Genezy!
Ei mãe, 500 pontos!
- Mensagens
- 13.433
- Reações
- 39.132
- Pontos
- 803
Veto este que tem duração de 3 meses.
Você está mentindo em vários níveis só pra tentar encaixar sua narrativa.
Enviado de meu Redmi Pro usando Tapatalk
Fórum Outer Space - O maior fórum de games do Brasil
Registre uma conta gratuita hoje para se tornar um membro! Uma vez conectado, você poderá participar neste site adicionando seus próprios tópicos e postagens, além de se conectar com outros membros por meio de sua própria caixa de entrada privada!
-
Anunciando os planos GOLD no Fórum Outer Space
Visitante, agora você pode ajudar o Fórum Outer Space e receber alguns recursos exclusivos, incluindo navegação sem anúncios e dois temas exclusivos. Veja os detalhes aqui.
Veto de Trump a muçulmanos lembra perseguição a judeus, diz Judith Butler
- Iniciador do tópico Wolf.
- Data de Início
Você está mentindo em vários níveis só pra tentar encaixar sua narrativa.
Enviado de meu Redmi Pro usando Tapatalk
xDoom
Ei mãe, 500 pontos!
- Mensagens
- 25.384
- Reações
- 141.118
- Pontos
- 589
Apenas choro de mais um indignado que o candidato do soros não venceu.
Se trata de um veto por 90 dias de cidadãos de 7 países que Obama identificou com terror, havendo outros 46 de maioria muçulmana sem veto.
Os países com a maior população de muçulmanos não foram vetados, isso é só sensacionalismo pra tentar sujar o cara.
Se trata de um veto por 90 dias de cidadãos de 7 países que Obama identificou com terror, havendo outros 46 de maioria muçulmana sem veto.
Os países com a maior população de muçulmanos não foram vetados, isso é só sensacionalismo pra tentar sujar o cara.
LHand
Ei mãe, 500 pontos!
- Mensagens
- 18.251
- Reações
- 50.038
- Pontos
- 624
É que eu baseio minhas opiniões em fake news... vou começar a ler mais o /pol e o twitter do Trump pra pagar de honesto e inteligentão como vocês.
Flango Chines
Bam-bam-bam
- Mensagens
- 1.387
- Reações
- 2.494
- Pontos
- 293
Trump Hitler.
Aahahahahahahahahahahhaha.
Os caras apelam!
Ahahahahahahahahahahhahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Aahahahahahahahahahahhaha.
Os caras apelam!
Ahahahahahahahahahahhahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Genezy!
Ei mãe, 500 pontos!
- Mensagens
- 13.433
- Reações
- 39.132
- Pontos
- 803
Mas o que eu disse é baseado no Twitter do Trump ou na ordem executiva oficial?
Você vai explicar onde estou mentindo ou vai ficar de ironia?
Enviado de meu Redmi Pro usando Tapatalk
IVRafael
Bam-bam-bam
- Mensagens
- 1.004
- Reações
- 3.501
- Pontos
- 453
O veto, segundo a retórica do Trump, era temporario. Qualquer interpretação para além disso, no momento, não tem base para se sustentar.
As regras de imigração já existiam antes dele. Não vou entrar no mérito da lei estar certa ou nao, mas Obama, Bush, Clinton e Trump concordavam em seus mandatos com essas regras TODOS falaram em algum momento sobre a importância de evitar a entrada é a permanência dos "illegal aliens". O Trump só quer ser mais eficiente que seus antecessores.
Ultima Edição:
Genezy!
Ei mãe, 500 pontos!
- Mensagens
- 13.433
- Reações
- 39.132
- Pontos
- 803
LHand
Ei mãe, 500 pontos!
- Mensagens
- 18.251
- Reações
- 50.038
- Pontos
- 624
Trump tem uma retórica xenofóbica.
Hitler tinha uma retórica xenofóbica.
Qual a mentira aí? Falei explicitamente que Trump não é nazista, apenas apontei como existe uma óbvia semelhança na retórica nacionalista / xenofóbica de ambos.
O veto a imigrantes do Trump foi uma tentativa eleitoreira de confirmar essa retórica xenofóbica com algo concreto. Felizmente, foi barrado. Foi barrado porque os EUA não são uma ditadura e Trump não é Hitler.
Como eu disse, a imigração de cidadãos desses países já era controlada. O veto, temporário ou não, é uma medida xenofóbica, pois discrimina pessoas por sua nacionalidade, não por seus atos individuais.
Genezy!
Ei mãe, 500 pontos!
- Mensagens
- 13.433
- Reações
- 39.132
- Pontos
- 803
Se fosse xenofóbica o veto não duraria apenas 3 meses. Isso não faz o maior sentido.
Populista? É claro, mas aí já entra numa sacola muito maior.
Hitler também costumava beber água, é uma semelhança inegável.
Citar Hitler na conversa só serve pra pegar os ignorantes despreparados.
Hitler tinha toda uma ideologia fundamentalista e extremista. É impensável imaginar que Hitler aceitasse um ou outro judeu, um ou outro negro.
Estão muito, muitíssimo distantes um do outro. Muito.
Enviado de meu Redmi Pro usando Tapatalk
LucidSeeker2
Ei mãe, 500 pontos!
