It is an excellent comparison when people have engaged in acts of rebellion over such policies. The incident in Oregon comes to mind, though there have been other incidents of far-right extremists committing violent acts over their political views. As for killing innocent people over religion, the extent to which Islam is responsible varies from case to case. If people feel repressed by their government (for example, if their brothers and sisters in the faith are forbidden to immigrate), they are more likely to rebel. Just as American Muslims would justifiably feel mistreated over Trump's proposal if it were made law, so, too, have far-right extremists claimed to be victims of government repression. It's the same mindset. I have no reason to believe things would be any different with American atheists if Trump were calling for policies limiting their rights.


Yes. I apologize for not being clearer. The only policy I recall Trump openly advocating was a ban on Muslims entering the country. However, when pressed over harsher policies, my memory is that he didn't rule them out. That worries me immensely. Whether or not Congress will support such policies is something I'd rather not find out the hard way, not to mention it does not change what Trump has said.


I can wait.

---

Donald Trump is the most tactless guy there is. No politician is as tactless as he is. You can say whatever you want to say about Obama, but the guy has charisma. He can actually make a decent speech and appeal to the crowd, by choosing the right words. Even the opposition. He can persuade people. He has flexibility. Trump is nothing like that. He is not a good diplomat, he tends to adopt simplistic, black-and-white views, and his approach is very divisive. He is not gaining attention by being persuasive or consistent. He is only getting attention because he says controversial things. I have no respect for people, especially politicians, who get attention by talking shit or being controversial. It honestly just shows how empty they are.

Another thing. Trump has no ideology. As CatMuto said, he doesn't present a very clear set of ideas. He doesn't care about ideas, either. He is all about power and status. He dedicated all of his life to expand power, and IMO it only shows that he probably has some kind of disorder. It takes psychopathy to accumulate such power in our society. Do you think he got where he is by being nice? What makes someone so obsessively focused on wealth to begin with? What should be treated as a disease is treated as "success".

It's not a guarantee but, considering that there's a radical Muslim group out there that is recruiting more members every day that appeals to Muslims in general, I'm willing to piss some people off and keep potential terrorists out. The comparison I'm trying to make is that if we can stop one attack, it's worth it. The consequences are duly noted, though. And I'm not saying that sarcastically, in case you were wondering.


I agree with this so... Good for us.


The difference is that the Muslims would be protesting a law, which they have a right to do. We'd be banning Muslims from entering because they could possibly kill people over religion.


I haven't heard him say anything to that effect. Even if he did, I'd doubt that Congress would pass such a law, though I could be wrong. I suppose this comes down to hearsay.

In regards to his policies, I approve of his plan to build a wall on the Mexican border, for one. His health care plan seems fine (then again, anything is better than Obamacare). And I approve of the aforementioned plans to fight terrorism. Though now that I think about it, another reason I want him to win is because he's a leader. He's straight-forward, direct and honest. Which is what I believe that this country needs.


I find his forward personality and lack of political correctness refreshing compared to the other candidates. And in the end, that's one of the biggest reasons people like him.

The problem is that the ban in question is likely to provoke more attacks than it would stop. Is it worth it if the one foreign attack we stop is replaced by three homegrown attacks? I should hope not.


I'm hoping you just misspoke here. I said many times that the ban in question would almost certainly provoke some American Muslims into hurting people--primarily over the law, mind you, not their religion's teachings--and that the damage done by said actions would likely outweigh any the damage prevented by such a policy. What you seem to be suggesting here is that you're fine with Americans being killed over a controversial law as long as said law reduces the number of them killed over religion. What were you actually trying to say?

There's another problem that I haven't addressed, though. Since the September 11 attacks, which were an outlier, the number of people killed by Islamic extremists on American soil numbers less than a hundred. I consulted a site with a very strong anti-Muslim bias to get that number that number. Most sources I've checked place the number below fifty (the anti-Muslim site placed the number at eighty-nine, but said site also took into account such things as "honor killings," which I feel shouldn't be thought of as terrorist attacks due to their more targeted nature. More than two hundred people have died on American soil in other rampage killings during that time. Islamic extremists are a threat, but I fail to see the logic behind keeping all Muslims from entering the country over less than a hundred deaths while not enacting similar policies against whatever groups the other mass murderers I've mentioned belong to. There are several million Muslims in the United States. The policy Trump is advocating punishes all Muslims, including American Muslims, over the actions of a few dozen at most. Any Muslims already living in the United States would be unable to leave, even on vacation, lest they be forbidden to return. All this because of less than a hundred deaths. It's overkill, it's inconsistent, and it will almost certainly provoke more attacks than it would prevent. It's only natural that I don't buy the claim that the policy is really for the sake of national security. It's pandering to Muslim-haters. That's what demagogues do; they paint someone as an enemy and then advocate drastic policies that target said "enemy" in order to gain support among people who also hate the "enemy."


Again, the issue at hand is where Trump stands, not whether Congress would go along with his ideas. The Republicans running for Congress are not making a ban on Muslim immigration part of their platform. Trump is.


