Jump to content
EaglePrince

The right to have another presidental ellection in the USA?

Recommended Posts

Hey, guys. I think this is the first political topic started by me, but there is the first time for everything. :)

 

In the presidental elections in the US Donald Trump won, and now we are seeing more and more news about Trumps moves which many people don't approve. I have even read how some Californians want to secede from the USA. I think that is far from truth, but all this has led me to the question I have put into the title.

 

Why talking about seceding, when people should be able to demand another election, on which hopefully another president would be elected. Do Americans have that right, or they actually need to wait for another four years until the next elections? Here in Serbia we had so many elections in last few years, that the people is sick of elections. :D (Though in our case it was for political reasons, not because people was asking for it because of some such important matters.) And if Americans do have that right, is anybody talking about that?

 

I am starting this topic after numerous of new decisions by Trumps office, with the one about the travel ban being the latest one. As far as I understood it, he even wanted to deport those who have already got permission to stay, live and work in the USA. He has banned all travel from Iraq for example, and he wanted to deport them too, while some of those people have earned that right by being loyal to Americans, and in fact - many of them we're loyal to Americans knowing they would later be allowed to stay in the USA.

 

Still, I do accept that I certainly don't know all of the facts, and I don't know the background of everything. I know little from the news, and speaking about that - in theory that could imply that I actually know nothing for sure. As I was writing before, we can read something from the newspapers, have our opinions about it, while the facts may be a lot different from what we were told.

Edited by EaglePrince

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know, Trump can only be removed from presidency if he breaks the rules. The three main ones being:?

 

- Real criminality

- Abuses of power

- Violation of public trust

 

Even then, it is up to the House of Representatives on whether Trump will be removed from office.

 

 

Trump's actions in this first week have been interesting to say the least. I understand why he's doing what he's doing, and to be fair, it'll likely reduce the counts of terrorism in the US. However, there are other ways of doing so that won't cause such a backlash. Without trying to start a political war here, ISIS works on Islamic beliefs, but that's not me saying that no Muslims can be trusted. There are plenty of awful things in the majority of religions, but the people following the religions are wise enough to not follow it word for word. Most religions today have had reformation, or modernisation. This Muslim ban, (which is being covered up as a "country ban" which is total rubbish), is not the answer to an ongoing issue. Here in the UK, I feel we should be helping these refugees, and if it were totally safe to let all refugees in, I would. But I'm not naive, I know it's a high risk allowing refugees into our country.?

 

My issue is that we, along with the US, have bombed these countries over and over again, and the results are refugees, yet we don't want to accept it as our problem. I get called out for being anti-patriotic a lot, I'm not. I like my country, but I don't agree with everything we do. Our government right now is allowing its own healthcare to fail, in order to privatise it later on, yet so many people seem to be ignoring that or denying it.

 

The world is a mess right now, and whilst I've gone off topic in my reply, I hope the first part has answered your question somewhat.?

 

I wish you well, Eagle.

 

 

EDIT: Reading over this, I come off as very strong. I'm strong minded, and very set in my own beliefs. If anyone disagrees with me however, that's totally fine. In fact, it's more interesting discussing with people who have different values, that way you question your own.?

 

Also, when I say the world is a mess, I mean from a country-by-country perspective. My personal life, is fairly great, compared to the lives a lot of people live.?

 

I also want to emphasise that I am in no way against religious followers. I'm not against Muslims, or Christians, and so on, it would be ignorant and plain stupidity to believe that all Christians or all Muslims follow the darkest parts of their religion.?

Edited by Mathew Steel

"Gofyn wyf am galon hapus, calon onest, calon l?n."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your explanation. That sounds really bad to me that people actually have completely no power over what is their president doing. But I don't know, there are of course other arguments why it shouldn't be as I would imagine it more logical.

 

Still, I would like that add that this ban is only about six countries I think, and not about Muslims. Actually, even Christians from Syria are not allowed to enter the USA.

 

But regarding the stereotypes, I would say that none of the major religions is violent. It is only about how people use it. Christianity, Islam, etc. are not about violence, but about love (for start). Only these are being manipulated from time to time by people who want to justify their causes, and who want to push others into a conflict. Still, sadly, it is the fact that Islam is being used right now by many groups, not just ISIS to manipulate Muslim people to join their cause. It goes that far that even priests try to manipulate people in mosques.

 

I don't know what would be the best thing to do, but if a community in a country wants their religion freedoms, they shouldn't obey some rules, and if they don't, then their religion organization should be banned maybe because of incompetence to keep mosques safe for children. Of course, easier said than done... But I can't understand it comes that somebody accepts some people, and then they make their districts where even police refrain to go. That can't end well, we had that at Kosovo before 1999., and the entire war broke out after an attempt of police to arrest a criminal (or criminals) who was hiding with civilians.