- Mensagens
- 2.733
- Reações
- 4.140
- Pontos
- 714
Falácia pura e simplesmente vergonhosa, é por essas e outras que vc não engana com sua pose de isentão dos últimos meses, Hitler também era branco e tinha cabelos loiros além de andar sobre duas pernas também daí já o torna apropriado pro 3 reich e erradicação dos mulçumanos...
Enviado de "Metrô City via uma Final Fight"...
LHand
Ei mãe, 500 pontos!
- Mensagens
- 18.251
- Reações
- 50.038
- Pontos
- 624
Nossa, que absurdo, Trump xenofóbico? Que falácia!
Trump também não é machista! Quando ele falou que sendo rico pode "chegar pegando a mulher pela b*ceta" ele estava usando uma gíria lá do nordeste que significa "tratar delicadamente uma dama"... o resto é culpa da mídia globalista, da esquerda golpista e dos isentões que perseguem nosso grande líder infalível!
LucidSeeker2
Ei mãe, 500 pontos!
- Mensagens
- 2.733
- Reações
- 4.140
- Pontos
- 714
Ele é tão xenofóbico quanto o Lula é a alma mais honesta do Brasil, falácia pura, mulher de grelo duro significa mulher de fibra né?
Enviado de "Metrô City via uma Final Fight"...
LHand
Ei mãe, 500 pontos!
- Mensagens
- 18.251
- Reações
- 50.038
- Pontos
- 624
Trump é xenofóbico, lidem com isso.
O fato do veto ser temporário é irrelevante. Acompanhem comigo:
Imagina que eu tenho uma loja e falo que, temporariamente, tipo, por 3 meses, negros estão proibidos de entrar nela porque muitos assaltantes são da mesma cor que eles. Eu sou racista, ou apenas estou implantando uma legítima "medida de controle" para a segurança de minha loja?
Pois é.
Quanto ao Lula, ele é muito parecido com o Trump. E seus defensores são ainda mais parecidos com os defensores do Trump em idolatria e fanatismo.
xDoom
Ei mãe, 500 pontos!
- Mensagens
- 25.384
- Reações
- 141.118
- Pontos
- 589
Trump é xenofobico, lhand falou.
Patético.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/executive-orders
Aí estão todas as ordens executivas. Trump vetou por 90 dias países selecionados por Obongo. Os países com a maior população de muçulmanos não foram banidos ou vetados, logo, é burrice dizer que foi um ban de muçulmanos.
Cá está a verdade opressora estragando mais uma mentira dos esquerdistas.
Mani89
Ei mãe, 500 pontos!
- Mensagens
- 2.793
- Reações
- 12.963
- Pontos
- 999
The US Holocaust Museum has some pointed words about Trump's new immigration ban
On Tuesday evening, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum sent out a blast email drawing a subtle but direct link between the failures of the United States refugee policy in the 1930s and 1940s and the Trump administration’s decision to temporarily ban refugees today.
“The Museum is acutely aware of the consequences to the millions of Jews who were unable to flee Nazism, as noted in our November 2015 statementon the Syrian refugee crisis,” the email began. (The statement had implored public leaders and citizens alike not to “turn their backs” on refugees.)
The email continued:
The Museum continues to have grave concern about the global refugee crisis and our response to it. During the 1930s and 1940s, the United States, along with the rest of the world, generally refused to admit Jewish refugees from Nazism due to antisemitic and xenophobic attitudes, harsh economic conditions, and national security fears.
In our view, there are many legitimate refugees fleeing the Assad regime’s sustained campaign of crimes against humanity and the genocidal acts perpetrated by ISIS against the Yazidis, Christians, and other religious minorities. American policy should fully address national security concerns while protecting legitimate refugees whatever their national or religious identity.
With this statement, the museum, which is a federal institution, came about as close as it can to outright criticism of the executive branch. It didn’t explicitly mention either Trump or the new policy. But it didn’t need to.
The museum’s mailing came in the wake of the refugee ban put in place by President Donald Trump on Friday evening, just as International Holocaust Remembrance Day drew to a close. The president’s executive order stopped all refugee admissions for 120 days and halted travel from seven majority-Muslim nations for 90 days.
The choice of the museum to begin commenting, even indirectly, on the refugee ban comes against the backdrop of another Trump-related controversy: his administration’s release of a statement about the Holocaust on Holocaust Remembrance Day that didn’t mention Jews, a choice called “softcore Holocaust denial” by historian Deborah Lipstadt.
This isn’t the first time the museum has subtly taken aim at Trump’s refugee policies
The email came just hours after the museum used Instagram to remind its followers that the United States had failed to take in Jewish refugees as the Nazis rose to power.
“Anti-refugee sentiments are often based on economic insecurity, concerns about national security, and fear of the ‘other,” the caption began. “The United States, the place to send “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” often failed to live up to its ideals during the #Holocaust.”
It went on:
In March 1938, the U.S. government began gathering #Gallup Poll data on American opinion of the #refugee issue. While many expressed sympathy with the Jewish plight, only 17 percent of Americans polled favored admitting more #refugees. Between 1938 and 1941, more than 123,000 Jews successfully acquired #refugee status in the United States. By 1942, approximately 4.3 million Jews in occupied Europe and the Soviet Union had been murdered by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. #NeverAgain
Here again, the museum did not mention the refugee ban by name, but those who commented on the photo understood: There was a moral connection between failing to let in desperate people in the 1930s and 1940s and choosing not to let in desperate people today.
Part of remembering the past means actually remembering the past
The US Holocaust Memorial Museum calls itself a “living memorial to the Holocaust,” and asks citizens and leaders worldwide to “confront hatred, prevent genocide, and promote human dignity.”
That means sometimes talking about human rights catastrophes in other countries, but also keeping a tight focus on the mass slaughter of 6 million Jews during the Holocaust itself.
And that’s why Trump’s decision not to specifically mention Jews in the White House’s statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day was so controversial.
“It is with a heavy heart and somber mind that we remember and honor the victims, survivors, heroes of the Holocaust,” the White House official statement read. “It is impossible to fully fathom the depravity and horror inflicted on innocent people by Nazi terror.”
The museum’s official statement, which came on Monday morning, was a careful pushback.
“The Holocaust was the systematic, state-sponsored murder of six million Jews by Nazi Germany and its collaborators” the museum’s statement read.
Nazi ideology cast the world as a racial struggle, and the singular focus on the total destruction of every Jewish person was at its racist core. Millions of other innocent civilians were persecuted and murdered by the Nazis, but the elimination of Jews was central to Nazi policy. As Elie Wiesel said, “Not all victims were Jews, but all Jews were victims.”
The Holocaust teaches us profound truths about human societies and our capacity for evil. An accurate understanding of this history is critical if we are to learn its lessons and honor its victims.
The key phrase here is “an accurate understanding.” It is not a stretch to see this as speaking to the White House’s muddled defenses this weekend, which seemed to double-down on a decision many found both indefensible and incomprehensible.
On Sunday, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said on NBC’s Meet the Press, “I don’t regret the words.”
“I mean, everyone’s suffering in the Holocaust, including, obviously, all of the Jewish people affected and the miserable genocide that occurred — it’s something that we consider to be extraordinarily sad,” he said.
That meant, in other words, that the administration was standing by its refusal to specifically mention Jews in connection to a state-sponsored mass slaughter of Jews.
Condemnation of the de-Judaization of the Holocaust came from Jewish groups across the political spectrum and from Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Ron Dermer. As Libby Nelson wrote for Vox earlier this week, “The broader context for the controversy over the Holocaust statement is that Trump’s run for office was greeted enthusiastically by the loose collection of white nationalists and anti-Semites known as the “alt-right.” Throughout the campaign, Trump was often slow to repudiate those supporters and occasionally made gestures that they read as coded messages.”
Indeed, on Wednesday morning, the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz reported that one person pleased with the White House message was Richard Spencer, the leader of the so-called alt-right movement, who wrote in a blog post that Jewish groups were “kvetching” (using the Yiddish word for whining), and then kvetched himself that Jewish groups were “all about their meta-narrative of suffering.”
The Trump administration has, for whatever reason, chosen to ignore that the Holocaust was a specific attempt to eradicate European Jewry, and that the effort almost succeeded because Washington turned its back on refugees seeking safe harbor in the US. Those impacted by Trump’s ban aren’t fleeing anything on the scale of the Holocaust itself. That doesn’t mean the lessons of what has happened when the US shuts its doors in the past aren’t relevant when the administration is doing exactly that today.
http://www.vox.com/2017/2/1/14471032/us-holocaust-memorial-museum-refugee-ban-jews-holocaust
On Tuesday evening, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum sent out a blast email drawing a subtle but direct link between the failures of the United States refugee policy in the 1930s and 1940s and the Trump administration’s decision to temporarily ban refugees today.
“The Museum is acutely aware of the consequences to the millions of Jews who were unable to flee Nazism, as noted in our November 2015 statementon the Syrian refugee crisis,” the email began. (The statement had implored public leaders and citizens alike not to “turn their backs” on refugees.)
The email continued:
The Museum continues to have grave concern about the global refugee crisis and our response to it. During the 1930s and 1940s, the United States, along with the rest of the world, generally refused to admit Jewish refugees from Nazism due to antisemitic and xenophobic attitudes, harsh economic conditions, and national security fears.
In our view, there are many legitimate refugees fleeing the Assad regime’s sustained campaign of crimes against humanity and the genocidal acts perpetrated by ISIS against the Yazidis, Christians, and other religious minorities. American policy should fully address national security concerns while protecting legitimate refugees whatever their national or religious identity.
With this statement, the museum, which is a federal institution, came about as close as it can to outright criticism of the executive branch. It didn’t explicitly mention either Trump or the new policy. But it didn’t need to.
The museum’s mailing came in the wake of the refugee ban put in place by President Donald Trump on Friday evening, just as International Holocaust Remembrance Day drew to a close. The president’s executive order stopped all refugee admissions for 120 days and halted travel from seven majority-Muslim nations for 90 days.
The choice of the museum to begin commenting, even indirectly, on the refugee ban comes against the backdrop of another Trump-related controversy: his administration’s release of a statement about the Holocaust on Holocaust Remembrance Day that didn’t mention Jews, a choice called “softcore Holocaust denial” by historian Deborah Lipstadt.
This isn’t the first time the museum has subtly taken aim at Trump’s refugee policies
The email came just hours after the museum used Instagram to remind its followers that the United States had failed to take in Jewish refugees as the Nazis rose to power.
“Anti-refugee sentiments are often based on economic insecurity, concerns about national security, and fear of the ‘other,” the caption began. “The United States, the place to send “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” often failed to live up to its ideals during the #Holocaust.”
