American Politics

[shionoro]

Because you say so? Yup.

This is the part where context plays a key role in understanding what Trump meant. He never once said "all Muslims" and never once said that he would punish Muslims in the U.S. He explained when he was asked about terrorists and refugees (after the Paris attack etc) what he would do. He said he would temporary ban Muslim refugees from key problematic Islamic states. He even came out several times after to clarify what he meant because MSM kept twisting his words.

Also, stop spreading your lies. Trump never advocated a registry. He said when asked about one:

"We’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely. We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully."

He never once advocated a registry on Muslims. The rest of the interview was discussing the wall and immigrants being able to be tracked, recorded and apprehended if they did something wrong. The confusion was due to the reporter switching subjects quick. That's why when the reporter asked about the Wall he said it is something they have to implement and that a database for them is required. Even a site you provided before (politifact) and is frequently provided here says that the interview was largely mistaken/unclear and that Trump was very well talking about immigration in the first interview due to the question jumping, which if you go by context that makes perfect sense. They later go on to direct all instances in which he spoke about this and tried to explain his stance (and was promptly ignored).

The only thing he remotely came close to saying was that he supported a database and surveillance on [Syrian] refugees coming from key problematic states that brought terrorism or crime to many different countries. Of which I have to wonder how the hell you could get "all Muslims" or "Muslim citizens" from it, but then again the MSM gets to everybody with their bullshit so it is really no wonder.

Because it is evident due to the rise of hatecrimes we saw.

Everyone says 'not all of them', but that does not mean you do not employ racist ideas about a group of people.
If i say 'well not all fags are bad but a lot of them target children and want to rape them', then this is a very dangerous and false statement to say.
And if i say, and this is true, that muslims danced on the street after 9/11 (even tho it is false), then i do the same thing.
And if invent nonsense about refugees being vetted poorly, even tho the US has one of the strictest vetting system, then i am once again spreading fear of a subgroup.

And dont tell me trump did not do that. He did.
And if you spread hate and fear about a group, you naturally hurt it.
And this affects ALL members of that group.

Are you seriously going to hold the actions of an obvious unstable man against me and then compare us and condemn a group of people at large? All because one person reacted violently on a shared view? Jesus Christ, what's wrong with you?

I'm just going to ignore the sheer stupidity of this and I'm not even going to waste my time about the 9/11 Muslim bullshit you brought up out of no where.

How is he unstable?
You believed the things he believed. You yourself told me in this very thread that i am naive for not believing that complete myth about that podesta childporn ring.
That guy just acted on it, and if it had been true, he'd been a hero.
But it wasn't.
You cannot say that guy is a lunatic if he fell for the same lie you fell.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 8, 2016, Original Post Date: Dec 8, 2016 ---

Oh and also how is that bullshit?
It is a fact trump said muslims cheered on the street after 9/11 without any basis for it.
You cannot just deny the facts and then say trump never said anything racist.

 

[Styx]

Because it is evident due to the rise of hatecrimes we saw.

Everyone says 'not all of them', but that does not mean you do not employ racist ideas about a group of people.
If i say 'well not all fags are bad but a lot of them target children and want to rape them', then this is a very dangerous and false statement to say.
And if i say, and this is true, that muslims danced on the street after 9/11 (even tho it is false), then i do the same thing.
And if invent nonsense about refugees being vetted poorly, even tho the US has one of the strictest vetting system, then i am once again spreading fear of a subgroup.

And dont tell me trump did not do that. He did.
And if you spread hate and fear about a group, you naturally hurt it.
And this affects ALL members of that group.



How is he unstable?
You believed the things he believed. You yourself told me in this very thread that i am naive for not believing that complete myth about that podesta childporn ring.
That guy just acted on it, and if it had been true, he'd been a hero.
But it wasn't.
You cannot say that guy is a lunatic if he fell for the same lie you fell.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 8, 2016, Original Post Date: Dec 8, 2016 ---

Oh and also how is that bullshit?
It is a fact trump said muslims cheered on the street after 9/11 without any basis for it.
You cannot just deny the facts and then say trump never said anything racist.

The only hate crimes we saw were done by Liberals in response to the elections, but I'm going to bet you ignored the hundreds of videos of this violence (probably claim it was all fabricated) and the many stories that came out where Trump supporters of all colors, gender, orientation etc were assaulted on the streets simply because they voted Trump. Why? Because it is convenient and fits your "narrative". Regardless the actions of someone's supporters does not mean their beliefs are shared by or condoned by the person they voted for and I find it hilarious that you feel that way.

That's not even what he said or suggested though, and I just proved it to you using a site you have used before. He made a statement on the real threat of Syrian refugees to a country based off the results of other countries and showed a concern with letting them in without a true and better way to vet them. He never once advocated watching all Muslims, especially U.S Muslims, and only ever discussed the need to properly (and temporarily) watch refugees from key states of terrorism. Yet you blatantly lied and said that he said "all Muslims" or was talking about "all Muslims", so yes, I will tell you he didn't because he didn't. You are spreading lies while condemning millions of people because you heard it on your favorite news channel because you don't know any better.

He is unstable because he tried to kill people and had violent tendencies, not because he believed in a conspiracy. I think it is incredibly ignorant and wrong that you would suggest that believing in something itself would make someone crazy [like this man] or that because someone did something wrong it means everyone else who has the same view are unstable mentality just like that individual simply because they share a view in something. Talk about ignorance and bigotry.

That's not what I said, and I never out right said I believed in the conspiracy. I said it was interesting to consider due to the email leaks, strange images of children on their social accounts being duct taped to tables in their pizza places etc etc, but thanks for attempting to twist my words yet again. It is always fun to see how people on the left "win" debates.

I said I'm ignoring it because its bullshit that came out of no where and has no relevance to the discussion. It was just a pathetic attempt to make your asinine argument against my character (and that of many others) make sense.

And just so you know, saying that there were Muslims cheering in the streets post 9/11 can never be racist...because Muslims are not a race. if you are going to continue to troll me or use your time to sling mud at me, know that I will not waste my time on you.

 

[shionoro]

The only hate crimes we saw were done by Liberals in response to the elections, but I'm going to bet you ignored the hundreds of videos of this violence (probably claim it was all fabricated) and the many stories that came out where Trump supporters of all colors, gender, orientation etc were assaulted on the streets simply because they voted Trump. Why? Because it is convenient and fits your "narrative". Regardless the actions of someone's supporters does not mean their beliefs are shared by or condoned by the person they voted for and I find it hilarious that you feel that way.

Liberals attack muslims? That is new to me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/fbi-hate-crimes-muslims.html
Attacks on muslims saw a rise of 62% compared to 2014.
And whil the absolute number sounds low, those kind of crimes has a high number of unaccounted deeds.
But i guess...fabircation and....liberal...hooligans.....waaah?

I find it hilarious that you still deny the fact that muslims are attacked or at least harassed more often and INSTANTLY even tho i never brought them up react with the evil liberals.

That's not even what he said or suggested though, and I just proved it to you using a site you have used before. He made a statement on the real threat of Syrian refugees to a country based off the results of other countries and showed a concern with letting them in without a true and better way to vet them. He never once advocated watching all Muslims, especially U.S Muslims, and only ever discussed the need to properly (and temporarily) watch refugees from key states of terrorism. Yet you blatantly lied and said that he said "all Muslims" or was talking about "all Muslims", so yes, I will tell you he didn't because he didn't. You are spreading lies while condemning millions of people because you heard it on your favorite news channel because you don't know any better.

Look, trump said both things.
He said muslims danced on 9/11 and he said that refugees are not vetted strictly enough.
Both are pure fabrications fit to create fear against that group.
You keep saying 'BUT HE DIDNT SAY ALL MUSLIMS' as if that mattered.
You are also racist if you say 'donald jay trump is calling for a complete shutdown of muslims entering the united states until our representatives can figure out what the hell is going on'.
Because you imply that your representatives cannot. You imply that there is danger from muslims coming in and from muslims already there.

He didnt say 'i want to stop terrorists from coming in'. If he says he wants a complete shutdown it means every muslim is apotential terrorist and that obviously includes the muslims already int he US if they dance on the streets after 9/11.
If you cannot see how this is fearmongering, what is then?
Basically, that is the same thing as a nazi back then saying 'i some jews poisoned wells to kill christian children'. But even then, you would say 'well he didnt say all of them so it is not racist' if you make up complete lies about a group so people fear them?

He is unstable because he tried to kill people and had violent tendencies, not because he believed in a conspiracy. I think it is incredibly ignorant and wrong that you would suggest that believing in something itself would make someone crazy [like this man] or that because someone did something wrong it means everyone else who has the same view are unstable mentality just like that individual simply because they share a view in something. Talk about ignorance and bigotry.

It is not crazy to do what he did if you think there are children starving in the basement.
It is completely dishonest to paint him as crazy here.
It would be crazy to not go down there with a gun if you think that leads to the suffering of a dozen of children.

