A Philosopher's Blog

The Trump Ban

Posted in Philosophy, Politics by Michael LaBossiere on January 18, 2016

While the United Kingdom is quite welcoming to its American cousins, many of its citizens have petitioned for a ban against the now leading Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. This issue was debated in mid-January by the parliament, although no vote was taken to ban the Donald.

The petition to ban Trump was signed by 575,000 people and was created in response to his call to ban all Muslims from entering the United States. While this matter is mostly political theater, it does raise some matters of philosophical interest.

One interesting point is that the proposal to ban Trump appears to be consistent with the principles that seem to lurk behind the obscuring fog of Trump’s various proposals and assertions. One obvious concern is that attributing principles to Trump is challenging—he is a master of being vague and is not much for providing foundations for his proposed policies. Trump has, however, focused a great deal on the borders of the United States. He has made the comically absurd proposal to build a wall between the United States and Mexico and, as noted above, proposed a ban on all Muslims entering the United States. This seems to suggest that Trump accepts the principle that a nation has the right to control its borders and to keep out anyone that is deemed a threat or undesirable by the state. This principle, which might be one that Trump accepts, is certainly a reasonable one in general terms. While thinkers disagree about the proper functions of the state, there is general consensus that a state must, at a minimum, provide basic defense and police functions and these include maintaining borders. This principle would certainly warrant the UK from banning Trump.

Even if the is specific general principle is not one Trump accepts, he certainly seems to accept that a state can ban people from entering that state. As such, consistency would require that Trump accept that the UK has every right to ban him. Trump, if he were inclined to argue rationally, could contend that there are relevant differences between himself and those he proposes to ban. He could, for example, argue that the proposed wall between the United States and Mexico is to keep out illegals and point out that he would enter the UK legally rather than sneaking across the border. In regards to the proposed ban on all Muslims, Trump could point out that he is for banning Muslims but not for banning non-Muslims. As such, his principle of banning Muslims could not be applied to him.

A way to counter this is to focus again on the general principle that might be behind Trump’s proposals, namely the principle of excluding people who are regarded as a threat or at least undesirable. While Trump is not likely to engage in acts of terror in the UK, his behavior in the United States does raise concerns about his ideology and he could justly be regarded as a threat to the UK. He could, perhaps, radicalize some of the population. As such, Trump could be justly banned on the basis of a possible principle he is employing to justify his proposed bans (assuming that there are some principles lurking back there somewhere).

Trump could, of course, simply call the UK a bunch of losers and insist that they have no right to ban him. While that sort of thing is fine for political speeches, he would need a justification for his assertion. Then again, Trump might simply call them losers and say he does not want to go there anyway.

The criticism of Trump in the UK seems to be, at least in part, aimed at trying to reduce his chance of becoming the President of the United States.  Or perhaps there is some hope that the criticism will change his behavior. While a normal candidate might be influenced by such criticism from a close ally and decide to change, Trump is not a normal candidate. As has been noted many times, behavior that would have been politically damaging or fatal for other candidates has only served to keep Trump leading among the Republicans. As such, the petition against him and even the debate about the issue in Parliament will have no negative impact on his campaign. In fact, this sort of criticism will probably improve his poll numbers. As such, Trump is the orange Hulk of politics (not to be confused with Orange Hulk). The green Hulk gets stronger the angrier he gets, so attacking him just enables him to fight harder. The political orange Hulk, Trump, gets stronger the more he is rationally criticized and the more absurd and awful he gets. Like the green Hulk, Trump might be almost unbeatable. So, while Hulk might smash, Trump might win. And then smash.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

54 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. nailheadtom said, on January 18, 2016 at 7:55 pm

    “He has made the comically absurd proposal to build a wall between the United States and Mexico”

    That’s been authorized by Congress, some construction has taken place but the project doesn’t seem to be moving along. There are already long stretches of walls along the border and where there are none it’s guarded by men with firearms.

    • wtp said, on January 18, 2016 at 10:34 pm

      Exactly. It’s “comically absurd”? China built one 5 times longer. In spurts, yes, but with the technology of 10-20 centuries ago, and again 5 times longer. And they never put a man on the moon. Would one be perfect? Of course not. But neither would it need to cover the entire distance. Rather comically absurd to say one we need couldn’t be built today or wouldn’t work at all.

      • Anonymous said, on January 19, 2016 at 12:12 am

        Well for starters the great wall of China took centuries to build and cost the lives of almost half a million citizens (peasants mostly), and, even when it was complete it was largely ineffective and archaic (even then). It turned out it was much more effective at keeping Chinese citizens in than it ever was at keeping the “hill people” out (mostly disenfranchised farmers looking for better lives in China).

        So, in 2016 if the USA were to build a literal wall in between itself and Mexico, it would not only be ridiculously ineffective, and costly to build, but it would be a symbol of racism and discrimination against the Mexican people which would spawn further resentment between the two countries for decades to come.

