Donald Trump an unamerican platform.

[DanieltheDragon]

Donald Trump has perhaps the most unamerican platform.

1. deporting of naturalized citizens
2. closing of religious institutions
3. registration of religous groups coupled with special identification


is Trump's policies unamerican or unconstitutional?

is Trump's positions defensible?

[Wootah]

. Hey let's kill the brightest and hardest working in our country and then go to war. If we expelled Islam from a country what would be the net loss?

Wootah

I think you've answer you're own question.

Immigrants are always the brightest and hardest working in any country. Right now, because of the destruction of their countries, they are the immigrants.

They tend to be the best and the brightest, because they are desperate and countries can discriminate.

So far my experience with Middle Easterners is excellent, their integrity is off the scale, and have a sense of honor you don't see outside of movies*. Three excellent doctors, several students with fantastic adaptability, restaurant owners, and of course guys on the street.

*=In Turkey merchants leave their wares on the streets, with, apparently, no fear of theft.

No the answer to my question was: nothing.

Don't conflate my argument with immigrants, Middle Easterners or Turkish people please. That is false equivalence. If we were interested in the economic benefit of migrants there are way better policies to consider.

The easy option for the people agreeing that 'Donald Trump an unamerican platform' will always be to play the racist card. At least on this website I hope to be allowed to debate freely and would prefer to not have to face such insinuations. Keep them for the real world.

[Danmark]

Even if we say no religion is worse than any other there will always be problems with people of different cultures than the mainstream. I understand the desire to exclude 'the other' or anything new. And I certainly find it annoying and galling to have some influx of new people who are opposed to our basic values of secular democracy.

My comments are not out of a desire to exclude 'the other' and Islam is not new. Your feelings may reflect your concerns.

I think of the good Samaritan story and I fear that we are helping the bandits and not the person that was mugged and left for dead. I think we are feeding the Cuckoo bird because the other birds have been pushed out of the nest. We go to give aid to others in such a tired and lazy fashion. We bring food to refugee camps and the non Muslim refugees who get barred from the camps get none. We import refugees but the non-Muslim refugees get pushed off the boat to drown at sea.

But the alternative is to trash what we stand for and trash our Constitution. Yes, I'd love to exclude the Kim Davises and Christians who want to impose the Christian version of Sharia Law. Certainly we are better off without them and without Muslims who do not believe in our basic freedoms and want a theocracy or believe in laws against homosexual rights.

If I wrote, 'But the alternative is we trash what we stand for and trash the Bible.' What would you think? You would think, "Man that guy is in a religion." But clearly you will demonstrate how you are not in a religion in a coming post.

My purpose in that post was to acknowledge the concerns of those feel threatened by other cultures or religions and to point out that our Constitution expressly forbids such discrimination, as well as the imposition of religious law on a secular society. Absent reliable knowledge of a bone fide threat to this country, all we can do is require the oath of citizenship I quoted. The heart of the Bill of Rights is the assurance that people are free to think and believe as they wish and to express their opinions. I have to put up with the Kim Davises, but not their refusal to follow the Constitution. I have to put with Muslims who refuse cab rides to the blind because of their support dogs, but I have my civil remedies.

We will always have the problem of catching a few dogfish along with the tuna; there will always immigrants and native born citizens who become mass murderers after birth or entry to the U.S. The problem is not Muslims or Christians or Norwegians, but those who become crazy regardless of national origin, religion, or lack thereof.

For me, it isn't so much religion that is the problem, but radical fundamentalism, whether it is religious, political or mental.

[Wootah]

What is the law on stopping radical Nazis entering the USA? What about nominal Nazis or even hard working migrant Nazis?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 23 by Wootah]

None, that's the price of freedom. You throw the term Nazi around like it is the worst horror but, the German Jews survived the experience, the probable 1.5 million Jews (we'll never know) whom Stalin killed are gone forever, the 38 million, untold cultures destroyed by Stalin are gone, never to be heard from again, the same with the 60 million people and who knows how many cultures, religions and peoples lost to Mao.

Are you saying we shouldn't allow the Chinese Communist Party into the US? Or that if Communists murder people they aren't evil? You've got alot of Maoist supporters around today, they made the Nazi's look like a drop in the pan, why do you not complain about them?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 21 by Wootah]

The "race card" doesn't need to be played. His policy proposals are unconstitutional. Can you demonstrate any of them as constitutional? Can we just deport naturalized citizens? How can you prohibit or sanction a religion without violating the first amendment.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 21 by Wootah]

The "race card" doesn't need to be played. His policy proposals are unconstitutional. Can you demonstrate any of them as constitutional? Can we just deport naturalized citizens? How can you prohibit or sanction a religion without violating the first amendment.

Islam isn't just a religion - it's a political system. Re: Sharia.

Stopping immigration isn't deporting.

[Danmark]

Islam isn't just a religion - it's a political system. Re: Sharia.

This is simply untrue. Islam is every bit as much of a religion as Christianity. And they both have their own religious law which their adherents believe in imposing on society. "Sharia" has become an epithet the Christian right likes to use in regard to Islam, but it is simply the Islamic equivalent to Jewish and Christian law. Many Christians have long advocated for secular laws based on their religious beliefs. But if a Muslim does exactly the same thing they throw up their hands, yell "Horrors! It's an abomination!" while they advocate exactly the same thing from a 'Christian' point of view.

This is precisely the same kind of nonsense Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz went ballistic over in pandering to the Republican base in supporting the unconstitutional efforts of Kim Davis. The hypocrisy and dishonesty of their effort is blatant and obvious.
You disagree? Please tell me the distinction, other than the fact you prefer one religion over another.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to Wootah]

He stated early on he wanted to deport Americans whose parents crossed the border and gave birth to them on US soil. These people are Americans by birth and he stated he wanted to deport them....

[Wootah]

[Replying to Wootah]

He stated early on he wanted to deport Americans whose parents crossed the border and gave birth to them on US soil. These people are Americans by birth and he stated he wanted to deport them....

It sounds like a bad law doesn't it?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to Wootah]

He stated early on he wanted to deport Americans whose parents crossed the border and gave birth to them on US soil. These people are Americans by birth and he stated he wanted to deport them....

It sounds like a bad law doesn't it?

It sounds like the united states constitution to me. Even of you changed it with a constitutional amendment, it would not be ex post facto.

He is not talking about changing a law but deporting American citizens.