It went on:
In March 1938, the U.S. government began gathering #Gallup Poll data on American opinion of the #refugee issue. While many expressed sympathy with the Jewish plight, only 17 percent of Americans polled favored admitting more #refugees. Between 1938 and 1941, more than 123,000 Jews successfully acquired #refugee status in the United States. By 1942, approximately 4.3 million Jews in occupied Europe and the Soviet Union had been murdered by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. #NeverAgain
Here again, the museum did not mention the refugee ban by name, but those who commented on the photo understood: There was a moral connection between failing to let in desperate people in the 1930s and 1940s and choosing not to let in desperate people today.
Part of remembering the past means actually remembering the past
The US Holocaust Memorial Museum calls itself a “living memorial to the Holocaust,” and asks citizens and leaders worldwide to “confront hatred, prevent genocide, and promote human dignity.”
That means sometimes talking about human rights catastrophes in other countries, but also keeping a tight focus on the mass slaughter of 6 million Jews during the Holocaust itself.
And that’s why Trump’s decision not to specifically mention Jews in the White House’s statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day was so controversial.
“It is with a heavy heart and somber mind that we remember and honor the victims, survivors, heroes of the Holocaust,” the White House official statement read. “It is impossible to fully fathom the depravity and horror inflicted on innocent people by Nazi terror.”
The museum’s official statement, which came on Monday morning, was a careful pushback.
“The Holocaust was the systematic, state-sponsored murder of six million Jews by Nazi Germany and its collaborators” the museum’s statement read.
Nazi ideology cast the world as a racial struggle, and the singular focus on the total destruction of every Jewish person was at its racist core. Millions of other innocent civilians were persecuted and murdered by the Nazis, but the elimination of Jews was central to Nazi policy. As Elie Wiesel said, “Not all victims were Jews, but all Jews were victims.”
The Holocaust teaches us profound truths about human societies and our capacity for evil. An accurate understanding of this history is critical if we are to learn its lessons and honor its victims.
The key phrase here is “an accurate understanding.” It is not a stretch to see this as speaking to the White House’s muddled defenses this weekend, which seemed to double-down on a decision many found both indefensible and incomprehensible.
On Sunday, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said on NBC’s Meet the Press, “I don’t regret the words.”
“I mean, everyone’s suffering in the Holocaust, including, obviously, all of the Jewish people affected and the miserable genocide that occurred — it’s something that we consider to be extraordinarily sad,” he said.
That meant, in other words, that the administration was standing by its refusal to specifically mention Jews in connection to a state-sponsored mass slaughter of Jews.
Condemnation of the de-Judaization of the Holocaust came from Jewish groups across the political spectrum and from Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Ron Dermer. As Libby Nelson wrote for Vox earlier this week, “The broader context for the controversy over the Holocaust statement is that Trump’s run for office was greeted enthusiastically by the loose collection of white nationalists and anti-Semites known as the “alt-right.” Throughout the campaign, Trump was often slow to repudiate those supporters and occasionally made gestures that they read as coded messages.”
Indeed, on Wednesday morning, the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz reported that one person pleased with the White House message was Richard Spencer, the leader of the so-called alt-right movement, who wrote in a blog post that Jewish groups were “kvetching” (using the Yiddish word for whining), and then kvetched himself that Jewish groups were “all about their meta-narrative of suffering.”
The Trump administration has, for whatever reason, chosen to ignore that the Holocaust was a specific attempt to eradicate European Jewry, and that the effort almost succeeded because Washington turned its back on refugees seeking safe harbor in the US. Those impacted by Trump’s ban aren’t fleeing anything on the scale of the Holocaust itself. That doesn’t mean the lessons of what has happened when the US shuts its doors in the past aren’t relevant when the administration is doing exactly that today.
http://www.vox.com/2017/2/1/14471032/us-holocaust-memorial-museum-refugee-ban-jews-holocaust
Flango Chines
Bam-bam-bam
- Mensagens
- 1.387
- Reações
- 2.494
- Pontos
- 293
NÃOMEQUESTIONE
Mil pontos, LOL!
- Mensagens
- 25.232
- Reações
- 104.537
- Pontos
- 1.299
Até por que Judeus explodem coisas e pessoas por aí...
Bloodstained
Mil pontos, LOL!
- Mensagens
- 23.655
- Reações
- 106.857
- Pontos
- 1.003
Flango Chines
Bam-bam-bam
- Mensagens
- 1.387
- Reações
- 2.494
- Pontos
- 293
Queiroga'
Mil pontos, LOL!
- Mensagens
- 17.734
- Reações
- 22.510
- Pontos
- 1.129
Trump’s Muslim Ban Is Not ‘Fascist,’ and Is Not Unconstitutional
The Associated Press
Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing “25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad” and 51% of those polled, “agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah.” Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won’t convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.
Mr. Trump stated, “Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again.”
It should be possible to disagree with this statement without describing Donald Trump as the new Hitler… but it seems to be rather difficult.
Mediate has a roundup of newspapers making Hitler comparisons, complete with photos chosen to make it look as if Trump is giving his audiences the old Sieg Heil. The Huffington Post declared Trump had gone “full fascist.”
“Is this what Germany looked like in 1933?” asked MSNBC host Joe Scarborough.
That last link comes courtesy of my friend David Harsanyi of The Federalist, who lost family members during the Holocaust, and speaks with authority when he replies to Scarborough, “No. Not at all.”
