Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So when is he going to call for a complete and total ban against white males, who commit the most mass shootings and terrorist attacks?

White male are physical characteristics, not an ideology. Islam is an ideology or intellectual construct used to justify extremely violent ferocious behavior in many parts of the world against many different ethnicities and countries.

Some white male so-called extremists christians have gone on to bomb or shoot lots of people.

Anonymous wrote:So when is he going to call for a complete and total ban against white males, who commit the most mass shootings and terrorist attacks?

White male are physical characteristics, not an ideology. Islam is an ideology or intellectual construct used to justify extremely violent ferocious behavior in many parts of the world against many different ethnicities and countries.

So when is he going to call for a complete and total ban against white males, who commit the most mass shootings and terrorist attacks?

Only to you is. To most others it shows a common ideology of aligning himself with Islamic radicalists. He is so aligned with radical Islam he doesn't care what team he plays on - he just knows he is pledging allegiance to radical Islam. Almost scarier than choosing a team.

you're woefully misinformed:
http://www.cfr.org/peace-conflict-and-human-rights/sunni-shia-divide/p33176#

a slightly better metaphor would be that it's like saying you're going to vote for both Trump and Clinton in the general election.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be unconstitutional. In spirit if not in law but I think both. Our country's premise of freedom of religion is a cornerstone of our culture.

I am not in favor of banning Muslims, but how would it be unconstitutional? Constitutional protections only apply to US citizens, not every person on earth who thinks of coming to the US. Do people really not understand this?

Apparently not!

I believe I said 'in spirit if not in law.' I'm not a constitutional scholar so I cannot say that with complete confidence but if you can't see how being a country that was built on the premise of supporting freedom to practice any religion of choice is in conflict with banning an entire religion from immigrating then you have some problems with logical thought processes. I believe that if it made it to the Supreme court that someone could prove they were denied entry solely due to their religion of choice than it would be deemed unconstitutional.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So would Trump ban immigrants from Belgium?

If they come from Belgium, they would be political refugees escaping the Muslims who have overtaken their country.

But there have been terrorist acts committed by Belgian citizens, so his current proposal would mean a ban on all immigrants from Belgium.

They were Muslim Belgium citizens that were second generation immigrants. The problem lies with the second generation being radicalized as the Paris, Boston, La, Orlando, and Brussels attacks all were orchestrated by Muslim second generation immigrants that became radicalized. It could happen here in the US too just as it has happened in Europe. The parents are okay but their children become radicalized. Do your research and see for yourself the direct link.

I agree. So maybe the issue is they are not assimilating. What do we (and Europe) do about that?

One obviously easy thing is this: don't have a president who spews hate speech, and generalizes a whole group of people and religion based on the bad actions of a few. A lot of these people who become radicalized do so because they are marginalized in society, and/or have some mental issues. A popular leader who incites his supporters to hatred is going to marginalize these Muslims even further. Most of our political leaders, both GOP and Dems, realize this.

Nowhere the la shooter or Orlando shooter were marginalized. They had good jobs- even one worked for the state and had great benefits and colleagues threw him a baby shower. President Obama has reached out to Muslims and met in 680,000 Muslims into the US over his presidency and still it does not help. What more can we do? These killers were not marginalized. Stop using that as an excuse.

Marginalization is a broader cultural issue -- it has to do with whether you feel enfranchised and a valued part of your society. The fact that he had a job is evidence but not dispositive of that. In any event, this guy with his closeted gayness and anger issues has added motivations it appears -- the thing most likely to have mattered in his case was being banned from buying guns (and having that ban enforced/monitored).

Oh you forgot the small detail that he called 911 and pledged his support to Isis and other Islamist groups.

Groups that don't get along and compete with each other , by the way. He seemed a bit ignorant of the various terrorist organizations. I don't think there is enough information to say he worked with ISIS, simply saying he supports them doesn't make it so.

You are proving the point even more so in that all three groups ha e one thing in common - they are radical Islamic groups.

What? It's like saying you are a fan of the Yankees AND the Red Sox.

Only to you is. To most others it shows a common ideology of aligning himself with Islamic radicalists. He is so aligned with radical Islam he doesn't care what team he plays on - he just knows he is pledging allegiance to radical Islam. Almost scarier than choosing a team.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump's ban sounds like a great way to perpetuate ISIS's narrative: that the Western world is waging war on Islam.

So preventing people from entering your country is war?

Sounds like the left is starting to lose it

Or that you just have a tiny, tiny pea of a brain that can't comprehend complexity and nuance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So would Trump ban immigrants from Belgium?

If they come from Belgium, they would be political refugees escaping the Muslims who have overtaken their country.

But there have been terrorist acts committed by Belgian citizens, so his current proposal would mean a ban on all immigrants from Belgium.

They were Muslim Belgium citizens that were second generation immigrants. The problem lies with the second generation being radicalized as the Paris, Boston, La, Orlando, and Brussels attacks all were orchestrated by Muslim second generation immigrants that became radicalized. It could happen here in the US too just as it has happened in Europe. The parents are okay but their children become radicalized. Do your research and see for yourself the direct link.

I agree. So maybe the issue is they are not assimilating. What do we (and Europe) do about that?

One obviously easy thing is this: don't have a president who spews hate speech, and generalizes a whole group of people and religion based on the bad actions of a few. A lot of these people who become radicalized do so because they are marginalized in society, and/or have some mental issues. A popular leader who incites his supporters to hatred is going to marginalize these Muslims even further. Most of our political leaders, both GOP and Dems, realize this.

Nowhere the la shooter or Orlando shooter were marginalized. They had good jobs- even one worked for the state and had great benefits and colleagues threw him a baby shower. President Obama has reached out to Muslims and met in 680,000 Muslims into the US over his presidency and still it does not help. What more can we do? These killers were not marginalized. Stop using that as an excuse.

+1. People love that narrative, but it isn't actually supported by the facts. It's hard to say what causes some people to self-radicalize, but unfortunately it's not prevented by just being nice to them.

^PP here. I wasn't speaking of the FL shooter specifically. That other PP was talking about in general, how "they" don't assimilate. I was speaking in general terms regarding people who become radicalized.

There are bad people in every segment of population. Why are some so-called educated, well off, white people racist? Because some people, no matter, if they are marginalized or not, are just full of hate.

But, one thing is for sure, if you have a leader who pushes a group of people to the margins of our society with his hate speech, then you are definitely going to find a lot more of them radicalized.

I agree. I also don't think some people realize how marginalized Muslim diaspora communities can be in parts of Europe. We don't have the equivalent here in the U.S.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So would Trump ban immigrants from Belgium?

If they come from Belgium, they would be political refugees escaping the Muslims who have overtaken their country.

But there have been terrorist acts committed by Belgian citizens, so his current proposal would mean a ban on all immigrants from Belgium.

They were Muslim Belgium citizens that were second generation immigrants. The problem lies with the second generation being radicalized as the Paris, Boston, La, Orlando, and Brussels attacks all were orchestrated by Muslim second generation immigrants that became radicalized. It could happen here in the US too just as it has happened in Europe. The parents are okay but their children become radicalized. Do your research and see for yourself the direct link.

I agree. So maybe the issue is they are not assimilating. What do we (and Europe) do about that?

One obviously easy thing is this: don't have a president who spews hate speech, and generalizes a whole group of people and religion based on the bad actions of a few. A lot of these people who become radicalized do so because they are marginalized in society, and/or have some mental issues. A popular leader who incites his supporters to hatred is going to marginalize these Muslims even further. Most of our political leaders, both GOP and Dems, realize this.

Nowhere the la shooter or Orlando shooter were marginalized. They had good jobs- even one worked for the state and had great benefits and colleagues threw him a baby shower. President Obama has reached out to Muslims and met in 680,000 Muslims into the US over his presidency and still it does not help. What more can we do? These killers were not marginalized. Stop using that as an excuse.

Marginalization is a broader cultural issue -- it has to do with whether you feel enfranchised and a valued part of your society. The fact that he had a job is evidence but not dispositive of that. In any event, this guy with his closeted gayness and anger issues has added motivations it appears -- the thing most likely to have mattered in his case was being banned from buying guns (and having that ban enforced/monitored).

Oh you forgot the small detail that he called 911 and pledged his support to Isis and other Islamist groups.

Groups that don't get along and compete with each other , by the way. He seemed a bit ignorant of the various terrorist organizations. I don't think there is enough information to say he worked with ISIS, simply saying he supports them doesn't make it so.

You are proving the point even more so in that all three groups ha e one thing in common - they are radical Islamic groups.

What? It's like saying you are a fan of the Yankees AND the Red Sox.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So would Trump ban immigrants from Belgium?

If they come from Belgium, they would be political refugees escaping the Muslims who have overtaken their country.

But there have been terrorist acts committed by Belgian citizens, so his current proposal would mean a ban on all immigrants from Belgium.