 

I am not religions, but I think that I can say that above without having somebody offended, because I too am partly "Muslim". I said "Muslim", and not simply Muslim, because - like I said, I am not religious, and I don't consider myself as a Muslim actually. Plus, my mother is Catholic, and I really dislike when I hear some people saying "you are what your father is". Maybe it was like that two centuries ago, but from what I have learned in history - it wasn't the case even then. I celebrate Christmas and Easter, even though I haven't been baptized. But regarding God - it may or may not exist, who knows, I think that we actually know nothing about that matter. Well, that's why it is called faith. :)

 

I mean, yes, Islam is religion of peace by its definition, but if I was a Muslim parent, I don't know if I would send my child to mosque for the reasons above. Also, the safest things for them may be to have completely no connection to that religion at all.

 

So, I understand why would Trump ban travels to the USA for citizens of some countries, I even think that EU should try harder not to let people enter its territories illegally, and that EU should take more care about people who come, and those who just wonder around not seeking for a job and not learning the language should be deported more quickly. But his decisions look to me like my governments decisions - to solve an issue with a solution which does too much damage. This wouldn't seem to me so wrong if they only said "Sorry, no asylum here for you, guys", but if I got this correctly, even if somebody worked in Microsoft, but they are from Iraq, they wouldn't be able to come back to the USA where they have a job.

 

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but I think that people who work their asses for money don't have time for some cr*p like having something with ISIS, and that those people who can be dangerous are those who stay unemployed, or at least - don't have full time job.

 

Again, my post isn't against any religious group, what I wrote above is about religious institutions, and my opinion that one specific religious institution doesn't do enough to prevent their members from doing bad things.

 

Still, sorry, I didn't mean to start the discussion about whether Trumps decisions are good or bad, but when it comes to my main question - I believe that Tom has given me the answer. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ban consists of the countries that are predominantly Muslim. I don't say this next part to be rude or mean, it's the truth - Islam is not a peaceful religion. There are parts of it that encourage peace, but others that are sickening. I won't go into too much detail, but look up some of the passages, such as Quran 4:24, are simply immoral and foul.

 

Islam being a peaceful religion is not entirely true. It's used countless times by many supporters of Islam, even by myself when I was younger. Again, I'm not saying that Muslims are not peaceful, but IS work on Islamic ideologies. That's a fact.

 

Regardless, my intention in the reply was not to criticise Islam, but since it added to my point, I felt I should include it. I'm glad I could answer your question, and I would like to re-emphasise, I'm not anti-religion. I just think we need to be more honest about some religious teachings.?

 

Apologies to anyone I may have upset in my response.


"Gofyn wyf am galon hapus, calon onest, calon l?n."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet again, "The Chair" recognizes "The Gentleman from The State of California......." (Political humor at it's best!)

 

First, every couple of years or so, California "threatens" to leave The Union. It is extremely funny to me, a Southerner and descendant of Rebels (Ha). The Civil War pretty much determined what happens if a State attempts Sucession. Mostly such talk is radicalism at ot's best - trust me!

 

As for "The Trumpster", my jury is still out. One thing is to be sure, he is the first US President to actually start doing what he campaigned about. It is still too early to start "Impeaching" him. As Matthew pointed out very well, he has (some far), not met the criteria for such actions.?

 

Good topic, Eagle Prince.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking that myself. Whilst what he has done has been questionable, I have to admire the fact that he's stuck his promise. It's a shame we can't say the same here in the UK (still wondering where that 350mil has gone).?

 

Maybe Trump will turn around and surprise us all! Although, so far, from what he's already done, I very much doubt that. Again, I like that he's repeated that he'll listen to what his second hand men have to say, and take their word over his. For example, with the water boarding. If he doesn't, then I'm sure he'll have a lot of unhappy citizens.

 

I suppose it's quite relevant to point out that a petition in the UK to not invite him to a state visit, has had over 800,000 signatures. Meaning, it must be considered for a debate in parliament (100,000 signatures being the minimum for that). Whether I've signed that or not - I'll leave that a mystery :P

 

EDIT: Just saw, the government has rejected to cancel the state visit, saying it would "Undo everything."

Edited by Mathew Steel

"Gofyn wyf am galon hapus, calon onest, calon l?n."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, perhaps your right, Mathew, about Islam being violent, I cannot tell. I don't know that topic entirely. I can tell for sure that right now it has to evolve the same way as Christianity has evolved from burning people on sticks to what it is now - a truly peaceful religion which gives comfort to people and so on, without having some unjust demands. Maybe my impression is wrong, but I think that Islam actually was on that way, at least when it comes to Bosnia. But, sadly, conflicts change everything. They bring hate towards people one wouldn't hate, and it even affects religion. I don't know if you knew that in the wars in Yugoslavia we had priests from all three sides encouraging people to join the fight. Yes, Orthodox, Catholic, and Muslim. And what we can say about Arabs... Well, they have been in difficult situation for decades for now, so they are definitely not like this because of their religion, but because of all circumstances. What are all those circumstances, I don't really know.

 

After this, I'm getting back to the topic, but now I must move. :) Like Schwarzenegger would say, I'll be back. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to Trump, I am glad to hear that all those stories about Trump are actually overstatements, and it appears that still the only ones protesting against him are perhaps the same those people who protested immediately after his election.

 

As about what he's doing, I completely agree that people shouldn't bash him for trying to protect his countries borders, and things like that. It is another issue if his wall would be a complete waste of money as an ineffective mean of stopping illegal immigrants. And same holds for bashing him for saying he will deport all illegal immigrants. Of course illegal immigrants should be deported, I think. On one hand, I can understand those people, as from my perspective the USA is indeed a country of opportunities (though I wouldn't go there to take some opportunities, I would go there to find a better payed job to have a better life), and if I was to go move there, I would go there legally. And if their system actually allows illegal immigrants to stay, then they are making fools of everybody who wants to do things by obeying the rules. I mean, why bash him for trying to enforce the rules that have been here for a long time.

 

As about the decision to ban those travels, who knows. I understand it is every countries responsibility to take care about safety of its people. Only they could have made some exceptions, but again - I know very little about that. I still hope that they will not leave behind all those people who were loyal to them in recent past, and who collaborated with them, by completely forbidding them to travel to the USA. But I think we better don't go into that topic (the events from Middle East), there is not much point in discussing something we barely know something about. There are too many speculations, including to how ISIS came to power, but I guess that this topic has no place on this forum. After all, we are strongholders, not conspiracy theorists. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, I completely understand Trump's reasoning behind the bans. However, I don't agree with the ban. People will call me a "libtard" and so on, I honestly don't care. I'm not so arrogant to say that I'm right, nor am I going to label someone a racist for being a nationalist. Yet, my beliefs are my beliefs. It's a paradox. Either:

 

- We let them all in and face the inevitability of a terrorist attack

?

OR

 

- We don't let anyone in, and stand idly by whilst innocent people suffer, due to something we've indirectly contributed to

 

It's difficult to find a happy medium on this matter. So until someone comes up with a better plan, I think it's difficult for us to criticize Trump on this matter. ON THE OTHER HAND, him stopping funding on abortion related services is absolutely appalling. His "Alternative facts" idea, is nothing but hilarious garbage. And his lack of self-investigation into statistics which he spreads around, suggests incompetence on that topic.

Edited by Mathew Steel

"Gofyn wyf am galon hapus, calon onest, calon l?n."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, the solution might be out there, I am sure that I'm not the only one thinking that the USA itself, or the USA with their allies, or with Russia too (why not?) would be able to crush ISIS in no time, but for some reason they don't want to (there are many theories why). But they appear not to want to do that because of some interests, thus the best solution stays out of the table.

 

And of course, what you said Mathew doesn't have anything to do with racism, it is a fact they there are many potentially problematic people among them.

 

Yes, this time it is really hard to tell who is bad and who the victim, they are all one people over there. Truth to be told, sometimes even those who appear to be the victims can be worse than their aggressor (who are aggressors in this particular case only because they are more powerful, otherwise the victim would be aggressor).

 

And I hope they wouldn't let Trump mess up everything too much at least - if he was about to cause something like that with his decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, exactly. Trump is going to make poor decisions, that not everyone will agree with. But I'm sure he'll do some good for the US. Whether the positives will outweigh the negatives, that I'm not so sure. However, only time will tell.


"Gofyn wyf am galon hapus, calon onest, calon l?n."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I start I'd like to state that I don't want to cause any kind of argument or offence here. I do usually try to keep out of foreign elections and the business of other governments, as I feel it's only right to do so. But in this case, as it is just a discussion on the forum, I will join in. :)

 

For me, I think that this is absolutely wrong that another election should be taken. People have taken a vote, and to me it's exactly what is happening here in the UK, where a small minority of people (generally, the Lib-Dems, most the Labour party, and the SNP) are attempting to overturn the result of the EU referendum because they personally do not like it. The democratic vote has been taken, and Trump was elected. That's my view. There should be no attempt to overturn that or remove him unless he has done something seriously wrong.

 

@EaglePrince mentioned the media and press in the original post. While I fully support a free press, and one which should not need to be censored or controlled in any way, at least here in the UK, and it appears from what I've seen it's exactly the same in the US too (though I'm sure Crusader can confirm or deny), that the press have their own political agenda and are the cause of many problems and much of the division that we face. They attempt to cause problems, widen divisions and create rifts. In the case of the EU referendum, they promoted their own content for Remain along the lines that suited them, they did the same for the 2015 General Election, where they promoted their own agenda for the Conservatives, and they're doing the exact same thing for Trump now.

