Donald Trump Obliquely Backs a Federal Database To Track Muslims 608
HughPickens.com writes: Philip Bump reports at the Washington Post that Donald Trump confirmed to NBC on Thursday evening that he supports a database to track Muslims in the United States. The database of Muslims arose after an interview Yahoo News's Hunter Walker conducted with Trump earlier this week, during which he asked the Republican front-runner to weigh in on the current debate over refugees from Syria. "We're going to have to do things that we never did before," Trump told Walker. "Some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule." When pressed on whether these measures might include tracking Muslim Americans in a database or noting their religious affiliations on identification cards, Trump would not go into detail — but did not reject the options. Trump's reply? "We're going to have to — we're going to have to look at a lot of things very closely," he said. "We're going to have to look at the mosques. We're going to have to look very, very carefully." After an event on in Newton, Iowa, on Thursday night, NBC's Vaughn Hillyard pressed the point. "Should there be a database system that tracks Muslims here in this country?," Hillyard asked. "There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases" Trump said. "We should have a lot of systems." Hillyard asked about implementation, including the process of adding people to the system. "Good management procedures," Trump said. Sign people up at mosques, Hillyard asked? "Different places," Trump replied. "You sign them up at different places. But it's all about management."
Unbelievable (Score:5, Insightful)
The cataloging, rounding up, and internment of the Japanese is one of the darkest and frankly most embarrassing chapters in America's history. I can't believe someone is honestly suggesting that we do this again.
Re:Unbelievable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Unbelievable (Score:3)
How about instead maybe some kind of dark ninja costume?
Re: Unbelievable (Score:5, Informative)
You joke, but there actually is a Pakistani children's show called Burqa Avenger [google.is] about a burqa-wearing ninja who fights people that try to stop girls from getting an education. ;)
One could take the joke from SATW and pit an arabian or south asian woman in a burqa against a Somali ship hijacker and get an epic Ninja vs. Pirate battle ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
in this case, it would be a green croissant...
Green croissant? Isn't that the French Socialist Party?
Out Of Context (Score:4, Informative)
I came here to see how many people would be flipping their shit over the idea. I watched the video, and to my disappointment discovered that Trump didn't suggest anything about said Moslim Database, it was the Reporter shoving it down his throat. And if you listen to the conversation, it seems like the Reporter and Trump are talking about two completely different things!
Come on, ppl!
Trump misheard the question (Score:5, Informative)
I watched the video and it seems clear to me he misheard the questions. He never uses the word Muslim himself. the reported just put it out there and it seems clear he thought the question is do we register immigrants.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But they look kinda similar to people we don't like. And the people we don't like also claim to belong to the same religion as these people.
Why wouldn't we round them all up, catalog them, maybe we could tattoo an id number on their arm [or forehead!], and then make them all live in the middle of nowhere, far away from us. And then once the threat is over [ie, the war on terror has been won], they can resume their place in society. Of course, they will have to start from scratch, because any property the
Re: (Score:3)
Don't worry, with the average attention span of the average American, it will all be forgotten within a week.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not true, in fact, I belie...Oh look, Jessica Jones is on Netflix!
Re: Unbelievable (Score:2, Informative)
Re: Unbelievable (Score:5, Interesting)
No dog in this hunt. I don't live in the USA.
I agree with you. I've listened to several of the in-context interviews and read some transcripts. The interpenetration of his comments is political.
He didn't say what folks are saying he said and I don't think he meant the things that folks are saying he meant.
I am close enough to death to be immune to any economic damage to me regardless of who becomes President of the USA. My federal pensions will not go down because I am a baby boomer and if you screw with our federal pensions, you probably won't get re-elected. I have some non-government income sources which allows for trips and toys but I can have a warm dry place to sleep and sufficient food, Internet, etc, on a governemt pension.
The wrong guy might get me killed earlier than I would have died of natural causes but I think that is remote.
From my own, watching from (somewhat) afar, I would like to see, Trump, Carson or Sanders become president. Not just for entertainment value (although that would be abundant) , but because it would mean the American Citizens authorized this President.
My Dad, WWII vet, once said to me, "I love Britain but I hate the British. I hate America but I love the Americans.
