Judgments are opinions. The fear in your opinion is poorly founded, but in my judgment it is not. It is completely rational in my judgement.
So you aren't afraid of radical Islam, because that seems like a huge backtrack compared to what you have been posting. And tell me what is the fear in my opinion that you seem to think is there?
My fear of radical Islam...you think it is poorly founded.
My fear of radical Islam...you think it is poorly founded.
Well it is but that is not an answer to my previous question. You accused my opinion of being based in fear, I ask again what fear is there in my thought process?
My fear of radical Islam...you think it is poorly founded.
Well it is but that is not an answer to my previous question. You accused my opinion of being based in fear, I ask again what fear is there in my thought process?
No I didn't. The fear is poorly founded in your opinion, in my opinion it is not. Is english your first language?
My fear of radical Islam...you think it is poorly founded.
Well it is but that is not an answer to my previous question. You accused my opinion of being based in fear, I ask again what fear is there in my thought process?
No I didn't. The fear is poorly founded in your opinion, in my opinion it is not. Is english your first language?
The fear<,> in your opinion<,> is poorly founded but in my judgment it is not.(commas added)
If this is what you meant then you need some punctuation.
And no need to get nasty its a civil discussion.
How does calling it fear mongering show bias?
My fear of radical Islam...you think it is poorly founded.
Well it is but that is not an answer to my previous question. You accused my opinion of being based in fear, I ask again what fear is there in my thought process?
No I didn't. The fear is poorly founded in your opinion, in my opinion it is not. Is english your first language?
The fear<,> in your opinion<,> is poorly founded but in my judgment it is not.(commas added)
If this is what you meant then you need some punctuation.
And no need to get nasty its a civil discussion.
How does calling it fear mongering show bias?
See you knew what I meant. You are pointing out you made a red herring. Because calling an opinion fear mongering makes it seem like it is not based on facts. It is, but your interpretation of that is fear mongering.
See you knew what I meant. You are pointing out you made a red herring. Because calling an opinion fear mongering makes it seem like it is not based on facts. It is but your interpretation of that is fear mongering.
I was confused by your statement till your previous post. perhaps make your point more clear next time.
I call it fear mongering precisely because it is not routed in facts. No good statistical data shows that banning all Muslims is a logical response to actions a few extremists.
See you knew what I meant. You are pointing out you made a red herring. Because calling an opinion fear mongering makes it seem like it is not based on facts. It is but your interpretation of that is fear mongering.
I was confused by your statement till your previous post. perhaps make your point more clear next time.
I call it fear mongering precisely because it is not routed in facts. No good statistical data shows that banning all Muslims is a logical response to actions a few extremists.
Your definition of a few is different than mine. You see at most 20 percent, I see 80 million. We are both right in seeing that. You value helping other people, I value insuring the security of my family in this instance. Angry and fearful does not mean a person is wrong.
Your definition of a few is different than mine. You see at most 20 percent, I see 80 million. We are both right in seeing that. You value helping other people, I value insuring the security of my family in this instance.
At what point was the security of your family in jeopardy?
Your definition of a few is different than mine. You see at most 20 percent, I see 80 million. We are both right in seeing that. You value helping other people, I value insuring the security of my family in this instance.
At what point was the security of your family in jeopardy?
I am increasing the number of people that want to kill me within killing distance of me. Unless you are saying no radical jihadists would not use immigration programs to come into the United States?
Your definition of a few is different than mine. You see at most 20 percent, I see 80 million. We are both right in seeing that. You value helping other people, I value insuring the security of my family in this instance.
At what point was the security of your family in jeopardy?
I am increasing the number of people that want to kill me within killing distance of me. Unless you are saying no radical jihadists would not use immigration programs to come into the United States?
So you believe a reasonable reaction to this fear is to block all people from a particular religious affiliation and not simply screen immigrants for reasonable suspicion of extremism as has served us well for nearly fifteen years now.
Your definition of a few is different than mine. You see at most 20 percent, I see 80 million. We are both right in seeing that. You value helping other people, I value insuring the security of my family in this instance.
At what point was the security of your family in jeopardy?
I am increasing the number of people that want to kill me within killing distance of me. Unless you are saying no radical jihadists would not use immigration programs to come into the United States?
So you believe a reasonable reaction to this fear is to block all people from a particular religious affiliation and not simply screen immigrants for reasonable suspicion of extremism as has served us well for nearly fifteen years now.
There is no viable screen, to be fair there is no viable muslim screen either. We would not have had cases like the shoe bomber if there was.
There is no viable screen, to be fair there is no viable muslim screen either. We would not have had cases like the shoe bomber if there was.
Are you referring to the 2001 shoe bombing incident in which the bomb failed? In which the flight originated from outside the county? Unless you are proposing that we inhibit France's national sovereignty to allow whoever they choose onto a plane then a ban on Muslims would not have prevented that attack.
There is no viable screen, to be fair there is no viable muslim screen either. We would not have had cases like the shoe bomber if there was.
Your go to example is a White/Jamaican convert? What plans do you have for American citizens who become radicalized in situ?
Regardless of your answer, it seems that, in terms of numbers, citizens that are already here becoming radicalized might be the danger that should be concentrated on. Like Trump, who this thread is supposedly about, many Americans want to focus on outside people being the problem. No one can deny that being welcoming has dangers. However, can it be proved that those dangers outweigh the positives?
