Anybody but Trump!

Post Reply New Topic

They're not actively persecuted, period. It's a false narrative, hate crime legislation is very flawed and biased but the truth is that Jews are the biggest victims of religious-based hate crimes in this country according to the FBI. Now it would be interesting to know who actually commits these crimes, I'm sure there are a few neo-Nazis but I think a lot of it probably pertains to the state of Israel whose existence is opposed by who? Perhaps an illuminating thing to look at is who is perpetrating this same crimes in Europe. For as much as people try to smear the right wing, they are probably more pro-Judaism and pro-Israel than Jews in the US themselves which kind of flies right into the face of this false narrative of this imaginary wave of right wing violence in this country.

Where am I smearing the "right-wing?"

Yes, Muslims are the victims of hate crimes sometimes; it's in the news.

Yes, it's not often that they are victims of hate crimes--but tell that to the guy who got hit by a baseball bat.

It's a fact that some Muslims with Arabic-sounding names are denied admittance to airplanes based upon the name's presence on a "no-fly" list--but it's not common.

Not exactly true, Germans and Italians were interned but not in the same numbers and most of which being foreign nationals rather than citizens. Also for as bad as interment was, how many deaths were attributed to it? Compare that to how the Japanese or Germans or Russians treated their prisoners. It was WWII and the empire of Japan was at war with the United States and at the time the Japanese peoples believed the emperor to be a living god. The idea of an attack on the West Coast or even ground incursions and raids by the Japanese in during WWII may seem preposterous in retrospect but it was taken very seriously then. If they had developed the atom bomb first then they would of surely used it on the US, it was a total war where one side would have to destroy the other to be victorious.

The US does not have a Muslim problem, they exceed the norm when it comes to education and household income in this country and are relatively well integrated compared to Europe. What we don't want is a situation like the one in Europe, millions of "refugees" who do not integrate and hold on to the same extremists views of the terrorists they're supposedly fleeing. It has created an impossible security situation and there is no obvious solutions, France is essentially a police state at this point and what difference has it made? That's what Hillary wants, she wants hundreds of thousands of people from the Middle East to be imported into this country every year is she was president and to completely erase our southern border. Soon after we will have soldiers on our streets to keep "peace and security", the way the police have militarized over the last 15 years we basically already do.

While it is completely legal and constitutional, we don't need a blanket ban on the immigration of Muslims. I've said this before and this is also the position that Trump now takes as he now words it as a 'temporary ban from countries compromised by terrorism'. We need a better system at vetting people, I don't think there is anything wrong with keeping the extremists out and giving preference to those from Muslim countries who are religious minorities, atheists, homosexuals, women, or some other persecuted group.

I guess you like Trump a whole lot.

What can I say?

Two points to address:
First, the use of the word "now" in your previous post.
Second, what country in the civilized world has NOT been compromised
by terrorism?

I don't know but don't reduce my entire post to that, yes obviously I support Trump but if you disagree with something I said then make an argument.

But I do offer my commentary.

But I feel that you are slanted towards your candidate, and you can't see the forest for the trees.

But hey...that's Politics!

Freedom of speech is NOT just for the people you agree with, but Trump would probably disagree

Trump has taken a more nuanced position, it is not necessary to ban all Muslims from entering the United States when the threat is mostly located in the Arab world in North Africa and the Middle East to a very specific sect. Syria is the most obvious example but they're not the only one, there is no way to vet anybody that comes out of that country and the evidence of this can be seen in the fact that we've provided most of the jihadis that make up ISIS and al-Qaeda money and American weapons as well as the words of the FBI director. Just because someone is not a militant does not mean they do not share the same ideology and that is the real issue, it's not that these people don't have jobs or somebody a world away drew a cartoon but rather the toxic ideology of Islamic extremists. It was always prefaced as temporary, we have to accept the fact that we are in a war and this will not stop until we do what is nessasary to win this war and destroy this ideology. France is starting to get this, they have had something like 14 terrorist attacks in the last couple years, hopefully we don't have to go thru the same the finally start waking up to this reality.

I think the Dali Lama offered a simple and effective solution: Accept the refugees and care for them, and when the conflict in their country is over, send them home. Constructing humane living conditions is not a problem. Why does everyone make things more complicated than they need to be?

The event was what I was expecting. There were confrontations inside & outside the venue. AND two people were forced to leave because they were wearing T-shirts criticizing Trump-- apparently he doesn't care about freedom of expression.

After the rally, Trump's camp engaged in damage control, and the RNC leadership denied that they were looking for ways to replace him on the ballot. But I always say "Never believe anything until it's officially denied."

This seems simple enough in principle, the problems arise when the conflict is over & the refugees don't want to leave. Do we round them up without due process & forcibly deport them? This is Trump's answer to illegal immigrants from Mexico

Last edited by shadowboxer on 04 Aug 2016, 7:24 am, edited 2 times in total.

It'd be awesome if they force the pisser to resign, I heard they're speculating about what would happen in such an event... I assume not like the anti-democratic Tories here, as presidential elections are still required.

And I did read that he apparently wants journalists in such meetings to be highlighted and ridiculed... what happens if one of them is attacked or even killed? I seriously hope he gets blamed along with the aggressor (though it wouldn't be surprising if he sends out the first punch, as he always says he loves doing...)

Not wanting to derail this thread, but:

Things get complicated all by themselves.

What is the status of children born to the refugees while they are temporary residents?

What happens when the conflict in their country isn't over after decades and shows no sign of being over in the foreseeable future?

What is the status of a third generation "refugee" who knows only the language and culture of the host country and whose parents have never seen the land their grandparents fled from as refugees?

It would seem second & third generation born in the US would be American citizens. Presumable the first generation would have become naturalized at some point but that creates as many problems as it solves.