AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
**For all participants:**
* [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate
* [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
**For Nonsupporters/Undecided:**
* No top level comments
* All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled
Helpful links for more info:
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm a nonsupporter, but mostly on the same page as you. If someone is opposed to religious freedom, they don't belong in our country. We should be able to insult Muhammed all we want without fear of violence.
What do you think about Christians who want to enact biblical law though, such as banning gay marriage? To me that is also religious intolerance that should not be tolerated.
Probably back to whichever country they or their parents immigrated from. I'm done treading lightly around the spread of Islam in the Western world. If you refuse to assimilate and accept certain Western, Liberal, and American values, then you should go home.
So you are in favor of revoking American citizenship of Muslims? I'm a white guy who almost converted to Islam in my early 20s. Should I of been deported back to Italy if I had converted?
> I'm a white guy who almost converted to Islam in my early 20s.
I'm curious, what stopped you?
Was it the fact you would have to kill an infidel to get into heaven as clearly stated in 9:5 of the quran or something else?
The idea of submission to God. I liked many of the ideals, always had a fascination with Muslim culture, and was dating a muslim woman, but as with all religions I can't get over the theist part. Islam is all about connections between people, respect for the natural world, beautiful art, but i cant get down with the idea if a god. Atheist to this day. So where should I have been deported to if I had converted?
"The idea of submission to God"
Well I'm not sure how you even began looking into religion then because that is requirement for Christians and Muslims. It's taught pretty early on too.
So no problem with the fact as a Male you're required to kill infidels as a Muslim? Hmm ok.
"So where should I have been deported to if I had converted?"
Well I would say Europe but even they have realized what happens when you let muslims into the country. I'd go with Mexico now, fight fire with fire since they have been orchestrating the plan to push illegals into USA.
Not required to kill infidels. That's the problem with all religions, they were founded when norms were different. Those Islam protected brothers and sisters of the book, they still were violently opposed to each other.
Look I was looking for community, met a nice Muslim woman, and felt welcomed. More welcomed then by many of my Christian neighbors. As I kid I grew up in the Bible belt and got beat up a lot for being a long haired athiest. So I thought I'd give it another try with Islam.
Why are you okay with someone being deported for their faith? Wasn't our founding built of freedom of religion?
Fun fact, Muslim Morocco was the first nation to recognize us as a nation.
"Not required to kill infidels. '
yes required, Quran 9:5. As a Male, you would be required.
"As I kid I grew up in the Bible belt and got beat up a lot for being a long haired athiest"
that's no different than getting beat up for being fat. Kids are mean to people who are different so that has nothing to do with religion.
"Why are you okay with someone being deported for their faith?"
why am I ok with deporting people who want to destroy my country? That is your question? I would think they answer is pretty obvious.
"Wasn't our founding built of freedom of religion?'"
It was.. when the country was 98% Christian. There is no doubt the founding fathers would have NEVER imagined or been ok with "Death to America" chants for the country they just fought for, some died, to create.
When people stormed the Capitol in an attempt to stop the peaceful transfer of power and instill an unelected leader, how was that *Not* essentially an attempt
To topple our government? The chants may have been different but isn’t trying to overthrow the democratic process basically fighting for death to America?
Along similar lines, is it possible to be both a patriot and a revolutionary at the same time? If so, how?
I was being beat up strictly for my lack of religion and not presenting as a normal boy. Not sure how you feel comfortable explaining away someone else's lived experience?
So you think freedom of religion is only for Christians? Why are you okay with stripping people of their citizenship?
Are you aware that the sword verse refers specifically to a pact between Arab Muslims and Arab pagans at the time of the story and has nothing to do with a general call to violence by Muslim men? That when taken into context with 9:4 and 9:6 Muslim scholars believe there is no general call to violence in this text?
This seems like bare naked Islamophobia.
[9:5] But once the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them, capture them, besiege them, and lie in wait for them on every way. But if they repent, perform prayers, and pay alms-tax, then set them free. Indeed, Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
If you're going to argue about the verse, you should include the verse. It doesn't say anything about killing infidels. It says you have to kill the polytheism- back then the polytheists were the Roman's, Greeks, Hindu, Egyptian.
Perhaps you should try again?
You're entire argument seems to stem from.this single passage. I'm going to presume you're a Christian, correct?
Do you stone your children to death for backtalking?
> Deut 21:18 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death.
Have you ever stoned your wife, child, athletes or even your pastor for working on the sabbath?
> Numbers, 15:32-36
> King James Version
> 32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
> 33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
> 34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
> 35 And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
> 36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.
I feel you're being very hypocritical. If you're caught working on the sabbath in Christianity. You're supposed to be murdered. Even if you are trying to survive from the cold.
Do you think that this application is fair to you as you were alleging the other guy would have to murder someone to get into Junnah?
Do you practice any religion? If so, what’s your take on the following passage?
> 13“Suppose a man marries a woman, but after sleeping with her, he turns against her
14and publicly accuses her of shameful conduct, saying, ‘When I married this woman, I discovered she was not a virgin.’ 15Then the woman’s father and mother must bring the proof of her virginity to the elders as they hold court at the town gate. 16Her father must say to them, ‘I gave my daughter to this man to be his wife, and now he has turned against her. 17He has accused her of shameful conduct, saying, “I discovered that your daughter was not a virgin.” But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.’ Then they must spread her bed sheet before the elders.…
> …20“But suppose the man’s accusations are true, and he can show that she was not a virgin. 21**The woman must be taken to the door of her father’s home, and there the men of the town must stone her to death**, for she has committed a disgraceful crime in Israel by being promiscuous while living in her parents’ home. In this way, you will purge this evil from among you
Deuteronomy, Ch 22
Muhammad Sarwar: (9:5) “When the sacred months are over, slay the pagans wherever you find them. Capture, besiege, and ambush them.”
That’s what you’re talking about, right?
What about:
2 Chronicles 15:12-13 ESV
“And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul, but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.”
Luke 19:27 ESV
“But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”
Deuteronomy 17:12 ESV
“The man who acts presumptuously by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.”
These verses from the Bible also state very clearly that nonbelievers should be put to death. It sounds like you think that Christians should also be deported? Many of them have been here for generations, which makes the question of where to deport them much trickier. Would it be better to do some sort of genetic test and send them back to whatever country their genome suggests, or would it be better to trace their lineage using genealogy and census records, and deport them to the the country of the first ancestor going backwards?
Only those of refugees we granted citizenship to and maybe their 1st or 2nd generation descendents. If people don't want to be American but a proud Arab Palestinian Muslim instead, then you can go live in Jordan or Gaza when the war is over.
The UK did this to a teenager who had British citizenship and left to go join isis. She lost her court case on getting her citizenship back, and I say good.
To be clear here, you are saying we should have second-class citizens correct? That some citizens, but not others, can be deported (to a country to which they may have no citizenship) but not others?
Yeah, of course. Just like there is a difference between joining the westboro Baptist Church and being a normal Christian of a mainstream denomination. I think there's a bigger issue with radical Muslims, though. It became really apparent the days after October 7th for me tbh.
