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

[Isaiah Bradley]

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.

nah bruh, has nuffin to do with closing a loophole.

The House overwhelmingly passed legislation on Tuesday (407 to 19) that would overhaul the federal visa waiver program and bar those from Iraq, Syria, Iran and the Sudan, or those who have visited those countries in the last five years, from traveling to the United States without a visa.

House passes legislation barring travelers from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan from entering U.S. without visa

You talmbowt the problem folks have with his proposition, while not being able to accurately present his proposition in this thread. His proposition and the government's legislation attempts to control travel to the USA from questionable folks. Nothing more, nothing less

For the last time, it doesn't include all muslims. Damn shame that you trying to force that to be true

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.

Exactly what Trump said. You are willing to be reckless with other folks lives, like the border police, national guards, and citizens of states that house refugees from these troubled regions, while being safe far away from any possible dangers of radical terrorism or an illegal immigrant . Thus why you're trying to stifle the discussion with nonsense fear tactics and deflect any accountability with non related issues like corporate greed. Shame on you

If muslim citizens of the US are motivated to be radicalized by the USA efforts to address the dangers of free travel by citizens of these troubled regions, then it will only prove Trump to be incorrect about limiting his focus on radicalized islamist from troubled regions

There's nothing to demonstrate. American interest and safety of the citizens is the priority. I have the right to feel safe because I'm a citizen of the USA, with a government assigned to serve and protect its tax payers and citizens

Take a second to think how ridiculous it is to question a citizens' right to feel safe and not compete with non citizens for jobs, then ask yourself what would motivate such an illogical reasoning of questions

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.

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.

smh. There's nothing to be angry about because the concept of Border.Language.Culture. are innate to any country. The opposition voices to these fundamental pillars of a successful society proves that they are ignorant to basic functionality and responsibility of the government, citizens, and laws

Your poor attempts at trying to deflect accountability for illegal immigrants of Mexican decent, by talmbowt illegals from Europe and Canada, consequently undermines the fact that border control is important, safety is important, and the economy is affected by illegal immigration

Like typical intellectually dishonest individuals, you're posting an old video that support your argument. I don't need to post anything cause the same effort you put into searching for old footage, you could do the same for more recent footage, if you're motivated by attaining absolute truth/facts

I already explained to you why Mexican illegals became the focus because their numbers are higher and your kind decided to argue against the fact that these Mexican illegals are problematic. Thus the labeling of anti-mexican, racist, anti immigration etc

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 wrong for a leader of a country to want to eliminate any threats to the citizens of that country by acknowledging the existence of threats and willing to be proactive to address the threat?

Once again, notice how I did not use any religion, race, or gender because you're focusing on the depictions of radicalized Muslims instead of the required duties of the President to do what it takes to keep the citizens safe. That's the dangers of being overly PC

I've mentioned in a few other threads, I'm a Bernie Supporter and I strive to attain absolute truth, regardless of the source. If Bernie lies, I will criticize him just as quick as I would Trump cause I want to be guided by facts, not liberal guilt drenched with PC motives

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.

You are drunk with liberal guilt, thus your pathetic deflection attempts bu bu what about corporate greed, while we're talmbowt something else

This is the problem. If you need data about the innate problems illegal immigration has on a country, you don't need to be having such discussion because your rebuttals indicates your lack of indepth understanding of how a country function. If you don't know why Border.Language.Culture is important, then how are you arguing about the impact of illegal immigration. smh

 

[NoMayo15]

nah bruh, has nuffin to do with closing a loophole.

You talmbowt the problem folks have with his proposition, while not being able to accurately present his proposition in this thread. His proposition and the government's legislation attempts to control travel to the USA from questionable folks. Nothing more, nothing less

For the last time, it doesn't include all muslims. Damn shame that you trying to force that to be true

Yes, a loophole. The bill would limit Muslims who could otherwise travel into the US from places like Europe without a visa. It removes the ability for them to use the expedited process of skipping obtaining a visa. Even if it becomes law, that's not the same thing as an outright ban of Muslims from Iraq, Syria, etc., which Trump advocates.

Exactly what Trump said. You are willing to be reckless with other folks lives, like the border police, national guards, and citizens of states that house refugees from these troubled regions, while being safe far away from any possible dangers of radical terrorism or an illegal immigrant . Thus why you're trying to stifle the discussion with nonsense fear tactics and deflect any accountability with non related issues like corporate greed. Shame on you

Jesus Christ. That's the entire point -- Most Americans ARE completely safe from threats of terrorists attacks. You are more likely to die in a car crash or the fukking flu than you are to be in a terror attack. If anyone is using nonsense fear tactics, it's you, Trump and those on the right who agree with this sentiment.

