全 28 件のコメント

[–]Cantevenhelpit [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Obviously hes right. Their ideals do not align with the US, or really most modern western cultures.

http://i.imgur.com/TZR5I61.png

[–]trolliamnotRights are given by God, not man [スコア非表示]  (16子コメント)

Now this will be talked about for like 30 minutes tonight at the debate. Trump knows he probably polls well in this area, says a comment he knows will be controversial, now we focus on that at the debate instead of more substantive issues.

[–]Cantevenhelpit [スコア非表示]  (15子コメント)

The "problem" for people who are against Trump is that people agree with this. You can say it because no one cares and they agree. This is why nothing he says hurts his numbers. The truth is that people are on board with him.

Political correctness is the number one way to disregard legitimate concerns according to Trump, and I agree. People are tired of "politically correct" in this country.

[–]DanburyBaptist [スコア非表示]  (14子コメント)

I agree that Islam as a religion is philosophically opposed to Western culture and values, but I am not at all on board with Trump's "No more Muslims" rhetoric. We have always been a nation of religious freedom. His platform goes against the spirit of the 1st amendment, and it worsens our reputation internationally. Islamic violence is a problem, but it is not such a burdensome threat that we should be throwing away liberty in the name of safety.

[–]LiberatedDeathStar [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

I would put forward the argument that keeping people from immigrating to the US is not in violation of the 1st amendment, as foreigners are not afforded the rights of citizenship. If this group of people is heavily predisposed to violence and religious warfare, I think it is appropriate to not let them into our nation (ban immigration). There are other, less violent people across the world to take as immigrants if we desire to. Our constitution is a promise made by and to our own people, and I believe we should not entertain the idea that foreigners not residing in the US should be afforded any rights referred by the Bill of Rights.

[–]DanburyBaptist [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

That is why I specifically said it is not in keeping with the spirit of the 1st amendment. I happen to think that immigrants should definitely be heavily vetted, but their religious affiliation should not be grounds for an automatic disqualification.

[–]LiberatedDeathStar [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Fair opinion, although I would still dissent there. If the religious affiliation is heavily associated with the suppression of other religions and the suppression of civil rights, then it is itself outside of the spirit of our constitution. Since evicting citizens on religious affiliation is definitely outside of the spirit of the 1st, I would say that limiting or halting entry until the religion addresses its problems would be appropriate.

I appreciate the response that relies on thought instead of dismissing an argument based on some warped morality.

[–]DanburyBaptist [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Indeed. Islamic violence is a topic on which the left is astonishingly deluded, which has prevented practical security measures that have worked well in other parts of the world. There needs to be reform, but I think we ought to approach that reform carefully. Nervous people make troubling mistakes, as I believe the NSA bulk data collection and the mostly nonsensical methods of the TSA demonstrate. We shouldn't be afraid of certain kinds of profiling, whether the people who shriek "Islamaphobe!" agree or not.

[–]TheNimblestNavigator [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

He wants a temporary ban on Muslims refugees until a better system to vet these people is designed. And I must say I agree with him. Look at what's happening in Sweden and Germany. I really don't want roving packs of murderous gang raping refugees in my town.

These people wouldn't uphold our laws so why do they deserve our liberty?

[–]DanburyBaptist [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Well, if we're talking about Muslim "refugees", I agree there is no good reason at all to bring them here.

As for immigration though, gaining naturalization as a U.S. citizen is certainly tough as it is, but it could use some improvements/enhancements. It's just that as I said before, I don't think it is in line with good American tradition and philosophy to disqualify someone based solely on their religion. If in the process of someone filing to become an American citizen it is found that their Islamic faith has produced in them beliefs that are incompatible with our culture, we should deny them based on those grounds. It's a somewhat subtle distinction, but I believe it is an important one.

[–]CowboyNinjaAstronaut [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

The thing is I don't see how one can be a faithful muslim and take the oath to uphold the constitution required for citizenship.

I don't see the point in importing people who, if they had enough numbers, would replace the constitution with sharia law.

[–]DanburyBaptist [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Which is why their views must be thoroughly investigated. If they believe in sharia or anything even resembling it, they should absolutely be denied.

[–]CowboyNinjaAstronaut [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

That's the majority of muslims, and those who don't support sharia are apostates, and should basically give up Islam in general then.

[–]DanburyBaptist [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I don't necessarily disagree with that. The policy position I'm advocating might very well lead to de-facto prevention of Muslim immigration, without needing to make their religion the deciding factor.

[–]Solyndros [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

If you start banning/opressing Islam in America then that's one step away from banning/oppressing Christians or other religions. If you start down the slippery slope then every group of people is up for grabs.

[–]CowboyNinjaAstronaut [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The slippery slope fallacy is called a fallacy for a reason.

There are many ideologies we "oppress" in the United States, because we've found out they're very very bad for society. For instance, we shun Nazis. We must all "disavow" people like David Duke for his white supremacist views. I see nothing wrong with "oppressing" muslims by calling out their evil ideology for what it is.

[–]jack_bronis_brother [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

I think he's right. Not sure what's controversial about this.

[–]Colonize_The_Moon [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It's only not controversial here because we are all relatively sane. In places like r/politics, where everyone has their heads in the sand or inserted into various orifices, a seemingly-obvious assertion like "Islam and the West are incompatible" would draw hysteria, condemnation, profanity, and personal attacks.

[–]DanburyBaptist [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Most of us more or less agree, but we differ on the proper response.

[–]nox_42 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It's controversial here because this is /r/conservative the self-proclaimed sworn enemies of the evil democrat in disguise.

[–]Hyrax09 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

This won't be politically correct but I don't think he to far off the mark. Now of course not all muslims hate us, but a very large percentage does and that's a problem.

[–]Jfreak7 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Does he also think the sky is blue and water is wet? Good job Trump. :P

[–]wmegenney [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

From San Bernardino, Can confirm

[–]travis-42Goldwater Conservative [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Don't let Trump use things like this to get you. It's his pattern: say things potentially outrageous to many people (but loved by a small group), then walk it back and "clarify." He ends up getting the support of that group, without losing the support of the groups that wouldn't agree. Everyone thinks he agrees with them.

People who agreed with initial statement: Donald really thinks that but can't say it

People who didn't agree: He didn't mean what you're implying. He clarified it and said the opposite repeatedly.

What does Donald actually believe? What would he do if elected? Only he knows.

Don't be conned.