Regarding voting for Donald Trump rather than voting for Hillary Clinton

[MisterChester]

If you understood your history, you would realize that those who came here voluntary came to be Americans, to become part of our culture, and to seek a new life. That is entirely different from people who are ideologically bent on our culture's destruction.

Yes. You don't have to be as worried about a Canadian not assimilating than a Syrian refugee.

 

[Jludo]

If you understood your history, you would realize that those who came here voluntary came to be Americans, to become part of our culture, and to seek a new life. That is entirely different from people who are ideologically bent on our culture's destruction.

Yes pardon me, this is a very unique situation, history repeats itself * but this time its different*

 

[silverspoon]

Amazing. The 20% of the Rebublican Party who has been shoveling ultra Conservative drivel down the throats of Americans since Reagan was president suddenly find themselves the minority in the Republican party. Now they they are all butthurt and either claim they aren't going to vote at all or they would rather vote for a known liar and traitor than Trump. Here's a news flash, the only way the Republican party will ever win the White House again is to move closer to the center. Another amazing fact is most of the folks that claim they can't vote for Trump is the same folks who told the Libertarians that not voting for the Republican candidate the last 2 elections was a vote for the other side. And just exactly what has the so called "conservative" House of Representatives and Senate done for us the last 4 years? They are so far right and the Democrats are so far left nothing has been accomplished. I didn't vote for Trump last Tuesday but he's a damn site better than the obvious alternative. I've lost all respect for the so called "conservatives" who refuse to vote for the clear alternative to tyranny.

I realize this post went in many different directions but it's been difficult to wrap my head around many of the things that have happened since Tuesday.

 

[Kutnupe14]

There is nothing wrong with discrimination regarding immigrants. It's our country, not theirs. They have no inherent right to be here.

Yeah, there kinda is.... I mean (concerning this) if one adheres to the Constitution.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Amazing. The 20% of the Rebublican Party who has been shoveling ultra Conservative drivel down the throats of Americans since Reagan was president suddenly find themselves the minority in the Republican party. Now they they are all butthurt and either claim they aren't going to vote at all or they would rather vote for a known liar and traitor than Trump. Here's a news flash, the only way the Republican party will ever win the White House again is to move closer to the center. Another amazing fact is most of the folks that claim they can't vote for Trump is the same folks who told the Libertarians that not voting for the Republican candidate the last 2 elections was a vote for the other side. And just exactly what has the so called "conservative" House of Representatives and Senate done for us the last 4 years? They are so far right and the Democrats are so far left nothing has been accomplished. I didn't vote for Trump last Tuesday but he's a damn site better than the obvious alternative. I've lost all respect for the so called "conservatives" who refuse to vote for the clear alternative to tyranny.

I realize this post went in many different directions but it's been difficult to wrap my head around many of the things that have happened since Tuesday.

Uh, isn't Trump a known liar too? And he didn't get a chance to become a traitor because of his draft dodg....err, I mean "deferment."

 

[Route 45]

Yeah, there kinda is.... I mean (concerning this) you adhere to the Constitution.

I am doubting that the founding fathers meant the entire world when they mentioned "ourselves and our posterity" in the Preamble. We either have a nation, or we do not. A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation at all.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I am doubting that the founding fathers meant the entire world when they mentioned "ourselves and our posterity" in the Preamble. We either have a nation, or we do not. A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation at all.

You don't think vetting people based solely on religion constitutes a violation of the First Amendment?

Kut (does)

 

[Kutnupe14]

A nation has every right to control it's borders, and entry should be based on uniform criteria.

 

[HoughMade]

A nation has every right to control it's borders, and entry should be based on uniform criteria.

We've had this discussion before, I think, but religion can not be the reason a person is excluded from the country, but where a person is from and beliefs are allowable as factors in increased examination.

 

[Route 45]

You don't think vetting people based solely on religion constitutes a violation of the First Amendment?

Kut (does)

I do not believe the US Constitution applies to everyone in the world. And if the tenets of a religion, as practiced by a significant number of its adherents, creates a potential security threat for the citizens of our nation, then the overriding concern must be the welfare of US citizens. Not the feelings of non-citizens who may be offended. This has nothing to do with the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the exercise by US citizens.

 

[Jludo]

We've had this discussion before, I think, but religion can not be the reason a person is excluded from the country, but where a person is from and beliefs are allowable as factors in increased examination.

I agree that we should have a thorough vetting process, beliefs are fair game, insofar as it's 'I believe in overthrowing the US government' not 'I believe Allah is the one true god'

 

[Kutnupe14]

We've had this discussion before, I think, but religion can not be the reason a person is excluded from the country, but where a person is from and beliefs are allowable as factors in increased examination.

I'm clear on that, and I disagree with it. It should be uniform. I don't think this is a news flash, but I'm a pretty legit isolationist. I really don't like the idea of anyone coming here. They want to live in a nation like ours? Ok stay home and work for it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I do not believe the US Constitution applies to everyone in the world. And if the tenets of a religion, as practiced by a significant number of its adherents, creates a potential security threat for the citizens of our nation, then the overriding concern must be the welfare of US citizens. Not the feelings of non-citizens who may be offended. This has nothing to do with the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the exercise by US citizens.

The Constitution applies to laws this country enacts, who it applies to makes little difference, considering.

 

[Route 45]

I really don't like the idea of anyone coming here. They want to live in a nation like ours? Ok stay home and work for it.

Best line I've ever seen in one of your posts.

 

[Route 45]

The Constitution applies to laws this country enacts, who it applies to makes little difference, considering.

It makes all the difference when you consider non-citizens attempting to gain entry vs. citizens or even non-citizens on our soil.

 

[worddoer]

I'll not vote for Trump nor will I vote for Hillary. If either party wants my vote, they'll nominate someone I can support without betraying personal convictions.

This^^^^^

When I look into the history of Trump and Hillary, I cannot support either of them and will not vote for either of them. Their actions are against my personal convictions. The older I get, the more Libertarian I get. Maybe this year I will vote that way, not sure yet.

I find it quite revealing how others get mad and say how those who are not willing to compromise on their convictions are the ones at fault for allowing trump to loose. Basically, we need this win at any cost, so stop being so stuck on your convictions and get it done. If you don't give up on those old fashioned ideas of convictions and principals, then everything bad that happens is your fault.

If we cannot support those who believe differently than us because of their convictions, then our country is doomed. And if that is the way we now believe as a country, we deserve everything we get in the future. The point to the American experiment was to allow many groups of people, who believe differently, to live peacefully together by agreeing to disagree. So at what point in our history did we change from peaceful disagreement being a strength to it being not only a weakness, but almost evil or treacherous? Our country was founded with the ability for a multi-party system. Not a 2 party system only. At what point did Americans become so convinced that anything other than a 2 party vote was again almost evil or treacherous? What then happens if both of the 2 parties become interested in their own growth and power rather than serving the American public? Where else do we turn when no other options are supported?

I have already been called all sorts of names by a few of the trump supporters (not all). I do not understand how insulting, degrading and yelling at anyone who opposes you is supposed to win someone over to your side of the debate. And if you truly believe that any discussion with someone who disagrees will always be fruitless, then why bother at all. Is it because you get some satisfaction from bullying others?

If this is how we now act as Americans, then there is no redemption for this country. Although there are a few left who do follow principals even when they disagree with others, most do not. We no longer support inclusion, we support division. We no longer support debate, we support silencing all others who believe differently than us. We no longer support individuality, we support "group think" or "mob rule". We no longer believe in principals no matter the cost, we believe in winning no matter the cost...even if that involves morality and/or principals. We no longer believe in a representative republic, we believe in straight up democracy (which some argue is "mob rule").

Right now the argument I see on both sides is that we, as a nation, want "mob rule". However, we want our mob to be the ones ruling. We want whomever we support to force everyone else to agree with us. That never leads to more freedom or more liberty.

I have been told that if we allow XYZ into office, then our country is over. Only by voting for someone I cannot support do I save the country. My opinion is this. If the only choices I have is between two people who will still bring the country to ruin (in my opinion), but just in different ways, I am not voting for either of them. This issue is not new to this November's election. But it has been an issue since I started paying any sort of attention (which unfortunately was not until after 9/11).

If our country is in the place that year after year our choice is limited to the lesser of two evils, then we have already gone down the path of ruin far enough that we cannot be saved. This is a slow incremental death of a nation. It will not be overnight and most likely not involve a foreign power. Voting based on our own selfishness and greed rather than on constitutional principles is what has brought us here over many years. Rome did not fall in a day. We refused to learn from history it seems. So now we are in the middle of repeating it.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Just so I'm clear, does the Constitution grant rights or is it a recognition of unalienable rights? The so called "natural rights" I see referenced here when it's a right you want to exercise. If the 2nd amendment were legally repealed in the same manner as prohibition, do you no longer have the right to self protection?

Just so I'm clear, are we pretending there's no middle ground between unfettered immigration and a complete ban on a religion entering?

Restricting immigration doesn't affect citizens? I married abroad. My wife was not a citizen. I can't come home with my wife because we're the "wrong" religion and that's not a restriction of a citizen's rights? My family can't visit, despite decades of having tourist visas and entering to visit family here without as much as a speeding ticket because Muslims are scary?

You really want to base rights on others being scared? Well, that's gun control in a nut shell.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Not all Muslims are terrorists.

Not all terrorists are Muslim.

Now, how do we discern the differences.

How do you determine if someone walking toward you on the sidewalk is a threat? There are signs.

Look at the Brussels bombers:

They were young Belgian nationals of Moroccan descent, both with extensive criminal records involving violent crime and guns.

- Brussels suicide bombers fit familiar profile; links to Paris terrorist attacks seen - LA Times

History of violence, nation of origin, youth and if married or not, employed or not, education levels, etc. etc. Even in Belgium, the terrorists are centered around a few nationalities and other Muslim groups have had zero incidents of violence. I can't find the article at the moment, but the communities that welcome in immigrants from their nation of origin (ie, new Egyptian enters the country and is immediately connected with citizens of Egyptian descent who help him learn the language, find a job, find a home, etc. are much better intergrated than someone from Oman who is left to his own devices...nationalities are just place holders as I don't recall the actual ones).

I met people around the globe who were educated in US universities and walked away with a love and respect for our nation they likely would not have had without that familiarity. It's much tougher to be prejudiced against someone you actually know. Completely barring that sort of exchange is counterproductive.

 

[worddoer]

Just so I'm clear, does the Constitution grant rights or is it a recognition of unalienable rights? The so called "natural rights" I see referenced here when it's a right you want to exercise. If the 2nd amendment were legally repealed in the same manner as prohibition, do you no longer have the right to self protection?

Just so I'm clear, are we pretending there's no middle ground between unfettered immigration and a complete ban on a religion entering?

Restricting immigration doesn't affect citizens? I married abroad. My wife was not a citizen. I can't come home with my wife because we're the "wrong" religion and that's not a restriction of a citizen's rights? My family can't visit, despite decades of having tourist visas and entering to visit family here without as much as a speeding ticket because Muslims are scary?

You really want to base rights on others being scared? Well, that's gun control in a nut shell.

You, sir, just won the internet for the day!!!

 

[Route 45]

How do you determine if someone walking toward you on the sidewalk is a threat? There are signs.

History of violence, nation of origin, youth and if married or not, employed or not, education levels, etc. etc. Even in Belgium, the terrorists are centered around a few nationalities and other Muslim groups have had zero incidents of violence.

Your criteria would exclude a large portion of Muslims from certain Middle East and African countries from entering the US. I have no problem with that. We should not be opening our arms to uneducated, unemployed persons from regions with high levels of radicalism and ongoing sectarian violence. Islam is obviously not the only criteria, but it is certainly an important factor.