Democratic Party Convention General Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
_Abyssinia said:
It is not entirely clear that Khazir Khan’s son having been born in, the UAE wouldn’t have been able to move to the US as he did.

"Mr. Trump’s policy director, Stephen Miller, said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal on Monday, “The best way to prevent continued radicalization from developing inside America is to suspend temporarily immigration from regions that have been a major source for terrorists and their supporters coming to the U.S.”

wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-back-pedals-on-banning-muslims-from-u-s-1467058774

Would the UAE be one of those countries under that suspension? I don’t know.

You are saying it is unconstitutional, but there are differing views. I’m not sure there has ever been a test case that has went through the US court system to say for definite, but it is not clear that it is unconstitutional.

I’m not saying the idea of a religious test is a good idea, but the point can be made that Trump’s Muslim ban can be seen as a response to terrroism and if the Obama administration and other governments had managed to deal with the threat of terrorism in a better way, would we be even discussing such a proposed ban?
Click to expand...
And if the Bush administration hadn’t toppled Saddam, we wouldn’t have had the destabilization of Iraq and the rise of Al-Qaeda and ISIS in the first place. This is not only my thought, and Bernie Sanders’, but also Donald Trump’s. But who wants to play the Bush card or the Obama card now? (“What does it matter at this point?” as Hillary might say.) The main point is that, while Islamist terrorism is certainly a threat at home and abroad, a (temporary) ban on all Muslim immigrants, including refugees whom we may be in a position to help, seems to me (not to everyone) not only unconstitutional but immoral and demeaning to all Muslims, especially Muslim Americans, and, just as important, detrimental to the aid we need from Muslims who are opposed to ISIS.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
A temporary unconstitutional demeaning ban is still an unconstitutional demeaning ban. The Japanese internment was temporary too. That does not make it right.
Click to expand...
Actually the ban may not be unconstitutional - the Constitution protects citizens and residents not foreigners living abroad. Nevertheless as the Pope said ’ a person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian’
 
YADA said:
Also while I am not a black helicopter radical …the reason we have an individual right to the ownership of “arms” is precisely due to the fact that the citizens of the original colonies rose up and faught against their government. The people rose up …
Click to expand...
If you’re worried about having to rise up as a citizen, unless you have armed yourself with all the tanks and bombs and other munitions the US govt has at its disposal in the 21st century, my money would be on the govt.
 
meltzerboy said:
And if the Bush administration hadn’t toppled Saddam, we wouldn’t have had the destabilization of Iraq and the rise of Al-Qaeda and ISIS in the first place. This is not only my thought, and Bernie Sanders’, but also Donald Trump’s. But who wants to play the Bush card or the Obama card now? (“What does it matter at this point?” as Hillary might say.) The main point is that, while Islamist terrorism is certainly a threat at home and abroad, a (temporary) ban on all Muslim immigrants, including refugees whom we may be in a position to help, seems to me (not to everyone) not only unconstitutional but immoral and demeaning to all Muslims, especially Muslim Americans.
Click to expand...
And who was it that voted in favour of the Iraq war - Hillary Clinton…

People can debate whether it’s constitutional or not, I don’t have the expertise to know, people have differing views, but if Trump becomes President and still wants that to be enacted, then I guess it will be seen if it’s constitutional or not because presumably it would be challenged in court if it went through Congress as legislation and passed or through executive order? There are Muslims who are not going to support Trump, but there are also Muslims that support Donald Trump:

chicagotribune.com/news/ct-illinois-muslims-for-trump-met-20160720-story.html
time.com/4259372/donald-trump-muslim-supporters/
edition.cnn.com/2016/04/28/politics/trump-muslim-voters-support/
 
_Abyssinia said:
By the way, business sacrifices can be impactful and they can be personal. It’s not the same as the sacrifice made by going into the military, but Khazir Khan said Donald Trump didn’t make any sacrifices, and that just was not a fair statement to make.
Click to expand...
Mr. Khan, in his speech asked Trump to specifically look at the sacrifices people made for their country. He specifically challenged Trump to look in Arlington National Cemetery, before he talked about his sons ultimate sacrifice for his country…and he is right. Compared with the Khans sacrifice…he has sacrificed nothing. In the george Stephanopoulos interview, If you listen specifically to George Stephanopoulos’ question, Trump was questioned specifically about sacrifices he made for his country…Trump then applauds himself for his successful business. Which is a crazy response to this situation.

