Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Asterios wrote:
he made no mention of American Citizens, only foreign citizens, and the law is very enforceable as shown above.

He said "all Muslims". US citizens who are Muslim are very much part of that "all Muslims". Now he may have walked that back (I'm not sure), but until then it's unconstitutional.

think he said prevent muslims from entering the country, hard to prevent someone from entering that is already here, and yes very easy to enforce, just block all incomings from Muslim nations or nationals of muslim countries.

So a Muslim US citizen wants to go on a honeymoon to Vancouver? No coming back. Some people do go out to other countries and experience the world, you know. Regardless, he did walk it back the next day. First he qualified that us military members were exempt, then he said it was "people living here" Not surprised he walked it back, as he pretty much changes his position on every stance he takes and has ever taken (which really makes me wonder why his supporters trust him so much). I'm just surprised it took him a whole day. Usually he does so in just a few sentences.

Asterios wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Asterios wrote:
he made no mention of American Citizens, only foreign citizens, and the law is very enforceable as shown above.

He said "all Muslims". US citizens who are Muslim are very much part of that "all Muslims". Now he may have walked that back (I'm not sure), but until then it's unconstitutional.

think he said prevent muslims from entering the country, hard to prevent someone from entering that is already here, and yes very easy to enforce, just block all incomings from Muslim nations or nationals of muslim countries.

He didn't say "block people coming form Muslim nations", he said "block Muslims". And, in any case, even if there was some security risk so great we had to block all Muslims, what about the 44 million living in Europe? Are we going to block the entirety of Africa as well? India has a massive Islamic population, are we going to block them?

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
So a Muslim US citizen wants to go on a honeymoon to Vancouver? No coming back. Some people do go out to other countries and experience the world, you know. Regardless, he did walk it back the next day. First he qualified that us military members were exempt, then he said it was "people living here" Not surprised he walked it back, as he pretty much changes his position on every stance he takes and has ever taken (which really makes me wonder why his supporters trust him so much). I'm just surprised it took him a whole day. Usually he does so in just a few sentences.

well see US citizens who are Muslim are protected by the Constitution.

Yeah, it's really some mental gymnastics when people go around saying that Trump wants to keep U.S. citizens and soldiers who are Muslim from coming in to the country after having been outside on vacation or deployment.

That was a strawman that they tried to build, it was addressed but of course, no one wanted to listen.

So Trump is a racist who wants to limit or ban travellers or immigrants from entering the country from Muslim countries. So a question that needs to be asked is, "was Jimmy Carter a racist for banning Iranians from coming into the country after the Iran hostage crisis?"

When people don't want dialogue these days, they scream racist instead of learning the motivations of the speaker.

Also Islam is an ideology, you can't be racist against an ideology. Was the United States racist against Communists during the cold war? No, because it is an ideology not a race. No one was actually racist against Russians, just their political ideas and the motivation thereof.

Also a point on the current use of the word "racist". This word is a very emotionally polarizing word. Unfortunately instead of engaging with someone who may not agree with one's views and opening dialogue for better understanding, many scream, "Racist!" and use one line slogans to try and shout or shut down anything or anyone that challenges their views.

Maybe I'm wrong, but so often lately it seems that I hear "racist" being used in an inappropriate and meaningless way.

Trump's views on letting or not letting Muslims into the country does not make him a racist. It makes his ideas bigoted, pandering and hugely impractical. Calling Mexicans "rapists" makes his comment racist. I don't think he is one himself. I don't think he has any personal belief system about other people because I don't think he thinks about anybody other than himself. The difference with Carter and Iran is that Iran is not a religion, it is a country. Had Trump said "let's not let people from Syria and Iraq in until the ISIS thing is resolved", I really don't think the story would have gone anywhere. As to your attempt at a parallel to the Cold War, you may remember a certain Senator named McCarthy. Yeah, he isn't really well regarded today, is he?

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Trump's views on letting or not letting Muslims into the country does not make him a racist. It makes his ideas bigoted, pandering and hugely impractical. Calling Mexicans "rapists" makes his comment racist. I don't think he is one himself. I don't think he has any personal belief system about other people because I don't think he thinks about anybody other than himself. The difference with Carter and Iran is that Iran is not a religion, it is a country. Had Trump said "let's not let people from Syria and Iraq in until the ISIS thing is resolved", I really don't think the story would have gone anywhere. As to your attempt at a parallel to the Cold War, you may remember a certain Senator named McCarthy. Yeah, he isn't really well regarded today, is he?

Wrong if Trump said that he would still be called names and such, why? because he is a threat to their party, these elections bring out the worse in people and call the oppositions candidates names and such even with very little to no evidence, also I don't really think Trump is a racist (definately outspoken with no censoring button) , just like I don't think Hilary is a racist even though her mentor was a card carrying KKK member, but you can bet that will come out (think it already has, but not so widespread).

yeah I thought about McCarthy when he mentioned communist and the cold war.

You do realize that Trump said that it was illegal immigrants that had a high proportion of criminal elements, not immigrants and not all Mexicans. Oddly being an illegal immigrant is already a crime, default to criminal. That's law, the law is not racist.