What the hell are you talking about? Illegal immigration and corporate greed work hand in hand. Capitalists enable immigrants by hiring them off the books with incredibly low wages. One hand washes the other.

If muslim citizens of the US are motivated to be radicalized by the USA efforts to address the dangers of free travel by citizens of these troubled regions, then it will only prove Trump to be incorrect about limiting his focus on radicalized islamist from troubled regions

So you're willing to be reckless with other folks lives?!

There's nothing to demonstrate. American interest and safety of the citizens is the priority. I have the right to feel safe because I'm a citizen of the USA, with a government assigned to serve and protect its tax payers and citizens

No, no, no, no. Your "right" to feel safe ends at the right of another individual to live freely. It would be akin to someone proposing that no black person who lived in Chicago, Detroit or Baltimore in the past 5 years could legally move to some suburb because the current residents didn't "feel safe" around blacks from there. You don't get to impede on other people's rights because of some prejudice feeling you have.

Take a second to think how ridiculous it is to question a citizens' right to feel safe and not compete with non citizens for jobs, then ask yourself what would motivate such an illogical reasoning of questions

You won't even take a second to demonstrate why you think this is a right, or how this will necessarily reduce the threat of terror attacks.

smh. There's nothing to be angry about because the concept of Border.Language.Culture. are innate to any country. The opposition voices to these fundamental pillars of a successful society proves that they are ignorant to basic functionality and responsibility of the government, citizens, and laws

Your poor attempts at trying to deflect accountability for illegal immigrants of Mexican decent, by talmbowt illegals from Europe and Canada, consequently undermines the fact that border control is important, safety is important, and the economy is affected by illegal immigration

I don't disagree those things are important. My argument is there are better ways to address and frame immigration than Donald Trump has.

I already explained to you why Mexican illegals became the focus because their numbers are higher and your kind decided to argue against the fact that these Mexican illegals are problematic. Thus the labeling of anti-mexican, racist, anti immigration etc

No, you refuse to provide any facts. You've just been asserting they are problematic. And your knee-jerk reaction to try to lump me in with the PC police makes you sound like a fool when you don't even know my position on these things. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but the way you debate is so piss poor that I have to constantly stop to point that out before we even get to my position.

Like typical intellectually dishonest individuals, you're posting an old video that support your argument. I don't need to post anything cause the same effort you put into searching for old footage, you could do the same for more recent footage, if you're motivated by attaining absolute truth/facts

So it's wrong for a leader of a country to want to eliminate any threats to the citizens of that country by acknowledging the existence of threats and willing to be proactive to address the threat?

It's irrelevant how old the video is if it accurately represents his position. I've posted a video from a few months ago, and a video from a few days ago with Trump expressing essentially the same thing in terms of immigration. It's dishonest to dismiss what I've presented as "old" or that I'm misrepresenting his position when I am quoting what comes out of his mouth verbatim. This isn't some off the cuff comment he made years ago, and now disagrees with. For you to pretend like it is is intellectually dishonest. And lazy to boot.

There's nothing wrong with protecting your constituents. My contention, for the thousandth time, is how he frames the issues and his "solutions" for improving them.

Once again, notice how I did not use any religion, race, or gender because you're focusing on the depictions of radicalized Muslims instead of the required duties of the President to do what it takes to keep the citizens safe. That's the dangers of being overly PC

I've mentioned in a few other threads, I'm a Bernie Supporter and I strive to attain absolute truth, regardless of the source. If Bernie lies, I will criticize him just as quick as I would Trump cause I want to be guided by facts, not liberal guilt drenched with PC motives

I'm not focusing on depictions, I'm using a specific example of homegrown terrorism in which Trump's proposition does not seem to address. It doesn't matter if the perpetrator was black or white, man or woman, religious or atheist. We should all be on high alert if the government seeks to target a specific group for ANY reason to restrict their rights.

SMH at the amount of times you've mentioned PC guilt. It's not about feeling guilty, it's about being weary of government overreach, and empathy. You're so up your own ass in anti-SWJ rhetoric that you can't relate.

You are drunk with liberal guilt, thus your pathetic deflection attempts bu bu what about corporate greed, while we're talmbowt something else

Already addressed this....we really aren't. But I'm two, three steps ahead of you.

This is the problem. If you need data about the innate problems illegal immigration has on a country, you don't need to be having such discussion because your rebuttals indicates your lack of indepth understanding of how a country function. If you don't know why Border.Language.Culture is important, then how are you arguing about the impact of illegal immigration. smh

I'm not arguing the impact of illegal immigration (neither are you really, but I digress). I'm arguing that you, Trump, and those on the right have not made the case that these propositions are 1) feasible, 2) moral, and 3) would actually address the problems they seek to solve. There's no need to respond with any more accusations of being too PC until you can demonstrate these.

