The debate "Donald Trump should never be allowed near the Whitehouse." was started by
December 27, 2015, 3:34 am.
40 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 17 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
historybuff posted 6 arguments, Sosocratese posted 1 argument, Pictobug_1 posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 6 arguments, bigB posted 14 arguments, Alex posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Pictobug_1, Sosocratese, confident, thatguy, athinus, jjrocks1738, asaru, Leara, waynemc15, Subjecate, swp16, mini101, truth_or_ture, srbanano, Monster, arethaarlynn12, progressive, xjackts, Band_Nerd_24 and 21 visitors agree.
iiks, PsychDave, bigB, Alex, young_debator2100, rob5998, Godfather98 and 10 visitors disagree.
Trumps supporters don't think of the long term ramifications of these actions. they think Muslims are bad so banning them is good. they don't bother thinking what this will do to them in the eyes of Muslims all over the world, including American Muslims.
the frustrating part is that Trump's advisors must be aware of what will happen and they advocate these things anyway.
Also, something which hasn't been touched upon is the fact that Trump's, er, "ideas", are EXACTLY what ISIS wants the west to do, they even said it themselves.
Demonise ALL Muslims in the hope it'll drive some of them into the arms of the extremists. And it'll work! And all of this is OK with Trump's supporters, not that any of them have given this ANY thought whatsoever. I f*cking despair of the stupidity.
Very well said.
To expand on psychdave's point, he also stated that he would be in favor of creating a database of Muslim Americans. This would mean he is in favor of singling out a group of people based on religious beliefs for extra scrutiny.
Furthermore, he has stated that he is in favor of shutting down mosques. Another case of singling out a group of people not based on ill intent, but because of religious affiliation. He is also willing to violate the 4th amendment and conduct warrantless wiretapping on mosques.
You can think what you like about Islam (I myself have very strong opinions in opposition to islam) however, I'm not willing to sacrifice our principles for safety from events that are actually quite rare. To illustrate this point, look at the numbers.
Between 2005 and 2015 we have had 71 deaths on American soil due to extremist attacks but in that same time frame, we have had 301,797 gun deaths. If we're not willing to compromise on the 2nd amendment in the face of such staggering numbers, why should we compromise on the 4th in light of 71 deaths?
Trump called for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." he said this out of fear of radical Islamic terrorists sneaking into the US. This is why I compared it to fear of Christian terrorists from the IRA.
The first problem with this is what has already been pointed out, that this is directly counter to the principles of religious freedom on which the nation was founded.
The second problem is that he did not say he wanted to stop Muslim immigration, he said he wants to ban Muslims from entering the US. This could include us citizens who are travelling, which would certainly be unconstitutional, unless you have an argument about why banning citizens from reentering the country based on their religious beliefs is not.
ok so tell me what this conversation is about.....
On what grounds should Muslims be discriminated against?
Do you honestly not understanding the conversation you are participating in and where it stems from?
What terrorist organization from the middle east was brought up in this conversation?
Well anything in the middle east that threatens the US or her citizens, or her allies. The US will be involved. What the Irish are doing and what's going on in Northern Ireland does not threaten the United States or her interest
I'm arguing banning foreign Muslims (non US citizens) is not unconstitutional, that's what this is about
Since when does anything in the middle east? I am equating two terrorist organizations and questioning the application of different logic to each of them.
I'm confused what you are arguing here and how you think it supports Trump's idea of banning all Muslims.
No, again you are wrong. The Supreme Court has shot down any challenge, in modern day court, associated with the discrimination of race, national origin, and political beliefs.
Since when does anything in Ireland have to do with the United States?
For comparison, would you agree with closing the border to all Christians due to the actions of the IRA?
again, it is Constitutional to ban someone based on political beliefs, not religious. they are not the same thing. a communist will want to bring about communism. so banning communism made sense, kind of. Muslims do not all have the same political beliefs. their religion is not a threat to you, only those who are extremists. so banning 1.6 billion people, nearly a quarter of the world's population, for what a tiny fraction of them believe is unconstitutional and immoral.
Jimmy Carter did that*
Ok let's try one more time; the plenary power doctrine and the Supreme Court say it's unconstitutional to ban a group of people based off of political ideology, and Jimmy Carter said that. I don't care if you like Trump are not, the idea is the ability to be able to call a spade a spade and not over looking a decision based off political ideas.
but not based on religion. no one has ever banned a religious group from entering America. your country was founded on the protection of religious freedoms. anyone trying to curtail those freedoms, regardless of the religion they are persecuting, is an attack on the foundation of what America stands for.
Jimmy Carter banned a group based on politics
I don't say you couldn't ban a group. I said you can't ban a religion. those are very different policies.
With your thought Jimmy Carter did something unconstitutional. He banned a certain group of people. That would be unconstitutional in your opinion. So if a Liberal does it then it's okay but someone you don't politically agree with then it's wrong. I don't understand, I'm lost on how you can say one is okay but another is not
and Jimmy Carter banned people from a specific country, not a religion. it isn't the same thing.
yes it is unconstitutional. until a court rules that it is allowed, it falls under freedom of religion. and we aren't only talking about immigration. he said he wants to ban all Muslims from entering the country. it is not the same thing. so in short, it is entirely unconstitutional.
it is a terrible idea because it is an attack on the fundamental values of your country. if he can discriminate against Muslims then he can discriminate against any religion, at any time.
it also makes it that much harder to stop the cycle of violence. telling all Muslims they are not welcome, when everyone else is welcome, is knky going to make Muslim extremism worse. making America the undeniable enemy of Islam. that is a war you can't win, not without exterminating the third largest religious group on the planet. not to mention several American allies.
So tell me, if you think Trump's stance on this issue is unconstitutional then what do you feel about Jimmy Carter's stance when he was president? Or, the US closing it's borders during the greatest migration in history?
Ok a terrible idea, so technically not unconstitutional. How would it be a terrible idea?
I looked up plenary power. the courts have held that banning someone on the grounds of their political opinion or specific practices is permissible. but no one has ever ruled that someone can be banned on the grounds of their religion. it has never happened. the courts might allow it. but as of this moment there is no ruling allowing it. so no, plenary power does not make this Constitutional. and even if he could get away with it, it is an absolutely terrible idea.
look up plenary power doctrine in the case of 1972 and the case of 1896 I believe
how is it unconstitutional? To US citizens yes, to non US citizens no
and since trump is advocating banning Muslims from the country, which violates the Constitution and is there illegal, that means that if he isn't already he's going to be a criminal in office. that is much worse.
Again, until Hilary Clinton is actually charged and convicted she is not a criminal. I don't think she is the best choice for president, but if the best argument you have against her is to blatantly lie, you don't have a strong case.
rather have trump then crimminals. (Hillary and sanders)
better than a guy who spent 176 days as a senator and only job before that was a community organizer and spent his time hanging out with Marxist. But ok....
If he pays his money he has every right to take the tour.