Great victory over political correctness and leftist propaganda

[James R]

Restrictions will go away once the terrorism is eased out. Trump will deliver that.

I think you're wildly optimistic if you believe that Trump will eliminate the threat of terrorism from the US. Banning Muslim immigration won't do that, for starters. You already grow your own terrorists at home.

I am not saying that all Muslims are terrorists, but unfortunately Islamic terrorism has become a key word.

Yes. The question is: is it fair to ban all people of a particular religion because of the actions of a tiny minority of radicals?

If a female comes after a decade or so that he did this to her. Then certainly her statements cannot be taken on the face value.

Why not?

He is not going to treat american Muslims differently. All Americans would be same for him.

I'd say that banning Muslim immigration would be treating Muslims differently.

He is not going to do anything with Putin which can undermine American Pride, no side kick impression role for America.

That remains to be seen.

 

[James R]

madanthonywayne:

To understand this you need to ask yourself where are major newspapers located. In big cities. Big cities in the U.S. are islands of left wing politics in a sea of conservatives. I live in a medium sized city, and almost everyone I know was for Trump. Conversely, in the areas where major newspapers are located, everyone is a left winger. Voting for Trump seemed inconceivable to them, just as voting for Obama in 2012 was inconceivable to those of us not in big cities. I was shocked when Obama was re-elected. Almost no one I knew voted for him.

Yes, and if you look at the district results in virtually all of the "swing" states, the cities almost universally voted for Clinton, while rural areas and small towns voted for Trump.

Another interesting effect is the clustering of politically like-minded by geography, as you say. I don't think your experience would be at all unusual. I think a lot of Trump voters would not know anybody who would have voted for Clinton, and an equal number of Clinton voters who would not know anybody who voted for Trump.

Part of the problem here is that with the diversity of news sources available, people can now pick and choose sources that reflect their existing political views. So, they never see the point of view of people who have the opposite political affiliation. That lack of discussion of policies and ideas means that people end up voting in a kind of vacuum, based on perceptions of personalities and stereotypes and caricatures.

 

[paddoboy]

Just found this...Interesting....
The Twin Towers were destroyed in an act of terror at the hands of Al-Qada, on the 9/11.
On the 11/9 the US elected a President that may also destroy the Nation, at the hands of their own people. Woooowooooo!

 

[The God]

Just found this...Interesting....
The Twin Towers were destroyed in an act of terror at the hands of Al-Qada, on the 9/11.
On the 11/9 the US elected a President that may also destroy the Nation, at the hands of their own people. Woooowooooo!

Interesting.
But hope it reverses; like 9/11 to 11/9, this should become destroy to create peace and harmony with prosperity.

 

[The God]

I think you're wildly optimistic if you believe that Trump will eliminate the threat of terrorism from the US. Banning Muslim immigration won't do that, for starters. You already grow your own terrorists at home.


Yes. The question is: is it fair to ban all people of a particular religion because of the actions of a tiny minority of radicals?


Why not?


I'd say that banning Muslim immigration would be treating Muslims differently.


That remains to be seen.

You cannot blame Trump for that. The prevailing notion, although bad and humiliating for Muslims, is that Muslims are associated with terrorism. A man with typical beard is looked with suspicion by many (if not all) air travelers. Some tough measures are required and I am sure innocents inconveniences or sufferings will be addressed to as his policies around this evolve.

I am not advocating that a crime reported after 10 years is not a crime. A crime is a crime, but let there be no conclusion based on media trial.

 

[ElectricFetus]

What total proportion/percentage of Muslims in the world would be terrorists, in your opinion?
And what total proportion of current Muslim immigrants to United States would be terrorists?

Do these statistics justify banning all Muslim immigration to the United States?

I would think banning entry to the US based on religious identification would be a violation of the constitution, regradless what their chances of being terrorist. The is a lot trump said he is going to do that is impossible to do.

 

[spidergoat]

I would think banning entry to the US based on religious identification would be a violation of the constitution, regradless what their chances of being terrorist. The is a lot trump said he is going to do that is impossible to do.

He gets a -gag- Supreme Court appointment though, so that may not be an issue.

