Hereno Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 (edited) americans have been content with regime changes, nuclear weapons, and wars content with exploiting other countries for our own benefit, and allying regimes with horrendous human rights records trump is often accused of being a nazi, or a fascist, and such. this thread is not to discuss that. what i'm asking is, would americans actually allow american citizens to be persecuted based on their religious beliefs? if so, to what extent? if a person identical to hitler were to come into office today, how far could they go with the consent of the american people? what about that of the international community? how far could they go before we actually did something about it? Edited March 13, 2016 by Hierophant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Von Dietrich Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Is this based on if Trump the bourgeois pig is elected, or just how he acts in general? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prezyan Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Are you an American? Because otherwise I could understand how you might think Americans are retarded. But if you are American, then you must be very negative outlook on your fellow Americans. Quote Psweet> pro-tip: don't listen to baronus if Prezyan disagrees with him 5:48 AM — +Eva-Beatrice sq**rts all over the walls Eva-Beatrice> I'd let Sintiya conquer me anyday x) 10:56 PM — +Eva-Beatrice m*st*rb*tes in front of Prezyan 12:13 AM — +Eva-Beatrice has no one to !@#$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Avalanche Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 americans have been content with regime changes, nuclear weapons, and wars content with exploiting other countries for our own benefit, and allying regimes with horrendous human rights records trump is often accused of being a nazi, or a fascist, and such. this thread is not to discuss that. what i'm asking is, would americans actually allow american citizens to be persecuted based on their religious beliefs? if so, to what extent? if a person identical to hitler were to come into office today, how far could they go with the consent of the american people? what about that of the international community? how far could they go before we actually did something about it? Are you talking political persecution or social persecution? Because social persecution still goes on to this day with many religious groups here in the US. Quote Beer. Damn Good Beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fistofdoom Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 persecute satanists, they're the devil Quote 01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine 01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port 01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you 01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Hawk Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 americans have been content with regime changes, nuclear weapons, and wars content with exploiting other countries for our own benefit, and allying regimes with horrendous human rights records Supplementing your questions with the above comments wasn't necessary. would americans actually allow american citizens to be persecuted based on their religious beliefs? To quote the First Amendment of the US Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. I don't know whether your first question referred to persecution at the hands of the US Government or persecution at the hands of a collective population of like-minded individuals, but if you were referring to the former: No, our elected officials would not act against the word of the current US Constitution under oath. If you were referring to the latter, "a collective population of like-minded individuals," one can not say how the more open-minded population would react. If they were a majority of the US population, they would likely be more vocal about their opposition to religious persecution; if they were a minority of the US population, they would be less vocal. It's not rocket science. if a person identical to hitler were to come into office today, how far could they go with the consent of the american people? what about that of the international community? The US Government has checks and balances. Again, it's not rocket science. The United States would be met with hostility by the international community if "Literally-Hitler" took office. If our new leader's rhetoric is extreme enough, it would provoke economic sanctions and isolation coordinated by many - allies and enemies alike. It's a good thing we have Mr. Trump to vote for rather than Mrs. Hillary "Literally-Hitler" Clinton. how far could they go before we actually did something about it? How far could who go with what? If you're talking about presidential policy, one president was nearly impeached for getting his dick sucked. trump is often accused of being a nazi, or a fascist, and such. this thread is not to discuss that. Yes it is. Trump 2016. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Are you an American? Because otherwise I could understand how you might think Americans are retarded. But if you are American, then you must be very negative outlook on your fellow Americans. Americans are pretty !@#$ing stupid. How else do you get Donald Trump leading in presidential polls anywhere? Our education system is pretty pathetic and it's pretty much absolute morons that vote for all of our politicians. What do you expect? 4 Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Hawk Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Americans are pretty !@#$ stupid. How else do you get Donald Trump leading in presidential polls anywhere? Populism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Americans would accept it based on who exactly was persecuted I'm sure. The liberal types would no doubt question it but such a president would easily quash them too as "sympathizers". As for the International community such a President would likely be friends with Putin who'd refer to him as the greatest American president ever who really should have unlimited terms. Europe being the spineless cowards they are will bow down to their new overlord and start attacking those the President is attacking also (e.g Muslims). Americans are pretty !@#$ stupid. How else do you get Donald Trump leading in presidential polls anywhere? Our education system is pretty pathetic and it's pretty much absolute morons that vote for all of our politicians. What do you expect? As Adolf Jong Un said, Populism. Everybody he's running against being slime helps too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted March 13, 2016 Author Share Posted March 13, 2016 (edited) Supplementing your questions with the above comments wasn't necessary. I try to err on the side of truth. To quote the First Amendment of the US Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. I don't know whether your first question referred to persecution at the hands of the US Government or persecution at the hands of a collective population of like-minded individuals, but if you were referring to the former: No, our elected officials would not act against the word of the current US Constitution under oath. If you were referring to the latter, "a collective population of like-minded individuals," one can not say how the more open-minded population would react. If they were a majority of the US population, they would likely be more vocal about their opposition to religious persecution; if they were a minority of the US population, they would be less vocal. It's not rocket science. I don't think the holocaust could happen again in Germany right now, despite the small number of Jews who live there. America has, in the past, put people into internment camps based on their being of a major ethnicity of a country we are at war with. Trump is campaigning on tracking Muslims and refusing them entry to the country; on deporting 12 million illegals as well. He has support, despite what the constitution says. At the end of the day, the constitution is a document, and it is up to us uphold it. So, the country is America. The ethnic/religious groups are illegal immigrants and Muslims. What platform could someone actually get elected on here, and what could a president actually get away with? Is this based on if Trump the bourgeois pig is elected, or just how he acts in general? Trump was the inspiration, but I don't want it to become a thread about him. It's more just asking ourselves how really sure we are that such things couldn't happen again. Are you an American? Because otherwise I could understand how you might think Americans are retarded. But if you are American, then you must be very negative outlook on your fellow Americans. 33% of our population is registered in the Republican party. Edited March 13, 2016 by Hierophant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Hawk Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 I try to err on the side of truth. You try to err on the side of controversy. America has, in the past, put people into internment camps based on their being of a major ethnicity of a country we are at war with. Trump is campaigning on tracking Muslims and refusing them entry to the country; on deporting 12 million illegals as well. He has support, despite what the constitution says. At the end of the day, the constitution is a document, and it is up to us uphold it. What does the Constitution say about either or those issues? It certainly doesn't protect foreign citizens abroad, and while the 14th Amendment protects the children of illegal immigrants, I'm not aware of an amendment that protects illegal immigrants from deportation. So, the country is America. The ethnic/religious groups are illegal immigrants and Muslims. What platform could someone actually get elected on here, and what could a president actually get away with? I'd like to point out that legal Mexican immigrants and illegal Mexican immigrants largely fall into the same ethnic category. So, on the subject of deportation, it isn't a case of ethnic persecution, it's a case of enforcing our current laws. Furthermore, the proposed (temporary) ban of Muslim immigrants, and/or visitors, may be religious persecution in one's eyes, but at the end of the day, it's not a constitutional issue. 33% of our population is registered in the Republican party. The parties are somewhat evenly split. http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted March 13, 2016 Author Share Posted March 13, 2016 >What does the Constitution say about either or those issues? It certainly doesn't protect foreign citizens abroad, and while the 14th Amendment protects the children of illegal immigrants, I'm not aware of an amendment that protects illegal immigrants from deportation. It also doesn't ban slavery. You realize it's just a piece of paper, right? >I'd like to point out that legal Mexican immigrants and illegal Mexican immigrants largely fall into the same ethnic category. So, on the subject of deportation, it isn't a case of ethnic persecution, it's a case of enforcing our current laws. Except, in practice, enforcing our current laws amounts to forcefully evicting 12 million people from the country. >Furthermore, the proposed (temporary) ban of Muslim immigrants, and/or visitors, may be religious persecution in one's eyes, but at the end of the day, it's not a constitutional issue. there goes all your credibility Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Hawk Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 (edited) It also doesn't ban slavery. You realize it's just a piece of paper, right? Oh, now it's just a piece of paper? I'm going to provide you with one of your earlier statements below: He has support, despite what the constitution says. At the end of the day, the constitution is a document, and it is up to us uphold it. --- Except, in practice, enforcing our current laws amounts to forcefully evicting 12 million people from the country. Yes, but the current laws don't state the time frame in which the deportation process must occur. It will likely happen gradually and humanely. there goes all your credibility If anything, the above statement removes your credibility. You made several of Trump's platforms constitutional issues when they weren't, and I addressed that. Let me guess, you're now going to resort to personal attacks? Edited March 13, 2016 by Adolf Jong Un Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted March 13, 2016 Author Share Posted March 13, 2016 Since when is a piece of paper not the same thing as a document? Are you really going to act like you don't know what I'm talking about there? Troll elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Hawk Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 (edited) Since when is a piece of paper not the same thing as a document? Are you really going to act like you don't know what I'm talking about there? Troll elsewhere. You initially said, "At the end of the day, the constitution is a document, and it is up to us uphold it," but later said, "You realize it's just a piece of paper, right?" Those that use the phrase "just a piece of paper," when addressing the US Constitution, typically imply contempt for the document and what it stands for. I was merely pointing out a contradiction in your argument. If you want to argue semantics further, I'll provide you the definitions and synonyms of the words "paper" and "document." Troll elsewhere. I'm not the one responding to a civil debate with one-liner rebukes. --- Also, what...? It also doesn't ban slavery. You realize it's just a piece of paper, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution Edited March 13, 2016 by Adolf Jong Un Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.