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

Yes, a loophole. The bill would limit Muslims who could otherwise travel into the US from places like Europe without a visa. It removes the ability for them to use the expedited process of skipping obtaining a visa. Even if it becomes law, that's not the same thing as an outright ban of Muslims from Iraq, Syria, etc., which Trump advocates.

The House overwhelmingly passed legislation on Tuesday (407 to 19) that would overhaul the federal visa waiver program and bar those from Iraq, Syria, Iran and the Sudan, or those who have visited those countries in the last five years, from traveling to the United States without a visa

smh. the article clearly list the different conditions, those who travel and those who are from the trouble countries, but still you're only talmbowt travel loopholes. Nice try

Jesus Christ. That's the entire point -- Most Americans ARE completely safe from threats of terrorists attacks. You are more likely to die in a car crash or the fukking flu than you are to be in a terror attack. If anyone is using nonsense fear tactics, it's you, Trump and those on the right who agree with this sentiment.
What the hell are you talking about? Illegal immigration and corporate greed work hand in hand. Capitalists enable immigrants by hiring them off the books with incredibly low wages. One hand washes the other.

lol. When all else fails, use the good ol tactic of "compare the likely hood of different situations in order to deflect / minimize / shift the focus of the discussion" brehs

-You're more likely get hit by a car instead of getting the Zeka virus, so why worry?
-You're more likely to die from from choking from food than being exposed to radiation/electricity, so why worry?
-You're more likely to get stung by a bee than bitten by a dog, so why worry?
The mature and responsible answer is all the above could be addressed without sacrificing the relevance and minizing the dangers of the other. Nice try

Corporate greed?
-You might as well mention the families that hire an illegal as nannies,
-You might as well mention the weekend repair man that hires an illegal to help do the lawn,etc.
None of which is takes away from the point of the disscussion, which is the right for a country to protect its border. You broughtup corporate greed not looking for a solution but instead to deflect . Nice try

How do you know that doing that won't motivate current Muslim Americans to become radicalized?
So you're willing to be reckless with other folks lives?!

The blatant hypocrisy of your kind is laughable

While claiming Trump is wrong, you're suggesting a consequence to his solution by presenting Muslims as a monolith that will be radicalized because of the treatment of the extreme islamist. lol

You ethered yourself and expose the internal battle between trying to be PC and pragmatic. The mere possibility of radicalization of moderate Muslimsdue to the justified harsh treatment against extremist Muslims, should trigger concerns from any responsible and honest non-muslim

No, no, no, no. Your "right" to feel safe ends at the right of another individual to live freely. It would be akin to someone proposing that no black person who lived in Chicago, Detroit or Baltimore in the past 5 years could legally move to some suburb because the current residents didn't "feel safe" around blacks from there. You don't get to impede on other people's rights because of some prejudice feeling you have.
You won't even take a second to demonstrate why you think this is a right, or how this will necessarily reduce the threat of terror attacks.

Riiggghhhtttt cause comparing the violation of citizen's rights by other citizens is the same as protecting citizens from non-citizens terrorism/violence. Nice try

I don't disagree those things are important. My argument is there are better ways to address and frame immigration than Donald Trump has.

You are confused. How could you say you don't disagree with these pillars, but then talk about human rights to defend illegal immigration, which jeopardizes the integrity of these pillars?

You're constantly bringing up Muslims and Mexicans, even though I explained to you the approaches by both the government and Trump without referencing Muslims and Mexicans because of the innate responsibility to protect citizens rights and safety and to secure the border

Clearly you need the ethnicity,race and religious angle to feel justified, but I don't. What I've mentioned remain true even if you were to replace Mexicans and Muslims

No, you refuse to provide any facts. You've just been asserting they are problematic. And your knee-jerk reaction to try to lump me in with the PC police makes you sound like a fool when you don't even know my position on these things. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but the way you debate is so piss poor that I have to constantly stop to point that out before we even get to my position.

I'm all about facts, not emotions, thus I'm not focused on the depiction of a religion and race instead of solving/fighting terrorism and establishing border protection

Again it all goes back to your lack of understanding about Border.Language. Culture for you to suggest that I have a kneejerk reaction. Any person that has done basic research on the concepts of these three pillars, let alone taken classes about international policies and sovereignty, will not view my argument as a kneejerk reaction

It's irrelevant how old the video is if it accurately represents his position. I've posted a video from a few months ago, and a video from a few days ago with Trump expressing essentially the same thing in terms of immigration. It's dishonest to dismiss what I've presented as "old" or that I'm misrepresenting his position when I am quoting what comes out of his mouth verbatim. This isn't some off the cuff comment he made years ago, and now disagrees with. For you to pretend like it is is intellectually dishonest. And lazy to boot.
There's nothing wrong with protecting your constituents. My contention, for the thousandth time, is how he frames the issues and his "solutions" for improving them.