They were Muslim Belgium citizens that were second generation immigrants. The problem lies with the second generation being radicalized as the Paris, Boston, La, Orlando, and Brussels attacks all were orchestrated by Muslim second generation immigrants that became radicalized. It could happen here in the US too just as it has happened in Europe. The parents are okay but their children become radicalized. Do your research and see for yourself the direct link.

I agree. So maybe the issue is they are not assimilating. What do we (and Europe) do about that?

One obviously easy thing is this: don't have a president who spews hate speech, and generalizes a whole group of people and religion based on the bad actions of a few. A lot of these people who become radicalized do so because they are marginalized in society, and/or have some mental issues. A popular leader who incites his supporters to hatred is going to marginalize these Muslims even further. Most of our political leaders, both GOP and Dems, realize this.

Nowhere the la shooter or Orlando shooter were marginalized. They had good jobs- even one worked for the state and had great benefits and colleagues threw him a baby shower. President Obama has reached out to Muslims and met in 680,000 Muslims into the US over his presidency and still it does not help. What more can we do? These killers were not marginalized. Stop using that as an excuse.

+1. People love that narrative, but it isn't actually supported by the facts. It's hard to say what causes some people to self-radicalize, but unfortunately it's not prevented by just being nice to them.

^PP here. I wasn't speaking of the FL shooter specifically. That other PP was talking about in general, how "they" don't assimilate. I was speaking in general terms regarding people who become radicalized.

There are bad people in every segment of population. Why are some so-called educated, well off, white people racist? Because some people, no matter, if they are marginalized or not, are just full of hate.

But, one thing is for sure, if you have a leader who pushes a group of people to the margins of our society with his hate speech, then you are definitely going to find a lot more of them radicalized.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So would Trump ban immigrants from Belgium?

If they come from Belgium, they would be political refugees escaping the Muslims who have overtaken their country.

But there have been terrorist acts committed by Belgian citizens, so his current proposal would mean a ban on all immigrants from Belgium.

They were Muslim Belgium citizens that were second generation immigrants. The problem lies with the second generation being radicalized as the Paris, Boston, La, Orlando, and Brussels attacks all were orchestrated by Muslim second generation immigrants that became radicalized. It could happen here in the US too just as it has happened in Europe. The parents are okay but their children become radicalized. Do your research and see for yourself the direct link.

I agree. So maybe the issue is they are not assimilating. What do we (and Europe) do about that?

One obviously easy thing is this: don't have a president who spews hate speech, and generalizes a whole group of people and religion based on the bad actions of a few. A lot of these people who become radicalized do so because they are marginalized in society, and/or have some mental issues. A popular leader who incites his supporters to hatred is going to marginalize these Muslims even further. Most of our political leaders, both GOP and Dems, realize this.

They are CHOOSING not to assimilate. So we say nothing about it, don't enforce rules, don't rock that boat and they will now assimilate?

We're saying plenty about it: we are an open tolerant society.

What rules are we not enforcing?! What boat aren't we rocking?!

+1 Last time I checked, this country was a democracy, and we can choose to assimilate or not. What you ^PP are looking for is a homogenous culture/society. I think you will need to move to a different country with very tight immigration control, like Russia maybe, too find this.

Also, the FL shooter was American born. How was he *choosing* to not assimilate? The pix I saw of him and his ex-wife looked like a typical Westerner. He didn't have a long beard, wearing traditional Afghan clothing; she wasn't wearing a burqa. He chose to follow the religion of his parents. Should we force all immigrants to follow Christianity or no religion at all? Should force all immigrants to wear certain clothing, listen to certain music?

I think the FL shooter was full of hate to begin with, maybe self hatred since news stories are insinuating he was gay. I think he would've done something terrible regardless of his religion. I read one story where he was abusive to his ex wife just after they got married. Are all spouse abusers radical muslims? No.

I think assimilating in the US should mean that you hold the values of the Constitution and our laws. Everything else should be left to the individual. Isn't that why this country was founded? Isn't that the basis of our country? If you want immigrants and their offsprings to only follow *your* version of America, then we need to change the Constitution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think Londoners are surprised and a bit nervous.

They got what they asked for. What's there to be nervous about?

who didn't see this coming?

Stop reading Fox news. The ads were banned for portraying unrealistic body images. He is a progressive feminist and his decision is hailed Women Groups. You guys are seriously lacking thinking skills. For you people who are not White/Christian can do no right.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/world/europe/london-bans-ads-with-unrealistic-body-images.html

And he did not ban the ads, he banned the ads on London Subways.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So would Trump ban immigrants from Belgium?

