US Politics

[Desert Fox]

Anti-Trump Protesters Riot, Smash Police Cars & Attack Trump Supporters

​

 

[T-72M1]

Anti-Trump Protesters Riot, Smash Police Cars & Attack Trump Supporters

View attachment 303176

View attachment 303172

View attachment 303174

View attachment 303173

​

saw that earlier, people with Mexican flags beating up people with American flags, how does that even work ?

was the same story in Chicago where he had to cancel his rally because of violent leftists like people for bernie, black lives matter, the muslim student association, and other marxist groups.

cant help but wonder if these violent anti Trump protests might actually end up helping the Trump campaign.

 

[anon45]

Again, which "comment" of his was racist? Back your claim. The onus is on YOU to prove he's racist, which you have thus far failed to provide any evidence of.

Well if you are willing to continue the debate without beginning to assert anything denigrating like implying I am a SJW', then we can continue. I don't have the inclination or will to deal with that, or respond in kind. Attack the comments, not the speaker. Anyways....

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

“I don’t think it’s a small percentage, it’s a lot. But it’s not Mexicans necessarily. They’re coming from all over.”



Lots and lots of prejudiced and discriminatory remarks, but nothing that can be linked to the hard definition of racism for quotes made during this election, so fine, I refer to his policies and comments as bigoted and discriminatory by religion instead of as racist.

Anyways, whenever I read this series of remarks on hispanics, My mind goes back to 'The New Colossus'.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Interestingly enough and as an aside, here are his racist quotes against blacks from before the election and what he says during the election.


Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.

“Laziness is a trait in blacks.”

“And, you know, I have a great relationship with African Americans, as you possibly have heard. I just have great respect for them and you know they like me.” (this one was during 2015, so actually during the primary season.


Also some outright general signs that he is a bad human being.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wo...blican-US-Presidential-candidates-gaffes.html

I don't!



No, the onus is NOT on me (or Trump) to prove anything because those illegals should not be in this country to begin with. By illegally coming into this country is already breaking the law. I don't have to prove zilch.

Actually, if you or Trump asserts that x amount of illegal immigrants are Rapists and druggies, the onus is on you to prove it. So either don't defend Trump for that assertion or provide evidence that a 'huge' percentage of illegal immigrants (lets say 10%) are bringing drugs and rape, or don't continue to assert that a 'big' percentage are doing so.

Secondly, my point still stands: we don't know who these people are, where they're headed, or what their intentions are. They should enter through legal channels.

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/why-don’t-they-just-get-line

You're telling me a unsecure border through which anyone can come in is not a security threat?? What a magnificent logic, or lack there of.

I am saying it has not demonstrated itself as such to the extent that we need to spend money on a wall plus the necessities to make that wall effective.

Current procedures are adequate.

We already have legal channels for immigration. Sneaking in through the border is not one of them.

I refer you to my above link.

How am i getting personal? All you have been doing is accusing Trump of racism but have failed to prove where he said anything racist. The onus is on YOU to prove Trump is racist, PS Hispanic is not a race, neither is a Muslim/Islam.

Addressed above, You did not do it to such an extent yet, but you were beginning to, and could easily see your 'beginning to sound like' morphing into 'you are', so I wanted to cut that line of discussion before we dropped to that level.

The US spends more money in one year on maintaining a military presence abroad all over the world + the trillions spent on ongoing military interventions. Building + maintaining a border at HOME won't somehow cripple the US economy. The money can be easily made up for through cutting useless spending elsewhere.

I think we may be at an impasse here, I view the wall as a waste of money in and of itself. I do view the expense as, while not crippling, as being entirely unnecessary. It would be pointless to try to sway me with arguments related to its affordability, it is still in the billions, and I view it as unneeded. You will want to direct your arguments on proving its necessity rather than its economic unaffordability. The best way to do that is to convince me that those immigrants are either pose a net demerit to us, or show that the immigrants are a current national security threat, instead of a potential one. As in extremist sentiment among large percentages of these immigrants, hatred for the United States, widespread threats of Hispanic terrorism, etc.

It's not about hate, its about common sense.

No its about simple and absolutely shallow and inefficient 'solutions' to complex problems.

