Donald Trump: U.S. must "start thinking about" racial profiling

[SirReginald]

New video I found explaining this. Yall should take a look at it.

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

Exactly. Scapegoating Mexicans and Muslims could easily be Blacks and Jews.

How is it scapegoating when it's specifically a group within a larger group that's causing a concern that shouldn't be overlooked? Trump has made distinctions between illegal mexicans and radical islamist from the larger groups, but the media, individuals with ulterior motives, and the intellectually lazy will promote the narrative that supports their beliefs not the facts

How many black folks and non-blacks have spoken out against degenerate black folks? Too much to count

How many white jews and non-jews have spoken out against Israel's wrongs against palistine and the orthodox community's real estate discrimination towards non members and their welfare scam? Too few for accountability

 

[NoMayo15]

How is it scapegoating when it's specifically a group within a larger group that's causing a concern that shouldn't be overlooked? Trump has made distinctions between illegal mexicans and radical islamist from the larger groups, but the media, individuals with ulterior motives, and the intellectually lazy will promote the narrative that supports their beliefs not the facts

How many black folks and non-blacks have spoken out against degenerate black folks? Too much to count

How many white jews and non-jews have spoken out against Israel's wrongs against palestine and the orthodox community's real estate discrimination towards non members and their welfare scam? Too few for accountability

Because every demographic has it's problems, but by advocating to ban entire populations because a minority of its members are extremists presents these entire groups as the primary cause of the ills in our country. I don't see many on the right speaking out against illegals from Canada or European nations even though they exist and use the same entitlements as those from South American nations. I don't hear conversations about restricting white men from schools every time one of them shoots one up. When a few people from a minority group causes harm, Trump and people like him subconsciously frames it as behavior that is fundamental to that group. But if a Dylan Roof or a Jared Loughner or Elliot Rogers does something similiar, they shift the convo to mental health, or gun laws, or some other issue. Mexicans are rapists and murderers and criminals, he says....some might be good, he assumes, but most that are coming from there are the worst of the worst. That's how Trump categorizes all Mexican immigrants, even if he doesn't know he does so. This exact same rhetoric was used to categorize young black men as "super predators". Sure they might have meant just the criminals, but that easily transformed to any black kid in a hoodie. Once you can frame a group as dangerous and evil for the sake of being evil, it becomes much easier for the populous at large to be okay with stripping away the rights members within that group with little justification.

Trump still wants to restrict all Muslims from entering ... until we can find a way to determine whether they are not radical.... On a side note, how do you determine that anyway? How do you prove an individual has never thought of committing a violent crime in the name of their religion? Who is to judge which tenets of a religion are too radical for entry into the United States? This opens up a can of worms that conflicts with some founding principles of this nation.

To your last point, I don't know how many have spoken out relative to their size. I suspect you don't really know either, and haven't taken into account the difference in population -- it's just a feeling you have. But if you actually have some data to support it, I'll admit I'm wrong. But I don't really know what point you're making here. That too few Muslims and Mexicans are vocal about denouncing the criminals in their group? That the rights of black people are less likely to be taken away than Jews because of how often they speak out? I don't get it.

 

[AAKing23]

dp

 

[AAKing23]

I don't care anymore, I can't sit here and say Hillary is any better for black people or this country than Trump is. All I know is less black people support Trump than HIllary so if he's elected at least we don't have to bullshyt and lie to ourselves about who the enemy is. Which is a major key in us getting our shyt together because every time black people think we have a friend up there (Bill, Barack, etc) they get used to pass some of the worst legislation for black people. At least we won't be busy trying to teach Trump how to whip and nae nae and stay vigilante about what we want.

This has been my whole viewpoint on this situation on why I want Trump to win. Black people need to see the enemy.

 

[DerrtySouthpaw]

even if you think he's a plant for clinton youre still stupid as fukk if you support him. facts hurt

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

Because every demographic has it's problems, but by advocating to ban entire populations because a minority of its members are extremists presents these entire groups as the primary cause of the ills in our country. I don't see many on the right speaking out against illegals from Canada or European nations even though they exist and use the same entitlements as those from South American nations. I don't hear conversations about restricting white men from schools every time one of them shoots one up. When a few people from a minority group causes harm, Trump and people like him subconsciously frames it as behavior that is fundamental to that group. But if a Dylan Roof or a Jared Loughner or Elliot Rogers does something similiar, they shift the convo to mental health, or gun laws, or some other issue. Mexicans are rapists and murderers and criminals, he says....some might be good, he assumes, but most that are coming from there are the worst of the worst. That's how Trump categorizes all Mexican immigrants, even if he doesn't know he does so. This exact same rhetoric was used to categorize young black men as "super predators". Sure they might have meant just the criminals, but that easily transformed to any black kid in a hoodie. Once you can frame a group as dangerous and evil for the sake of being evil, it becomes much easier for the populous at large to be okay with stripping away the rights members within that group with little justification.