David says he tries to be a good sport about “the occasional gratuitous Nazi analogy,” but feels obliged to throw a flag on this particular play:
Unless political demonstrations have been banned and something comparable to the Reichstag fire is about to go down, Trump is not going to be Führer. Marinus van der Lubbe may not have burned down the German Parliament, but Islamic terrorists actually did gun down a bunch of Americans last week. And yet Stormtroopers didn’t smash Muslim businesses in a fury of collective punishment; a concentration camp for political opponents of Trump was not established this year; there’s been no decree banning Muslims from practicing law and civil service jobs, and no prohibitions on Islamic dietary laws. Not even Trump has claimed to want to institute any of these things—and other than a few fringy Nazi types on Twitter, I’ve never seen anyone claim to want to institute these things. All of them, of course, would be unconstitutional.
He offers an interesting theory that the swift flurry of “Trump=Hitler” responses might be due to the Left’s effort to portray Muslims as an oppressed class in the Western world. There’s a lively genre of European editorials and political speeches that explicitly claim “Muslim refugees are the new Jews.”
As for whether Trump’s proposed Muslim immigration ban would be unconstitutional, Mark Krikorian at National Review judges it would most likely pass Constitutional muster, with due allowances for varying interpretations (and some confusing responses from Trump campaign spokespeople) of exactly what Trump has in mind:
First of all, it’s important to underline that Congress can exclude or admit any foreigner it wants, for any reason or no reason. Non-Americans have no constitutional right to travel to the United States and no constitutional due-process rights to challenge exclusion; as the Supreme Court has written multiple times, “Whatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned.”
What’s more, while the president doesn’t have the authority that Obama has claimed, to let in anyone he wants for any reason (under the guise of “parole”), he does have the statutory authority to keep anyone out, for any reason he thinks best.
We really ought to get past the habit of describing every idea we disagree with as “fascist,” “unconstitutional,” or “un-American,” with the latter term covering the angry denunciations of Trump’s Muslim immigration ban as going against everything Americans “stand for and believe in,” to quote former Vice President Dick Cheney on the matter.
It’s fun to watch people who generally portray Cheney as a Dark Lord of the Sith embrace him as a prominent anti-Trump spokesman, but really, there is nothing in the charter or character of the United States that demands unlimited immigration from anywhere, or everywhere. We should have the political language to denounce proposals in very strong terms without saying they run contrary to the basic character of the country – or, conversely, asserting that agreement with a proposal is mandatory for all good Americans.
I have little hope of winning the war against political hyperbole today, even though it’s a day when Donald Trump is a commanding figure on both sides of the hyperbole battlefield. I’m also not looking for a side job as interpreter of What Trump Really Meant. I have to sleep sometime, and the oracles of What Obama Really Meant look absolutely exhausted these days.
But going from his original statement and its title, and sifting through the rubble of the overnight attacks and clarifications, I think we’re talking about: (A) A ban on Muslim immigration to the United States, for (B) a limited period of time (“until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on,” which may be the vaguest deadline ever proposed) because (C) the Muslim population includes an unacceptably high percentage of people prone to commit, support, or indulge terrorist violence (“it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension.”)
This may be a very bad idea, or an unworkable proposal; Trump can be criticized for failing to include extensive specifics for such an enormously controversial idea, or fully briefing his campaign staffers on the bombshell he was about to drop. But it’s not fascism or Hitlerism. Among other things, it is a proposal that would leave considerably fewer people under the authority of a prospective President Trump. Hitlerism was not defined by closed borders, but by moving borders. You didn’t have to immigrate to Nazi Germany – it came to you.
In his National Review piece, Krikorian gives Trump a little credit for starting a conversation about immigration and national security, topics which are too often dominated by thoughtless pieties. We might also applaud Trump for dragging liberals out of their seven-year totalitarian stupor under Obama, and making them realize due process matters, legislative responsibility rests with Congress, and untrammeled executive authority is bad. I knew they would instantly embrace all of those truths on the day a Republican President was inaugurated, but Trump woke them up over a year ahead of schedule.
It’s true that screening for religious affiliation in the manner Trump described would be logistically difficult and uncomfortable, but somehow Saudi Arabia pulls it off. Good luck immigrating there with big plans to open a church or synagogue. For that matter, good luck getting into the Kingdom as a Syrian refugee.
Most Americans don’t want to use Saudi Arabia as an immigration model, but let’s not pretend a very sizable portion of the U.S. electorate isn’t having doubts about indiscriminate open-door immigration policies. Again, not to be an interpreter of What Trump Really Meant, but what if he proposed a temporary moratorium on immigration from a few particularly troublesome Muslim countries, the proximate example being Pakistan?
In a post meant to dispel the “tiny minority of violent extremists” mythology of Islam, David French at National Review notes that in Pakistan, “a horrifying 72 percent couldn’t bring themselves to express an unfavorable view of ISIS.” Is it still Hitlerism to say that maybe we ought to pump the brakes on granting visas to especially problematic regions?
The Americans who have qualms about Islam are not mindless bigots. They’re looking at what’s actually happening across the Muslim world with open eyes. “All Muslims are terrorists” is a foolish statement, but Hillary Clinton’s statement that “Islam has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism” is equally foolish. The cognitive dissonance of swallowing such officially-mandated pap has grown too great for many Americans to bear. They’re nervous about donning the sensitivity blindfolds their political leaders insist they wear.
