Trump wants to create a "Muslim database", require a "Muslim ID" and ban Muslims from entering the USA

[Markas]

Nonsense. I am no Feminist and never will be, yet I believe women are people.

How very forward-thinking of you.

It`s clear to me that instead of doing your own research and finding FACTS, you instead would believe what you`re told because it`s easier than actually seeing what`s really happening out there in the real world in front of your very face. You don`t want to because you`re scared that I`m actually right.

I see the Daily Mail style putting WORDS in CAPITALS so you know it's the TRUTH has seeped onto twc. I guess these facts are going to be sourced, then (so far you've provided none).

I`m saying this for your sake, do some research. THINK and ENQUIRE. Check how many rights Men have in courts compared to women, especially regarding family. Check the suicide rates of Men and women.

And these suicide rates are because of feminism... huh. Let's see some source on this please. Sorry, I meant SOURCE and PROVE.

Wake up.

You first. Don't forget to source your claims before breakfast.

[Cyclops]

I don't get the Donald Trump = Adolph Hitler thing.

Donald Trump = Franklin Roosevelt

The same way George Bush II = George Washington. Two terms, first name George, by golly I think they cloned him.

[RubiconDecision]

So Jimmy Carter=Hitler=Trump?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-iranians-u-s/

In fact, Carter did much more in 1979 — he signed an Executive Order allowing his deputies to make 50,000 Iranian students then living in the United States report to an immigration office.
On Nov. 27, 1979, with Executive Order 12172, Carter directed that:

By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States, including the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, 8 USC 1185 and 3 USC 301, it is hereby ordered as follows:
SECTION 1-101. Delegation of Authority. The Secretary of State and the Attorney General are hereby designated and empowered to exercise in respect of Iranians holding nonimmigrant visas, the authority conferred upon the President by section 215(a) (1) of the Act of June 27, 1952 (8 USC 1185), to prescribe limitations and exceptions on the rules and regulations governing the entry of aliens into the United States.
SEC. 1—102. Effective Date. This order is effective immediately.
JIMMY CARTER
The White House,
November 26, 1979.

In December of that year, a U.S. Appeals Court allowed the deportation of the 7,000 Iranian students who were found to have visa violations. About 15,000 Iranians were told to leave the United States.
In addition, Iranians entering the United States were forced to submit to extra border screening, and many Iranians’ existing visas were cancelled. On April 7, 1980, Carter directed:

See, Carter was justified in actually carrying it out, but threaten and be filled with bluster and Trump is called Hitler. 'Seems like hypocrisy to me.

[IronBrig4]

False equivalency. Carter's policy was targeted specifically against one nationality. That's something the US government has done since the beginning. There have always been travel bans and embargoes aimed at specific nations in response to actions carried out by those governments (Iran, Cuba, North Korea).

What Trump suggests is targeting an entire religion regardless of nationality. It's more reminiscent of the Immigration Act of 1924 than Order 12172.

[Diocle]

This is the leftist witch Hillary Clinton about Margaret Sanger:





The witch: "I admire enormously" this crazy Nazi activist, but being leftist the witch is not Fascist, instead Trump asking for more controls on Wahhabi ..

[IronBrig4]

Eh... that doesn't really work. Many American politicians, scientists, and ordinary people supported eugenics at the time. They felt that the new waves of Southern and Central European immigrants would outnumber "real" Americans if steps weren't taken to limit their population growth.

[DimeBagHo]

Those quotations are probably fake.

http://www.snopes.com/margaret-sanger-weeds/

She did apparently say this:

Birth Control is not contraception indiscriminately and thoughtlessly practiced. It means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks — those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.

Which sounds pretty racist, just not as explicitly racist as the made up quotes.

Eh... that doesn't really work. Many American politicians, scientists, and ordinary people supported eugenics at the time. They felt that the new waves of Southern and Central European immigrants would outnumber "real" Americans if steps weren't taken to limit their population growth.