It reminds me of the time many years ago I lost my child in a miscarriage, I called up my friend to tell her of my loss…before saying one word about my loss. She had immediately went into how she had not received as much of her college scholarship that she was expecting. Which was a poor response to the situation that I was presenting to her.

I just think that Trump had a collosal failure in responding to this situation. It truly bothers me.
 
Millie123 said:
Mr. Khan, in his speech asked Trump to specifically look at the sacrifices people made for their country. He specifically challenged Trump to look in Arlington National Cemetery, before he talked about his sons ultimate sacrifice for his country…and he is right. Compared with the Khans sacrifice…he has sacrificed nothing. In the george Stephanopoulos interview, If you listen specifically to George Stephanopoulos’ question, Trump was questioned specifically about sacrifices he made for his country…Trump then applauds himself for his successful business. Which is a crazy response to this situation.

It reminds me of the time many years ago I lost my child in a miscarriage, I called up my friend to tell her of my loss…before saying one word about my loss. She had immediately went into how she had not received as much of her college scholarship that she was expecting. Which was a poor response to the situation that I was presenting to her.

I just think that Trump had a collosal failure in responding to this situation. It truly bothers me.
Click to expand...
And it should bother you and all of us because it gives us further insight into the way Trump’s mind works and his personality.
 
_Abyssinia said:
And who was it that voted in favour of the Iraq war - Hillary Clinton…

People can debate whether it’s constitutional or not, I don’t have the expertise to know, people have differing views, but if Trump becomes President and still wants that to be enacted, then I guess it will be seen if it’s constitutional or not because presumably it would be challenged in court if it went through Congress as legislation and passed or through executive order? There are Muslims who are not going to support Trump, but there are also Muslims that support Donald Trump:

chicagotribune.com/news/ct-illinois-muslims-for-trump-met-20160720-story.html
time.com/4259372/donald-trump-muslim-supporters/
edition.cnn.com/2016/04/28/politics/trump-muslim-voters-support/
Click to expand...
Hillary Clinton messed up in her vote as did many Republicans and Democrats in Congress. The Bush administration tells us the presence of WMD’s was based on the best intelligence they had at the time. Whatever the truth of the matter is, that part of the saga is over. We now have to concentrate on defeating ISIS, and we might need the help of Muslim allies to do so. By means of his proposal to ban Muslims, Trump is not contributing positively to the fight against ISIS.
 
meltzerboy said:
But there is an important difference. For all her other faults, Hillary Clinton has never demeaned Muslims, has never proposed a ban on Muslim immigrants, has never spoken negatively about the religion of Islam. Donald Trump, on the other hand, has a, to put it charitably, less-than-perfect relationship with the (American) Muslim community at the moment. This is undoubtedly why the Khan family is opposed to Trump rather than Hillary. They had good words to say, however, about Ryan and other Republican leaders of Congress.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. The Khan family spoke so well of Republicans that I told my spouse that he is one and is trying to save the party. He clearly was trying to send a warning. To Mr. Khan, this is not a partisan issue. He just called Trump out on his hypocrisy. Not because he is the Republican nominee, but because he is Trump.
 
_Abyssinia said:
How has Trump ever demeaned Muslims? Aside from whether it’s a good idea or not, and I am not saying it’s a good idea, but based on what I’ve read, a religious test in regards to immigration is unlikely to be unconstitutional and when polled, banning Muslim immigration does have significant support: thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/283789-poll-americans-split-on-trumps-muslim-ban-proposal
Click to expand...
Because of this particular statement, I have to ask if you have read the Constitution. What does the Constitution say about religious tests?
 
queenofheartscv said:
The ban is temporary so that we can make sure security clearance is maximum for any type of immigration. Muslims will benefit from a safe society as well. They will benefit from a security tight immigration system where immigrants and native horns can live in peace with one another. They are hurt by constant news of terrorist acts. If they are smart they should want immigration policy to be as tight as possible no terrorists can come in. They need to fight this battle with us.
Click to expand...
The vetting process already takes two years. How does this idea deal with home grown terrorists?
 