Your definition of a few is different than mine. You see at most 20 percent, I see 80 million. We are both right in seeing that. You value helping other people, I value insuring the security of my family in this instance.
At what point was the security of your family in jeopardy?
I am increasing the number of people that want to kill me within killing distance of me. Unless you are saying no radical jihadists would not use immigration programs to come into the United States?
So you believe a reasonable reaction to this fear is to block all people from a particular religious affiliation and not simply screen immigrants for reasonable suspicion of extremism as has served us well for nearly fifteen years now.
Funny enough, that's exactly what Trump wants to do. He's proposing a three year temporary ban on immigration from Countries for some reason he hasn't directly specified, but we all know which countries he is talking about in the middle east. The ban could even be lifted before then if we figured out a better way to screen for potential Islamic extremists. It's a preventative measure, and at least in my opinion, is completely reasonable. The President has the power to stop immigration to the country for a reason. It's not like it hasn't already been done before in the past.
Anyway, someone asked me why I support Emperor Trump. I've explained this a lot before so I'll just copy and paste one of my most recent exchanges with a Bernie supporter;
"But Trump is racist!!"
No. He's not politically correct and refuses to ever apologize for anything non-PC he might do or say, because he knows what happens when you start giving in. But that's all.
On the content of his policies, he said that he wanted to stop illegal immigration, but that he would then welcome back those who want to respect the law, work and contribute to the country. He also proposed a temporary freeze on the immigration of Muslim foreigners, until Congress can set up an adequate vetting process to avoid islamists and jihadists from coming. First of all immigrating to the US is not a right that everyone in the world has; it is a privilege granted by the US Government. Secondly, it is just very natural prudence, not hatred. It's a fact that plenty of Muslims hate the US and would gladly commit atrocities there. A minority of them of course, but still more than among any other demographic, and for now you apparently can't tell well enough the radicals from the moderates. Also this policy of banning immigration from certain countries has a lot of precedent, including from Jimmy Carter. Finally even if he was prejudiced against Islam, it's an ideology to be judged and criticized, not a race that is in people's genes. And in my opinion, it does deserve a lot of criticism.
Trump is by the way officially endorsed by many minority figures, by the National Black Republican Association, and defended by the leader of Nation of Islam himself. And he polls quite well among minorities too. Trump is a far-right Republican
Absolutely not. Trump is a pragmatist about the economy and a moderate liberal on social issues. He's always been pro-LGBT, supporting civil unions giving the same rights as marriage, also in favour of anti-discrimination laws including in employment. He's criticized Kim Davis, wanted Caitlyn Jenner as a judge in his beauty pageant contests, and considers the question of gay marriage definitively settled by the Supreme Court. He had a change of mind on abortion and now considers himself pro-life, but he wouldn't try and ban it like most Republican candidates would (implying they could, which is false). In many ways Trump is to the left of Clinton. His economic and trade policy is entirely aimed at bringing back jobs for the blue-collar workers. He wants to lower taxes for the poor and end all loopholes for the rich and the multi-national corporations. He was the first to talk about corporate inversion, etc. Trump is an opportunist and a flip-flopper who says anything to get elected
There are a few things Trump says that are obvious pandering, and it's very easy to notice if you don't have brain damage. First of all when he talks about the Bible and Christianity. It's obvious he's not religious. And you'll notice he tries as hard as he can not to pretend and lie, which is why he prefers saying "Under President Trump people will say Merry Christmas again" rather than some of the actually threatening things other Republicans might say.
But then, what about the core of his message? Fixing the abysmal trade deficit, taking back jobs and defending the country's interests when negociating deals, instead of working as the world police for the benefit of multinational corporations. He has been saying the exact same things for 30 years. During this interview with Oprah in 88' for instance.
I think I can believe him when he says that he's supported politicians for decades and decades but they always either lose or sell out to even bigger and richer special interests, so now he had enough and wants to fix the country by himself, without owing anything to donors.
Also, is Trump a flip-flopper on social issues? On abortion, as I said, he did have a change of mind. But otherwise, no. What changed is the majority opinion. When Trump campaigned for civil unions equal to marriage for gay people, he was more progressive than Hillary Clinton. Now when he says the exact same things he's considered a conservative or even a homophobe, simply because of the question of whether to call it "marriage" or not. Trump is stupid and speaks like a 4th grader
Trump is on the contrary very intelligent and extremely powerful at persuasion, as his poll numbers show. His speech is very much researched so as to be as persuasive as possible, by using very simple and strong words on purpose, repeating simple and short messages over and over, etc. We don't notice it because Trump has been practicing this for decades and decades and it has become natural for him. But if you watch old interviews when he's young he speaks like a well-educated person. Trump is a megalomaniac and a narcissist First of all you might think of all the things he has put his name on, all the products he launched like Trump Ice or Trump Steak, or the Trump Game, or the Trump dolls, his own reality TV, etc. What do you think it means? Trump managed over the course of his life to change his name into an iconic brand, and most of those ridiculous projects were to put it simply, communication campaigns.
Also, a big part of Trump's philosophy of life (and one of the reasons for his business success) is his very optimistic thinking. It can be expressed by those rules: "Never apologize, never concede defeat or inferiority, never give up". Trump is the embodiment of all those "self-help" books that tell you how to become successful (or the ones he wrote): he convinces himself that he is absolutely great and special and can achieve anything he wants, and no obstacle or setback ever give him any doubt about his chances. That's why he brags so much.