Hmm so old footage means nothing cause he said it...so the cliches and notions like
-people growing in their understanding of the world,
-time heals wounds
-people's opinions change with time
-bu bu I was young and dumb

are now irrelevant and doesn't apply to Trump cause you disagree lol

For the thousandth time, I've already pointed out your disagreement with his "framing" by showing you the effects of being a PC drunk that worries about the depiction of a religion and nationality instead of a solution to national security and economical stability

I'm not focusing on depictions, I'm using a specific example of homegrown terrorism in which Trump's proposition does not seem to address. It doesn't matter if the perpetrator was black or white, man or woman, religious or atheist. We should all be on high alert if the government seeks to target a specific group for ANY reason to restrict their rights.
SMH at the amount of times you've mentioned PC guilt. It's not about feeling guilty, it's about being weary of government overreach, and empathy. You're so up your own ass in anti-SWJ rhetoric that you can't relate.
Already addressed this....we really aren't. But I'm two, three steps ahead of you.

You finna worry about targeting a specific group, despite that group's actions is the epitome of PC guilt

As a blackman, I fight against both rogue cops and degenerate black folks
As a citizen, I fight against extremist muslims and illegal mexicans
As a human being, I fight against mentally unable humans

I'm not arguing the impact of illegal immigration (neither are you really, but I digress). I'm arguing that you, Trump, and those on the right have not made the case that these propositions are 1) feasible, 2) moral, and 3) would actually address the problems they seek to solve. There's no need to respond with any more accusations of being too PC until you can demonstrate these.

You wouldn't have to worry about moral if your intentions are motivated by the establishment of Border.Language.Culture, which has a focus on the government responsibility towards the citizens [no religion, no race, no gender]

Feasibility and practicality is only limited to how much you want to solve an issue and how susceptible you are to PC guilt

Feasibility and practicality for terrorism: The government has already passed a visa bill. What needs to happen next is legislation that will compliment the visa bill in allowing surveillance of mosque for radical agitators. The Muslim community in the USA needs to compliment those legislation with a social pressure that radical agitators should be reported and exiled from their community

Feasibility and practicality for immigration: There's no consequences that would deter folks to enter the USA illegally. Thus they enter, then wait a few years, then reveal themselves with a pity pitfalls of bu bu my child only know america, while ignoring they willingness to break the law for their personal benefit

-So establish consequences like not recognizing anchor babies,
-deportation of illegals and their family just like they deport legal residents who commit certain crimes,
-severely penalize companies and individuals who financially support illegals,
-social pressures should be established and narrative needs to be against illegals like it is for open racist, misogynist, pedophile etc

 

[NoMayo15]

smh. the article clearly list the different conditions, those who travel and those who are from the trouble countries, but still you're only talmbowt travel loopholes. Nice try

Wow you don't appear to even understand the legislation you're citing, nor realize that it's not actually law yet.

lol. When all else fails, use the good ol tactic of "compare the likely hood of different situations in order to deflect / minimize / shift the focus of the discussion" brehs

-You're more likely get hit by a car instead of getting the Zeka virus, so why worry?
-You're more likely to die from from choking from food than being exposed to radiation/electricity, so why worry?
-You're more likely to get stung by a bee than bitten by a dog, so why worry?
The mature and responsible answer is all the above could be addressed without sacrificing the relevance and minizing the dangers of the other. Nice try

Corporate greed?
-You might as well mention the families that hire an illegal as nannies,
-You might as well mention the weekend repair man that hires an illegal to help do the lawn,etc.
None of which is takes away from the point of the disscussion, which is the right for a country to protect its border. You brought up corporate greed not looking for a solution but instead to deflect . Nice try

The blatant hypocrisy of your kind is laughable

While claiming Trump is wrong, you're suggesting a consequence to his solution by presenting Muslims as a monolith that will be radicalized because of the treatment of the extreme islamist. lol

You ethered yourself and expose the internal battle between trying to be PC and pragmatic. The mere possibility of radicalization of moderate Muslimsdue to the justified harsh treatment against extremist Muslims, should trigger concerns from any responsible and honest non-muslim

I'm willing to bet you, like most people, don't concern themselves with the dangers of the zika virus or radiation exposure on a day to day basis. That's because we all realize that there is a hierarchy of concerns when we think about our health and safety.

When it comes to hiring illegals, small business owners are partially to blame too. But someone who hires a person for some daily lawncare is relatively insignificant compared to big agriculture.

I'm not suggesting Muslims act as a monolith. I'm asking if it's likely or not for a Muslim citizen to think they are justified in committing violence as a result of this policy. I think Trump is wrong, but not as much as you think I do.

