Random Politics & Religion #00

Oh yeah, that.

I mean ***like this is severely un-American and yet bigots eat it up:


https://gma.yahoo.com/donald-trump-stands-barring-muslims-despite-criticism-121110015--abc-news-topstories.html#

Look, I'm not a fan of religious persons of any persuasion, but they have just as much right to be here as I do.

Well as a fellow internet Muslim I'm outraged and shocked.

It's already started my friend.

No it hasn't. There is a war, but it's not world war.

If the choice comes down to "Let's kick out the Muslims (Trump)" or "Islam has nothing to do with violence (Hillary)". Trump will walk away with it, because most people will pick safety over PC everyday.

This is actually a somewhat smart move by Trump as it will refocus the conversation on immigration, and due to recent events, Terrorism.

There were equivalent points in previous world wars too.

We aren't in a war it's just a "conflict struggle" !

No different than being a newly wed couple. Give it five years and everything will be fine.

Ultimately, we didn't open our doors to Japan or Germany during WWII. Since we don't have a specific country we can boycott and all our enemies share a common thread (I'll leave you all to posit what that might be) I must admit I don't share the knee jerk reaction liberals seem to have. We need a moratorium on immigration generally. It's time for everyone to take a good 30 years and assimilate.

I mean how many more Muslim terrorists do we need to allow into the country via immigration?

You would have to (OMGTHEHORROR) profile most of them.

Yes our treatment of Japanese-American citizens is totally something that we should attempt to repeat.


What you're suggesting is to discriminate people based on their religion, which is about as un-American as it gets.

Planned Parenthood?

Don't mind Ramyrez, he is somebody who believes anything his union representative tells him, especially when it's against corporate practices, you know, the very thing that keeps him employed. He thinks that all corporations are evil even though he purchases about 90% of his ***that are made by or sold by corporations themselves. If we are realistic, we can honestly say that 100% of his purchases were influenced by a corporation somehow, but to him, all corporations are evil and must be destroyed.

And hopefully, he will come to the realization that it's not the corporate practices that are evil, but the people themselves who are evil and one day can tell the difference between the two.

KN, I'm not going to tell you again. I barely know who my union reps are. My union actually endorses Hillary officially, ffs. I certainly don't. But they collectively bargain for me and that's what I care about in the end.

I see nausi has gone full delusional on Trump again...

For somebody who doesn't know their union rep, you certainly make the union's argument perfectly.

I mean, who else is going to actively bite the hand that literally feeds it, besides unions?

Maybe you should try out to be your union's top leader, whatever that title is. You certainly have the rhetoric down to a "T".

clam down, he's just using the old "hundred words to call you a crusty old *** waffle" gambit to try to avoid being banned again...

troll someone else kn, can't you see remo is already verklempt!

For someone who lambasts union rhetoric, you certainly have your own down pat.

Just because I abhor unions doesn't mean I'm ignorant of them or what they are really for.

Well of course you abhor what they're really for. Having to give up luxuries so workers can have appropriate pay and benefits is something people like you hate.

It says more about the voter base than anything.

I don't support a lot of the stuff that Trump has been saying lately, but he's still a far better choice than Hillary. Many people do realize he's pandering to the "locals" and couldn't really implement most of the stuff he's spewing.

It's a shame Trump has taken over the GOP as I'd still throw my support behind Paul.

If the choices are Hillary vs. Trump, it's unfortunate that I have to "support" Trump, but it's just a vote. It's not like I agree with any of his rhetoric or cheering him at some rally.

What a fun election, either vote for someone whose policies you don't support at all or vote for someone whose pandering to the "locals."

The funniest thing about this election is the people who claim they don't directly support Hillary, but question why you don't support her. The "I never said I support her, yet defend the opposition against her" crowd. Follow the money. She is backed by the same people who created the 2008 economic crisis. Start there.

Yes, because having people leave for better jobs is so much cheaper than keeping them around and working/making money for the company as a whole

What you are advocating doesn't work for all industries. The whole "pay me a living wage" shill you hear on the news today is being made by people who have no skills or abilities or desire to work in anything but minimal tasks, but for jobs that actually require skills to preform, there is no wage issues or benefits issues at all, even in states where unions have no presence in.

I'm sure you are going to spout off a nonsense point like "an engineer who works in NYC is paid more than an engineer in Houston," without understanding that the cost of living is much different in both cities, and real value is higher in Houston than it is in NYC.

A person who lives in Houston and is paid $70k per year has more buying power than a person who lives in NYC and is paid $100k per year for the exact same job. Are you going to deny this?

lol, no.


But you don't.


Well her husband did sign the repeal that allowed it to happen, so there's that.

Well, no my personal suggestion is we stop immigration across the board and give everyone time (30 years) to assimilate.

As for Trump...

It's unfair to compare stopping all muslim immigration to rounding up muslims and putting them into camps (which I assume is what you mean). You could insist that this action is coming next, but you really can't compare the two.

This worldwide threat doesn't come from one particular country or a few. There is no state or country with which we can prevent immigration from, it's a similar move to stopping immigration from the Axis powers during WW2. The only thing these people share is their religion.

To the extent this policy discriminates against a religion that is true, but there is no right to immigration in the constitution. And if a particular religion isn't in tune with constitutional values, the constitution doesn't take a back seat. That's precisely the argument people pointed too when people held up their faith when trying to not participate in baking a gay couple a wedding cake.

Lets just ask, how many unidentified or potential terrorists are YOU personally willing to let in here? How many AXIS "citizens" would you have let in during WW2?

For better or for worse.

Here I was actually looking for a conversation and you respond with poetry.

I guess you'd let in all the terrorists then?

Stop immigration for 30 years? Paranoia is running rampant again.

By my count the cold war was WWIII. We are currently in a world wide cyber war and it is WWIV.

If ISIS and the world wide Christian right have their way we will have a WWV but it hasn't reached global scale yet.