But he is not a narcissist because he has absolutely no fear of being ridiculous. That's why he comes to TV to get roasted without a problem, or reads Jimmy Kimmel's mock-chidren book to his own grand-daughter. Other example, his hair: everyone makes fun of it, the Donald doesn't give a ****, he keeps the same funny hairstyle and is proud of it. Trump would bring WWIII or something like that
Nonsense. Trump is for a big military and technological advantage over potential enemies, but he is absolutely not pro-war. He was opposed to the Iraq War in 2003 for instance. And he is basically the only one advocating better relations with Russia, and cooperation with them in Syria to wipe out ISIS. Trump seems also like the best strategist to solve the ISIS situation quickly and restaure some stability. He was the first to propose to destroy their oil fields and so ruin them financially. He is now the only one advocating the creation of a safe protected zone in Syria to host the refugees, solving the crisis that has spread in Europe while protecting civilians. Others are also obsessed with the idea of a regime change in Syria, and give weapons to insurgents who will only make the war longer and bloodier, leading to chaos, anarchy and more refugees. I think that Trump, with his good strategy skills, his impressive capacity to persuade people, and his possible good relations with Putin, would easily negotiate a deal for Syria, so that the State can rebuild in peace and stability and Bashar al-Assad can leave power to his right-hand without violence or trouble.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Mhjames: mtgsalvation: I DON'T SEE HOW THIS CARD IS GOOD. I KNOW PATRICK CHAPIN USED IT AND WENT 8-0, BUT THAT WAS A SMALL TOURNAMENT. THE CARD IS TOO SLOW. YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THE OPPONENT HAS A SPELL IN THE GRAVEYARD
There is no viable screen, to be fair there is no viable muslim screen either. We would not have had cases like the shoe bomber if there was.
Your go to example is a White/Jamaican convert? What plans do you have for American citizens who become radicalized in situ?
Regardless of your answer, it seems that, in terms of numbers, citizens that are already here becoming radicalized might be the danger that should be concentrated on. Like Trump, who this thread is supposedly about, many Americans want to focus on outside people being the problem. No one can deny that being welcoming has dangers. However, can it be proved that those dangers outweigh the positives?
We are talking about islamists, not sure what White/Jamaican has to do with that. Also, you can't prove that the dangers outweigh the benefits because that is a value judgment. Finding the pros and cons is a critical judgment. As for americans that become radicalized I am not sure there are any good answers to it. A better mental health system is probably the best we can do.
We are talking about islamists, not sure what White/Jamaican has to do with that. Also, you can't prove that the dangers outweigh the benefits because that is a value judgment. Finding the pros and cons is a critical judgment.
My point is that your example, The Shoe Bomber, was a radicalized citizen. He may be a "foreigner" to you, but what Trump, and you by proxy, are suggesting would do little to stop British citizens, like the aforementioned Shoe Bomber,or our own citizens that are already here, from becoming radicalized and harming your family. And, again, that is more likely to happen than terrorists going through a screening process to enter our country that takes months and creates the chance, however small, that they might get caught. You are worried about a leaky faucet while Hurricane Katrina swirls around you.
I agree with your last point. Obviously, our critical judgments do not align!
"But Trump is racist!!"
No. He's not politically correct and refuses to ever apologize for anything non-PC he might do or say, because he knows what happens when you start giving in. But that's all.
On the content of his policies, he said that he wanted to stop illegal immigration, but that he would then welcome back those who want to respect the law, work and contribute to the country. He also proposed a temporary freeze on the immigration of Muslim foreigners, until Congress can set up an adequate vetting process to avoid islamists and jihadists from coming. First of all immigrating to the US is not a right that everyone in the world has; it is a privilege granted by the US Government. Secondly, it is just very natural prudence, not hatred. It's a fact that plenty of Muslims hate the US and would gladly commit atrocities there. A minority of them of course, but still more than among any other demographic, and for now you apparently can't tell well enough the radicals from the moderates. Also this policy of banning immigration from certain countries has a lot of precedent, including from Jimmy Carter. Finally even if he was prejudiced against Islam, it's an ideology to be judged and criticized, not a race that is in people's genes. And in my opinion, it does deserve a lot of criticism.
Trump is by the way officially endorsed by many minority figures, by the National Black Republican Association, and defended by the leader of Nation of Islam himself. And he polls quite well among minorities too.
His original statement on the Muslim ban wanted to exclude all Muslims currently outside the country. This would have included legal Muslim immigrants currently abroad, students on study abroad programs who were Muslims, and American born citizens who were Muslims and currently out of the country. He had to immediately change this position due to massive backlash. He has also said that the illegal immigrants that Mexico sends us are killers and rapists. Among other things it seems like a pretty strong voice of racism. Additionally he is clearly sexist based on many of the things he has said to and about women.
Trump is an opportunist and a flip-flopper who says anything to get elected
There are a few things Trump says that are obvious pandering, and it's very easy to notice if you don't have brain damage. First of all when he talks about the Bible and Christianity. It's obvious he's not religious. And you'll notice he tries as hard as he can not to pretend and lie, which is why he prefers saying "Under President Trump people will say Merry Christmas again" rather than some of the actually threatening things other Republicans might say.