It is however really silly to believe such a conspiracy theory (and i am glad you admit by now that it was bullshit what you believed there) to begin with.

I said I'm ignoring it because its bullshit that came out of no where and has no relevance to the discussion. It was just a pathetic attempt to make your asinine argument against my character (and that of many others) make sense.

It has. It didnt come out of nowhere. Trump said it. A lot of times. And repeated it when asked about it.
And how is it arguing against your character when i recall a completely outlandish conspiracy theory you believed in to show you how the hatemongering of trump and his lies can delude people?
You were a victim of that yourself.
And then you say when trump says muslims celebrate 9/11 there are NO unstable people believing it and fearing or hating muslims in the process?
You contradict yourself.
Propaganda like that always targets first and foremost mentally usntable people because they are the easiest victims.
It is not like trump's campaign didnt know their targets.

nd just so you know, saying that there were Muslims cheering in the streets post 9/11 can never be racist...because Muslims are not a race. if you are going to continue to troll me or use your time to sling mud at me, know that I will not waste my time on you.

Your argument is the same as 'well i am not afraid of fags, so i cannot be homophobic'.
Obviously there is also a racial component in fear of islam because islam is almost exclusively believed by people from arabia (at least when it comes to american muslims) or pakistanis.
And it's not like your usual hatecrimer differentiates a lot. Sikhs get attacked for being muslims (or rather brown people) too.

So if you wanna run away from the discussion, do it, but don't act like i am wasting your time when you do not dare to attend to the points i made.

So tell me again: If you falsely make a statement about a group of people that they celebrated the biggest terror attack in the recent history of the united states, then this is absolutely fine because you didnt say it was all of them?
That does not harm the whole group?Is that really what you believe?

 

[M3J]

He's not president yet now, is he?

brb looking for my post that says or implies he's a president

None so far, but if his policies goes through, then that's where things will start.

the only policy I know of is Muslim registration, which is bullshit in itself. At least, some people shared pictures of his aide holding a paper that mentioned something about Muslims. That is, if he's not serious about banning Muslims from enterin the country.

I find it hilarious so many people were for the electoral vote when it was in favor of Hillary, but the moment she loses it people lose their shit. We have the electoral vote for a reason so that there is equal representation across states.



Nothing, and he won't do anything to them when he's president either. It was fearmongering that gave birth to false accusations of mass genocide of Muslims or the removal of them. A complete twisting of words and lack of interest in context, too.

Funnily enough, Trump was against something that made him a president. I don't know if it's in general, but he was whining about electoral college and wanted to remove it when Obama won. though, now I'm wondering if his problem with Obama was because Obama beat Hillary. Whom we know Trump is good friends with, despite what his supporters think.

Accusations of deporting Muslims/minorities, yes, but genocide was taking it too far. I have no reason to believe he won't think about deporting anyone that looks like a brown Muslim.

And to be honest, I don't think it was just twisting, but overexaggerating/panicking, if not joking around.

That's not even what he said or suggested though, and I just proved it to you using a site you have used before. He made a statement on the real threat of Syrian refugees to a country based off the results of other countries and showed a concern with letting them in without a true and better way to vet them. He never once advocated watching all Muslims, especially U.S Muslims, and only ever discussed the need to properly (and temporarily) watch refugees from key states of terrorism. Yet you blatantly lied and said that he said "all Muslims" or was talking about "all Muslims", so yes, I will tell you he didn't because he didn't. You are spreading lies while condemning millions of people because you heard it on your favorite news channel because you don't know any better.

Trump is full of bullshit: he lied about the US not vetting the Muslim refugees properly, but we have proof that the refugees were vetted so thoroughly and stringently for years. There is no true and better way to vet them, not when we're doing an excellent job. If he was really worried, he'd start with the homegrown terrorists first, not go after refugees.

He may not have, but someone did. And someone advocated Muslim registry. All under Trump camp.

And just so you know, saying that there were Muslims cheering in the streets post 9/11 can never be racist...

No, but it's a complete lie and bullshit that most of his idiotic supporters believe. Even Breitbart said Trump was exaggerating, although they claimed few Muslims were celebrating. The videos I saw weren't American Muslims celebrating though.

 

[Styx]

Funnily enough, Trump was against something that made him a president. I don't know if it's in general, but he was whining about electoral college and wanted to remove it when Obama won. though, now I'm wondering if his problem with Obama was because Obama beat Hillary. Whom we know Trump is good friends with, despite what his supporters think.