 

The media are masters of spin and play on things very well. Personally, I believe that in the UK we need some form of serious press reform it's that out of control. They just do not report things honestly and put a spin on everything. In particular, I'm referencing Sky, the BBC and ITV here. But mainly Sky.

 

They have their own political agenda and will brainwash anyone who will allow them to. And I do admit, that it's very difficult to see things impartially because of all the propaganda and deceit, from all sides, that are thrown at you.

 

In terms of Trump's temporary travel ban from the 7 high-risk countries (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia), I actually support this and believe we should adopt a similar approach in the UK. To me, it's simply common sense. You wouldn't allow a complete stranger into your house or garden who could cause trouble without first knowing detailed information on their background information, and that they wouldn't cause problems, so why should the case be any different for your country?

 

In particular, with the conflict in some of these countries, and the terrorists which could be harbouring in them, I view this as an unnecessary risk allowing these citizens into the country. We can only put off a terrorist attack for so long, and in effect, it's holding out an open hand for people to attack us by allowing these people in, at least without very tough vetting procedures in place.

 

Some may argue that we are at more of a risk from within the UK or EU itself (which is also one of the reasons why I thought we should leave the EU) and to a certain degree I do agree with them. But all I'm saying, is that we do not want to make any potential situation any worse than it needs to be. We need to protect our citizens and keep out those that wish us harm.

 

The problem, as I see it, is that so many people are concerned with being branded a 'racist' today that we have lost all sense of national identity and common sense. That term has been warped into a completely different meaning within the last ten to twenty years, and now is used for anyone who supports full free movement, full travel from anywhere in the world with practically no checks in place to shut you up and silence you. To me, every country should be responsible for their own policies on immigration, and if every country followed common sense, there wouldn't be a problem.

 

@Mathew Steel mentioned the fact that we were the cause of this. And technically he's right. It's a very unfortunate fact that Tony Blair took us into an illegal war into the Middle East, which never should have been fought in the first place. That's what destabilised everything and set this whole thing off. Radical Islam was took care of very well under the dictators which were present. And I certainly do not agree with dictators being in power - and particularly not the likes of Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein, and the current one is Assad. They're all brutal dictators, who should never have got into power in the first place.

 

But as terrible as they are, my opinion remains that we should not be interfering in foreign countries, because (as we've seen) it only makes things worse. If we'd left things alone, it would have (in much broader terms) been a lot more peaceful in the middle east in the first place. Perhaps no travel ban would even have been necessary in the first place. I put the blame of this firmly at the feet of Blair and Bush, who started this whole thing. The more you get involved, the more difficult it becomes to disengage, and the more difficult it becomes to disengage, the longer it draws out and the more costly it becomes.

 

Good topic anyway, it gets you thinking!


Quote

The fields have eyes, and the woods have ears.

⁠— Geoffrey Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales: The Knight's Tale

Useful Articles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say, I agree with pretty much everything you said, Chris. I think it's fair to say you and I differ when it comes to quite a few political opinions. I'm not too fussed on Theresa May and her cabinet. Jeremy Hunt is another someone that's an annoyance to me, although I'm not sure of your opinion on him. However, it's nice being in a community [here] where we can have civil disagreements and also agree when we feel is right. Just felt like making that point!

 

I've made one or two political posts in the past, and looking back at those now, makes me cringe. I was one of the people I hate. Labeling anyone who has even remotely strict views on immigration a racist. Being totally narrow-minded when it came to other viewpoints. Simply, being young and naive. I like to think that today, and this goes for all of us, that we're more open and understanding to other opinions, especially those of a political nature.?

 

You mentioned news companies pushing their own agenda. I personally, would consider myself more liberal, but even I can see sometimes that the BBC and similar news agencies, push a very left-sided view. Not all the time, there are some articles that are truly factual, but not always. Yet, I think it's fair to also point out that there are many very right-sided agendas being pushed by other companies such as The Sun and The Daily Mail (I should add, I'm using companies for want of a better word, my mind has drawn a blank right now). Media is extremely influential, especially on a younger audience, such as myself. It's important to take everything we read with a pinch of salt, check other articles by other reporters and so on. Even news agencies (again, want of a better word) such as The Guardian, that aren't owned by a head-man, have a slight bias to one side of the table.

 

I think for us to get anywhere, we need to stop identifying our political viewpoints, by party. I'd say I'm a fan of Corbyn (yes I know, the IRA stuff is appalling, but that's not why I like him). However, I don't consider myself a labour member. Simply because there are too many strings attached to saying that. Until we can make everyone realise that not everyone in one group is the same, which seems obvious on paper, then I won't identify via party, but instead, just give my opinions on a topic-by-topic answer.

 

What I will say, is that people need to stop denying these leaders as their leaders. I dislike May, but I don't want her to fail. Her decisions will decide the social and political direction of our country, it would be stupid to wish her the worst. The same applies in the US, with Trump. No, I don't like the EU referendum result, I don't like that May is our Prime Minister, HOWEVER, what I dislike even more is people picking and leaving democracy, so it suits them 100% of the time.?