But then, what about the core of his message? Fixing the abysmal trade deficit, taking back jobs and defending the country's interests when negociating deals, instead of working as the world police for the benefit of multinational corporations. He has been saying the exact same things for 30 years. During this interview with Oprah in 88' for instance.
I think I can believe him when he says that he's supported politicians for decades and decades but they always either lose or sell out to even bigger and richer special interests, so now he had enough and wants to fix the country by himself, without owing anything to donors.
Also, is Trump a flip-flopper on social issues? On abortion, as I said, he did have a change of mind. But otherwise, no. What changed is the majority opinion. When Trump campaigned for civil unions equal to marriage for gay people, he was more progressive than Hillary Clinton. Now when he says the exact same things he's considered a conservative or even a homophobe, simply because of the question of whether to call it "marriage" or not.
The only issue he has been clearly consistent on is taking jobs back from China (with no actual plan on how this might be done I might add) and building a wall with funds from Mexico (again with no plan of execution.) He has been on both sides of nearly every other issue that has been brought up this election cycle.
Trump is a megalomaniac and a narcissist
Also, a big part of Trump's philosophy of life (and one of the reasons for his business success) is his very optimistic thinking. It can be expressed by those rules: "Never apologize, never concede defeat or inferiority, never give up". Trump is the embodiment of all those "self-help" books that tell you how to become successful (or the ones he wrote): he convinces himself that he is absolutely great and special and can achieve anything he wants, and no obstacle or setback ever give him any doubt about his chances. That's why he brags so much.
But he is not a narcissist because he has absolutely no fear of being ridiculous. That's why he comes to TV to get roasted without a problem, or reads Jimmy Kimmel's mock-chidren book to his own grand-daughter. Other example, his hair: everyone makes fun of it, the Donald doesn't give a ****, he keeps the same funny hairstyle and is proud of it.
Part of being a politician is being able to compromise. Personally I do not see his stubbornness as a benefit to taking office. Additionally the president is supposed to be the face of our nation, the thing that everyone sees when they think of America. I really don't want a goofy haired bigot in the minds of other world leaders. How is anyone supposed to take this man seriously when he was having an actual **** measuring contest on the Republican debate stage last week.
The only issue he has been clearly consistent on is taking jobs back from China (with no actual plan on how this might be done I might add) and building a wall with funds from Mexico (again with no plan of execution.) He has been on both sides of nearly every other issue that has been brought up this election cycle.
Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]. We will not be taken advantage of anymore.
The estimated 10 billion to pay for the wall is nothing compared to how much Mexico will lose if they refuse. This is a best case scenario and I'm well aware of the hurdles and hoops he will have to jump through to get how he will get Mexico to pay for it to happen.
I really don't want a goofy haired bigot in the minds of other world leaders. How is anyone supposed to take this man seriously when he was having an actual **** measuring contest on the Republican debate stage last week.
With respect, 'goofy haired bigot', as well as your above mentioned 'sexist' remark are part of the reason we are supporting him so heavily. Extremely tired of the PC culture and personal insults directed at our candidate. He's a loud mouthed goofball; so what? Hillary is a potential felon, Bernie has ties with supporting Communism in the past, and Cruz is campaigning with an actual real outspoken homophobe. Furthermore, you have no idea how the rest of the world's leaders will react to negotiating with Trump.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Mhjames: mtgsalvation: I DON'T SEE HOW THIS CARD IS GOOD. I KNOW PATRICK CHAPIN USED IT AND WENT 8-0, BUT THAT WAS A SMALL TOURNAMENT. THE CARD IS TOO SLOW. YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THE OPPONENT HAS A SPELL IN THE GRAVEYARD
We are talking about islamists, not sure what White/Jamaican has to do with that. Also, you can't prove that the dangers outweigh the benefits because that is a value judgment. Finding the pros and cons is a critical judgment.
My point is that your example, The Shoe Bomber, was a radicalized citizen. He may be a "foreigner" to you, but what Trump, and you by proxy, are suggesting would do little to stop British citizens, like the aforementioned Shoe Bomber,or our own citizens that are already here, from becoming radicalized and harming your family. And, again, that is more likely to happen than terrorists going through a screening process to enter our country that takes months and creates the chance, however small, that they might get caught. You are worried about a leaky faucet while Hurricane Katrina swirls around you.
I agree with your last point. Obviously, our critical judgments do not align!
I don't think anyone ever said his plan would work perfectly. He wants to ban all muslims. He would have banned the shoe bomber in a plan that works perfectly. Your position is because we have bigger problems we shouldn't fix the smaller ones. Also our critical judgments probably do align our value judgments do not.
I will let someone better than me dissect this post, but one thing I failed to read in that post was what does Trump do that's good?
In one of the last debates, he pretty much admitted the healthcare plan he is talking about for fixing ACA is pretty much non-existent. His method for stopping illegal immigration is to build a giant ******* wall (I don't think it's going to work the way he wants it to). The only good thing I can think about him is compared to the other candidates on the right, he is much more likely to work with a Congress on the other side of the party line.
I will let someone better than me dissect this post, but one thing I failed to read in that post was what does Trump do that's good?
