• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you understand the purpose of the electoral college? Do you agree with it?

How do you feel about the electoral college?

  • I understand the purpose of the electoral college and I agree with it.

    Votes: 77 67.0%
  • I understand the purpose of the electoral college and I disagree with it.

    Votes: 27 23.5%
  • I don't understand the purpose of the electoral college but I agree with it.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I don't understand the purpose of the electoral college but I disagree with it.

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Other - Please Explain

    Votes: 10 8.7%

  • Total voters
    115
Painting everything to the absolute extreme seems to have replaced legitimate debate anymore.

Trump's policies don't target radical Muslims, they target Muslims, as a group.
 
You're reading a ****load into Trump's words to put a ****load of meaning that is nowhere to be found in Trump's words.

What group does Trump target? All Muslims. Mosque surveillance. Muslim registry. These things are not targeting RADICAL Muslims, they are targeting ALL Muslims.

I don't know why you cannot be honest and admit that you were unequivocally wrong, which you absolutely were.

Dude....

This is old news.

Trump on latest iteration of Muslim ban: 'You could say it's an expansion' - CNNPolitics.com
 

That doesn't change the fact that his original statements, in full context, had the meaning that i described. Those things that he openly campaigned on were part of the tyranny of the majority i described, where a minorities rights are rescinded for, in this case, the perception of providing a limited margin of safety to the majority.

His constituents would have had to misunderstand him if they had heard it and had any other impression.
 
That doesn't change the fact that his original statements, in full context, had the meaning that i described. Those things that he openly campaigned on were part of the tyranny of the majority i described, where a minorities rights are rescinded for, in this case, the perception of providing a limited margin of safety to the majority.

His constituents would have had to misunderstand him if they had heard it and had any other impression.

No... they didn't have the meaning you described.

Because you totally ignored the until part of the statement in its entirety.

The "minority" you are speaking of are POTENTIAL immigrants..... they don't have U.S. Law protection./
 
But apparently you don't care about the people living in all the Red States that voted for President Elect Trump

View attachment 67209855

How do you justify not caring for those people?

President Elect Trump carried significantly more States than Hillary - That doesn't matter? The people in those States don't get a voice?

I would say suck it up buttercup. ;)
 
No... they didn't have the meaning you described.

Because you totally ignored the until part of the statement in its entirety.

The "minority" you are speaking of are POTENTIAL immigrants..... they don't have U.S. Law protection./

The group being targeted for different treatment is "Muslims" and not "RADICAL Muslims" as you ERRONEOUSLY claimed. But i am unsurprised that you are unwilling to admit your proven failure.
 
The group being targeted for different treatment is "Muslims" and not "RADICAL Muslims" as you ERRONEOUSLY claimed. But i am unsurprised that you are unwilling to admit your proven failure.

You are right..

Muslims are being targeted to determine if they are RADICAL or not.

You can keep pretending this is about discrimination and hate, but it is about whether or not they are radical terrorists. Other than that, nobody ****ing cares (except several dumb asses who are just full of hate).
 
You are right..

Muslims are being targeted to determine if they are RADICAL or not.

You can keep pretending this is about discrimination and hate, but it is about whether or not they are radical terrorists. Other than that, nobody ****ing cares (except several dumb asses who are just full of hate).

Thank you for admitting that.

I don't pretend this is about hate, but i would argue that it is about discrimination.

Discriminate : recognize a distinction; differentiate.
 
Thank you for admitting that.

I don't pretend this is about hate, but i would argue that it is about discrimination.

Discriminate : recognize a distinction; differentiate.

If that is how you REALLY define discrimination, then some level of discrimination is NECESSARY in life. When you dilute the meaning of how we define the term during political discussions, then it really does become meaningless. As we can acknowledge that, under your definition, discrimination is not only inevitable, but necessary.
 
If that is how you REALLY define discrimination, then some level of discrimination is NECESSARY in life. When you dilute the meaning of how we define the term during political discussions, then it really does become meaningless. As we can acknowledge that, under your definition, discrimination is not only inevitable, but necessary.

I know it's necessary. I didn't say it's evil or hateful. In this case, i think the discrimination is inappropriate. Terrorism isn't unique to Muslims; non-Muslims are terrorists, too. If we're going to violate people's privacy, why only Muslims? That's because "innocent until proven guilty" is damn important, it's not a trivial thing to take away peoples rights and privacies. Some people seem to think it's okay to do to Muslims, but, in my opinion, it's not.

It really is that simple. I don't hate people who disagree. I don't think they're evil. Hell, i can understand their view. However, i fundamentally disagree with the methodology in principle.
 
I know it's necessary. I didn't say it's evil or hateful. In this case, i think the discrimination is inappropriate. Terrorism isn't unique to Muslims; non-Muslims are terrorists, too. If we're going to violate people's privacy, why only Muslims? That's because "innocent until proven guilty" is damn important, it's not a trivial thing to take away peoples rights and privacies. Some people seem to think it's okay to do to Muslims, but, in my opinion, it's not.

It really is that simple. I don't hate people who disagree. I don't think they're evil. Hell, i can understand their view. However, i fundamentally disagree with the methodology in principle.

I don't agree with observation on ALL muslims.... I agree with observing those who have been known to preach the more "radical" side of things. As history has shown they tend to act out.... radically.

As for immigration, I have to agree that Trump's view of ensuring we have a good solid way to determine whether someone is radical or just fleeing the middle east before letting in refugees en masse. As, that area of the world has shown it tends to have a serious problem with us.
 
Back
Top Bottom