Trump still wants to restrict all Muslims from entering ... until we can find a way to determine whether they are not radical.... On a side note, how do you determine that anyway? How do you prove an individual has never thought of committing a violent crime in the name of their religion? Who is to judge which tenets of a religion are too radical for entry into the United States? This opens up a can of worms that conflicts with some founding principles of this nation.

To your last point, I don't know how many have spoken out relative to their size. I suspect you don't really know either, and haven't taken into account the difference in population -- it's just a feeling you have. But if you actually have some data to support it, I'll admit I'm wrong. But I don't really know what point you're making here. That too few Muslims and Mexicans are vocal about denouncing the criminals in their group? That the rights of black people are less likely to be taken away than Jews because of how often they speak out? I don't get it.

It strange that though I specifically mention that Trump has made distinctions between illegals and radicals, you still felt comfortable spinning his words back to ALL. If you cannot be intellectual honest in regards to a flawed candidate like Trump, then that's more of a reflection on your inability to be an objective critical thinker, your questionable information sources, and your lack of motivation to strive for bipartisan truth/facts

Any illegal immigrant should be deported. Also you forgot the Asian illegals too. The "bu bu the canadians and europeans are bad too" argument goes to prove Trump's point that folks are not interested in fixing problems because they've been conditioned to be overly politically correct by politicians who want votes, a complacent and uninformed public, and control of the narrative

Listing white killers in order to defend illegals that are killing too is proof that your motivations are not geared towards solutions to make this country better by holding all accountable. You sound like a person that wants to "stick it to the whiteman" by defending degenerate behavior and illegal immigrants, while ignoring the stats that shows the innate problems illegals cause to any country's safety and economy

Trump mention wanting to ban Muslims from "troubled regions", a few months prior to his suggestion, congress passed legislation to limit the number of visas issued to citizens from "troubled countries." But yet the media and both political party said Trump was discriminating, and the uninformed public became outraged lol

My last point goes to show the selective outrage of the masses, the power of the media, and the dangers of mob mentality when the same folks who talks about the importance of human rights, the wrongs of being a slum lord, and the high cost of welfare abusers, mostly all will become silent when the perpetrators are White Jews. No main stream media coverage, no politician comments, no outspoken voices from well respected public figure. But let the perpetrators be black, then opinions will be easily shared. You're requesting stats when all you need to do is provide examples of people and orgs talmbowt what I mentioned above

So the selective outrage of the masses, the power of the media, and the dangers of mob mentality is clear evident when Trump is concerned. He has addressed delicate and sensitive issues that the public has been conditioned to look away from and deflect responsibility from members of congress because they don't want to be labeled a buzzword of the month

 

[Kobes Two Jerseys]

So when do we start shipping cacs out? They do commit the most crimes in this country.

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

So when do we start shipping criminals out?

fixed.

 

[Dirty Mcdrawz]

Start?? when did they quit?

 

[mbewane]

I don't know what's worse, that Trump is the candidate for president of the most powerful country in the world, or that people actually support him.

Either way we might be fukked

 

[NoMayo15]

It strange that though I specifically mention that Trump has made distinctions between illegals and radicals, you still felt comfortable spinning his words back to ALL. If you cannot be intellectual honest in regards to a flawed candidate like Trump, then that's more of a reflection on your inability to be an objective critical thinker, your questionable information sources, and your lack of motivation to strive for bipartisan truth/facts

Any illegal immigrant should be deported. Also you forgot the Asian illegals too. The "bu bu the canadians and europeans are bad too" argument goes to prove Trump's point that folks are not interested in fixing problems because they've been conditioned to be overly politically correct by politicians who want votes, a complacent and uninformed public, and control of the narrative

Listing white killers in order to defend illegals that are killing too is proof that your motivations are not geared towards solutions to make this country better by holding all accountable. You sound like a person that wants to "stick it to the whiteman" by defending degenerate behavior and illegal immigrants, while ignoring the stats that shows the innate problems illegals cause to any country's safety and economy