In one of the last debates, he pretty much admitted the healthcare plan he is talking about for fixing ACA is pretty much non-existent. His method for stopping illegal immigration is to build a giant ******* wall (I don't think it's going to work the way he wants it to). The only good thing I can think about him is compared to the other candidates on the right, he is much more likely to work with a Congress on the other side of the party line.
I explained what Trump can do that's good. I used his actual track record as an example. And as far as his Healthcare plan, since the debate you're likely talking about, I think 2 or 3 debates ago, he has released his healthcare plan. It's not without it's flaws, but it's certainly not at all what I expected;
Mhjames: mtgsalvation: I DON'T SEE HOW THIS CARD IS GOOD. I KNOW PATRICK CHAPIN USED IT AND WENT 8-0, BUT THAT WAS A SMALL TOURNAMENT. THE CARD IS TOO SLOW. YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THE OPPONENT HAS A SPELL IN THE GRAVEYARD
I don't think anyone ever said his plan would work perfectly. He wants to ban all muslims. He would have banned the shoe bomber in a plan that works perfectly. Your position is because we have bigger problems we shouldn't fix the smaller ones. Also our critical judgments probably do align our value judgments do not.
I am saying it won't work. In a "ban all muslims" plan how will you know who is the radicalized Muslim? Your the one that doesn't trust our screening. They don't wear signs when they become radicalized, after all. Trying to stop Muslim looking people from Muslim countries - whatever those are - is ridiculous.
My position is not "we have bigger problems we shouldn't fix smaller ones," though we do have bigger ones, but that the proposed solution - as exemplified by your example - will not work. Reid looked and sounded like a British person, because he was one, and unless you are going to make them wear gold stars, there would be no way of knowing he was a Muslim.
On top of this, I wonder whether the gains from keeping people out outweigh the negatives from keeping people out.
So, our critical judgments do not align. I don't find a "ban all muslims" plan to be a viable solution, I doubt its efficacy, and I wonder whether such a plan would be a net positive.
I also think it is reprehensible - so there you are correct, our values do not align.
Regardless, it seems clear that we have argued this into the ground.
The only issue he has been clearly consistent on is taking jobs back from China (with no actual plan on how this might be done I might add) and building a wall with funds from Mexico (again with no plan of execution.) He has been on both sides of nearly every other issue that has been brought up this election cycle.
Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]. We will not be taken advantage of anymore.
The estimated 10 billion to pay for the wall is nothing compared to how much Mexico will lose if they refuse. This is a best case scenario and I'm well aware of the hurdles and hoops he will have to jump through to get how he will get Mexico to pay for it to happen.
Trump's plan does nothing to address the core issue behind the source of the illegal immigration which is that there is a lack of economic opportunities in the countries these people are leaving. Until that issue is resolved then no wall or economic sanctions will stop people from trying to enter our country illegally. To be clear I am not saying that the US needs to attempt to fix Mexico's economy but understanding the actual source of the issue is key to forming a lasting solution instead of a band-solution that is very costly like Trump wants.
I really don't want a goofy haired bigot in the minds of other world leaders. How is anyone supposed to take this man seriously when he was having an actual **** measuring contest on the Republican debate stage last week.
With respect, 'goofy haired bigot', as well as your above mentioned 'sexist' remark are part of the reason we are supporting him so heavily. Extremely tired of the PC culture and personal insults directed at our candidate. He's a loud mouthed goofball; so what? Hillary is a potential felon, Bernie has ties with supporting Communism in the past, and Cruz is campaigning with an actual real outspoken homophobe. Furthermore, you have no idea how the rest of the world's leaders will react to negotiating with Trump.
I can tell you that if we do not take him seriously then I find it hard to believe that Putin or Xi Jinping will. And I actually do not see PC talk as a bad thing, how bad is it that political candidates should treat each other with respect instead the circus show that is Trump. I mean come on in the last debate the size of his ***** was actually a point of conversation. How is that okay for a man that wants to be president of the united states.
I explained what Trump can do that's good. I used his actual track record as an example. And as far as his Healthcare plan, since the debate you're likely talking about, I think 2 or 3 debates ago, he has released his healthcare plan. It's not without it's flaws, but it's certainly not at all what I expected;
I don't think anyone ever said his plan would work perfectly. He wants to ban all muslims. He would have banned the shoe bomber in a plan that works perfectly. Your position is because we have bigger problems we shouldn't fix the smaller ones. Also our critical judgments probably do align our value judgments do not.
How do you suppose an American ban on Muslims would have prevented a Muslim from boarding a plane in France?
I apologize for not using the correct format when addressing people, as I haven't used this site in quite some time and find the mechanics frustrating. Bare with me;
Trump's plan does nothing to address the core issue behind the source of the illegal immigration which is that there is a lack of economic opportunities in the countries these people are leaving. Until that issue is resolved then no wall or economic sanctions will stop people from trying to enter our country illegally. To be clear I am not saying that the US needs to attempt to fix Mexico's economy but understanding the actual source of the issue is key to forming a lasting solution instead of a band-solution that is very costly like Trump wants.
There is a lack of economic opportunities in poor rural counties as well as inner cities here in America. A focus needs to be put on our own people before we worry about what's happening in other countries. I'm glad to see you realize we shouldn't be attempting to fix Mexico's economy, but in ignoring it our economy is suffering an estimated $150 billion annually from money sent back to Mexico by illegals here alone. This isn't even taken into consideration how much we spend on health care for illegal immigrants. It needs to be either stopped entirely or controlled. I'm not even for a gigantic wall completely. I just don't see any other way to curve illegal immigration. I'm open to being enlightened.
