• San Diego Poll shows that 37% of Democrats and 71% of Republicans support Trumps Muslim Ban
    59 replies, posted
[QUOTE=dalton0419;49280775]The [B]First Amendment[/B] of the United States Constitution prohibits the impediment of freedom of religion, and yet people are somehow okay with this.[/QUOTE]That's precisely why he can't do shit like this though to the Muslims already here, he can say how much he's totally going to ban Muslims but the SCOTUS would just look at the bill and flatly go no, Mr. President, you cannot do this you crazy bald son of a bitch. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;49280910]they're more comfortable with the idea of getting rid of an ethnic and/or religious group they dont like than they are with the idea of getting rid of guns[/QUOTE]Pretty much, as dalton0419 said this is a ridiculous knee-jerk reaction and quite honestly it's because most people are dumb fucking sheep. They'll bleat the loudest when you inconvenience them or when they're scared, but you tell them they'll be safe if they let you x, y, and z and they'll shut right up. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;49282817]it seems pretty amusing and hypocritical in all honesty when you consider all of the gun nuts who are voting for trump because he will protect the right to own guns, yet at the same time he is literally advocating to deprive innocent people of even more fundamental rights[/QUOTE]I agree entirely, it's one of those predictable things that just drives me and a lot of other gun owners completely up the wall. Me? I see no difference between that and this, to me they're both unconstitutional and they're both anti-American. Though as Ridge said they're not Americans yet, but I don't think we should be limiting people's entry based entirely on religion because that is just fucking [U]wrong.[/U] I say this even as somebody who is vehemently critical of Islam too, I'd rather have people believing in a religion I detest than have their right to that religion fucked with.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49283006]That's precisely why he can't do shit like this though to the Muslims already here, he can say how much he's totally going to ban Muslims but the SCOTUS would just look at the bill and flatly go no, Mr. President, you cannot do this you crazy bald son of a bitch. Pretty much, as dalton0419 said this is a ridiculous knee-jerk reaction and quite honestly it's because most people are dumb fucking sheep. They'll bleat the loudest when you inconvenience them or when they're scared, but you tell them they'll be safe if they let you x, y, and z and they'll shut right up. I agree entirely, it's one of those predictable things that just drives me and a lot of other gun owners completely up the wall. Me? I see no difference between that and this, to me they're both unconstitutional and they're both anti-American. Though as Ridge said they're not Americans yet, but I don't think we should be limiting people's entry based entirely on religion because that is just fucking [U]wrong.[/U] I say this even as somebody who is vehemently critical of Islam too, I'd rather have people believing in a religion I detest than have their right to that religion fucked with.[/QUOTE] What are executive orders, and stop jerking each other off, we have ratings for a reason.
Yeah I have to agree with the fact that we should apply the Bill of Rights to everyone, not just American Citizens. The fact that we didn't before is what led to shit like the Trail of Tears or Executive Order 9066.
[QUOTE=bisousbisous;49283024]What are executive orders, and stop jerking each other off, we have ratings for a reason.[/QUOTE]I wish I could rate you dumb because you sure as hell don't deserve a gold star.
[QUOTE=bisousbisous;49283024]What are executive orders, and stop jerking each other off, we have ratings for a reason.[/QUOTE] We have stars. STARS. I don't know about you but I don't think those can express the complexity of a fucking ban on specific people from entering the country.
[QUOTE] I say this even as somebody who is vehemently critical of Islam too, I'd rather have people believing in a religion I detest than have their right to that religion fucked with.[/QUOTE] Here is my view on religion. If you can truly speak to your god or whatever spirits your religions centers around, any government trying to restrict your religion should not be an obstacle. An extreme example would be Moses dealing with the Egyptian government.
[QUOTE=bisousbisous;49283024]What are executive orders,[/QUOTE]Oh and you are aware that the SCOTUS has say over executive orders too, right?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;49282735]This is something that you can't just present as a fact and then back up with nothing. It's also incredibly dishonest to suggest that bombing abortion clinics is the absolute worst of what fundamentalist Christianity produces. It's a tragedy, and absolutely a terrorist attack, yes. But there are Christian countries in Africa where that avatar of yours would have you put to death because of people hiding behind the Bible as justification for killing people who aren't Christian. It's just more contained because the governments condoning this are being funded by American missionary groups instead of oil-rich Middle Easterners. A literal interpretation of the Bible [i]also[/i] produces ISIS. It would just have a different name and a different book to hide behind. Edit: [url=https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3w1ype/does_the_koran_really_advocate_more_violence_then/]Here's a thread of historians arguing about your main point, actually.[/url][/QUOTE] I never meant to suggest that bombing abortion clinics is the absolute worst, but I can definitely see the mistake I made comparing it alone to ISIS. That's my bad. There are a lot of terrible things going on in the world that can be directly traced to the bible/christianity, but the Bible isn't as concise as the koran is. Muslims believe that the koran was dictated by Allah. They are his words. The same thing isn't quite true of the Bible. Among other things, this makes reforming islam more difficult than it was for Christianity. Muslim reformers don't have the same tools and they have their work cut out for them, but I hope they do it. I understand I'm not really helping them by saying ISIS's interpretation of the koran is the one that makes the most sense, but it really seems like it is. Unfortunately, our own religious people get driven further to maniacs because the maniacs are the only ones who are being honest about a problem that's really important to them. 70% of people in the US identify as christian. I guess my original post was to try and explain why we have a good chunk of people on the left supporting Trump's craziness. Also, I skimmed through your link and it seems to be focused on early christians trying to paint the koran and islam as violent, which I don't disagree with at all. There doesn't seem to be a lot there discussing the actual text and whether it advocates violence.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49283045]Oh and you are aware that the SCOTUS has say over executive orders too, right?[/QUOTE] Did you and everyone else ignore my post about the Alien and Sedition Acts?
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49282986]I'm sorry but I don't remember the part in the Koran where Mohammed blows himself up...[/QUOTE] Has ISIS blown itself up? I didn't say "What do religious extremists do that mohammed didn't do himself" if we're gonna get all semantical...
[QUOTE=bisousbisous;49283024]What are executive orders, and stop jerking each other off, we have ratings for a reason.[/QUOTE] i'm pretty sure trump wouldn't be allowed to ban moslems from entering the country
[QUOTE=JohhnyCarson;49283041]Here is my view on religion. If you can truly speak to your god or whatever spirits your religions centers around, any government trying to restrict your religion should not be an obstacle. An extreme example would be Moses dealing with the Egyptian government.[/QUOTE]While it would be cool to see Zeus come down from the clouds as a majestic swan with an absurdly large dong to express his disapproval of the situation, we have laws to address all the situations where that [I]doesn't[/I] happen. [QUOTE=bisousbisous;49283053]Did you and everyone else ignore my post about the Alien and Sedition Acts?[/QUOTE]Yeah because doing that would mean it would absolutely get challenged by the SCOTUS, it could actually get challenged right now. It also requires [I]a state of war[/I] which absolutely will not be declared. I shouldn't have to explain this but whatever. Unconstitutional laws are still unconstitutional, an act passed by congress does not and will not ever trump the constitution which requires [I]amending.[/I] Oh and US citizens who are Muslims would still be 100% unaffected by that horseshit.
[QUOTE=bisousbisous;49282856][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts[/url] Or if you can't be bothered to read The Alien Enemies Act, a law passed 217 years ago, that remains on the books today, empowers the president of the United States to expel dangerous Aliens from the country; gives authority to arrest, detain, and deport resident aliens hailing from enemy countries during times of war; and to lengthen the period of naturalization for immigrants. During World War II, the Alien Enemies Act was used by Franklin D. Roosevelt to detain, deport and confiscate the property of Japanese, German, Italian, and other Axis nation citizens residing in the United States. [url]http://www.earlyamerica.com/milestone-events/alien-enemies-act/[/url] The Alien Enemies Act, however, remains in effect as 50 USC Sections 21–24.[6] During World War II, it was used to detain, deport and confiscate the property of Japanese, German, Italian, and other Axis nation citizens residing in the United States.[7] So all your cries of muh constitutional rights are flat out wrong[/QUOTE] The employment of the act to that end is also widely regarded as a deep stain on our nation's history. Very few, if any, of those detained sympathized with their nations of origin. As a matter of fact, many of them [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/442nd_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)"]volunteered for service[/URL], and a good number gave life and limb for the war effort. Internment of "enemy aliens" was a mistake then, and barring Muslims from entry into the country now would result in an equally grave stain on our history.
500 adults for their poll. [QUOTE=San Diego population]1,381,069[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=California population]38,802,500[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=United States population]322,014,853[/QUOTE] This is an irrelevant poll. The amount of people in it is so minuscule compared to even the city population that it is literally without value.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49283104]While it would be cool to see Zeus come down from the clouds as a majestic swan with an absurdly large dong to express his disapproval of the situation, we have laws to address all the situations where that [I]doesn't[/I] happen..[/QUOTE] Doesnt work like that. The gods are fickle.
[QUOTE=Axznma;49283205]500 adults for their poll. This is an irrelevant poll. The amount of people in it is so minuscule compared to even the city population that it is literally without value.[/QUOTE] What is statistics? The entire point of these polls is to take a sample of the population because polling mass amounts of people using proper sampling methods is expensive and impractical. Look at the source in OP and read the Statement of Methodology. This isn't a facebook poll that can easily be raided by flippant asshats. If the amount of people polled had been 50000 instead of 500, I would wager the most noticable change would be a reduction in the margin of error.
[QUOTE=Axznma;49283205]500 adults for their poll. This is an irrelevant poll. The amount of people in it is so minuscule compared to even the city population that it is literally without value.[/QUOTE] "They didn't call me and count my vote, the whole thing is void"
wtf why nvm the sample size is hilariously small the survey is retarded
[QUOTE=RichyZ;49283952]sample size is fine as long as the survey was conducted properly, 500 is more than enough to poll the entire us population w/ 95% confidence and a 5% margin of error[/QUOTE] Sample Size is fine... it's collection method is suspect though... mostly because it may be online subscription poll... or a newsite poll...
[QUOTE=Ltp0wer;49283046]I never meant to suggest that bombing abortion clinics is the absolute worst, but I can definitely see the mistake I made comparing it alone to ISIS. That's my bad. There are a lot of terrible things going on in the world that can be directly traced to the bible/christianity, but the Bible isn't as concise as the koran is. Muslims believe that the koran was dictated by Allah. They are his words. The same thing isn't quite true of the Bible. Among other things, this makes reforming islam more difficult than it was for Christianity. Muslim reformers don't have the same tools and they have their work cut out for them, but I hope they do it. I understand I'm not really helping them by saying ISIS's interpretation of the koran is the one that makes the most sense, but it really seems like it is. Unfortunately, our own religious people get driven further to maniacs because the maniacs are the only ones who are being honest about a problem that's really important to them. 70% of people in the US identify as christian. I guess my original post was to try and explain why we have a good chunk of people on the left supporting Trump's craziness. Also, I skimmed through your link and it seems to be focused on early christians trying to paint the koran and islam as violent, which I don't disagree with at all. There doesn't seem to be a lot there discussing the actual text and whether it advocates violence.[/QUOTE] Bible literalism isn't a rare notion, and it's downright scary because the Bible is full of fanciful parables that were clearly never designed to be taken literally. As for my link, I was referring mostly to the top-level post made by Felinomancy and the exchange that it spawned. Unfortunately reddit has no way of isolating a comment chain and linking only to it, but [url=https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3w1ype/does_the_koran_really_advocate_more_violence_then/cxsvlk5]this exchange[/url] goes pretty in-depth into the Quran and many of the verses that are often quoted as proof of how violent it is. Obviously, the way that most of these verses are explained away - as being not inappropriately violent when you look at them in a historical context - applies to violence in the Bible as well. But the biggest takeaway I had from that thread is that keeping score is stupid. Violent people can just as easily justify their actions with either book. I also don't think people on the left are supporting Trump. If someone can easily find themselves supporting a ban on people of a certain religion from entering the country, a registry of religious and ethnic minorities, the censorship of the world's greatest form of communication, the construction of a giant wall around the entire country, the mandatory closure of all of one religion's places of worship, etc... they weren't liberal to start.
[QUOTE=Axznma;49283205]500 adults for their poll. This is an irrelevant poll. The amount of people in it is so minuscule compared to even the city population that it is literally without value.[/QUOTE] not how sample size determination works
FDR put Japanese in concentration camps. Left praised it because it was for safety of the American people. The xenophobic Carter banned travel to Iran and banned Iranians. Left also praised it for safety because of the hostage situation. Trump calls out that Islam is NOT a religion it is a CULT and wants to protect American citizens because the whole "Be kind to Muslims and they won't kill you" myth has got tens of millions of people killed through out the years. Left foams at the mouth from over 40 years of pro-government control agendas. Not only is this constitutional it's been in law for over 60 years. [URL]http://www.thepcgraveyard.com/2015/12/09/trumps-muslim-ban-not-only-constitutional-but-has-been-the-law-since-1952/[/URL] To keep it short the Left Wing lives in a fake reality, the Right Wing lives in a deluded reality. The thing about living in a deluded reality, is that once in a blue moon, a speck of truth will pop out there, in a fake reality, it never does. The Democratic party has been pushing a mind control agenda when Carter left office. 