Trump mention wanting to ban Muslims from "troubled regions", a few months prior to his suggestion, congress passed legislation to limit the number of visas issued to citizens from "troubled countries." But yet the media and both political party said Trump was discriminating, and the uninformed public became outraged lol

My last point goes to show the selective outrage of the masses, the power of the media, and the dangers of mob mentality when the same folks who talks about the importance of human rights, the wrongs of being a slum lord, and the high cost of welfare abusers, mostly all will become silent when the perpetrators are White Jews. No main stream media coverage, no politician comments, no outspoken voices from well respected public figure. But let the perpetrators be black, then opinions will be easily shared. You're requesting stats when all you need to do is provide examples of people and orgs talmbowt what I mentioned above

So the selective outrage of the masses, the power of the media, and the dangers of mob mentality is clear evident when Trump is concerned. He has addressed delicate and sensitive issues that the public has been conditioned to look away from and deflect responsibility from members of congress because they don't want to be labeled a buzzword of the month

No. This is not a matter of excusing or ignoring problems caused by some individuals within these groups Trump points out. It's about keeping perspective, and resisting to urge to shift blame on a small percentage for a large, complex issue.

It's not spin when he literally agrees with the sentiment that all Muslims should be barred from entering the United States. That is his position verbatim. If anyone is not looking at this objectively, it's you.



And political correctness has nothing to do with this either. It's a matter of maintaining fundamental human rights that certain people are advocating being taken away. That profiling based on race or religion is absolutely wrong, but that the direction Trump seems to want to lead us. And the fact that Asian illegals, European illegals, and North American illegals aren't mentioned when this conversation is brought up suggests to me that an individual's legal status is not the primary motivator in this discussion. There is something else people on the right have a problem with when they target these groups.

Again, I want to hold INDIVIDUALS accountable for their actions, and not fall victim to this slippery slope where Mexicans, people of South American descent or Arab Muslims, Sikhs, etc are viewed as criminals or guilty by association. Where neighbor is spying on neighbor because they happen to belong to a certain demographic. This is the type of America Trump advocates, and I can't endorse that. I'm all for finding solutions to problems, but you can do so without implying that crime is inherent for these groups compared to others.

While it might be true something like this passed in the House, there's a big difference between reducing a number of visas allowed, and banning outright. Talk about intellectual dishonesty. Making the case that those are the same is ridiculous.

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

While it might be true something like this passed in the House, there's a big difference between reducing a number of visas allowed, and banning outright. Talk about intellectual dishonesty. Making the case that those are the same is ridiculous.

I'm finna give you the benefit of the doubt, while addressing your misunderstanding, that you are either trolling OR arguing just to argue. If neither is the case, then that is very problematic and you shouldn't be in these kind of discussions

-The government and Trump both admit that certain countries are hotbeds for terrorist, terrorism sympathizers, and terrorism organizers, thus the terms "troubled regions" or "troubled countries"

-The government and Trump both want to limit the terrorist citizens [group within a group] of these regions to having easy access to terrorize the citizens of the USA

-The government suggest "limiting" the number of visas to certain citizens
Trump suggest a temporary ban of these certain citizens

How will the government and Trump select who to issue a visa to and who to ban?
-The government suggest referencing names on the terror watch list, exchange intelligence information with other governments, read reports from informants, and do other things we don't know, in order to issue a visa
Trump says "we need to first figure out what's going on," find out who is coming to the USA and why

-The government and Trump both are advocating a vetting process for citizens from these troubled regions, before granting them access to travel to the USA

Please note, I did not use any reference to a religion, race, or gender because those of us that are not about finding a solution to a problem,
those of us with self-serving agendas,
and those of us blotted with political correctness
will shift the focus of the discussion on the depiction of a religion, race, or gender inorder to ignore/deflect the more important purpose of protecting the citizens of the USA

No. This is not a matter of excusing or ignoring problems caused by some individuals within these groups Trump points out. It's about keeping perspective, and resisting to urge to shift blame on a small percentage for a large, complex issue.

It's not spin when he literally agrees with the sentiment that all Muslims should be barred from entering the United States. That is his position verbatim. If anyone is not looking at this objectively, it's you.