Riiggghhhtttt cause comparing the violation of citizen's rights by other citizens is the same as protecting citizens from non-citizens terrorism/violence. Nice try

Yes...it is the same. Donald Trump is a citizen who happens to be running for POTUS. He is saying in order to protect himself and other citizens, we need to restrict temporarily (maybe) Muslims from entering the country. How is that fundamentally different from a City Councilman (or someone running for city council) saying that since rates of violence and rioting, inspired by the Black Lives Matter movement, have increased in the black community, that African Americans are restricted from traveling into his city for an unspecified amount of time, until they can figure out how to stop the crime from black people? If he makes some appeal to borders, language, or culture, does that justify this type of discrimination in your mind?

You are confused. How could you say you don't disagree with these pillars, but then talk about human rights to defend illegal immigration, which jeopardizes the integrity of these pillars?

I don't defend illegal immigration. I speak out against racial and religious persecution that this might possibly lead to.

I'm all about facts, not emotions, thus I'm not focused on the depiction of a religion and race instead of solving/fighting terrorism and establishing border protection

Again it all goes back to your lack of understanding about Border.Language. Culture for you to suggest that I have a kneejerk reaction. Any person that has done basic research on the concepts of these three pillars, let alone taken classes about international policies and sovereignty, will not view my argument as a kneejerk reaction

Quick question. Is Border.Language.Culture. you keep referencing borrowed from Michael Savage?

Hmm so old footage means nothing cause he said it...so the cliches and notions like
-people growing in their understanding of the world,
-time heals wounds
-people's opinions change with time
-bu bu I was young and dumb

are now irrelevant and doesn't apply to Trump cause you disagree lol

No, you misunderstand! You have a very arbitrary time frame for "old". Is something I say a day ago "old"? A month? A year? By what standard do you consider a position an old one?

My point is it doesn't matter when someone says it if they still hold that position. Con Man Trump has said the same thing 6 months ago that he said last week. His position on this hasn't changed. So bringing up those cliches are irrelevant here because his opinion hasn't changed.

For the thousandth time, I've already pointed out your disagreement with his "framing" by showing you the effects of being a PC drunk that worries about the depiction of a religion and nationality instead of a solution to national security and economical stability

Smh.

You finna worry about targeting a specific group, despite that group's actions is the epitome of PC guilt

As a blackman, I fight against both rogue cops and degenerate black folks
As a citizen, I fight against extremist muslims and illegal mexicans
As a human being, I fight against mentally unable humans

The fact that you DON'T CARE despite claiming to be a black man is troubling to me.

How often does some non-PoC attempt to justify the mistreatment of blacks because of "that group's actions"?

It's sad that you think it's only about being politically correct.

I speak out against degenerate people, too. But this rhetoric can be as dangerous as what radicals spew, and that's my concern.

Maybe the "fighting against" part is part of the problem.

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

Wow you don't appear to even understand the legislation you're citing, nor realize that it's not actually law yet.

Wow you obviously don't have critical thinking skills and are missing the overall point that both the government and Trump are targeting the same countries for the same reason by limiting their access to the USA....bu bu it's not law yet

I'm willing to bet you, like most people, don't concern themselves with the dangers of the zika virus or radiation exposure on a day to day basis. That's because we all realize that there is a hierarchy of concerns when we think about our health and safety.

When it comes to hiring illegals, small business owners are partially to blame too. But someone who hires a person for some daily lawncare is relatively insignificant compared to big agriculture.

I'm not suggesting Muslims act as a monolith. I'm asking if it's likely or not for a Muslim citizen to think they are justified in committing violence as a result of this policy. I think Trump is wrong, but not as much as you think I do.

Preach "hierarchy of concerns" while constantly trying to deflect from a concern that both the government and Trump is trying to address brehs...the notion of multitasking to address all levels of concerns is now far-fetch brehs

In a non-PC and pragmatic setting, your "if" scenario is not a wrong concern. But because you chose to paint yourself as a defender of how groups are depicted because you don't like Trump, then you are a hypocrite for even suggesting that "if" scenario since the only link between these members are their religion, which you are using as the core measure of a possible radicalization of American Muslims due to treatment of fellow muslims in other countries

Yes...it is the same. Donald Trump is a citizen who happens to be running for POTUS. He is saying in order to protect himself and other citizens, we need to restrict temporarily (maybe) Muslims from entering the country. How is that fundamentally different from a City Councilman (or someone running for city council) saying that since rates of violence and rioting, inspired by the Black Lives Matter movement, have increased in the black community, that African Americans are restricted from traveling into his city for an unspecified amount of time, until they can figure out how to stop the crime from black people? If he makes some appeal to borders, language, or culture, does that justify this type of discrimination in your mind?


