Trump Clarifies Position On ‘Shutting Down’ Parts Of The Internet

[DXMember]

this goes completely and oposit of net-neutrality

if you vote for these rules you are voting against net-neutrality

if you are voting against net-neutrality you are voting against democracy

[dragosudeki]

Stop them? Who is them? When a white christian male goes on a mass shooting, do we now worry about all christian white males? Why is it okay to generalize about other demographics, but when it comes to whites, they're not only isolated incidents but also not even labeled terrorism? You just said you don't want anymore incidents similar to what happened in France. Who exactly is it that you want to stop from traveling to prevent that?

I do agree with you that the blanket generalization does suck, but I don't agree with some of your other points.

In my honest opinion, I believe extremist religion is very dangerous because it can potentially lead to a lot of harm. There have been quite a bit of Christian extremists who have done terrorist acts too, like you said.

Additionally, it seems like you are also generalizing that white people cannot be Muslim. Religion does have strong correlations with certain nationalities, which then has strong correlations with specific races. However, anybody can very much be Muslim and for you to say white people cannot be generalized as Muslim, when white people can for certain become Muslim, is very stereotypical as well. As an example of extremists of other races, search up Denis Cuspert or Abdel-Majed Bary. Race has little to nothing to do with religion (though race is another problem that is not a part of this issue).

[LeChef]

this thread derailed like mad

[ivan134]

I do agree with you that the blanket generalization does suck, but I don't agree with some of your other points.

In my honest opinion, I believe extremist religion is very dangerous because it can potentially lead to a lot of harm. There have been quite a bit of Christian extremists who have done terrorist acts too, like you said.

Additionally, it seems like you are also generalizing that white people cannot be Muslim. Religion does have strong correlations with certain nationalities, which then has strong correlations with specific races. However, anybody can very much be Muslim and for you to say white people cannot be generalized as Muslim, when white people can for certain become Muslim, is very stereotypical as well. As an example of extremists of other races, search up Denis Cuspert or Abdel-Majed Bary. Race has little to nothing to do with religion (though race is another problem that is not a part of this issue).

Nothing I said suggests that a white person can't be muslim, so I'm not sure where you got that from, In fact, you completely missed the point.

 

Yea, we all hate religious extremists. Cool. What does that have to do with denying refugees asylum or banning muslims from travel?

[dragosudeki]

Nothing I said suggests that a white person can't be muslim, so I'm not sure where you got that from, In fact, you completely missed the point.

 

Yea, we all hate religious extremists. Cool. What does that have to do with denying refugees asylum or banning muslims from travel?

You said I missed the point, despite you bringing up refugees, which had nothing to do with my first post. Afterwards, you were complaining about the generalization of religion (and somehow included race and brought up the white supremacist idea) and also asked who is "them" which I addressed in that post...

 

Denying refugees asylum is a completely different problem influenced by many other factors and still occurs under Obama's administration, so it has little to no relation to Trump's policy.

There is already a war between many countries and Isis, so I don't think a war could start from this. I think this policy of his is more of a way to temporarily ban them, so that they could create better measures against stopping terrorists from getting in. No one wants another incident like what happened at Paris.

Relating to the banning of Muslims, if you looked at this post (which is my first post), I said it is likely a temporary ban which would be to create time so that they can put better measures to stopping extremists Muslims from getting in.

 

Did I miss anything else?

[NinjaJc01]

And this guy had 40% of the votes? What is the world coming to?

[MrDynamicMan]

this goes completely and oposit of net-neutrality

if you vote for these rules you are voting against net-neutrality

if you are voting against net-neutrality you are voting against democracy

Illuminati... Confirmed?

[MrDynamicMan]

I don't understand your point. People travelling to a country do not have to be a refugee, they can simply be a traveler or something. How they got in is still questionable, but nothing changes the fact that you gotta stop them before they get in. France has even tightened border checks to try to reduce the probability of another attack.

so your solution is to effectively raise the Berlin Wall to all law abiding Muslims?

[MrDynamicMan]

Relating to the banning of Muslims, if you looked at this post (which is my first post), I said it is likely a temporary ban which would be to create time so that they can put better measures to stopping extremists Muslims from getting in.