 

[Bells]

I would think banning entry to the US based on religious identification would be a violation of the constitution, regradless what their chances of being terrorist. The is a lot trump said he is going to do that is impossible to do.

The far right are in a bit of a freak out at the moment..

The President-elect struck a surprisingly conciliatory tone in his victory speech, congratulating the rival he’d dubbed “Crooked Hillary” and talking of working together with Americans of all races, religions beliefs.

His nationalist supporters were alarmed by this new version of the billionaire businessman, who has pandered to extremist views with his comments on mass deportation of 11 million unregistered migrants and a ban on accepting any immigrants who are Muslim or from conflict zones.

But it’s not likely Mr Trump will fully carry out such a threat, with the Republican now speaking in vaguer terms about “extreme vetting”.

His least palatable backers from racist, neo-Nazi organisations are reportedly “freaking out”, according to former Klansman David Duke, who encouraged other KKK members to be patient.

“Was it really necessary to thank her for her service?” asked Twitter user Herr Wolf. “Goes against his previous point about throwing her in jail.”

Tate Sparkman tweeted: “Alright Trump hold up your end of the deal and #LockHerUp and #BuildTheWall !!!!!”

Trump supporter Nicole Kinsey begged: “Praying you dont bail on #draintheswamp & #LockHerUp. That is why i dedicated months to sharing you message too.”

[...]

A Reddit thread entitled “Vested Interests Are Already Talking About Trying to Moderate Trump. Dont let them” has appeared on subreddit The New Right.

“He’s our guy but we elected him to get certain things done and to that standard he must be held,” wrote one supporter.

Others were reassuring that Mr Trump had “responded to fears about softening his stances before” in “glorious” style.

“I f***ing hope so,” said a third. “He’s already removed the statement regarding blocking Muslims.”​

The claws from those he pandered to, start to come out..

 

[spidergoat]

One country.
One mind.
Let us heal our wounds and proceed hand in hand stronger together.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Trump style from his book "the art of the deal" is basically that of north korea: make insane demands far far beyond what you really want, such as to make the opponate try to compermise up to what you really want, this makes the opponate feel happy that they have made you compermise to a sane agreement, and it makes trump happy for his true goal, hidden by crazy, was achieved. The only problem with this stratagy is if people catch on (like they have with north korea) and know you are spouting bullshit, don't take the bluff and don't compermise with you at all.

 

[Bells]

Aaaannnnndddd.. Here we go..

The Russian government was in touch with members of President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign staff during the U.S. election campaign, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told the Interfax news agency on Thursday.

“There were contacts,” Interfax cited Ryabkov as saying. He did not give details.

When asked whether these contacts would now intensify after Trump’s election victory, Ryabkov said: “These working moments and follow-up on this or that matter will depend on the situation and the questions which face us. But we will of course continue this work after the elections.”​

So.. Interesting, yes? Especially given:

Facing questions about his ties to Moscow because of his statements in favor of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump repeatedly denied having any contact with the Russian government.

But Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, in an interview with the state-run Interfax news agency, said that "there were contacts" with the Trump team.

"Obviously, we know most of the people from his entourage,” Rybakov said. “Those people have always been in the limelight in the United States and have occupied high-ranking positions. I cannot say that all of them but quite a few have been staying in touch with Russian representatives.”
​

I am curious though. Are these people from Trump's campaign who have been in constant contact with Russia throughout the campaign, going to be the ones who will be receiving the security briefings as part of his transition team? Because the FBI, CIA and Homeland might want to have a little looksie into those constant contacts with Russia from the many involved in his campaign..

And it gets worse.. From a Russian political analyst..

Markov also said it would mean less American backing for “the terroristic junta in Ukraine”. He denied allegations of Russian interference in the election, but said “maybe we helped a bit with WikiLeaks.”​

So he's not a puppet huh?

 

[Russ_Watters]

What total proportion/percentage of Muslims in the world would be terrorists, in your opinion?
And what total proportion of current Muslim immigrants to United States would be terrorists?

Do these statistics justify banning all Muslim immigration to the United States?

You prefaced this with a strawman, so I have to ask: is there room for rational discussion here or not? Are we allowed to have non-zero answers to such questions without being called racists?