I don't defend illegal immigration. I speak out against racial and religious persecution that this might possibly lead to.

Again. Riiggghhhtttt cause comparing the violation of citizen's rights by other citizens is the same as protecting citizens from non-citizens terrorism/violence. Nice try

Claim not to defend illegals by mentioning european illegals to stifle the discussion about the need for border control brehs

Quick question. Is Border.Language.Culture. you keep referencing borrowed from Michael Savage?

Yes. He pretty packaged the three independent concepts together that applies regardless of his existence and his pretty packaging throughout the years

No, you misunderstand! You have a very arbitrary time frame for "old". Is something I say a day ago "old"? A month? A year? By what standard do you consider a position an old one?

My point is it doesn't matter when someone says it if they still hold that position. Con Man Trump has said the same thing 6 months ago that he said last week. His position on this hasn't changed. So bringing up those cliches are irrelevant here because his opinion hasn't changed.
Smh.

smh. Old is old once a person, event, or entity changes
So if I post a link of Trump saying something different to that video you posted, then will you admit that you're wrong and are trying to argue just for the sake of arguing?

The fact that you DON'T CARE despite claiming to be a black man is troubling to me.

How often does some non-PoC attempt to justify the mistreatment of blacks because of "that group's actions"?

It's sad that you think it's only about being politically correct.

I speak out against degenerate people, too. But this rhetoric can be as dangerous as what radicals spew, and that's my concern.

Maybe the "fighting against" part is part of the problem.

Stop it. Personal responsibility means nothing if not complimented by societal responsibility, vice versa

How about we be adults and stop trying to quantify or calculate the likelyhood of something to measure its relevance. A white supremacist doesn't have to be white. So asking how often a non-PoC mistreats black doesn't add nothing to the discussion and doesn't support or oppose the existence of PoC mistreatment of blackfolks

How the hell could speaking out against degenerates be dangerous but not the degenerate's actions? A drug dealer is a drug dealer, but because of white supremacy and PC sufferers, there's a need to inject race like you've done consistently in this discussion

 

[NoMayo15]

Wow you obviously don't have critical thinking skills and are missing the overall point that both the government and Trump are targeting the same countries for the same reason by limiting their access to the USA....bu bu it's not law yet

90% of your posts are ad hominems to deflect. The House initial response is much more reasonable than Trump's. What point am I missing? I understand what the legislation does, and it does NOT temporarily ban Muslims until we "figure out what's going on". Nice try.

Preach "hierarchy of concerns" while constantly trying to deflect from a concern that both the government and Trump is trying to address brehs...the notion of multitasking to address all levels of concerns is now far-fetch brehs

In a non-PC and pragmatic setting, your "if" scenario is not a wrong concern. But because you chose to paint yourself as a defender of how groups are depicted because you don't like Trump, then you are a hypocrite for even suggesting that "if" scenario since the only link between these members are their religion, which you are using as the core measure of a possible radicalization of American Muslims due to treatment of fellow muslims in other countries

Another dodge. Nice try.

Again. Riiggghhhtttt cause comparing the violation of citizen's rights by other citizens is the same as protecting citizens from non-citizens terrorism/violence. Nice try

Claim not to defend illegals by mentioning european illegals to stifle the discussion about the need for border control brehs

Another dodge. Nice try.

Yes. He pretty packaged the three independent concepts together that applies regardless of his existence and his pretty packaging throughout the years

Lmao wow, so you can answer a direct question. Nice try.

smh. Old is old once a person, event, or entity changes
So if I post a link of Trump saying something different to that video you posted, then will you admit that you're wrong and are trying to argue just for the sake of arguing?

That's what I've been asking for this whole time. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong, but when I'm demonstrating that his position is the same as it was last week, it's dishonest to pretend he's position has changed. Are YOU willing to admit YOU'RE wrong, or are you just arguing to argue?

Stop it. Personal responsibility means nothing if not complimented by societal responsibility, vice versa

How about we be adults and stop trying to quantify or calculate the likelyhood of something to measure its relevance. A white supremacist doesn't have to be white. So asking how often a non-PoC mistreats black doesn't add nothing to the discussion and doesn't support or oppose the existence of PoC mistreatment of blackfolks

How the hell could speaking out against degenerates be dangerous but not the degenerate's actions? A drug dealer is a drug dealer, but because of white supremacy and PC sufferers, there's a need to inject race like you've done consistently in this discussion

Again, more strawmanning. I've never said a degenerate's actions are okay, but you've got it in your head that is my position. Like I said earlier, the overwhelming majority of your posts is misrepresenting my posts, and dismissing me as a SJW. My question there was rhetorical, but I'm guessing that went over your head. The fact that this type of prejudice happens at all is repugnant, but that exactly the sentiment you've been expressing throughout these posts.