If they come from Belgium, they would be political refugees escaping the Muslims who have overtaken their country.

But there have been terrorist acts committed by Belgian citizens, so his current proposal would mean a ban on all immigrants from Belgium.

They were Muslim Belgium citizens that were second generation immigrants. The problem lies with the second generation being radicalized as the Paris, Boston, La, Orlando, and Brussels attacks all were orchestrated by Muslim second generation immigrants that became radicalized. It could happen here in the US too just as it has happened in Europe. The parents are okay but their children become radicalized. Do your research and see for yourself the direct link.

I agree. So maybe the issue is they are not assimilating. What do we (and Europe) do about that?

One obviously easy thing is this: don't have a president who spews hate speech, and generalizes a whole group of people and religion based on the bad actions of a few. A lot of these people who become radicalized do so because they are marginalized in society, and/or have some mental issues. A popular leader who incites his supporters to hatred is going to marginalize these Muslims even further. Most of our political leaders, both GOP and Dems, realize this.

Nowhere the la shooter or Orlando shooter were marginalized. They had good jobs- even one worked for the state and had great benefits and colleagues threw him a baby shower. President Obama has reached out to Muslims and met in 680,000 Muslims into the US over his presidency and still it does not help. What more can we do? These killers were not marginalized. Stop using that as an excuse.

Marginalization is a broader cultural issue -- it has to do with whether you feel enfranchised and a valued part of your society. The fact that he had a job is evidence but not dispositive of that. In any event, this guy with his closeted gayness and anger issues has added motivations it appears -- the thing most likely to have mattered in his case was being banned from buying guns (and having that ban enforced/monitored).

Oh you forgot the small detail that he called 911 and pledged his support to Isis and other Islamist groups.

Great, go ahead and add that. Doesn't change the conclusion.

I agree he shouldn't have been able to buy guns. Also though the intent needs to be changed and prevented from increasing in this country. Look at th was going on in Europe. The London Mayor just banned ads with women in bikinis.

Who's surprised that a Muslim Mayor banned ads of women in bikinis, raise your hands....

I think Londoners are surprised and a bit nervous.

I disagree with this because I'm an American and I like my First Amendment. But I think you're wrong to make this a "Muslim" thing. The article I read said that the London mayor had support from non-Muslim feminists. It also said non-Muslim German politicians supported similar legislation in that country. Europe does share our ideal of freedom speech. Germany has criminalized Nazi symbols and "hate speech" -- that would never fly here. Westboro won its Supreme Court case 8-1. I took a class in law school on the First Amendment and a Canadian classmate was incredulous at the fairly limitless bounds. He said "What's so great about free speech?" Everyone looked at him like he was crazy. America is unique.

Unreal. Y'all can rationalize anything, can't you.

Great response. Your ignorance and paranoia are what's unreal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think Londoners are surprised and a bit nervous.

They got what they asked for. What's there to be nervous about?

who didn't see this coming?

Stop reading Fox news. The ads were banned for portraying unrealistic body images. He is a progressive feminist and his decision is hailed Women Groups. You guys are seriously lacking thinking skills. For you people who are not White/Christian can do no right.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/world/europe/london-bans-ads-with-unrealistic-body-images.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So would Trump ban immigrants from Belgium?

If they come from Belgium, they would be political refugees escaping the Muslims who have overtaken their country.

But there have been terrorist acts committed by Belgian citizens, so his current proposal would mean a ban on all immigrants from Belgium.

They were Muslim Belgium citizens that were second generation immigrants. The problem lies with the second generation being radicalized as the Paris, Boston, La, Orlando, and Brussels attacks all were orchestrated by Muslim second generation immigrants that became radicalized. It could happen here in the US too just as it has happened in Europe. The parents are okay but their children become radicalized. Do your research and see for yourself the direct link.

I agree. So maybe the issue is they are not assimilating. What do we (and Europe) do about that?

One obviously easy thing is this: don't have a president who spews hate speech, and generalizes a whole group of people and religion based on the bad actions of a few. A lot of these people who become radicalized do so because they are marginalized in society, and/or have some mental issues. A popular leader who incites his supporters to hatred is going to marginalize these Muslims even further. Most of our political leaders, both GOP and Dems, realize this.

They are CHOOSING not to assimilate. So we say nothing about it, don't enforce rules, don't rock that boat and they will now assimilate?

We're saying plenty about it: we are an open tolerant society.

What rules are we not enforcing?! What boat aren't we rocking?!