I mean come on in the last debate the size of his ***** was actually a point of conversation. How is that okay for a man that wants to be president of the united states.
Did you watch the full exchange? Rubio started it. Trump's reaction was meant to be comical, and it was. I was in tears.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Mhjames: mtgsalvation: I DON'T SEE HOW THIS CARD IS GOOD. I KNOW PATRICK CHAPIN USED IT AND WENT 8-0, BUT THAT WAS A SMALL TOURNAMENT. THE CARD IS TOO SLOW. YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THE OPPONENT HAS A SPELL IN THE GRAVEYARD
There is a lack of economic opportunities in poor rural counties as well as inner cities here in America. A focus needs to be put on our own people before we worry about what's happening in other countries. I'm glad to see you realize we shouldn't be attempting to fix Mexico's economy, but in ignoring it our economy is suffering an estimated $150 billion annually from money sent back to Mexico by illegals here alone. This isn't even taken into consideration how much we spend on health care for illegal immigrants. It needs to be either stopped entirely or controlled. I'm not even for a gigantic wall completely. I just don't see any other way to curve illegal immigration. I'm open to being enlightened.
I don't have a practical solution but neither does Trump and the way I see it Trump and I are both equally qualified to come up with a reasonable solution (that is to say not at all qualified.)
Did you watch the full exchange? Rubio started it. Trump's reaction was meant to be comical, and it was. I was in tears.
I did watch the whole exchange and I was in tears too. Tears of sadness at what a circus freak show this whole race has become. In my mind Donald is just as much a child for responding to it as Rubio is for bringing it up. In my mind neither of them are fit to be president.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My fear of radical Islam...you think it is poorly founded.
No I didn't. The fear is poorly founded in your opinion, in my opinion it is not. Is english your first language?
If this is what you meant then you need some punctuation.
And no need to get nasty its a civil discussion.
How does calling it fear mongering show bias?
See you knew what I meant. You are pointing out you made a red herring. Because calling an opinion fear mongering makes it seem like it is not based on facts. It is, but your interpretation of that is fear mongering.
I call it fear mongering precisely because it is not routed in facts. No good statistical data shows that banning all Muslims is a logical response to actions a few extremists.
Your definition of a few is different than mine. You see at most 20 percent, I see 80 million. We are both right in seeing that. You value helping other people, I value insuring the security of my family in this instance. Angry and fearful does not mean a person is wrong.
I am increasing the number of people that want to kill me within killing distance of me. Unless you are saying no radical jihadists would not use immigration programs to come into the United States?
There is no viable screen, to be fair there is no viable muslim screen either. We would not have had cases like the shoe bomber if there was.
Your go to example is a White/Jamaican convert? What plans do you have for American citizens who become radicalized in situ?
Regardless of your answer, it seems that, in terms of numbers, citizens that are already here becoming radicalized might be the danger that should be concentrated on. Like Trump, who this thread is supposedly about, many Americans want to focus on outside people being the problem. No one can deny that being welcoming has dangers. However, can it be proved that those dangers outweigh the positives?
Funny enough, that's exactly what Trump wants to do. He's proposing a three year temporary ban on immigration from Countries for some reason he hasn't directly specified, but we all know which countries he is talking about in the middle east. The ban could even be lifted before then if we figured out a better way to screen for potential Islamic extremists. It's a preventative measure, and at least in my opinion, is completely reasonable. The President has the power to stop immigration to the country for a reason. It's not like it hasn't already been done before in the past.
Anyway, someone asked me why I support Emperor Trump. I've explained this a lot before so I'll just copy and paste one of my most recent exchanges with a Bernie supporter;
"But Trump is racist!!"
No. He's not politically correct and refuses to ever apologize for anything non-PC he might do or say, because he knows what happens when you start giving in. But that's all.
On the content of his policies, he said that he wanted to stop illegal immigration, but that he would then welcome back those who want to respect the law, work and contribute to the country. He also proposed a temporary freeze on the immigration of Muslim foreigners, until Congress can set up an adequate vetting process to avoid islamists and jihadists from coming. First of all immigrating to the US is not a right that everyone in the world has; it is a privilege granted by the US Government. Secondly, it is just very natural prudence, not hatred. It's a fact that plenty of Muslims hate the US and would gladly commit atrocities there. A minority of them of course, but still more than among any other demographic, and for now you apparently can't tell well enough the radicals from the moderates. Also this policy of banning immigration from certain countries has a lot of precedent, including from Jimmy Carter. Finally even if he was prejudiced against Islam, it's an ideology to be judged and criticized, not a race that is in people's genes. And in my opinion, it does deserve a lot of criticism.
Trump is by the way officially endorsed by many minority figures, by the National Black Republican Association, and defended by the leader of Nation of Islam himself. And he polls quite well among minorities too.