Not sure what you mean here. Sanger's "vision" was to weed out inferior humans. That was indeed a common idea at the time, but it's a problem if Hillary still admires it.

[IronBrig4]

Not sure what you mean here. Sanger's "vision" was to weed out inferior humans. That was indeed a common idea at the time, but it's a problem if Hillary still admires it.

What I'm saying is most figures from the 1910s and '20s held views that we'd consider repugnant today. Teddy Roosevelt supported eugenics too but that doesn't mean we chuck out all the other stuff he did. We still admire those people because we recognize they were products of their time.

Crucifying someone because they admire a historical figure who supported eugenics isn't exactly useful. The folks who do that are no better than the ones attacking somebody because they admire someone who once owned slaves.

[HorseArcher]

So Jimmy Carter=Hitler=Trump?


See, Carter was justified in actually carrying it out, but threaten and be filled with bluster and Trump is called Hitler. 'Seems like hypocrisy to me.

The last time I checked Iran was a country, a nation, "Muslim", isn't a country, nor a nation.

Of course, the difference between then and now is that Jimmy Carter barred Iranians from entering the country and Trump would bar all Muslims. Any such invalidation of entry into the United States thus requires a debate about national security priorities and the legalities of visa restrictions.

The United States has thus banned entry into the country on national security grounds – and under Democratic presidents, no less. In addition to Carter’s freeze of entry into the U.S. for Iranians, there are the acts taken against the Japanese and Germans by FDR.

What that entails for refugees and immigrants from Muslim-majority nations that are hostile to the United States is a matter for debate – but banning entry based on religion would certainly be unprecedented.

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/12/4892...-and-expelled/

[DimeBagHo]

What I'm saying is most figures from the 1910s and '20s held views that we'd consider repugnant today. Teddy Roosevelt supported eugenics too but that doesn't mean we chuck out all the other stuff he did. We still admire those people because we recognize they were products of their time.

Crucifying someone because they admire a historical figure who supported eugenics isn't exactly useful. The folks who do that are no better than the ones attacking somebody because they admire someone who once owned slaves.

Teddy Roosevelt did and believed a lot of things, besides eugenics, which someone might admire him for. Margaret Sanger's whole thing was eugenics. If you read the quote I gave above she makes it pretty clear that birth control is only justified for eugenic purposes. That was her whole vision: improving the population by getting rid of defectives.

[don_Durandal]

Those quotations are probably fake.
<....>

The first and third quotations are fake. The first one (about weeds needing to be exterminated) was made up by mixing up unrelated part of Sanger's work (she actually uses weeds as a metaphor to people growing on the soil of civilisation); the third one is entirely made up.
But these two false quotes, like many other made-up "quotes" by Margaret Sangers, have been repeated so many times that now some people think they are real. They are like bad urban legends.

The second one is real, but taken entirely out of context.
What she meant was that she didn't want black people to mistake her project for a plan to exterminate the black population. That makes sense when taken in the context of the full quote.
That's the same as when creationists use quote-mining to misrepresent what scientists write.

[RubiconDecision]

Trump is currently a "tin plated hero with delusions of grandeur" and appealing to xenophobia as it gets him the most votes through inciting fear. It's the same phenomena of the Patriot Acts.

BUT until he's the president, he's just a blowhard.

And Carter and many others in American history actually committed grievous and dubious policies out of Fear.

You cannot compare the threat of xenophobia with actual xenophobia.

Wise people are wary when it's so easy to identify the potential, but the worst ideologues excuse their own sordid history of abusive practices.

[B. W.]

Eh... that doesn't really work. Many American politicians, scientists, and ordinary people supported eugenics at the time. They felt that the new waves of Southern and Central European immigrants would outnumber "real" Americans if steps weren't taken to limit their population growth.