Apparently not good enough.

http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/deadly-attacks.html

I'd say they've done well enough for a decade and a half, and we've nowhere near reached the levels where we should think about banning muslim immigration simply on the basis of being Muslim. If we didn't do so after 9/11, we certainly shouldn't do so now.

Whether it goes to congress, or if it ever gets to that, lets wait and see. Only circumstances will decide what's sensible, and as history has proven the constitution is trampled upon in times of necessity.

Just because it has happened before doesn't mean we should do it again, especially not over, what, 50 deaths over 15 years?

You and I will see what the American people think about this in November. I am very confident Trump will lose. I hope he loses badly.

I think you missed my point, not sure if deliberately, or you just don't understand. You made a claim of "well integrated" aren't prone to extremism and i I clearly gave you an example of "well integrated" second to third generation well-to-do Muslims from a Western country who did not live in "ghettos", yet still joined a terrorist organization. It doesn't matter if its Europe, America, or Australia because they are "integrated" and well-to-do yet still an extremist ideology appealed to them, that was my point. I hope you were able to understand it this time.

You are generalizing 2nd and 3rd generation Muslims in the UK to 2nd and 3rd generation Muslims in the US, and I am telling you you cannot do that. The cultures are different when it comes to immigration, the history is different, doing so doesn't work.

If you insist, then please provide a similar credible study showing many 2nd and 3rd generation Muslims in the US are radicalizing.

We have had individual cases, but there is no trend. They are integrating/ integrated.

 

[ultron]

Also some outright general signs that he is a bad human being.

If that reporter didn't mock the 3000 American lives lost on 9/11, Trump wouldn't have had to mock him.

 

[anon45]

If that reporter didn't mock the 3000 American lives lost on 9/11, Trump wouldn't have had to mock him.

Frankly I'm not going to bother verifying whether that reporter actually mocked the people who lost their lives on 9/11, because it is irrelevant.

Trump didn't have to mock him.
Trump chose to mock his disability in action, utterly unnecessary on the campaign trail.

In a bar it would probably pass, but not on stage in front of national television.

 

[ultron]

Trump chose to mock his disability in action, utterly unnecessary on the campaign trail.

Trump didn't mock his disability. That's the way the reporter is, disabled, and frankly, should not be a reporter in the first place.

 

[Desert Fox]

saw that earlier, people with Mexican flags beating up people with American flags, how does that even work ?

was the same story in Chicago where he had to cancel his rally because of violent leftists like people for bernie, black lives matter, the muslim student association, and other marxist groups.

cant help but wonder if these violent anti Trump protests might actually end up helping the Trump campaign.

They prove Trump's point that they are all nothing but hate filled, intolerant, racist bigots who will attack and injure those who do not agree with them. If these people have their way there will no more freedom of speech or Democracy.

Well if you are willing to continue the debate without beginning to assert anything denigrating like implying I am a SJW', then we can continue. I don't have the inclination or will to deal with that, or respond in kind. Attack the comments, not the speaker. Anyways....

Okay, fair point, but you did stubbornly refuse to provide any evidence of racism from Trump (which you now acknowledged there is none).

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

“I don’t think it’s a small percentage, it’s a lot. But it’s not Mexicans necessarily. They’re coming from all over.”

Anyone coming into this country illegally is by default breaking the law, thus making them a criminal. Secondly, American citizens have suffered from crimes like rape, gang violence, & drug smuggling at the hands of illegals who otherwise should not have been in this country. Whether its all illegals or a small percentage who take part in these crimes, that doesn't matter as they should not have been here to begin with. They're termed illegals for a reason.

Anyways, whenever I read this series of remarks on hispanics, My mind goes back to 'The New Colossus'.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Statue of Liberty, where they have Ellis Island from where immigrants legally came into the US after undergoing various legal procedures.

Interestingly enough and as an aside, here are his racist quotes against blacks from before the election and what he says during the election.


Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.

“Laziness is a trait in blacks.”

“And, you know, I have a great relationship with African Americans, as you possibly have heard. I just have great respect for them and you know they like me.” (this one was during 2015, so actually during the primary season.

A reputable source for these quotes would be nice.