They’re also pushing back against demands that law-abiding citizens give up Constitutional rights and modify their lives in the name of security. If that’s the price of mass immigration, it’s not xenophobic for citizens to decide it’s not worth paying. The more sternly they are informed reasonable discussion of the matter is impossible, the more they will embrace less reasoned modes of discourse.
If the choice is between Attorney General Loretta Lynch declaring an unconstitutional crusade against “anti-Muslim speech” after an Islamist massacre, and her boss daydreaming about using a no-fly list to short-circuit the Second Amendment, without the Beltway establishment batting an eye… and Trump’s undeniably extreme Muslim immigration ban… many people will find those alternatives comparably outrageous, and choose the outrage that injures them less. Who wants their obituary on page A26 of the newspaper that uses its headline to declare they’re no better than the Islamist who murdered them?
Personally, I think we can handle these challenges without a total ban on any form of immigration, but we do need to understand that security screening, assimilation, and law enforcement are logistical exercises. Numbers matter. It is also sheer folly to pretend every group of prospective immigrants is exactly the same, or that every nation of origin is equally capable of providing the kind of background information solid vetting requires.
As long as our respectable political elite is willfully blind to those realities, and insists we all share their studied ignorance, outrageous voices can own the reasonable real estate in this debate.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-muslim-ban-not-fascist-not-unconstitutional/
The Associated Press
Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing “25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad” and 51% of those polled, “agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah.” Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won’t convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.
Mr. Trump stated, “Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again.”
It should be possible to disagree with this statement without describing Donald Trump as the new Hitler… but it seems to be rather difficult.
Mediate has a roundup of newspapers making Hitler comparisons, complete with photos chosen to make it look as if Trump is giving his audiences the old Sieg Heil. The Huffington Post declared Trump had gone “full fascist.”
“Is this what Germany looked like in 1933?” asked MSNBC host Joe Scarborough.
That last link comes courtesy of my friend David Harsanyi of The Federalist, who lost family members during the Holocaust, and speaks with authority when he replies to Scarborough, “No. Not at all.”
David says he tries to be a good sport about “the occasional gratuitous Nazi analogy,” but feels obliged to throw a flag on this particular play:
Unless political demonstrations have been banned and something comparable to the Reichstag fire is about to go down, Trump is not going to be Führer. Marinus van der Lubbe may not have burned down the German Parliament, but Islamic terrorists actually did gun down a bunch of Americans last week. And yet Stormtroopers didn’t smash Muslim businesses in a fury of collective punishment; a concentration camp for political opponents of Trump was not established this year; there’s been no decree banning Muslims from practicing law and civil service jobs, and no prohibitions on Islamic dietary laws. Not even Trump has claimed to want to institute any of these things—and other than a few fringy Nazi types on Twitter, I’ve never seen anyone claim to want to institute these things. All of them, of course, would be unconstitutional.
He offers an interesting theory that the swift flurry of “Trump=Hitler” responses might be due to the Left’s effort to portray Muslims as an oppressed class in the Western world. There’s a lively genre of European editorials and political speeches that explicitly claim “Muslim refugees are the new Jews.”
As for whether Trump’s proposed Muslim immigration ban would be unconstitutional, Mark Krikorian at National Review judges it would most likely pass Constitutional muster, with due allowances for varying interpretations (and some confusing responses from Trump campaign spokespeople) of exactly what Trump has in mind:
First of all, it’s important to underline that Congress can exclude or admit any foreigner it wants, for any reason or no reason. Non-Americans have no constitutional right to travel to the United States and no constitutional due-process rights to challenge exclusion; as the Supreme Court has written multiple times, “Whatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned.”
What’s more, while the president doesn’t have the authority that Obama has claimed, to let in anyone he wants for any reason (under the guise of “parole”), he does have the statutory authority to keep anyone out, for any reason he thinks best.
We really ought to get past the habit of describing every idea we disagree with as “fascist,” “unconstitutional,” or “un-American,” with the latter term covering the angry denunciations of Trump’s Muslim immigration ban as going against everything Americans “stand for and believe in,” to quote former Vice President Dick Cheney on the matter.
It’s fun to watch people who generally portray Cheney as a Dark Lord of the Sith embrace him as a prominent anti-Trump spokesman, but really, there is nothing in the charter or character of the United States that demands unlimited immigration from anywhere, or everywhere. We should have the political language to denounce proposals in very strong terms without saying they run contrary to the basic character of the country – or, conversely, asserting that agreement with a proposal is mandatory for all good Americans.
I have little hope of winning the war against political hyperbole today, even though it’s a day when Donald Trump is a commanding figure on both sides of the hyperbole battlefield. I’m also not looking for a side job as interpreter of What Trump Really Meant. I have to sleep sometime, and the oracles of What Obama Really Meant look absolutely exhausted these days.
But going from his original statement and its title, and sifting through the rubble of the overnight attacks and clarifications, I think we’re talking about: (A) A ban on Muslim immigration to the United States, for (B) a limited period of time (“until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on,” which may be the vaguest deadline ever proposed) because (C) the Muslim population includes an unacceptably high percentage of people prone to commit, support, or indulge terrorist violence (“it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension.”)
This may be a very bad idea, or an unworkable proposal; Trump can be criticized for failing to include extensive specifics for such an enormously controversial idea, or fully briefing his campaign staffers on the bombshell he was about to drop. But it’s not fascism or Hitlerism. Among other things, it is a proposal that would leave considerably fewer people under the authority of a prospective President Trump. Hitlerism was not defined by closed borders, but by moving borders. You didn’t have to immigrate to Nazi Germany – it came to you.
