Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

Nodin · 04-03-2016 7:32pm

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

There is general outrage at Trump, the whole frothing at the mouth brigade at people who think he is a racist nazi because he thinks a state should have a border.

He said far more for that, so spare me the dishonesty.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

In the TV ratings spectacle that is US presidential politics, yes. Look at the poll numbers. He is not running amongst a deep field of intellectuals here or visionary political heavyweights, he is running against a religious nutter, a corrupt programmable robot and some left over neo cons. The democrat field is a weak socialist, and a corrupt programmable robot. He is a winner amongst that rabble yeah, no matter how puerile his utterances get.

A nematode might be a hugely successful animal whose various species will outlive us all, but at the end of day its a worm. There's little point in talking about him being "puerile" while singing his praises in the manner of a cheerleader in the same post.

JPNelsforearm wrote:

Mexico(or rather, Central America) is sending quite a number of rapists and
criminals, I posted the crime stats a few pages back.

If you actually read what he said, he said "all muslims" from Syria etc, until we can "figure it
out", "who these people are" etc. Nothing wrong with that

.

And back to the racist theory of the undermining of 'white societay' once more.

He did not refer specifically to Syrians.

recidite wrote:

His speeches are spontaneous and not pre-scripted, so he gives the impression
that he could handle any fast moving crisis that might develop while he was
president.

...it does? So far the only impression I get of is either a thick or a demagogue.

JPNelsforearm · 04-03-2016 7:32pm

Christy42 wrote: »

Shockingly we think that hurting people is bad. Apologies for hurting you with our "moral order".

How long before we can "figure it out". It was an indefinite time period. Given how remote the possibility of dying from a terrorist attack it is a massive over reaction. He is inciting hatred against a lot of groups that could suffer a big backlash if enough people believe his rants.

I have to say I am rather impressed how well he makes himself look like "one of the lads" as opposed to someone who got anything he ever wanted because he had rich parents like every other politician.

"Hurting people", physical harm is distinct from having your sensibilities jarred.
If you are "hurt" by having someone say something you need to grow up,.

Nodin · 04-03-2016 7:33pm

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

From the Guardian...

"Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has released his first, long-promised campaign ad: a spot that touts his controversial proposal to ban Muslims from entering the US “until we can figure out what’s going on”.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/04/donald-trump-great-again-first-campaign-ad-isis-mexico-wall-muslim-ban

I see no issue with banning people from a totalitarian death cult from entering your country, be they communists or islamists. the ones in country, well, they are covered under the first amendment, nothign you can do, but why would you import more of them.

'so I was wrong about it being Syrians but what the hell 15th century religious bigotry is ok anyway'

oscarBravo · 04-03-2016 7:34pm

Custardpi wrote: »

While I don't agree with Trump on this matter, how is that different to the current question on the immigration form which asks if you have ever been a member of the Communist Party?

Are members of the Communist Party, including American citizens, banned from entering the country?

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

I see no issue with banning people from a totalitarian death cult from entering your country, be they communists or islamists.

The fact that you see no issue with it is a very, very different thing from it being OK.

You could say that you see no issue with murdering the families of enemy combatants, but that doesn't make it not a war crime.

JPNelsforearm · 04-03-2016 7:42pm

Nodin wrote: »

He said far more for that, so spare me the dishonesty.

A nematode might be a hugely successful animal whose various species will outlive us all, but at the end of day its a worm. There's little point in talking about him being "puerile" while singing his praises in the manner of a cheerleader in the same post.

.

And back to the racist theory of the undermining of 'white societay' once more.

He did not refer specifically to Syrians.

...it does? So far the only impression I get of is either a thick or a demagogue.

Dishonesty? Ok, I'll admit, he's literally the reincarnation of hitler and he is manufacturing mobile gassing units as we speak(although, that was the Soviets, but I digress).

LOL, "Hispanics" contain a great number of "white" people in their midst, but, do continue with your marxist agitprop that everyone against mass immigration/demographic replacement is a racist..

He was speaking in the context of the European Migration crisis/Paris attacks and the islamic terror that has engulfed the Arab world. Read.

Custardpi · 04-03-2016 7:49pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are members of the Communist Party, including American citizens, banned from entering the country?

It's certainly a bar to naturalisation & even if you were just visiting it's generally not advised to put it down, unless you enjoy long chats with US border officials. There are exemptions allowed based on the extent of & how recent one's attachment to Communism or other totalitarian ideologies is but ultimately it's still a test of one's political beliefs. Would a similar standard being applied for some sections of Islam (Wahhabism or similar Salafist strains for example) be more acceptable than Trump's one size fits all approach?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_restrictions_on_naturalization_in_U.S._law

oscarBravo · 04-03-2016 7:54pm

Custardpi wrote: »

It's certainly a bar to naturalisation & even if you were just visiting it's generally not advised to put it down, unless you enjoy long chats with US border officials. There are exemptions allowed based on the extent of & how recent one's attachment to Communism or other totalitarian ideologies is but ultimately it's still a test of one's political beliefs. Would a similar standard being applied for some sections of Islam (Wahhabism or similar Salafist strains for example) be more acceptable than Trump's one size fits all approach?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_restrictions_on_naturalization_in_U.S._law

I'm not a fan of collective punishment at all, to be honest. If an individual is too dangerous to allow into the country, don't let them in.

JPNelsforearm · 04-03-2016 7:54pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are members of the Communist Party, including American citizens, banned from entering the country?

The fact that you see no issue with it is a very, very different thing from it being OK.

You could say that you see no issue with murdering the families of enemy combatants, but that doesn't make it not a war crime.

You think letting a ready made fifth column into your nation is a sensible immigration policy? A state can employ any criteria it likes as to who is a fit and proper person and who is entitled to entry.

It wouldnt be a war crime, the US hasnt signed any international treaties on such matters. Obama can drone strike weddings and hospitals to his hearts content, his successor will also have those powers.

Custardpi · 04-03-2016 7:58pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not a fan of collective punishment at all, to be honest. If an individual is too dangerous to allow into the country, don't let them in.

Neither am I but if the US has already decided that some ideologies such as Communism should have at least restricted entry to the country is it really changing much to expand that ideological test to include some extreme religious beliefs?

oscarBravo · 04-03-2016 8:05pm

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

You think letting a ready made fifth column into your nation is a sensible immigration policy?

I forgot - Republicans are terrified of Syrian children.

A state can employ any criteria it likes as to who is a fit and proper person and who is entitled to entry.

It can't legally deny its own citizens entry on the basis of religion.

It wouldnt be a war crime...

Silly me, I tend to forget who I'm having this discussion with.

Custardpi wrote: »

Neither am I but if the US has already decided that some ideologies such as Communism should have at least restricted entry to the country is it really changing much to expand that ideological test to include some extreme religious beliefs?

If the best case you can make for doing bad things is to point out that you already do things that are almost as bad, I don't think you're making a compelling case.

Custardpi · 04-03-2016 8:24pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

If the best case you can make for doing bad things is to point out that you already do things that are almost as bad, I don't think you're making a compelling case.

I'm not "making a case" for anything, merely pointing out that a restriction based on religious belief is not all that different to a restriction based on political belief, something which as been present in US law for decades. You might disagree with it, as indeed I do (at least in a broad-stroke manner) but you can't say it's "un-American".

Indeed, the US committee set up to purge the civil service of communists & expose & bully many in private life was known as the House Committee on Un-American activities. McCarthy's excesses have since been disowned by many in the US but he nevertheless established that there was an ideological limitation to who was to be regarded as properly "American".

I'd be interested to know what you mean in this context by

If an individual is too dangerous to allow into the country, don't let them in

How should a country define "dangerous"? Can his/her political/religious beliefs play any part in determining that?

JPNelsforearm · 04-03-2016 8:27pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I forgot - Republicans are terrified of Syrian children. It can't legally deny its own citizens entry on the basis of religion. Silly me, I tend to forget who I'm having this discussion with.

If the best case you can make for doing bad things is to point out that you already do things that are almost as bad, I don't think you're making a compelling case.

Yes, think of the children.... Emotional rhetoric.

No it cannot. I agree with you, no citizen should be banned from their country, or arrested for thought crime, its Orwellian.

Im not saying its a good thing, Im saying that legally the united states is not a signatory to the ICC etc, so they can and do commit "war crimes" with impunity. Its not up for debate, its a fact, how you or I feel about it is irrelevant.

recedite · 04-03-2016 8:29pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not a fan of collective punishment at all, to be honest. If an individual is too dangerous to allow into the country, don't let them in.

Not a realistic option, unless you possess a working crystal ball. How do you know what crimes they are going to commit before they commit them?
And anyway, if they have registered as refugees, they cannot be deported after committing serious crime because they "might" face "cruel or inhumane treatment" in their home country. There are already numerous violent rapists in this country who have been given council housing instead of a deportation order.

In terms of collective punishment, what would you advocate in this situation?
1.Collective punishment of all men, by barring them at certain times.
2.Collective punishment of male migrants on the evidence that they are prone to misogyny and sexual harassment of females, barring them at certain times, or at all times.
3.Collective punishment of all women, by not protecting them from a predictable hazard, on the basis that to do so would be considered sexist or racist.

oscarBravo · 04-03-2016 8:37pm

recedite wrote: »

Not a realistic option, unless you possess a working crystal ball. How do you know what crimes they are going to commit before they commit them?

You don't. Just the same way you don't know what crimes the average Joe in the street is going to commit before he commits them.

Now, you could arrest average Joe on the basis that he's a member of an identifiable group of whom an almost negligible minority are likely to commit a crime, but that would be... what's the word? Oh yeah: stupid.

There's no rational basis for banning all Muslims from entering the country. There are irrational bases for doing so, but any attempt to try to dress up an irrational argument as a rational one ends up looking... stupid.

recedite · 04-03-2016 8:49pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

You don't. Just the same way you don't know what crimes the average Joe in the street is going to commit before he commits them.

So you can't stop him coming in before he offends, because that would be racial profiling. And you can't deport him afterwards, because that would contravene some refugee treaty. Checkmate, comrade.
But don't fret, because someone else will be the victim that pays for your self-righteous PC correctness.

The Randy Riverbeast · 04-03-2016 8:57pm

Isn't a person in the US more likely to be killed by police than terrorists? Maybe they should ban them from entering the country.

PopePalpatine · 04-03-2016 8:59pm

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Isn't a person in the US more likely to be killed by police than terrorists? Maybe they should ban them from entering the country.

Yes, but they only kill blacks, so who cares? :rolleyes:

oscarBravo · 04-03-2016 9:01pm

recedite wrote: »

Someone else will be the victim that pays for your self-righteous PC correctness

It never ceases to amaze me that the remote possibility of Americans being killed by immigrants is too high a price to pay, while the constant stream of mass killings is an acceptable price to pay for the second amendment.

recedite · 04-03-2016 9:01pm

By "person" do you mean a criminal?

oscarBravo · 04-03-2016 9:03pm

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Isn't a person in the US more likely to be killed by police than terrorists?

Are the police Muslims? Because we're scrambling for an excuse to discriminate against Muslims, here.

And Mexicans. They're rapists.

The Randy Riverbeast · 04-03-2016 9:13pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me that the remote possibility of Americans being killed by immigrants is too high a price to pay, while the constant stream of mass killings is an acceptable price to pay for the second amendment.

According to this even including 9/11, guns violence leads to a huge amount more deaths but supposedly we shouldn't punish the law abiding gun owners for their actions.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/10/02/u-s-deaths-from-gun-violence-and-terrorism-in-comparison-infograpic/#119057024be8

Nodin · 04-03-2016 9:42pm

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

.................

He was speaking in the context of the European Migration crisis/Paris attacks and the islamic terror that has engulfed the Arab world. Read.

Yes, he decided to declare 1.6 Billion people unworthy to enter the US by dint of a shared faith. That is religious bigotry.

JPNelsforearm wrote:

You think letting a ready made fifth column into your nation is a sensible
immigration policy?

Are you referring to members of the Jewish faith again or are muslims a "fifth column" as well?

recidite wrote:

And anyway, if they have registered as refugees, they cannot be deported
after committing serious crime because they "might" face "cruel or inhumane
treatment" in their home country.

What has that to do with anything? If they commit a crime in America they'll find themselves in prison.

recidite wrote:

But don't fret, because someone else will be the victim that pays for your
self-righteous PC correctness.

Yes, jaysus forbid we stop repeating the cycle of demonisation and victimisation that we regularily slag off the religious about.

JPNelsforearm · 04-03-2016 11:06pm

Nodin wrote: »

Yes, he decided to declare 1.6 Billion people unworthy to enter the US by dint of a shared faith. That is religious bigotry.

Are you referring to members of the Jewish faith again or are muslims a "fifth column" as well?

Its a glib statement that wont have a hope in hell of ever becoming policy barring another 9/11. Who cares anyway, its hand wringing of the highest order.

Still on this craic noddy?:rolleyes: Ive smacked you down on three or four threads at this point.

Any self defined out-group, be they neo Cromwellians, catholic, evangelical, Islam or communist, and yes, jewish groups, who advocate for demographic replacement are a fifth column within society.

Now an individual can do this, as is his right and freedom, but when you have groups organising within society to radically change(whatever their various justifications) its demographics, it is a serious issue, and deserves to be pointed out. A nation doesnt exist without its people and a people dont exist without a nation.

Absolam · 04-03-2016 11:20pm

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Any self defined out-group, be they neo Cromwellians, catholic, evangelical, Islam or communist, and yes, jewish groups, who advocate for demographic replacement are a fifth column within society.

That sounds a little glib itself in fairness. How is an out-group defined and what constitutes advocating for demographic replacement? It sounds a little like denying minorities freedom of expression because they might stop being a minority, to be honest.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Now an individual can do this, as is his right and freedom, but when you have groups organising within society to radically change(whatever their various justifications) its demographics, it is a serious issue, and deserves to be pointed out. A nation doesnt exist without its people and a people dont exist without a nation.

Is it not an individuals right to have freedom of association? Why does the right to advocate for social change (even radical social change like desegregation and the female vote) become a serious issue when people (like the suffragettes, and freedom riders, and unions) organise within society to do it?

Nodin · 04-03-2016 11:30pm

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Its a glib statement that wont have a hope in hell of ever becoming policy barring another 9/11. Who cares anyway, its hand wringing of the highest order..

Who cares what somebody running for possibly the most powerful position in world politics......hmmmmm.

Still on this craic noddy?:rolleyes: Ive smacked you down on three or four threads at this point.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Any self defined out-group, be they neo Cromwellians, catholic, evangelical, Islam or communist, and yes, jewish groups, who advocate for demographic replacement are a fifth column within society.

Now an individual can do this, as is his right and freedom, but when you have groups organising within society to radically change(whatever their various justifications) its demographics, it is a serious issue, and deserves to be pointed out. A nation doesnt exist without its people and a people dont exist without a nation.

But why are Jewish groups advocating "demographic replacement?

As far as I'm aware the American people are a tiny minority. Who are you referring to?

JPNelsforearm · 04-03-2016 11:36pm

Absolam wrote: »

That sounds a little glib itself in fairness. How is an out-group defined and what constitutes advocating for demographic replacement? It sounds a little like denying minorities freedom of expression because they might stop being a minority, to be honest.

An out group can be defined in a myriad of ways, immigrants, religious zealots, political extremists. Most common would be religious zealots and immigrants in the modern context, but in the 70's the likes of the Baader Meinhoff and various leftists would be out groups trying to take down their "host state".

What the EU and Peter Sutherland suggest as regards immigration and sovereignty, would constitute a plan for demographic replacement in my book.

Thats exactly what I am suggesting. I make no bones about it. Ireland is the country of the Irish people as a whole, we have already seen the northern quarter lopped off by mass immigration, its not like we dont have current examples of this happening the world over, see "Kosovo", a heap of muslim Albanians carving out their own state in Serbia, the "Rohyingya", aka Bangladeshi muslims in Burma etc etc.

Ireland is the state of the Irish people, a demographic homeland. For a minority so somehow have the right to advocate for demographic change to our disadvantage, its insanity. Its colonialism under a liberal, "right on" cloak.

Is it not an individuals right to have freedom of association? Why does the right to advocate for social change (even radical social change like desegregation and the female vote) become a serious issue when people (like the suffragettes, and freedom riders, and unions) organise within society to do it?

Yes it is, but when you are planning a soft coup/soft colonialism, you lose that right. You are acting against the interests of the host nation and host people. Its borderline treason.

JPNelsforearm · 04-03-2016 11:48pm

Nodin wrote: »

But why are Jewish groups advocating "demographic replacement?

As far as I'm aware the American people are a tiny minority. Who are you referring to?

Its not demographic replacement in the European sense, that is a different discussion , different motivations, its moreso breaking anglo saxon/european demographic majority, that is the effect of the lobbying in the US.

Why? I dont know, as I posted yesterday, the head of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid society's answer to that question was, "ethics" and "strategic interest", make of that what you will. Some say its due to WW2 and a group strategic effort to promote multiculturalism and destroy nationalism, the same one world utopianism that Peter Sutherland and the other EU fossils are smoking. All I can give you is their motivations and what they say. I dont know anything beyond that. You may as well ask why does someone become a communist?

I dont know why you hone in on "jewish groups", as evangelical groups are just as culpable in this nonsense as are the multitude of hispanic groups, catholic groups. But hey if you want to keep discussing it..;)

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/immigration.pdf

Nodin · 04-03-2016 11:55pm

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Its not demographic replacement in the European sense, that is a different discussion , different motivations, its moreso breaking anglo saxon/european demographic majority, that is the effect of the lobbying in the US.

Why? I dont know, as I posted yesterday, the head of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid society's answer to that question was, "ethics" and "strategic interest", make of that what you will. Some say its due to WW2 and a group strategic effort to promote multiculturalism and destroy nationalism, the same one world utopianism that Peter Sutherland and the other EU fossils are smoking. All I can give you is their motivations and what they say. I dont know anything beyond that. You may as well ask why does someone become a communist?

I dont know why you hone in on "jewish groups", as evangelical groups are just as culpable in this nonsense as are the multitude of hispanic groups, catholic groups. But hey if you want to keep discussing it..;)

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/immigration.pdf

Your link is from the site of a well known anti-Semite and white supremacist. I think that answers a number of questions.

So are you saying evangelical groups are working in concert with jewish groups, evangelical groups and peter Sutherland to " promote multiculturalism"? Why? How?

JPNelsforearm · 05-03-2016 12:51am

Nodin wrote: »

Your link is from the site of a well known anti-Semite and white supremacist. I think that answers a number of questions.

So are you saying evangelical groups are working in concert with jewish groups, evangelical groups and peter Sutherland to " promote multiculturalism"? Why? How?

That is the only research I have found on the subject, what he is, is irrelevant, his paper on that issue is correct. I havent seen a rebuttal of it, if you have one, post it. Id be more than happy to read it.

Why do people and various special interest groups call for mass immigration? Its not specifically "multiculturalism".
Depends on the group, I could list the motivations, or try to, their motivations are irrelevant really, stopping conflict, multiculturalism, religious reasons, fear of persecution, fear of nationalism, ethnic solidarity, religious solidarity, breaking down national homogeneity in the case of the EU/Peter Sutherland, marxist workers type stuff, it really doesnt matter.

Yes, all pro mass immigration groups work in concert.

http://religionandpolitics.org/2013/11/13/why-faith-groups-are-rallying-behind-immigration-reform/
http://www.interfaithimmigration.org/

In Ireland
“[the coalition] are calling on the Irish Government to honour its promise to fundamentally reform the Irish asylum system, in line with recommendations in the McMahon Report, and to intensify efforts to bring the 4,000 persons in need of protection to Ireland as part of the Irish Refugee Protection Programme.”

*The coalition of NGOs includes: ActionAid Ireland, Community Workers’ Co-operative, Christian Aid, Comhlámh, the Conference of the Religious of Ireland, Cultúr, Dóchas, Doras Luimní, ENAR Ireland, Immigrant Council of Ireland, Irish Missionary Union, Irish Refugee Council, Jesuit Refugee Service, Mayo Intercultural Action, Mercy International Association, Migrant Rights Centre Ireland, Misean Cara, NASC Ireland, Oxfam Ireland, Trócaire and World Vision Ireland.
http://www.catholicireland.net/government-resettles-less-than-150-refugees-report/

oscarBravo · 05-03-2016 1:44am

My goodness, this thread has gotten very full of dog whistles recently.

Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

Comments