Did I miss anything else?

correct me if I'm wrong, but did trump say a temporary ban?

Do you REALLY believe that a temporary ban would give the government enough time to do something that they couldn't have done in the last 14 something years?

[ivan134]

You said I missed the point, despite you bringing up refugees, which had nothing to do with my first post. Afterwards, you were complaining about the generalization of religion (and somehow included race and brought up the white supremacist idea) and also asked who is "them" which I addressed in that post...

 

Denying refugees asylum is a completely different problem influenced by many other factors and still occurs under Obama's administration, so it has little to no relation to Trump's policy.

Relating to the banning of Muslims, if you looked at this post (which is my first post), I said it is likely a temporary ban which would be to create time so that they can put better measures to stopping extremists Muslims from getting in.

 

Did I miss anything else?

This thread has been a great showcase of people who failed high school history.

[dragosudeki]

so your solution is to effectively raise the Berlin Wall to all law abiding Muslims?

Law doesn't always reflect moral standards and unfortunately there is no way to judge who is moral or not. So if it is against the law for Muslims to come in and they come in, are they still law abiding? I do think that the idea of "a few people will always ruin it for others" is the harsh reality we live in unfortunately.

correct me if I'm wrong, but did trump say a temporary ban?

Do you REALLY believe that a temporary ban would give the government enough time to do something that they couldn't have done in the last 14 something years?

Yes, he did say temporary ban. I do think that trying to do something is better than doing nothing. I don't think his policy will work, though I do want to see the American government focused more on securing America rather than securing the Middle East, especially with their national debt increasing due to their involvement there.

 

This thread has been a great showcase of people who failed high school history.

Great statement! I like how you connected the idea of failing high school history to your argument and the current day topic at hand.

[MrDynamicMan]

Law doesn't always reflect moral standards and unfortunately there is no way to judge who is moral or not. So if it is against the law for Muslims to come in and they come in, are they still law abiding? I do think that the idea of "a few people will always ruin it for others" is the harsh reality we live in unfortunately.

Yes, he did say temporary ban. I do think that trying to do something is better than doing nothing. I don't think his policy will work, though I do want to see the American government focused more on securing America rather than securing the Middle East, especially with their national debt increasing due to their involvement there.

Regarding your first point, that's as much of a broadsweeping statement as saying "vidoegames cause violence" and then banning games from the US because of a few school shootings. It's like saying all Christians are anti-gay anti-abortion ludicrous conservatives because of the westboro Baptist Church. Like saying we should cut off Africa from the rest of the world because a small region of it experienced an ebloa outbreak. But Oh well, the few ruin the many.

I mostly agree on your second point, although borders are VERY difficult to control, but the US does need to do something.

[ivan134]

Law doesn't always reflect moral standards and unfortunately there is no way to judge who is moral or not. So if it is against the law for Muslims to come in and they come in, are they still law abiding? I do think that the idea of "a few people will always ruin it for others" is the harsh reality we live in unfortunately.

Yes, he did say temporary ban. I do think that trying to do something is better than doing nothing. I don't think his policy will work, though I do want to see the American government focused more on securing America rather than securing the Middle East, especially with their national debt increasing due to their involvement there.

Great statement! I like how you connected the idea of failing high school history to your argument and the current day topic at hand.

Ban all 1.2 billion muslims because of a few extremists? I'd like to hear your proposal for white christians. You seemed to miss my point earlier and concluded that I thought whites couldn't be muslim. Was the guy who recently shot up planned parenyhood labeled a terrorist by any right wingers? How about the guy who killed 9 black people in their church because apparently black people are raping white women and children? The guy who killed Dr Tiller? Or how about all the other mass shootings that werent based on religion? Also, what do you propose we do about these terrorists I just mentioned? I'll gladly go along with banning muslims if you agree that white males should all be banned from buying guns. Do we have a deal?

[Whorax]

I'm seriously not. I'm willing to have a civil discussion if you are.

I'm not. Because the amount of times someone has questioned my support of Donald Trump on this forum is nothing short of ridiculous when every other candidate is no less insane or wrong, or any less of an "idiot".