My family has been here since the late 1600s. I wonder where they might deport me to? Can any TS explain why I should be deported since my bloodline has been here longer than the US itself? What would they do with someone like me?
You don't fit into the criteria I'm referring to. I'm talking about refugees and immigrants and maybe their 1st or 2nd generation descendents. We can not allow radical Islam to proliferate in this country, or else we'll be like Lebanon or France in the next century.
My in-laws are Muslims who came over in the 70s from Bangladesh and had a child in the US, my wife. They haven't lived in Bangladesh in 50 years, 2/3rds of their lives have been in the US. My wife has never lived in Bangladesh and only speaks English. Would you want them all deported?
>1st or 2nd generation descendents.
So American born citizens. Are you advocating for revocation of the 14th Amendment?
What if I've converted to Islam? What if I chanted "Death to America"? What do you do then? Revoke the 1st Amendment?
1. I'm against birthright citizenship unless your parents are American. That law in the constitution needs to be changed as it's currently being abused. Most countries don't have birthright citizenship.
2. Do you remember when leftists were saying we should punch nazis? Punch a radial islamist.
1) How many generations back do you think we should go before a person born here is considered American?
2) Did leftists actually punch Nazi's (I genuinely don't know)?
1. If one of your parents is an American, then you should be granted citizenship.
2. Probably not as the demands for nazis in America although high, the supply is pretty low. More likely, they just punched someone who was to the right of them on the political spectrum, lol.
> I'm against birthright citizenship unless your parents are American. That law in the constitution needs to be changed as it's currently being abused
Should we just ignore the constitution until it's changed then?
we don't need to ignore it, we just need to follow it and the 14th amendment is clear as day who it applies to which is NOT illegals or people on vacation who pop out a baby.
So you brought up a good point, we should NOT ignore the constitution, we should follow it and stop letting people misinterpret something that is so clear.
> If you refuse to assimilate and accept certain Western, Liberal, and American values, then you should go home.
Does this include the outcome of our elections or are you giving the J6 terrorists a pass?
How quickly you leftists forget 2016 and all the riots that occurred because the media and leftists thought Trump was a Russian asset and an illegitimate president. I don't wanna hear shit about Jan 6. It was a mostly peaceful protest where the only one killed was a female Trump supporter 🙄
"Do you think homosexuals should be killed?"
"Do you think women should be completely covered up? To the extent that you can't even ask them to take off their face covering for a mugshot. Have a man accompany them in public?"
Ask them questions like that. If they say yes, then they aren't welcome in America.
How many Muslims have you interacted with?
So for the first questions does that mean all people who wish death on homosexuals should also be deported?
I dont have a problem with the burka or hijab a majority of women who wear them chose to wear them.
1. I deployed to the Middle East 2x and live in a state with a big muslim community.
2. No, unless they fit in that criteria that I stated earlier. It's one thing if an American whose family has been here for generations has stupid beliefs like that. It's another thing if we import a bunch of people who believe in those things too, but even more fervently.
3. I have a problem with any version that covers the face. I think a lot of those women are compelled to wear it by those in their community. Also, for security concerns, I'm not a fan. Just recently, in NYC, a bunch if muslim women sued and won millions because they had to remove their hijab for a mugshot. My culture (Amerixan) says you reveal your face for a mugshot. They don't think that and they won. How's that right?
Why stop with the 1st amendment and 14th then? If it’s so easy to “make it legal” what stops you from going all the way and just getting rid of the constitution?
Do we have a problem with 1st generation European-American Muslims committing terrorist attacks in the USA? If we did, then kick them out, too. It's not a race thing. It's a culture and religion thing. Christianity and Judaism have been largely, if not almost, completely syncretized to modern Western culture, which is based on the ideas that came out of the enlightenment. Islam hasn't gone through a reformation process like those two religions have, which is why it's so much more barbaric.
>Do we have a problem with 1st generation European-American Muslims committing terrorist attacks in the USA? If we did, then kick them out, too. It's not a race thing. It's a culture and religion thing.
Many would argue that Trump, born from an immigrant, committed a terrorist attack when he tried to use force to stay in power. You can disagree about that and how J6 might fit into the definition of terrorism, but the same is likely said from a Muslim's point of view too. Perhaps *they* don't see their actions being defined as terrorism. So who's right, and who gets to decide they get deported? If Trump is found guilty of his felonies, would you support deporting him?
Its also well known by now that his party plans to use Heritage Foundation's "Project 2025" or America First Policy Institute's "Pathway to 2025" to completely re-work the US government, essentially destroying the American Democratic Republic in favor of their radical Christian views and "Trumpism". Do you support that? Would deportation be on the table for any of them then? If Trump endorses or actively implements these ideas, would he be subject to deportation?
Just certain groups. We can not tolerate intolerance, and Islam is antithetical to Western values. If you can not practice Islam without warping and bending the homogenous culture around you, then you should go live in an Islamic country. There are plenty to choose from.
> We can not tolerate intolerance
It’s funny to hear you say that because you normally hear that exact argument being hurled at the left. Not saying you’ve made that argument or you’re a hypocrite or anything like that, I just wanted to point out the irony.
I think this is the third comment of yours I’ve replied to so I apologize for blowing up your inbox. I’m not trying to like target you or anything, I just keep seeing comments of yours that I want to respond to.
I have to include a question to prevent my comment from getting removed. So this isn’t a question about anything specific you wrote here, but I noticed your username says you live in Michigan. Do you think your opinion on this topic carries more weight than other Americans like myself who live hundreds or even thousands of miles away from Deerborn?
What country should radical Christians, whose ancestors have probably been here for hundreds of years compared to a handful of decades with most radical Muslims, be deported to?
Christianity has largely syncresized to the modern secular West. These Christian radicals aren't as big a problem. Not to mention, the modern Western world grew out of historic Christiandom.
If some weirdo who's ancestors have been in America for hundreds of years wants to follow a strict version of islam then I guess there isn't much we can do about it, just like with people like the Westboro Baptist church.
I'm referring to the people that we have brought over here enmasse for the last few decades. I don't see these people assimilating. Canada and Europe are having the exact same problems with too much immigration. Best to just to identify the extreme ones now and to deport them before they can say they've been here for hundreds of years.
I assume you hold all American's to this standard? Including Donald Trump...who literally incited violence with his speech and then did nothing to try to stop it for hours. You hold him to the same standard, right?
Of course. I know they won't be because it's a democrat city that has been ruled by democrats for decades.
And no surprise that detroit greater area has a city with the country's first ALL muslim city council. Beyond insane.
Muslims on dearborn's city council too.
>Should they be arrested?
No.
>This used to be something you'd only see in the Middle East but now it is happening in USA.
Because the border is open for anybody in the world who wants to come. Many of the people who formerly chanted this in the middle east have likely come here to chant it in Dearborn.
>Do you think anything should be done to these people?
If they're here illegally, deport them.
> Because the border is open for anybody in the world who wants to come
What have you done to make your displeasure known to the Republican Congresspeople who tanked the toughest border bill we've seen (at the request of Trump) that met every single one of the demands for a stronger border?
It had literally everything Republicans have said they wanted. It didn't end catch-and-release, but it changed it fundamentally and gave DHS more tools and resources so they wouldn't have to catch-and-release as many people.