The level of support for terrorism varies from country to country, and with different flavors of Islam. The number of actual terrorists and their active supporters though would be less than 1%.
The fraction of those coming to America is very difficult to know, though due to variance by country it would be possible to target certain countries for extra restriction or attention, as we already do.

A total ban is both the most extreme and the most secure reaction possible and there are many other softer variants available. But "justified" is an essentially pure matter of opinion. I can't give a percentage threshold for it, but the frank assessment is that American lives are more important than providing non-Americans with the opportunity to become Americans - that is more than an opinion, it is a duty of any government to their citizens.

 

[PhysBang]

You prefaced this with a strawman, so I have to ask: is there room for rational discussion here or not? Are we allowed to have non-zero answers to such questions without being called racists?

Sure. But if you say something racist, then you said something racist Just because you are too stupid to realize that something is racist doesn't mean that it's not racist. Just because you don't want to be called racist doesn't mean you're not racist.

 

[Russ_Watters]

I would think banning entry to the US based on religious identification would be a violation of the constitution, regradless what their chances of being terrorist. The is a lot trump said he is going to do that is impossible to do.

You're probably right, but since Trump has to negotiate with Congress for most things it is reasonable to expect that the most extreme interpretations of his policy statements are unlikely to happen. So it would behoove us to discuss what actually might:

On this issue you could, for example, ban immigrants from certain countries. That would avoid potential Constitutionality issues (if they exist - not sure you can apply Constitutional protections to a non-citizen who isn't even in the US) while having the same effect.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Sure. But if you say something racist, then you said something racist Just because you are too stupid to realize that something is racist doesn't mean that it's not racist. Just because you don't want to be called racist doesn't mean you're not racist.

Fair enough, but based on your previous posts and his, you have bad habits of reading things that people clearly did not say and calling them racists based on your own imagination. You guys are arguing unfairly and irrationally. Not sure if that is due to stupidity or lack of ethics, so I won't call you such names like you do me. I'm better than that.

 

[PhysBang]

Fair enough, but based on your previous posts and his, you have bad habits of reading things that people clearly did not say and calling them racists based on your own imagination. You guys are arguing unfairly and irrationally. Not sure if that is due to stupidity or lack of ethics, so I won't call you such names like you do me. I'm better than that.

Yeah, you really aren't. Saying that you are racist is not calling you a name, it is pointing out that you support attitudes and policies that contribute to the oppression of people based on race.

 

[Magical Realist]

Hey everyone. Let's not forget this either. Talk about locking HER up! Seems Trump will be embroiled in his own legal issues for awhile.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-court-university-231082


"Adding to the drama, the trial will bring Trump face to face with U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel. During the campaign, Trump triggered widespread outrage by arguing that Curiel’s Latino heritage made the judge irredeemably biased against him. The GOP presidential hopeful also called the judge “Mexican” and “Spanish.” He was born in Indiana."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/10/75-lawsuits-against-president-elect-trump.html

 

[ElectricFetus]

Yeah, you really aren't. Saying that you are racist is not calling you a name, it is pointing out that you support attitudes and policies that contribute to the oppression of people based on race.

I thought racism is the belief that groups of people are genetically superior/inferior to each other.

For example a statement like "Black people commit more crimes" is not in its self a racist statement, aside for being accurate in US justice department statistics, it does say not blacks are genetically predisposed to criminality, nor does it leave out the possibility of socioeconomic or cultural causes or even oversampling by the justice system.

 

[PhysBang]

I thought racism is the belief that groups of people are genetically superior/inferior to each other.

Yeah, you're kinda 50 years behind the time on that one.

For example a statement like "Black people commit more crimes" is not in its self a racist statement, aside for being accurate in US justice department statistics, it does say not blacks are genetically predisposed to criminality, nor does it leave out the possibility of socioeconomic or cultural causes or even oversampling by the justice system.

For example, having your hypothetical example of "not racism" being an attempt to link black people to crime is an example of racism. There is a systematic bias at play here.

 

[origin]

For example a statement like "Black people commit more crimes" is not in its self a racist statement,

This statement would seem less racist if it were true, but since this is not true - seems kinda racist....