Trump's divisive Comments

[outhouse]

And when did you stop beating your mother?

Personal attack from you, because you will not answer a simple question. Wow.


How many deaths is acceptable before something should be done ?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Personal attack from you, because you will not answer a simple question. Wow.


How many deaths is acceptable before something should be done ?

That is in no way a personal attack it is a question in logic. But I am sure you knew that.

As I understand you ,you want to ban all Muslims from entering the USA..
Does that include British members of parliament, ministers, and lords and the many officials and political leaders in Europe that happen to be Muslim. How about industralists and millionaires.? And members of our armed forces.
Trumps idea is fatally flawed. And ill thought out.

 

[Useless2015]

This is completely unreasonable. Most people "have it both ways" in regards to the bombs dropped on Japan. It can be easily seen that the dropping of those atomic bombs ended up saving way more lives than it cost. Just do yourself a favor and do some research into the alternative plan of invading Japan to end the war. Far more lives would have been lost. But, I guess if you are naive enough to think that we should have just let the Empire of Japan "be", there is nothing that can be said. I wouldn't say that they were as evil as the Germans at that time, but they were certainly pretty close.

Japanese War Crimes during WW2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes)

• 3.1Attacks on Pearl Harbor, Malaya, Singapore, and Hong Kong
• 3.2Mass killings
• 3.3Human experimentation and biological warfare
• 3.4Use of chemical weapons
• 3.5Torture of prisoners of war
• 3.6Execution and killing of captured Allied airmen
• 3.7Cannibalism
• 3.8Forced labor
• 3.9Comfort women
• 3.10Looting
• 3.11Perfidy

I can't argue with someone who thinks dropping atomic bombs on citizens is justified somehow.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How many deaths is acceptable before something should be done ?

A decades-plus of war is doing something. It wasn't the right thing, and was too conventional for an unconventional enemy, but something was done. We have the TSA, had the Patriot Act, and our rights have been corroded in the name of security. We have been doing something, we've just been doing the same thing that history has shown, time and time again, only works to make things worse.

Do you propose to keep out Saudis now.

I say we should keep some of their Princes out, and end the "alliance" between America and Saudi, but regular Saudis hardly have anything to do with that.

And when did you stop beating your mother?

Is that a British expression? Anyways, I think I'm stealing it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

This is completely unreasonable. Most people "have it both ways" in regards to the bombs dropped on Japan. It can be easily seen that the dropping of those atomic bombs ended up saving way more lives than it cost. Just do yourself a favor and do some research into the alternative plan of invading Japan to end the war. Far more lives would have been lost. But, I guess if you are naive enough to think that we should have just let the Empire of Japan "be", there is nothing that can be said. I wouldn't say that they were as evil as the Germans at that time, but they were certainly pretty close.

Japanese War Crimes during WW2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes)

• 3.1Attacks on Pearl Harbor, Malaya, Singapore, and Hong Kong
• 3.2Mass killings
• 3.3Human experimentation and biological warfare
• 3.4Use of chemical weapons
• 3.5Torture of prisoners of war
• 3.6Execution and killing of captured Allied airmen
• 3.7Cannibalism
• 3.8Forced labor
• 3.9Comfort women
• 3.10Looting
• 3.11Perfidy

Un-nuanced defence of the bombs is no more helpful than un-nuanced attacks. You're basically just making an 'ends justify the means argument'.
I mean, have you considered the irony in listing 'human experimentation, biological warfare and chemical weapons' as defence of atomic weapon usage?
Not to mention that defending the 'bombs' is far easier than defending the strike on Nagasaki as an independent decision.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Saved lives. Sorry their own country caused their imprisonment, by starting a war they had no idea what they were getting into.

You'd be better served to drop the comparisons and defence of WW2 internment policy. It's basically indefensible. And unconstitutional. And illegal, in terms of the manner in which Japanese heritage was determined via 'confidential' documents.
As you're aware, the majority of those interned were not Japanese citizens at all, but Americans. Further, the policy was completely at odds with how Germans and Italians were handled, where internment was not of US citizens, but foreign nationals only.
(or, at least, where a US citizen was to be interred, there was a legal proceeding to determine cause)

islam and terrorism, very well be making the same mistake, we have a right to protect ourselves from dangerous ideology.

Are you in support of the same policy for Christian fundamentalists who have expressed anti-abortion views?

 

[Sleeppy]

What does this even mean?

Take your best guess.

 

[Sleeppy]

False, your kind would never have control here. We have freedom from caliphates

If you want religion to run the government you might try islam.

My kind are everywhere. But so are yours, and yours are the same meeting you on the battlefield. You don't have freedom from warfare.

 

[Sleeppy]

Your faith means nothing to anyone but yourself.

It factually does not exist in my life or anyone I know.