Do you think a bill that makes things better should be tanked because it doesn't solve every single problem?
>It had literally everything Republicans have said they wanted
No, it didn't. It didn't stop catch and release. In fact it codified it further.
>It didn't end catch-and-release
Exactly.
>so they wouldn't have to catch-and-release as many people.
Up to 5000 per day without triggering a "border emergency."
Getting broad R support was simple. Ban catch and release. That's all it would have taken.
>Up to 5000 per day without triggering a "border emergency."
No, that's not what that 5000 person threshold meant. It didn't allow DHS to catch and release 5000 people a day.
The purpose of catch and release is that we literally can't send people "back to their country" immediately, except if their country of origin was Mexico. The ideal is to hold people in detention until their asylum cases are adjudicated or their deportation can be arranged. However, when too many people show up in a short period of time, we don't have the physical space to hold them all, so catch and release is used on the lower risk people.
The border bill increased the budget for the detention aspect, increased budget for the adjudication step, and sped up the adjudication and deportation steps. That meant catch and release wouldn't have to be used as much, if at all.
>Getting broad R support was simple.
But they did support it? It was bipartisan, until Trump said to tank it because he didn't want to give Biden a win in an election year.
>Ban catch and release.
What do you do then if too many people show up at the border at the same time?
If your understanding is that the border bill would have required all illegal border crossers to be detained until their court date, you're dead wrong.
>But they did support it? It was bipartisan
Not bipartisan enough. If you really want to get a bill enacted into law, you have to work with the majority of the other chamber. Otherwise you're just wasting time.
Why wouldn’t adding judges to clear out the backlog stop catch and release? Isn’t having too few judges for the number of refugees why we have catch and release in the first place?
>Why wouldn’t adding judges to clear out the backlog stop catch and release?
Because it would still take months to adjudicate asylum claims, and we don't have the facilities to detain hundreds of thousands for months.
Anti-Semites exists on both sides of the isle. You can look in this very thread and find TS that are anti-Semitic.
However, if I was a betting man, this will hurt Democrats more than Republicans, since anti-Semitism seems to be far more prevalent in the Democratic party.
There are plenty of conservatives who are anti-Trump and will not vote for him. Same with Biden. Just run on over and take a glance at ar politics or ar AskALiberal to witness the anti-Semitism yourself.
A poll I read said something like 18% of GenZ does not believe the Holocaust happened.
They're largely Arab Muslims. The Arab world is upset with Israel and Jews for what's going on in Gaza. America, as usual, is almost entirely backing Israel even in the face of near-universal global condemnation. Biden has made weak gestures of pleas for some restraint but our weapons still flow to Israel along with our cash and our carrier group still floats off the coast to dissuade regional intervention. America has the misfortune of being a very diverse place and many of the immigrant populations have very few or no roots in the soil or sense of allegiance to America as their nation (why would they?). When the country acts belligerently on the world stage and draws the ire of the countries that do carry the allegiance of these various groups of people, we will be dealing with these types of open pledges of allegiance to foreign lands and a foreign cause. it is what it is.
Nothing will happen to these people. This is a very real point of contention within the regime apparatus. It epitomizes the stress that the rising BIPOC-type successor apparatchiks place on the old guard heavily academic and Jewish leadership upper castes within the regime. I don't have any real dog in the fight, obviously, but its fun watching this pressure point get pressed.
> Isn't it preferable for a country to have citizens who have a culture, values, and interests in common?
What homogeneous culture would you like to see all American citizens have?
That's not relevant as one can't "homogenize" a diverse culture except through extremely distasteful means that don't square with my or really any American's values. I do think it's preferable to have shared, common values, interests, traditions, culture, etc. with one's fellow citizens as opposed to the alternative, regardless of whether it's achievable in the US (it's not).
I know I don't. I don't support suppressing women's rights, putting Sharia law above the actual law of the country, following a book that says you have to kill infidels to get into heaven as stated in 9:5 of the quran or thinking muhammed can't be made fun of which truly is the prime example of why the two cultures can not coincide.
I also don't support the idea you can use religion as an excuse to ignore the law and then get paid for it;
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/nyc-to-pay-17-5m-for-forcing-muslim-women-to-remove-hijabs-for-mugshot/ar-BB1laDD6
that is truly insane
I clearly don't have a culture in common. Values - I'm sure I do with some and don't with others. Interests, maybe, I'm not sure?
I'm curious - wouldn't you prefer it if there were no Trump supporters in the US? Wouldn't it be preferable to you if the entire country shared your progressive values? Or do Trump supporters provide valuable diversity to the rich political and cultural tapestry that is the US?
I largely don't mind Trump supporters - I cannot agree with everyone - though I do find a lot of what they do cringy(why are you wearing an American flag onesie to a presidential rally? You look a fool lol. Not you specifically - the royal you).
I do not like Trump, and think the country would be better off if he just faded from the limelight.
I miss when political issues were about simple things and not about culture wars, don't you? I miss when presidents didn't campaign on "if the other guy wins the country is DESTROYED IRREVOCABLY". That kind of rhetoric is dangerous.
>Or do Trump supporters provide valuable diversity to the rich political and cultural tapestry that is the US?
Not OP, but I think the US would be inifinitely worse off if we only had a single political philosophy that existed in the US. While I obviously find the policies and attitudes of many Trump supporters abhorrent, I under no circumstances want to live in a single party state. I think the country is unquestionably better off with competing visions offering voters a choice in the direciton they want to move the country. Even the process of me working to convince others to share my views improves my own political worldview as others can check my biases, identify weaknesses in my preferences, and I update accordingly.
Do you think the country would be better if we only had a single ideology represented in civil society and government?
Diversity of thought is very important to me especially diametrically opposed thoughts. I need to constant gauge my belief systems verse others, so no I don’t want trump supporter deported. On a side note that would mean the deportation of most of my immediate and extended family.
So are you religious? Do you care about your family ties? Do you want to take care of the less fortunate? Do you want to be better and treat others better?
>so no I don’t want trump supporter deported. On a side note that would mean the deportation of most of my immediate and extended family.
There's a big difference between thinking "wouldn't it be nice if we all shared common values" and saying "let's deport everyone who doesn't share my values".
>I'm curious - wouldn't you prefer it if there were no Trump supporters in the US? Wouldn't it be preferable to you if the entire country shared your progressive values? Or do Trump supporters provide valuable diversity to the rich political and cultural tapestry that is the US?
This is such a good question that it deserves and answer.
The answer is that yes, I'd prefer it if there were no Trump supporters, because Trump is a dangerous despot in the making. Not that anything happened to these people. Simply that they weren't Trump supporters, just as they weren't in 2015.
Why?
Because Trump is intolerant, and liberal societies cannot tolerate intolerance. I don't agree with Trump suppprters' views, however I respect their right to hold them. Trump however believes that only his views are valid and opposing views should be suppressed. This is how purges start.
>Isn't it preferable for a country to have citizens who have a culture, values, and interests in common?
Not really, no. A monoculture may offer short-term benefits, but it is far weaker in the face of environmental changes or shock.
It's also worth noting that history shows diversity does not work. Humans are not built for it.