Also some outright general signs that he is a bad human being.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wo...blican-US-Presidential-candidates-gaffes.html

There's videos of Hillary outright lying and infringing on the (now recognized) fundamental rights of homosexuals. So what's your point?

Actually, if you or Trump asserts that x amount of illegal immigrants are Rapists and druggies, the onus is on you to prove it. So either don't defend Trump for that assertion or provide evidence that a 'huge' percentage of illegal immigrants (lets say 10%) are bringing drugs and rape, or don't continue to assert that a 'big' percentage are doing so.

Quote me where i claimed "x amount are rapists and druggies". And im not sure where Trump gave an exact number either, and if he did maybe you should take that up with him. I did say we don't know who's sneaking through the border or where they're going, what their intentions are, what their past history is, etc... I'm sure any sane person wouldn't be okay with complete strangers breaking into their home through their windows instead of entering the house through the front door with the owners knowledge & consent.

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/why-don’t-they-just-get-line

Oh well, too bad. If anyone has a problem with the immigration policy then they can change it through legal means rather than justify something illegal.

I am saying it has not demonstrated itself as such to the extent that we need to spend money on a wall plus the necessities to make that wall effective.

Lets ask the people who are actually guarding that "border" what they think:

Union Representing 16,000 Border Agents Endorses Trump-NPR

I think we may be at an impasse here, I view the wall as a waste of money in and of itself. I do view the expense as, while not crippling, as being entirely unnecessary. It would be pointless to try to sway me with arguments related to its affordability, it is still in the billions, and I view it as unneeded. You will want to direct your arguments on proving its necessity rather than its economic unaffordability. The best way to do that is to convince me that those immigrants are either pose a net demerit to us, or show that the immigrants are a current national security threat, instead of a potential one. As in extremist sentiment among large percentages of these immigrants, hatred for the United States, widespread threats of Hispanic terrorism, etc.

That's like saying "unless someone enters my house and robs me first i won't lock my door". Not a sound logic at all. We're better of ending it here.

No its about simple and absolutely shallow and inefficient 'solutions' to complex problems.

Not according to the people who are actually guarding that border and witnessing what's going on on the ground. They hold more credibility than you or anyone else who opposes the wall.

http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/deadly-attacks.html

I'd say they've done well enough for a decade and a half, and we've nowhere near reached the levels where we should think about banning muslim immigration simply on the basis of being Muslim. If we didn't do so after 9/11, we certainly shouldn't do so now.

Just because it has happened before doesn't mean we should do it again, especially not over, what, 50 deaths over 15 years?

You and I will see what the American people think about this in November. I am very confident Trump will lose. I hope he loses badly.

Terrorism is unpredictable so 50 in past 15 years is no way to determine what could happen in the future, and you can't be for certain that what's happened in the past won't happen again, especially with someone like Hillary who wants to bring in thousands of refugees.

You are generalizing 2nd and 3rd generation Muslims in the UK to 2nd and 3rd generation Muslims in the US, and I am telling you you cannot do that. The cultures are different when it comes to immigration, the history is different, doing so doesn't work.

If you insist, then please provide a similar credible study showing many 2nd and 3rd generation Muslims in the US are radicalizing.

We have had individual cases, but there is no trend. They are integrating/ integrated.

Well you originally stated well integrated Muslims are not susceptible to extremism and i gave your proof that they are, whether its Europe (who's loose immigration policy you want the US to mimic) or America, that's a different point. Secondly, i never generalized, i just pointed out the fact that an extremist ideology can appeal to any Muslim, whether integrated or not. It only takes one lone wolf to kill hundreds, even thousands.

 

[anon45]

Well you originally stated well integrated Muslims are not susceptible to extremism and i gave your proof that they are, whether its Europe (who's loose immigration policy you want the US to mimic) or America, that's a different point. Secondly, i never generalized, i just pointed out the fact that an extremist ideology can appeal to any Muslim, whether integrated or not. It only takes one lone wolf to kill hundreds, even thousands.

Okay, fair point, but you did stubbornly refuse to provide any evidence of racism from Trump (which you now acknowledged there is none).[/QUOTE]

Frankly I think he holds racist views, or heavily implies he does to appeal to that segment of the republican base using dogwhistle politics. This isn't something that can be debated though because it is only my opinion based on his supporters and how his speech resonates with me.

So I concede the point he hasn't said anything explicitly racist on the campaign trail, though he has said plenty of equally reprehensible things that encourage religious discrimination and bigotry.

Anyone coming into this country illegally is by default breaking the law, thus making them a criminal. Secondly, American citizens have suffered from crimes like rape, gang violence, & drug smuggling at the hands of illegals who otherwise should not have been in this country. Whether its all illegals or a small percentage who take part in these crimes, that doesn't matter as they should not have been here to begin with. They're termed illegals for a reason.

Law is not the be all and end all, sometimes laws need to be reformed.
If the only crime they ever commit is to enter our borders illegally, then I again view it the same way as I'd treat someone who smoked marijuana or pirates video games/movies/songs (but doesn't sell them). They are also criminals, and we undoubtedly have at least 10's of millions of these 'criminals' living and producing in US society. They aren't the people I wan't deported or in prison, even though they have broken the law, and they should first be allowed the chance to become a citizen (again, assuming they have not commited any crimes). The measures we take against those who break our laws are adequate.

A reputable source for these quotes would be nice.

Don't worry about them, they aren't core to my arguments and weren't said during his campaigning (only the last one was) I just thought it was interesting. They were in a book written by a former employee of Trump's concerning when he was berating a black accountant. Trump, for his part, said to a reporter (or during an interview, can't remember) who brought up the subject that they were 'most likely true', while insulting and berating the employee much as you would expect Trump to do.

Quote me where i claimed "x amount are rapists and druggies". And im not sure where Trump gave an exact number either, and if he did maybe you should take that up with him.

That's the thing about his arguments, they are vague. He gives 'big percentage', but never specifies, because he can't. He knows how to be slippery.

Oh well, too bad. If anyone has a problem with the immigration policy then they can change it through legal means rather than justify something illegal.

It sounds like you take issue with the point that they are illegal immigrants, whether this illegal immigrant is productive within society or is a rapist and a druggie is immaterial to you, because they illegally crossed the border.

We seem to fundamentally disagree on what our first response should be to this issue.

Lets ask the people who are actually guarding that "border" what they think:

Union Representing 16,000 Border Agents Endorses Trump-NPR

Ignoring that they are self-interested parties in this who would see a massive increase in their membership under this policy... I refer to my previous link.
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/why-don’t-they-just-get-line

and this gem http://www.nationalmemo.com/an-engineer-explains-why-trumps-wall-is-so-implausible/

Along with this one when Trump actually backtracked on the size, making it NOT a full wall.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/trump-wises-up-abandons-his-improbably-large-wall/

Again, it was never feasable. A pie in the sky idea as he originally stated it, and full of holes when he amended it.

That's like saying "unless someone enters my house and robs me first i won't lock my door". Not a sound logic at all. We're better of ending it here.

More like the guy did not come to actually rob your house but wanted to maintain your plumbing for you and your 5 other roommates in return for being allowed to live there and possibly contribute to the rent in the future when he got a job.

Frankly we aren't going to go anywhere with these, we will poke holes in each other all day because we fundamentally disagree on what's important, so we should drop this line. We both got our views out.

Its up to the elections to show who the majority agrees with.

Not according to the people who are actually guarding that border and witnessing what's going on on the ground. They hold more credibility than you or anyone else who opposes the wall.

I'd say a structural engineer has more credibility on the wall. On top of a union being self-interested in increasing their membership.

Terrorism is unpredictable so 50 in past 15 years is no way to determine what could happen in the future, and you can't be for certain that what's happened in the past won't happen again, especially with someone like Hillary who wants to bring in thousands of refugees.

Being on alert is half the battle, and intelligence agencies are certainly on the alert. Banning all Muslim immigration won't do us any favors, especially on a soft power level. What next? Deportation of all Muslims already here? Your concerns are too nebulous for me to think we should be doing something so extreme to address it.

Again, I think the general population agrees with me, and November will show us.

