50% of Americans, and 80% of likely GOP primary voters, now support the Trump ban on Muslims

Dodging the question, I see.

 

That anyone is even being asked about banning "all" Muslims is a reflection of the stunning lack of leadership we have in our country right now, first and foremost from Barack Obama, who clearly cannot be counted on or trusted to keep our country safe, but also from blowhard trolls like Donald Trump, who is in no small part because of Obama's incompetence currently leading the Republican field to be the party's nominee for president.

All of this kind of talk is exactly backwards. We are currently under a serious terror threat from radical Islamic terrorism, that is for certain. But how easy is it for these terrorists not to identify themselves as Muslims and thereby bypass that screen.

Rather, the screen should be to assume everyone is banned unless they meet reasonably rigorous security standards. If there is no information on them, keep them out. Since there are more than enough people who do meet these sorts of standards, the ones that are let in should be selected exclusively from that group.

 

Kid, you should step away from the keyboard and go make some copies or some coffee. You are obviously losing it.

 

Kid, you still haven't properly answered my question.

I understand that it is intellectually challenging for you to answer a simple question like the one I posed, but you should at least give it a try.

That is, after you have stepped away from the keyboard for a while, gotten some fresh air, made some coffee and copies. Gather yourself.

 

Why? Why does it have to be a black and white paradigm?

Also, you do know the founders of this country were pretty vocal about the dangers of a plurality right?

I mean a prime example of how dangerous it is to give all the power to the plurality is the entire Arab Spring.

 

Yet the people were absolutely fine to replace autocrats with theocrats. So much better.

 

A governing system is the same as an economic system in the sense that there is no 'pure' form that is being pragmatically practiced. There is no pure socialist state. There is no pure capitalist state etc. and there are pros and cons of each system.

 

Well if we want to go back on topic, part of the reason why a large majority of GOPers support 'banning of Muslims' is that a significant portion of them are 'anit-pc' circle jerkers who love to troll and irk the ultra sensitive left wing. It's part of the reason why Trump is their favorite candidate. So Northside, when someone like you or Sweet Lou keep on harping that 'Islam is just like Christianity" or "It has nothing to do with Islam" they will push back 10 fold just to irk people like you.

Just be ****ing honest. Islam is a problem. Muslims are just people who just happened to be born into Islam. For most Muslims it's not their fault that they are Muslims so let's not condemn all Muslims. Word it like that than just blatantly lying to appease Muslims because all that results in is a push back by the right wing that results in 80% of them wanting to ban Muslims.

I know enough Trump supporters being a vet, and a large chuck of them are Trump supports not because they think he would make a great president, but because they want to rustle the jimmies of the 'pc culture'.

 

Don't 80% of Muslimd sympathize with terrorists?

 

First of all, I didn't say that. Secondly, while I didn't say it, I can still have my opinion that I don't think he should be president, even if the majority of voters in the USA thought differently. It's called freedom of opinion.

That's how a democracy works.

If you don't like how democracies work, please say so, intern.

Which is exactly what my point was when I asked you the Hitler question - in response to you saying

That was an absolute statement. I challenged that absolute statement. That was my entire point, which either flew right over your head or you chose to act even more ignorant than you are.

Nobody disputed that. But you didn't talk about the average. You have shown to be an enthusiastic supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood - led Egyptian government, and you made an absolute statement that you prefer elected governments over autocracies by bullet. I chose an extreme example (Hitler) to show that that absolute statement is questionable. I would absolutely have preferred for someone to take out Hitler with a bullet. I would also have preferred an autocratic regime that protects the minority of non-Nazis over a majority of Nazis.

Aaaand...just like that, I prefer an autocratic regime that protects non-Islamists (such as secular Muslims, atheists and Copts) over a majority of Islamists who want to enforce Sharia, including chopping off hands, subjugating women, threatening gays and apostates with the death penalty.

My entire point is:

If that is what the majority believes and wants, then I prefer a regime that does not give the majority these things.

Hypothetical example: The majority of people in the USA decide to vote for the KKK, and put black people into concentration camps. Your absolute statement above - and you made the same argument over and over to defend the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt - would require you to defend that.

I disagree: I am saying that there are certain inalienable human rights which are more important than the will of the majority. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, equal rights for women. Things like that. I prefer an autocratic regime that guarantees more of that to an elected tyranny of the majority.

Do you finally understand my point now?

Back when the Muslim Brotherhood was in power, you answered these questions with "no". You enthusiastically supported the Muslim Brotherhood government. And your entire argument to back this up was that they were (supposedly) democratically elected by the majority.