In his National Review piece, Krikorian gives Trump a little credit for starting a conversation about immigration and national security, topics which are too often dominated by thoughtless pieties. We might also applaud Trump for dragging liberals out of their seven-year totalitarian stupor under Obama, and making them realize due process matters, legislative responsibility rests with Congress, and untrammeled executive authority is bad. I knew they would instantly embrace all of those truths on the day a Republican President was inaugurated, but Trump woke them up over a year ahead of schedule.
It’s true that screening for religious affiliation in the manner Trump described would be logistically difficult and uncomfortable, but somehow Saudi Arabia pulls it off. Good luck immigrating there with big plans to open a church or synagogue. For that matter, good luck getting into the Kingdom as a Syrian refugee.
Most Americans don’t want to use Saudi Arabia as an immigration model, but let’s not pretend a very sizable portion of the U.S. electorate isn’t having doubts about indiscriminate open-door immigration policies. Again, not to be an interpreter of What Trump Really Meant, but what if he proposed a temporary moratorium on immigration from a few particularly troublesome Muslim countries, the proximate example being Pakistan?
In a post meant to dispel the “tiny minority of violent extremists” mythology of Islam, David French at National Review notes that in Pakistan, “a horrifying 72 percent couldn’t bring themselves to express an unfavorable view of ISIS.” Is it still Hitlerism to say that maybe we ought to pump the brakes on granting visas to especially problematic regions?
The Americans who have qualms about Islam are not mindless bigots. They’re looking at what’s actually happening across the Muslim world with open eyes. “All Muslims are terrorists” is a foolish statement, but Hillary Clinton’s statement that “Islam has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism” is equally foolish. The cognitive dissonance of swallowing such officially-mandated pap has grown too great for many Americans to bear. They’re nervous about donning the sensitivity blindfolds their political leaders insist they wear.
They’re also pushing back against demands that law-abiding citizens give up Constitutional rights and modify their lives in the name of security. If that’s the price of mass immigration, it’s not xenophobic for citizens to decide it’s not worth paying. The more sternly they are informed reasonable discussion of the matter is impossible, the more they will embrace less reasoned modes of discourse.
If the choice is between Attorney General Loretta Lynch declaring an unconstitutional crusade against “anti-Muslim speech” after an Islamist massacre, and her boss daydreaming about using a no-fly list to short-circuit the Second Amendment, without the Beltway establishment batting an eye… and Trump’s undeniably extreme Muslim immigration ban… many people will find those alternatives comparably outrageous, and choose the outrage that injures them less. Who wants their obituary on page A26 of the newspaper that uses its headline to declare they’re no better than the Islamist who murdered them?
Personally, I think we can handle these challenges without a total ban on any form of immigration, but we do need to understand that security screening, assimilation, and law enforcement are logistical exercises. Numbers matter. It is also sheer folly to pretend every group of prospective immigrants is exactly the same, or that every nation of origin is equally capable of providing the kind of background information solid vetting requires.
As long as our respectable political elite is willfully blind to those realities, and insists we all share their studied ignorance, outrageous voices can own the reasonable real estate in this debate.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-muslim-ban-not-fascist-not-unconstitutional/
John Peter
Ser evoluído
- Mensagens
- 58
- Reações
- 122
- Pontos
- 33
Eu realmente me pergunto se alguém leva a sério esse veto do Trump, nem vetaram os países que mais "exportam terroristas" ( que convenientemente tem vínculos comerciais fortes com Muricaland 
) e além disso o ISIS pode literalmente recrutar pessoas dentro das nações, vide o ataque em Paris, onde 2 terroristas eram franceses 
) e além disso o ISIS pode literalmente recrutar pessoas dentro das nações, vide o ataque em Paris, onde 2 terroristas eram franceses 
nominedomine
Mil pontos, LOL!
- Mensagens
- 26.422
- Reações
- 51.458
- Pontos
- 1.254
Trump vetou a entrada de pessoas de 7 países que estão foram identificados pela administração do Obamis como sendo países comprometidos pelos terroristas , se só países muçulmanos estão na lista a culpa é do Trump?
A solução é os cristão, judeus, budistas e ateístas começarem a matar e fazer atendado, ai os esquedalhas ficam felizes.
Se os USA é malvadão assim prq diabos estão querendo ir pra lá? Bando de invejosos que somados não chegam aos pés do mito.
A solução é os cristão, judeus, budistas e ateístas começarem a matar e fazer atendado, ai os esquedalhas ficam felizes.
Se os USA é malvadão assim prq diabos estão querendo ir pra lá? Bando de invejosos que somados não chegam aos pés do mito.
Sim, a culpa é do Trump por banir. Os EUA já tem uma relação hipócrita com a Arábia Saudita há muito tempo. Os terroristas do 11 de Setembro vieram da Árabia Saudita; o Trump não banir esse país faz do banimento dele meio inútil.
Cristão começar a fazer atentado??? tá sabendo que tem mais chacina em escola feita por cristãos brancos do que atentado terrorista nos EUA?
nominedomine
Mil pontos, LOL!
- Mensagens
- 26.422
- Reações
- 51.458
- Pontos
- 1.254
Aposto que esta contando qualquer cara branco como cristão mesmo que o atentado cometido não tenha ligação nenhuma com religião.