Obamacare has saved lives that the previous system would not have. There are people who died who could have lived had Obamacare been enacted earlier. Far be it from me to say the system's perfect, but in terms of lives saved (the entire purpose of healthcare), it is an improvement over what we had before Obamacare. Personally, I'd like true universal healthcare, but I don't expect any of the Republican candidates to advocate for such a policy, which is another point against them all in my book. As for the wall, has Trump explained how he'd get Mexico to pay for it yet? It will likely mitigate the flow of illegal immigrants, so I won't bother arguing over the fact that it won't outright stop them, but the matter of getting Mexico to pay for it (something Trump said he'd do) is something else entirely.


He's honest about how he feels. As for facts, well, there are only so many fact-checks that can be explained away as "liberal propaganda." Donald Trump is no more honest than most politicians. He has been caught lying and exaggerating on numerous occasions. His mention of thousands of Muslims in Jersey City celebrating the September 11 attacks comes to mind. He said he saw it on the news. No news footage of the event has been found. No amateur footage has been found, either. When confronted over the lack of evidence, he just doubled down on his statement rather than consider the possibility that his memory was mistaken. That is not honesty. He also recently reversed his stance on torture and the deliberate targeting of civilians over the course of a single day. Either he didn't know about international law at the time, which is troubling, or he knew about it and chose to ignore it when speaking in the debate, which makes either his statement in the debate or his stance reversal a lie.

What we need more than an honest leader is a competent and compassionate leader. Trump has zero experience in public office and his demagoguery suggests to me that his compassion is reserved solely for those he expects to vote for him. I'll take a liar with a brain and a heart over an honest rookie who garners support by making public enemies out of some of the very people he is supposed to be duty-bound to serve any day. Those who only have political correctness to complain about have it good. There are millions of Americans who have far worse things to worry about than being booed over general rudeness--such as losing their health insurance or being branded as Public Enemy No. 1.

---

Maybe. Course, this would leave other religious groups or nationalities to commit terrorist acts in America, since they aren't prohibited from entering. Hence, going by Trump's 'logic' (or what seems to sound like yours), it would then lead to forbidding Africans to enter America. Also Turks. Syrians. Let's see, also Egyptians. Russians. Mexicans. Albanians. Arabs. Asians. Christians. Hindus. Shintoists. Buddhists, etc, etc.

Which, of course, would mean America would then result in being filled with nothing but 'decent, 100%-white Americans'... who would then have free rein to commit terrorist actions themselves, if they happen to be unhappy with how the government is running things. So, let's get rid of them, too. Make America be nothing more than a ghost continent, with no inhabitants. That way, nobody can cause a terrorist attack.



Kindly don't call me bae. Whatever that even means. Also, nothing wrong with wanting someone bad dead. Pretty sure nobody would hold it against someone, if they said they wanted Stalin or Hitler dead. Or Osama Bin Laden. (You know, if any of them were still alive)



No. I just like to keep things general. I could have sarcastically said we should allow men to rape women, but then, there are plenty of women who rape men, as well as same-sex rapes going on. Don't want anyone to think I'm okaying that rape, just because I don't broaden the spectrum.



He's also gaining attention by being made a complete laughing stock on the internet, from what I've seen. Mostly about the hair. (Though I have seen tweets and quotes of his... I still think he's an ass)



Now, I personally don't care too much about political correctness. I will not call Blacks anything like African Americans - for one, because not everyone is freaking American and for another because, well, they call me White. Unless they begin to call me Caucasian all the time, I will stick to calling 'em Black. But I would not call them words like the N-word or similar. Same with other races. (Which is always a weird thing to say, since everyone's the same RACE, humans/homo sapiens, but okay...)

But Trump is not an okay unPCness. He's just an asshole who screams whatever he wants and people think it's nice and fresh. Which it isn't. House did the same in the series and, at least with him, we were still supposed to see and know him as a jerk. If I'm supposed to remember that a fictional character is an ass for acting that way, why should I praise a real person acting that way like a good thing?

C-A

---

Well y'see...the part where it falls apart is where you say "In general". What makes you say that? Is there some predisposition for the Muslim community to favour terrorist cells? Last I heard the majority of muslims weren't radicals. Also there's plenty of non-muslim people who convert to join ISIS as well. Being Muslim might be a requirement of ISIS but being a potential terrorist is not a requirement of Muslims.

It doesn't work both ways and we can't say that muslims "in general" could be terrorists.



Then why did you make a big point that he didn't say he would kill families when you acknowledge that that's the intended message? Why would you defend that statement if you acknowledge that the intended message is dangerous? Also how can you say he's so openly honest and acknowledge that he's using such devious political manoeuvring such as this?




The mentions of Trump doing nothing but "complaining" and "mocking" reminds me of a Black Mirror episode, where an animated character harasses politicians and mocks them and gains amazing popularity from the public for it. Then the character's producer urges them to mockingly run for a political chair and so the assaults on the politicians continue but at the same time the character brings nothing to the table, which he is eventually called out on. The popularity runs out of control and while he inevitably loses there's dramatic repercussions from what the character achieved.

