• 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 13 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Vaux said:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Don't see where Trump said you can't be a muslim anymore. And I don't see how this applies to people that are not Americans. So, yeah, try again.
Click to expand...

Do you think that President Trump could bar everyone but Christians from entering America? Do you think that would be considered an establishment of religion? Remember, the establishment clause prohibits the US government from treating any one religion preferentially over any other.

So yeah, seems like a pretty huge violation to me. It's just bizarre bigotry based on panic and irrational fear. I expect this sort of thing out of children, not adults. It's like the stupidity with Ebola where everyone wanted to shut the borders to West Africa. Have people forgotten how dumb that was already?
 
eskimospy said:
Do you think that President Trump could bar everyone but Christians from entering America? Do you think that would be considered an establishment of religion? Remember, the establishment clause prohibits the US government from treating any one religion preferentially over any other.
Click to expand...

If Christians were trying to kill us then hell bar them from coming over too. I'm not religious and I don't care about religion, all I care about is trying to keep Americans safe from terrorists.
 
Vaux said:
If Christians were trying to kill us then hell bar them from coming over too. I'm not religious and I don't care about religion, all I care about is trying to keep Americans safe from terrorists.
Click to expand...

Can you explain how banning one religion while not banning others for literally any reason is not preferential treatment and therefore a violation of the first amendment?

Again, this is irrational panic, just like with Ebola. We need to grow up as a country.
 
So there are (surprise, surprise) again a number of supporters to justify this "shut down" as if were some genius means to curb and prevent terrorism in the US.

So what about the Muslims already in the US? What about terrorists which could find ways into the US some other ways.

How EFFECTIVE would a "temporary ban" basically on all incoming travel by Muslims into the US be for preventing terrorism?

This is just another Kindergarten "solution" just on the same level as a wall between TX and Mexico, a "solution" which (IMHO) would not do anything.

So...if I reject Trump's idiotic ideas I don't do this out of principle because I think Trump is an idiot and fascist, I do this because I don't see ANY of his ever proposed "solutions" as workable. (Besides the obvious like that they're violating the constitution.)

As stupid (together with his wall) as him spouting "we need to bomb the sh!t out of ISIS"...which is not a solution whatsoever...NOT because I'd reject the idea "to bomb ISIS" but because I know it'll never work as a solution for various reasons. (ISIS is all over the M.E., not tightly organized etc..)

It's ONE thing if someone opens his mouth and says something and another to look at what has been said whether it is actually doable/viable. Trump thinks like a naive child. The fact "he says what many just think and are afraid to say" does NOT make what he says better. According to that logic I could pick some random person off the street and nominate them for prez as long as they have a big mouth.
 
Last edited:
Commander in Chief locking out people that are at war with us, I'd call that in service.

Hell I don't know. Argue it in court.
 
Vaux said:
Commander in Chief locking out people that are at war with us, I'd call that in service.

Hell I don't know. Argue it in court.
Click to expand...

Every Muslim in the world is not at war with the U.S. That's just stupid to say. A court really isn't needed to establish that.
 
eskimospy said:
Can you explain how banning one religion while not banning others for literally any reason is not preferential treatment and therefore a violation of the first amendment?
Click to expand...

Preventing a group of people trying to kill you is considered preferential treatment of the opposite group of people?
 
MomentsofSanity said:
Every Muslim in the world is not at war with the U.S. That's just stupid to say. A court really isn't needed to establish that.
Click to expand...

I will let you stand there and pick out all the safe ones then.

Hopefully you make it a good while before one of them cuts your head off.
 
Vaux said:
Preventing a group of people trying to kill you is considered preferential treatment of the opposite group of people?
Click to expand...

The absurd way you're framing it aside, stop trying to dodge the question.

Is it preferential treatment or not? Simple.
 
Vaux said:
I will let you stand there and pick out all the safe ones then.

Hopefully you make it a good while before one of them cuts your head off.
Click to expand...


Then maybe they should be afforded Due Process, as stated in the Constitution. Seems like you are starting to agree that not doing so would, in fact, violate the Constitution.
 
eskimospy said:
The absurd way you're framing it aside, stop trying to dodge the question.

Is it preferential treatment or not? Simple.
Click to expand...

Preferential: giving advantage to a particular person or group.

No it's not preferential. Doing something against one thing is not necessarily equal to giving an advantage to another.
 
Vaux said:
I will let you stand there and pick out all the safe ones then.

Hopefully you make it a good while before one of them cuts your head off.
Click to expand...

Wow you are just all trembling and quaking like a little girl screaming for someone to come kill the mouse.

America was built by real men who drink beer and kill shit, not sissies. I say we ban sissies.
 
MomentsofSanity said:
Then maybe they should be afforded Due Process, as stated in the Constitution. Seems like you are starting to agree that not doing so would, in fact, violate the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Or, we can deny them entrance for a while and you get to keep your head!

Perhaps you are quick to part with yours, but I fancy keeping mine.
 
1sikbITCH said:
Wow you are just all trembling and quaking like a little girl screaming for someone to come kill the mouse.

America was built by real men who drink beer and kill shit, not sissies. I say we ban sissies.
Click to expand...

And you sir, are clueless about what I am.
 
Vaux said:
Or, we can deny them entrance for a while and you get to keep your head!

Perhaps you are quick to part with yours, but I fancy keeping mine.
Click to expand...

You could. But I thought you were questioning how it would be unconstitutional. Seems we have concluded that it could easily be argued a violation to take that step.

The Muslim woman sitting next to me with the scary head covering keeps eyeballing me so who knows what will happen. I'm pretty sure I'm safe though.
 
MomentsofSanity said:
You could. But I thought you were questioning how it would be unconstitutional. Seems we have concluded that it could easily be argued a violation to take that step.

The Muslim woman sitting next to me with the scary head covering keeps eyeballing me so who knows what will happen. I'm pretty sure I'm safe though.
Click to expand...

Most likely yes. Unless you were sitting next to this one:

1111194_1280x720.jpg


I would imagine quite a few people in San Bernadino may not be as sure that they are as safe as you, though.
2Q==
 
Last edited:
PETA is calling for a complete shutdown, on the mouse running in the wheel inside Trump's head. They cite animal rights abuses and enslavement as unethical.
 
michal1980 said:
what politician doesn't play up fear?

Clinton with her 3am ad?

Or the dem ad about republicans throwing granny off a cliff?


nope no fear mongering by the left at all. Wake up man.


Like your not playing a fear card, oh no those stupid people on the right are going to vote. BE AFRAID. Your calling them stupid because they don't think like you. Its that simple.

Stuck on your own ideology, and not being able to see it is sad.
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with the left? School yard argument right there, they do it, so we can do it too? Fact is, banning an entire religion from entering the US is the ultimate fear mongering. No muslim can be trusted is what he is saying. These are individual humans for god's sake, not some faceless horde.

Stuck on my ideology? I'll stand by my "crazy" ideology of not supporting the persecution of an entire religion by the US government. That is a new low for you.
 
Vaux said:
Preferential: giving advantage to a particular person or group.

No it's not preferential. Doing something against one thing is not necessarily equal to giving an advantage to another.
Click to expand...

LOL The other has the advantage of not having something bad done to them. :thumbsup:
 
Vaux said:
Or, we can deny them entrance for a while and you get to keep your head!

Perhaps you are quick to part with yours, but I fancy keeping mine.
Click to expand...

You've already lost it, figuratively speaking.

"Home of the Brave" or "Walled Redoubt of the Forlorned Pants-Poopers".

You seem to have made your choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top