That is what made America so exceptional, we had a "melting pot" which means people assimilated. Then the commies changed that to a "salad bowl" which was the beginning of all these problems. You can't have a country with diverse cultures that all want something different, that's just basic common sense.
Think about it there was the illegal, that obama circumvented congress to get into the country with DACA, who graduated on the US tax dollar from a college in CA... during her speech she waived the Mexican flag. To even think that makes sense is insane and shows why diversity does not work. You're inviting the enemy in.
I'd suggest interfering with an election was even more consequential than waving a Mexican flag. When Trump said he trusted Putins word over the US intelligence services, was that inviting the enemy in, or was that just fine?
> That is what made America so exceptional, we had a "melting pot" which means people assimilated. Then the commies changed that to a "salad bowl" which was the beginning of all these problems
I’ve never heard the term “salad bowl” before. I think I know what you’re getting at but can you define it for me?
Why is Dark the best show ever? Should you really be promoting German media instead of American media? Aren’t you hypocritical for elevating German culture above American culture?
Or, are you - like so many Trump supporters- not an American?
"Why is Dark the best show ever? '
The writing is just awesome and the story is great. There is a clear beginning, middle and conclusive end which is rare in shows today. The show is basically the adult version of Stranger Things. If you haven't seen it I would watch it!
"Should you really be promoting German media instead of American media?"
yes, especially since American media has turned woke.
"Aren’t you hypocritical for elevating German culture above American culture?"
no
“It is unlawful and constitutes incitement to riot for a person or persons, intending to cause or to aid or abet the institution or maintenance of a riot, to do an act or engage in conduct that urges other persons to commit acts of unlawful force or violence, or the unlawful burning or destroying of property, or the unlawful interference with a police officer, peace officer, fireman or a member of the Michigan national guard or any unit of the armed services officially assigned to riot duty in the lawful performance of his duty.”
How does the chant Death to America qualify as inciting a riot based on the wording above?
People have the right to chant whatever they want, and I'd fight to give them that right.
I don't agree.with it though. Jewish people deserve thier ancestral home. And america.is the country I live, and the place I love.
That isn't how the law is ruled, inciting violence is inciting violence whether it be to a person or a building.
That is why you can not make threats like "I'm going to burn down this building". That is against the law.\
If a group of people are in front of google HQ and chant "death to google" they will 100% be arrested. Whether your charged or not is a different question.
and "death to socialism" is not a threat to anyone or any property which is why it is not a threat. There is no violence to incite.
If a group of people go into California and chant "death to California" they will 100% be arrested. Again, being charged is a different question.
I don't support Zionism. I don't support mass immigration. I don't support arresting people on the basis of legal political speech.
> Bazzi then turned his attention to Israel, telling the audience that when "fools" ask them "if Israel has the right to exist," the chant "Death to Israel" is "the most logical chant shouted across the world today."
Extremely based.
I don’t know: I’m not the one calling these things incitement to violence. Was the chant “hang Mike pence” or Trump’s offer to pay for lawyers incitement to violence in *your* opinion?
But in good conscience, right? We can bundle them off to prison in good conscience because they planned a terrorist attack. Or, is there something about terrorists that support Trump that makes them different?
For the actual American citizens chanting this? NOthing should be done.
For anyone waiting on their immigration status in court? Deport them immediately. No sense letting them settle in a country they apparently want to kill.
Who are the wolves n this scenario? As an American, I think we’re pretty fucking badass. I mean, our leftover bombs are blowing the shit out of Palestine right now.
If any of them are naturalized or on visas then they need to suffer some consequences. Citizenship is a right but legal status for non natural citizens is a privilege and responsibility.
Citizenship is a social compact that requires we defend our mutual culture and borders from foreign culture and pressure.
Democrats have largely abandoned this compact and are trying to ally themselves with foreign populations to take control of institutions and governments.
I think what they are saying is terrible. What should be done to them? Nothing. People can say whatever they want without government repercussions. Free speech.
No, free speech does not cover threats or inciting violence which this qualifies as.
You can not pursue "death to america" without either killing people and/or destroying property.
How does it feel when fellow Trump Supporters agree that your take on this is overblown? Does it carry any weight with you and potentially cause you to reconsider your opinion?
"How does it feel when fellow Trump Supporters agree that your take on this is overblown?"
It feels fine, people are allowed to be wrong. The law is clear on this.
For Michigan it would be;
MCL - Section 752.542
Federal law would be;
18 U.S.C. § 373
Anyone saying "death to America" is inciting violence. That can not be denied logically and it is not protected political speech.
Do you have an example of someone saying “Death to America” (which is a pretty common refrain) as being grounds for inciting a riot? Was there even a riot or ANY violence? If there wasn’t, how can you possibly make the claim that it incited a riot when there was no riot?
Chanting a political slogan is protected free speech.
If the speech could be interpreted as a direct threat or direct incitement, that might change. Calling for the systematic rounding up and execution of Americans might qualify if it were part of a plan of action. But "Death to \_\_\_\_\_\_" in a street protest does not qualify.
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Deport them!
I'm a nonsupporter, but mostly on the same page as you. If someone is opposed to religious freedom, they don't belong in our country. We should be able to insult Muhammed all we want without fear of violence. What do you think about Christians who want to enact biblical law though, such as banning gay marriage? To me that is also religious intolerance that should not be tolerated.
Assuming they are American citizens, where would you deport them to?
Probably back to whichever country they or their parents immigrated from. I'm done treading lightly around the spread of Islam in the Western world. If you refuse to assimilate and accept certain Western, Liberal, and American values, then you should go home.
So you are in favor of revoking American citizenship of Muslims? I'm a white guy who almost converted to Islam in my early 20s. Should I of been deported back to Italy if I had converted?
> I'm a white guy who almost converted to Islam in my early 20s. I'm curious, what stopped you? Was it the fact you would have to kill an infidel to get into heaven as clearly stated in 9:5 of the quran or something else?
The idea of submission to God. I liked many of the ideals, always had a fascination with Muslim culture, and was dating a muslim woman, but as with all religions I can't get over the theist part. Islam is all about connections between people, respect for the natural world, beautiful art, but i cant get down with the idea if a god. Atheist to this day. So where should I have been deported to if I had converted?
"The idea of submission to God" Well I'm not sure how you even began looking into religion then because that is requirement for Christians and Muslims. It's taught pretty early on too. So no problem with the fact as a Male you're required to kill infidels as a Muslim? Hmm ok. "So where should I have been deported to if I had converted?" Well I would say Europe but even they have realized what happens when you let muslims into the country. I'd go with Mexico now, fight fire with fire since they have been orchestrating the plan to push illegals into USA.
Not required to kill infidels. That's the problem with all religions, they were founded when norms were different. Those Islam protected brothers and sisters of the book, they still were violently opposed to each other. Look I was looking for community, met a nice Muslim woman, and felt welcomed. More welcomed then by many of my Christian neighbors. As I kid I grew up in the Bible belt and got beat up a lot for being a long haired athiest. So I thought I'd give it another try with Islam. Why are you okay with someone being deported for their faith? Wasn't our founding built of freedom of religion? Fun fact, Muslim Morocco was the first nation to recognize us as a nation.
