TGP Primary Poll: Republicans

[Cherry 1,302]

 

It's not fear mongering when the comparison has some validity.

You're comparing a conservative businessman to a man who orchestrated the murder of six million jews.

[Vin+ 3,121]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35052505

[blotsfan 2,112]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

We're not prohibiting the exercising of a religion in the scenario. We'd be limiting a certain group of immigrants, which the law doesn't apply to anyways.

 

(For the record I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Disallowing immigrants for their religion is a fucking stupid idea that won't work. I am against immigration in general right now though.)

 

I bolded my part. You don't see how saying "people from this religion are ok, but not this other religion" is the government choosing a religion?

[Cherry 1,302]

 

I bolded my part. You don't see how saying "people from this religion are ok, but not this other religion" is the government choosing a religion?

Fair point. My question would then be does the first amendment apply to citizens or everyone involved with the US?

Edited December 10, 2015 by Chernobyl426

[blotsfan 2,112]

The first amendment doesn't mention anything about citizenship. It says that the government won't make a law endorsing a religion.

 

And I would argue that if we want to have any legitimacy, we should hold ourselves to high moral standards regardless of whether someone is a citizen or not.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

You're comparing a conservative businessman to a man who orchestrated the murder of six million jews.

 

 

Can you say with absolute certainty that Trump wouldn't resort to a murderous purge once he realized mass deportation is impossible?

[Cherry 1,302]

 

 

Can you say with absolute certainty that Trump wouldn't resort to a murderous purge once he realized mass deportation is impossible?

Yes.

[Thanatos 2,847]

There's a legit comparison lol.

 

Chern, please tell me you aren't seriously considering voting for this guy.

[Cherry 1,302]

I am indeed considering voting for him. Economically would be great. That's the most important part of any candidate for me.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

Yes.

 

Then you're really naive. lol

[Cherry 1,302]

 

Then you're really naive. lol

Assuming Trump would start a muslim genocide in modern america is naive.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

Whatever you say. Keep on supporting an idiot for Pres. Good look, bro.

[Cherry 1,302]

Whatever you say. Keep on supporting an idiot for Pres. Good look, bro.

Do you honestly think we would allow Trump to start taking out Muslims solely for their religion? Come on man. We may have several fucktards, but as a nation we're very progressive.

[Barracuda 629]

Could you elaborate?

He seems like any guy you might talk to on the subway. Whereas Jeb Bush sounds like a robot with a team of scientists behind him crowbaring jokes into his speech protocols to gauge reaction, Trump sounds like any regular guy on the street. I'm not at all surprised by his lead simply for that reason.

[DBR96A 87]

U.S. Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part II, Section 1182 (Inadmissible aliens):

 

(B) Terrorist activities

(i) In general -- Any alien who - (I) has engaged in a terrorist activity; (II) a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv)); (III) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity; (IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of - (aa) a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or (bb) a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity; (V) is a member of a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi); (VI) is a member of a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization; (VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization; (VIII) has received military-type training (as defined in section 2339D©(1) of title 18) from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or (IX) is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years, is inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this chapter, to be engaged in a terrorist activity.

(ii) Exception Subclause (IX) of clause (i) does not apply to a spouse or child - (I) who did not know or should not reasonably have known of the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible under this section; or (II) whom the consular officer or Attorney General has reasonable grounds to believe has renounced the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible under this section.

(iii) "Terrorist activity" defined -- As used in this chapter, the term "terrorist activity" means any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed (or which, if it had been committed in the United States, would be unlawful under the laws of the United States or any State) and which involves any of the following: (I) The highjacking or sabotage of any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel, or vehicle). (II) The seizing or detaining, and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain, another individual in order to compel a third person (including a governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained. (III) A violent attack upon an internationally protected person (as defined in section 1116(b)(4) of title 18) or upon the liberty of such a person. (IV) An assassination. (V) The use of any - (a) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device, or (b) explosive, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property. (VI) A threat, attempt, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.

(iv) "Engage in terrorist activity" defined -- As used in this chapter, the term "engage in terrorist activity" means, in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization - (I) to commit or to incite to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity; (II) to prepare or plan a terrorist activity; (III) to gather information on potential targets for terrorist activity; (IV) to solicit funds or other things of value for - (aa) a terrorist activity; (bb) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or (cc) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization; (V) to solicit any individual - (aa) to engage in conduct otherwise described in this subsection; (bb) for membership in a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or (cc) for membership in a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III) unless the solicitor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization; or (VI) to commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training - (aa) for the commission of a terrorist activity; (bb) to any individual who the actor knows, or reasonably should know, has committed or plans to commit a terrorist activity; (cc) to a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi) or to any member of such an organization; or (dd) to a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), or to any member of such an organization, unless the actor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the actor did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization.