 

I should add, what I've said here is on a general level, I'm not directing my words at anyone in particular. Just some more brain food, I guess!


"Gofyn wyf am galon hapus, calon onest, calon l?n."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You wouldn't allow a complete stranger into your house or garden who could cause trouble without first knowing detailed information on their background information, and that they wouldn't cause problems, so why should the case be any different for your country?

I would only say that this wasn't simply about letting in anyone, they actually banned travels for all, including those who already got their visa's. But, we don't know, maybe they have reasons to believe that those visa's were given without proper verification that those people are not dangerous in any way.

 

So, yes, this step is very likely justified. But... Oh, and I don't know if there have been some terrorists from Iran, and there is no conflict there... But that doesn't mean there aren't any, maybe I'm uninformed.

 

The problem, as I see it, is that so many people are concerned with being branded a 'racist' today that we have lost all sense of national identity and common sense. That term has been warped into a completely different meaning within the last ten to twenty years, and now is used for anyone who supports full free movement, full travel from anywhere in the world with practically no checks in place to shut you up and silence you. To me, every country should be responsible for their own policies on immigration, and if every country followed common sense, there wouldn't be a problem.

Can't agree more with you.

 

Radical Islam was took care of very well under the dictators which were present.

Now when you say it, who knows, maybe they are at least partly a reason why radical Islam came to be as widespread as it is. But I agree, it is better not to interfere, at least if you don't have in plan what to do after the interference.

 

 

And, Mathew, don't feel like that. We learn by the time. We constantly make mistakes, but what maters is that we notice those mistakes (if they are mistakes), and move on having that in mind, and take care not to do it again.

 

And I agree with your points, especially that people shouldn't identify their viewpoints by parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Spot On" Chris ?( I NEVER get a chance to use "Spot On"....Ha!)

 

Seriously, The American Press was and always have been using their own agenda. This was to sell Newspapers. The Mexican War of the 1840s and most notoriously, The Spanish-American War ?of the 1890s ate two prime examples.

 

Having "seen" every US President since Richard "I Am Not A Crook" Nixon to Barrack Obama, other than Ronald Reagan, I did not like any of them (and yes, I vote). That being said, if The Republicans win, war is declared on Democrats (and visa versa). American Politics, thine name is Paradox.

 

America has become complacent with it's "place" in The World. Often labeled as "The Leader of The World", we (as Americans) need to (if I can quote The Bible), - "remove the plank from our own eye". I am a supporter of President Trump wishing to clean up our Country. This may "tick off" other Countries, but........

 

Will our image be damaged? It can't get any worse. Will The World get through this? Sure it will, it always does. The World has gone through MUCH worse..........

 

Okay, I will (as Chris said), cease talking about American Politics. We as a Planet, ?have much more to worry about other than Walls, Travel Bans, whatnot. Dialog and understanding (coupled with tolerance) are still practiced by many Americans. The Press only shows the Wackos (which lamentfully are often "in charge").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, Chris kindly summoned me from my university "slumber" :lol: so I'll try to keep my views to one post (rebuttals welcome) even though I'm a bit late to the party here. :P

 

Why talking about seceding, when people should be able to demand another election, on which hopefully another president would be elected. Do Americans have that right, or they actually need to wait for another four years until the next elections?

As others have said, we need to wait four years (eight probably - since every President from Reagan to Obama, except the first Bush, was in for two terms) or an impeachment. In the case of an impeachment or a more unfortunate incident, the current Vice President, Mike Pence, would become President for the remainder of Trump's term. Pence has pretty much the same views as Trump, except he has (what some have called) harsh views regarding LGBTQ+ (etc.). I'm not going to comment here, except that the Democrat and Green parties and those loyal to them have attempted to "inflate" the numbers of such people to garner their sympathies (and votes). Pretty much - they won't want to replace Trump with Pence; even though they have called Trump all sorts of names, he has (so far) purposefully left untouched Obama's anti-discrimination laws.

 

I don't say this next part to be rude or mean, it's the truth - Islam is not a peaceful religion. There are parts of it that encourage peace, but others that are sickening. I won't go into too much detail, but look up some of the passages, such as Quran 4:24, are simply immoral and foul.

Agreed. I'm a bit of a Realpolitik advocate, and I believe no "peaceful" people (including the many pre-Islamic Christian tribes and kingdoms- Germanic, Celtic, etc.) could have survived the Middle Ages, nor can survive in a "changing" world. However, Christianity and Islam do have very different histories. The former was adopted as a last ditch effort by a shrinking (but still very large) Empire, and was for the most part spread peacefully this way to many different ethnicities. People could keep their own cultures and religions, even if Churches had their own set language (Latin, Greek, or even Amharic). The main exceptions being Charlemagne's conquest of the Saxons, and some of the early Baltic Crusades. The numbered Crusades in the Levant really had no intention of converting people, but to "reclaim" land that once was Christian.

 

Islam was always more homogenous. It started in Arabia, but its adherents largely remained members of Arab or "Semetic" tribes. We also know from archaeology that Greek and Egyptian languages existed side by side in Egypt, and most folks there belonged to the Coptic church(es). Some time after Abu Bakr blitzed across North Africa, clearly the language of the land changed to Arabic. Some would argue that the ethnicities changed, but definitely not as much as the Ottomization of the Balkans (poor Skanderbeg).

 

Of course "Gaul" became Romanized then Frankicized then Frenchified, and these were because of the shifting of rulers and not so much a massacre of the locals. Bottom line - this could be left in the past, but to me it seems ISIS and many other terror groups want to do a repeat of what Abu Bakr did, and the Saudi royals and other Arab emirs don't really seem to mind that much, as long as they are left untouched.

 

I was thinking that myself. Whilst what he has done has been questionable, I have to admire the fact that he's stuck his promise. It's a shame we can't say the same here in the UK (still wondering where that 350mil has gone).
You mentioned news companies pushing their own agenda. I personally, would consider myself more liberal, but even I can see sometimes that the BBC and similar news agencies, push a very left-sided view.

YES! Thank you for being very reasonable. Between you and some of the folks I've heard Farage talk to, I think there is much more hope for the British Left than for the American Left. (British stoicism eh? None of that "mah feewlings" safe space stuff). Unfortunately the folks running Labour and Lib Dems (and until recently the Conservatives) still seem like a sour bunch to me. There exist lots of "conservatives" still, in the US and UK, who I feel are just hesitant and slightly racist liberals.

 

I do have hope for Trump and Theresa May (she seems to have stepped up a lot after Trump got in over here). The working class of the US have had enough of unions and illegal immigrants squeezing them out of jobs and jacking up the cost of living. Many of whom, who aren't even that "conservative" in a Bush or Thatcher type of way, are starting to wear the term "nationalist" with pride - because yes, they want their nation back.

 

Seriously, The American Press was and always have been using their own agenda. This was to sell Newspapers. The Mexican War of the 1840s and most notoriously, The Spanish-American War of the 1890s ate two prime examples.

Agreed, but it feels like it's getting worse, since the elites/globalists/special interests who run The Ministry of Truth Media seem to be more and more disconnected from myself and my fellow "Trump-pets." Half of the country agrees with The Media apparently, so I guess they're riding on the hope that four more classes to graduate from the "degree mills" will sway the election their way next time. Even up until Trump won the GOP nomination, I used to read CNN and The Hill, which have now (especially the former) gone "to the dogs." I think most of the people at Fox News and The Boston Herald have an idea of what's going on. I do occasion InfoWars and Breitbart just to get another view, even if they are "fake news" according to the almighty Zucc (yeah, ok, a lot of my news is filtered through meme pages :P).

 

My Final Thoughts

I encourage everyone to read the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (chapter 2 section 212) (LINK - you will need to search the document for "212"). Also, my sources indicate that it was Obama who first barred entry from Iraq during a six-month period, and that the seven countries that Trump barred entry into the US were placed under "special consideration" by the Obama administration (considering to do the same thing). Further: only 13% of the world's Muslims live in those seven countries. 87% of the world's Muslims may enter and exit the US - legally - as they please. Keep in mind, with the current state of the US borders, and the horrendous ID-checking procedures of the EU, those 13% can probably find another way into the US if they really wanted to.


Mqb938i.png

Do you crave a life of adventure? Check out our Adventures in the Duchy of Riverborne and apply here to join the action!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry for going off topic now, but I still don't see how people keep saying Islam is a violent religion. You have example how those two spreaded. But Christianity wasn't states religion while it was spreading over Roman Empire, while Islam was in Arabian Empire from its beginning. I think those two cannot be compared - at least when it comes to their beginnings. While in the very beginning Islam was indeed spreading peacefully before Arabian Empire.

 

And one cannot say that Christianity didn't spread by force, because - what then about Crusades against Pagan Lithuanians, or even against Orthodox Christians. (Maybe they were not official, but it happened.)

 

About Ottomans, yes, but you cannot say that they have islamised Balkans. They had 500 years for they, and yet Muslims are in minority here. And there were even less of them during 19th century. Simply, for one to have many if the benefits it was necessary to be Muslim, but as you can see, most of us didn't choose this option.

 

 

And about Islam... You may say it is oppressing and violent religion, but for do you explain then that women were not covered 50 years ago. In Bosnia before the 90's there were no covered women, while now there are. Similar to Middle Eastern countries.

 

It is people who were driven into hopeless situation, and then some of them became this violent. Because of Russia, the USA, and their allies.

 

*FIXED THIS PARAGRAPH

Just look at my county. We all used to love the USA, but after the Merciful Angel many came to hate the USA and England, and to consider them as the ones who hate us and who mean us no good.

Edited by EaglePrince

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll answer your question politely, Eagle. Seeing as you seem to just be genuinely curious.

 

First of all, when we say Islam is not a peaceful religion, we do not mean due to it's actions. For example, the Crusades weren't exactly the best times for Christianity, yet people don't claim that Christianity is hateful.

 

Secondly, there are certainly things in the Bible that one would find appalling. Deuteronomy 10:20 would be one of the best examples of this in my eyes. However, the difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity has had a lot of reformation. The second testament for example, has been adapted from the first to be more in-line with today's values.

 

So you may ask, isn't this just Christianity covering up its tracks? To some degree, some may say yes. Yet, another difference between the religions is that the Bible was supposedly written by the followers of Jesus, these stories and beliefs are from what Jesus had apparently said. There is no solid proof that this is true (I am hypothesizing here, I'm not religious, and I don't really believe any of this happened regardless, but that's irrelevant).?

Islam on the other hand, claims that their teachings are the exact teachings of Allah, who is supposedly all-mighty, and always right. This means that Islam cannot be adapted to suit today's standards, as this would be going against the teachings of Allah.

 

Now, whilst there certainly are good teaching in Islam, the negatives, although may not outnumber the positives, certainly overpower them. There are references to Mohammed having sexual relations with a 9 year old. Of course, in the time this was written, those values were acceptable, and that's the issue with this. Islam cannot be adapted, and so their archaic beliefs cannot be modernised. Hence the reason he is labeled a rapist, because it would class as statutory/direct rape, (I add the extra "direct rape" because I don't think any 9 year old would give consent to this). Because of this, many Muslims have tried arguing that these writings are all lies, and going against their own beliefs, claiming "This is not Islam" as I'm sure you have seen before. There's a specific part of the Quran that explains the reason for ISIS;

 

Quran 8:12 - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those that disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads, and strike off every fingertip of them."?

 

The very thing that ISIS are infamous for doing. Also;

 

003:090 Khan - "Those who reject faith, after they have accepted it, never will their repentance be accepted."

 

As you can see, both these things are very difficult to misinterpret. There are also references in the Quran to Mohammed himself giving orders to his men to kill those who are disbelievers of Allah. The Jews were very much victims of this.

 

Whilst it's clearly apparent that not every Muslim is aware of this, and nor would every Muslim follow this. The argument that Islam isn't peaceful, is not to say all Muslims are evil. The argument is that the religion itself is not peaceful, not the people following it. That's why there is such a moral panic of when it comes to Muslims entering the country, as their religion is unforgiving to those who aren't believers. So, when it comes to a secular country such as the UK, it's a big risk for us to allow a huge number of Muslims into the country, just IN CASE, they are part of the minority that are hardcore believers. I don't like the term extremist. It's got a bad definition now, as if it means someone who doesn't understand ?their religion, and not what it should mean - someone who follows even the sinister and cruel parts of their religion.

Edited by Mathew Steel

"Gofyn wyf am galon hapus, calon onest, calon l?n."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed Matthew. However, Islam (in my opinon) ?is not necessarily a "violent" Religion. Radicalism makes it so. The same is said for Christianity. "We" too, used to "slay all Enemies of Christ". It is either Political ideology or Religion.?

 

Perhaps one day, as The Bible says our "Swords will be beaten into Plowshears"....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I wouldn't argue it's violent. But I wouldn't say it's peaceful. It's just...a religion. Haha!


"Gofyn wyf am galon hapus, calon onest, calon l?n."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may see me as one who ignores facts, but I don't believe people when they cite Quran, or Bible, or whatever that sensitive. To be sure in that I would have to be able to read Arabian language which I don't. The reason for that is what you say may even be intentionally made mistranslation or misinterpretation for whatever reason. Maybe in its core it is a violent religion, which I don't believe, but what actually matters is the people. If they progress as a civilisation, so will their faith, just like in Europe. If they fit some reason become more violent, so will their faith, and same if they become peaceful.

 

But we do agree about the fact that it is dangerous to accept those people as the current state is. Even though Islam in my opinion is not violent, many of them are, and like I said above, I came to that even in mosque's they recruit young people to join ISIS, and so on... Right now, as the current state is, they are very insisting on their customs which are oppressing, and we certainly don't need that in Europe now when European nations have advanced this far.

 

And sorry for my post above being somewhat confusing, I didn't manage to finish it, but I did say almost everything. There I wanted to say that their people may not dislike Christians because of different faith, but because they may be blaming us for something. (Not my country in particular, but still...) But still, as it is right now - they are very insisting on others to accept their faith and their customers, and it's driving us all crazy.

 

So, don't get me wrong. I agree that even EU should take care more about this matter just like not it's the case in the US. But if their countries developed culturally, then they would be different too, and we would have problem with Islam.

 

And there is another thing. Diversity. In general... Is it good out is it actually bad... I think that for a country it is the best to assimilate the newcomers. I'm proud of diversity in my region, but that can be dangerous too in some situations, especially when it's diversity in faith. (ehm, Bosnia...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeremy Hunt is another someone that's an annoyance to me, although I'm not sure of your opinion on him

 

Jeremy Hunt should be removed from Office immediately. If I was Theresa May, I certainly would have - he's an embarrassment and liability to the country, not just Parliament. Frankly, the fact she failed to remove him, in my opinion, reveals exactly what Theresa May thinks about the NHS.

 

The Tories have an appalling record on the NHS with privatisation, disruption of services and poor quality. They're looking and trying their very hardest to destabilise. Not a lot, but a bit at a time, slowly. Stretch services, cut funding, keep going, destabilise, destabilise, destabilise - just little jabs here and there. Then turn around when things are just intolerable and say: We know what the answer is, let's privatise it.

 

But Labour's record is no better. In fact in some ways it's actually worse. Labour might have created the NHS, but they are no longer interested. They almost alone are to blame for privatisation in the first place, as this was started under Tony Blair. These disastrous PFI contracts alone are the main reason why the NHS is drowning in so much debt - not an aging population or increasing demand, although these do at face value make things a lot worse. But behind the scenes, an awful lot of it is the PFI contracts - they lock the NHS into 15-20 year contracts with private companies who are not only ripping it off, but doing a very poor job for service and are the cause of at least ?80 billion of debt. But this is one problem in a whole minefield of issues which Labour have caused. A few off-hand have been the Mid-Staffs scandal, MRSA, really privatising 5% of the health service - some Labour members of the House of Lords have even called for people to be charged to see their GP.

 

Then we have the creeping privatisation where companies have bought out parts of it. In fact just recently, Virgin Care has been given a ?700 million contract to run 200 NHS services. But Labour's record on the NHS is appalling, they are a very major cause of why the NHS could not sustain itself. That, combined with a Tory government which seeks to destabilise and destroy the NHS is why it's failing. When Labour left power, everything appeared ok on the surface, but the trouble was just coping, instead brewing underneath the surface. We've only become aware of this by the problems the Conservatives have introduced to it which has really shown its unable to cope. And then they want to stretch it even further to make it a 'seven day service'.


Quote

The fields have eyes, and the woods have ears.

⁠— Geoffrey Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales: The Knight's Tale

Useful Articles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that you're cautious with this, but I promise you, what I've cited, is correct. If you really want to, I'm sure there are people who can translate it for you, but it's more or less the same word for word.

 

The issue is, Islam as a culture isn't great. Take these countries where Islam is the main religion. Women are treated like dirt, there's rape and constant crime without punishment. You can argue it's because they haven't developed as a country yet, but ask yourself, what's the reason for that? If all our beliefs were founded on Islamic beliefs, I can't say we'd be much different to the likes of Saudi Arabia.?

 

As to your point about diversity. I wouldn't say it's that important. If we have diversity - great, if not, it's honestly not a big deal. If the moral belief is that we are all equal, no matter what our race, gender, age and class is, then diversity shouldn't be an issue. Religious diversity. Well, why is that important? It's unlikely it'll change the beliefs of people that already have a faith, and if our country became a religious country once again, I certainly wouldn't decide to become Christian.?

 

Maybe I'm being narrow-minded there, so if anyone has a different opinion, I'd be interested to hear of it.


"Gofyn wyf am galon hapus, calon onest, calon l?n."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeremy Hunt should be removed from Office immediately. If I was Theresa May, I certainly would have - he's an embarrassment and liability to the country, not just Parliament. Frankly, the fact she failed to remove him, in my opinion, reveals exactly what Theresa May thinks about the NHS.

 

Perhaps we agree on more than I originally thought! :D

 

 

But Labour's record is no better.

 

I understand this, and it's exactly why I won't identify by party. We have a statue of Aneurin Bevan in Cardiff, and it's a good reminder as to what the NHS is meant to be. It's sad seeing what is happening to it. Corbyn, whether you like him or not, certainly seems to feel strongly about the NHS, and whether his actions would synchronise with those words is another matter, but his beliefs, or what he makes his beliefs out to be, are certainly ones I can relate to.

 

I'm also glad that you can see what is slowly happening to the NHS. To me at least, it's painfully apparent that our government is trying to privatise it.

 

PS: Sorry for the double reply, I'd already posted as you did the same, and it seemed peculiar to add this unrelated reply to the one I gave to Eagle :)?

 

EDIT: Can I just add. Because I genuinely am confused, why on earth does the SNP complain that Scotland's vote was that they wanted to remain, when they know that they're part of the UK? I get they want to leave the UK, but that's not relevant.

Edited by Mathew Steel

"Gofyn wyf am galon hapus, calon onest, calon l?n."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...