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

90% of your posts are ad hominems to deflect. The House initial response is much more reasonable than Trump's. What point am I missing? I understand what the legislation does, and it does NOT temporarily ban Muslims until we "figure out what's going on". Nice try.
Another dodge. Nice try.
Another dodge. Nice try.
Lmao wow, so you can answer a direct question. Nice try.

100% of your post are deflections and poor attempts at policing the depiction of groups, at the expense of attaining a solution
You cannot be PC and be tough on terrorism and illegal immigration. you have already chosen your side, which has been implemented for decades in the government and society and the problem only got worst

That's what I've been asking for this whole time. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong, but when I'm demonstrating that his position is the same as it was last week, it's dishonest to pretend he's position has changed. Are YOU willing to admit YOU'RE wrong, or are you just arguing to argue?

now admit you're wrong

Again, more strawmanning. I've never said a degenerate's actions are okay, but you've got it in your head that is my position. Like I said earlier, the overwhelming majority of your posts is misrepresenting my posts, and dismissing me as a SJW. My question there was rhetorical, but I'm guessing that went over your head. The fact that this type of prejudice happens at all is repugnant, but that exactly the sentiment you've been expressing throughout these posts.

Show me where I mentioned you claiming degenerate action is okay?
How am I misrepresenting your post? I presented my case without mentioning a religion, race or gender. You injected into the discussion european illegals, blacks from Baltimore, corporate greed, and radicalized american muslims to deflect from the discussion of Mexicans illegals and non-citizen terrorism

Nuffin you've said could go over my head because it's all limited to race,religion, and gender. Once you eliminate that from the discussion, you're like fish outer water

 

[BrandonBanks]

"B-b-but, Hilary is worse, she carries hot sauce in her purse, and 'panders' by going to Roscoes Chicken and Waffles. Trump is just trolling"

 

[GzUp]

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.

Well said.

To trump he only sees white people as Americans, this is the reason that ONLY white people are supporting him... A VERY small number of minorities support him.

 

[NoMayo15]

100% of your post are deflections and poor attempts at policing the depiction of groups, at the expense of attaining a solution
You cannot be PC and be tough on terrorism and illegal immigration. you have already chosen your side, which has been implemented for decades in the government and society and the problem only got worst

I disagree.

now admit you're wrong

I'm not wrong. I've said multiple times this is his position. He says the same thing in my videos as he says here. You're either incredibly dense or trolling at this point.

Show me where I mentioned you claiming degenerate action is okay?
How am I misrepresenting your post? I presented my case without mentioning a religion, race or gender. You injected into the discussion european illegals, blacks from Baltimore, corporate greed, and radicalized american muslims to deflect from the discussion of Mexicans illegals and non-citizen terrorism

Nuffin you've said could go over my head because it's all limited to race,religion, and gender. Once you eliminate that from the discussion, you're like fish outer water

It was implied by asking how a wrongdoer's actions could not be seen as bad.

It wasn't a deflection. The post you originally responded to from me was a small quip implying that prejudice can also be detrimental to groups other than the primary targets. I don't necessarily have a problem with deporting illegals nor vetting Syrian, & Iraqi immigrants more closely. My main point was to point out the potential danger and infringement of rights of both Americans and those from abroad. And in my opinion, rhetoric from the likes of Donald Trump, and more so Michael Savage go well beyond what I think a leader should use. Its a matter of whether we're willing to give up certain liberties for the facade of safety. Clearly, you are.

 

[raw613]

I could point out issues where I am critical of most politicians when it comes to social and racial issues, but Trump goes out of his way to make bigotry his platform so I can't rationalize how anyone that claims not to condone that kind of thing could support the toupee nazi

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

I disagree.

You could disagree all you want, but notice you cannot refute the facts. The lack of border protection and the influx of illegals is not a new phenomenon. Folks like you kept impeding a solution. You make excuses for why not to do something, while not providing any alternate solution. Then pass the problem to the next administration. Rinse.wash.repeat

I'm not wrong. I've said multiple times this is his position. He says the same thing in my videos as he says here. You're either incredibly dense or trolling at this point.

You are wrong. You ignorantly and purposely said it was a ban of all muslims....I corrected you by saying it was a temporary ban targeting troubled countries, like the government is trying with its visa legislation

Furthermore, in my heist, I posted the wrong video. I meant to post the recent speech regarding the Orlando shooter

5:22 to 6:40 he explains the ban exactly how I said it was
Now admit you're wrong and fall back

It was implied by asking how a wrongdoer's actions could not be seen as bad.

