Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Anonymous Declares "Total War" on Trump

Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 8:49:56 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Anonymous, the hacker group, has declared that it will shut down the presidential candidate's websites (commercial websites unrelated to his presidential campaign included) and try to uncover embarrassing information on him that could wreck his campaign. The reason for this cited is that "your inconsistent and hateful campaign has not only shocked the United States America, you have shocked the entire planet with your appalling actions and ideas."

Article: http://www.dbtechno.com...
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 3:14:03 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 8:49:56 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Anonymous, the hacker group, has declared that it will shut down the presidential candidate's websites (commercial websites unrelated to his presidential campaign included) and try to uncover embarrassing information on him that could wreck his campaign. The reason for this cited is that "your inconsistent and hateful campaign has not only shocked the United States America, you have shocked the entire planet with your appalling actions and ideas."

Article: http://www.dbtechno.com...

Yes!!!!
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 12:59:35 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 8:49:56 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Anonymous, the hacker group, has declared that it will shut down the presidential candidate's websites (commercial websites unrelated to his presidential campaign included) and try to uncover embarrassing information on him that could wreck his campaign. The reason for this cited is that "your inconsistent and hateful campaign has not only shocked the United States America, you have shocked the entire planet with your appalling actions and ideas."

Article: http://www.dbtechno.com...
Not an organized group.
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 1:00:25 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 12:59:35 AM, Torton wrote:
At 3/16/2016 8:49:56 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Anonymous, the hacker group, has declared that it will shut down the presidential candidate's websites (commercial websites unrelated to his presidential campaign included) and try to uncover embarrassing information on him that could wreck his campaign. The reason for this cited is that "your inconsistent and hateful campaign has not only shocked the United States America, you have shocked the entire planet with your appalling actions and ideas."

Article: http://www.dbtechno.com...
Not an organized group.
And for that matter DDoSing isn't hacking.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 2:38:03 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 8:49:56 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Anonymous, the hacker group, has declared that it will shut down the presidential candidate's websites (commercial websites unrelated to his presidential campaign included) and try to uncover embarrassing information on him that could wreck his campaign. The reason for this cited is that "your inconsistent and hateful campaign has not only shocked the United States America, you have shocked the entire planet with your appalling actions and ideas."

Article: http://www.dbtechno.com...

Apparently they released his SSN and mobile phone number online.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 3:03:03 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 8:49:56 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Anonymous, the hacker group, has declared that it will shut down the presidential candidate's websites (commercial websites unrelated to his presidential campaign included) and try to uncover embarrassing information on him that could wreck his campaign. The reason for this cited is that "your inconsistent and hateful campaign has not only shocked the United States America, you have shocked the entire planet with your appalling actions and ideas."

Article: http://www.dbtechno.com...

Wow, when did Anonymous become so gay? They used to tackle uncontested threats like the church of Scientology, now they're dogpiling a demagogue. Sad.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 3:12:01 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
What's the point? Trump supporters will find a way to justify it. They are not rational beings who care about evidence. They are brainwashed automatons who look for any justification to defend Trump no matter what.

Even if it surfaces that he had sex with Ivanka, his supporters will find a way to say that "men have needs and as long as it was concensual, what does it matter?" (And by the way, he openly admitted that he wanted to date his daughter - his supporters would dismiss it as "media spin" and say that he didn't really mean it).

Whenever Trump says or does something completely outrageous, he doesn't actually mean that, it's just the media making him look like a villain.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 4:06:39 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 3:12:01 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
What's the point? Trump supporters will find a way to justify it. They are not rational beings who care about evidence. They are brainwashed automatons who look for any justification to defend Trump no matter what.

Even if it surfaces that he had sex with Ivanka, his supporters will find a way to say that "men have needs and as long as it was concensual, what does it matter?" (And by the way, he openly admitted that he wanted to date his daughter - his supporters would dismiss it as "media spin" and say that he didn't really mean it).