meltzerboy said:
And if the Bush administration hadn’t toppled Saddam, we wouldn’t have had the destabilization of Iraq and the rise of Al-Qaeda and ISIS in the first place. This is not only my thought, and Bernie Sanders’, but also Donald Trump’s. But who wants to play the Bush card or the Obama card now? (“What does it matter at this point?” as Hillary might say.) The main point is that, while Islamist terrorism is certainly a threat at home and abroad, a (temporary) ban on all Muslim immigrants, including refugees whom we may be in a position to help, seems to me (not to everyone) not only unconstitutional but immoral and demeaning to all Muslims, especially Muslim Americans, and, just as important, detrimental to the aid we need from Muslims who are opposed to ISIS.
Click to expand...
Amen. But I might add that we could go farther back to the first gulf war where this whole business started with Osama Bin Laden. It’s so important that we pick a president that can think of the repercussions of any given action. Donald Trump doesn’t appear to think beyond the next tweet. Words and actions have consequences.
 
Good_Tidings said:
Because of this particular statement, I have to ask if you have read the Constitution. What does the Constitution say about religious tests?
Click to expand...
I doubt that the Constitution would protect immigrants who are not citizens from deportation or from being barred entry to the US based on their religion:
True, the Bill of Rights applies to everyone, even illegal immigrants. So an immigrant, legal or illegal, prosecuted under the criminal code has the right to due process, a speedy and public trial, and other rights protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. This fact sheet from the National Lawyers Guild outlines a host of rights afforded to immigrants and citizens alike. (There are a few rights reserved for citizens. Among them are the right to vote, the right to hold most federal jobs, and the right to run for political office.)
Click to expand...
But immigration proceedings are matters of administrative law, not criminal law. (As a result, the consequence of violating your immigration status is not jail but deportation.) And Congress has nearly full authority to regulate immigration without interference from the courts. Because immigration is considered a matter of national security and foreign policy, the Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review. Congress can make rules for immigrants that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.
Click to expand...
slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/09/do_noncitizens_have_constitutional_rights.html
 
_Abyssinia said:
You make some fair points but in the short clip released by ABC, Donald Trump said the man in question was, “very emotional” a “nice guy” and that he “wished him the best of luck” - twitter.com/thisweekabc/status/759433280668049409

By the way, business sacrifices can be impactful and they can be personal. It’s not the same as the sacrifice made by going into the military, but Khazir Khan said Donald Trump didn’t make any sacrifices, and that just was not a fair statement to make.
Click to expand...
I didn’t think so either.
 
meltzerboy said:
And it should bother you and all of us because it gives us further insight into the way Trump’s mind works and his personality.
Click to expand...
Did you happen to hear the interviews that the Trump’s ghost writer is giving. He may be one of the few who did not sign a non-disclosure agreement. I’m curious as to what you think as a psychologist.
 
meltzerboy said:
And if the Bush administration hadn’t toppled Saddam, we wouldn’t have had the destabilization of Iraq and the rise of Al-Qaeda and ISIS in the first place. This is not only my thought, and Bernie Sanders’, but also Donald Trump’s. But who wants to play the Bush card or the Obama card now? (“What does it matter at this point?” as Hillary might say.) The main point is that, while Islamist terrorism is certainly a threat at home and abroad, a (temporary) ban on all Muslim immigrants, including refugees whom we may be in a position to help, seems to me (not to everyone) not only unconstitutional but immoral and demeaning to all Muslims, especially Muslim Americans, and, just as important, detrimental to the aid we need from Muslims who are opposed to ISIS.
Click to expand...
and if the World Trade center had not been attacked twice! and 9/11 had not happened - a day none of us will ever forget - maybe we never would have had to invade Afghanistan or Iraq.
 
7_Sorrows said:
and if the World Trade center had not been attacked twice! and 9/11 had not happened - a day none of us will ever forget - maybe we never would have had to invade Afghanistan or Iraq.
Click to expand...
What does Iraq have to do with the World Trade Center?
 
meltzerboy said:
Trump is, as ever, true to form. I suppose one could make a case that consistency is a virtue. He acts just like a spoiled child. It is amazing that a man with a character such as this is the Republican contender for POTUS. (No need to remark about Hillary’s character. But even she would not have stooped so low in this instance.) The man has, at the very least, a personality disorder: he cannot help himself.
Click to expand...
it surprises me the Bernie supporters who have so quickly forgotten how Bernie was burned by Hillary and the DNC! Pretty sad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top