        I mean even the Mexicans who do make it across the borders (illegally) have been shown to actually commit less crimes the average US citizen: you don’t risk your life smuggling yourself into a new country unless you plan to start a new (“good”) life.

        I think it’s a disconnect that the left politicians all around the world seem to focus their rhetoric on purely the logical. I think we have to realize that as being humans we ARE emotional beings and must therefore be convinced by both rational and emotional means (Greek Art of Rhetoric).

        • nailheadtom said, on January 19, 2016 at 12:27 am

          Mexicans and Americans cross and re-cross the border on a daily basis to shop, go to work, go to school, etc. The Home Depot parking lot in El Paso is usually filled with pickups with Chihuahua license plates. In fact, El Paso, a much smaller city than Juarez, is very much dependent on Mexican residents for retail business. The American side of the border crossing between Douglas, AZ and Agua Prieta, Sonora is often jammed with Walmart shopping carts that can’t be taken to Mexico.

        • WTP said, on January 19, 2016 at 9:28 am

          Well for starters the great wall of China took centuries to build and cost the lives of almost half a million citizens (peasants mostly), and, even when it was complete it was largely ineffective and archaic (even then). It turned out it was much more effective at keeping Chinese citizens in than it ever was at keeping the “hill people” out (mostly disenfranchised farmers looking for better lives in China).

          And Leonardo da Vinci never got that flying machine going, so the Wright Brothers were time wasting fools. Is this the sort of thinking you do in your job? Does your boss and/or customers put up with such?

          it would not only be ridiculously ineffective
          No basis for this, simply, like Mike, an appeal to ridicule. Probably one of the most egregious of fallacies when perpetrated by anyone who considers themselves a philosopher.

          I mean even the Mexicans who do make it across the borders (illegally) have been shown to actually commit less crimes the average US citizen:

          No. Putting the most obvious reason aside, that the very act of entering a country illegally pegs the crime rate of such at 100%, according to the GAO:

          The number of criminal aliens in federal prisons in fiscal year 2010 was about 55,000, and the number of SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in state prison systems and local jails was about 296,000 in fiscal year 2009 (the most recent data available), and the majority were from Mexico.

          In fiscal year 2005, the criminal alien population in federal prisons was around 27 percent of the total inmate population, and from fiscal years 2006 through 2010 remained consistently around 25 percent.

          Non-US citizens number around 25 million of which about 10 million are here illegally. The US population is around 300 million. I’ll leave the math to you. And this is with “sanctuary cities” looking the other way on many crimes.

          you don’t risk your life smuggling yourself into a new country unless you plan to start a new (“good”) life.
          You are horribly naive. People cross borders illegally for any number of reasons. Most may be as you say, but many for illicit purposes and many are criminal element from Mexico and elsewhere. See above.

          A country without secure borders ceases to be a country. Mexico doesn’t tolerate illegals coming into its own country and neither do the vast majority other countries. People who come here legally go to a tremendous expense and effort to become US citizens. They are thus committed to becoming acclimated and accepting of US customs and culture. Illegals have no such skin in the game. To simply let anyone walk into a country without being cleared is an insult to people who follow the rules.

          • nailheadtom said, on January 19, 2016 at 5:26 pm

            ” People who come here legally go to a tremendous expense and effort to become US citizens. They are thus committed to becoming acclimated and accepting of US customs and culture. Illegals have no such skin in the game. To simply let anyone walk into a country without being cleared is an insult to people who follow the rules.”

            The tremendous expense is thus some sort of financial hurdle that the US government uses to extort funds from people that have the money. The illegal aliens either don’t have the money or are unwilling to pay off the state for the privilege of being in a voluntary exchange of service or products.

            • ronster12012 said, on January 19, 2016 at 8:52 pm

              Tom

              Unless there are charges to becoming a citizen you can look forward to a billion people crossing your borders….then the US will resemble the shitholes they are fleeing from. Better that they stay put and improve their own societies…………just like we did.

          • Anonymous said, on January 19, 2016 at 8:50 pm

            Well for starters the great wall of China took centuries to build and cost the lives of almost half a million citizens (peasants mostly), and, even when it was complete it was largely ineffective and archaic (even then). It turned out it was much more effective at keeping Chinese citizens in than it ever was at keeping the “hill people” out (mostly disenfranchised farmers looking for better lives in China).

