Do you support Trump's temporary Muslim ban

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mother Jones had a list. It doesn't seem to be exhaustive because it doesn't include Charles Whitman who killed 16, and it may have other omissions.

They included the following:

Pulse Nightclub (50) 2016
Virginia Tech    (33) 2007
Newtown          (28) 2012
Luby's             (24) 1991
San Ysidro       (22)  1984
Columbine       (15)   1999
US Postal         (15)  1986
San Bernardino (14) 2015
Binghampton    (14) 2009
Fort Hood         (13) 2009
Aurora             (12) 2012
Washington Navy (12) 2013
Red Lake         (10) 2005
GMAC              (10) 1990

From there, there have been three successive shooting attacks in the US from Muslims with more than 10 fatalities, San Bernardino, Fort Hood I and now Pulse nightclub. Of the list, Muslims are now 28-29 percent of the total, up from zero prior to the Obama administration. Even with Whitman and given the time periods involved, they are still up to about 20 percent. Which is tremendously out of proportion.

[pbrower2a]

...a catastrophic failure from the standpoint of everything that this country is founded upon.

It's a violation of religious liberty. That should be offend anyone who holds the Constitution as a guide to decency in political life. We do not pick and choose what Constitutional rights people have; the Constitution delineates those for us.

Second, it is detrimental to national security. Much of the Islamic world is in or is on the brink of civil war, and we are already pulled into it. If we have a ban on Muslim immigrants, then we cannot bring in people who might be at risk of execution and even worse for having been on our side.

Donald Trump is a dolt.

[Famous Mortimer]

I oppose the Muslim ban. If not for the Muslim ban, I would probably support Trump full throatedly. As it stands, I'm mostly ambivalent.

It's too broad and, even worse, his initial proposal applied to people who were already US citizens.

I might hypothetically support a travel ban on Saudi nationals though.

[Ebowed]

No, I don't agree with surrendering to the terrorists.  Another idiot plan from the notorious racist & human pyramid scheme that is Ding Dong Trump!

[Cruzcrew]

The bigger issue is the Saudis funding the expansion of Wahhabism in places like Kosovo which is ultimately where we get the radical Muslims. We should have a quota on immigration from countries with a high risk of terrorism as a Muslim immigrant from Bosnia or Indonesia is significantly less likely to be radicalized than one from Afghanistan or Checnya.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's exactly why we're in this mess!

[Meclazine for Israel]

The bigger issue is the Saudis funding the expansion of Wahhabism in places like Kosovo which is ultimately where we get the radical Muslims. We should have a quota on immigration from countries with a high risk of terrorism as a Muslim immigrant from Bosnia or Indonesia is significantly less likely to be radicalized than one from Afghanistan or Checnya.

Yes and No.

Kosovo muslims are not radicalised to anywhere near the degree of Syrian and Iraqi muslims.

That statement is hard to find evidence for, but if you have some, spit it out. I'm all ears.

But the second sentence about differences in radicalisation is absolutely correct.

So much so, Bosnian muslims asked the Arabic muslims to leave after the Bosnian war because they freaked them out. Literally, the local Bosnian muslims thought they were mentally disturbed.

Remember this guy:



He fought in the Bosnian war.

And was asked to leave Sarajevo because he was trying to create a branch of Islam the Bosnians found quite disturbing.

Thanks for protecting us from the Serbs. Now it's time to go and create Al Qaeda in Iraq.

[Fuzzy Bear]

...a catastrophic failure from the standpoint of everything that this country is founded upon.

It's a violation of religious liberty. That should be offend anyone who holds the Constitution as a guide to decency in political life. We do not pick and choose what Constitutional rights people have; the Constitution delineates those for us.

Second, it is detrimental to national security. Much of the Islamic world is in or is on the brink of civil war, and we are already pulled into it. If we have a ban on Muslim immigrants, then we cannot bring in people who might be at risk of execution and even worse for having been on our side.

Donald Trump is a dolt.

It is not a violation of religious liberty to say that this religion or that religion cannot enter the United States if adherents of that religion present a harm to the United States; at least not Constitutionally.  No foreigner has a RIGHT to enter the United States, and no person, naturalized, native-born, or resident alien, has the right to have their families enter the United States just because they are family.  This is an issue Trump is right about, even if he doesn't know that he's right.

I understand that saying "No Muslims Need Apply" sounds repulsive, almost anti-American.  I'm not real comfortable with the concept myself.  But foreigners do not share the civil rights Americans share (and I include resident aliens in that "Americans" grouping).  They don't have the right to not be discriminated against in immigration, because the primary (indeed, the ONLY) reason to allow someone into America is that it is in the best interest of America and Americans that we do so.

I certainly don't approve of discrimination of Muslim citizens and Muslims in America on the basis of religion.  This includes denying Muslims their rights to be free of unwarranted searches and seizures that are conducted based on religion alone.  But I don't think it's unreasonable to examine whether or not Islam is compatible with liberal democracy and Constitutional liberties.  Sharia Law and Jihad are, very much, part of Islam, and very much the polar opposite of liberal democracy; no less so than Communism and Fascism.

[SteveRogers]

...a catastrophic failure from the standpoint of everything that this country is founded upon.

It's a violation of religious liberty. That should be offend anyone who holds the Constitution as a guide to decency in political life. We do not pick and choose what Constitutional rights people have; the Constitution delineates those for us.