Iran under the ayatollah was a Muslim country. Ergo Carter was banning Muslims from Iran from coming get here, no doubt some Zoroastrians as well, so if Trump wants to ban travel from Middle Eastern countries that happen to be primarily Muslim then under U.S. Code he is allowed to do so. Still not a racist reason, an ideological reason perhaps.

My point about communism was that it was an ideology that was anethema to the ideology of a free democratic and capitalist country. It had nothing to do with racism.

McCarthy never entered into my example. Sure he went on an ill advised and fruitless witch hunt, but that is different from the issue at hand. It's easier to keep new ones out, than to expose those already here.

You do realize he was not discussing the crime of illegally crossing the border don't you?

Trump: ""When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Sounds like a racist comment to me (maybe it's his little caveat at the end there that makes you not think so).

Again, I don't think he himself is. He is just a blowhard who knows how to tap into gullible people's disillusionment and fears for the glory and benefit of himself. He is a stereotype of a shifty salesman attempting to con people into buying a lemon (or some delicious steaks, or overpriced ineffective "degrees") but with a much bigger stage. Frankly, I think I would prefer if he were a racist. He would be less popular.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

Again, I don't think he himself is. He is just a blowhard who knows how to tap into gullible people's disillusionment and fears for the glory and benefit of himself. He is a stereotype of a shifty salesman attempting to con people into buying a lemon (or some delicious steaks, or overpriced ineffective "degrees") but with a much bigger stage. Frankly, I think I would prefer if he were a racist. He would be less popular.

I don't know whether I think he actually is a racist or not, but I agree with you that he thinks for the betterment of himself. I don't see him wanting to "lead" the country so much as gain a position that will allow him to pad his own bank rolls.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

Again, I don't think he himself is. He is just a blowhard who knows how to tap into gullible people's disillusionment and fears for the glory and benefit of himself. He is a stereotype of a shifty salesman attempting to con people into buying a lemon (or some delicious steaks, or overpriced ineffective "degrees") but with a much bigger stage. Frankly, I think I would prefer if he were a racist. He would be less popular.

I don't know whether I think he actually is a racist or not, but I agree with you that he thinks for the betterment of himself. I don't see him wanting to "lead" the country so much as gain a position that will allow him to pad his own bank rolls.

Back in 1999 when he was thinking of running for Pres. (He wasn't really, he was just trying to get press) he was asked by Chris Matthews on Hardball who he would think would make a good running mate. He answered Oprah.

Let's try this, let's replace the word Mexico with Canada and see how that plays.

Trump: ""When Canada sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Basically what the disconnect seems to be is that people moving north are of a darker skin tone, so pointing out the problems that they bring with them must undoubtedly be due to racial bias and stereotyping.

The left has a real race fetish and it prevents them from seeing the facts. When they can't produce their own facts to in order to make a well reasoned counter argument they resort to name calling and throwing things.

It can't possibly be that his statements might be based on anything even remotely resembling facts. Drugs and human trafficking are certainly not prevalent on the Mexico U.S. border, are they? Have Mexican gangs who are staffed by violent people never crossed the border and caused havoc? It must be impossible that Mexican prisons release violent offenders (many who are gang members) who move north and continue their trade.

While there are problems on the northern border, they pale in comparison to the issues coming from the south.

The biggest reason for this is really that there are highly unstable countries all the way from Mexico to Peru. Not all "Mexicans" are Mexican. It really is just an easy classification for brevity, even though it isn't precisely correct.

It's certainly not a racial issue, but an issue of security. There are drugs and killers and rapists that come across the border, it wouldn't matter what race that are if they are criminals. There are also many people that come across who are seeking a better life. Immigration is a great thing, but illegal immigration not so much.

You seem to have me confused with someone who thinks or cares Trump is motivated by anything to do with race. I don't. Being a racist at least implies core convictions (as misguided as those may be). Trump has none.

And as far as, "The left has a real race fetish and it prevents them from seeing the facts. When they can't produce their own facts to in order to make a well reasoned counter argument they resort to name calling and throwing things" while attempting to defend "lyin Ted, Little Marco" Trump speaks volumes.

What about Ted and Marco, what have they got to do with anything?

Sorry about that, I can see where that might have been confusing. They were being used as adjectives to Trump to illustrate he has absolutely no compunctions about crass name calling while attempting to convey any ideas or argument of substance. I wasn't referring to them at all, just his names for them.

Asterios wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

Right or Wrong it is the law. and until it is changed it is an option.

Do you believe it is right or wrong?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

Right or Wrong it is the law. and until it is changed it is an option.

Do you believe it is right or wrong?

doesn't matter what I think, the law is the law and until it is changed it is the law.

Well, Jeb! was pretty dull, he really did come across as "low energy" even before Trumpo attached that epithet from what I saw of him.

The thing about Cruz and Rubio is that they were rolling out the same talking points that the GOP has been using for the last 15 years and people were tired of the same old saw. Trump said everything people want to say but are afraid to, even if he isn't right he's definitely loud and that gets attention.

