• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

16-Year-Old Black Trump Supporter Schools Black Lives Matter Moron

AlbqOwl said:
I don't see moving to a more moderate position the same thing as moving to a liberal position. So we'll just have to amicably disagree on that one. And I wasn't referring to any particular case. All I am saying is that it is reasonable for one or two individuals to disagree with the others on most things. But when you are getting consistent 5/4 splits on decision after decision after decision with the same people voting together on those decisions, one side or the other is not following the letter and intent of the Constitution.

I don't want Supreme Court justices who are loyal to an ideology. I want Supreme Court justices who are loyal to the letter and intent of the Constitution and existing law.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how the 5/4 splits translate into someone not following the letter and intent of the constitution.
 
Grim17 said:
1. This isn't a matter of my feelings, it's about you saying how that statement fits Trump, which is only true if a person has embraced the lies about Trump and adopted the false narrative that he's a bigot and a racist.

How about you address #3... Is such a travel ban against American principals or not?
Click to expand...

I don't know if he's a bigoted, misogynist racist because I'm not in his head. He does, however, consistently say bigoted, misogynist racist thing. We'll leave it to historians whether he does this solely to appeal to his bigoted, misogynist, racist following.

If you don't see what's wrong with stating that he would put a ban on all people of a specific religion from entering the country, that's on you.
 
Cardinal said:
I don't understand how the 5/4 splits translate into someone not following the letter and intent of the constitution.
Click to expand...

Because if they were all following the letter and intent of the Constitution there would be no 5/4 split. One or two might have a reasonable disagreement to dissent, but not four or more with predictable regularity.
 
Cardinal said:
If you don't see what's wrong with stating that he would put a ban on all people of a specific religion from entering the country, that's on you.
Click to expand...

Even if the country of origin supports terrorism against the USA and the people belong to a religion that is almost synonymous with terrorism world wide, has already committed several mass murders on American soil and that religion demands Sharia Law of its followers, a set of laws completely incompatible with our constitution? You don't see a problem with that? That's not just on you, that kind of disregard for the real world reality of the situation is on all of us.
 
blaxshep said:
Even if the country of origin supports terrorism against the USA and the people belong to a religion that is almost synonymous with terrorism world wide, has already committed several mass murders on American soil and that religion demands Sharia Law of its followers, a set of laws completely incompatible with our constitution? You don't see a problem with that? That's not just on you, that kind of disregard for the real world reality of the situation is on all of us.
Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely, whole-heartedly, without a doubt, yes.

This country was founded on and stands for freedom of belief and, in particular, freedom of religion. What they do NOT get is freedom of action, freedom of behavior. Criminal behavior is prosecuted. Criminal belief generally does not exist.
 
blaxshep said:
Even if the country of origin supports terrorism against the USA and the people belong to a religion that is almost synonymous with terrorism world wide, has already committed several mass murders on American soil and that religion demands Sharia Law of its followers, a set of laws completely incompatible with our constitution? You don't see a problem with that? That's not just on you, that kind of disregard for the real world reality of the situation is on all of us.
Click to expand...

Trump wasn't calling for a ban on people entering the US from specific countries, but all Muslims. Everywhere. Of course, Trump gave out an arbitrary exemption to the mayor of London, because apparently he thinks the Presidency is the equivalent of being a king and that he can make and dispense with any law he pleases. He also shot his own argument in the foot in a way that only Trump can do so: hilariously and without any sense of self awareness.
 
Absentglare said:
Yes, absolutely, whole-heartedly, without a doubt, yes.

This country was founded on and stands for freedom of belief and, in particular, freedom of religion. What they do NOT get is freedom of action, freedom of behavior. Criminal behavior is prosecuted. Criminal belief generally does not exist.
Click to expand...

...and I assume on the back side you support depriving Americans of their constitutional right to defend themselves i.e. gun control?
 
AlbqOwl said:
Because if they were all following the letter and intent of the Constitution there would be no 5/4 split. One or two might have a reasonable disagreement to dissent, but not four or more with predictable regularity.
Click to expand...

What it tells me is that five people hold one set of beliefs that lead them to interpret the constitution in one way, and that the other four people held a different set of beliefs that them to interpret the constitution differently.
 