 

There's no need for a discussion on this topic because all it is is different beliefs for different people. If you want to know why I like him then look up what Trump believes in and what he stands for and it's that simple. The fact that you want to have a discussion on why I like someone is astronomical in itself.

 

Ban all 1.2 billion muslims because of a few extremists? I'd like to hear your proposal for white christians. You seemed to miss my point earlier and concluded that I thought whites couldn't be muslim. Was the guy who recently shot up planned parenyhood labeled a terrorist by any right wingers? How about the guy who killed 9 black people in their church because apparently black people are raping white women and children? The guy who killed Dr Tiller? Or how about all the other mass shootings that werent based on religion? Also, what do you propose we do about these terrorists I just mentioned? I'll gladly go along with banning muslims if you agree that white males should all be banned from buying guns. Do we have a deal?

I'm a right winger and anyone that goes on mass shootings and kills Americans is a domestic terrorist. I don't give a shit if they're white or black or Asian or Muslim or Christian or man or woman or American or British or middle eastern. Terrorism is terrorism. You statement on that is stupid, because I just proved right wingers label white people terrorists. Anyone that is a terrorist should pretty much be taken out back and shot. It's really that simple.

 

That was only one of the asinine things you said there, but I won't go on about the rest as I don't think there's any sort of sense that can be talked into you.

[ivan134]

I'm not. Because the amount of times someone has questioned my support of Donald Trump on this forum is nothing short of ridiculous when every other candidate is no less insane or wrong, or any less of an "idiot".

There's no need for a discussion on this topic because all it is is different beliefs for different people. If you want to know why I like him then look up what Trump believes in and what he stands for and it's that simple. The fact that you want to have a discussion on why I like someone is astronomical in itself.

I'm a right winger and anyone that goes on mass shootings and kills Americans is a domestic terrorist. I don't give a shit if they're white or black or Asian or Muslim or Christian or man or woman or American or British or middle eastern. Terrorism is terrorism. You statement on that is stupid, because I just proved right wingers label white people terrorists. Anyone that is a terrorist should pretty much be taken out back and shot. It's really that simple.

That was only one of the asinine things you said there, but I won't go on about the rest as I don't think there's any sort of sense that can be talked into you.

Congratulations! You're an outlier. Now, what should we do about them?

[VAkena]

Test

[dragosudeki]

Ban all 1.2 billion muslims because of a few extremists? I'd like to hear your proposal for white christians. You seemed to miss my point earlier and concluded that I thought whites couldn't be muslim. Was the guy who recently shot up planned parenyhood labeled a terrorist by any right wingers? How about the guy who killed 9 black people in their church because apparently black people are raping white women and children? The guy who killed Dr Tiller? Or how about all the other mass shootings that werent based on religion? Also, what do you propose we do about these terrorists I just mentioned? I'll gladly go along with banning muslims if you agree that white males should all be banned from buying guns. Do we have a deal?

I'm not the guy making policies, so I don't understand why your complaining to me about policies that should be added along with it.  Additionally, I'm not even in the states, so I wouldn't even have control over any policies there. I'm merely stating some facts around the one simple policy of "temporary ban on Muslims", which is one of the more strict non violent ways of handling it.

 

I do agree that gun control would have to change to reduce any of the mass shootings, though that is another tough thing to change in the states especially. It would either have to be an amendment to the Constitution at a federal level or it would have to be done at the level of the state. I personally want the US to be stricter on the gun controls too (and would like them to control the distribution of the government's weapon to other countries).

 

I do agree with you, but like I said, your additional issue has nothing to do with what Trump's policy is, nor does my opinion actually influence any changes to Trump's policies. Therefore, I don't really understand your beef with me, when all I want to do is explain one policy, and not discuss all the other political problems in America that could be addressed as well.

[cesrai]

VPN's don't mean a thing if you cut all the lines to that country.

Which would involve a physical solution instead of software.

Sorry to tell you this man but other fucking people still live there. Not everyone is a fucking terrioat in Syria.

What I see is I can no longer communicate with my family if this happens, the Syrian won't be able to upload videos to YouTube and let the world see what is happening. Communication will be near impossible or very hard.

[cesrai]

I'm not the guy making policies, so I don't understand why your complaining to me about policies that should be added along with it. Additionally, I'm not even in the states, so I wouldn't even have control over any policies there. I'm merely stating some facts around the one simple policy of "temporary ban on Muslims", which is one of the more strict non violent ways of handling it.

I do agree that gun control would have to change to reduce any of the mass shootings, though that is another tough thing to change in the states especially. It would either have to be an amendment to the Constitution at a federal level or it would have to be done at the level of the state. I personally want the US to be stricter on the gun controls too (and would like them to control the distribution of the government's weapon to other countries).

I do agree with you, but like I said, your additional issue has nothing to do with what Trump's policy is, nor does my opinion actually influence any changes to Trump's policies. Therefore, I don't really understand your beef with me, when all I want to do is explain one policy, and not discuss all the other political problems in America that could be addressed as well.

He is dicsauing the policy you suggested witg you, so I don't see why you are surprised and act like this is unreasonable.

[Mooshi]

LTT officially became Twitter+ with more than 140 characters. Everytime I see anything Trump related, people drop spaghetti like it's going out of style. WTF did I even read through this maddening thread of angry angriness? 

[dragosudeki]

He is dicsauing the policy you suggested witg you, so I don't see why you are surprised and act like this is unreasonable.

Someone initially said that the police was war inducing, where I told that person why it is not, what the policy is possibly doing, and the reason behind the policy. My original comment:

 

There is already a war between many countries and Isis, so I don't think a war could start from this. I think this policy of his is more of a way to temporarily ban them, so that they could create better measures against stopping terrorists from getting in. No one wants another incident like what happened at Paris.

This policy clearly is not directed to any problem inside America, but rather trying to keep the outside problems out of America. How this lead to the refugee comments, the racial problems, and the gun control problems in America is really beyond me and beyond what the policy. It also doesn't help the discussion when he has thrown insults into it.

 

MrDynamicMan was much more cooperative in a discussion than ivan134, if you want an example of a good discussion that doesn't blow up into a thousand other topics.

[CoolaxGaming]

What people dont get is that he probably got this clarification from a hired man.

Notice he is clarifying, he backs up on a lot of his claims.

It went from Bill Gates to the NSA.

[ivan134]

Someone initially said that the police was war inducing, where I told that person why it is not, what the policy is possibly doing, and the reason behind the policy. My original comment:

This policy clearly is not directed to any problem inside America, but rather trying to keep the outside problems out of America. How this lead to the refugee comments, the racial problems, and the gun control problems in America is really beyond me and beyond what the policy. It also doesn't help the discussion when he has thrown insults into it.

MrDynamicMan was much more cooperative in a discussion than ivan134, if you want an example of a good discussion that doesn't blow up into a thousand other topics.

All these comments later and you still dont understand the very simple point I was getting across. Why is it okay to generalize about one demographic but not another? Dont confuse your inability to comprehend something that simple with me being uncooperative. Also for your other comment, the US is the only developed country where mass shootings happen every other day (many of them happen almost every day but they dont all get the same coverage because they're not as sensational). This doesn't happen in japan, Canada or the developed European countries. Before you say gun control wouldn't prevent some of them, maybe you should try and figure out what those countries are doing differently.

[stconquest]

There is already a war between many countries and Isis, so I don't think a war could start from this. I think this policy of his is more of a way to temporarily ban them, so that they could create better measures against stopping terrorists from getting in. No one wants another incident like what happened at Paris.

 

Here you associate what happened in Paris with the migration of Muslims while painting them as terrorists that need banning.  Pretty horrid.

 

I don't understand your point. People travelling to a country do not have to be a refugee, they can simply be a traveler or something. How they got in is still questionable, but nothing changes the fact that you gotta stop them before they get in. France has even tightened border checks to try to reduce the probability of another attack.

 

Reality check:  what if they are already "in"?

 

I do agree with you that the blanket generalization does suck, but I don't agree with some of your other points.

In my honest opinion, I believe extremist religion is very dangerous because it can potentially lead to a lot of harm. There have been quite a bit of Christian extremists who have done terrorist acts too, like you said.

Additionally, it seems like you are also generalizing that white people cannot be Muslim. Religion does have strong correlations with certain nationalities, which then has strong correlations with specific races. However, anybody can very much be Muslim and for you to say white people cannot be generalized as Muslim, when white people can for certain become Muslim, is very stereotypical as well. As an example of extremists of other races, search up Denis Cuspert or Abdel-Majed Bary. Race has little to nothing to do with religion (though race is another problem that is not a part of this issue).

 

As already pointed out, no one insinuated that "white" people are not capable of following the Muslim faith.  You are way out in left field.  You also state that race has little to do with religion, so how would a temporary ban against Muslims work?  The magical Religious Denomination Detector?  Banning Muslims would involve would racially profiling, no doubt about it.

 

You said I missed the point, despite you bringing up refugees, which had nothing to do with my first post. Afterwards, you were complaining about the generalization of religion (and somehow included race and brought up the white supremacist idea) and also asked who is "them" which I addressed in that post...

 

Denying refugees asylum is a completely different problem influenced by many other factors and still occurs under Obama's administration, so it has little to no relation to Trump's policy.

Relating to the banning of Muslims, if you looked at this post (which is my first post), I said it is likely a temporary ban which would be to create time so that they can put better measures to stopping extremists Muslims from getting in.

 

Did I miss anything else?

 

You are missing tons, but I won't pick everything apart.  Scroll to the end...

 

 

I can pick at more of your quotes if you wish.

 

Law doesn't always reflect moral standards and unfortunately there is no way to judge who is moral or not. So if it is against the law for Muslims to come in and they come in, are they still law abiding? I do think that the idea of "a few people will always ruin it for others" is the harsh reality we live in unfortunately.

Yes, he did say temporary ban. I do think that trying to do something is better than doing nothing. I don't think his policy will work, though I do want to see the American government focused more on securing America rather than securing the Middle East, especially with their national debt increasing due to their involvement there.

 

Great statement! I like how you connected the idea of failing high school history to your argument and the current day topic at hand.

 

 

I'm not the guy making policies, so I don't understand why your complaining to me about policies that should be added along with it.  Additionally, I'm not even in the states, so I wouldn't even have control over any policies there. I'm merely stating some facts around the one simple policy of "temporary ban on Muslims", which is one of the more strict non violent ways of handling it.

 

I do agree that gun control would have to change to reduce any of the mass shootings, though that is another tough thing to change in the states especially. It would either have to be an amendment to the Constitution at a federal level or it would have to be done at the level of the state. I personally want the US to be stricter on the gun controls too (and would like them to control the distribution of the government's weapon to other countries).

 

I do agree with you, but like I said, your additional issue has nothing to do with what Trump's policy is, nor does my opinion actually influence any changes to Trump's policies. Therefore, I don't really understand your beef with me, when all I want to do is explain one policy, and not discuss all the other political problems in America that could be addressed as well.

 

 

Someone initially said that the police was war inducing, where I told that person why it is not, what the policy is possibly doing, and the reason behind the policy. My original comment:

 

 

This policy clearly is not directed to any problem inside America, but rather trying to keep the outside problems out of America. How this lead to the refugee comments, the racial problems, and the gun control problems in America is really beyond me and beyond what the policy. It also doesn't help the discussion when he has thrown insults into it.

 

MrDynamicMan was much more cooperative in a discussion than ivan134, if you want an example of a good discussion that doesn't blow up into a thousand other topics.

 

...you seem to believe that banning Muslims from moving in and out of the USA is a solution to a problem.  This is wrong.  The situation revolving around ISIS is multifaceted and not easily fixed.  The "western" military actions of the past 20 years(and further back) helped these oppressive groups as much as they try to stop them now.  You keep talking about keeping the problem out of America, but you seem to not understand:  America is part of the problem.

 

Trump is a massive idiot and he reinforces that fact with more than 50% of what leaves those lips:  like what he said here.  Stop believing he is anything other than a rich dumb ass, because he is not.  Statements, like the one that led to this back track, should give you some sense of what he thinks of the US constituency.  He panders to the fearful, and the ignorance in every one of us... and you are falling for it.

 

Really.