Seems that Trump only has two stated goals in his platform: better trade and border security, he is not an activist candidate as such.

I think that as a businessman he has learned how to size people up pretty well and uses it to his advantage.

I have to say here that I am not a fan of either Trump or Clinton, and not even Bernie. But I do like to see to it that issues are understood and not reduced to glib one line slogans.

The media has its agenda and is as much a part of the spin machine as any candidate's employee. Journalists have gone from reporting to commentating, speculating, and acting as activists in order to promote "their guy".

Anyhow that's my take, I probably have more to say, and probably haven't been as clear on some things here but this whole process is certainly different from anything ever before with a populist candidate bucking the party and drawing so much attention and ire.

xraytango wrote:
Well, Jeb! was pretty dull, he really did come across as "low energy" even before Trumpo attached that epithet from what I saw of him.

I don't think Jeb even wanted to run, or at least that is what it seemed like to me.

Asterios wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

Right or Wrong it is the law. and until it is changed it is an option.

Do you believe it is right or wrong?

doesn't matter what I think, the law is the law and until it is changed it is the law.

It does matter what you think because it influences your voting preference, the selection of the next president and the likelihood of the law getting used.

Since this thread is entirely about the presidential election, your thoughts on this aspect are relevant.

Asterios wrote:

xraytango wrote:
Well, Jeb! was pretty dull, he really did come across as "low energy" even before Trumpo attached that epithet from what I saw of him.

I don't think Jeb even wanted to run, or at least that is what it seemed like to me.

That's most likely the case, he seemed relieved to put it all behind him. I think he just wanted to go home and smoke a bowl with his wife. Pretty well known that Jeb likes the chronic.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

Right or Wrong it is the law. and until it is changed it is an option.

Do you believe it is right or wrong?

doesn't matter what I think, the law is the law and until it is changed it is the law.

It does matter what you think because it influences your voting preference, the selection of the next president and the likelihood of the law getting used.

Since this thread is entirely about the presidential election, your thoughts on this aspect are relevant.

Ok I believe our border security should be first and foremost, I believe anyone coming from another country should be thoroughly vetted. I believe Illegal immigration should be stopped(whichever border they come across), now out of all the candidates running who comes closest to that?

That's rather different to banning all members of racial, religious or cultural group X from possible entry the USA, of course.

I don't think any of the candidates comes anywhere close to stopping illegal immigration. It's basically impossible to close all the borders and thoroughly vet everyone from a foreign country.

Trumpo has a fun narrative about making Mexico pay for a big wall, but it's impractical.

Asterios wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


Please show me the section of the Civil Roghts Act of 1964 that deals with federal immigration law and how it prevents Congress or PotUS from deciding who is allowed to immigrate to the USA.

me thinks people think the Constitution of the United States refers to everyone in the world, it does not It only refers to citizens of the United States.

Or where the US has jurisdiction.

The Constitution actually refers to the government of the US. not the citizens

Any person in the continental US or a US overseas territory covered by the constitution is granted the protections provided by the constitution whether a citizen or not.

I always thought you got constitutionalized as soon as you set foot in the US.

Maybe they should offer some sort of vaccination...

Asterios wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

Right or Wrong it is the law. and until it is changed it is an option.

Do you believe it is right or wrong?

doesn't matter what I think, the law is the law and until it is changed it is the law.

You cannot obey an illegal law. You should know that. "Just following orders" will put you in the clink or the hangman.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's rather different to banning all members of racial, religious or cultural group X from possible entry the USA, of course.

I don't think any of the candidates comes anywhere close to stopping illegal immigration. It's basically impossible to close all the borders and thoroughly vet everyone from a foreign country.

Trumpo has a fun narrative about making Mexico pay for a big wall, but it's impractical.

It can definitely be done if we have the will. Europe is also discovering they need to do that.

xraytango wrote:
Let's try this, let's replace the word Mexico with Canada and see how that plays.

Trump: ""When Canada sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

I feel confident in saying that there aren't entire states where cops go after Canadian-looking people to harass them for their papers or where people elect the politicians and sheriffs who promise to keep the Canadians on a tight leash.

Rosebuddy wrote:

xraytango wrote:
Let's try this, let's replace the word Mexico with Canada and see how that plays.

Trump: ""When Canada sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

I feel confident in saying that there aren't entire states where cops go after Canadian-looking people to harass them for their papers or where people elect the politicians and sheriffs who promise to keep the Canadians on a tight leash.

I wish they would. Damn Canadians with their free healthcare, being nice to everyone. They're up to something, I know it!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So...NK just endorsed Trump. It's fitting.

https://www.rt.com/usa/345045-north-korea-endorses-trump/

Rosebuddy wrote:

xraytango wrote:
Let's try this, let's replace the word Mexico with Canada and see how that plays.

Trump: ""When Canada sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

I feel confident in saying that there aren't entire states where cops go after Canadian-looking people to harass them for their papers or where people elect the politicians and sheriffs who promise to keep the Canadians on a tight leash.

Because Canadians look like us*. Sneaky gaks.


*Melting pot of white, brown, everything in between.

Let's play spot the Canadian.

'Hockey sucks!"