I guess not only me felt some similarities.

---

I'm going to try and respond to each comment in order but I may not get to all of them in one post. My apologies.


As I've said before, I have enough faith in humanity to believe that something like this would not trigger people to commit terrorists acts and kill people.


I think that one or both of us are misunderstanding the other's point. From what I've gathered so far, you've been comparing Muslim terrorist acts to Far-right protests and talks of rebellion. In my previous post I am stating that I don't mind if people protest the Muslim-ban, as long as it doesn't get people killed. They have a right to do that. But we can't compare Far-Right protests to ISIS.


I see your point, but I still believe that it is for the greater good. What we have here is an extremist group that is estimated to have had aproximately 100,000 members last year and is still growing. They have made specific threats to attack the United States and are constantly recruiting. Even if there have been less than one hundred Muslim terrorist attacks, that is still less than one hundred attacks that could be stopped by this. I still do not believe that people would be so close-minded (hypocritical, I know) to murder innocents because of a law like this. So basically, I find this to be a temporary policy which the potential downsides do not outweigh the potential upsides.


Again, my point stands. I haven't heard Trump favoring harsher restrictions on Muslims but you have.


A healthcare act that is meant to cover more people will most likely do its job. If we give free healthcare to everyone then it will technically be the greatest idea ever. The problem, of course, would be that we'd have to keep printing money for the doctors or else they woudln't get paid and we'd probably destroy the economy or something. Obamcare is also known as the Affordable Care Act. When you're costing taxpayers 1 billion dollars, I would hardly call that affordable.

As for The Wall, Trump actually does have a plan to make Mexico pay for it. Since they're in debt several billion (I believe 19 billion, but I could be wrong), they could pay off a large amount of it by building this wall.


The whole New Jersey fiasco was stupid. I'll admit that. The rest of it really comes down to opinions. You'd rather take Hillary for her "brain and heart," but I see nothing of the latter in Hillary. Trump makes deragatory statements, but that still goes back to the honesty I respect from him. "He saves compassion for the people who vote for him," but I believe you can sum up every other candidate the same way. In the end, we both have different ideas for a leader. And we're both too stubborn to change it. I know I am, at least.

and if we're going to talk about people losing healthcare, i believe we can point the finger at obamacare again

Hmm my understanding of the Affordable Care Act was that it was something close to the NHS in the UK.

Taxpayers pay in and everyone receives a national standard of healthcare.

Its not a perfect system but it's an all encompassing system that's a real crutch to the vulnerable. I honestly couldn't imagine a system without it.

So....if the affordable care act is anything like that (its about a minimum fair insurance rate?) then you've got years of experience from the UK to say that it can work.

I still expect a full reply to my other points.

---

There's a difference between being respected for being openly honest without resorting to vulgar language and respecting someone for being a giant asshole. Honesty is wonderful, I agree, and I would like to see more honesty in society overall - compared to the cuddlecation of people, where you mustn't say anything remotely meant, otherwise you might hurt someone's feelings - but I honestly cannot respect a person (man or woman) who is so... rude and angry about everything all the time.

Also, using deragatory terms for people? Also not something I'd tolerate. As said above, I see no reason to be overly PC to people. But that doesn't mean I'd go up to a black person and call them the N-word. Or something akin to that. There's a difference between being un-PC, yet decent and being un-PC for shock value.



Wait, so... they are heavily in debt, but are supposed to pay with money (money that they apparently don't have) for the building of a wall and that somehow removes money from their debt? Does money not work the way I've been thinking for almost 26 years or...?

C-A

---

Okay, so first off, after over a year, I finally got a proper diagnosis of what's going on with my body. That's great, now I can finally start on my road to recovery. I can finally get physical therapy, I can finally start seeing doctors I need to see, everything is gonna go great.

I felt like such a fool to think this way.

And the problem with all of this boils right back down to insurance. I have been having a ton of problems with insurance. Being unable to move forward with a full recovery because I have been blocked in every outlet I have tried.

I had many problems last year with my insurance which prevented me from getting the help I needed, so I switched. Everywhere I went guaranteed me that the doctors and specialists I needed to see where on my plan.

Well.... my specialists were.

Come to find out, my primary doctor who I've been with since I was little isn't. In fact, no primary doctor within 100 miles will take my insurance, even though I was told it was supposed to time and time again. Screw the whole "you can keep your doctor" bull.

No physical therapy place will accept my insurance. Same with pretty much any other help that I need right now to help me recover. As much as I've been hearing time and time again that all this new insurance policy that has been put into place should help, I can't help but enjoy how much I get screwed over time and time again.

To top it all off, I am incapable of working. I've applied time and time again for disability because I am physically incapable of working. No luck. And I need money to pay for my insurance. And god forbid, if I don't have insurance, then I have to pay an expensive amount for a penalty. With no income to help.

And thanks to the wonders of how insurance works now, I can't even change my policy until late this year anyways. So that's pretty amazing too.

I am so glad that my parents are here to take care of me when I need it most, both financially and physically. I'm scared to think if I was out on my own when having to deal with all this mess. Most likely, I'd probably be on the streets, jobless, penniless, and unable to move because of my condition. So very, very happy that the government has done so much to help me when I can't help myself.

And I've seen people praise Obamacare and all of that, but I can't help but see it as a bad thing, considering over the past year, I've been screwed over time and time again at chances for opportunities to move forward in my recovery. Getting blocked at every turn and unable to get help of any kind through insurance because I seem to get rejected or lose doctors I need, even though prior I was told before getting insurance that everyone I'd need would be on there. Asking and looking time and time again before making the choice.

And I hate to even harbor this though, but part of me wonders, is it because I'm white? IS that why I'm not getting the help I need. Yes, I hate entertaining the thought, but I personally know so many other people of color, who are off better than me, who are capable of work, who are physically capable of doing things that I am unable to, getting help from the government that for some reason, I am not.

I am practically an invalid right now, and it's not by choice. And it makes me so mad that a country that is "supposed" to care for the common person doesn't seem to care about me at all. And I'm sorry, but after over a year of trying over and over again to try to get help so I can move forward with my life, get the help I need, and get completely well again, I'm gonna be pretty ticked off about everything. And heaven forbid I get sick between now and the end of the year, because I'll have to travel over 100 miles, in hopes that I can find a primary doctor who can see me instead of just a few blocks to a doctor I've had for most of my life, who has personal files of my health and everything. Things are just so convenient, huh?



And I'm sorry to bring on this rant. I just skimmed through and saw some positive talk about Obamacare, and it just set me off because of my whole experience with it for over a year now and how insurance has screwed me time and time again. I won't even get started about how some of the doctors I went to see even tried to apply so I could get covered and got denied. But yeah, I'm salty. It's really stupid when your road to recovery is blocked at every single turn because of crap like that. I'm also a fan of when you have decent insurance, but then people just stop taking it because of policy bull and whatnot, so then you get to find a new one that's guaranteed to have what you need, only to find out AFTER you're stuck with it that it won't because of false info and whatnot.

Honestly, it feels like aside from knowing a diagnosis, which was supposed to help by the way, but now it's not because of all this stupid insurance and healthcare bull, I'm practically in the same spot I was last year.


So in short, I'm being denied disability income despite being unable to physically work for well over a year, and I'm having to fork out money I don't have for insurance I can't use because it's been denied from every doctor in my area that I need to see to recover. And if I don't have insurance, I get to fork out money I don't have for a stupid expensive penalty. God bless America.

---

Okay, I have more time to post.


can i see a threat video that all of those religions and nationalities posted against America? or the countless Americans they've slaughtered already?


Hitler: Killed 11 million Jewish, Polish Christian, Gypsy, homosexual and disabled people.

Osama Bin Laden: Orchestrated the largest attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor, killing nearly 3,000 people.

Joseph Stalin: Was directly linked to the death of at least 34 million people.

Donald Trump: Offended some people.


now you've reminded me of the countless idiots that think that making fun of his hair is a valid political opinion

---

I believe you are misinterpreting my words. I did not say that Muslims "in general" could be terrorists. I said that one of ISIS's main targets for recruitment are Muslims, though they're also trying to recruit people of other religions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmnuE98kgMY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfmf7_MLbSk
http://www.teenvogue.com/story/isis-recruits-american-teens
http://mic.com/articles/131375/after-isis-leader-called-muslims-everywhere-to-terrorism-they-responded-with-humor#.TDmNIbTa9 on a lighter note the anti-ISIS troll tweets in this article are great.


I don't think that the intended message is dangerous. But I do agree that it is "political maneuvering." But yeah, I guess Donald Trump isn't honest 100% of the time. Oh well, Maybe I should vote for someone more honest and someone that doesn't do political maneuvering.


I've never seen that show but I thought we were establishing that Trump is popular because he panders to anti-muslim racists

---

ok


trump does both


This was actually a communication error on my part. I meant to say that Mexico is in debt to the United States 19 Billion and can remove some of that debt by building the wall. Once again, my apologies.


yeah, i guess it's supposed work that way (though at 11,588,500 words, who knows) but sadly and predictablyit didn't.

I believe dullahan illustrated my point nicely. And also brought to light how off-track this thread has gotten by posting something actually related to it. I'm sorry that you've been put through that for the past year.

Oh, I'm not saying I am making fun of his hair or that it counts as a valid, political opinion. I'm just saying, it's what I see on the internet a lot.



Does the name Timmy McVeigh ring a bell? Or perhaps Oklahoma City Bombing? Just cause it has happened in the past, doesn't make it less significant, nor that it won't happen again. It's not just Muslims who are the terrorists who threaten, and do, commit crimes.