            “And Leonardo da Vinci never got that flying machine going, so the Wright Brothers were time wasting fools. Is this the sort of thinking you do in your job? Does your boss and/or customers put up with such?”
            ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

            Yes, obviously one historical example (over the span of centuries and multiple dynasties) does not prove the universal ineffective of literal borders, (also the Berlin wall wasn’t a hit sucess) however you have not given ANY empirical evidence for your case.
            ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
            I mean even the Mexicans who do make it across the borders (illegally) have been shown to actually commit less crimes the average US citizen:

            “No. Putting the most obvious reason aside, that the very act of entering a country illegally pegs the crime rate of such at 100%, according to the GAO:”
            ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

            Ok obviously I meant after their first crime of crossing the borders -_-

            ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
            “And just because they ‘wanted a better life’ placed no obligations on the Chinese to accommodate that wish.”
            ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

            Just because you’re under no political, or technical obligations to do something does not make it right, furthermore it is to the benefit of everybody if the individuals which form that “everybody” are altruistic. (global-citizin)

            ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
            “A country without secure borders ceases to be a country. Mexico doesn’t tolerate illegals coming into its own country and neither do the vast majority other countries. People who come here legally go to a tremendous expense and effort to become US citizens. They are thus committed to becoming acclimated and accepting of US customs and culture. Illegals have no such skin in the game. To simply let anyone walk into a country without being cleared is an insult to people who follow the rules.”
            ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

            (First off being smuggled and “walking” over a border are two VERY different things, and it seperate the mexican citizins from those who “want” to go to the US, between those who “need” to, very important.)

            But couldn’t you likewise argue that there is a systemic problem that must be solved if there are so many Mexicans who are willing to go to tremendous lengths and put their lives in jeopardy by becoming illegal immigrants? If anything shouldn’t the US be using its money to quell the root cause of this illegal immigration, rather than merely try to further separate themselves from the problem. These people obviously are desperate and have horrible lives, making it impossible for them to escape (you fail to recognize {or empathize} that not everybody has the necessary time, money or reputation to apply to immigrate legally)

            This same logic could be correlated to the recent “tough on crime” policies which have been popularized by conservative politicians in North America, rather than quelling the systemic cause of crime, politicians play on national fear by promising the separation of the law-abiding citizens from the “criminals”. This niave attitude has proved to be not only extremely costly, but ineffective in reducing crime rates.

            • ronster12012 said, on January 19, 2016 at 9:06 pm

              Anonymous

              ……………………………………………………………………
              “Just because you’re under no political, or technical obligations to do something does not make it right, furthermore it is to the benefit of everybody if the individuals which form that “everybody” are altruistic. (global-citizin)”
              …………………………………………………………………….

              There is no universal agreement on what ‘right’ actually i so that is not much of an argument.

              The altruism angle only works with your own kind as they are programmed to reciprocate…with others you just become the sucker and they the parasite.

              ………………………………………………………………………..
              “(First off being smuggled and “walking” over a border are two VERY different things, and it seperate the mexican citizins from those who “want” to go to the US, between those who “need” to, very important.)”
              ……………………………………………………………………………

              Being ‘smuggled’ can simply mean having a smuggler guide you as you walk across a border.

              As for want versus need….the only thing we all ‘need’ is 1500 calories of any description to keep body and soul together, along with water……all the rest is ‘want’.

              ……………………………………………………………………………..

              “But couldn’t you likewise argue that there is a systemic problem that must be solved if there are so many Mexicans who are willing to go to tremendous lengths and put their lives in jeopardy by becoming illegal immigrants? If anything shouldn’t the US be using its money to quell the root cause of this illegal immigration, rather than merely try to further separate themselves from the problem. These people obviously are desperate and have horrible lives, making it impossible for them to escape (you fail to recognize {or empathize} that not everybody has the necessary time, money or reputation to apply to immigrate legally)”
              ……………………………………………………………………………….

              If there is a problem then it is up to the Mexicans to solve it…that’s what they have a government for. If enough Mexicans enter the US then the US becomes Mexico with all that entails.

              Just because someone is desperate and has a horrible life(by your standards) does not give them the right to do anything. It is only emotional blackmail…

            • WTP said, on January 20, 2016 at 3:03 pm

              Yes, obviously one historical example (over the span of centuries and multiple dynasties) does not prove the universal ineffective of literal borders, (also the Berlin wall wasn’t a hit sucess) however you have not given ANY empirical evidence for your case.

              What, you can’t puzzle your puzzler to think of any? You actually did with “Berlin Wall”. It did a fairly good job of keeping people in, this one would keep people out. Would not need to be as lethal, given today’s tech. The Israelis have one around the West Bank or significant’ portions there of. And “Wall” is an exaggeration. There is NOTHING different about this situation from any other contentious border in the world, past or present. Borders exist for a reason. Pretending the world is a different place that it is leads to even greater problems.

              Ok obviously I meant after their first crime of crossing the borders -_-
              And ignores everything I said following that. Cop-out. Don’t be like Mike, it’s not good for your own ultimate well being.

              (First off being smuggled and “walking” over a border are two VERY different things, and it seperate the mexican citizins from those who “want” to go to the US, between those who “need” to, very important.)

              OK, now this is just plain bullshit. Unless you are talking about the small number of people who are smuggled entirely against their will. What a want is vs. a need is entirely within one’s head unless a genuine war or genocide, which is a war where people cannot/will not defend themselves.