Eh...Sanger was decidedly racist and proud supporter of the KKK. Hillary undoubtedly knows this as she studied the woman's history in detail or else she is a complete and utter idiot:

http://margaretsanger.blogspot.com/

[DimeBagHo]

Eh...Sanger was decidedly racist and proud supporter of the KKK. Hillary undoubtedly knows this as she studied the woman's history in detail or else she is a complete and utter idiot:

http://margaretsanger.blogspot.com/

Fake again.

http://www.snopes.com/margaret-sanger-kkk/

She once spoke to a KKK women's group, but there is no evidence that she was a "proud supporter of the KKK". When she wrote about it later she said she was willing to talk to anyone and that it was "one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing". Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

[IronBrig4]

Eh...Sanger was decidedly racist and proud supporter of the KKK.

Not really. Definitely a eugenicist but no more of a racist than anyone else in the 1920s. http://www.politifact.com/new-hampsh...er-was-active/

You got anything more than a pro-life blog as a source?

[Col. Tartleton]

If we're not at war with a country, but a faction of a religion, shouldn't we take steps against that religion?

No one would question that we can single out a nationality in the face of conflict with that nation, so it is equally valid to single out a religion in the face of conflict with it.

We are at war with the Caliphate led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Sunni Muslims are subject to this Caliphate. If the Pope was saying Death to America and Catholics were targeting the US, we'd be going after Catholics.

[DimeBagHo]

If we're not at war with a country, but a faction of a religion, shouldn't we take steps against that religion?

No one would question that we can single out a nationality in the face of conflict with that nation, so it is equally valid to single out a religion in the face of conflict with it.

We are at war with the Caliphate led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Sunni Muslims are subject to this Caliphate. If the Pope was saying Death to America and Catholics were targeting the US, we'd be going after Catholics.

If you have a conflict with one part of an organisation then it often makes sense to act against the entire organisation. The reason being that the parts of an organisation can be expected to act together and be mutually supporting. The Catholic Church is an organisation, so if the Pope declared war on America it might well make sense to act against the church everywhere. It wouldn't make much sense to target all Christians though, because Christianity is not an organisation and there's no particular reason to expect other churches to support the Catholic Church.

[Col. Tartleton]

Its not like Trump is advocating violence against all Muslims. Only a temporary travel ban until a more effective security measures can be put in place that are actually capable of dealing with international and domestic terrorism. Specifically Islamist.

The only Muslims who are going to get killed are militants in direct opposition to the US. Which is hardly a change in policy. We've been blowing up Hajjis for decades and they us.

[DimeBagHo]

Its not like Trump is advocating violence against all Muslims. Only a temporary travel ban until a more effective security measures can be put in place that are actually capable of dealing with international and domestic terrorism. Specifically Islamist.

The only Muslims who are going to get killed are militants in direct opposition to the US. Which is hardly a change in policy. We've been blowing up Hajjis for decades and they us.

A travel ban on all Muslims would have almost no practical benefit over more targeted measures. Too many of the potential hostiles are already US residents, and it's too easy to bypass immigration rules entirely by crossing the border with Mexico. A general travel ban would also be unfair to those Muslims who are on our side, and it would fly in the face of an important principle held by all liberal democracies, which is the free practice of religion.

[PointOfViewGun]

If we're not at war with a country, but a faction of a religion, shouldn't we take steps against that religion?

No one would question that we can single out a nationality in the face of conflict with that nation, so it is equally valid to single out a religion in the face of conflict with it.

We are at war with the Caliphate led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Sunni Muslims are subject to this Caliphate. If the Pope was saying Death to America and Catholics were targeting the US, we'd be going after Catholics.

"Caliphate" led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is not a faction of a religion. al-Bagdadi is not the Pope of all Muslims or all Sunni Muslims.

When U.S. went to war with Afghanistan and Iraq, were Afghans and Iraqis in USA got prosecuted by the state for merely being Afghans and Iraqis?

You have many churches that preach hatred against women that receive abortion and against those that carry out abortion procedures. People do get killed because of that. Did U.S.A. prosecute Christians for that?