Donald Trump: Not 'simply' offending people, but advocating torture as a well-working form of interrogation and having no qualms about calling people complete insults, all while screaming over nothing and adding nothing to the discussion. He has no good or proper plan of his own, he thinks that building a fort (The Wall) and hiding inside of it, as well as just saying 'No' to certain people (prohibiting Muslims of entering the USA), will actually solve problems. When it clearly won't. I've already said, if you get rid of Muslims, you'll eventually have to get rid of everyone, because they are just as capable of committing terroristic acts or other crimes.
Also, not entirely sure if I misunderstood or gotten wrong information, but it sounded like Trump was even advocating that rapists shouldn't be punished, because they 'could not help it'. As said, not sure if that is true or my misunderstanding.

By the way, your image isn't showing.



I have seen not a single moment of Trump being un-PC, while still remaining decent.

C-A

---

When you're talking about preventing all Muslims, an incredibly diverse population of more than a billion, from entering the United States despite there being very few successful terrorist attacks on American soil, I don't think you're in a position to say anything about having faith in humanity. Your faith in humanity is sufficiently low that you are willing to treat more than a billion people as dangerous over the deaths of less than a hundred people. Besides, enough Muslims have been driven to murder over less that Trump is seriously proposing keeping all Muslims out. Of course a universal ban on Muslim entry into the United States would provoke violence. I would be quite surprised if it didn't.


I'm talking about far-right violence. The Planned Parenthood shooting is but one example that comes to mind. I'm fine with protests, but I was not talking about protests.


People have committed murder over less, as the rampage killings I mentioned demonstrate. As for the policy being temporary, how temporary are we talking? Has Trump said anything about what conditions would lead to Muslims being allowed into the United States again? The War on Terror is approaching its fifteenth year; I don't have any reason to believe it's going to end in the near future. Even if ISIS is wiped out, there are other groups, most of which aren't making any sort of effort to become a centralized state that engages in conventional warfare.


We've been debating one such harsher restriction for a while.


Once again, I never said Obamacare was perfect. I also recognize that it's expensive as far as the overall cost is concerned. Social welfare programs for a country of more than 300,000,000 people are inevitably going to be expensive. The goal wasn't to make healthcare that's cheap for the government, though, but rather to make healthcare that every American can afford--hence "Affordable." I will grant that it has not been fully successful in that area. It has been more successful than the previous system, though, and that is why I can't support repealing it unless it is replaced with a system that is even better. Yes, it's funded by taxes. It's in the nature of a public program. When that billion is split among the entire population, that's a cost of less than four dollars per person. Besides, if you want to bring taxes into the equation, please spare a thought for the money that we wasted in Iraq: more than 1.1 trillion dollars. Military campaigns are expensive. I don't have any reason to believe the campaigns Trump has in mind will be any different.


The problem would be getting Mexico to agree. Considering that a lot of Mexicans consider the wall to be a giant middle finger to their entire country, I doubt their government would accept Trump's offer; it would be political suicide.


Clinton has enough of a heart to not paint the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants as dangerous criminals. She has enough of a heart to not treat the entirety of Islam as an enemy. Did Trump not recently assert that he thinks Islam hates us? Clinton's no saint, but she has much more of a heart than Trump does.


You strike me as placing way too much value on Trump's honesty. The only thing he can be trusted to be honest about is how he feels. A loudmouthed asshole who speaks his mind is still a loudmouthed asshole.


I know of no candidate save for Trump who is okay with his supporters physically attacking opponents.


Should I take that as meaning you'd like to stop discussing this matter?

---

congratulations you proved that people are capable of terrorism

but that's not what i asked you at all


okay so lets just disregard that i covered almost every point you brought up here in earlier arguments that ive invested time and care in and that all of your new points are just pointless hearsay that add absolutely nothing to the conversation. lets just say that everything you've said is completely true about Trump

you just compared a man to Stalin. Joseph Stalin, the man who killed at least (maybe if i put this in bold you'll finally get it) 34 million people and at most killed 62 million

34,000,000 to 62,000,000

im not going to respond to this because you'll most likely just disregard any evidence i pull as you've done everything else

General Luigi ill get to you shortly but first I want to get the taste of bile out of my mouth

if we're starting with the personal insults, please don't tell me that i have a lack of faith in humanity if you're going to allow another hundred people to die in exchange for not possibly offending some people


So you're saying that there aren't enough dangerous Muslims out there to warrant stopping them from committing terrorist acts, but then you tell me that Muslims have been driven to murder for less than not letting other Muslims into the United States to prevent violence?



Earlier you were referring to the Oregon Standoff, of which there was no murder on the part of the protestors. As for the Planned Parenthood shooting, unless you can find the far-right movement that organized that shooting, the comparison still does not stand.


Again, this is a bit hypocritical of you, is it not?


In this article, Trump states that the ban will only be in effect until the United States can figure out how severe this threat of terror is. So it would most likely be lifted before ISIS is taken out or "when" the war on terror ends.


In case you've forgotten, this part of our debate was to discuss if Trump would approve of restrictions harsher than the ban.


Where is your evidence that this system is succeeding more than the previous one?


I have yet to see evidence on how Obamacare has helped more than it can hurt. But I can see how spending money on our military could help us defeat a radical terrorist group called ISIS.