Don't worry we will keep your country safe for you! since you refuse to.

Faith isn't required with cause and effect. You don't know the cause, and so you mismanage the effect.

ISIS isn't your first or last enemy. You are your first and last enemy.

 

[outhouse]

You'd be better served to drop the comparisons and defence of WW2 internment policy.

I was only defending the history against someone throwing rhetoric that hates the USA and supports islamicist

 

[outhouse]

A decades-plus of war is doing something. It wasn't the right thing, and was too conventional for an unconventional enemy, but something was done. We have the TSA, had the Patriot Act, and our rights have been corroded in the name of security. We have been doing something, we've just been doing the same thing that history has shown, time and time again, only works to make things worse.

How many "more" deaths are acceptable before something should be done ?

 

[Revoltingest]

I rather expect that Mr. Trump is about as religious as Barack Obama or the Clintons...

You're a cruel cruel man.....or superheroic mouse.
But I can't tell who's being insulted here?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I was only defending the history against someone throwing rhetoric that hates the USA and supports islamicist

I know. If I was defending Trump (which I'm not about to), I'd focus on the differences between his potential policy and Japanese internment, rather than defending the two. Specifically, I'd focus on his policies not effecting US citizens.

 

[outhouse]

If I was defending Trump (which I'm not about to), I'd focus on the differences between his potential policy and Japanese internment, rather than defending the two. Specifically, I'd focus on his policies not effecting US citizens.

He has retweeted his context which still leaves much to be desired. He took a stab at damage control.

Basically calling it temporary, not applied to citizens, or military or sport athletes.

In WW2 did we let Germans come in across our borders without question?

How many deaths are acceptable before something "more" should be done ?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How many "more" deaths are acceptable before something should be done ?

I don't know, but being afraid of Muslims isn't going to get anything, and it hasn't gotten anything done. What needs to be done is let the Middle Eastern people rule themselves, let them draw up their own boundaries, and let them fight their own wars while we pull out, evacuate, and influence the region as little as possible.

 

[leibowde84]

Take your best guess.

I'm sorry, I don't know what it means. Can you explain without all the metaphors?

 

[Sleeppy]

I'm sorry, I don't know what it means. Can you explain without all the metaphors?

"Violence has to be stopped in the minds of men. You'll never keep your enemy out. You are your enemy."

 

[lewisnotmiller]

He has retweeted his context which still leaves much to be desired. He took a stab at damage control.
Basically calling it temporary, not applied to citizens, or military or sport athletes.

I'll have to check it out. For all that people are lauding him for 'saying it like it is' I generally find he is able to do that by avoiding details which would bog down messaging.

In WW2 did we let Germans come in across our borders without question?

No, and I have no issue with a country setting sensible border controls in place. Borders are never 'open' anyway, so it's really just a matter of where and how a line is drawn.
I'll reserve judgement on any policy until such a time as there IS a policy, but frankly, flagging it as a possibility without any details was pandering/demagoguery in my opinion.

Couple of notes on the German thing;
1) German nationals were a readily identifiable group.
2) The USA was at war with Germany.
3) German citizens within the US borders were treated as Germans, but US citizens with German heritage were not.
4) WW2 had a declared end date, and after this time repatriation and acceptance of Germans back into US society was fast, in real terms.

A 'war' against extremist Islam is one thing, but a war against Islam is another. There is no defineable end goal. It is entirely possible to be both US citizen and extremist, and certainly possible to be US citizen and Muslim. Muslims are not even a readily identifiable group if they choose not to be, and there is Quranic support for denying one's own religiosity if it becomes 'necessary'.

How many deaths are acceptable before something "more" should be done ?

From a purely strategic point of view, I think the broad brush approach is not only ineffective, but is actually counter-productive. 'Something must be done' should never be conflated with 'This must be done'. If this is a 'war' then treat it as such. Have actual experts formulate actual tactical responses. Act in a cohesive manner, considering both long-term and short-term goals.
Appeals to populace are not an effective means of strategic decision making, since the vast majority of people have effectively zero understanding of the matter at hand, and are simply responding in the same way they would to a bully in the playground.

 

[outhouse]

. For all that people are lauding him for 'saying it like it is' I generally find he is able to do that by avoiding details which would bog down messaging.

I stated this earlier. His statement is really non sequitur to any real problem. It was just a sound bite.

If we did do it, how many lives would it save?

 

[outhouse]

but frankly, flagging it as a possibility without any details was pandering/demagoguery in my opinion.

Agreed.

A 'war' against extremist Islam is one thing, but a war against Islam is another.

What the government lets the public know, are 4 different things.

Like it or not, and its not politically correct, but we are factually at war with the fanaticism of islam, nothing more nothing less.

War has become dynamic in its modern nature, no longer is it about land or power. The game has changed.