Trump is a far-right Republican
Absolutely not. Trump is a pragmatist about the economy and a moderate liberal on social issues. He's always been pro-LGBT, supporting civil unions giving the same rights as marriage, also in favour of anti-discrimination laws including in employment. He's criticized Kim Davis, wanted Caitlyn Jenner as a judge in his beauty pageant contests, and considers the question of gay marriage definitively settled by the Supreme Court. He had a change of mind on abortion and now considers himself pro-life, but he wouldn't try and ban it like most Republican candidates would (implying they could, which is false). In many ways Trump is to the left of Clinton. His economic and trade policy is entirely aimed at bringing back jobs for the blue-collar workers. He wants to lower taxes for the poor and end all loopholes for the rich and the multi-national corporations. He was the first to talk about corporate inversion, etc.
Trump is an opportunist and a flip-flopper who says anything to get elected
There are a few things Trump says that are obvious pandering, and it's very easy to notice if you don't have brain damage. First of all when he talks about the Bible and Christianity. It's obvious he's not religious. And you'll notice he tries as hard as he can not to pretend and lie, which is why he prefers saying "Under President Trump people will say Merry Christmas again" rather than some of the actually threatening things other Republicans might say.
But then, what about the core of his message? Fixing the abysmal trade deficit, taking back jobs and defending the country's interests when negociating deals, instead of working as the world police for the benefit of multinational corporations. He has been saying the exact same things for 30 years. During this interview with Oprah in 88' for instance.
I think I can believe him when he says that he's supported politicians for decades and decades but they always either lose or sell out to even bigger and richer special interests, so now he had enough and wants to fix the country by himself, without owing anything to donors.
Also, is Trump a flip-flopper on social issues? On abortion, as I said, he did have a change of mind. But otherwise, no. What changed is the majority opinion. When Trump campaigned for civil unions equal to marriage for gay people, he was more progressive than Hillary Clinton. Now when he says the exact same things he's considered a conservative or even a homophobe, simply because of the question of whether to call it "marriage" or not.
Trump is stupid and speaks like a 4th grader
Trump is on the contrary very intelligent and extremely powerful at persuasion, as his poll numbers show. His speech is very much researched so as to be as persuasive as possible, by using very simple and strong words on purpose, repeating simple and short messages over and over, etc. We don't notice it because Trump has been practicing this for decades and decades and it has become natural for him. But if you watch old interviews when he's young he speaks like a well-educated person.
Trump is a megalomaniac and a narcissist
First of all you might think of all the things he has put his name on, all the products he launched like Trump Ice or Trump Steak, or the Trump Game, or the Trump dolls, his own reality TV, etc. What do you think it means? Trump managed over the course of his life to change his name into an iconic brand, and most of those ridiculous projects were to put it simply, communication campaigns.
Also, a big part of Trump's philosophy of life (and one of the reasons for his business success) is his very optimistic thinking. It can be expressed by those rules: "Never apologize, never concede defeat or inferiority, never give up". Trump is the embodiment of all those "self-help" books that tell you how to become successful (or the ones he wrote): he convinces himself that he is absolutely great and special and can achieve anything he wants, and no obstacle or setback ever give him any doubt about his chances. That's why he brags so much.
But he is not a narcissist because he has absolutely no fear of being ridiculous. That's why he comes to TV to get roasted without a problem, or reads Jimmy Kimmel's mock-chidren book to his own grand-daughter. Other example, his hair: everyone makes fun of it, the Donald doesn't give a ****, he keeps the same funny hairstyle and is proud of it.
Trump would bring WWIII or something like that
Nonsense. Trump is for a big military and technological advantage over potential enemies, but he is absolutely not pro-war. He was opposed to the Iraq War in 2003 for instance. And he is basically the only one advocating better relations with Russia, and cooperation with them in Syria to wipe out ISIS. Trump seems also like the best strategist to solve the ISIS situation quickly and restaure some stability. He was the first to propose to destroy their oil fields and so ruin them financially. He is now the only one advocating the creation of a safe protected zone in Syria to host the refugees, solving the crisis that has spread in Europe while protecting civilians. Others are also obsessed with the idea of a regime change in Syria, and give weapons to insurgents who will only make the war longer and bloodier, leading to chaos, anarchy and more refugees. I think that Trump, with his good strategy skills, his impressive capacity to persuade people, and his possible good relations with Putin, would easily negotiate a deal for Syria, so that the State can rebuild in peace and stability and Bashar al-Assad can leave power to his right-hand without violence or trouble.
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
We are talking about islamists, not sure what White/Jamaican has to do with that. Also, you can't prove that the dangers outweigh the benefits because that is a value judgment. Finding the pros and cons is a critical judgment. As for americans that become radicalized I am not sure there are any good answers to it. A better mental health system is probably the best we can do.
My point is that your example, The Shoe Bomber, was a radicalized citizen. He may be a "foreigner" to you, but what Trump, and you by proxy, are suggesting would do little to stop British citizens, like the aforementioned Shoe Bomber,or our own citizens that are already here, from becoming radicalized and harming your family. And, again, that is more likely to happen than terrorists going through a screening process to enter our country that takes months and creates the chance, however small, that they might get caught. You are worried about a leaky faucet while Hurricane Katrina swirls around you.
I agree with your last point. Obviously, our critical judgments do not align!