(v) "Representative" defined -- As used in this paragraph, the term "representative" includes an officer, official, or spokesman of an organization, and any person who directs, counsels, commands, or induces an organization or its members to engage in terrorist activity. (vi) "Terrorist organization" defined As used in this section, the term "terrorist organization" means an organization - (I) designated under section 1189 of this title; (II) otherwise designated, upon publication in the Federal Register, by the Secretary of State in consultation with or upon the request of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security, as a terrorist organization, after finding that the organization engages in the activities described in subclauses (I) through (VI) of clause (iv); or (III) that is a group of two or more individuals, whether organized or not, which engages in, or has a subgroup which engages in, the activities described in subclauses (I) through (VI) of clause (iv).

 

 

© Foreign policy

 

(i) In general An alien whose entry or proposed activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is inadmissible.

 

(ii) Exception for officials -- An alien who is an official of a foreign government or a purported government, or who is a candidate for election to a foreign government office during the period immediately preceding the election for that office, shall not be excludable or subject to restrictions or conditions on entry into the United States under clause (i) solely because of the alien's past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States.

 

(iii) Exception for other aliens -- An alien, not described in clause (ii), shall not be excludable or subject to restrictions or conditions on entry into the United States under clause (i) because of the alien's past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States, unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien's admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest. (iv) Notification of determinations If a determination is made under clause (iii) with respect to an alien, the Secretary of State must notify on a timely basis the chairmen of the Committees on the Judiciary and Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and of the Committees on the Judiciary and Foreign Relations of the Senate of the identity of the alien and the reasons for the determination.

 

 

(D) Immigrant membership in totalitarian party

 

(i) In general -- Any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is inadmissible.

 

(ii) Exception for involuntary membership -- Clause (i) shall not apply to an alien because of membership or affiliation if the alien establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer when applying for a visa (or to the satisfaction of the Attorney General when applying for admission) that the membership or affiliation is or was involuntary, or is or was solely when under 16 years of age, by operation of law, or for purposes of obtaining employment, food rations, or other essentials of living and whether necessary for such purposes.

 

(iii) Exception for past membership -- Clause (i) shall not apply to an alien because of membership or affiliation if the alien establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer when applying for a visa (or to the satisfaction of the Attorney General when applying for admission) that - (I) the membership or affiliation terminated at least - (a) 2 years before the date of such application, or (b) 5 years before the date of such application, in the case of an alien whose membership or affiliation was with the party controlling the government of a foreign state that is a totalitarian dictatorship as of such date, and (II) the alien is not a threat to the security of the United States.

 

(iv) Exception for close family members -- The Attorney General may, in the Attorney General's discretion, waive the application of clause (i) in the case of an immigrant who is the parent, spouse, son, daughter, brother, or sister of a citizen of the United States or a spouse, son, or daughter of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence for humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest if the immigrant is not a threat to the security of the United States.

 

 

(E) Participants in Nazi persecution, genocide, or the commission of any act of torture or extrajudicial killing

 

(i) Participation in Nazi persecutions -- Any alien who, during the period beginning on March 23, 1933, and ending on May 8, 1945, under the direction of, or in association with - (I) the Nazi government of Germany, (II) any government in any area occupied by the military forces of the Nazi government of Germany, (III) any government established with the assistance or cooperation of the Nazi government of Germany, or (IV) any government which was an ally of the Nazi government of Germany, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person because of race, religion, national origin, or political opinion is inadmissible.

 

(ii) Participation in genocide -- Any alien who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in genocide, as defined in section 1091(a) of title 18, is inadmissible.

 

(iii) Commission of acts of torture or extrajudicial killings -- Any alien who, outside the United States, has committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the commission of - (I) any act of torture, as defined in section 2340 of title 18; or (II) under color of law of any foreign nation, any extrajudicial killing, as defined in section 3(a) of the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (28 U.S.C. 1350 note), is inadmissible.

 

 

(F) Association with terrorist organizations -- Any alien who the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General, or the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of State, determines has been associated with a terrorist organization and intends while in the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in activities that could endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States is inadmissible.

 

 

(G) Recruitment or use of child soldiers -- Any alien who has engaged in the recruitment or use of child soldiers in violation of section 2442 of title 18 is inadmissible.

 

Edited December 10, 2015 by DBR96A

[blotsfan 2,112]

I am indeed considering voting for him. Economically would be great. That's the most important part of any candidate for me.

 

Because if theres one guy who knows buisness, its someone that inherited his money and has underperformed standard index funds.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

Do you honestly think we would allow Trump to start taking out Muslims solely for their religion? Come on man. We may have several fucktards, but as a nation we're very progressive.

 

You don't have to kill a group of people to treat them as less than human. Remember the Japanese Internment camps after Pearl Harbor? Trump is about half a step away from pushing for something similar. He already wants ALL Muslim Americans (whether they've peacefully lived here for generations or not) to have special ID's and be kept on file in databases.

 

Also, Trump's popularity is just one more bit of evidence that, as a whole, the US isn't as progressive as we like to think.

[BucD+ 648]

Do you honestly think we would allow Trump to start taking out Muslims solely for their religion? Come on man. We may have several fucktards, but as a nation we're very progressive.