What Trump made was a simple observation: that his daughter was, in his mind, good looking. It didn't mean that he actually entertained sexual/romantic thoughts about his daughter.

Whenever Trump says or does something completely outrageous, he doesn't actually mean that, it's just the media making him look like a villain.

Considering how they've spun so many casual, normally uncontroversial things he said ("I could kill somebody out in public and still get elected." OMG! Trump wants to KILL people! Trump obviously thinks his voters are retarded!), it's understandable how his supporters are willing to brush off even valid criticisms of the man.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 4:09:17 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 4:06:39 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

What Trump made was a simple observation: that his daughter was, in his mind, good looking. It didn't mean that he actually entertained sexual/romantic thoughts about his daughter.

If it was simply a parent talking about their child, he would have said something similar to "my beautiful daughter Ivanka," not "I would date her if she weren't my daughter." The latter is inappropriate coming from a parent.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 4:11:05 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 4:09:17 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/18/2016 4:06:39 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

What Trump made was a simple observation: that his daughter was, in his mind, good looking. It didn't mean that he actually entertained sexual/romantic thoughts about his daughter.

If it was simply a parent talking about their child, he would have said something similar to "my beautiful daughter Ivanka," not "I would date her if she weren't my daughter." The latter is inappropriate coming from a parent.

Does it come off as a little bit creepy? Even inappropriate? Sure. Did Trump mean anything by it? No. If Hillary Clinton said something similar to this you probably wouldn't give a fudge.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 4:11:57 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 4:06:39 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Considering how they've spun so many casual, normally uncontroversial things he said ("I could kill somebody out in public and still get elected." OMG! Trump wants to KILL people! Trump obviously thinks his voters are retarded!)

Yeah, that was dumb. Still the media is not a single entity and I grant that some journalist write dumb stuff sometimes. And you right, it does enable Trump supporters to strawman the entire media when a dumb reporter says something of that sort. But the majority of stories about him are basically him saying inappropriate, and bigoted things and the media bringing it to light as opposed to the entire media deliberately painting him in a negative way.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 4:15:43 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 4:11:05 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Does it come off as a little bit creepy? Even inappropriate? Sure. Did Trump mean anything by it? No. If Hillary Clinton said something similar to this you probably wouldn't give a fudge.

It is creepy and inappropriate. I don't know if Trump meant anything by it. He does have a tendency to trade in his wives for newer models every couple of decades or so. He does have a view of sex that is a little repugnant. It wouldn't surprise me if he were actually attracted to Ivanka. But that is something we won't know.

If Hillary said she would date her children if they weren't her children, yeah that would be pretty concerning. I've been a strong supporter of the democratic party and for the first time, I'm considering voting republican if someone other than Trump makes the nomination because Hillary is just the wrong person to lead this country on so many levels. If its Trump vs Hillary, I'd vote because at least she's better than Trump.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 4:29:13 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 4:11:57 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/18/2016 4:06:39 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Considering how they've spun so many casual, normally uncontroversial things he said ("I could kill somebody out in public and still get elected." OMG! Trump wants to KILL people! Trump obviously thinks his voters are retarded!)

Yeah, that was dumb. Still the media is not a single entity and I grant that some journalist write dumb stuff sometimes. And you right, it does enable Trump supporters to strawman the entire media when a dumb reporter says something of that sort. But the majority of stories about him are basically him saying inappropriate, and bigoted things and the media bringing it to light as opposed to the entire media deliberately painting him in a negative way.

You don't give the average Trump voter enough credit, though; the small dumb stuff they're willing to brush off with ease because they don't see it as being controversial at all. When it comes to the "blood coming out of her...wherever", the media outrage makes them MORE supportive of Trump because they're sick and tired of feminist activism and they're at the point where they're literally willing to praise somebody just for saying something that the Left will pounce on.
They're willing to support Trump on illegal immigration because they support him on that, and by my estimates deporting all illegal immigrants would reduce the number of crimes committed in America by 20-25%. They also support his temporary ban on Muslims because they desire what's best for the Americans already living here over some idea that we automatically try to further diversity even when it puts the country at risk. It's the reason that they reject the idealist idea of American military intervention around the world to make it a better place; they don't want to keep being entangled in foreign conflicts when the people our soldiers are trying to help and dying for are more often than not ungrateful pr!cks.
In short, the Trump voter is exhausted of selfless behavior and idealism that hurts the country and its people. They want to put America and its inhabitants first for a change. So they support Trump because of his platform, not in spite of it. They're not simply sticking their heads in the sand and supporting him because they like his personality.
If it were revealed that Trump actually had sex with his daughter, they'd almost certainly turn on him, because nobody would support a guy like that.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 4:55:07 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 4:15:43 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/18/2016 4:11:05 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Does it come off as a little bit creepy? Even inappropriate? Sure. Did Trump mean anything by it? No. If Hillary Clinton said something similar to this you probably wouldn't give a fudge.

It is creepy and inappropriate. I don't know if Trump meant anything by it. He does have a tendency to trade in his wives for newer models every couple of decades or so. He does have a view of sex that is a little repugnant. It wouldn't surprise me if he were actually attracted to Ivanka. But that is something we won't know.

He sure does like his trophy wives. I won't dispute that. But...his freaking DAUGHTER?! Even if he wanted that, why would she agree to it? Bottom line: even if Donald Trump is actually attracted to Ivanka it's unlikely that we'll ever find out.

If Hillary said she would date her children if they weren't her children, yeah that would be pretty concerning. I've been a strong supporter of the democratic party and for the first time, I'm considering voting republican if someone other than Trump makes the nomination because Hillary is just the wrong person to lead this country on so many levels. If its Trump vs Hillary, I'd vote because at least she's better than Trump.

Look...it really isn't my intention to insult you or fling accusations. But whenever it comes to politics people can be incredibly self-righteous and hypocritical. Anything that the president/candidate of the other party does is a total moral outrage. It doesn't matter that the president who shares one's same political ideology did the exact same thing because they didn't do anything wrong. If you visit a Conservative website you'd get the impression that the Obama presidency was an unmitigated disaster. You visit a Liberal website and the GOP is the Nazi Party reincarnate.
Because of this you cannot simply take the word of a large group of completely convinced people that X candidate is a horrible person. We do not have the benefit of the political arena being so black and white. You have to look at Donald Trump through impartial lens to come to the truth on him.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 4:35:21 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 4:29:13 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
by my estimates deporting all illegal immigrants would reduce the number of crimes committed in America by 20-25%.

How did you reach this figure?

They also support his temporary ban on Muslims because they desire what's best for the Americans already living here over some idea that we automatically try to further diversity even when it puts the country at risk.

I have no doubt that they believe banning Muslims makes the United States safer. I'll grant that part of it is due to ignorance rather than deliberate bigotry. The media bombarding them with images of "Islamic" terrorists and subliminally associating Islam with terrorism could cause a naive person to believe that a significant portion of muslims are terrorists. At that point, my issue is more their lack of critical thinking. An Asian guy was the behind the mass shooting in Virginia Tech but these same people won't try to ban Asians from attending colleges. Some white people are child molesters but Trump supporters won't suggest putting all white people in jail to protect our children.

I don't think its particularly hard to figure out that the vast majority of muslims are good people but the likes of Osama and ISIS stain their name. Criminals and threats exist in every race and religion and that's not hard to see. Nobody really cares about "furthering diversity for diversity's sake" but our core American values of freedom of religion are important. I've also asked every person on this site who supports the muslim ban how Trump is even going to figure out who is muslim and who is not. Wouldn't a Muslim terrorist claim that he isn't muslim if he wants to come into the country? Only law-abiding immigrants will disclose their true religion in which case we are only preventing law-abiding people from entering the country. If Trump wanted a truly effective way to control outside threats, he would have suggested putting all immigration on hold until a system is worked out and not targeted groups like "Muslims" or "Mexicans." His mostly white, Christian supporters think of them as the "other" or "outside their group" and I think its their way of bonding by excluding people they think don't belong in their group.