Link to Shoe Bomber: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_failed_shoe_bomb_attempt
His original statement on the Muslim ban wanted to exclude all Muslims currently outside the country. This would have included legal Muslim immigrants currently abroad, students on study abroad programs who were Muslims, and American born citizens who were Muslims and currently out of the country. He had to immediately change this position due to massive backlash. He has also said that the illegal immigrants that Mexico sends us are killers and rapists. Among other things it seems like a pretty strong voice of racism. Additionally he is clearly sexist based on many of the things he has said to and about women.
The only issue he has been clearly consistent on is taking jobs back from China (with no actual plan on how this might be done I might add) and building a wall with funds from Mexico (again with no plan of execution.) He has been on both sides of nearly every other issue that has been brought up this election cycle.
Part of being a politician is being able to compromise. Personally I do not see his stubbornness as a benefit to taking office. Additionally the president is supposed to be the face of our nation, the thing that everyone sees when they think of America. I really don't want a goofy haired bigot in the minds of other world leaders. How is anyone supposed to take this man seriously when he was having an actual **** measuring contest on the Republican debate stage last week.
Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]. We will not be taken advantage of anymore.
The estimated 10 billion to pay for the wall is nothing compared to how much Mexico will lose if they refuse. This is a best case scenario and I'm well aware of the hurdles and hoops he will have to jump through to get how he will get Mexico to pay for it to happen.
With respect, 'goofy haired bigot', as well as your above mentioned 'sexist' remark are part of the reason we are supporting him so heavily. Extremely tired of the PC culture and personal insults directed at our candidate. He's a loud mouthed goofball; so what? Hillary is a potential felon, Bernie has ties with supporting Communism in the past, and Cruz is campaigning with an actual real outspoken homophobe. Furthermore, you have no idea how the rest of the world's leaders will react to negotiating with Trump.
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
I don't think anyone ever said his plan would work perfectly. He wants to ban all muslims. He would have banned the shoe bomber in a plan that works perfectly. Your position is because we have bigger problems we shouldn't fix the smaller ones. Also our critical judgments probably do align our value judgments do not.
In one of the last debates, he pretty much admitted the healthcare plan he is talking about for fixing ACA is pretty much non-existent. His method for stopping illegal immigration is to build a giant ******* wall (I don't think it's going to work the way he wants it to). The only good thing I can think about him is compared to the other candidates on the right, he is much more likely to work with a Congress on the other side of the party line.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
I explained what Trump can do that's good. I used his actual track record as an example. And as far as his Healthcare plan, since the debate you're likely talking about, I think 2 or 3 debates ago, he has released his healthcare plan. It's not without it's flaws, but it's certainly not at all what I expected;
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
I am saying it won't work. In a "ban all muslims" plan how will you know who is the radicalized Muslim? Your the one that doesn't trust our screening. They don't wear signs when they become radicalized, after all. Trying to stop Muslim looking people from Muslim countries - whatever those are - is ridiculous.
My position is not "we have bigger problems we shouldn't fix smaller ones," though we do have bigger ones, but that the proposed solution - as exemplified by your example - will not work. Reid looked and sounded like a British person, because he was one, and unless you are going to make them wear gold stars, there would be no way of knowing he was a Muslim.
On top of this, I wonder whether the gains from keeping people out outweigh the negatives from keeping people out.
So, our critical judgments do not align. I don't find a "ban all muslims" plan to be a viable solution, I doubt its efficacy, and I wonder whether such a plan would be a net positive.
I also think it is reprehensible - so there you are correct, our values do not align.
Regardless, it seems clear that we have argued this into the ground.
Have a good day.
Trump's plan does nothing to address the core issue behind the source of the illegal immigration which is that there is a lack of economic opportunities in the countries these people are leaving. Until that issue is resolved then no wall or economic sanctions will stop people from trying to enter our country illegally. To be clear I am not saying that the US needs to attempt to fix Mexico's economy but understanding the actual source of the issue is key to forming a lasting solution instead of a band-solution that is very costly like Trump wants.
I can tell you that if we do not take him seriously then I find it hard to believe that Putin or Xi Jinping will. And I actually do not see PC talk as a bad thing, how bad is it that political candidates should treat each other with respect instead the circus show that is Trump. I mean come on in the last debate the size of his ***** was actually a point of conversation. How is that okay for a man that wants to be president of the united states.
I cannot take what his website says on the issue as real indication of his policies when he says contradicting things in the media and at debates.
How do you suppose an American ban on Muslims would have prevented a Muslim from boarding a plane in France?
There is a lack of economic opportunities in poor rural counties as well as inner cities here in America. A focus needs to be put on our own people before we worry about what's happening in other countries. I'm glad to see you realize we shouldn't be attempting to fix Mexico's economy, but in ignoring it our economy is suffering an estimated $150 billion annually from money sent back to Mexico by illegals here alone. This isn't even taken into consideration how much we spend on health care for illegal immigrants. It needs to be either stopped entirely or controlled. I'm not even for a gigantic wall completely. I just don't see any other way to curve illegal immigration. I'm open to being enlightened.
Did you watch the full exchange? Rubio started it. Trump's reaction was meant to be comical, and it was. I was in tears.
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
I don't have a practical solution but neither does Trump and the way I see it Trump and I are both equally qualified to come up with a reasonable solution (that is to say not at all qualified.)
I did watch the whole exchange and I was in tears too. Tears of sadness at what a circus freak show this whole race has become. In my mind Donald is just as much a child for responding to it as Rubio is for bringing it up. In my mind neither of them are fit to be president.