Accusations of deporting Muslims/minorities, yes, but genocide was taking it too far. I have no reason to believe he won't think about deporting anyone that looks like a brown Muslim.

And to be honest, I don't think it was just twisting, but overexaggerating/panicking, if not joking around.

He said the system was rigged and that it needed to be removed because of it. He actually still maintains that there needs to be a reform to keep out corruption and rigging the last time I checked. I think he said something about "just barely beating the rigged system".

Oh, well I would hope it was joking around because if not...

Trump is full of bullshit: he lied about the US not vetting the Muslim refugees properly, but we have proof that the refugees were vetted so thoroughly and stringently for years. There is no true and better way to vet them, not when we're doing an excellent job. If he was really worried, he'd start with the homegrown terrorists first, not go after refugees.

He may not have, but someone did. And someone advocated Muslim registry. All under Trump camp.

I don't recall him saying they weren't vetted, just not properly vetted? Either way I don't particularly disagree here. I didn't know how "good" (perhaps thorough is better) our vetting program was until someone here pointed out to me, so yea, I don't know who told Trump we didn't vet refugees (enough) but it was clearly not true.

It wasn't him for sure. I believe the first person to bring it up was a male supporter in one of his rallies (who said some other questionable things), and then a host at Fox News.

No, but it's a complete lie and bullshit that most of his idiotic supporters believe. Even Breitbart said Trump was exaggerating, although they claimed few Muslims were celebrating. The videos I saw weren't American Muslims celebrating though.

Bullshit and a lie certainly, but definitely not racism. Hmm, could you give me a source on this claim of his? I know of one instance where Trump and his campaign discussed Muslims celebrating 9/11, but I thought that was referencing Egyptian etc Muslims (and not American Muslims) from news casts post-attack? That's the only video I ever saw at least.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

the only policy I know of is Muslim registration, which is bullshit in itself. At least, some people shared pictures of his aide holding a paper that mentioned something about Muslims. That is, if he's not serious about banning Muslims from enterin the country.

Well, there's the surveillance he did agreed upon, where Mosques and Muslim-populated Areas (I think? Or I might got that one mixed up with Ted Cruz) should be kept an eye out (issue here is that it violates the right of privacy). But I'm unsure if that's even in his radar now (same with the whole "execute Terrorists' families without any trial" scary stuffs).

 

[M3J]

He said the system was rigged and that it needed to be removed because of it. He actually still maintains that there needs to be a reform to keep out corruption and rigging the last time I checked. I think he said something about "just barely beating the rigged system".

Oh, well I would hope it was joking around because if not...



I don't recall him saying they weren't vetted, just not properly vetted? Either way I don't particularly disagree here. I didn't know how "good" (perhaps thorough is better) our vetting program was until someone here pointed out to me, so yea, I don't know who told Trump we didn't vet refugees (enough) but it was clearly not true.

It wasn't him for sure. I believe the first person to bring it up was a male supporter in one of his rallies (who said some other questionable things), and then a host at Fox News.



Bullshit and a lie certainly, but definitely not racism. Hmm, could you give me a source on this claim of his? I know of one instance where Trump and his campaign discussed Muslims celebrating 9/11, but I thought that was referencing Egyptian etc Muslims (and not American Muslims) from news casts post-attack? That's the only video I ever saw at least.

It's the "rigged system" that allowed him to win, and the democrat and Hillary's corruption that discouraged democrat voters. I'm pretty sure Trump will be corrupt as well; political leaders from other countries apparently think so, if the sources are true about them renting out rooms in Trump's hotels when they visit.

I think it's more delusions due to fear. I consider myself anti-Trump, but I'd like to think I'm fair and/or unbiased enough when it comes to him.

Either way, he's lying, and it's bullshit. Bad enough these politicians (mainly republicans) have been lying way before Trump, but to have a presidential candidate contribute to this improper vetting lie is pretty scary. Our vetting process is the reason why we're safe from refugees, and the refugees themselves will tell you how long and thorough the vetters are. It can take years to get through, it's just easier to get to US via visa. I'm sure Trump didn't care, he would have lied either way.

I'm not entirely sure about that, truth be told.


Yeah, not racism. I'm just saying it was full of shit. I googled it, and I'm not sure which source I used other than Breitbart. Either the media are lying, or Trump did say he saw Muslims celebrate when he was in NYC or NJ.

Well, there's the surveillance he did agreed upon, where Mosques and Muslim-populated Areas (I think? Or I might got that one mixed up with Ted Cruz) should be kept an eye out (issue here is that it violates the right of privacy). But I'm unsure if that's even in his radar now (same with the whole "execute Terrorists' families without any trial" scary stuffs).