If Mexico refuses, Trump has planned to give the businesses in Mexico tax breaks so that they take their work back to the United States and hurt Mexico's economy.

[quote-="General Luigi"]Clinton has enough of a heart to not paint the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants as dangerous criminals. She has enough of a heart to not treat the entirety of Islam as an enemy. Did Trump not recently assert that he thinks Islam hates us? Clinton's no saint, but she has much more of a heart than Trump does.[/quote]
First of all, they are criminals, dangerous or not. Hence the word "illegal." And I'm sorry that I don't find that the woman who lies and about the deaths of four Americans that fell under her responsibility.


The point is that he's straightforward and unafraid, which is something that I believe that this country needs. He doesn't let political correctness be a factor when deciding what's best for his country. And even if he isn't as honest as I believe he is, Trump is still more straightforward than Hillary.


Though apparently all of the candidates are okay with Trump's protestors physically attacking their opponents.


Considering that we've devolved into personal insults, you may.

If we wanted to prevent killings, we might as well just kill everyone. Look, humans are humans. That means they cover the entire spectrum of personalities, from happy-go-lucky to violent sociopath. This is true for all humans, regardless of race, religion, and economic power. If you compared the numbers, white Americans have killed more white Americans in 2013 than Islamic extremists have killed Americans. But obviously no one's going to say that we should be suspicious of every white American, because it's extremely inefficient to blame an entire group for the actions of the few. Do you see what I'm getting at?

---

I do, and I agree. I'm always talking about the election and how much I hate Donald Trump. My mom says that since I'm Canadian I shouldn't concern myself with what happens in U.S. Politics, but him becoming President and doing some of the things that he wants to do would ruin so many people's lives that I have every right to concern myself with it.

---

Indeed, it's a shame it didn't but I won't fault the intentions behind it. As I said I don't know the full details of the Care bill or the situation beforehand to judge it but Dulla's story is quite tragic.

It's a real shame as I feel for sure it wouldn't happen in the NHS, national care systems are meant to catch people in these scenarios. It's upsetting to hear system with similar intentions is letting down good people like Dulla.

You've got my sympathy and it's fantastic that your family is there to look out for you. I know too many people whose families want little to do with them once things go horribly wrong for them.



Ok that's fair then I'll go back to your point once more.



I agree that it'd be great to keep terrorists out...but with you conceding that other people do join up with terrorist causes, not even necessarily for religious reasons, then it's impossible to identify "potential terrorists" without undue persecution. You can't guarantee that any Muslim is a terrorist at a glance or any individual. They might target people for recruitment but terrorist organisations are not werewolves...just because they target someone doesn't mean they will become terrorists. The level of persecution is as the General has said affects over a billion people with no guaranteed pay off due to the inability to identify terrorists en mass.

Furthermore in addition to being ineffective, terrorist groups could jump on it to increase their effective recruitment methods. America would have openly put into place a policy that persecutes people of their religion. It would increase anti-American sentiment and potentially create more in-country terrorists. You don't have enough faith in humanity to allow Muslims into the country I think we can agree. Do you have enough faith in humanity to trust Muslims already in the country after the government as implemented a decidedly anti-Muslim policy that prevents them from ever seeing their families outside the country? Even then a number of Muslim-sympathisers would also be pretty ruffled by the restrictive laws imposed on them which could cause further conflict and riots. I mean I remember hearing about the riots that broke out after the Ferguson incident. That was one temporary incident, it could be far worse following something similarly huge like this. I'm not going to argue gun laws here but with easy access to weapons any riots could sow some genuine chaos across America.

(This is paranoia speaking but that sounds like the next question Trump would ask afterwards..."Do YOU trust the Muslims in the country?" with intent of enforcing further restrictions. In fact if the worst does come to pass and anti-American sentiment does create an in-country terrorist attack then it could serve as the fuse which could light a campaign for further anti-Muslim laws but hey that's just a slippery slope argument.)

So I just don't think a flat-out ban is a good idea. It's too provocative and ineffective. You might as well stop 30% of anyone from entering the country because then at least it would be equal in opportunity and not targeting a specific segment of the population. ISIS can target all they like but it doesn't mean it's alright to punish them for a terrorist's recruitment efforts.

As you've said...it's not that Muslims are more likely to be terrorists but rather that ISIS targets Muslims (but also non-muslims).



Ok so a moment ago we agreed that the intended message was that it was ok to kill the families but that his political manoeuvring would allow him to duck this issue if it ever came up:




So therefore I have you agreeing that the intended message is dangerous here.

Now you are saying that you don't think the intended message is dangerous? That would indicate that you don't think it's dangerous to have an intended message aimed at targeting civilian families? Could you clarify this for me.

---

You've brought up a valid point, so I did some research, which I should've done earlier.

http://www.infowars.com/pew-poll-63-million-muslims-support-isis-in-eleven-countries/

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/11/pew_poll_between_63_million_and_287_million_isis_supporters_in_just_11_countries.html
From the poll, 14% of Muslims are in support of ISIS and 62% are undecided. Now that we have the numbers, I believe it comes down to individual opinion. And the percentage is still to high for me to oppose the policy. Which brings me to my next point...