And political correctness has nothing to do with this either. It's a matter of maintaining fundamental human rights that certain people are advocating being taken away. That profiling based on race or religion is absolutely wrong, but that the direction Trump seems to want to lead us. And the fact that Asian illegals, European illegals, and North American illegals aren't mentioned when this conversation is brought up suggests to me that an individual's legal status is not the primary motivator in this discussion. There is something else people on the right have a problem with when they target these groups.

Again, I want to hold INDIVIDUALS accountable for their actions, and not fall victim to this slippery slope where Mexicans, people of South American descent or Arab Muslims, Sikhs, etc are viewed as criminals or guilty by association. Where neighbor is spying on neighbor because they happen to belong to a certain demographic. This is the type of America Trump advocates, and I can't endorse that. I'm all for finding solutions to problems, but you can do so without implying that crime is inherent for these groups compared to others.

fundamental human rights? what about citizen's right to feel safe from radical terroist and not compete for jobs and pay for a better experience for illegals

You are wrong and should be ashamed of yourself to mention human rights as a means to deflect from the rights of the citizens. The focus on Mexican illegals became a hot topic because folks like you and the media chose political correctness and not fact to guide your outrage

Imagine how different the discussion would be if you and your kind would've embraced facts about stopping illegal Mexicans and discussed about other forms of illegal immigration. But no, yall chose to deflect the problems of having illegals, label folks with buzzwords, and then chose to mention other nationalities who are illegals, inorder to stifle the discussion

Again, despite videos, articles, interviews and news reports about Trump's temporary ban for radical islamist that was rightfully adjusted over the duration of his ccampaign to justified critizism, you instead chose to post a video from last year

So it's clear that the root of your argument needs to be about the word "ALL" inorder for you to feel justified in your stance. You are not addressing the important safety and economical concerns due to radical terrorist and illegal immigrants because you don't want to be labeled a buzzword of the month OR be viewed as sharing similar views from people you have issues with. Imagine how free you would feel and how more clearly the world would be if you strive to obtain absolute truth/facts regardless of the source

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

This brief exchange between me and some folks online and offline, reminds me of an analogy about the debate regarding illegals to this country, with the USA being represented as a home. I can't take credit for the analogy, it was told to me by a dude I was chit chatting with while waiting for car servicing

A homeless person [illegal] crawls through an open window into a home [USA], for food and shelter from the cold windy storm [all the reasons why illegals come to USA].

The homeowners [citizens] catches the homeless person in their refrigerator and wearing some of their clothes.

The homeowners call police and yells for help.

The neighbors run over to the distraught homeowners to interpret what happen before the police arrive.

By the time the police arrive, the neighbors are now disputing who is at fault,
-the homeowners for not shutting their windows OR
-the homeowners for not being understanding that the homeless person meant no harm OR
-the homeowners for not understanding the dangers of hunger and bad weather OR
-the homeless person for crawling through the window

Regardless of your religion, race, tax bracket position, education,country of origin, and sexual orientation...if asked to choose one or three of the options of who is at fault, there's one choice that will always be selected.

And the solution to that selection should take precedence over the implementation of the other options' solution. It doesn't mean the other options' solutions does not get implemented too. It just means that no other solution should undermine the implementation of the consistently selected option

So if you really want to solve the illegal immigration problem, then recognize any country represented in the UN will always be against illegal immigration, not just the USA cause it's Mexicans

The USA has a right to protect its borders, like every country does. Don't make the internal problems of the USA eclipse the fundamental rights it has to a border. A country's responsibility is to its citizens, not to illegals

 

[NoMayo15]

I'm finna give you the benefit of the doubt, while addressing your misunderstanding, that you are either trolling OR arguing just to argue. If neither is the case, then that is very problematic and you shouldn't be in these kind of discussions

-The government and Trump both admit that certain countries are hotbeds for terrorist, terrorism sympathizers, and terrorism organizers, thus the terms "troubled regions" or "troubled countries"

-The government and Trump both want to limit the terrorist citizens [group within a group] of these regions to having easy access to terrorize the citizens of the USA

-The government suggest "limiting" the number of visas to certain citizens
Trump suggest a temporary ban of these certain citizens

How will the government and Trump select who to issue a visa to and who to ban?
-The government suggest referencing names on the terror watch list, exchange intelligence information with other governments, read reports from informants, and do other things we don't know, in order to issue a visa
Trump says "we need to first figure out what's going on," find out who is coming to the USA and why

-The government and Trump both are advocating a vetting process for citizens from these troubled regions, before granting them access to travel to the USA