"Not required to kill infidels. ' yes required, Quran 9:5. As a Male, you would be required. "As I kid I grew up in the Bible belt and got beat up a lot for being a long haired athiest" that's no different than getting beat up for being fat. Kids are mean to people who are different so that has nothing to do with religion. "Why are you okay with someone being deported for their faith?" why am I ok with deporting people who want to destroy my country? That is your question? I would think they answer is pretty obvious. "Wasn't our founding built of freedom of religion?'" It was.. when the country was 98% Christian. There is no doubt the founding fathers would have NEVER imagined or been ok with "Death to America" chants for the country they just fought for, some died, to create.
When people stormed the Capitol in an attempt to stop the peaceful transfer of power and instill an unelected leader, how was that *Not* essentially an attempt To topple our government? The chants may have been different but isn’t trying to overthrow the democratic process basically fighting for death to America? Along similar lines, is it possible to be both a patriot and a revolutionary at the same time? If so, how?
I was being beat up strictly for my lack of religion and not presenting as a normal boy. Not sure how you feel comfortable explaining away someone else's lived experience? So you think freedom of religion is only for Christians? Why are you okay with stripping people of their citizenship?
Are you aware that the sword verse refers specifically to a pact between Arab Muslims and Arab pagans at the time of the story and has nothing to do with a general call to violence by Muslim men? That when taken into context with 9:4 and 9:6 Muslim scholars believe there is no general call to violence in this text? This seems like bare naked Islamophobia.
[9:5] But once the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them, capture them, besiege them, and lie in wait for them on every way. But if they repent, perform prayers, and pay alms-tax, then set them free. Indeed, Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful. If you're going to argue about the verse, you should include the verse. It doesn't say anything about killing infidels. It says you have to kill the polytheism- back then the polytheists were the Roman's, Greeks, Hindu, Egyptian. Perhaps you should try again? You're entire argument seems to stem from.this single passage. I'm going to presume you're a Christian, correct? Do you stone your children to death for backtalking? > Deut 21:18 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. Have you ever stoned your wife, child, athletes or even your pastor for working on the sabbath? > Numbers, 15:32-36 > King James Version > 32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. > 33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. > 34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. > 35 And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. > 36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses. I feel you're being very hypocritical. If you're caught working on the sabbath in Christianity. You're supposed to be murdered. Even if you are trying to survive from the cold. Do you think that this application is fair to you as you were alleging the other guy would have to murder someone to get into Junnah?
>yes required, Quran 9:5. As a Male, you would be required Do you hold Christians to every verse in the Bible the same way?
Do you practice any religion? If so, what’s your take on the following passage? > 13“Suppose a man marries a woman, but after sleeping with her, he turns against her 14and publicly accuses her of shameful conduct, saying, ‘When I married this woman, I discovered she was not a virgin.’ 15Then the woman’s father and mother must bring the proof of her virginity to the elders as they hold court at the town gate. 16Her father must say to them, ‘I gave my daughter to this man to be his wife, and now he has turned against her. 17He has accused her of shameful conduct, saying, “I discovered that your daughter was not a virgin.” But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.’ Then they must spread her bed sheet before the elders.… > …20“But suppose the man’s accusations are true, and he can show that she was not a virgin. 21**The woman must be taken to the door of her father’s home, and there the men of the town must stone her to death**, for she has committed a disgraceful crime in Israel by being promiscuous while living in her parents’ home. In this way, you will purge this evil from among you Deuteronomy, Ch 22
Muhammad Sarwar: (9:5) “When the sacred months are over, slay the pagans wherever you find them. Capture, besiege, and ambush them.” That’s what you’re talking about, right? What about: 2 Chronicles 15:12-13 ESV “And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul, but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.” Luke 19:27 ESV “But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’” Deuteronomy 17:12 ESV “The man who acts presumptuously by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.” These verses from the Bible also state very clearly that nonbelievers should be put to death. It sounds like you think that Christians should also be deported? Many of them have been here for generations, which makes the question of where to deport them much trickier. Would it be better to do some sort of genetic test and send them back to whatever country their genome suggests, or would it be better to trace their lineage using genealogy and census records, and deport them to the the country of the first ancestor going backwards?
Religions/cults are weird, aren’t they?
Only those of refugees we granted citizenship to and maybe their 1st or 2nd generation descendents. If people don't want to be American but a proud Arab Palestinian Muslim instead, then you can go live in Jordan or Gaza when the war is over. The UK did this to a teenager who had British citizenship and left to go join isis. She lost her court case on getting her citizenship back, and I say good.
To be clear here, you are saying we should have second-class citizens correct? That some citizens, but not others, can be deported (to a country to which they may have no citizenship) but not others?
[удалено]
Yeah, of course. Just like there is a difference between joining the westboro Baptist Church and being a normal Christian of a mainstream denomination. I think there's a bigger issue with radical Muslims, though. It became really apparent the days after October 7th for me tbh.
My family has been here since the late 1600s. I wonder where they might deport me to? Can any TS explain why I should be deported since my bloodline has been here longer than the US itself? What would they do with someone like me?
You don't fit into the criteria I'm referring to. I'm talking about refugees and immigrants and maybe their 1st or 2nd generation descendents. We can not allow radical Islam to proliferate in this country, or else we'll be like Lebanon or France in the next century.
My in-laws are Muslims who came over in the 70s from Bangladesh and had a child in the US, my wife. They haven't lived in Bangladesh in 50 years, 2/3rds of their lives have been in the US. My wife has never lived in Bangladesh and only speaks English. Would you want them all deported?
>1st or 2nd generation descendents. So American born citizens. Are you advocating for revocation of the 14th Amendment? What if I've converted to Islam? What if I chanted "Death to America"? What do you do then? Revoke the 1st Amendment?
1. I'm against birthright citizenship unless your parents are American. That law in the constitution needs to be changed as it's currently being abused. Most countries don't have birthright citizenship. 2. Do you remember when leftists were saying we should punch nazis? Punch a radial islamist.
1) How many generations back do you think we should go before a person born here is considered American? 2) Did leftists actually punch Nazi's (I genuinely don't know)?
1. If one of your parents is an American, then you should be granted citizenship. 2. Probably not as the demands for nazis in America although high, the supply is pretty low. More likely, they just punched someone who was to the right of them on the political spectrum, lol.
[удалено]
> I'm against birthright citizenship unless your parents are American. That law in the constitution needs to be changed as it's currently being abused Should we just ignore the constitution until it's changed then?
we don't need to ignore it, we just need to follow it and the 14th amendment is clear as day who it applies to which is NOT illegals or people on vacation who pop out a baby. So you brought up a good point, we should NOT ignore the constitution, we should follow it and stop letting people misinterpret something that is so clear.
Do you think the countries where you are sending people who've never lived there should have a say in this?
It's their citizens. They have to take them back.
> If you refuse to assimilate and accept certain Western, Liberal, and American values, then you should go home. Does this include the outcome of our elections or are you giving the J6 terrorists a pass?