Cardinal said:
Trump wasn't calling for a ban on people entering the US from specific countries, but all Muslims. Everywhere. Of course, Trump gave out an arbitrary exemption to the mayor of London, because apparently he thinks the Presidency is the equivalent of being a king and that he can make and dispense with any law he pleases. He also shot his own argument in the foot in a way that only Trump can do so: hilariously and without any sense of self awareness.
Click to expand...

Trump has his issues that is for sure, but Islam is a global problem. We cant just ignore terrorism because its a religion behind it.
 
blaxshep said:
Trump has his issues that is for sure, but Islam is a global problem. We cant just ignore terrorism because its a religion behind it.
Click to expand...

Yes, some people are fine with tearing down the principles that make this country great so long as they feel safe. Such cowards don't deserve to live in a stable, cosmopolitan democracy.
 
Cardinal said:
Yes, some people are fine with tearing down the principles that make this country great so long as they feel safe. Such cowards don't deserve to live in a stable, cosmopolitan democracy.
Click to expand...

I agree gun control is the act of constitution hating cowards. The right thing to do is vet the people coming into this country that come from regions and religions hostile to America.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Conflating Islam with terrorism is rather rankly dishonest.
Click to expand...

Virtually all terrorist attacks world wide as well as atrocities against women and human rights are perpetrated by Islam. ISIS is a prime example.
 
blaxshep said:
I agree gun control is the act of constitution hating cowards. The right thing to do is vet the people coming into this country that come from regions and religions hostile to America.
Click to expand...

You don't get to argue for the Constitution while making the argument that the United States should make religious tests for entry into the country. Once you've gone down that path you've officially lost all authority to so much as refer to the Constitution. You would happily give up your first amendment right to free speech too if you thought it would make you feel safer. You're a disgrace to everybody in our nation's history who struggled to create and expand our civil liberties. You don't deserve them.
 
blaxshep said:
Virtually all terrorist attacks world wide as well as atrocities against women and human rights are perpetrated by Islam. ISIS is a prime example.
Click to expand...

Like I said, rankly dishonest. Fundamentalism the form of of Islamism, perhaps, but not Islam itself.
 
Cardinal said:
You don't get to argue for the Constitution while making the argument that the United States should make religious tests for entry into the country. Once you've gone down that path you've officially lost all authority to so much as refer to the Constitution. You would happily give up your first amendment right to free speech too if you thought it would make you feel safer. You're a disgrace to everybody in our nation's history who struggled to create and expand our civil liberties. You don't deserve them.
Click to expand...

What ever you have to believe, the constitution allows this country to vet people that want to immigrate to this country and if they have ties to radical Islam we have every right and the responsibility to deny them entry.
 
blaxshep said:
What ever you have to believe, the constitution allows this country to vet people that want to immigrate to this country and if they have ties to radical Islam we have every right and the responsibility to deny them entry.
Click to expand...

Are you deliberately trying to not understand this topic? Trump doesn't want to ban Muslims from certain countries. Trump doesn't want to ban radical Muslims. Trump doesn't want to ban Muslims with ties to radical groups. He wants to ban Muslims. ALL OF THEM.
 
blaxshep said:
...and I assume on the back side you support depriving Americans of their constitutional right to defend themselves i.e. gun control?
Click to expand...

That'd be speculation and no.

Edit: allow me to re-iterate. I support current gun control laws. I think we could make some improvements, but i don't want to dramatically expand the group of who is legally disqualified from purchasing a gun.
 
Cardinal said:
Are you deliberately trying to not understand this topic? Trump doesn't want to ban Muslims from certain countries. Trump doesn't want to ban radical Muslims. Trump doesn't want to ban Muslims with ties to radical groups. He wants to ban Muslims. ALL OF THEM.
Click to expand...

Well in that case I disagree with Donald. If they have no ties to Radical Islam, have no intention of instigating Sharia Law and can integrate into the American way of life then welcome aboard, but we cant just open the door because its isn't PC to acknowledged the existence of Radical Islam or admit that Islam is in fact a genuine source of terrorism and atrocities. Not all Nazis in WWII were Jew killing fascists, ill bet the vast majority were genuinely nice people. I wonder if you liberals were singing the same song of tolerance for Nazi's in 1943?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom