• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Trump calls for 'complete shutdown' on Muslims entering US

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Now I just read that the moron wants to censor the internet. There is seemingly no part of the Constitution that is safe from Herr Trump and his "patriot" slaves.
 
Trump's time is ~over~. Won't get elected to anything now.

He's the walking dead, and just doesn't know it yet.
 
NTMBK said:
I'm not American so it's hard to judge, but... You guys aren't seriously going to vote for this guy? Right?
Click to expand...

no. he has a very middling and nearly insignificant support of the actual base.

The reality is that only Rubio and Jeb (of all people) stand a chance for the Pub nomination at this point.
 
rpanic said:
If they did, he would run independent and split the vote giving win to Hilary. Maybe they would rather have that.
Click to expand...

well, they did finally convince him to sign that pact to not run as an independent in the general.



lol--like he cares! 😀
 
Vic said:
Now I just read that the moron wants to censor the internet. There is seemingly no part of the Constitution that is safe from Herr Trump and his "patriot" slaves.
Click to expand...

If you think that's disturbing you won't like this side by side.

What Trump said:

“We have to go see Bill Gates,” Trump said, to better understand the Internet and then possibly “close it up.”

Trump characterized the problem of Internet extremism by saying, “We’re losing a lot of people because of the Internet.”

“We’re going to hear all the usual complaints,” she said on Monday, “you know, freedom of speech, et cetera. But if we truly are in a war against terrorism and we are truly looking for ways to shut off their funding, shut off the flow of foreign fighters, then we’ve got to shut off their means of communicating. It’s more complicated with some of what they do on encrypted apps, and I’m well aware of that, and that requires even more thinking about how to do it.”
Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton two days ago:

Hillary Clinton said on Sunday that the Islamic State had become “the most effective recruiter in the world” and that the only solution was to engage American technology companies in blocking or taking down militant websites, videos and encrypted communications.

“You are going to hear all the familiar complaints: ‘freedom of speech,’ ” Mrs. Clinton said in an hourlong speech and question-and-answer session at the Saban Forum, an annual gathering at the Brookings Institution that focuses mostly on Israel’s security issues.

In a reference to Silicon Valley’s reverence for disruptive technologies, Mrs. Clinton said, “We need to put the great disrupters at work at disrupting ISIS,” an acronym used for the militant group.
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing much difference to be honest.
 
michal1980 said:
You wont call muslim terrorists muslim terrorists, but you have no problems calling millions of americans 'crazies'.

This is part of the appeal of trump.

The left has turned into a bunch of fucking bigots, calling everyone that disagrees with them a racist, a moron, a idiot, a mouth breather, a redneck, etc etc. They do everything the object too, to millions of Americans, and then are surprised when those people respond.

He's only the most hated public figure in America in the minds of the nutter left.
Click to expand...

No, not all of them. Some of them, absolutely. You fit the bill.

It's your habit of arguing based on passion and never with evidence.

This is why everyone here just assumes you are a racist redneck, idiot, mouthbreather, etc.
 
eskimospy said:
Except we have a constitution that appears to expressly prohibit that. Say the US refused to allow anyone to enter the country except for Christians. Do you think this would constitute a violation of the establishment clause? If not, why?
Click to expand...

The first amendment was written at a time before islamic extremism, suicide bombers, and cultural takeover by mass immigration and outbreeding us existed. If they did, the founders would have taken it into account when they wrote the first amendment. Since the times have changed, and the founders couldn't have possibly anticipated social and political forces of the future like this happening, we can interpret the constitution based on what they probably would have done. On this basis, I see no problem whatsoever interpreting the first amendment in this way to allow banning of islam or muslim immigrants because they are an imminent danger to the country.
 
Even Dick Cheney - says Trump's call to ban all Muslims is "against everything we stand for."

I like to imagine Cheney like Doc Ock at the end of Spider-Man 2 as he drags the reactor into the river: "I will not die a monster!"

Trump's loony pronouncements never fail to disappoint . It helps smoke out the batshit. Sometimes the unhinged can hide and blend in with the others, but Trump's got them coming out cheering and stomping.
 
QuantumPion said:
The first amendment was written at a time before islamic extremism, suicide bombers, and cultural takeover by mass immigration and outbreeding us existed. If they did, the founders would have taken it into account when they wrote the first amendment. Since the times have changed, and the founders couldn't have possibly anticipated social and political forces of the future like this happening, we can interpret the constitution based on what they probably would have done. On this basis, I see no problem whatsoever interpreting the first amendment in this way to allow banning of islam or muslim immigrants because they are an imminent danger to the country.
Click to expand...

Since 9/11 2001, we have taken in thousands of muslim refugee's from Iraq And Afghanistan and other Mideast nations, if I'm not mistaken. How many terrorist attacks on American soil can be attributed to these refugee's?.
 
VRAMdemon said:
Since 9/11 2001, we have taken in thousands of muslim refugee's from Iraq And Afghanistan and other Mideast nations, if I'm not mistaken. How many terrorist attacks on American soil can be attributed to these refugee's?.
Click to expand...

Not sure, when did the boston marathon bombers come over?
 
QuantumPion said:
The first amendment was written at a time before islamic extremism, suicide bombers, and cultural takeover by mass immigration and outbreeding us existed. If they did, the founders would have taken it into account when they wrote the first amendment. Since the times have changed, and the founders couldn't have possibly anticipated social and political forces of the future like this happening, we can interpret the constitution based on what they probably would have done. On this basis, I see no problem whatsoever interpreting the first amendment in this way to allow banning of islam or muslim immigrants because they are an imminent danger to the country.
Click to expand...

With the tremendous amount of historical documentation available, it is literally amazing how you could not possibly be more wrong about what the Founding Fathers knew, and what their intentions were.
Religious extremism, including Islamic, absolutely existed when the Constitution was written. This is not something new.
As for government intervention to prevent 'cultural takeover,' they would not have supported that at all. And back then, it wasn't about 'whites' and 'Christians,' it was about English and Anglicans, with the 'cultural threats' being Germans, Irish, and Catholics.

So what did the Founding Fathers intend?
"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality." -- George Washington
 
MomentsofSanity said:
If you think that's disturbing you won't like this side by side.

What Trump said:



Hillary Clinton two days ago:



I'm not seeing much difference to be honest.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm just pretty disgusted right now. All these idiots being tricked into giving up their own rights while believing that they're screwing over someone else.
 
QuantumPion said:
The first amendment was written at a time before islamic extremism, suicide bombers, and cultural takeover by mass immigration and outbreeding us existed. If they did, the founders would have taken it into account when they wrote the first amendment. Since the times have changed, and the founders couldn't have possibly anticipated social and political forces of the future like this happening, we can interpret the constitution based on what they probably would have done. On this basis, I see no problem whatsoever interpreting the first amendment in this way to allow banning of islam or muslim immigrants because they are an imminent danger to the country.
Click to expand...

Outbreeding us? ISIS is 30,000 strong, mostly men. Curious to see how many centuries it would take for them to "outbreed" the entire US and Europe.
 
MomentsofSanity said:
If you think that's disturbing you won't like this side by side.

What Trump said:



Hillary Clinton two days ago:



I'm not seeing much difference to be honest.
Click to expand...

I'm amazed all these candidates are talking about war with ISIS and war with extremists but when asked to have a war vote Congress refuses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top