Ted Cruz definitely endorsed that, but I'm not sure if Trump does as well.

 

[xi0]

Well, there's the surveillance he did agreed upon, where Mosques and Muslim-populated Areas (I think? Or I might got that one mixed up with Ted Cruz) should be kept an eye out (issue here is that it violates the right of privacy). But I'm unsure if that's even in his radar now (same with the whole "execute Terrorists' families without any trial" scary stuffs).

Cruz almost certainly advocated for such a thing in the aftermath of the Brussels attacks earlier this year. It was in relation to a discussion regarding the "no-go" zones that some say exist in some European countries. Now, I can't say for certain what Trump personally said about this, but one could only imagine.

From my recollection, Cruz and Trump weren't actually in agreement in regards to a "Muslim Ban", he pretty much rejected the idea in favor of giving Governors the power to refuse Syrian refugees being placed in their states (and the Obama administration supposedly threatened to withhold federal funding to states in response). He also advocated for stripping American citizens of their citizenship if they go overseas to become terrorists. Dismissing Trump's stupid "idea" was probably more of a political thing though as the campaign was still going on, because I'm pretty sure Cruz is in favor of blocking refugees from countries with higher populations of jihadists, but that's not really the same thing as saying "ban all Muslims", which never made any sense in the first place, shockingly...I know

 

[M3J]

Isthere any stat or fact or anything at all that hints that Muslim refugees entering the US are dangerous?

 

[Philia]

I find it hilarious so many people were for the electoral vote when it was in favor of Hillary, but the moment she loses it people lose their shit.

Trump just took lead in Ohio.

EDIT

It really sucks that popular vote means shit in this country.

 

[shionoro]

Isthere any stat or fact or anything at all that hints that Muslim refugees entering the US are dangerous?

No. At least not more than any other group.
Refugees from a third world country entering in significant numbers is troubling for any country simply due to values and worldviews imported by that, so much is true.
But the US does not take significant numbers, it has people at home who are more nutty than them.
I mean i get thew view in europe that you don't want to import lots of people who hold mysogynistic or homophobic or antisemitic views (which sadly a significant proportion of the refugees do. Not because they are bad people but because you don't just get rid of the values of your former community in a year), but people who hold views like that run your country now, so....

There is no evidence that the terror threat gets higher due to the refugee intake the US has.
You have a very strict vetting system and the threat is not that high to begin with because the refugees are not a more likely target for indocrination than any muslim immigrant you already have.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

Ted Cruz definitely endorsed that, but I'm not sure if Trump does as well.

I kinda recall that Trump agrees on surveillance in mosques, but I suppose it must've been Cruz who wanted surveillance in Muslim-populated areas.
Then again, it's like I said: I'm unsure if he even holds his policies, since he's turning back on what he proposes.

Cruz almost certainly advocated for such a thing in the aftermath of the Brussels attacks earlier this year. It was in relation to a discussion regarding the "no-go" zones that some say exist in some European countries. Now, I can't say for certain what Trump personally said about this, but one could only imagine.

From my recollection, Cruz and Trump weren't actually in agreement in regards to a "Muslim Ban", he pretty much rejected the idea in favor of giving Governors the power to refuse Syrian refugees being placed in their states (and the Obama administration supposedly threatened to withhold federal funding to states in response). He also advocated for stripping American citizens of their citizenship if they go overseas to become terrorists. Dismissing Trump's stupid "idea" was probably more of a political thing though as the campaign was still going on, because I'm pretty sure Cruz is in favor of blocking refugees from countries with higher populations of jihadists, but that's not really the same thing as saying "ban all Muslims", which never made any sense in the first place, shockingly...I know

Wait, Trump wanted to strip Americans their citizenship if they turn into extremists? If that is the case, then this is the first I've heard (unless that's what Cruz said).

Blocking refugees from countries w/ high populations of Jihadists makes a lot more sense than to simply "ban all Muslims" from entering the country. Granted, I get that there are refugees who're fleeing from the shitty environment of war, oppression by Terrorism, and wanting to live a better life, but I also get the opposing argument where security becomes extremely vulnerable because of potential extremists entering a nation.

 

[GrySun]

brb looking for my post that says or implies he's a president

Don't worry m8 I got you covered:

I'm curious. so far what has Trump done that's hurting the Muslims?

Implying he's currently in any position able to hurt muslims?

 

[SharkBait]

Trump continues to tap vital people with similar beliefs into desirable positions. Good choice.