              But couldn’t you likewise argue that there is a systemic problem that must be solved if there are so many Mexicans who are willing to go to tremendous lengths and put their lives in jeopardy by becoming illegal immigrants?
              Yes, most definitely. Mexico, that being the country made up of Mexican citizens located south of the US border, must address why it is such a corrupt and violent country. This is the case because a certain number of Mexicans are violent and corrupt. Mexicans need to fix Mexico. They cannot do that from the US. This is in many ways no different from what is happening in Syria.

              If anything shouldn’t the US be using its money to quell the root cause of this illegal immigration, rather than merely try to further separate themselves from the problem.
              And this is the root of your inability to understand the problem. Money cannot fix a moral problem. The only way the US can “be using its money to quell the root cause” is to invade, take over, and string up the evil bastards who are ruining a fine, resource rich country like Mexico. Just like we did in Japan, Germany, Italy, etc. But there is no will nor desire by Americans to do so.

              making it impossible for them to escape (you fail to recognize {or empathize} that not everybody has the necessary time, money or reputation to apply to immigrate legally)
              I see where you bring up morality elsewhere on this page. I don’t think you have genuinely dealt with the complex moral issues involved. I feel tremendous sympathy and empathy for the good Mexican people. My father’s life was saved in the war by a Mexican soldier fighting with the US (might have been Mex-US, but he never said it that way, I never asked). But no one can fix Mexico’s problems but Mexicans.

              I gotta run, but I think I’ve addressed far more of your points, and in far more detail, than you have of mine. But I still am curious, do you use this line/style of reasoning and argument in your job as well or do you just reserve it for political issues. I can’t see how such an avoidance/argumentative attitude can get you very far in this world. Do yourself a favor and seriously consider this.

        • ronster12012 said, on January 19, 2016 at 10:44 am

          Anonymous

          …………………………………………………………………
          “Well for starters the great wall of China took centuries to build and cost the lives of almost half a million citizens (peasants mostly), and, even when it was complete it was largely ineffective and archaic (even then). It turned out it was much more effective at keeping Chinese citizens in than it ever was at keeping the “hill people” out (mostly disenfranchised farmers looking for better lives in China).”
          ………………………………………………………………….

          Just to be pedantic for starters, the Chinese of that time weren’t citizens but rather subjects, quite a different matter.

          It was designed to keep the Manchurians out. The Chinese simply wanted to be left alone. If it was ultimately ineffective, that was not the fault of the wall itself. A better strategy would have been(in hindsight) to have either allowed limited trade under controlled conditions, which was what the Manchus wanted or exterminated as many of them as possible militarily. Either course of action required the wall.

          And just because they ‘wanted a better life’ placed no obligations on the Chinese to accommodate that wish.

          The lesson in the story of the Great Wall of China, is that when the Manchus finally did breach the wall they ruled China for the next 300 years. Now apply that lesson to the US, UK, Europe Australia etc

          ……………………………………………………………………………..
          “So, in 2016 if the USA were to build a literal wall in between itself and Mexico, it would not only be ridiculously ineffective, and costly to build, but it would be a symbol of racism and discrimination against the Mexican people which would spawn further resentment between the two countries for decades to come.”

          ……………………………………………………………………………….

          Ridiculously ineffective? Many countries have effective borders…are you suggesting that border be eliminated entirely? Because for a border to be worthy of the name it must control entry…that’s what borders do. Whether it be a wall, a fence, a minefield or a crocodile infested moat, the purpose is the same.

          And if you are proposing to eliminate the border then are you proposing to form the NAU?

          As for racism….such an overblown word…everyone is racist…the only difference is between those who are honest about it and those who pretend that they are above it..which they are not. Accusations of racism are usually only directed at white people….which is itself racist

          …………………………………………………………………………….
          “I mean even the Mexicans who do make it across the borders (illegally) have been shown to actually commit less crimes the average US citizen: you don’t risk your life smuggling yourself into a new country unless you plan to start a new (“good”) life.”
          ……………………………………………………………………………..

          As WTP so astutely noted, by smuggling themselves across the border, illegal in itself, means that their crime rate is 100% for that alone.
          Leaving that aside are you saying that the US has no latino gangs etc?

          ……………………………………………………………………………..
          “I think it’s a disconnect that the left politicians all around the world seem to focus their rhetoric on purely the logical. I think we have to realize that as being humans we ARE emotional beings and must therefore be convinced by both rational and emotional means (Greek Art of Rhetoric).”
          ………………………………………………………………………………

          Politicians of the left worldwide(and many of the right) are lying treasonous dogs that deserve the short drop with the quick stop. Merkel for instance deserves to have her head on a stick for saying that she will change Germany forever. It is not her country to change. Hopefully the Germans will get their mojo back(it appears that they may do so) and take their country back from the likes of Merkel, expel the invaders and abolish the EU. That’s my hope…

          Back to the topic at hand…Donald Trump. I think that he is the best thing to come along for the US in a long time. I am not American(Australian actually) so this is just an outsider’s POV. Leaving aside POS Hillary and the jew Sanders, all the other repub candidates are bought and paid for…Trump is the only one who isn’t bought already. That is what is infuriating your elite at the moment…a possible president that they don’t own.

          • Anonymous said, on January 19, 2016 at 10:40 pm

            I guess the problem I have with your political views have is that you seem to see morality and responsibility as the same thing (you also argue morality does not exist and therefore we have no ethical responsibilities, which is a fair point if you are not spiritual, {however trump has said time and time again that he is religious,}) however even if you don’t believe in morality that doesn’t mean a “fend for yourself” (cold-hearted capitalist) attitude will even make you happier as a selfish individual (unless you’re a sociopath), most of the time by helping other people will not only directly benefit you but also just make you feel good about yourself.

            You can see this in very progressive Scandinavian countries like Sweden, they have not only some of they highest quality of living in the world, with some of the smallest wage gaps, but some of the most humanitarian and socialistic political worldviews in the present day world.

            Capitalism is all well and good until it starts to induce selfish, ultimately self-serving attitudes that don’t account for the human condition of empathy and mutual benefit as not only a direct monetary means (and in the extreme seem to even forget ultraism).

            • ronster12012 said, on January 20, 2016 at 11:29 am

              Anonymous

              ……………………………………………………………………………….
              “I guess the problem I have with your political views have is that you seem to see morality and responsibility as the same thing (you also argue morality does not exist and therefore we have no ethical responsibilities, which is a fair point if you are not spiritual, {however trump has said time and time again that he is religious,}) ”
              …………………………………………………………………………………

              I think that you may be confusing me with someone else, as I don’t think that morality doesn’t exist. I simply recognise that there are different ideas of morality and that ultimately no one has the final word. We do our best to do the right thing as we see it , sometimes it works out well, sometimes not, that’s all that can be asked.

              There is a connection between morality and responsibility…though I don’t know what you are getting at. As for spirituality, there is as many different ideas of spirituality as there are people….so it is almost a meaningless term. Whenever I hear someone describe themselves as spiritual, though, I start to think that they are most likely a bullshitter.

              …………………………………………………………………………..
              “You can see this in very progressive Scandinavian countries like Sweden, they have not only some of they highest quality of living in the world, with some of the smallest wage gaps, but some of the most humanitarian and socialistic political worldviews in the present day world.”
              ……………………………………………………………………………

              Sweden(along with much of Europe) is currently committing racial and cultural suicide with their importation of moslems and africans… That’s how their ‘progressivism’ will end.

              Sad to see the descendants of Vikings allow their countries to be invaded…perhaps they will regain that spirit and take the matter into their own hands to save their countries and cultures. And hopefully it will spread to the rest of Europe.

              ……………………………………………………………………………….
              “Capitalism is all well and good until it starts to induce selfish, ultimately self-serving attitudes that don’t account for the human condition of empathy and mutual benefit as not only a direct monetary means (and in the extreme seem to even forget ultraism).”
              …………………………………………………………………………………

              My point is that altruism is only viable among people of the same race and cultural background, and then it is very important. For others it is wasted.

          • nailheadtom said, on January 20, 2016 at 10:48 am

            “the Chinese of that time weren’t citizens but rather subjects”

            Really? Is there a substantial difference?

            “are you saying that the US has no latino gangs?”

            The most influential gangs in the US are subsidiaries of the various levels of government and financed by tribute paid by the subjects. Latino gangs are amateurs.

            “It is not her country to change.”

            Change is inevitable, whether Merkel is the agent or not. All human activity is an effort to effect change in some manner. Every resident of Germany, and the world, is dedicated to changing something during every waking hour.

            • ronster12012 said, on January 20, 2016 at 11:45 am

              Tom

              …………………………………………………………………..
              ““the Chinese of that time weren’t citizens but rather subjects”

              Really? Is there a substantial difference?”
              ……………………………………………………………………

              As I said, I was being pedantic. The word citizen did seem so out of place which is why I commented….same as if someone had described a medieval English serf as a citizen.

              ……………………………………………………………………..
              “The most influential gangs in the US are subsidiaries of the various levels of government and financed by tribute paid by the subjects. Latino gangs are amateurs.”
              ……………………………………………………………………….

              Of course, but there is no point adding to the problem.

              …………………………………………………………………………

              “Change is inevitable, whether Merkel is the agent or not. All human activity is an effort to effect change in some manner. Every resident of Germany, and the world, is dedicated to changing something during every waking hour.”
              ………………………………………………………………………….

              All that you say about change being constant is true, but if that were the only consideration we could never use the words good or bad again…as everything is just change. ,

            • nailheadtom said, on January 22, 2016 at 10:59 am

              Human activity inevitably produces change and that activity is meant to provide a positive outcome for the actor. That activity might produce change that’s a negative for others, however. When a college freshman orders a pizza from Domino’s he expects to get a cheap, somewhat tasty meal delivered to his door. It’s a positive or a “good” change, from hungry to sated. Unfortunately, this change isn’t good for the nearby Papa John’s. And it could be even worse for the neighbors if the delivery driver runs over their dog. They let it out to pee, hoping that it wouldn’t bother anyone at 2 am (a positive), instead it’s a bloody smear on the street and the kids will be bawling about it for a week. Maybe pizza deliveries should be banned.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on January 21, 2016 at 6:12 pm

      Still absurd.

      • WTP said, on January 22, 2016 at 9:50 am

        Why? Because you feelz it? This is nothing more than a protected border like any other country with a contentious neighbor would have. Reagan’s Strategic Defense Iniitiative was estimated to cost over $100 billion in 1980’s dollars, yet we never had to build it. The Soviets shit their pants before it really got rolling. There will be no need to build the entire fence line and the costs would not be anywhere near where you leftist pantywastes are whining about.

        Again, without borders you don’t have a country. We do not need to import Mexico’s problems. For a nation as functional as ours still seems to be, that would be absurd.

  2. TJB said, on January 18, 2016 at 8:01 pm

    It is fairly typical of what passes for “thinking” on the left to simply ban people they disagree with. Happens to conservatives all the time on college campuses.

    Yawn. Nothing to see here.

    • wtp said, on January 18, 2016 at 10:39 pm

      Yawn. Nothing to see here.

      There never really is, when you think about it. Same old BS and straw men.

  3. ajmacdonaldjr said, on January 18, 2016 at 8:15 pm

    “The Ku Klux Klan is using Donald Trump as a talking point in its outreach efforts. Stormfront, the most prominent American white supremacist website, is upgrading its servers in part to cope with a Trump traffic spike. And former Louisiana Rep. David Duke reports that the businessman has given more Americans cover to speak out loud about white nationalism than at any time since his own political campaigns in the 1990s…” Continue reading: White supremacist groups see Trump bump http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/donald-trump-white-supremacists-216620

    • wtp said, on January 18, 2016 at 10:37 pm

      And the Soviets used Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement in their propaganda. So what’s your point?

      • ajmacdonaldjr said, on January 19, 2016 at 1:58 am

        My point is why is Mike (or anyone) wasting e-ink writing about Trump?

        • WTP said, on January 19, 2016 at 9:32 am

          Point taken. However, I would argue that Trump is very newsworthy and while I’m not very likely to vote for him, I do enjoy his thumbing his nose at our politically correct elites and media. Showman, fool, tool, whatever, he says things that are definitive and shows people the respect of being direct with them. Sure he bullshits to some extent, like most people do, but there is far less BS coming from Trump than most of the politicians and pundits than the kind of characters the media presents.

          • ronster12012 said, on January 19, 2016 at 10:56 am

            WTP

            There is a certain respect by being direct, and the corollary is that there is a certain contempt by being vague, misleading, saying only what the audience wants to hear etc etc…for which politicians worldwide are experts at.

            Trump by thumbing his nose at PC culture has given tacit permission for everyone else to do the same…a huge gift…and he isn’t even elected yet.

          • ajmacdonaldjr said, on January 19, 2016 at 1:09 pm

            Yeah but here’s the thing: Anyone who agrees with him is labeled a racist and a hater. Trump is like flypaper: anyone dumb enough to support for him is stuck to the racist label. Trump provides the media a wealth of politically incorrect fodder on a daily basis… why? So the media can use it against the GOP.

            • ronster12012 said, on January 19, 2016 at 9:12 pm

              AJ

              I know you think that Trump is just being used to further the Dems interests…and recognising the conspiratorial machinations of power seekers I can’t rule it out……but what if a monster(a good non PC monster)is in the process of being created? One that escapes its handlers? Once people start thinking for themselves or at least not being scared to deviate from pronouncements from above…who knows where it will go?

            • ajmacdonaldjr said, on January 19, 2016 at 11:40 pm

              PC rules the day. Trump is being used to flush out and identify those who need re-education.

            • WTP said, on January 20, 2016 at 10:12 pm

              PC only rules those who consent to its rule. No one has the ability to label you unless you let them. Stop being afraid to stand up for yourself and assert your self. Man up.

            • ajmacdonaldjr said, on January 21, 2016 at 1:59 am

              Tell that to Brendan Eich.

            • WTP said, on January 21, 2016 at 9:36 am

              Eich is precisely the kind of person who should be told this. He has the money and resources to ride out this sort of nonsense. I’m not familiar with his situation beyond the point when it was somewhat newsworthy, but the fact that I have heard more from those, like yourself, who point to him as an example of PC gone wild than from anything he has actually done about his situation is rather telling.

              Though in the Karma sense of things, he’s getting what he deserves for all the time I’ve wasted debugging JavaScript. WHICH IS NOT JAVA. But I digress…

          • Anonymous said, on January 19, 2016 at 10:45 pm

            I would agree it could be very beneficial to democracy (on perhaps even a global level) that trump is exposing how broken the system is that such ridiculous rhetoric could get you so far in a political campaign. Hopefully it induces some sort of positive reform, however even as I hope that trump is the catalyst for this change, I dread that he might be the model for this change, as that would lead to even less productive political discourse.

            • ronster12012 said, on January 20, 2016 at 11:56 am

              Why is his rhetoric ridiculous? He seems much more a straight shooter than any other candidate. For a start, all the others are owned by their donors.

              And anything that destroys the PC culture can only be a good thing….and he is doing it.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on January 21, 2016 at 6:11 pm

          Good question. It is like an awful curse…

  4. TJB said, on January 18, 2016 at 8:21 pm

    Lots of Americans are banned from the U.K. Actual terrorists and killers appear to be welcome, however.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_banned_from_entering_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-39

    The former heavyweight world champion and convicted rapist Mike Tyson has been banned from entering the UK, forcing the last-minute cancellation of a promotional tour.

    The boxer was due to arrive this week for London appearances including a book signing for his new autobiography Undisputed Truth, and a question-and-answer session set to take place in a boxing ring.

    Yet under new UK immigration rules, anyone with a previous conviction resulting in a jail sentence of more than four years is barred from entering the country.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boxing-champion-mike-tyson-banned-from-entering-uk-8995847.html

    • nailheadtom said, on January 18, 2016 at 9:23 pm

      Americans with DWI convictions are banned from entering Canada and vice versa.

      • wtp said, on January 18, 2016 at 10:23 pm


        As a general rule, Canada does not allow persons with DUI’s to enter their country, although travelers who require in-depth information regarding the process of applying for a waiver or other admissibility questions can reach the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA)

        However…

        A single DUI conviction is not grounds to deny entry into the U.S; however, multiple DUI convictions or a DUI conviction in combination with other misdemeanor offenses can make a person inadmissible and require a waiver prior to entering the United States.

        https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/402/~/entering-the-u.s.-and-canada-with-dui-offenses

        Since there’s no visa requirement, the efficacy of such rules is close to nil.

        • nailheadtom said, on January 19, 2016 at 12:19 am

          They have access to US records that can tell them all they need to know.

          • WTP said, on January 19, 2016 at 9:37 am

            Agree, but what I’m saying is people with DUI’s likely go to Canada all the time. They are not running background checks on every single person at every border crossing. Have you any idea how much time that would take? It’s not worth the effort. Now if something raises suspicion in a border agent, they may get taken aside and checked, but highly unlikely.

            • nailheadtom said, on January 19, 2016 at 5:29 pm

              I’ve been personally held up at the US-Canadian border going both ways for hours while my records were investigated.

            • nailheadtom said, on January 19, 2016 at 5:31 pm

              The Mexican border is a different story. The Mexican Customs may not even look at you. US Customs tries but they’re overwhelmed by the volume.

            • WTP said, on January 20, 2016 at 10:05 pm

              Well, I’ll have to defer to your recent experience, wherever you crossed under whatever circumstances as it’s been about five years or so since I was up there. However, I still think if one is discrete there shouldn’t be a problem. They don’t have the resources to spend four hours reviewing the records of every person legally crossing their border.

  5. TJB said, on January 18, 2016 at 8:24 pm

    Even Martha Stewart is banned from the U.K. “It’s a good thing.”

  6. ronster12012 said, on January 18, 2016 at 11:00 pm

    How many of those 575000 signatures on the petition were moslem as opposed to real British?That is a relevant point IMO. The higher the percentage the more it shows how incompatible Islam is with western values.

  7. ronster12012 said, on January 18, 2016 at 11:05 pm

    And for further penetrating analysis of the proposed Trump ban this esteemed and erudite site has the goods….

    Search
    Featured StoriesWorldUSJewish ProblemRace WarSocietyInsightRadioVideo

    ‘Britcucks to Debate Banning Glorious Leader from Their Multicult Paradise’

    http://www.dailystormer.com/britcucks-to-debate-banning-glorious-leader-from-their-multicult-paradise/

    What else is there to be said……?

  8. TJB said, on January 20, 2016 at 7:56 pm

    A must read by Mark Steyn. Mike, chances are you will live to see the devastation the policies you support will produce.

    When it comes to forecasting the future, the birthrate is the nearest thing to hard numbers. If only a million babies are born in 2006, it’s hard to have two million adults enter the workforce in 2026 (or 2033, or 2037, or whenever they get around to finishing their Anger Management and Queer Studies degrees). And the hard data on babies around the Western world is that they’re running out a lot faster than the oil is. “Replacement” fertility rate–i.e., the number you need for merely a stable population, not getting any bigger, not getting any smaller–is 2.1 babies per woman. Some countries are well above that: the global fertility leader, Somalia, is 6.91, Niger 6.83, Afghanistan 6.78, Yemen 6.75. Notice what those nations have in common?

    Scroll way down to the bottom of the Hot One Hundred top breeders and you’ll eventually find the United States, hovering just at replacement rate with 2.07 births per woman. Ireland is 1.87, New Zealand 1.79, Australia 1.76. But Canada’s fertility rate is down to 1.5, well below replacement rate; Germany and Austria are at 1.3, the brink of the death spiral; Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain 1.1, about half replacement rate. That’s to say, Spain’s population is halving every generation. By 2050, Italy’s population will have fallen by 22%.

    Enter Islam, which sportingly volunteered to be the children we couldn’t be bothered having ourselves, and which kind offer was somewhat carelessly taken up by the post-Christian west. As I wrote a decade ago:

    The design flaw of the secular social-democratic state is that it requires a religious-society birthrate to sustain it. Post-Christian hyperrationalism is, in the objective sense, a lot less rational than Catholicism or Mormonism. Indeed, in its reliance on immigration to ensure its future, the European Union has adopted a 21st-century variation on the strategy of the Shakers, who were forbidden from reproducing and thus could increase their numbers only by conversion.

    That didn’t work out too great for the Shakers, but the Europeans figured it would be a piece of cake for them: “westernization” is so seductive, so appealing that, notwithstanding the occasional frothing imam and burka-bagged crone, their young Muslims would fall for the siren song of secular progressivism just like they themselves had. So, as long as you kept the immigrants coming, there would be no problem – as long as you oomphed up the scale of the solution. As I put it:

    To avoid collapse, European nations will need to take in immigrants at a rate no stable society has ever attempted.

    Last year, Angela Merkel decided to attempt it. The German Chancellor cut to the chase and imported in twelve months 1.1 million Muslim “refugees”. That doesn’t sound an awful lot out of 80 million Germans, but, in fact, the 1.1 million Muslim are overwhelmingly (80 per cent plus) fit, virile, young men. Germany has fewer than ten million people in the same population cohort, among whom Muslims are already over-represented: the median age of Germans as a whole is 46, the median age of German Muslims is 34. But let’s keep the numbers simple, and assume that of those ten million young Germans half of them are ethnic German males. Frau Merkel is still planning to bring in another million “refugees” this year. So by the end of 2016 she will have imported a population equivalent to 40 per cent of Germany’s existing young male cohort. The future is here now: It’s not about “predictions”.

    http://www.steynonline.com/7428/it-still-the-demography-stupid

    • nailheadtom said, on January 20, 2016 at 8:44 pm

      Oswald Spengler made note of this a century ago. What we call Western Civilization is on its way to oblivion, simply through demographics. Why would anyone care? All but a few of us won’t be around to see it or anything else. http://nailheadtom.blogspot.com/2014/09/according-to-oswald-spengler.html

    • WTP said, on January 20, 2016 at 9:56 pm

      Mike, chances are you will live to see the devastation the policies you support will produce.

      Will never happen. In order for Mike ever to see the devastation the policies he supports will produce, he would have to be of a nature to admit he was wrong about something. We are currently living in a world where leftists see the devastation of their policies. They blame them on conservatives. They did so throughout the 1970s and most of them to this day deny that there was anything good about the Reagan years. They have no earthly idea how economics works, how human societies work and have worked for thousands of years. They refuse to engage in discussion on such subjects when challenged because they cannot defend themselves without resorting to ridicule and moral preening or, ultimately, shunning.

      You do understand this, yes?

      • TJB said, on January 20, 2016 at 10:16 pm

        Agree that Mike will never admit he was wrong, even when Germany as we know it ceases to exist due to the inexorable arithmetic of demographics.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on January 21, 2016 at 6:14 pm

          Wrong about what? That the UK has the legal right to ban Trump? Or something else in the discussion of the Trump ban?

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on January 21, 2016 at 6:13 pm

      What policies are you attributing to me?

      • TJB said, on January 22, 2016 at 10:55 am

        As I recall, you support re-settling Muslim refugees in Western countries such as Germany.

        Trump has called for a temporary suspension of Muslim immigration, which was what triggered the UK to consider banning him.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on January 22, 2016 at 1:54 pm

          I do support taking in refugees. If my life was brought to ruin, I would want the help of others. As such, the golden rule and moral consistency requires me to do unto others as I would have them do unto me.

          • WTP said, on January 22, 2016 at 2:48 pm

            The moral preener is found in clusters, and his natural habitat is the college campus. He enjoys his life in the ivory tower, seldom disturbed by the consequences of the policies he endorses. All that matters is that others see his bright, shiny feathers, adore, feed, and house him, secure in the knowledge that as a good little dhimmy, he will be eaten last.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: