Donald Trump calls for barring all Muslims from entering the US.

[The Romulan Republic]

Freedom of belief and expression, with certain obvious limits, is essential to democratic participation.

Yes, an ideological test for entering the country is undemocratic. I'm stunned that anyone intelligent enough to possess basic literacy could honestly feel otherwise.

And yes, of course I know that you don't simply leave civil rights up to the whim of the majority. Which actually preserves democracy in the big picture. You also don't discard them out of fear or bigotry if you want to live in a free or safe nation.

I want to also point out that according to one of Trump's campaign people, this ban would indeed include Muslim Americans currently outside the US, which as the article I posted notes, would include Muslims serving in the military and diplomatic corps.

Let's hear the apologists fumble to defend that.

[biostem]

Let's hear the apologists fumble to defend that.

Strawman: I don't support that, and I'm not a Trump supporter. Even if Trump did become president, he would have to get any laws through Congress, then get the Supreme court to rule in favor on their interpretation of any such law, before any person so accused would be exiled/stripped of their citizenship/banned from reentry.

Regardless, my point still stands - if you are trying to get into this country, and clearly state that you are against what it stands for, then you should not be allowed in.

[The Romulan Republic]

Another thing to consider is that Trump's rhetoric has almost certainly aided groups like IS in their efforts to recruit and spread their propaganda.

Their is no excuse for ever joining a terrorist group. But the fact remains that most people, including, of course, most Muslims, are not born monsters. People are indoctrinated, brainwashed, recruited.

What Trump and his supporters have done is treat all Muslims as the enemy. In doing so, he has likely made many Muslims, even moderate Muslims, feel that America is their enemy. That will make them far more susceptible to the message of groups like IS when they say that America is the enemy, that it is evil, that it is against Muslims. If I, a white agnostic from a Christian family, am this alarmed over it, how the fuck do you think Muslims feel?

I would, in all honesty, not be surprised if IS gains thousands of recruits as a result of Donald Trump's rhetoric. This scumbag is aiding terrorist recruitment for political gain. And then you have biostem blaming me for supposedly aiding terrorists for opposing him? Jesus Christ.

While I do not believe that his actions would meet the legal definition of treason, they will likely have much the same effect.

[Grumman]

Yes, an ideological test for entering the country is undemocratic. I'm stunned that anyone intelligent enough to possess basic literacy could honestly feel otherwise.

Is it undemocratic to not allow Russians to vote in US elections? No? Then why do you think it is undemocratic to let Americans decide whether or not to invite those Russians into our club?

Maybe you personally do not believe in sovereign states with the right to control their own borders, but you cannot seem to understand that the rest of the world does not share your opinion.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yes, an ideological test for entering the country is undemocratic. I'm stunned that anyone intelligent enough to possess basic literacy could honestly feel otherwise.

Is it undemocratic to not allow Russians to vote in US elections? No? Then why do you think it is undemocratic to let Americans decide whether or not to invite those Russians into our club?

Are you stupid or simply dishonest?

Can you not see the distinction between basing voting rights on being a citizen of the nation in question, and basing admission to the country on what one believes?

Its fucking apples and oranges.

Maybe you personally do not believe in sovereign states with the right to control their own borders, but you cannot seem to understand that the rest of the world does not share your opinion.

That is not my position.

I do believe in fairly lenient immigration policies, and make no apology for that. However, I do of course believe that states have a right and obligation to keep criminals out, and I challenge you to find anything I have ever said to the contrary.

[The Romulan Republic]

Frankly, the fact that so many people here seem to feel that I am in the wrong for defending the right for religions to be treated equally by the law appalls me. If even a fairly liberal board can stoop to this level, what hope do we have?

[Channel72]

Regardless, my point still stands - if you are trying to get into this country, and clearly state that you are against what it stands for, then you should not be allowed in.

What does this even have to do with anything? Yeah, we definitely shouldn't allow self-proclaimed pro-ISIS Jihadists into the country. How is that anything like allowing Muslims in general into the country?

Oh... you posted a poll.

Source: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the- ... -overview/

Okay... Yeah, what do you think this poll actually shows? It shows that when Muslims from poor, third world countries are asked if they think Sharia law is awesome, they reply with "yes". Are you totally shocked by this revelation? What else would they say? Firstly, Muslims who are actually able to emigrate to the United States tend to be educated or well-off, meaning they're way less likely to care about Sharia law. Secondly, the countries in this poll with high-percentage favorability towards Sharia-law are low GDP, low HDI countries where very few people even have the education or background to intelligently weigh alternatives to Sharia law - it is essentially all they know. It would be like asking a typical low-income Christian family in the Bible belt if they thought that the US government should be led by "Christian values". Of course they would fucking answer yes. That doesn't necessarily mean they'd be pro stoning adulterers. Regardless, the point is, asking a random Muslim from like, Algeria, if they are pro-Sharia law would be like asking a random Christian from Alabama if they are pro "Christian values". It is an utterly useless question. Even the word "Sharia" just means like, "the holy way" or "the right way" - so asking a typical Muslim from a low-HDI country if they approve of Sharia is almost tautological - i.e. your poll fucking sucks.

Plus, you realize that "Sharia law" is not some uniform bunch of formal law codes that amounts to "oppress women and stone apostates". Sharia law is as complex and subject to interpretation as Jewish Talmudic laws. There is a wide-range of interpretations that allow for liberal to ultra-conservative interpretations of Sharia law. Muslims often disagree about valid sources for Sharia - some Muslims only accept the Koran, others also accept the Hadith. And the way Sharia is interpreted by Sunnis vs Shia is often very different, for example. In particular, the poll you posted shows that 91% of Iraqis support Sharia law. That is utterly misleading bullshit. What the fuck Iraqis were these? Sunnis? Shi'ites? Kurds? And was this poll conducted in Baghdad, Basrah or Mosul? They all have different ideas about what Sharia law means. Some Iraqis have very liberal ideas about what Sharia means.

Regardless, not letting Muslims into the country is fucking detrimental to our economy. Just this fucking past week I hired a Muslim electrical engineer from Cairo who is highly educated and knows way more about FPGA's than I do. Any policy that would prohibit him from entering this country is self-evidently fucking stupid and harmful.

It obviously makes sense to develop an intelligence apparatus that screens would-be immigrants for potential connections to terrorist groups. But simply banning people for being Muslim, or even for expressing some sort of vague support for Sharia law - is hardly a solution here.

[Channel72]

-

[The Romulan Republic]

Let's hear the apologists fumble to defend that.

Strawman: I don't support that, and I'm not a Trump supporter.

I'm pretty certain I never suggested you were a Trump supporter. Nor was that comment directly purely at you.

However, while you may not agree with barring Muslim diplomats and soldiers from their homes, you are clearly sympathetic to some aspects of Trump's proposal, and have been arguing against my criticisms of it.

Even if Trump did become president, he would have to get any laws through Congress, then get the Supreme court to rule in favor on their interpretation of any such law, before any person so accused would be exiled/stripped of their citizenship/banned from reentry.

Yes, maybe he'd fail. That doesn't mean that his stated intent is any less repulsive, that it isn't a reason to campaign against him, or that the rhetoric alone isn't incredibly dangerous and potentially damaging for reasons I have already stated in this thread.

Oh, and Congress is currently controlled by the Republican Party (both houses). And the Supreme Court is comprised of justices who are appointed by the President with the approval of said Congress.

Regardless, my point still stands - if you are trying to get into this country, and clearly state that you are against what it stands for, then you should not be allowed in.

And my point still stands- if you institute an ideological test for entering the country, except in the most extreme and narrow cases, you are acting against democracy.

"...what it stands for..."

Tell me, how would you determine that? Its a very loaded and controversial question, what America stands for. Who would you authorize to determine that? To write the questions? To judge who passed them? What is to stop a Republican president from saying liberals are un-American, or a socialist president from saying capitalists are un-American, or a Christian president from saying atheists are un-American? Who would you entrust with this job? With being an "Un-American Activities Committee", if you will?

Here's a link if you don't get the reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un- ... _Committee

See, freedom of belief and expression and equality before the law protect everyone. They protect you as much as the people you fear and despise. They are not easily maintained or easily regained if lost. Oppose them at your own extreme peril.

Edit: Personally, if we're talking about what America stands for, I'd like to start with these words from the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

[Joun_Lord]

Even if Trump doesn't intend to take it that far, he is stirring up hatred and bigotry, pushing the boundaries of what is considered acceptable, laying the ground work, weather he intends it or not, for someone else to go further. This is extraordinarily dangerous.

Other people have done so in the past with far worse rhetoric without the US turning into Nazi 2.0 (unless you ask any long hair beatnik hippie douche, which you shouldn't if for nothing else then to spare yourself the smell of stale weed and horrific body odor). Trump is just another asshole in a long line of assholes spreading it for the world. Crazy motherfuckers will take his words to heart but its not like they weren't already inundated with even more hate filled bigoted speech from any far right wing website, message boards like Stormfront (who I hate for their name, also the terrible, terrible racism), any youtube comment section, and the scores of bigoted shuttlecock mouthpieces that proceeded Trump some of which had just as much airtime as Trump.

I do not make these accusations lightly, and would not do so if I did not feel that they have some merit. Genocide is not a word a responsible person uses lightly or flippantly.

Its possible for America to turn into some racist shithole that hates brown people (okay more then it already does) with King Trump leading the way but its highly, highly unlikely. Its akin to the people screaming about how Comrade Obama was gonna sell our kids to the Chinese, turn over US government control to the UN, let in the Blue Helmets to confiscate all our guns and bibles and beer, and tear off his face to reveal infact he was Bush all along. To my knowledge none of that happened........yet. If Trump is President he will be a shit President but even a shit President can only do so much. Obama couldn't sell our guns to Chinese kids, Trump probably ain't going to be able to build a wall at the Mexican border (mostly because he would need Mexican labor) or keep out all the Muslims.

Right now you sound a bit like a chicken little "the sky is falling" hysteria.

And I never accused you of being responsible. Or a person. For all I know you could be some advanced chat bot. I'm onto you you damn Cylon!

Except that as you noted, not all Muslims have proven they are threats, and so should not be treated as if they have.

You will get no disagreement from me. I've long been an advocate of individual responsibility. Individuals commit crimes, individuals should be punished (or in commie Euroland rehabilitated but we don't need none of that cockamamie socialist bullcrap here, our prison system is perfect) and the actions of one of group should not reflect on the whole.

Buuuuuutttttttt, clearly others don't feel that way which is sad because I'm always right and the sooner the world realizes this the sooner things will get better.

Others feel one can blame an entire group for the actions of a few. Some Muslims blow up buildings, all are terrorists. Some Christians are dicks and or/terrorists (can someone be a terrorist without being a dick?), all Christians are bad. So on and such. Guilt by association far too many people believe in.

Still others believe being part of a "problem group" means they can profile them. Even if they aren't bad they are more likely to be bad. Because there is the view that more then an average amount of black people are criminals, its okay to be wary of them. Because nerds are seen as a bunch of creepy misogynists, its okay to assume most of them are. Because well known atheists are cunts, its awwwright to judge every atheist with preconceived conceptions. Anytime someone of those groups doesn't act like their stereotype they are considered one of the outliers or one of the "good" ones. How many times have you heard some shitbag talk about "good" Muslims as if their default state is bad.

Targeting a vast religious group without regard for individual differences is always dangerous and potentially deadly, regardless of the pretext given.

Again, no real disagreement from me. But being a flaming dickhole towards a group and putting up a sign "no girls.... I mean Muslims allowed" after multiple attacks by said group is still considerably different then actively targeting a group for death and genocide just for being part of an ethnic group or religion. Both are fucked up and clearly built on shitty logic and far too much emotion but the difference in levels of injustice between them is as vast as the backside of an American's behind.

[The Romulan Republic]

Even if Trump doesn't intend to take it that far, he is stirring up hatred and bigotry, pushing the boundaries of what is considered acceptable, laying the ground work, weather he intends it or not, for someone else to go further. This is extraordinarily dangerous.

Other people have done so in the past with far worse rhetoric without the US turning into Nazi 2.0 (unless you ask any long hair beatnik hippie douche, which you shouldn't if for nothing else then to spare yourself the smell of stale weed and horrific body odor). Trump is just another asshole in a long line of assholes spreading it for the world. Crazy motherfuckers will take his words to heart but its not like they weren't already inundated with even more hate filled bigoted speech from any far right wing website, message boards like Stormfront (who I hate for their name, also the terrible, terrible racism), any youtube comment section, and the scores of bigoted shuttlecock mouthpieces that proceeded Trump some of which had just as much airtime as Trump.

Maybe it'll blow over. I hope so, of course. We've survived scumbags and radicals before, its true. Though we have also gone through periods of slavery, segregation, widespread lynching, and, yes, genocide before, so perhaps the past is not a place to look to for reassurance.

But the fact remains that a man calling for the banning of all Muslims from the country, including fucking American soldiers (usually all but sacred in American politics) is a leading contender for the Republican nomination. And I fear that in the near future its only going to get worse as more terrorist attacks occur.

Its possible for America to turn into some racist shithole that hates brown people (okay more then it already does) with King Trump leading the way but its highly, highly unlikely. Its akin to the people screaming about how Comrade Obama was gonna sell our kids to the Chinese, turn over US government control to the UN, let in the Blue Helmets to confiscate all our guns and bibles and beer, and tear off his face to reveal infact he was Bush all along.

Obama never talked about banning vast groups of people. Obama never suggested it was okay to assault protestors at his rallies.

To my knowledge none of that happened........yet.

And never will because Obama, for all his faults, is neither a dictator nor insane. Sometimes he's too timid, actually.

If Trump is President he will be a shit President but even a shit President can only do so much. Obama couldn't sell our guns to Chinese kids, Trump probably ain't going to be able to build a wall at the Mexican border (mostly because he would need Mexican labor) or keep out all the Muslims.

A President can do a very great deal if they have a sympathetic Congress.

Right now you sound a bit like a chicken little "the sky is falling" hysteria.

Perhaps. And I'd love to be proven wrong. But I'd rather overestimate the threat than underestimate the threat.

And I never accused you of being responsible. Or a person. For all I know you could be some advanced chat bot. I'm onto you you damn Cylon!

Heh.

You will get no disagreement from me. I've long been an advocate of individual responsibility. Individuals commit crimes, individuals should be punished (or in commie Euroland rehabilitated but we don't need none of that cockamamie socialist bullcrap here, our prison system is perfect)

You can't be serious about the prisons.

and the actions of one of group should not reflect on the whole.

Buuuuuutttttttt, clearly others don't feel that way which is sad because I'm always right and the sooner the world realizes this the sooner things will get better.

Others feel one can blame an entire group for the actions of a few. Some Muslims blow up buildings, all are terrorists. Some Christians are dicks and or/terrorists (can someone be a terrorist without being a dick?), all Christians are bad. So on and such. Guilt by association far too many people believe in.

Still others believe being part of a "problem group" means they can profile them. Even if they aren't bad they are more likely to be bad. Because there is the view that more then an average amount of black people are criminals, its okay to be wary of them. Because nerds are seen as a bunch of creepy misogynists, its okay to assume most of them are. Because well known atheists are cunts, its awwwright to judge every atheist with preconceived conceptions. Anytime someone of those groups doesn't act like their stereotype they are considered one of the outliers or one of the "good" ones. How many times have you heard some shitbag talk about "good" Muslims as if their default state is bad.

Why do you think I'm arguing against it?

If nobody bought it, it wouldn't be a threat, would it?

Again, no real disagreement from me. But being a flaming dickhole towards a group and putting up a sign "no girls.... I mean Muslims allowed" after multiple attacks by said group is still considerably different then actively targeting a group for death and genocide just for being part of an ethnic group or religion. Both are fucked up and clearly built on shitty logic and far too much emotion but the difference in levels of injustice between them is as vast as the backside of an American's behind.

We're not at the point of genocide yet, obviously. God willing, we are a long way from it. But genocides don't just come from nowhere. They come from a preexisting climate of bigotry and discrimination.

We are taking steps down a very dark path, and I don't want to wait until we reach the end of it before I get worried.

America has genocide in its history, after all. Just ask the native americans.

[jwl]

Frankly, when I look at attitudes from many Americans towards Muslims these days, I see the potential makings of a genocide in the works. Remember that Hitler did not start with murdering 12 million people. He built up to, with increasingly severe repression. It terrifies me. We have to fight this now in the courts and at the ballot box, or I very much fear the next generation will be forced to fight it in the streets. And no, that is not an endorsement of political violence on my part. Its "I'm very afraid it could end up their if we don't do more now".

Prior to gaining power, the NSDAP banned non-arayans from joining their party, banned their party members from marrying jews, advocated removing citizenship from all Jews, blamed a jewish conspiricy for pretty much every woe that had hit the country, attempted an armed coup to take over the country and later used their paramilitaries to attack other parties. Trump has not done this.

[Zaune]

Prior to gaining power, the NSDAP banned non-arayans from joining their party, banned their party members from marrying jews, advocated removing citizenship from all Jews, blamed a jewish conspiricy for pretty much every woe that had hit the country, attempted an armed coup to take over the country and later used their paramilitaries to attack other parties. Trump has not done this.

Yet.

[dragon]

Frankly, when I look at attitudes from many Americans towards Muslims these days, I see the potential makings of a genocide in the works. Remember that Hitler did not start with murdering 12 million people. He built up to, with increasingly severe repression. It terrifies me. We have to fight this now in the courts and at the ballot box, or I very much fear the next generation will be forced to fight it in the streets. And no, that is not an endorsement of political violence on my part. Its "I'm very afraid it could end up their if we don't do more now".

Hopefully it doesn't end like that like we really need another Crusade

[General Zod]

If you are willing to state outright, in an official setting, that people deserve to be murdered (by vigilantees if necessary) for nothing more than changing religion, having sex outside of marriage etc, that is hate speech and it does not come under the protection of any reasonable freedom of speech. As such I would consider it reasonable grounds to bar an immigration application, as it is a literal and credible death threat against fellow citizens.

The analogy to previous violence against Jews is a very poor one, because there were no large groups of Jews murdering civillians and demanding society comply to medieval orthodox traditions. Furthermore discrimination against Jews was primarily racial rather than religious. It is nonsencial to demand that someone stop belonging to their ethnic group, but it is entirely reasonable to demand that someone stop believing in (or at least, stop shouting) muderous rhetoric, as a condition of being allowed into a modern liberal country. Similarly it is much more reasonable to hold members of a religion responsible for the beliefs and actions of others of their religion, because unlike race, beliefs and actions are the only thing that define the group in the first place.

How exactly are you defining "large"? The people doing the murdering tend to belong to ISIS, which is a tiny fraction of the entire Muslim population. Instead of banning a third of the entire world and pissing off the gulf states, why not just ban people with known connections to ISIS instead?

[Civil War Man]

Prior to gaining power, the NSDAP banned non-arayans from joining their party, banned their party members from marrying jews, advocated removing citizenship from all Jews, blamed a jewish conspiricy for pretty much every woe that had hit the country, attempted an armed coup to take over the country and later used their paramilitaries to attack other parties. Trump has not done this.

Not all of what you listed, but he has done some of that. He has advocated revoking people's citizenship (part of his "immigration plan" is repealing the 14th Amendment), and the poll he cites in his "Ban All Muslims" announcement was conducted by Center for Security Policy, which was founded by Frank Gaffney, who is well-known for peddling anti-Muslim conspiracy theories, including but not limited to accusing everyone from Huma Abedin to Grover Norquist of being part of a vast Muslim conspiracy to destroy the United States, claiming that Saddam Hussein was behind the Oklahoma City bombing, and the old "Obama is a Secret Muslim" canard.

And that's not even getting into the whole debacle about Trump advocating shutting down Mosques and forcing American Muslims to register for some kind of hypothetical database designed to keep track of them. Or the unquestioning support he is receiving from white supremacist groups, including literal Neo-Nazis.

[The Romulan Republic]

And while its not quite using paramilitaries to attack other parties, their was that incident where a Black Lives Matter protestor was assaulted at a Trump event (after Trump had previously talked about them being attacked if they disrupted his events), and Trump subsequently saying that he might have deserved it.

[Flagg]

Heil Trump! May his next bankruptcy and ensuing reality show to pay for his pretend super-wealth be as glorious as his GOP nomination campaign and result in his being banned from pretty much every civilized nation. But if he does manage to go to a nation that hold his ideals in esteem, like Saudi Arabia, maybe we lose his credentials and he spends the last 20 years of his joke of a life sitting in the airport like that horrible Tom Hanks movie.

[jwl]

Prior to gaining power, the NSDAP banned non-arayans from joining their party, banned their party members from marrying jews, advocated removing citizenship from all Jews, blamed a jewish conspiricy for pretty much every woe that had hit the country, attempted an armed coup to take over the country and later used their paramilitaries to attack other parties. Trump has not done this.

Not all of what you listed, but he has done some of that. He has advocated revoking people's citizenship (part of his "immigration plan" is repealing the 14th Amendment), and the poll he cites in his "Ban All Muslims" announcement was conducted by Center for Security Policy, which was founded by Frank Gaffney, who is well-known for peddling anti-Muslim conspiracy theories, including but not limited to accusing everyone from Huma Abedin to Grover Norquist of being part of a vast Muslim conspiracy to destroy the United States, claiming that Saddam Hussein was behind the Oklahoma City bombing, and the old "Obama is a Secret Muslim" canard.

And that's not even getting into the whole debacle about Trump advocating shutting down Mosques and forcing American Muslims to register for some kind of hypothetical database designed to keep track of them. Or the unquestioning support he is receiving from white supremacist groups, including literal Neo-Nazis.

The said citizenship revoking is for children of illegal immigrants, not all Muslims or Arabs or whatever. Just because you are using the statistics collected by someone doesn't mean you agree with all their veiws (assuming he even knows what the guy's veiws are in the first place, which I doubt).

He's not saying all mosques should be shut down, he's saying he would consider shutting down some radical moques, in response to a journalist telling him about France doing this. The database thing was just a journalist putting the idea to him and him replying "I'll look into it", which is trump code for " I have no idea what you are talking about, I'll look it up later. He later denyed supporting a database, and this kind of denial is not something you expect when trump actually thinks something. He would usually refuse to bow to "political correctness", as he does with the policy in the OP.

So no, while trumps behaviour is not exactly fitting for a presidential candidate, he isn't in the same kind of feild as the nsdap were prior to coming in power.

[Wild Zontargs]

I also believe it is time for Barrack Obama to publicly condemn Donald Trump as a fascist.

Close enough?

WASHINGTON, Dec 8 (Reuters) - The White House on Tuesday said Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump's call for the United States to ban Muslims from entering the country disqualified him from becoming president and called on Republicans to reject him immediately.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Trump's campaign had a "dustbin of history" quality to it and said his comments were offensive and toxic.

Earnest said other Republican presidential candidates, who have pledged to support the person who eventually wins their party's nomination, should disavow Trump "right now."

[Civil War Man]

And while its not quite using paramilitaries to attack other parties, their was that incident where a Black Lives Matter protestor was assaulted at a Trump event (after Trump had previously talked about them being attacked if they disrupted his events), and Trump subsequently saying that he might have deserved it.

And lest we forget, there was the time those two guys beat up a Mexican immigrant and cited Trump as their inspiration, and Trump's response was that his supporters were "passionate."

He's not directly ordering paramilitaries to attack his enemies, but he's employing the same stochastic terrorist tactics that resulted in the murder of people like George Tiller.

The said citizenship revoking is for children of illegal immigrants, not all Muslims or Arabs or whatever.

Revoking a child's citizenship with a policy designed to disproportionately target a racial minority so it's easier to deport the kid's entire family is not much better.

Just because you are using the statistics collected by someone doesn't mean you agree with all their veiws (assuming he even knows what the guy's veiws are in the first place, which I doubt).

This is not the only time he's directly cited conspiracy theorists or Neo-Nazis in his campaign.

He's not saying all mosques should be shut down, he's saying he would consider shutting down some radical moques, in response to a journalist telling him about France doing this. The database thing was just a journalist putting the idea to him and him replying "I'll look into it", which is trump code for " I have no idea what you are talking about, I'll look it up later. He later denyed supporting a database, and this kind of denial is not something you expect when trump actually thinks something. He would usually refuse to bow to "political correctness", as he does with the policy in the OP.

1. "I'd only close some mosques" is not much better, and opening the door to shutting down mosques that have been "radicalized" (as opposed to, say, arresting the people who are trying to incite violence for trying to incite violence, but that would also require going after a lot of popular right-wing ideologues) is an invitation to start redefining what qualifies as a "radicalized" mosque. Bear in mind that Hitler didn't open with, "Let's kill all the Jews." He spent years gradually building up to that.
2. He'd refuse to bow to "political correctness", unless what he said caused a lot of pushback without sufficiently energizing the people he's pandering to, in which case he would boldly declare that he never said the thing that he is on record saying, even when confronted with the recording of him saying it.

So no, while trumps behaviour is not exactly fitting for a presidential candidate, he isn't in the same kind of feild as the nsdap were prior to coming in power.

Even if Trump himself is not personally fascist, he is (with props to O'Malley for actually coming out and saying it) running as a fascist demagogue. It cannot be stressed enough that among his most ardent supporters are literal Neo-Nazis. His campaign is attempting to drag the Overton window so far to the right that people are actually trying to make fascist policies part of the US political mainstream.

Do not get complacent, because even if Trump himself is a joke, the damage he is doing is not.

[The Romulan Republic]

I also believe it is time for Barrack Obama to publicly condemn Donald Trump as a fascist.

Close enough?

WASHINGTON, Dec 8 (Reuters) - The White House on Tuesday said Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump's call for the United States to ban Muslims from entering the country disqualified him from becoming president and called on Republicans to reject him immediately.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Trump's campaign had a "dustbin of history" quality to it and said his comments were offensive and toxic.

Earnest said other Republican presidential candidates, who have pledged to support the person who eventually wins their party's nomination, should disavow Trump "right now."

I'm glad the White House is speaking out more strongly, though I personally would prefer it if they had not said "disqualified", because that makes it sound like they're saying he isn't legally eligible to run, which obviously isn't true.

I'd also like it if, like O'Malley, they actually used the word "fascist".

[jwl]

And while its not quite using paramilitaries to attack other parties, their was that incident where a Black Lives Matter protestor was assaulted at a Trump event (after Trump had previously talked about them being attacked if they disrupted his events), and Trump subsequently saying that he might have deserved it.

And lest we forget, there was the time those two guys beat up a Mexican immigrant and cited Trump as their inspiration, and Trump's response was that his supporters were "passionate."

He's not directly ordering paramilitaries to attack his enemies, but he's employing the same stochastic terrorist tactics that resulted in the murder of people like George Tiller.

Okay, I looked that incident up. He said this: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... wsrc%5Etfw. "I would never condone violence". I'm not sure how you can equate that to the nsdap practice of setting up their own paramilitaires and deliberately attacking people, especially considering how it was a deliberate widespread practice and not just one person getting beat up.

The said citizenship revoking is for children of illegal immigrants, not all Muslims or Arabs or whatever.

Revoking a child's citizenship with a policy designed to disproportionately target a racial minority so it's easier to deport the kid's entire family is not much better.

I really don't see how revoking the citizenship of someone because they were born in the country illegally is at all the same as revoking the citizenship of an entire ethnic group because you don't like them. In most european countries many to all of them wouldn't have been granted citizenship in the first place.

Just because you are using the statistics collected by someone doesn't mean you agree with all their veiws (assuming he even knows what the guy's veiws are in the first place, which I doubt).

This is not the only time he's directly cited conspiracy theorists or Neo-Nazis in his campaign.

And? Again, that doesn't mean he actually agrees with their views, especially since if he cited more than one conspiracy theorist the chances are their views would contradict each other. I would also imagine he's cited statistics made by democrat-inclined groups, too, but he doesn't agree with them either.

He's not saying all mosques should be shut down, he's saying he would consider shutting down some radical moques, in response to a journalist telling him about France doing this. The database thing was just a journalist putting the idea to him and him replying "I'll look into it", which is trump code for " I have no idea what you are talking about, I'll look it up later. He later denyed supporting a database, and this kind of denial is not something you expect when trump actually thinks something. He would usually refuse to bow to "political correctness", as he does with the policy in the OP.

1. "I'd only close some mosques" is not much better, and opening the door to shutting down mosques that have been "radicalized" (as opposed to, say, arresting the people who are trying to incite violence for trying to incite violence, but that would also require going after a lot of popular right-wing ideologues) is an invitation to start redefining what qualifies as a "radicalized" mosque. Bear in mind that Hitler didn't open with, "Let's kill all the Jews." He spent years gradually building up to that.

Yes, hitler didn't open up saying kill all the jews immediately (although he did advocate killing 12'000 of them in mein kampf). However, he and his party did do and say substantially more extreme things before getting into power than trump is doing and saying now.

So no, while trumps behaviour is not exactly fitting for a presidential candidate, he isn't in the same kind of feild as the nsdap were prior to coming in power.

Even if Trump himself is not personally fascist, he is (with props to O'Malley for actually coming out and saying it) running as a fascist demagogue. It cannot be stressed enough that among his most ardent supporters are literal Neo-Nazis. His campaign is attempting to drag the Overton window so far to the right that people are actually trying to make fascist policies part of the US political mainstream.

The neo-nazis will put their support behind whatever candidate is closest to their views out of the possible line-up. Right now that's trump, but if someone closer to their position turned up they would start attacking him instead.

[The Romulan Republic]

And here is an article on Trump's endorsement from a notable Neo-Nazi:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/don ... b2818fcd36

"Heil Donald Trump - THE ULTIMATE SAVIOR."
That's what Andrew Anglin, publisher of the neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer, had to say in response to Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump's call for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States."
"Finally: someone speaks sense," Anglin wrote, pasting Trump's new proposal under the headline "Glorious Leader Calls For Complete Ban on All Moslems."
"Make America White Again!" his post concludes.
Anglin is not new to the white supremacy scene. In 2012, he launched a website called Total Fascism, where he also wrote about racist concepts, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch blog.
Earlier this year, The Daily Stormer endorsed Trump for president. A number of other white supremacist groups have also thrown their support behind the billionaire reality TV star's candidacy.
On Monday, Trump released a proposal on his website calling for a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. The idea was quickly condemned by Democratic presidential candidates and others.
The proposal, via Trump's website:
Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.
Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again." - Donald J. Trump

And I quote:

"Heil Donald Trump - THE ULTIMATE SAVIOR."

[Flagg]

"Heil Donald Trump - THE ULTIMATE SAVIOR."

That's trademarked. Fucking Nazi owes me money. I'm gonna sue him for everything his mobile home is worth!