50 years ago this was different, it was the opposite. I would of been a Democrat, hell even 40 years ago, but today I would not touch them with a 2,000 mile pole. They are preaching hate, bigotry and want control. This picture sums it up nicely what Obama's america looks like: [URL]http://i.imgur.com/dB3g3fS.jpg[/URL] Kennedy, one of the greatest Democratic presidents this country has ever had, he would be a Tea Party member today. I've noticed a change since Obama took office and the whole mindset is "Be kind to everyone, UNLESS they are white, middle class, Christian, pro-constitution and Republican. If they are all of the above and Democrat, it's not okay to demonize them." Then the lefties love to cling to the Old Testament of the bible pointing out what the law was back then, yet if you point out the New Testament where it says "Yeah, don't do that shit." You are shouted down and demonized. The Left is doing nothing but teaching people to demonize. Let's say Trump is a Facist, that sounds good to me after 8 years of a constant assault on this country and the constitution. I will always vote for the one that upholds the Constitution and the safety of this country, Trump is doing just that. The fact that the GOP is now demonizing him just proves that Democrats and the GOP are in bed together and want one goal: Control. When both parties are attacking someone that tells me one thing, they are the most truthful one out there. People are not thinking about the furture they are only thinking about now. "GIMMIE GIMME GIMME WAH-WAH WAH!" They are not thinking about how Sanders would devastate the country in 20, 30 or 40 years from now. Socialism is the key to Communism. What Sanders wants to do is make the rich pay for everything. Oops, now the rich are gone. Make the middle class pay for everything. Oops, now the middle class is gone. We can't have the poor pay. Hey kids, ever heard of Communism? It's great! We give you jobs and you get to own nothing! The reason Socialism works in many European countries is because that's what they were built on, the U.S. was not, if you think Obama blew the debt out of the water wait till you see what Sanders would do. What Trump is doing is he wants to make sure that the ones that come in really are going to be able to live in this country without burning into their brain "Kill all non-Muslims, kill all non-Muslims." Even people that are leaving Islam, they are screaming at how stupid Governments are, their message. "What part of [B]KILL ALL INFIDELS[/B] do you not understand?" People need to think about the future, not their feelings. Not their "free" shit, but about where the country would be in a few decades, and if 50 years from now the Democrats return to their Question Authourty movement and go back to giving to the people, I will embrace them with open arms. For now, hell no.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;49284055]As for my link, I was referring mostly to the top-level post made by Felinomancy and the exchange that it spawned. Unfortunately reddit has no way of isolating a comment chain and linking only to it, but [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3w1ype/does_the_koran_really_advocate_more_violence_then/cxsvlk5"]this exchange[/URL] goes pretty in-depth into the Quran and many of the verses that are often quoted as proof of how violent it is.[/QUOTE] As I've said in other threads, the majority of the Islamic texts with violence are in the hadith which are taken as authoritative right with the Quran. (note that I'm talking about the most accepted hadith like Al-Bukhari and Muslim) The Quran could be 100% peace loving and it wouldn't help.
100 percent of GunFox supports Trump getting mauled by a bear. No sample size concerns here. It was a census.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;49284055]I also don't think people on the left are supporting Trump. If someone can easily find themselves supporting a ban on people of a certain religion from entering the country, a registry of religious and ethnic minorities, the censorship of the world's greatest form of communication, the construction of a giant wall around the entire country, the mandatory closure of all of one religion's places of worship, etc... they weren't liberal to start.[/QUOTE] I've spoken to a decent amount of left leaning people that do for the same reason people voted for the NDP in Alberta. They don't want Hillary for a long list of reasons, or Sanders is too left leaning for them. Swap out Hillary with PC, and Sanders with Wildrose and you get the same situation on different sides. [editline]10th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;49284180]As I've said in other threads, the majority of the Islamic texts with violence are in the hadith which are taken as authoritative right with the Quran. (note that I'm talking about the most accepted hadith like Al-Bukhari and Muslim) The Quran could be 100% peace loving and it wouldn't help.[/QUOTE] Yep. So long as the rules of Islam mandate that the Hadiths are seen as the final word and there's no room for mortal interpretation, you get a culture of literalists. To branch out from it is seen as apostasy, a crime in Islam that even in the more "Moderate" areas, is still seen as heinous enough to be met with death by a good 50 percent of the population. The only ones that don't take the idea of apostasy seriously had several generations of mandated atheism or secularism because of Yugoslavia or the USSR.
[QUOTE=Axznma;49283205]500 adults for their poll. This is an irrelevant poll. The amount of people in it is so minuscule compared to even the city population that it is literally without value.[/QUOTE] christ this defence/post is wheeled out every time from someone doesn't understand polling science
[QUOTE=usaokay;49280784]I live in San Diego. It's pretty much the "Florida" of California.[/QUOTE] It does not have Florida style crimes, so no not really
[QUOTE=The Baconator;49286369]It does not have Florida style crimes, so no not really[/QUOTE] I'm sure every state does, the only difference between Florida and other states is that Florida has an immense amount of freedom of information from the government. The Florida sunshine law puts all that shit in the open, where as other states practice more diligence with releasing information.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.