If he is confirmed by the Senate, the Labor Department would be led by a man who opposes dramatically raising the minimum wage. Puzder has argued that a higher minimum wage cuts profitability, forces businesses to cut jobs and increases reliance on automation. Another assertion he’s made is that raising the minimum wage does nothing structurally to break the cycle of poverty for the working poor.

 

[M3J]

No. At least not more than any other group.
Refugees from a third world country entering in significant numbers is troubling for any country simply due to values and worldviews imported by that, so much is true.
But the US does not take significant numbers, it has people at home who are more nutty than them.
I mean i get thew view in europe that you don't want to import lots of people who hold mysogynistic or homophobic or antisemitic views (which sadly a significant proportion of the refugees do. Not because they are bad people but because you don't just get rid of the values of your former community in a year), but people who hold views like that run your country now, so....

There is no evidence that the terror threat gets higher due to the refugee intake the US has.
You have a very strict vetting system and the threat is not that high to begin with because the refugees are not a more likely target for indocrination than any muslim immigrant you already have.

To be fair, Muslims aren't the only ones with those views, and they did have a female president or something. Though if that's the case, then they shouldn't be taking in right wing Americans.

Yeah, but the least the natives could do is make sure the first generation citizens learn better values.

There seems to be evidence that the terror threat barely exists regardless of refugee intake in the US. My only concern is the impact it may have on the economy, otherwise I have no issue with refugees entering the country.

Don't worry m8 I got you covered:



Implying he's currently in any position able to hurt muslims?

my post still stands. Nothing implies that I said he was president yet.

 

[Styx]

It's the "rigged system" that allowed him to win, and the democrat and Hillary's corruption that discouraged democrat voters. I'm pretty sure Trump will be corrupt as well; political leaders from other countries apparently think so, if the sources are true about them renting out rooms in Trump's hotels when they visit.

I think it's more delusions due to fear. I consider myself anti-Trump, but I'd like to think I'm fair and/or unbiased enough when it comes to him.

Either way, he's lying, and it's bullshit. Bad enough these politicians (mainly republicans) have been lying way before Trump, but to have a presidential candidate contribute to this improper vetting lie is pretty scary. Our vetting process is the reason why we're safe from refugees, and the refugees themselves will tell you how long and thorough the vetters are. It can take years to get through, it's just easier to get to US via visa. I'm sure Trump didn't care, he would have lied either way.

I'm not entirely sure about that, truth be told.

Yeah, not racism. I'm just saying it was full of shit. I googled it, and I'm not sure which source I used other than Breitbart. Either the media are lying, or Trump did say he saw Muslims celebrate when he was in NYC or NJ.

Ted Cruz definitely endorsed that, but I'm not sure if Trump does as well.

Well, it is a rigged system he barely beat though thanks to undecided voters or loose Democratic voters. The DNC and Hillary did not expect her email scandal and whatnot to make an effect to worry about. That doesn't necessarily mean it isn't rig in the Democrat's favor right now. He had even the president asking illegals ("dreams") to go out and vote for his "legacy", and had MSM against him and many stories of votes being sent someplace they weren't supposed to, machines "breaking" etc. That's pretty corrupt/rigged in my opinion.

Trump could very well become corrupt, as I can't predict the future, but it shouldn't be assumed because foreign leaders think he will be. They were selling papers and magazines for "madam" president as if they knew she was going to win. I find it incredibly odd and frustrating the entire world just assumed Hillary had it all in the bag.

You don't seem biased to me (a third-party Trump voter in the end) from your statements so far, so there's that.

Again I won't disagree here. I think he realized he was wrong about the vetting issue (someone in his team probably spoke up about the misinformation?) because he came out a few days later after the statement and discussed it, didn't he? Though I can only hope that becoming the President-elect has slowed him down to some of the things his campaign tells him or he believes. Sometimes I think his emotions drive him to action way too quickly.

Honestly, I'd go with media lying right now. Both sides are horrible liars and actually disliked him to push crazies like Ted Cruz or Paul Ryan, but I'll google it again (I've heard this before but I couldn't find the videos/statement either).

I would not be surprised if Ted Cruz supported it. The man's a lunatic. What's worse, he's an ignorant lunatic conservative extremist. No one needs that.

So? You won't see me disagreeing with that statement nor will you see it just because I disagree with the removal of EV. The situation is far more complicated than I think you can understand.