Re: Unbelievable (Score:5, Informative)
Trump explained how he'd sign Muslims up in the database:
"It's good management."
When asked whether he'd go to a mosque, or what:
"You sign them up in different places."
Video link:
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/t... [nbcnews.com]
But you seem like the type who is more likely to blame the media than attempt to understand facts, so hopefully others will read this, and catch onto your party's stupid little anti-media ruse.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, this is just bullshit. Everyone knows it is against the Constitution and will never become a law.
Even those in favor of such an idea are more than often the same that invoke the exactly same Constitution to protect their rights of practicing the religion of their choice.
Re:Unbelievable (Score:5, Insightful)
It was against the Constitution to place American citizens of Japanese descent in interment camps without being convicted on any crime back in the second world war. That didn't stop it happening. The Supreme Court even said it was OK back in 1944, in possibly one of the worst decisions in the history of the court.
The people who were held were unable to earn a living and were unable to pay outstanding income taxes or the taxes on their property. Even if they had the money they had no access to it. Their property was seized and sold as a result. Those that survived the camps with a minimum of food and no heath care had lost everything they had worked for by the time they were released after the war. Only a few suggested putting people of German or Italian descent in camps, and they were ignored.
It's a short step from identifying those of a particular religion to government discrimination in travel, jobs, housing or freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Unbelievable (Score:4, Informative)
Habeas Corpus may only be suspended during times of invasion or rebellion, and WWII was neither. And even if Japan had invaded, suspension of Habeas Corpus is a power given to Congress, not the Executive.
Re: (Score:3)
Tell that to Captain Merryman of the Maryland State Militia.
The Commander-in-Chief has extreme powers to do almost anything he can justify in times of trouble, which are de facto defined as whenever Congress refuses to tell him to cut his tyranny the fuck out.
The plight of the Japanese is a pretty good example of why that happens in the real world, regardless of all theories about the Constitutions ability to protect freedom in the real world. Roosevelt's man on the scene had a not-totally-implausible line
Re:Unbelievable (Score:4, Informative)
That's incorrect. Japanese Americans were rumored to be spying against the USA, and the court ruled that the need to protect against espionage outweighed the rights of the American citizens not to be interned.
However, the Solicitor General failed to not provide a report from the Office of Naval Intelligence that stated there was no evidence that Japanese Americans were acting as spies or passing information to the enemy.
In 1983, Korematsu's conviction for failing to report to for internment was overturned on the grounds that the government had knowingly submitted false information to the Supreme Court that had a material effect on the court's decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone knows it is against the Constitution and will never become a law.
Warrentless surveillance is also unconstitutional, and yet the Patriot Act is a law. 14 years later we are still living with this abomination.
Bad laws can and do get implemented, and until they are struck down we all suffer the consequences.
Re:Unbelievable (Score:5, Informative)
I can't believe someone is honestly suggesting that we do this again.
You mean, the reporter who suggested it? Yeah, pretty awful. Watch the entire sequence, and listen to the questions the OTHER reporter is asking at the same time, which he's answering at the same time. I don't like Trump. But this characterization is BS, and you either know it or should. He's said he wants to keep track of recent immigrants so we don't have what the French just put up with, and he said "I'd definitely do that" to the second reporter (in a loud room) who asked him about the border wall/fence, not some mythical "muslim database" that was present only in the mouth of the reporter who dreamt it up. You don't have to like Trump to dislike out of context spin.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
http://www.nationalreview.com/... [nationalreview.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Explicit question
MSNBC Reporter: Should there be a database or system that tracks Muslims in this country?
Multiple subject answer. (Yeah, he's a politician)
Donald Trump: There should be a lot of systems. Beyond databases. I mean, we should have a lot of systems. And today you can do it. But right now we have to have a border, we have to have strength, we have to have a wall, and we cannot let what’s happening in this country happen any longer.
Non-explicit question. Trump gave a weasel paragraph, repor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So he's going to skip the whole pinning stars on peoples' chests and go straight to building the Berlin wall, and this somehow makes what he is saying OK?
Really? Please point to a single quote where is he advocating the building of a wall to keep people from fleeing the country. You're confused. That's a leftist thing. The socialists are the ones that, given enough power, do things like wall up Berlin to prevent people from leaving their collectivist paradise, or jail people from attempting to leave the socialist paradise that is Cuba. If you can't muster the energy necessary to understand the difference between keeping people from illegally walking INTO yo
Nope. (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.nbcnews.com/politic... [nbcnews.com]
He is explicitly asked should there be a Muslim-tracking database system to which he replies the whole nonsense about "There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases" and "signing up at different places" when asked about signing people up at mosques.
Nobody is putting words in his mouth.
He IS an idiot that does not think or listen to other people and talks in thought-terminating cliches but he clearly understood those questions and replied to them in his poorly thought through manner.
Re:Nope. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense. He's a politician. He purposefully obfuscated the answer.
Re: (Score:2)
So, why do we think there's not a database on EVERYONE that includes a religious affiliation field, already, starting with the first US census in 1790?
Re: (Score:3)
According to the US census bureau, there is one.
https://ask.census.gov/faq.php... [census.gov]
I guess it is voluntary now. But I keep getting asked my race or ethnicity every time I deal with the federal government (even in person) like when I recently applied for a replacement SS card.
BTW, there is answers from so called voluntary questions here.
http://www.census.gov/library/... [census.gov]
They are not considered accurate because of the law but they include the questions with the mandatory questions so I'm not sure a lot of people
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Indeed unbelievable. What you're reading about is not what the man said, it's what hacks think he might have meant by not saying something PC, woo woo!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That's scary in itself. But seeing the actual words from The Donald is hilarious. He's clearly has no plan, he's improvising on the fly, trying to project the image that he has a secret plan but he can't go into details yet. He sounds like that angry drunk guy you meet at a bar who wants to rant about things but has no real idea of what he's talking about.
Re:Unbelievable (Score:5, Informative)
Oh please. The Trail of Tears, generations of slavery, Jim Crow, lynchings, etc. all are much worse than rounding some people up in camps for a relatively short time during a huge war. Not that it wasn't a stain on our history, but to imply it's worse than the things above is just ridiculous. Even Guantanamo seems worse, given how long those guys have been imprisoned there without due process (10+ years), whereas the Japanese were released when the war was over, which was no longer than 4 years.
Re: (Score:2)
We record more detailed information about people (secretly) already. Shit-all has been done about it.
I can't believe you think it's not suggested routinely and then enacted routinely. Oh, you couched it in a triple assertion of catagloging, rounding, and internment which have nothing to do with the question or answer.
The mods must be joking.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe there should be something in the rulebook about the government not screwing with people's right to religious freedom.
Heck, it should be the very first point in the rulebook, really.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Given the atrocities that religionists have committed, both in the past and in modern times, I think the idea of tracking them all isn't such a bad idea, as long as it's done for all of them.
As for the First Amendment, maybe it should be revised, to provide for freedom from religion. We rational people are really sick of you loonies impeding our progress, not to mention all your terrorist attacks.
Re:Religon not the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that the whole thing lends itself to "wackadoodles". You have an entire system of belief based on nothing but hearsay, with some ancient goat-herders writing down some oral traditions that have been embellished over generations, and then telling people that this stuff is literal truth. Then people believe this stuff with no evidence for it whatsoever, other than other people reading the same texts and also claiming it's literal truth from God. From there, it's a very small stretch to take some part of that "literal truth" and decide that it really means you need to go murder some people. The Bible after all says that if you have children who disobey you, you're supposed to stone them to death. All these books are full of nonsense like that.
And the "wackadoodles" have been doing this for literally millenia. Christians used to routinely burn people at the stake for being the "wrong" kind of Christian, and interpreting this "word of God" differently.
As long as people believe that some book is the "word of God" then you're never going to get past this stuff. People need to move to actual ethical systems where you can evaluate them based on reason, not superstition.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> And the "wackadoodles" have been doing this for literally millenia.
You are suffering from confirmation bias. It isn't the religion part that makes people do horrible things - Khmer Rouge, Stalin and Mao are all examples of secularist committing mind-numbing atrocities.
Furthermore there are an overwhelming number of counter-examples, of religionists doing immense amounts of good in the world.
The problem is the "wackadoodle" part and they will always be attracted to power structures religious or otherwi
Re: (Score:3)
Furthermore there are an overwhelming number of counter-examples, of religionists doing immense amounts of good in the world.