Okay, I am incorrect in believing that Muslims would protest peacefully. You win that round.

Muslims make up 1% of the US population of 318.4 million. Both you state that there are 1 billion Muslims outside of the US. 14% of one billion is 140,000,000. Even if we only go by the eleven countries polled in the articles, 63,000,000 Muslims still support ISIS. You can do any math from here.


Yeah, this needs clarification on my part. I believe that this is political maneuvering in the sense that it appeals to people who do want to see the families of ISIS members getting killed, people who just want to see them being held as POWs or something and is also a loophole to use against people who want to use the statement against him.

Pretty sure General was not insulting you or your lack of faith in humanity. Also that General was not simply saying that Trump's ways was 'offending' people, but that his ways would cause more violence. Or make violence more likely to happen. This isn't 'just' offending someone.



"If you do not follow my ways, I will ruin you economically and force you to do my bidding!"
Hey, I think Christian Grey did something like that. And he was an abusive, manipulative, egocentric, selfish, fake-woe-is-me, raping asshole.
I don't think I want someone as president, or any form of authority, who will go round-about ways to hurt someone, just because they won't take no for an answer.



Once again, there's a difference between being straightforward and being an insulting asshole. The former may be okay, though can tread on thin ice very fast, while the latter is just an asshole and should not be listened to.



That's another thing. Trump is only doing verbal propaganda. I am almost convinced that, if ISIS was not currently a problem, but something else was, Trump's words would be focused on that. He's doing nothing but feeding people - who are so dangerous that they shouldn't be listened to, to begin with - exactly what they want to hear.

It's just like the issue with fugitives in Germany right now. When they started coming in, it was okay. More people, more work and all, but fine. Had to be done. Course, there were always people who didn't want any refugees to come in. But they were overall a minority. But now that so many fugitives just keep coming and coming, as well as the events of New Year's Eve in Cologne, including the amount of money we should be paying, has made a lot more people become anti-refugee. They don't want them here anymore, because problems have arisen from so many, including more crimes (again, New Year's Eve in Cologne), more money spent on houses for refugees, rather than attempting to fix the lack of (affordable) housing for people who have already been living in Germany for years, and the heavy emphasis on intergration... people are sick and tired of them. We don't want them here anymore; at least, not in such a large number. No wonder the current voting polls are more inclined to pick the AFD (with its more... pro-active ways of dealing with refugees) than the previous sections.

The thing is, I don't respect Trump, nor tolerate his actions or behavior or words. And, frankly, I cannot say I respect you now, knowing that you are advocating even remotely some of his plans.

C-A

---

go back and read the other messages


you dont understand how politics work


k


you mean trump is focusing on current political issues?
NO WAY


well i lost my respect for you when you compared Trump to Stalin so now we're on the same page

Mister Gruel, question.

Do you actually believe anything you are posting?

---

Well then I guess that's just what works for you. I mean lets outright acknowledge that the poll is not inclusive of ALL muslims, only the sample size they selected. In fact even then...the poll is not exclusively on a Muslim population. Many of the samples are from non-Muslim groups. In fact in 6 countries out of 13 different ethnic and religious groups only 3 of which are Muslim. So the information is not representative of a Muslim population just of the opinion in countries where Islam is practised.

Also you aren't really presenting the information fairly from that poll. You chose the highest "favourable" option and the highest "undecided" option from all 11 countries they asked...not even the same one.

By that logic I can say that 100% of people do not favour ISIS and only 1% are undecided (Lebanon). It's just not a fair or accurate depiction on Muslims as a whole agreed?

What's more accurate is to say that out of 11 Islamic countries' opinions when averaged 74% view ISIS unfavourably, 20% are undecided and 7% view ISIS favourably.

Now 7% is half of the number that you said supported ISIS, is that percentage still too high for you to oppose a law discriminating against all Muslims? Even when an even smaller portion of that scale is
Likewise 20% is less than a third of the undecided population you mentioned earlier.

Now assuming that even of that 7% who we know view them favourably only a few go on to join ISIS then the numbers get even lower. That's your target number for people you want to stop. That's a miniscule amount to justify banning every muslim from entering the country and like I said, even then you can't tell a terrorist by ethnicity or religion so it's still not an effective ban.

You accepted this and said you would do the research so that the numbers were more 'playing the odds' but even now the odds still look really low.



I'm not saying that Muslims won't protest peacefully, never did, in fact I can imagine more riots coming from non-muslim sympathisers to be honest. Just saying it'll give ISIS another 'selling point' to appeal to people.

Also that 14% only belonged to Nigeria...that's not ALL Muslims.

In fact speaking of that I think your article is quite flawed and potentially biased. In fact...while the graph presented is presented with the phrase: "Significant levels of support for ISIS in the Muslim World" when you actually click on the link to the original source graph it's headline is: "Views of ISIS Overwhelmingly Negative"



Ok that's fine but that's not what I wanted clarification on. I never disagreed with you on it being political manoeuvring, I don't think favourably of it but that's not what I was looking for.