It wasn't a deflection. The post you originally responded to from me was a small quip implying that prejudice can also be detrimental to groups other than the primary targets. I don't necessarily have a problem with deporting illegals nor vetting Syrian, & Iraqi immigrants more closely. My main point was to point out the potential danger and infringement of rights of both Americans and those from abroad. And in my opinion, rhetoric from the likes of Donald Trump, and more so Michael Savage go well beyond what I think a leader should use. Its a matter of whether we're willing to give up certain liberties for the facade of safety. Clearly, you are.

No, you wrongly interpreted it that way. I pointed out the typical PC way of looking at things from the depiction of the perpetrator's race,religion, and gender, while not focusing on the actions of the perpetrator

Here you are again talmbowt infringement of rights, but then including folks abroad. Only citizens and legal residents have rights in America

I'm for citizen rights and privacy, but I also realize that groups within groups are hard to investigate without the cooperation of the larger group, without oversight of the tactics used by law enforcement, without violating certain rights, and without maintaining perspective that the US is made up of immigrants

 

[BrandonBanks]

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

Lol they still won't. If after all we've experienced, nikkas are still lying to themselves, even Trump becoming president still won't incite any change in them. As long as these nikkas have access to p*ssy, food and their little trinkets (J's, video games, etc), they don't give a fukk. That's why nikkas are like sitting ducks, we don't prepare for shyt, we don't build, we just live in our own little reality and ignore what's happening around us. Brehs even lie to themselves and say we are in the same position as Asians and other minorities since we "all live under the system of white supremacy", they tell themselves black men are doing the same ownership and business-wise as Asians, Arabs, Latinos etc. . Brehs will lie to ourselves about our races collective position because the truth hurts I guess. They think because there are some brehs with good/decent jobs working for old cacs that everything is fine. We rely on cacs for everything, even jobs in their businesses, resources, food etc because they own and control companies whose we barely do. If a lot of cacs decided to just cut off brehs from their money and resources, would brehs have the resources to survive? Would brehs know how to get them without the white man's help? Could we rely on our own companies we built? Would we stand on our own two for once, or roam around complaining about "the Man" being mean to us? Would brehs start some sort of race war with cacs to fight for power? No. I'm not saying if Trump wins, it would be Armageddon, especially not overnight, but after a couple of years of a Trump presidency, nikkas will definitely miss Obama as their president (even though I think Obama has been a mediocre president at best). shyt would definitely get worse for blacks.

But nikkas nowadays are sitting ducks. Aside from maybe having that moment where it finally hits them like and what are they gonna do about it? Same thing they've been doing, NOTHING. They will complain on social media about Trump (who they allowed to beat HRC by not voting), and go back to their little job working for a cac (if they still have a job that is, because black unemployment rise significantly under Trump), spend whatever disposable income they may have on little toys and trinkets, be overly invested in rap music, athletes, etc. Police brutality will also increase as well as murders of innocent black men.

Y'all say Trump needs to win so that nikkas can finally "wake up", but they aren't gonna wake up, and even if they suddenly did finally understand what's really going on, they won't do anything about it, except complain. The same nikkas who aren't taking anything serious right now will be the most vocal if he wins. They'll be whining about how racist he is, how racist cacs are, etc. a bunch of dumb nikkas yo.

 

[FaTaL]

how do you profile a gay arab guy whose been married twice to women, drinks alcohol, and predict hes going to shoot up a gay club?

the only way to stop him was preventing him from buying those weapons

i dont think this guy was a real muslim, did he even go to a mosque?

 

[NoMayo15]

You could disagree all you want, but notice you cannot refute the facts. The lack of border protection and the influx of illegals is not a new phenomenon. Folks like you kept impeding a solution. You make excuses for why not to do something, while not providing any alternate solution. Then pass the problem to the next administration. Rinse.wash.repeat



You are wrong. You ignorantly and purposely said it was a ban of all muslims....I corrected you by saying it was a temporary ban targeting troubled countries, like the government is trying with its visa legislation

Furthermore, in my heist, I posted the wrong video. I meant to post the recent speech regarding the Orlando shooter

5:22 to 6:40 he explains the ban exactly how I said it was
Now admit you're wrong and fall back

Yeah, clearly you're just arguing just to argue at this point. There's only so long I'm willing to go back and forth, repeating the exact same thing to no avail. You post the EXACT SAME VIDEO I DID, YOU DUMB fukk. I even quoted specifically what he says in this video, verbatim. I'm not misrepresenting his position, you are.

Here you are again talmbowt infringement of rights, but then including folks abroad. Only citizens and legal residents have rights in America

This is NOT TRUE. Even enemy combatants who are fighting a war against the United States have certain basic human rights afforded to them. You just have a fundamental misunderstanding of US and international law. No wonder you support Trump in this. He loves those low information voters.