Well you originally stated well integrated Muslims are not susceptible to extremism and i gave your proof that they are, whether its Europe (who's loose immigration policy you want the US to mimic) or America, that's a different point. Secondly, i never generalized, i just pointed out the fact that an extremist ideology can appeal to any Muslim, whether integrated or not. It only takes one lone wolf to kill hundreds, even thousands.

Here is my exact quote which you started from

I'm sorry to hear you have such bad opinions about your fellow Muslims, but Muslim extremism in the US is not quite the problem they have in Europe. 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants have tended to integrate, they haven't been forced into ghettos.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/us-presi...6-news-and-views.374363/page-29#ixzz47SoDeiLn

You may have confused me for someone else or misread my post, I clearly stated integration in the US, and differentiated it from Europe.

As an aside, It is clear we both disagree on multiple points, but I respect your debating stamina.

I'm about ready to call it, and you've certainly involved me more in this than I have been in a while.

 

[Arsalan]

With all due respect, you’re comparing apples and oranges, primary elections are different from general elections, so far, Trump has won 38% of Republican primary votes, but he still has not secured the nomination of his party, but if he does somehow secures the nomination, according to many national polls, he would be the most unpopular candidate to represent either party in modern times.

Seven in 10 national adults have an unfavorable view of him, he is unpopular with majority of women, men, young, old, liberals, moderates, conservatives, Blacks and Hispanics.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-unpopularity-stays-sky-high-cruz-hits-high/story?id=38370127
Trump's Unpopularity Stays Sky High


You say, “the chances of his party are already strong”, may I ask, on what basis, please elaborate?


I think it’s the other way around, in the general elections, majority of the voters are not angry white middle-age men.

Well i am actually looking for answers and information, as i mentioned in starting posts, i am not following the campaign and what i say is based on whatever little i know. However i am open to learning new things here.
To summarize, my point was that, and its a question actually, with Democrats in office for a decade now and some issues that US have faced in that time regarding security and mainly economy, it was a perception that Republicans have a better shot this time. Now with Trump in pole position to win the nomination and the general public as you say not very happy with Trump, will that mean that people, mainly republicans may not vote for trump and instead bring in a democrat again. Do they dislike him so much?

Anyway, i have got the answer already from that general poll shared here where may people do claim that they will vote for Hillary rather then Trump. Interesting!

 

[RabzonKhan]

If that reporter didn't mock the 3000 American lives lost on 9/11, Trump wouldn't have had to mock him.

That’s absolutely false, Kovaleski (disabled reporter) has never mocked September 11 victims.

This whole controversy started after Trump falsely claimed that he had witnessed thousands of Muslims cheering in NJ on the September 11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center (quite similar to Nazi propaganda against Jews), to back his false claim, Trump quoted an article that was written by Kovaleski for Washington Post, in the article, Kovaleski wrote “law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river.”

Even though his story quoted no witnesses and had no specific evidence that the celebration occurred.

After Trump made the false claim, Washington Post interviewed Kovaleski, who said “I certainly do not remember anyone saying that thousands or even hundreds of people were celebrating. That was not the case, as best as I can remember”.

And that is the reason Trump got mad at him and shamelessly made fun of his disability.

And when Trump was criticized by almost everyone, Trump denied that he was making fun of disabled reporter, claiming that he does not know him and did not know that he was disabled, and that’s another lie, because Trump knows him, according to Kovaleski, Trump knows him very well since he used to cover trumps for the New York’s daily news.

Everyone knows Trump is a notorious liar!

 

[Desert Fox]

Hillary Clinton Lying For 13 Minutes Straight

​

 

[ultron]

Because of the violent behavior of Trump rioters, Trump opened up a massive 34 point lead in California.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...rump-trouncing-calif-34-points-poll/83847098/

 

[RabzonKhan]

California: Trump vs. Clinton

In three recent polls, Hillary beats Trump by 22 (KABC/survey USA), 28 (Field), and 27 (LA Times) points= a total spread of 25 points.

 

[ultron]

Trump wins all 57 delegates in Indiana

 

[ultron]

Cruz is out. Only 2 left in the Republican race. Trump leads with more than 1000 delegates. Kasich has 153 delegates.