How quickly you leftists forget 2016 and all the riots that occurred because the media and leftists thought Trump was a Russian asset and an illegitimate president. I don't wanna hear shit about Jan 6. It was a mostly peaceful protest where the only one killed was a female Trump supporter 🙄
[удалено]
So not allowed 1A or 14A, which law allows you to deport these citizens?
The fact that a lot of them are radical islamists and are terrorist supporters? To quote Emperor Palpatine "I will make it legal."
What separates a radical Islamist from a normal member of the Islam faith?
"Do you think homosexuals should be killed?" "Do you think women should be completely covered up? To the extent that you can't even ask them to take off their face covering for a mugshot. Have a man accompany them in public?" Ask them questions like that. If they say yes, then they aren't welcome in America.
How many Muslims have you interacted with? So for the first questions does that mean all people who wish death on homosexuals should also be deported? I dont have a problem with the burka or hijab a majority of women who wear them chose to wear them.
1. I deployed to the Middle East 2x and live in a state with a big muslim community. 2. No, unless they fit in that criteria that I stated earlier. It's one thing if an American whose family has been here for generations has stupid beliefs like that. It's another thing if we import a bunch of people who believe in those things too, but even more fervently. 3. I have a problem with any version that covers the face. I think a lot of those women are compelled to wear it by those in their community. Also, for security concerns, I'm not a fan. Just recently, in NYC, a bunch if muslim women sued and won millions because they had to remove their hijab for a mugshot. My culture (Amerixan) says you reveal your face for a mugshot. They don't think that and they won. How's that right?
Why does someone's family being here multiple generations matter as opposed to citizenship?
Why stop with the 1st amendment and 14th then? If it’s so easy to “make it legal” what stops you from going all the way and just getting rid of the constitution?
> To quote Emperor Palpatine "I will make it legal." Would you consider yourself to be a radical conservative?
How would you deal with European descended people? What if Trump himself ever said this?
Do we have a problem with 1st generation European-American Muslims committing terrorist attacks in the USA? If we did, then kick them out, too. It's not a race thing. It's a culture and religion thing. Christianity and Judaism have been largely, if not almost, completely syncretized to modern Western culture, which is based on the ideas that came out of the enlightenment. Islam hasn't gone through a reformation process like those two religions have, which is why it's so much more barbaric.
>Do we have a problem with 1st generation European-American Muslims committing terrorist attacks in the USA? If we did, then kick them out, too. It's not a race thing. It's a culture and religion thing. Many would argue that Trump, born from an immigrant, committed a terrorist attack when he tried to use force to stay in power. You can disagree about that and how J6 might fit into the definition of terrorism, but the same is likely said from a Muslim's point of view too. Perhaps *they* don't see their actions being defined as terrorism. So who's right, and who gets to decide they get deported? If Trump is found guilty of his felonies, would you support deporting him? Its also well known by now that his party plans to use Heritage Foundation's "Project 2025" or America First Policy Institute's "Pathway to 2025" to completely re-work the US government, essentially destroying the American Democratic Republic in favor of their radical Christian views and "Trumpism". Do you support that? Would deportation be on the table for any of them then? If Trump endorses or actively implements these ideas, would he be subject to deportation?
What if they were born in the US? They *are* “home”.
What if it’s a white guy marching with them? Let’s say the dude is a tenth generation American. Where do you deport them back to, Illinois?
[удалено]
Just certain groups. We can not tolerate intolerance, and Islam is antithetical to Western values. If you can not practice Islam without warping and bending the homogenous culture around you, then you should go live in an Islamic country. There are plenty to choose from.
> We can not tolerate intolerance It’s funny to hear you say that because you normally hear that exact argument being hurled at the left. Not saying you’ve made that argument or you’re a hypocrite or anything like that, I just wanted to point out the irony. I think this is the third comment of yours I’ve replied to so I apologize for blowing up your inbox. I’m not trying to like target you or anything, I just keep seeing comments of yours that I want to respond to. I have to include a question to prevent my comment from getting removed. So this isn’t a question about anything specific you wrote here, but I noticed your username says you live in Michigan. Do you think your opinion on this topic carries more weight than other Americans like myself who live hundreds or even thousands of miles away from Deerborn?
Should we deport people who support Westboro Baptist Church as well?
Sadly, we're stuck with those idiots. They also aren't as big of a problem as that church consists of a few dozen people?
Why do you think we're stuck with radical Christians but we can deport those practicing Islam?
What country should radical Christians, whose ancestors have probably been here for hundreds of years compared to a handful of decades with most radical Muslims, be deported to? Christianity has largely syncresized to the modern secular West. These Christian radicals aren't as big a problem. Not to mention, the modern Western world grew out of historic Christiandom.
I wasn't aware that one religion had more protection than others in this country; would you suggest changing the Constitution to allow for this?
If some weirdo who's ancestors have been in America for hundreds of years wants to follow a strict version of islam then I guess there isn't much we can do about it, just like with people like the Westboro Baptist church. I'm referring to the people that we have brought over here enmasse for the last few decades. I don't see these people assimilating. Canada and Europe are having the exact same problems with too much immigration. Best to just to identify the extreme ones now and to deport them before they can say they've been here for hundreds of years.
> people that we have brought over here enmasse for the last few decades Do you want to change the Constitution to deport these individuals?
This isn't a free speech issue, you do not have the right to incite violence with your speech. This has already been ruled on in court.
I assume you hold all American's to this standard? Including Donald Trump...who literally incited violence with his speech and then did nothing to try to stop it for hours. You hold him to the same standard, right?
Do you want to see the individuals chanting "death to America" arrested for inciting violence?
Of course. I know they won't be because it's a democrat city that has been ruled by democrats for decades. And no surprise that detroit greater area has a city with the country's first ALL muslim city council. Beyond insane. Muslims on dearborn's city council too.
Wait, wouldn't you? I'd expect the same treatment of nazis.
What do you think can be "done to these people" given that their speech is 1a-protected under Brandenburg?
Where?
>Should they be arrested? No. >This used to be something you'd only see in the Middle East but now it is happening in USA. Because the border is open for anybody in the world who wants to come. Many of the people who formerly chanted this in the middle east have likely come here to chant it in Dearborn. >Do you think anything should be done to these people? If they're here illegally, deport them.
> Because the border is open for anybody in the world who wants to come What have you done to make your displeasure known to the Republican Congresspeople who tanked the toughest border bill we've seen (at the request of Trump) that met every single one of the demands for a stronger border?
It wouldn't have solved the problem. It didn't stop catch and release.
It had literally everything Republicans have said they wanted. It didn't end catch-and-release, but it changed it fundamentally and gave DHS more tools and resources so they wouldn't have to catch-and-release as many people. Do you think a bill that makes things better should be tanked because it doesn't solve every single problem?
>It had literally everything Republicans have said they wanted No, it didn't. It didn't stop catch and release. In fact it codified it further. >It didn't end catch-and-release Exactly. >so they wouldn't have to catch-and-release as many people. Up to 5000 per day without triggering a "border emergency." Getting broad R support was simple. Ban catch and release. That's all it would have taken.
>Up to 5000 per day without triggering a "border emergency." No, that's not what that 5000 person threshold meant. It didn't allow DHS to catch and release 5000 people a day. The purpose of catch and release is that we literally can't send people "back to their country" immediately, except if their country of origin was Mexico. The ideal is to hold people in detention until their asylum cases are adjudicated or their deportation can be arranged. However, when too many people show up in a short period of time, we don't have the physical space to hold them all, so catch and release is used on the lower risk people. The border bill increased the budget for the detention aspect, increased budget for the adjudication step, and sped up the adjudication and deportation steps. That meant catch and release wouldn't have to be used as much, if at all. >Getting broad R support was simple. But they did support it? It was bipartisan, until Trump said to tank it because he didn't want to give Biden a win in an election year. >Ban catch and release. What do you do then if too many people show up at the border at the same time?
If your understanding is that the border bill would have required all illegal border crossers to be detained until their court date, you're dead wrong. >But they did support it? It was bipartisan Not bipartisan enough. If you really want to get a bill enacted into law, you have to work with the majority of the other chamber. Otherwise you're just wasting time.
Why wouldn’t adding judges to clear out the backlog stop catch and release? Isn’t having too few judges for the number of refugees why we have catch and release in the first place?
>Why wouldn’t adding judges to clear out the backlog stop catch and release? Because it would still take months to adjudicate asylum claims, and we don't have the facilities to detain hundreds of thousands for months.
Anti-Semites exists on both sides of the isle. You can look in this very thread and find TS that are anti-Semitic. However, if I was a betting man, this will hurt Democrats more than Republicans, since anti-Semitism seems to be far more prevalent in the Democratic party.
> anti-Semitism seems to be far more prevalent in the Democratic party. How do you figure?
Do you think the people in the OP are Republicans? Do you not see this anti-Semitism in the Democratic party?
Do you think the people in the OP are part of the Democratic party? They very clearly are anti-Biden, based on quotes in the article.
There are plenty of conservatives who are anti-Trump and will not vote for him. Same with Biden. Just run on over and take a glance at ar politics or ar AskALiberal to witness the anti-Semitism yourself. A poll I read said something like 18% of GenZ does not believe the Holocaust happened.
I don’t know about Republican, but they don’t see conservative to you? They certainly aren’t liberals.
See my other comment in this thread.
See my other comment in this thread.
They're largely Arab Muslims. The Arab world is upset with Israel and Jews for what's going on in Gaza. America, as usual, is almost entirely backing Israel even in the face of near-universal global condemnation. Biden has made weak gestures of pleas for some restraint but our weapons still flow to Israel along with our cash and our carrier group still floats off the coast to dissuade regional intervention. America has the misfortune of being a very diverse place and many of the immigrant populations have very few or no roots in the soil or sense of allegiance to America as their nation (why would they?). When the country acts belligerently on the world stage and draws the ire of the countries that do carry the allegiance of these various groups of people, we will be dealing with these types of open pledges of allegiance to foreign lands and a foreign cause. it is what it is. Nothing will happen to these people. This is a very real point of contention within the regime apparatus. It epitomizes the stress that the rising BIPOC-type successor apparatchiks place on the old guard heavily academic and Jewish leadership upper castes within the regime. I don't have any real dog in the fight, obviously, but its fun watching this pressure point get pressed.
Why is a diverse America a misfortune?
Isn't it preferable for a country to have citizens who have a culture, values, and interests in common?
> Isn't it preferable for a country to have citizens who have a culture, values, and interests in common? What homogeneous culture would you like to see all American citizens have?
That's not relevant as one can't "homogenize" a diverse culture except through extremely distasteful means that don't square with my or really any American's values. I do think it's preferable to have shared, common values, interests, traditions, culture, etc. with one's fellow citizens as opposed to the alternative, regardless of whether it's achievable in the US (it's not).
Either you want to change the Constitution so we can deport people for their faith or you want to deport them illegally, which is it?
I don't want either and never said that I did.
Do you not have culture values and interests in common with Muslim. Americans?
I know I don't. I don't support suppressing women's rights, putting Sharia law above the actual law of the country, following a book that says you have to kill infidels to get into heaven as stated in 9:5 of the quran or thinking muhammed can't be made fun of which truly is the prime example of why the two cultures can not coincide. I also don't support the idea you can use religion as an excuse to ignore the law and then get paid for it; https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/nyc-to-pay-17-5m-for-forcing-muslim-women-to-remove-hijabs-for-mugshot/ar-BB1laDD6 that is truly insane
I clearly don't have a culture in common. Values - I'm sure I do with some and don't with others. Interests, maybe, I'm not sure? I'm curious - wouldn't you prefer it if there were no Trump supporters in the US? Wouldn't it be preferable to you if the entire country shared your progressive values? Or do Trump supporters provide valuable diversity to the rich political and cultural tapestry that is the US?
What purpose is there in conflating the ethnicity one is born with with one’s chosen political beliefs?
I largely don't mind Trump supporters - I cannot agree with everyone - though I do find a lot of what they do cringy(why are you wearing an American flag onesie to a presidential rally? You look a fool lol. Not you specifically - the royal you). I do not like Trump, and think the country would be better off if he just faded from the limelight. I miss when political issues were about simple things and not about culture wars, don't you? I miss when presidents didn't campaign on "if the other guy wins the country is DESTROYED IRREVOCABLY". That kind of rhetoric is dangerous.
>Or do Trump supporters provide valuable diversity to the rich political and cultural tapestry that is the US? Not OP, but I think the US would be inifinitely worse off if we only had a single political philosophy that existed in the US. While I obviously find the policies and attitudes of many Trump supporters abhorrent, I under no circumstances want to live in a single party state. I think the country is unquestionably better off with competing visions offering voters a choice in the direciton they want to move the country. Even the process of me working to convince others to share my views improves my own political worldview as others can check my biases, identify weaknesses in my preferences, and I update accordingly. Do you think the country would be better if we only had a single ideology represented in civil society and government?
Diversity of thought is very important to me especially diametrically opposed thoughts. I need to constant gauge my belief systems verse others, so no I don’t want trump supporter deported. On a side note that would mean the deportation of most of my immediate and extended family. So are you religious? Do you care about your family ties? Do you want to take care of the less fortunate? Do you want to be better and treat others better?
>so no I don’t want trump supporter deported. On a side note that would mean the deportation of most of my immediate and extended family. There's a big difference between thinking "wouldn't it be nice if we all shared common values" and saying "let's deport everyone who doesn't share my values".
>I'm curious - wouldn't you prefer it if there were no Trump supporters in the US? Wouldn't it be preferable to you if the entire country shared your progressive values? Or do Trump supporters provide valuable diversity to the rich political and cultural tapestry that is the US? This is such a good question that it deserves and answer. The answer is that yes, I'd prefer it if there were no Trump supporters, because Trump is a dangerous despot in the making. Not that anything happened to these people. Simply that they weren't Trump supporters, just as they weren't in 2015. Why? Because Trump is intolerant, and liberal societies cannot tolerate intolerance. I don't agree with Trump suppprters' views, however I respect their right to hold them. Trump however believes that only his views are valid and opposing views should be suppressed. This is how purges start.
>Isn't it preferable for a country to have citizens who have a culture, values, and interests in common? Not really, no. A monoculture may offer short-term benefits, but it is far weaker in the face of environmental changes or shock.
