Why Trump ?

Grizzly Bear said:
Acknowledging the actual parties responsible for the recent year's terrorist attacks, the correlating ideology/religions and acting accordingly with policy.
Click to expand...

Yes. I already understood that part of your position. I am trying to learn what you mean by acting accordingly.
 
Ladewig said:
Yes. I already understood that part of your position. I am trying to learn what you mean by acting accordingly.
Click to expand...

To answer your question bluntly I am not one of those "ban all muslims" folks but I do believe people originating from countries where organized terrorist groups have a foot hold should be adequately profiled to avoid such groups exploiting a lax screening policy like how it has been handled in Europe. I disagree with Trump on how far he has proposed to take it though
 
Last edited:
Mumbles said:
It's pretty simple. I'm pointing out that Trump's supporters do not want to hear anything about right-wing terrorism. In fact, when the federal government issued a report on right-wing terrorism back in 2009, they were enraged by it. And since then, we have seen a number of right-wing terror attacks, whether shootings, arson, or bombings, at politics offices, the Holocaust Memorial, abortion clinics, Planned Parenthood offices, the Emmanuel A.M.E. Church, and so forth. Not to mention the Bundy Ranch and Oregon standoffs.

They do not want to discuss those - or if they do, only to applaud them. Instead, they want to hear about how awful the Muslims are, based on the actions of Islamic Extremists.
Click to expand...

If you compare the number of dead and seriously injured from Islamic terrorist attacks to the number of dead and seriously injured from so-called right wing attacks (some of those really aren't right wing, but the media will try to pin almost any attack on right wing politics if at all possible) and normalize by the relative population of Muslims in this country to right-wingers, I predict the results will tell you that Islamic terrorism is at least an order of magnitude worse than right-wing terrorism. Probably two orders of magnitude worse actually.

The mainstream media, and the Democrats (but I repeat myself) like to quote right-wing terrorism statistics to show that it is a greater threat, but they can only do that by lowering the threshold for calling something a terrorist attack to include vandalism. Also, those same statistics treat a broken window on a mosque the same as 49 shot dead (with another 50 wounded) in an Orlando nightclub. They're both single events of terrorism apparently. :rolleyes:
 
Grizzly Bear said:
To answer your question bluntly I am not one of those "ban all muslims" folks but I do believe people originating from countries where organized terrorist groups have a foot hold should be adequately profiled to avoid such groups exploiting a lax screening policy like how it has been handled in Europe. I disagree with Trump on how far he has proposed to take it though
Click to expand...

When you say lax screening, are you talking about refugees, immigrants, work-visa holders, or tourists? Or some combination?
 
When Trump says something offensive, he's straight-talking. When Clinton says something offensive, it means she's not fit to be President.

I wonder if it's more about hating Hillary or if it's about the people Clinton offending being almost exclusively white pieces of ****...
 
Grizzly Bear said:
To answer your question bluntly I am not one of those "ban all muslims" folks but I do believe people originating from countries where organized terrorist groups have a foot hold should be adequately profiled to avoid such groups exploiting a lax screening policy like how it has been handled in Europe.
Click to expand...
The screening policy has been far from lax. The terrorist attacks in Europe have been carried out by Europeans, radicalised in situ.
 
Babbylonian said:
When Trump says something offensive, he's straight-talking. When Clinton says something offensive, it means she's not fit to be President.

I wonder if it's more about hating Hillary or if it's about the people Clinton offending being almost exclusively white pieces of ****...
Click to expand...

:confused: Bread is a five letter word. And why censored?
 
Babbylonian said:
When Trump says something offensive, he's straight-talking. When Clinton says something offensive, it means she's not fit to be President.

I wonder if it's more about hating Hillary or if it's about the people Clinton offending being almost exclusively white pieces of ****...
Click to expand...

It's the latter. A lot of people (generally nonwhite) who've noted that what she said was factually correct also got a torrent of people shrieking that they were "the real racists" (also, lots of people sending using the n-word. The two were not, of course,mutually exclusive groups).
 
Mumbles said:
It's the latter. A lot of people (generally nonwhite) who've noted that what she said was factually correct also got a torrent of people shrieking that they were "the real racists" (also, lots of people sending using the n-word. The two were not, of course,mutually exclusive groups).
Click to expand...

Donald's been targeting that vote.

“I think the race card is such a horrible thing,” Trump said on Hannity. “And I’ve been watching it more and more lately. And I think it’s disgraceful.”

“And when Obama gets 95% of the black vote, is that racist? I mean, you know, does anybody ever mention that? He gets 95% of the vote,” he continued. “And I see your compatriots, your announcers saying, ‘yes, he got 95% of the black vote but this wasn’t a racial thing. They like his policy.’”

“That’s a lot of crap,” he added. “But he’s creating a racial divide, and I think he’s doing it on purpose, and I think it’s a very unfair thing and it’s a very bad thing.”
Click to expand...
 
Babbylonian said:
When Trump says something offensive, he's straight-talking. When Clinton says something offensive, it means she's not fit to be President.

I wonder if it's more about hating Hillary or if it's about the people Clinton offending being almost exclusively white pieces of ****...
Click to expand...
Lol

White pieces of what?

My my, a bit racist don't ya think?
 
logger said:
No, my argument is LBJ didn't have very nice things to say about African Americans.

Sorry about your history.
I suppose that's why you're so quick to call others a racist.
Click to expand...

LBJ did more for African Americans than any President with the exception of Lincoln. From about 1945 to 1968 the South were swing states and to be a successful candidate in the Southern states one had to espouse segregation and racial discrimination so whatever LBJ may said should be tempered by his actions. I notice you also referenced the great Senator Robert Byrd. One can and should view him in his actions. A good comparison to those 2 are Strom Thurmond and George Wallace. Both Democrats who abandoned the party when it embraced Civil Rights.
 
Mumbles said:
It's pretty simple. I'm pointing out that Trump's supporters do not want to hear anything about right-wing terrorism. In fact, when the federal government issued a report on right-wing terrorism back in 2009, they were enraged by it. And since then, we have seen a number of right-wing terror attacks, whether shootings, arson, or bombings, at politics offices, the Holocaust Memorial, abortion clinics, Planned Parenthood offices, the Emmanuel A.M.E. Church, and so forth. Not to mention the Bundy Ranch and Oregon standoffs.

They do not want to discuss those - or if they do, only to applaud them. Instead, they want to hear about how awful the Muslims are, based on the actions of Islamic Extremists.
Click to expand...

But those people are white, so it can't be terrorism.
 
sunmaster14 said:
If you compare the number of dead and seriously injured from Islamic terrorist attacks to the number of dead and seriously injured from so-called right wing attacks...
Click to expand...

And factor out white people, you'll see that it is Muslims that are the most dangerous people.....next to the blacks.....and hispanics...
 
acbytesla said:
LBJ did more for African Americans than any President with the exception of Lincoln. From about 1945 to 1968 the South were swing states and to be a successful candidate in the Southern states one had to espouse segregation and racial discrimination so whatever LBJ may said should be tempered by his actions. I notice you also referenced the great Senator Robert Byrd. One can and should view him in his actions. A good comparison to those 2 are Strom Thurmond and George Wallace. Both Democrats who abandoned the party when it embraced Civil Rights.
Click to expand...
We all know about the Southern Democrats, whose only common ground with Northern Democrats was their mutual hatred of Republicans (the party of Lincoln, of course).

LBJ said "We have lost the South for a generation", but that was optimistic as it turns out.
 
logger said:
Lol

White pieces of what?

My my, a bit racist don't ya think?
Click to expand...
Nope. Pieces of **** are pieces of **** regardless of their skin hue. Being specific about which pieces of **** one is referring to is not at all racist.
 
Babbylonian said:
Nope. Pieces of **** are pieces of **** regardless of their skin hue. Being specific about which pieces of **** one is referring to is not at all racist.
Click to expand...

Actually you singled out white people, that here is usually considered racist.
 
logger said:
Actually you singled out white people, that here is usually considered racist.
Click to expand...
I will enlighten you: white supremacists are usually, guess what, white. Pointing out that is not racist, since they are pieces of **** because they are supremacists, not because they are white.

Then why single out white supremacists from all supremacists? Because white ones are right now biggest problem.
 
Mader Levap said:
I will enlighten you: white supremacists are usually, guess what, white. Pointing out that is not racist, since they are pieces of **** because they are supremacists, not because they are white.
Click to expand...

It is racist because there is no need to refer to them as white beyond the descriptor "white supremacist." Gratuitous reference to their skin color conveys a distaste for their whiteness rather than solely focusing on their ideology.

Then why single out white supremacists from all supremacists? Because white ones are right now biggest problem.
Click to expand...

White supremacists are the biggest problem? Hardly. Even among fascist groups, they're like fleas on Muhammad's ass in comparison to Islamic supremacists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom