Racism is NOT why Donald Trump won the election

a reply to: burgerbuddyRead it again Buddy. I said the WRONG WOMAN at the wrong time. I did not say there would be a right time for her. I said when the right woman runs it will be the right time.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

The ban would apply to all non-citizen Muslims, not all Muslims. His site hints at enhanced surveillance of US citizens who happen to be Muslim.

I would understand a ban on all immigration coming from conflict zones the US is currently involved with. Which may allude to the idea that the US is at war with Islam.

People may not realize, once these tools are implemented, depending on who is in power and what the leadership decides, those tools will be turned against all US citizens.

a reply to: GodEmperor

The ban would apply to all non-citizen Muslims, not all Muslims.

Right. I thought that was understood. Sorry I should have been more clear.

Trump's ban was for all non-citizen muslims attempting to travel here. Still, this applies to all of them. I don't see how the member saying Trump was only referring to terrorists is true when the ban applies to tourists or people visiting their families in the states, et cetera. It's presuming that any one of them could be a terrorist before there is justified evidence to do so. That member was wrong. Trump's proposed ban is referring to all non-citizen muslim as potential terrorists in a guilty until proven innocent fashion.

I would understand a ban on all immigration coming from conflict zones the US is currently involved with.

I understand Islam is a huge threat to the World, but I also understand why some people might construe it as racist. What I don't understand is why this approach is something we should embrace when it flies in the face of our American principle of innocent until proven guilty.

once these tools are implemented, depending on who is in power and what the leadership decides, those tools will be turned against all US citizens.

I think it definitely lays a dangerous precedent for future abuse. Whether that's towards the American people or foreigners.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

I don't like the idea of a religious test for inclusion to America, if people are willing to embrace American principles such as freedom and democracy that is far as that kind of test should go. The rise of Islamic extremism is a direct result of US involvement in the Middle East, Obama was supposed to end the wars in the ME, but he only expanded them; and Hillary would have continued that trend. The US funding 'moderate extremists' to topple sovereign nations, regardless of who runs those particular countries, is a business the US needs to get out of to see any real progress.

America is ready for a woman POTUS...just not Clinton. Trumps in office because Hillary has baggage....lots of baggage. If the Dems would have been smart instead of "fooled" they would have chosen Sanders as the candidate. If they would have picked Bernie Sanders then the morning of the 9th of Nov....we all would have felt the BERN. If Trump would have ran against about any other woman other than Hillary Clinton...he more than likely would have lost. Race only has something to do with it if your on the losing side.....as it's their biggest whine. Next election in 2020 the Dems need a black woman, married to a white man, who has adopted Mexican children........( one of which is transgendered ) she'd win in a landslide victory.

If you honestly believe a majority of the 60 million votes Trump got came from racist white people, then you are out of touch with reality and no progress can be made with you.

Once you sit back and realize the people voting on the other side are just like you then we can come together and repair the country.

The OP is right in saying its not the reason.

But it may be a contributory factor for some people.

What is certain though, is that a side effect of a nationalist campaign - like Trump's or the Brexit one - is that bigots, racists and xenophobes feel emboldened and start to crawl out of the woodwork and in to plain sight, opining as they do so.

And that leads to fear, mistrust and hate being spread from both sides of the cultural divide.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

And BLM has supported president Obama, but not only that. President Obama has endorsed BLM, a group that openly calls "to murder police officers and white people". Yet his administration is not racist?...

Obama defends Black Lives Matter protests at police memorial in Dallas

Obama Endorses 'Black Lives Matter' as a Serious Movement while Lying about the Real Black Problem

Show us when President elect Trump has openly endorsed the kkk... There is a difference with kkk members supporting Trump, and Trump endorsing them which he hasn't done...

The administration that has been racist, and promoted violence, and targeted conservatives and other groups of Americans for not leaning to the left politically is the Obama administration.... But because President Obama is black suddenly he isn't a racist, xenophobic, authoritarian who endorses violence against police officers and white people??

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So your take on why Trump won the election is that it WAS brought about by racism? That the backlash against 'black racism' was the cause of having all voters turn to Trump? Good point, actually. From that point of view I guess it did play an important part in his victory. But why did you think to take this up with me, rather than op?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

And BLM has supported president Obama, but not only that. President Obama has endorsed BLM, a group that openly calls "to murder police officers and white people". Yet his administration is not racist?...

Obama defends Black Lives Matter protests at police memorial in Dallas

Obama Endorses 'Black Lives Matter' as a Serious Movement while Lying about the Real Black Problem

Show us when President elect Trump has openly endorsed the kkk... There is a difference with kkk members supporting Trump, and Trump endorsing them which he hasn't done...

The administration that has been racist, and promoted violence, and targeted conservatives and other groups of Americans for not leaning to the left politically is the Obama administration.... But because President Obama is black suddenly he isn't a racist, xenophobic, authoritarian who endorses violence against police officers and white people??

BLM is completely terrible. In the beginning, the movement used to reach out to families of all colors who would have a loved one die in a police shooting. They actually used to try to work to improve relations of the neighborhood and police. But now it has festered into this...cancer.

There are groups who have splintered off from BLM and they want to work with the police and are inclusive to all who have been effected by such incidnets, but the MSM never gives them any airtime. Instead they'll put a BLM crybaby on the air to perpetuate their own agenda.

originally posted by: goou111
It has nothing to do with racism. but maybe its sexism. We are just not ready for a woman to lead .

Black man is fine as long as it is a man. Not saying I agree I just think that has alot to do with it.

It's not even sexism. I am sure many women could not bring themselves to vote for Hillary as the idea of women being represented by that awful woman was way too much to risk. Talk about horrible representation.

I kind of believe that no matter who was the Democrat candidate, they were going to lose. That is really because of the last 8 years. I think people, such as myself, are just really sick and tired of all the taking being done. We have been through 8 years of s--t rolling down hill.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
I understand Islam is a huge threat to the World, but I also understand why some people might construe it as racist. What I don't understand is why this approach is something we should embrace when it flies in the face of our American principle of innocent until proven guilty.

You need a little bit more understanding of all this when it comes to our borders...

Everyone knows the principle of being innocent until proven guilty – the burden of proof is on the accuser to show the guilt of the accused. In the absence of the requisite amount of proof, the accused will be considered innocent.

What people may not know is that a similar principle does not apply at the border. It’s a whole different story on the border.

Foreign nationals carry a burden of proof when they present themselves for admission to the United States. Each and every time, the foreign national carries the burden of proof to show his /her admissibility. In the absence of that, there is no getting in. Incidentally, there also is no right to an attorney at the border, so the applicant for admission is alone in this endeavor.

At the surface, this seems like a clear enough concept. However, based on the issues that we see and the amount of times that our foreign national clients encounter problems at the border, it’s not as clear cut as we like to think. As such, it appears to be an appropriate time to provide a reminder of the burden of proof for a border inspection and the ways in which foreign nationals can prove their admissibility.

As background, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 235(a)(3) requires “all aliens … who are applicants for admission or otherwise seeking admission or readmission to or transit through the United States” to be inspected by immigration officers. At the border, these inspecting officers are employed by the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. According to INA section 235(b)(2)(A), the inspecting officer must find that a foreign national is “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted”. If an individual is determined to be inadmissible to the U.S., there is a possibility that the inspecting officer will just turn him around and instruct him not to come back without proper evidence of admissibility.