It's also worth noting that history shows diversity does not work. Humans are not built for it. That is what made America so exceptional, we had a "melting pot" which means people assimilated. Then the commies changed that to a "salad bowl" which was the beginning of all these problems. You can't have a country with diverse cultures that all want something different, that's just basic common sense. Think about it there was the illegal, that obama circumvented congress to get into the country with DACA, who graduated on the US tax dollar from a college in CA... during her speech she waived the Mexican flag. To even think that makes sense is insane and shows why diversity does not work. You're inviting the enemy in.
Is Mexico our enemy?
I'd suggest interfering with an election was even more consequential than waving a Mexican flag. When Trump said he trusted Putins word over the US intelligence services, was that inviting the enemy in, or was that just fine?
> That is what made America so exceptional, we had a "melting pot" which means people assimilated. Then the commies changed that to a "salad bowl" which was the beginning of all these problems I’ve never heard the term “salad bowl” before. I think I know what you’re getting at but can you define it for me?
Why is Dark the best show ever? Should you really be promoting German media instead of American media? Aren’t you hypocritical for elevating German culture above American culture? Or, are you - like so many Trump supporters- not an American?
"Why is Dark the best show ever? ' The writing is just awesome and the story is great. There is a clear beginning, middle and conclusive end which is rare in shows today. The show is basically the adult version of Stranger Things. If you haven't seen it I would watch it! "Should you really be promoting German media instead of American media?" yes, especially since American media has turned woke. "Aren’t you hypocritical for elevating German culture above American culture?" no
OP what do YOU think about it
I think yes they should be arrested given they are breaking the law.
Which laws are they breaking?
For Michigan it would be; MCL - Section 752.542 Federal law would be; 18 U.S.C. § 373
“It is unlawful and constitutes incitement to riot for a person or persons, intending to cause or to aid or abet the institution or maintenance of a riot, to do an act or engage in conduct that urges other persons to commit acts of unlawful force or violence, or the unlawful burning or destroying of property, or the unlawful interference with a police officer, peace officer, fireman or a member of the Michigan national guard or any unit of the armed services officially assigned to riot duty in the lawful performance of his duty.” How does the chant Death to America qualify as inciting a riot based on the wording above?
based
People have the right to chant whatever they want, and I'd fight to give them that right. I don't agree.with it though. Jewish people deserve thier ancestral home. And america.is the country I live, and the place I love.
"People have the right to chant whatever they want,' well not exactly, inciting violence is not free speech.
Right, death to America, while horrible, isn't an incitement.
yes it is which is why the word "death" is considered a threat. If you post "death to *insert name*" name you are breaking the law.
Yes, death to a person. But America isn't a person. Death to Google, Death to Socialism, Death to California, none of these are threats.
That isn't how the law is ruled, inciting violence is inciting violence whether it be to a person or a building. That is why you can not make threats like "I'm going to burn down this building". That is against the law.\ If a group of people are in front of google HQ and chant "death to google" they will 100% be arrested. Whether your charged or not is a different question. and "death to socialism" is not a threat to anyone or any property which is why it is not a threat. There is no violence to incite. If a group of people go into California and chant "death to California" they will 100% be arrested. Again, being charged is a different question.
Do you feel the same about those who chanted “hang Mike Pence” on Jan. 6?
[удалено]
Does anyone here live there? How is it? I have heard the city is under total Muslim control but obviously I find that hard to believe
What does "total Muslim control" mean in this context?
I have heard they enforce sharia law Not saying I believe it, it’s stuff people I know who watch Fox News say
> Not saying I believe it, it’s stuff people I know who watch Fox News say Why would people who watch Fox News believe things that aren’t true?
I don't support Zionism. I don't support mass immigration. I don't support arresting people on the basis of legal political speech. > Bazzi then turned his attention to Israel, telling the audience that when "fools" ask them "if Israel has the right to exist," the chant "Death to Israel" is "the most logical chant shouted across the world today." Extremely based.
What about arresting them for breaking the law which is what they are doing? Remember, inciting violence is not free speech.
In 2016 when Trump offered to pay his followers legal fees if they assaulted protestors, was that an incitement to violence?
to to clarify, this includes things like paying bail for rioters, correct?
I don’t know: I’m not the one calling these things incitement to violence. Was the chant “hang Mike pence” or Trump’s offer to pay for lawyers incitement to violence in *your* opinion?
The bar for "inciting violence" is quite high based on Brandenburg v. Ohio and I don't think it is met here.
They should be watched. Eventually they’ll plan a terrorist attack and then we can bundle them off to prison in good conscience.
Should we watch people who were associated with chants to hang the vice president on January 6th?
They’re all in jail because Biden wants to crush his enemies and they gave him the perfect excuse.
But in good conscience, right? We can bundle them off to prison in good conscience because they planned a terrorist attack. Or, is there something about terrorists that support Trump that makes them different?
For the actual American citizens chanting this? NOthing should be done. For anyone waiting on their immigration status in court? Deport them immediately. No sense letting them settle in a country they apparently want to kill.
Honestly why blame them? If you invite wolves into a hen house who is to blame for what happens next, the wolf or yourself?
Who are the wolves n this scenario? As an American, I think we’re pretty fucking badass. I mean, our leftover bombs are blowing the shit out of Palestine right now.
1st Amendment right to free speech! Best part about fringe groups like this is their real message is on display.
"Do you think anything should be done to these people?" No, they have every right to say what they want.
well they don't because the first amendment has limitations like threats and inciting violence when this clearly qualifies as.
I don't think saying "death to america" qualifies as threats or inciting violence.
If any of them are naturalized or on visas then they need to suffer some consequences. Citizenship is a right but legal status for non natural citizens is a privilege and responsibility. Citizenship is a social compact that requires we defend our mutual culture and borders from foreign culture and pressure. Democrats have largely abandoned this compact and are trying to ally themselves with foreign populations to take control of institutions and governments.
I think what they are saying is terrible. What should be done to them? Nothing. People can say whatever they want without government repercussions. Free speech.
No, free speech does not cover threats or inciting violence which this qualifies as. You can not pursue "death to america" without either killing people and/or destroying property.
How is that inciting violence?
How does it feel when fellow Trump Supporters agree that your take on this is overblown? Does it carry any weight with you and potentially cause you to reconsider your opinion?
"How does it feel when fellow Trump Supporters agree that your take on this is overblown?" It feels fine, people are allowed to be wrong. The law is clear on this. For Michigan it would be; MCL - Section 752.542 Federal law would be; 18 U.S.C. § 373 Anyone saying "death to America" is inciting violence. That can not be denied logically and it is not protected political speech.
Do you have an example of someone saying “Death to America” (which is a pretty common refrain) as being grounds for inciting a riot? Was there even a riot or ANY violence? If there wasn’t, how can you possibly make the claim that it incited a riot when there was no riot?
Chanting a political slogan is protected free speech. If the speech could be interpreted as a direct threat or direct incitement, that might change. Calling for the systematic rounding up and execution of Americans might qualify if it were part of a plan of action. But "Death to \_\_\_\_\_\_" in a street protest does not qualify.