Second, it is detrimental to national security. Much of the Islamic world is in or is on the brink of civil war, and we are already pulled into it. If we have a ban on Muslim immigrants, then we cannot bring in people who might be at risk of execution and even worse for having been on our side.

Donald Trump is a dolt.

It is not a violation of religious liberty to say that this religion or that religion cannot enter the United States if adherents of that religion present a harm to the United States; at least not Constitutionally.  No foreigner has a RIGHT to enter the United States, and no person, naturalized, native-born, or resident alien, has the right to have their families enter the United States just because they are family.  This is an issue Trump is right about, even if he doesn't know that he's right.

I understand that saying "No Muslims Need Apply" sounds repulsive, almost anti-American.  I'm not real comfortable with the concept myself.  But foreigners do not share the civil rights Americans share (and I include resident aliens in that "Americans" grouping).  They don't have the right to not be discriminated against in immigration, because the primary (indeed, the ONLY) reason to allow someone into America is that it is in the best interest of America and Americans that we do so.

I certainly don't approve of discrimination of Muslim citizens and Muslims in America on the basis of religion.  This includes denying Muslims their rights to be free of unwarranted searches and seizures that are conducted based on religion alone.  But I don't think it's unreasonable to examine whether or not Islam is compatible with liberal democracy and Constitutional liberties.  Sharia Law and Jihad are, very much, part of Islam, and very much the polar opposite of liberal democracy; no less so than Communism and Fascism.

It's easy enough to say, "Well of course the foreign muslims don't have constitutional rights. We can discriminate against those ones on the basis of religion." Except can you name one time in history where that kind of government-sanctioned discrimination stopped at "just the foreign ones"? It certainly didn't stop at Japanese soldiers abroad in WWII. It certainly didn't stop at European communists abroad during the Cold War. Once you start down that road of "this type of people are incompatible with American democracy," the country will cannibalize its own citizens. Every time.

Best to not to open that door. 

[Suburbia]

No, I don't support Trump's temporary Muslim ban, but I am starting to get scared of them. They truly need to reform their religion, people in this country are starting to truly despise them now. I don't know if they can be trusted.

[LLR]

No, I don't support Trump's temporary Muslim ban, but I am starting to get scared of them. They truly need to reform their religion, people in this country are starting to truly despise them now. I don't know if they can be trusted.

I love blanket statements that apply distrust to 1.6 billion people

[Santander]

No, I don't support Trump's temporary Muslim ban, but I am starting to get scared of them. They truly need to reform their religion, people in this country are starting to truly despise them now. I don't know if they can be trusted.

I love blanket statements that apply distrust to 1.6 billion people

There are about 7 billion people I don't trust.

[Suburbia]

No, I don't support Trump's temporary Muslim ban, but I am starting to get scared of them. They truly need to reform their religion, people in this country are starting to truly despise them now. I don't know if they can be trusted.

I love blanket statements that apply distrust to 1.6 billion people

I'm not a hater, but I am worried. Something is wrong. A Muslim ban will never happen. But something is wrong.

[Suburbia]

I'm thinking hard about this. I think it is impossible, but not unlikely. The leftists who are enabling them are complicit in any attack on this nation. I don't really trust some Muslims anymore. I don't really think they pour their heart out for this country like the rest of America. I really believe that they celebrated on 9/11 and beyond. They should be ashamed of themselves. It's sad. I have to think hard about this. It's sad. Some Muslims are good.

[Waterfall]

Glad that the people who voted Yes won't show themselves. Just proves that they're cowards, preaching that the society should be run by the Bible while denouncing the Qur'an. Disgraceful.

Hi there. I voted yes.

Like all countries, the US has the right to restrict immigration in whatever way it wants or deems worthwhile. (Don't get pedantic about "it" here, this is shorthand for whatever authorized processes get used to enact and enforce policy.)

You seem to be very sure that everyone who voted "yes" wants America run by the Bible. What gives you that certainty? I'm a faithful Jew but I don't think the US should be run based on the Torah. Nothing in the Torah says "Make sure you run America according to the rules herein."

You also seem to be saying that it's hypocritical to want a country run according to one ideology and not another different ideology. That appears to be nonsense, though maybe you just didn't phrase it clearly.

[Waterfall]

One problem with the phrasing of the OP is Trump has no temporary Muslim ban. There's no such thing. Trump never intended to do anything of the sort, it was a bit of empty rhetoric he used during the campaign to (successfully) distinguish himself from his out-of-touch rivals.

[Hu Flung Pu]

On one hand you have to ask why not support banning people who want to kill us and our police officers.  Then again this is something Democrats took out of context to rally their base so your question is a charade. I kind of hope it happens just to see the left get upset.

[Waterfall]

On one hand you have to ask why not support banning people who want to kill us and our police officers.  Then again this is something Democrats took out of context to rally their base so your question is a charade. I kind of hope it happens just to see the left get upset.

This is what finally turned me off to the Alt Right for good. I want certain things to happen because they'd be good ideas, not because they'd make people I disagree with upset. I'll admit, it's often amusing watching them get upset, but in the long run I'd rather have a well-run country. I'd rather get my amusement elsewhere than at the expense of people who include many of my family and friends.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's exactly why we're in this mess!
[/quote]
LOL