The problem on the "red" side is a lot of her PV, if we can trust watch dog groups that have been doing this for many elections, lead is largely due to fraudulent voting. Plus, at that moment I was considering a massive PV lead with high EV not far behind—not a 2m (against a near equal PV and higher EV) lead because despite what you may think, that's not very massive. Something more along the lines of the 2012 election, where during the night's count Obama pushed ahead by 5mil and not a few days after. He had the PV and the EV, making it equal and fair.

A better idea of handling the popular vote and electoral vote should be taken into consideration, which I have only ever endorsed and is what Trump endorsed (and if we are to believe him still off his 60 minutes interview, still endorses).

 

[kkck]

You're acting like it's "one job" is to prevent someone undesirable from being inaugurated. This sort of failsafe is not really the sole reason it exists, so to say that it's useless and doesn't do anything is a bit myopic IMO. Plus, in order for it to functionally prevent Trump from taking office, the GOP would need to distance itself from him as well, and this didn't happen to the extent it needed to during the campaign, so I don't see how it would happen now.

Fair enough. But in that case... what is it's function that needs mending? So far as I can tell its function goes along the lines of specifically serving as a filter to the popular vote which I don't see how you could mend. What am I missing here?

 

[shionoro]

To be fair, Muslims aren't the only ones with those views, and they did have a female president or something. Though if that's the case, then they shouldn't be taking in right wing Americans.

Yeah, but the least the natives could do is make sure the first generation citizens learn better values.

There seems to be evidence that the terror threat barely exists regardless of refugee intake in the US. My only concern is the impact it may have on the economy, otherwise I have no issue with refugees entering the country.

Well, muslims don't have a president, countries do.
And obviously not all muslims hold that views, but it is safe to say that syrian refugees, on average, are not exactly liberal feminists.
I am not holding that against them or using that to create fear of them, but it is a reality that has to be seen when one decides to take a significant amount of people which will take work if you want to integrate them properly.
And yes, that is exactly what the natives need to do in that case: Connecting and creating social ties. But it is not like you can force anyone to do that.
And it is also not that all natives have to like it.

The economy is fine. When was the american economy dragged down by cheap workers?
Thing is: All that talk about muslim refugees in the US is so nonsensial when you look at the numbers.
You are still struggling to take the 10.000 syrian refugees obama wanted to take in.
10.000 in a country of 310million is nothing.
Even compared to your 3 million muslims you already have this is not even a significant increase in that faith.
It is comparable to the number of syrians who were granted permanent stay in sweden (8.000) in just 2013.
A number which was going to rise much higher until sweden, a country of 10 million people, actually got problems integrating the amount of people they took.
Because the year after they took 160.000 people in, and yes, those are amounts at which a country has to call quits to not overtake itself.
Germany, which is bigger at least, took a comparable amount by its size with arround 1 million people before the forces that wanted a close got strong enough to change the course.
Talking about 10.000 actually strictly vetted refugees (and they are strictly vetted before coming to the US) is just as silly as thinking 10.000 italians coming to your country will bring mafia and a rise in organized crime.

 

[xi0]

Wait, Trump wanted to strip Americans their citizenship if they turn into extremists? If that is the case, then this is the first I've heard (unless that's what Cruz said).

Blocking refugees from countries w/ high populations of Jihadists makes a lot more sense than to simply "ban all Muslims" from entering the country. Granted, I get that there are refugees who're fleeing from the shitty environment of war, oppression by Terrorism, and wanting to live a better life, but I also get the opposing argument where security becomes extremely vulnerable because of potential extremists entering a nation.

No, that was part of Cruz's proposal.

Yeah of course it does, but because someone like Trump mouths off like the ignoramus he is, it's easy for anyone to dismiss it. The real issue is whether doing so would have a practical effect, and I don't know if that question can really be answered. It seems more like a preventative measure than it is addressing an actual problem. There are enough jihadists getting inspired to commit acts of terrorism online. They don't really need to go outside the country to be radicalized anymore.

Fair enough. But in that case... what is it's function that needs mending? So far as I can tell its function goes along the lines of specifically serving as a filter to the popular vote which I don't see how you could mend. What am I missing here?

Probably too many angles to get into right now. But I think there were articles published after the election regarding the discrepancy between how much a vote in California is worth compared to a place like Wyoming, and the latter is worth way much more proportionately. The EC sort of exists to give non-urban areas of the country more of an equal footing in regards to presidential election, but it might be a bit too propped up now, especially with changing demographics.