Please note, I did not use any reference to a religion, race, or gender because those of us that are not about finding a solution to a problem,
those of us with self-serving agendas,
and those of us blotted with political correctness
will shift the focus of the discussion on the depiction of a religion, race, or gender inorder to ignore/deflect the more important purpose of protecting the citizens of the USA

The bolded is the entire problem with the way Trump argues this. I don't think, and most people probably don't think it's unreasonable to vet individuals from certain nations more thoroughly in light of recent events here and around the world. You haven't posted a link about which bill you're specifically referring to, but if it's what I think you're talking about then what Congress was trying to do is prevent a loophole in which people could travel into the US without first getting a visa. It would also make it harder for .. say Syrians, for example, to enter the US using the old method. The problem people have with Trump's proposition is ... first, he doesn't just specify Muslims on terror watchlists. He includes all Muslims in the ban ... listen to him respond in the video I posted. And second, he proposes a very vague timeline. What exactly is "until we figure out what's going on"? What about the situation does he not understand? If he could articulate a specific problem with the vetting process, or with the visa process that could be addressed, you wouldn't have so many people who are anti-Trump. The way he frames it sounds, to the untrained ear, like what he wants is an indefinite restriction on Muslims from entering the country. You might not want to bring up race or religion, but he has, and you seem to want to ignore that.

fundamental human rights? what about citizen's right to feel safe from radical terroist and not compete for jobs and pay for a better experience for illegals

I feel relatively safe because I know how unlikely it is for me, in Raleigh, North Carolina, to be killed in a terrorist attack. How exactly does banning anyone from immigrating to the United States reduce that chance? How do you know that doing that won't motivate current Muslim Americans to become radicalized? Demonstrate that first, then you'll have some justification for this type of thing. Besides, why do you think you have the right to feel safe? Why do you think you have the right not to compete for a job? Why isn't the focus on the greedy corporate interests that's hiring illegals over you? And by the way, if companies would rather take the risk to knowingly hire an illegal over you, then the immigrant is the least of your problems.

You are wrong and should be ashamed of yourself to mention human rights as a means to deflect from the rights of the citizens. The focus on Mexican illegals became a hot topic because folks like you and the media chose political correctness and not fact to guide your outrage

lol you are so angry about political correctness. What non-facts have I argued from? You are the one that is misrepresenting Donald Trump's stance on these issues. I've posted videos of him saying he absolutely agrees with restricting all Muslims from immigrating.

Imagine how different the discussion would be if you and your kind would've embraced facts about stopping illegal Mexicans and discussed about other forms of illegal immigration. But no, yall chose to deflect the problems of having illegals, label folks with buzzwords, and then chose to mention other nationalities who are illegals, inorder to stifle the discussion

Yeah, because it's disingenuous say you're angry about illegal immigrants, but only talk about ones who happen to be from Mexico AND say race has nothing to do with it.

Again, despite videos, articles, interviews and news reports about Trump's temporary ban for radical islamist that was rightfully adjusted over the duration of his ccampaign to justified critizism, you instead chose to post a video from last year

My god, how deluded are you to think Trump has some nuanced position about this now. He's said the same thing following Orlando as he said he December!



He says "The immigration laws of the United States give the President the power to suspend entry into the country of any class of persons that the President deems detrimental to the interests or security of the United States. [...] I will use this power to protect the American people. When I am elected, I will suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats."

He's advocating banning Muslims from entering until we can "perfectly screen those people coming into our country". These are HIS words days ago! How on Earth does one vet someone PERFECTLY? How could we possibly have known the child of a couple Afghan immigrants would one day become radicalized, and shoot up a gay nightclub? To keep this ban until we understand how to end terrorism seems to purposely be an unachievable goal.

So it's clear that the root of your argument needs to be about the word "ALL" inorder for you to feel justified in your stance. You are not addressing the important safety and economical concerns due to radical terrorist and illegal immigrants because you don't want to be labeled a buzzword of the month OR be viewed as sharing similar views from people you have issues with. Imagine how free you would feel and how more clearly the world would be if you strive to obtain absolute truth/facts regardless of the source

lol, instead of accusing me of some sort of liberal guilt, how about you actually make an argument about where I'm factually incorrect? You haven't even posted any data to support the safety and economic concerns you have regarding illegals and Muslims, but I guess it doesn't matter. So yeah, I do have a problem with "ALL" because I believe in individual liberties. Sue me.