In short, the Trump voter is exhausted of selfless behavior and idealism that hurts the country and its people. They want to put America and its inhabitants first for a change. So they support Trump because of his platform, not in spite of it. They're not simply sticking their heads in the sand and supporting him because they like his personality.

Okay, they are racist and bigoted so no matter how bigoted Trump is, he won't lose their support. But what about him calling Rosie O'Donnell a fat pig/cow/whatever? Him saying he'll pay the legal bills of his supporters who became violent at his rallies. Him calling his supporters who beat up a homeless Latino man "passionate people who love this country?" Even if he had ultra-conservative views, he's also not the mature leader who would denounce violence. He encourages it yet doesn't lose support. That tells me a good number of his supporters are also pro-violence.

But whenever it comes to politics people can be incredibly self-righteous and hypocritical. Anything that the president/candidate of the other party does is a total moral outrage. It doesn't matter that the president who shares one's same political ideology did the exact same thing because they didn't do anything wrong.

For some people, that may be true. I recognize that Hillary is a poor choice for president due to her scandals, lack of integrity, and power-hungry nature, not to mention zero charisma and energy. I don't think Rubio or Kasich were particularly bad and Jeb seemed like a genuinely good guy trying his best. But Trump takes it to a level beyond bad and even the GOP recognizes that. It just seems to me that to his supporters, whatever evidence is given against Trump, they put their fingers in their ears and justify it in as convoluted a way as possible. Consider the sham that was Trump university. Nobody is supporting him because of that. Yet, Trump supporters are undaunted in their beliefs that Trump is good for the US despite the fact that his University shows that his ethics at the very least are questionable.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 4:41:44 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 4:35:21 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/18/2016 4:29:13 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
by my estimates deporting all illegal immigrants would reduce the number of crimes committed in America by 20-25%.

How did you reach this figure?

It was reported by USA Today (in 2009, I think) that a study released by a certain government organization showed that gangs commit 80% of all crime in the United States. Hispanics comprise 47% of all gang members. This amounts to Hispanic gang members committing over 32% of all crime in America. It can be assumed that most Hispanic gang members are either illegal immigrants or the children of illegal immigrants, so I randomly came up with an estimate of illegal Hispanic immigrants or their children committing 20-25% of all crime in the United States. It's probably close to accurate.

They also support his temporary ban on Muslims because they desire what's best for the Americans already living here over some idea that we automatically try to further diversity even when it puts the country at risk.

I have no doubt that they believe banning Muslims makes the United States safer. I'll grant that part of it is due to ignorance rather than deliberate bigotry. The media bombarding them with images of "Islamic" terrorists and subliminally associating Islam with terrorism could cause a naive person to believe that a significant portion of muslims are terrorists. At that point, my issue is more their lack of critical thinking. An Asian guy was the behind the mass shooting in Virginia Tech but these same people won't try to ban Asians from attending colleges. Some white people are child molesters but Trump supporters won't suggest putting all white people in jail to protect our children.

Most Muslims are not violent. I think most sensible people can agree to that. But it doesn't take a lot; the November 2015 Paris Attacks, which killed 130 innocent people, was perpetrated by 9 people according to Wikipedia. Unlike normal black or white criminals, who may or may not kill to cover up evidence of some other crime or in a state of panic during a robbery turned sour, Islamic terrorists make it their objective to kill as many people as they can. That's why small numbers of Muslim terrorists are disproportionately dangerous compared to other criminals. In the event of a large refugee influx, there is no point denying that terrorist groups will at least give infiltrating the refugees an attempt.
While there certainly may be black or white terrorists, percentagewise and statistic-wise the average White or Black person is extremely unlikely to commit a terrorist attack. The average Muslim immigrant has a comparatively large chance of taking part in a terrorist attack. Using a cost-benefit analysis it's very much worth it for America to *temporarily* (the key word which Trump haters always leave out) ban Muslim immigrants until the system is revised so as to be more effective in screening out terrorists, compared to severely restricting the liberties of and intensely monitoring 70% of the population so as to prevent terrorist attacks. The safety of Americans should come first.
There is also the aspect of the psychological aspect of terrorism. Even rare and relatively small incidents of terrorism in America can leave the American public absolutely terrified, and this is something that we should try to avoid.

I don't think its particularly hard to figure out that the vast majority of muslims are good people but the likes of Osama and ISIS stain their name. Criminals and threats exist in every race and religion and that's not hard to see. Nobody really cares about "furthering diversity for diversity's sake" but our core American values of freedom of religion are important. I've also asked every person on this site who supports the muslim ban how Trump is even going to figure out who is muslim and who is not. Wouldn't a Muslim terrorist claim that he isn't muslim if he wants to come into the country? Only law-abiding immigrants will disclose their true religion in which case we are only preventing law-abiding people from entering the country. If Trump wanted a truly effective way to control outside threats, he would have suggested putting all immigration on hold until a system is worked out and not targeted groups like "Muslims" or "Mexicans."

This is a detail which I'm certain would be dealt with after he took office. One way would be to restrict immigrants from Muslim-majority nations. Also, if the country in question has all of its citizens register as one religion or another it should be fairly easy.

In short, the Trump voter is exhausted of selfless behavior and idealism that hurts the country and its people. They want to put America and its inhabitants first for a change. So they support Trump because of his platform, not in spite of it. They're not simply sticking their heads in the sand and supporting him because they like his personality.

Okay, they are racist and bigoted so no matter how bigoted Trump is, he won't lose their support. But what about him calling Rosie O'Donnell a fat pig/cow/whatever? Him saying he'll pay the legal bills of his supporters who became violent at his rallies. Him calling his supporters who beat up a homeless Latino man "passionate people who love this country?" Even if he had ultra-conservative views, he's also not the mature leader who would denounce violence. He encourages it yet doesn't lose support.

Rosie O'Donnell has always been a critic of Donald Trump. If she can criticize him without reprisal but not the other way around just because the object of his attack is a woman then our system is inherently misandrist. There are feminists who call some men "misandrist pigs". Is their usage of "pig" sexist? As for the homeless Latino man, what was he doing immediately prior to being beaten up? If I were to take a guess, he was probably protesting. The core of the issue is that the emotional crowds don't want anyone disrupting Trump's rallies through protests, though I agree they may be taking it too far. Trump condones the people reacting against the protesters because what they're doing keeps his rallies going without constant interruption and perhaps because he feels hostility towards these people. Most candidates do not have to put up with the level of disruption that Trump has to put up with, and it seems that violence is the only thing that works towards keeping out disruptors.
In any case, the coverage of anti-Trump protesters at his rallies is utterly biased, as this article demonstrates:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
They LITERALLY portrayed her as though she was some kind of Christian martyr in 2nd century Rome or the USSR.

But whenever it comes to politics people can be incredibly self-righteous and hypocritical. Anything that the president/candidate of the other party does is a total moral outrage. It doesn't matter that the president who shares one's same political ideology did the exact same thing because they didn't do anything wrong.

For some people, that may be true. I recognize that Hillary is a poor choice for president due to her scandals, lack of integrity, and power-hungry nature, not to mention zero charisma and energy. I don't think Rubio or Kasich were particularly bad and Jeb seemed like a genuinely good guy trying his best. But Trump takes it to a level beyond bad and even the GOP recognizes that. It just seems to me that to his supporters, whatever evidence is given against Trump, they put their fingers in their ears and justify it in as convoluted a way as possible. Consider the sham that was Trump university. Nobody is supporting him because of that. Yet, Trump supporters are undaunted in their beliefs that Trump is good for the US despite the fact that his University shows t
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 8:05:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 4:41:44 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
It was reported by USA Today (in 2009, I think) that a study released by a certain government organization showed that gangs commit 80% of all crime in the United States. Hispanics comprise 47% of all gang members. This amounts to Hispanic gang members committing over 32% of all crime in America. It can be assumed that most Hispanic gang members are either illegal immigrants or the children of illegal immigrants, so I randomly came up with an estimate of illegal Hispanic immigrants or their children committing 20-25% of all crime in the United States. It's probably close to accurate.

There are so many unverified assumptions there. There is no reason to believe Hispanic gang members immigrated illegally. If what you said was anywhere close to accurate, right wing journalists would have touted the number directly.

Most Muslims are not violent. I think most sensible people can agree to that. But it doesn't take a lot; the November 2015 Paris Attacks, which killed 130 innocent people, was perpetrated by 9 people according to Wikipedia.

Human beings can be violent. When someone is violent, that's on them, not on other people of their religion, race, or country of origin. Its not much different from putting you in jail because a Christian killed someone somewhere in the United States, and then arguing that safety should hold a higher priority than misguided things like "idealism."

Islamic terrorists make it their objective to kill as many people as they can.

All terrorists do this. Mass shooters do this also. We should be keeping out all terrorists, not just "Islamic terrorists."

The average Muslim immigrant has a comparatively large chance of taking part in a terrorist attack.

There are 2.75 million Muslims in the United States, 63% of whom immigrated here which means about 1.73 million. Out of those, there are what 20 - 40 terrorists? That's 0.00002. So, 99.99998% approximately are law abiding citizens.

Using a cost-benefit analysis it's very much worth it for America to *temporarily* (the key word which Trump haters always leave out) ban Muslim immigrants until the system is revised so as to be more effective in screening out terrorists, compared to severely restricting the liberties of and intensely monitoring 70% of the population so as to prevent terrorist attacks.

Not all terrorists are Muslims either. Its a common misconception: http://www.thedailybeast.com...

If Trump wanted to stop terrorism, he'd invest more in law enforcement and homeland security, not banning people based on religion. No one gives a crap about how "temporary" it is.

This is a detail which I'm certain would be dealt with after he took office. One way would be to restrict immigrants from Muslim-majority nations. Also, if the country in question has all of its citizens register as one religion or another it should be fairly easy.

And if they register as Christians in their home nations?

There are feminists who call some men "misandrist pigs". Is their usage of "pig" sexist?

Yes. They are unfit to be president of the United States.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 10:45:24 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 8:05:27 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/19/2016 4:41:44 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
It was reported by USA Today (in 2009, I think) that a study released by a certain government organization showed that gangs commit 80% of all crime in the United States. Hispanics comprise 47% of all gang members. This amounts to Hispanic gang members committing over 32% of all crime in America. It can be assumed that most Hispanic gang members are either illegal immigrants or the children of illegal immigrants, so I randomly came up with an estimate of illegal Hispanic immigrants or their children committing 20-25% of all crime in the United States. It's probably close to accurate.

There are so many unverified assumptions there. There is no reason to believe Hispanic gang members immigrated illegally. If what you said was anywhere close to accurate, right wing journalists would have touted the number directly.

Like I said, if they're not directly illegal immigrants they could be citizens whose parents are illegal immigrants, as is the case with 73% of children born to illegal immigrant parents. According to Pew Research Center in 2009, 52% of Hispanic children are second generation Americans. 85% of illegal immigrant parents are Hispanic according to the New York Times in August 2010. There's plenty to suggest that most Hispanic gang members are the children of illegal immigrants.

Most Muslims are not violent. I think most sensible people can agree to that. But it doesn't take a lot; the November 2015 Paris Attacks, which killed 130 innocent people, was perpetrated by 9 people according to Wikipedia.

Human beings can be violent. When someone is violent, that's on them, not on other people of their religion, race, or country of origin. Its not much different from putting you in jail because a Christian killed someone somewhere in the United States, and then arguing that safety should hold a higher priority than misguided things like "idealism."

Islamic terrorists make it their objective to kill as many people as they can.

All terrorists do this. Mass shooters do this also. We should be keeping out all terrorists, not just "Islamic terrorists."

The average Muslim immigrant has a comparatively large chance of taking part in a terrorist attack.

There are 2.75 million Muslims in the United States, 63% of whom immigrated here which means about 1.73 million. Out of those, there are what 20 - 40 terrorists? That's 0.00002. So, 99.99998% approximately are law abiding citizens.

This doesn't, of course, count the 60 Islamist-inspired terror plots against the US which have been thwarted as of 2013 according to the Heritage Foundation. One plot, which was attempted on March 13, 2003, involved blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge. Another in 2004 involved trying to blow up the New York Stock Exchange. Another one, also in August 2004, involved blowing up the NYC Subway. In June 2006 there was an attempt to blow up the Sears Tower. In July 2006 the FBI foiled another plot involving an attempt to blow up several tunnels and flood the New York Financial District. On Christmas Day 2009 Northwest Airlines Flight 253 was almost destroyed by the "Underwear Bomber", which would've potentially killed all 279 passengers and 11 crew members. In May 2010 an attempt to bomb Times Square was foiled. 0.9% of America's population.
There have been few successful attacks but the danger is still very real. If I wanted to commit an act of terrorism I'd probably succeed.
And EVEN THIS fails to factor in the possibility of a future Muslim insurgency by Muslim-Americans, which could be triggered by, say, another American military intervention in the Middle East. According to Pew Research in 2013, 8% of American Muslims said that violence against civilians (presumably in the context of terrorism) is "often" or "sometimes" justified. Around the world outside of the United States, this number averages at 14%. According to a 2007 poll by the PolicyExchange think tank, 36% of 16 to 24 year old British Muslims believed that Muslim apostates should be executed.

Using a cost-benefit analysis it's very much worth it for America to *temporarily* (the key word which Trump haters always leave out) ban Muslim immigrants until the system is revised so as to be more effective in screening out terrorists, compared to severely restricting the liberties of and intensely monitoring 70% of the population so as to prevent terrorist attacks.

Not all terrorists are Muslims either. Its a common misconception: http://www.thedailybeast.com...

If Trump wanted to stop terrorism, he'd invest more in law enforcement and homeland security, not banning people based on religion. No one gives a crap about how "temporary" it is.


This is a detail which I'm certain would be dealt with after he took office. One way would be to restrict immigrants from Muslim-majority nations. Also, if the country in question has all of its citizens register as one religion or another it should be fairly easy.

And if they register as Christians in their home nations?

There are feminists who call some men "misandrist pigs". Is their usage of "pig" sexist?

Yes. They are unfit to be president of the United States.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
lannan13
Posts: 23,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 1:32:29 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Let's go Anonymous. Derail it.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 12:24:40 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Oh look the lovers of freedom and free speech being anti free speech tyrannical fascists. They aren't even aware of their own blatant hypocrisy and existence. Trying to shut down political rallies makes you an anti free speech fascist ahole. You are everything you claim not to be.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 4:16:46 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 10:45:24 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Like I said, if they're not directly illegal immigrants they could be citizens whose parents are illegal immigrants, as is the case with 73% of children born to illegal immigrant parents. According to Pew Research Center in 2009, 52% of Hispanic children are second generation Americans. 85% of illegal immigrant parents are Hispanic according to the New York Times in August 2010. There's plenty to suggest that most Hispanic gang members are the children of illegal immigrants.

If we're at the point of keeping out children of immigrants, that goes against everything the United States stands for. 99.8% of people in the United States have ancestors that immigrated here at some point. Our country was built on immigrants and hey, the first European immigrants didn't legally ask the natives if they could take their land. The whole concept of "illegal" immigration is a bit ridiculous. Not only that, it is forcible control of capitalism. Mexico can provide cheap labor that will improve our economy. Your numbers are borked up. Your calculations are stuff that you are making yourself with lots of assumptions to support a pre-determined viewpoint.

This doesn't, of course, count the 60 Islamist-inspired terror plots

I don't get why people keep pointing out "Islamic-inspired" or what not everytime someone who is a Muslim breaks the law. Are we going to go after every murderer in UInited States calling them "Christians" and accuse Christianity of being a murderous religion? It doesn't matter what religion they follow. Criminals are criminals and terrorists are terrorists. That's who we need to fight against, not entire religions.
Selcouth_Debater
Posts: 70
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 2:11:50 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/21/2016 12:24:40 AM, sadolite wrote:
Oh look the lovers of freedom and free speech being anti free speech tyrannical fascists. They aren't even aware of their own blatant hypocrisy and existence. Trying to shut down political rallies makes you an anti free speech fascist ahole. You are everything you claim not to be.

Well, there are some people who are lovers of freedom of speech so long as it doesn't harm and/or infringe on the rights of others, so unless women like being told that every serious question they come up with is due to their moodiness from their periods, all Muslims like being assumed to be terrorists, and Hispanics like being assumed to be drug dealers and/or rapists, I suppose that Trump's freedom of speech in the first amendment shouldn't apply. That's like arguing that someone should have the freedom to kill others because their religion demands for human sacrifice or publish newspapers claiming the government to be run by chickens and claiming the article to be legitimate - there will always be exceptions to one's freedoms, whether that be the equal protection clause or the prohibition of libel or anything else. And in this case, Trump has proven to be detrimental to society and has blatantly insulted many groups of people, something that shouldn't be tolerated even by the strictest Constitutionalists.
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence." ~ Charles Bukowski

Formerly known as kawaii_crazy. I'm back.
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 4:17:08 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/21/2016 12:24:40 AM, sadolite wrote:
Oh look the lovers of freedom and free speech being anti free speech tyrannical fascists. They aren't even aware of their own blatant hypocrisy and existence. Trying to shut down political rallies makes you an anti free speech fascist ahole. You are everything you claim not to be.
Trump's freedom of speech comes from having the money to say whatever the hell he wants to. Average Americans would be sited for disorderly conduct or worse if they incited riotous behavior.

I find it puzzling that the working class supports a rich business tycoon as if Trump is gonna recognize their "hard" work and reward them. No, he will most likely make an example outta them and they will have their egos boosted by the recognition and the conditions of being underpaid and over worked will be even further exploited.
vortex86
Posts: 559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 2:07:40 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 1:00:25 AM, Torton wrote:
At 3/18/2016 12:59:35 AM, Torton wrote:
At 3/16/2016 8:49:56 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Anonymous, the hacker group, has declared that it will shut down the presidential candidate's websites (commercial websites unrelated to his presidential campaign included) and try to uncover embarrassing information on him that could wreck his campaign. The reason for this cited is that "your inconsistent and hateful campaign has not only shocked the United States America, you have shocked the entire planet with your appalling actions and ideas."

Article: http://www.dbtechno.com...
Not an organized group.
And for that matter DDoSing isn't hacking.

No wonder they're not doing anything for the War on ISIS they declared. They're too preoccupied with Trump (sarcasm)
The-Holy-Macrel
Posts: 777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 12:04:01 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 8:49:56 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Anonymous, the hacker group, has declared that it will shut down the presidential candidate's websites (commercial websites unrelated to his presidential campaign included) and try to uncover embarrassing information on him that could wreck his campaign. The reason for this cited is that "your inconsistent and hateful campaign has not only shocked the United States America, you have shocked the entire planet with your appalling actions and ideas."

Article: http://www.dbtechno.com...

Trump FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!