especially for terrorist organizations. Edit: Compare Trump's statement to Rand Paul's (or Cruz's) suggested plans; Paul's position predated Trump's by months, too. That's the difference between stopping Muslim immigration and stopping high-risk country immigration. The language couldn't be more different. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22598 Posts
On December 13 2015 05:47 TheTenthDoc wrote: There is not a hint of that in anything he said. Keeping out individuals from Middle Eastern countries is not at all the same as keeping out Muslim individuals, which is his directly stated policy. Not a whisper of keeping out Christians or other denominations out in anything he has said which would be a consequence of a country-level immigration cessation. You're trying to look for rationality in a man devoted purely to fueling a PR campaign. Do yourself a favor and stop. It's also not terribly hard to bypass those passport logistics problems either...especially for terrorist organizations. In the eyes of the people who cheer for Muslims bans all Arabs are Muslims so in their mind a ban on Muslims is a ban on Arabs. | ||
|
ragz_gt
9172 Posts
| ||
|
killa_robot
Canada1884 Posts
On December 13 2015 05:47 TheTenthDoc wrote: There is not a hint of that in anything he said. Keeping out individuals from Middle Eastern countries is not at all the same as keeping out Muslim individuals, which is his directly stated policy. Not a whisper of keeping out Christians or other denominations out in anything he has said which would be a consequence of a country-level immigration cessation. The word "country" only appears referencing the U.S. Everything else is about religion, not nationality. You're trying to look for rationality in a man devoted purely to fueling a PR campaign. Do yourself a favor and stop. It's also not terribly hard to bypass those passport logistics problems either...especially for terrorist organizations. Edit: Compare Trump's statement to Rand Paul's (or Cruz's) suggested plans; Paul's position predated Trump's by months, too. That's the difference between stopping Muslim immigration and stopping high-risk country immigration. The language couldn't be more different. You have it reversed. You're the one looking for rationality with Trump by assuming he thinks muslim = muslim and not muslim = everyone from the middle east, lol. | ||
| ||