You said that we agreed the intended message was that it was ok to kill civilian families of terrorists and that it was dangerous.

You then said you don't think this intended message is dangerous.

This is what I want clarification on. Do you believe the message is dangerous or not when he says that it's ok to murder civilians?

---

Just a question, but this place has gotten way off topic and I'm curious if perhaps another topic could be made all together to discuss politics or whatever it is you guys are doing? I'd personally appreciate it.

---

I've been wondering about that myself. I'm worried about the prospect of inviting political debates on this forum, though.

---

There was a good reason why the debate forums were taken down many years ago, but at the same time, all this talk does not belong in this topic as this isn't what the topic is for. It's fine to complain or vent about politics, but now it's devolved into nothing more than a back and forth as to why people either support or don't support Trump, which has completely detracted from this thread's purpose.

Honestly, I see this "debate" just continuing to devolve until it's nothing more than just hurling insults, which, shamefully, happens with most debates online. Either way, I just ask if this conversation at hand could just be removed from this topic so that this topic can go back to serving its original purpose.

---

Everyone, Dullahan has a point here. I'm declaring the Trump discussion off-limits. Anyone wishing to continue it should do so through private messages. A political discussion thread is also an option, but I will be keeping a close eye on it if it's created and am perfectly willing to close it if it gets nasty.

---

Aww but man I had the perp on the ropes!

Oh so PM's are allowed?

See ya there Gruel!

---

Well, then, allow me to help get us back on track. With a vent of my own that has nothing to do with politics.

It is a pretty big wall of text, though, so I'm putting it in spoiler tags.

---

i said it before it was mainstream


you got it! ooh ive never gotten a PM before this will be exciting

on topic... this emoticon is biased and i will be suing the forums shortly for having it appear in my safe space

If any thing its your job to PM me I made the last point.

---

I agree. Kindly remove this emoticon or create an emoticon for EVERY potential AA-pairing people might ship.

C-A

---

That emoticon has been around since like, 2007, and you guys are just now noticing that thing exists. =/

---

I think both are trolling Dulla

---

Yes, and I think I've complained about the emoticon before. It's not like I 'just' noticed it.

And no, Pierre, I am not trolling. I don't like that emoticon (it's akin to having someone else's pairing shoved into your face, despite already having told them politely that you don't ship it) and would prefer it to be altered. Heck, if we MUST have a kissing emoticon, why not make it of an actual, officially labelled 100% and absolutely not fanon-based pairing? Desirée and Ron. They're married. And rather happily.

C-A

---

just for the record i was trolling

dont suck me into this

Guys, that emoticon is on page 6 of the smiles. It'd be easier to just grab a random shippy fanart and put it here.

---

To be fair, so was I. XD

---

OMG. Sometimes I can't stand my father. I really can't.
Why is he always so damn calm, so passive? He never listens to anything I have to say. He doesn't care. He doesn't take my problems seriously. He is a killjoy. When I say that something will go wrong, he doesn't pay attention. Always indifferent. He only sees surface, and never looks at the big picture. My heart is racing now. He makes me physically tense.

I hate passive people.

What the hell was up with the deliveryman today? He rang once; I was busy with something that I couldn't interrupt or pause to answer and I had no reason to think that this delivery (and I knew it was a delivery, because it was the time when deliveries are generally brought) was gonna be for me or my mom, so I just didn't answer.

He rings a second time. A bit annoying, but okay. Maybe the delivery is for me or it's our usual mailman and trying to get my attention through the bell that he had mail that required a signature. Or just something semi-big that doesn't fit into the mailbox; which he leaves in front of our door when we aren't there. I figure, either way it won't require immediate attentiont - still busy, after all.

He rings a third time. Fine! I answer the door and...! Two packages for a NEIGHBOR. I'm sorry, Mr Deliveryman, I know you're doing your job. But I didn't answer AFTER TWO RINGS! What the hell made you think ringing more often would work?! Yes, I answered. But logic would tell you that two rings, over a span of at least 1.5 minutes, tells you "Okay, nobody at home or currently available" and leave.

I am so fucking tired of taking packages in for other people. Christmas was bad enough, I am sick of pulling this shit for another year! Oh, and I am complaining about people being 'mean to me' (my mom's words, not mine)? No, I am sick and tired of people being so fucking INCONSIDERATE that they think they can walk all over me.

Fuck being nice! And being polite! I've been doing it for 20 years and all it gives me, is people thinking I have no spine and that they can just abuse my introverted, nice behavior for their own means! If you know you get deliveries often GET A FUCKING P.O. BOX!! A box where YOUR deliveries are brought to and YOU have access to them and YOU can pick them up, at YOUR convenience. FUCK! THIS! I am NOT taking deliveries anymore. I am deliberately ignoring the doorbell now, UNLESS I know that we are expecting something FOR US.

C-A

---