 

[M3J]

Well, it is a rigged system he barely beat though thanks to undecided voters or loose Democratic voters. The DNC and Hillary did not expect her email scandal and whatnot to make an effect to worry about. That doesn't necessarily mean it isn't rig in the Democrat's favor right now. He had even the president asking illegals ("dreams") to go out and vote for his "legacy", and had MSM against him and many stories of votes being sent someplace they weren't supposed to, machines "breaking" etc. That's pretty corrupt/rigged in my opinion.

Trump could very well become corrupt, as I can't predict the future, but it shouldn't be assumed because foreign leaders think he will be. They were selling papers and magazines for "madam" president as if they knew she was going to win. I find it incredibly odd and frustrating the entire world just assumed Hillary had it all in the bag.

You don't seem biased to me (a third-party Trump voter in the end) from your statements so far, so there's that.

Again I won't disagree here. I think he realized he was wrong about the vetting issue (someone in his team probably spoke up about the misinformation?) because he came out a few days later after the statement and discussed it, didn't he? Though I can only hope that becoming the President-elect has slowed him down to some of the things his campaign tells him or he believes. Sometimes I think his emotions drive him to action way too quickly.

Honestly, I'd go with media lying right now. Both sides are horrible liars and actually disliked him to push crazies like Ted Cruz or Paul Ryan, but I'll google it again (I've heard this before but I couldn't find the videos/statement either).

I would not be surprised if Ted Cruz supported it. The man's a lunatic. What's worse, he's an ignorant lunatic conservative extremist. No one needs that.

I don't know how rigged it was, but the "MSM" being against him was more likely due to Trump being that bad... though it was biased towards Hillary as well. I'm not sure just how corrupt or rigged many of those things are, as I've noticed that Trump supporters do tend to lie or believe fake news. it's funny though, Hillary should have had this in the bag given everything, but her incompetence and being so corrupt made her lose. It's beyond frustrating that dems keep blaming everyone but themselves. I'm not sure if Obama was really asking illegals to vote or if he was hiding behind that as he was deporting illegal immigrants.

Trump has shown to be pretty corrupted though, at least as a businessman. There's no reason not to believe he'll be any different as a president as well, even though he claimed he's stepping away from his businesses. I'm assuming that based on his past, but I'm bringing up what foreign leaders are doing/thinkin to show what they think of Trump. the way Trump did his campaign is what most likely made people think he'd lose, spreading hatred and everything.

Ha, you probably didn't read my earlier posts. I'm anti-Trump through and through, just not unfairly show. Hillary seems like a better choice so far, especially since she has experience and everything.

I think Trump was lying. From what I've read about conservatives and republicans, they lie and lie, especially because they know their supporters will believe anything. It's most likely why Trump is lying, and he probably doesn't care much about this at all. But then again, from what I've experienced and read, I have no positive view or thoughts of conservatives, other than knowing the country needs them as much as they need liberals.

Just as bad is Cruz being against net neutrality.

Well, muslims don't have a president, countries do.
And obviously not all muslims hold that views, but it is safe to say that syrian refugees, on average, are not exactly liberal feminists.
I am not holding that against them or using that to create fear of them, but it is a reality that has to be seen when one decides to take a significant amount of people which will take work if you want to integrate them properly.
And yes, that is exactly what the natives need to do in that case: Connecting and creating social ties. But it is not like you can force anyone to do that.
And it is also not that all natives have to like it.

The economy is fine. When was the american economy dragged down by cheap workers?
Thing is: All that talk about muslim refugees in the US is so nonsensial when you look at the numbers.
You are still struggling to take the 10.000 syrian refugees obama wanted to take in.
10.000 in a country of 310million is nothing.
Even compared to your 3 million muslims you already have this is not even a significant increase in that faith.
It is comparable to the number of syrians who were granted permanent stay in sweden (8.000) in just 2013.
A number which was going to rise much higher until sweden, a country of 10 million people, actually got problems integrating the amount of people they took.
Because the year after they took 160.000 people in, and yes, those are amounts at which a country has to call quits to not overtake itself.
Germany, which is bigger at least, took a comparable amount by its size with arround 1 million people before the forces that wanted a close got strong enough to change the course.
Talking about 10.000 actually strictly vetted refugees (and they are strictly vetted before coming to the US) is just as silly as thinking 10.000 italians coming to your country will bring mafia and a rise in organized crime.

you know what I mean.
I know about most Muslims' views. As much as I defend Muslims, I very much dislike Islam as a religion as much as I dislike Christianity.

But the amount of refugees that come into the country need some sort of aid and job. the country would be spending money to give them aid and everythin to survive, and some companies might try to give them jobs, which would take away jobs from natives, who would blame the Muslims instead of companies.