You are suffering from confirmation bias. It isn't the religion part that makes people do good things. There's countless irreligious people in the Peace Corps.
As for Stalin, Mao, etc., those were basically like religions too, just without the supernatural part. They had the components of a wacky ideology, near-worship of a cultist leader, witch hunts for "unbelievers", etc.
Give peo
Re: (Score:3)
The new testament is? Really?
There's a whole new covenant thing going on, the vengeful old testament mellowed considerably.
Re:Unbelievable (Score:5, Interesting)
The Koran has its 5 pillars and never really comes away from conversion by force unto death if necessary.
The five pillars being profession of faith, prayer, charity, fasting during Ramadan, and pilgrimage. Meanwhile from the bible (also a Muslim holy book, I should note):
Deuteronomy 17:
2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant,
3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;
4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel:
5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
If you want some new testament:
Luke 19:27:
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If you listen to the interviews in which this is supposedly revealed, you will see that what is said isn't exactly what is reported. In the interviews you can tell he was still talking about the border and illegals entering the country. Even in the second interview in which he claimed it was all about management, the reporter said "american muslims" and Trump went on about securing the border and people entering the country illegally.
I'm actually somewhat surprised this type of gotcha news isn't being dispe
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
SJWs want to believe that he said this exactly as the headline puts it. Truth and accuracy are of no concern.
Trump is a moron and should never be president. But he should be quoted correctly.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Unbelievable (Score:4, Insightful)
This thread should have been a one-and-done with your comment. An overwhelmingly political (and vacuous) piece on slashdot is annoying, but one that repeats obvious and quickly-verifiable misinformation is inexcusable.
Re:Unbelievable (Score:5, Informative)
Trump: We have to do something about Muslims.
Reporter: What, like a database?
Trump (actual quote): "I would certainly implement that, absolutely. There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases. We should have a lot of systems."
Reporter: Should Muslims be legally obligated to sign into the database?
Trump (actual quote): "They have to be — they have to be."
So any attempt to say he didn't talk about databases is pure bullshit.
He was not talking about immigration.
He was talking about Muslims.
Your entire case is built on the idea that the database was suggested by the reporter and not Trump, but the fact he gladly went went along with it, expounded on it, and then later suggested special IDs and shutting down -ALL- Mosques, makes that irrelevant.
Re: (Score:3)
You need to cite that. As far as I can find, that specific conversation only happened in your head. None of the transcripts I can find have that line of statements at all.
You entire position seems to be fabricated.
Re:Unbelievable (Score:4, Informative)
lol.. I bet you never even bother looking up the audio or listening to it if you did. American Muslims is not all that clear but he was giving a speech on illegal immigration, talking to reporters about illegal immigration, and when someone asks him something, it is perfectly logical to assume he was continuing to talk about illegal immigration when he mentioned it specifically all around the questions. It is more likely that he didn't even hear or understand the "American" portions and understood it to be a question about the topic at hand, illegal immigration.
Trump is an idiot who will fail on his own. You do not need to fabricate shit or take shit out of context and basically lie in order to help him along the way. Take it for what it is, which is nothing near what you are trying to make it out to be.
Re: (Score:3)
That Trump continues to enjoy such poll numbers this far after both his announcement and his multiple ludicrous statements cause me serious concern over the GOP's future. I'm concerned about a fully blue house, senate, and presidency once the representative districts change- I'm pretty worried that the Republicans are a highly ineffective opposition party, and are almost two whole parties at this point.
We have a two party system*, and it needs two functional parties to work properly. The Republicans *look
Re:Unbelievable (Score:4, Insightful)
The court rules the only way for this to be Constitutional is for everyone to register their religion.
That won't happen. The court (unlike you) is acquainted with cases such as Torcaso vs Watkins [wikipedia.org] and Kiryas Joel VSD vs Grumet that make it clear that even requiring someone to state a religious affiliation in any interaction with the government is unconstitutional.
maybe IBM can help... (Score:2)
I think they've done this project before.
Checklist (Score:2, Insightful)
No ... I am not proposing this. I am just terrified this is the direction things are headed. The current hysteria over a few mentally unbalanced fanatics really has me worried. The worst thing that can happen is that the overwhelming majority of Muslims, who are as horrified at th
Re: (Score:2)
In 2011, a Christinist wanting to establish a Christian Europe murdered almost 80 people, most of them kids. How did the rest of Christians answer for this? They didn't, because the question is asinine on it's face, you dumb fuck.
But by all means, as a resident of the country that has deliberate
Ben Carson was actually right bout something. (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly there could be the rise of a charismatic egomaniac who preys on the fears and hatred of the conservatives, making groups out to be the scapegoats (Muslims, gays, immigrants... at least it's not Jews this time around). Everything Trump says about these groups are the same things that Goebbels and Hitler were saying about Jews. We are witnessing the rise of the radical fascists Europe had to deal with 80 years ago. How in the hell are people so damn fucking stupid not to learn from history?
Re:Ben Carson was actually right bout something. (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/... [cnn.com] Clearly there could be the rise of a charismatic egomaniac who preys on the fears and hatred of the conservatives, making groups out to be the scapegoats (Muslims, gays, immigrants... at least it's not Jews this time around). Everything Trump says about these groups are the same things that Goebbels and Hitler were saying about Jews. We are witnessing the rise of the radical fascists Europe had to deal with 80 years ago. How in the hell are people so damn fucking stupid not to learn from history?
Simple. Americans don't learn history anymore. Especially Republicans. They call history "revisionism" and, if you are well-versed in history, you are called an "elitist".
Didn't I already see this somewhere? (Score:2)
Déjà vu. [wikipedia.org]
Trump wins. essentially, that's it. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, but what happens if all the others except Trump drop out? Also, I think the same can be said for the Trump supporters: they don't seem like they'd support any of the other candidates. These non-establishment candidates (on both sides) have rabid fanbases who love them, but do NOT like any others. There might be some overlap between Trump's and Carson's supporters.
TIL; Not saying "NO" = "YES" (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
How would the posters that are upset about this feel about applying this to the
Scientologists ?
Aum Shinrikyo ?
Golden Dawn ?
The KKK ?
Neo Nazis ?
Pegida ?
Republicans ?
Libertarians ?
People that have more money than you do ?
Just how do you feel about freedom of speech ? Woodrow Wilson at Princeton ? The Halloween costume of your choice ? Operation Rescue publicizing abortion practices ?
It seems that a lot of people have remembered the first amendment today and will probably forget about it by next week.
Re: (Score:2)
So, basic census data goes pretty far already - do you not think that certain agencies haven't augmented the census database to include resident aliens, and even tourists, including whatever fields may be of interest - up to and beyond security camera images of the individuals at places of interest?
Re: (Score:2)
People who violate the rights of other people should be watched to prevent them from doing harm. People who have not done any harm and do not threaten others with harm should not be watched, if only because doing so would violate their privacy. This isn't complicated, and I'll thank you not to muddy the waters with this strawman you've constructed
Re: (Score:3)
"People who violate the rights of other people should be watched to prevent them from doing harm. "
Quo vadis vadim? Who decides the rights? Who decides they're being violated?
Yes, the ideas are simple and reasonable. Once humans get a hold of 'em, not so much.
The Politics of Fear .. (Score:3)
Isn't this already done? (Score:3)
Does anyone here not believe that every citizen and resident's religious, political, and social associations aren't already sitting in federal databases? This is part of what TIA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org], Prism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org], and many of the related programs were really created for...
Who is this guy? (Score:2)
Who is this guy and what has he done with Trump? Trump doesn't waffle. Trump doesn't dodge the question. Trump is balls to the wall, 'Murica! Fuck Yeah! in every interview. So who is this guy who won't just say it?
Wait, wait wait. Does Mr. Donald Trump think he's a viable candidate?? Ahahahahahaha
That's funny.
Re: (Score:2)
I keep hoping he'll interrupt a debate by throwing his toupee into the air and crying "Culture Jam!!!", but I don't give him that much credit.
This is getting nuttier by the day (Score:5, Insightful)
Lately I've been feeling like I'm in a Philip K Dick novel.
This might put him over the top in the polls (Score:2)
Good move. Republicans are largely temporarily embarrassed millionaires living in their own fantasy world, and bigots. This should give him the bump in the polls that he'll need to win the whole thing.
That word (Score:3)
That word "obliquely" - I do not think it means what you think it means.
sPh
Iran does not keep a database of Christians (Score:4, Informative)
In fact, Christian minorities have a number of special rights under the law, including representation in the parliament [wikipedia.org]. Exactly what kind of country are we trying to become?
Re: (Score:3)
In fact, Christian minorities have a number of special rights under the law, including representation in the parliament [wikipedia.org].
Your description (and the linked Wikipedia article) are misleading. The Iranian constitution grants 5 seats (out of 270) to four groups: two for the Armenian community (mostly Christian), one for the Assyrian community (mostly Catholic), and one each for the Jewish and Zoroastrian communities. This indirectly gives three seats to Christians, but not because they are Christian, so technically Christians are not guaranteed representation in the parliament, it just works out that way.
Further, some of your o
Opposition to H1B is Racism (Score:3)
It's occurred to me that there is some cognitive dissonance going on:
When articles come up about H1B visas, it seems that a majority complain that it should be limited because they believe the evil tech. and software corporations just want more H1Bs so they can fire US born workers and replace them with cheaper workers.
But when the kind of people being considered to allow into the country are Mexicans who have nothing of value in Mexico so try (and do) come into the USA illegally, or random refugees, migrants, etc. from some extremely poor and/or war-torn nation, then it is considered racist to propose any sort of restrictions on their entry.
WTF?
Let's just apply the same standards from now on to all potential immigrants: If you object to letting in an arbitrary number of H1B visa applicants, you are a racist!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I have not seen any Democrats proposing anything that even comes close to the things coming out of the Republican party.
Haven't been on a college campus in the last few years? No?
From the Republicans we see religious tests, attempts to deny rights to specific religions, and now a national registry of Muslims of the exact same sort that Hitler used against the Jews.
You mean the "religious test" that current administration routinely applies when considering refugee status, but which the leader of the House explicitly said would be part of no legislation to come from that body? And that "national registry of Muslims" that a reporter conjured up out of thin air, that one? Please cite the language used by "the republicans" as they propose such a thing. Be specific.
it's only one side of the American political spectrum that's pushing for all-out fascism
You don't actually know what word means, do you
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't been on a college campus in the last few years? No?
My point exactly.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You are living in denial. Things are getting out of hand in this country, and instead of trying to deny it, you need to take a hard look at the facts of the situation. Just the other day Ted Cruz suggested that we only allow Christians into this country. Multiple Republican candidates just visited a big conference held by some nut who thinks we should execute gay and lesbian Americans. Donald Trump has endorsed setting up a database of Muslims, and there are multiple instances of Trump supporters violently
Re: (Score:2)
You are living in denial.
And then you say: "Donald Trump has endorsed setting up a database of Muslims" ... which is you denying the truth, because he said no such thing. A reporter said that in the middle of a conversation with a second reporter. Listen to the segment, as if you were a person who has any sort of intellectual honesty, and see who really said what.
there are multiple instances of Trump supporters violently attacking Hispanic Americans
Specific links, please, to show that you aren't also just BSing about that, as well. While you're at it, shall we look for links to coverage of "hispanics" (who are you
Re: (Score:3)
I couldn't help but notice that you didn't address the comments by Ted Cruz and the fact that multiple candidates attended a "kill the gays" conference. This would imply that you're well aware of these facts, and wanted to draw attention away from them by focusing on another part of my post. Assuming that's the case, I'm asking you now to put aside the partisan vitriol and just stop to think about that for a moment. Those facts alone are fucked up. Really, really fucked up. Something has gone very wrong in
Re: (Score:2)
You need to put the koolaid down and take a step back from the slanted rags you are getting your news from.
No republican said anything about a religious test, that was a comment by the president in trying to mis-characterize what was said for political points. No republicans that I know of has attempted to deny rights to any religion unless it is the right to kill innocent civilians. Even this shit Trump supposedly said is completely out of context and if you listen to more than just the snippets, you will
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.politico.com/story/... [politico.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Only someone totally ignorant of history can seriously think that this is what you are looking at today. Hitler is what we'll get, in 10 or 20 years, if we don't get Trump now.
Here are the three options:
1) The American dream dies. The Anglo-American people lose control of their homeland. (80% of the rest of the world dies of starvation shortly after when the replacements discover that the USA wasn't built on magic dirt.)
2) Something similar to nationalism asserts itself in the US. So far, Trump looks li
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe all the Oracle users should be registered with some sort of central agency. I'm not saying do it, I'm saying we should think about it. Because I'm really really rich. And I'd date my daughter if she wasn't my daughter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: MySQL, postgres, SqlServer, or Oracle? (Score:5, Funny)
It's time someone asked The Donald what he thinks of systemd.
Re: (Score:3)
There's going to have to be a law patterned after Godwin's about systemd.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think so. You're still going to want some uniform data like name, address, age, religious sect, country of origin, etc., and a relational database is the best choice for that kind of data since you can make queries on those relations easily. For the unstructured dossier stuff, you can just throw in a big TEXT field or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Gotta love the deaf hypocrite Rush... I think it says a lot about his remaining audience that they're sticking with him now that those facts are out (as if there was any doubt of them before they became public.)
Re: (Score:2)
It is indeed true, The Donald can not keep his mouth shut. Laying the traps are too easy. A real politician would normally work on a set of policy ideas, vet them with a group of advisers, practice with some mock debates, etc. Trump doesn't prepare though it seems, he just blusters around. So someone asks about a Muslim database and he's genuinely responding with a stream of consciousness.
Re:Liberal misinformation (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. You're living in your own little fantasy world, sponsored by Rush Limbaugh. Trump explained how he'd sign Muslims up for the database.
The reason this is a good move is because people like you are so delusional you'll give him a pass because you would sooner blame the media than pull your head out of your ass.
Re:Liberal misinformation (Score:5, Informative)
Nope. You're living in your own little fantasy world, sponsored by Rush Limbaugh. Trump explained how he'd sign Muslims up for the database.
I don't like Trump (really, I don't like any of the candidates, but......), but as far as I can tell, he didn't say he'd sign Muslims up for a database. He carefully worded his way around it, continually returning to building a wall (so useful that will be~ ), and generally avoided the reporter's question. Here is the actual transcript, you can judge for yourself. I'm giving my understanding of it, he was careful to avoid saying he would sign Muslims up for a database (and even more avoided how he would accomplish it, "management"):
Hillyard: Should there be a database or system that tracks Muslims in this country?
Trump: There should be a lot of systems. Beyond databases. I mean, we should have a lot of systems. And today you can do it. But right now we have to have a border, we have to have strength, we have to have a wall, and we cannot let what’s happening in this country happen any longer.
Hillyard: But that’s something your White House would want to implement?
Trump: Oh, I would certainly implement that. Absolutely.
Hillyard: What do you think the effect of that—how would that work?
Trump: It would stop people from coming in illegally. We have to stop people from coming in to our country illegally.
Hillyard: But specifically, how do you actually get them registered into a database?
Trump: It would be just good management. What you have to do is good management procedures. And we can do that. [to someone else] That’s nice.
Hillyard: Do you go to mosques and sign people up?
Trump: Different places. You sign ’em up at different, but it’s all about management. Our country has no management.
Hillyard: Would they have to legally be in this database, would they be—
Trump: They have to—they have to be. Let me just tell you: People can come to the country, but they have to come legally. Thank you very much.
Re: (Score:3)
What do you mean he's advocating for something that congress would never pass? Is he advocating something, or not?
Blaming the media for stupid shit that politicians say is something that every politician would absolutely love. Don't blame the media, blame Trump's lack of comprehension if you want to go easy on him. Blaming somebody other than them lets them off the hook, allows them to be sloppy, and, worse, if he actually meant this, it lets him play both sides of the coin. In that case, it is both red mea
Re: (Score:2)
That wascally wabbit tricked him again!
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a database of rich guys who have repeatedly bilked investors? Whaddya think, Donald?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
According to Thomas Aquinas, whose teachings are highly respected within at least the Catholic church, there are three types of law in the Old Testament: moral, judicial, and ceremonial. The moral laws are permanent, being the ethical foundation of the old and new laws. The judicial laws, though no longer binding, are no sin to follow, as they are built upon the moral laws. The ceremonial laws are forbidden, as to follow them would be to declare the old covenant still binding (this is why Catholics do not k