No Brasil a maioria dos assassinatos são cometidos por cristãos e na Somália a maioria dos assassinatos são cometidos por negro. Não significa nada.
Nego prefere morrer do que admitir que uma ideologia pode ser um lixo, como fica bem obvio no caso do Islã.
Sadbot
Bam-bam-bam
- Mensagens
- 556
- Reações
- 1.888
- Pontos
- 333
Vamos realizar motins em bares e em recintos majoritariamente frequentados por machos, já que todos eles também falam esses absurdos e, portanto, são machistas fascistas nazistas taxistas esteticistas! Trump não é qualificado para ser Presidente por conta de uma conversa que a maioria dos homens tem, de 10 anos atrás, em um ambiente e situação não relacionados à política, que a mídia sensata e imparcial apenas divulgou para provar que o homem laranja é, na verdade, uma arma secreta de Hitler!
Sua lógica é ótima, continue.
LHand
Ei mãe, 500 pontos!
- Mensagens
- 18.251
- Reações
- 50.038
- Pontos
- 624
Não coloque palavras na minha boca... eu não falei que ele é um desqualificado à presidência por causa disso.
Mas ele é machista ué. Vai negar isso também? Depois reclamam quando comparamos os defensores do Trump com os petistas... o paralelo com o caso do "grelo duro" do Lula é bem pertinente... atacam a mídia, atacam quem fez a gravação mas defendem as merdas que o ídolo fala. Impressionante.
O fato de muitos homens terem pensamento similar só indica que muitos são machistas também ué, não isenta o Trump da falha. E não são "todos eles" que falam essas coisas... o problema não é ele falar que pega a mulher pela b*ceta... o problema é ele achar que pode chegar em qualquer uma desse jeito só porque é famoso.
Denrock
Ei mãe, 500 pontos!
- Mensagens
- 13.588
- Reações
- 70.577
- Pontos
- 584
Tem cerca de 50 (CINQUENTA) países de maioria muçulmana
Trump só tinha colocado 7 na lista
posta aí pra mim a lista dos 40 e poucos países que o Trump tem negócios, please.
Fica aí o desafio pra vc ou pra qualquer outro provar, falo sério, to aguardando (sentado) a lista dos 40 e pouco países que ele faz negócios, não esqueça.
John Peter
Ser evoluído
- Mensagens
- 58
- Reações
- 122
- Pontos
- 33
Na vdd curiosamente existem grupos terroristas cristãos atuando por ai.
Tem o Exército de Resistência do Senhor, um grupo opositor ao governo que atua na Uganda e alguns países vizinhos e o Anti-Balaka que atua na República Centro-Africana, organizando massacres contra muçulmanos.
Além de vários grupo antigos(que surgiram nas milhares de guerras civis do século passado na África) e outros como o IRA na Irlanda.
Mas ate entendo tu não conhecer eles, nem a mídia, nem a esquerda, nem a direita, nem ninguém liga pra África subsaariana
(Além de que esses grupos não "exportam terroristas" pro ocidente né, então pra que se preocupar)
Ultima Edição:
Ghost·
Bam-bam-bam
- Mensagens
- 3.159
- Reações
- 10.353
- Pontos
- 303
É isso ai...
A grande verdade é que eu sou fã da esquerda mundial...Graças a ela, eu tenho motivos para rir diariamente...
Como eu poderia não gostar daqueles que fazem minha vida mais feliz?
Se levam tão a sério e, mesmo sendo contradições ambulantes, tem a certeza de que são a salvação para o caos do mundo...
É lindo ver tanta determinação.
Quanto a Trump, concordo que ele seja a personificação de hitler, afinal, hitler bebia água, tinha duas pernas e dois braças, um par de orelhas, um par de olhos...É verdade mesmo...As semelhanças são inquestionáveis.
A grande verdade é que eu sou fã da esquerda mundial...Graças a ela, eu tenho motivos para rir diariamente...
Como eu poderia não gostar daqueles que fazem minha vida mais feliz?
Se levam tão a sério e, mesmo sendo contradições ambulantes, tem a certeza de que são a salvação para o caos do mundo...
É lindo ver tanta determinação.
Quanto a Trump, concordo que ele seja a personificação de hitler, afinal, hitler bebia água, tinha duas pernas e dois braças, um par de orelhas, um par de olhos...É verdade mesmo...As semelhanças são inquestionáveis.
xDoom
Ei mãe, 500 pontos!
- Mensagens
- 25.384
- Reações
- 141.118
- Pontos
- 589
Na vdd curiosamente existem grupos terroristas cristãos atuando por ai.
Tem o Exército de Resistência do Senhor, um grupo opositor ao governo que atua na Uganda e alguns países vizinhos e o Anti-Balaka que atua na República Centro-Africana, organizando massacres contra muçulmanos.
Além de vários grupo antigos(que surgiram nas milhares de guerras civis do século passado na África) e outros como o IRA na Irlanda.
Mas ate entendo tu não conhecer eles, nem a mídia, nem a esquerda, nem a direita, nem ninguém liga pra África subsaariana
(Além de que esses grupos não "exportam terroristas" pro ocidente né, então pra que se preocupar)
NÃOMEQUESTIONE
Mil pontos, LOL!
- Mensagens
- 25.232
- Reações
- 104.537
- Pontos
- 1.299
Até budistas realizam ataques terroristas...