 

Well, we have 'fucktards' willing to put this person in office. Baby steps.

 

Step one....

[oochymp 2,393]

Can you say with absolute certainty that Trump wouldn't resort to a murderous purge once he realized mass deportation is impossible?

I can't say with absolute certainty what anyone is going to do in any hypothetical scenario, but I can say with certainty that it's a huge leap to go from "mass deportation" to "murderous purge"

 

here's my theory on Trump and why his candidacy could be a medium-term good thing:

 

Every country has an extreme nationalist element, it's just the tribal part of human nature and if we're honest with ourselves most of us share some of those opinions to a degree. But some people give in to that tribalism and it's seen in valuing national security over everything else and expressions of cultural superiority, which typically has a racial or religious piece. Most multi-party democracies have a party that specifically caters to that demographic, I know of the Front National in France, someone who knows more about international politics may know others. That party helps a lot in containing that extreme nationalist element, but it is a very vocal segment of the population. In a two-party system, every significant segment of the political spectrum is going to be embraced by one of the two parties. Unfortunately, when a group is as vocal as extreme nationalists typically are, they will every once in a while that group will take control of the party. That's what I think we're seeing with Trump.

 

I am slowly accepting that Trump has a very good chance of winning the Republican primary, because we've gotten into one of those periods where the extreme nationalists have seized control of the Republican Party and turnout for primaries is embarrassingly low. However, once he gets to the general election he will stand no chance. If you want to see what happens when an extreme nationalist gets to the general election look at France's 2002 election.

I wanted to circle back to this but didn't get a chance yesterday and explain why this could be good, I didn't actually get to that

 

Right now, we're in one of those periods where the extreme nationalists have taken control of the Republican Party, but that's not a route that can possibly be successful. What Trump's candidacy does, especially if he wins the nomination (and subsequently loses spectacularly in the general election) is it forces the Republican Party to reassess itself and reshape its ideals into something that can be successful, which is a much more moderate party. I did say "medium-term" good, because short-term it hands the election to the Democrats (I'm really not sure I see any scenario where Republicans win this election) and long-term I think we'll see this pattern cycle through again, but hopefully this'll force the Republican Party back to the center at least for a little while.

[BucD+ 648]

I get what you're saying, oochymp, but in the meantime, he is causing massive amounts of damage from within while he isn't offering anything specific or realistic policy wise. He's preying on the fears of the public and he's fueling inflammatory rhetoric. He is deliberately breeding misinformation that has created/fueled a frightened and hostile environment here that is already emboldened people to berating others and potentially leading to more aggressive behavior and violence.

 

It's bad.

[oochymp 2,393]

but the Republican Party has been letting the tail wag the dog for a while now, Trump is forcing them to address that

[BucD+ 648]

Hey, man. I get it. But even now they are still hesitant to say or do anything. They are playing scared.

 

My question is, is this worth it? When the more hate speech and the feeding off of fear he does, he soars in the polls. The fact that this guy could very well represent any party as their nomination and be sitting on a ballot on election day is extremely sad and scary. I do not think it is worth it at all.

 

Also, I think Kareem summed up Trump and his supporters well...

 

 

Abdul-Jabbar then argued that Trump’s supporters are equally guilty, having rewarded his incendiary remarks with surging polls.

 

“They are impervious to facts or truth because their (understandable) frustration and anger at partisan greed and incompetence have fatigued them out of critical thinking,” he said of the billionaire businessman's backers.

 

“To express their outrage, they have rallied around a so-called ‘outsider’ with no political experience, no detailed policies, and wacky ideas that subvert the very Constitution that he would be required to swear to uphold,” Abdul-Jabbar added.

 

“Electing him would be like asking the clown at a child’s birthday party to start juggling chainsaws.”

 

Abdul-Jabbar, a Muslim, additionally took issue with Trump’s controversial remarks on his religion earlier this week.

 

“Trump’s claims that he might support registering Muslims as well as calling for a ban of Muslims entering the United States — even U.S. citizens abroad — have elevated him to the level of a James Bond super-villain,” he wrote.

 

“And like those villains, he is doomed to failure. This cruel and dim-witted thinking is not the stuff presidents are made of.”

 

-Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

[oochymp 2,393]

there are definitely some major short-term downsides, and the question of whether the future benefits are worth it is a legitimate one, maybe it'd be better to call the Party shakeup that is almost undoubtedly going to result a silver lining than a benefit

[Cherry 1,302]

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8751676

 

For Sarge.

[BJORN 679]

I, like Chern, love Trump's pro-business, less taxes policies. But I simply can't vote for a racist pig, it's just too immoral. I don't think Trump's immigration/database policies would ever pass legislation but it's not worth the risk. I didn't think Obamacare would pass and well....

 

If I'm voting in a republican, it's Paul for me. The only electable guy there. It sucks he is buried beneath the media-created pile of crap.

Edited January 30, 2016 by BJORN