Has Donald Trump disqualified himself running for president?

[Elegiac]

What? When has he shown any disregard for freedom of speech or religion?

- Blanket ban on muslims from entering the US
- Blocking 'suspect' websites on the internet.

Wrong - he has only shown bigotry towards illegal immigrants and Muslims. From my POV - and many others - he is quite justified in that bigotry.

Bigotry by definition is unjustified.

Really? Point it out - be specific. How is any of his "platform" actually fascist?

He's a popular authoritarian nationalist.

Have you ever once stopped to think that, in reality, YOU and folks that dislike Trump, are the actual minority? I know that would be hard to believe given the liberal bent of the news media in the USA, but polls show that may actually be the case.

You want me to believe that US media which is run by large corporations has a 'liberal' bias.

And no, polls do not indicate Trump has any sort of broad appeal.

[Tijuana]

- Blanket ban on muslims from entering the US
- Blocking 'suspect' websites on the internet.



Bigotry by definition is unjustified.



He's a popular authoritarian nationalist.



You want me to believe that US media which is run by large corporations has a 'liberal' bias.

And no, polls do not indicate Trump has any sort of broad appeal.

Wait, there are people who don't think the media has a liberal bias? Even my most die hard liberal friends acknowledge this, as it's painfully obvious.

[Deleted]

- Blanket ban on muslims from entering the US
- Blocking 'suspect' websites on the internet.

Absolutely fine and not an assault on either religion or freedom of speech.

Not sure you are aware of this, but the President of the USA has complete control over who is allowed into this country and who isn't. Telling a Muslim immigrant that is NOT a US citizen that he cannot come into the US because he is a Muslim in no way, shape, or form violates ANYTHING to do with the freedom of religion of a US citizen.

US Code 1182

""Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president. Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

Blocking a website that could being used to incite radicalization is not in any way a suppression of free speech. I guess you would be okay with a website that advertises murders for hire?

He's a popular authoritarian nationalist.

Nothing but rhetoric - you didn't point out a single policy.

[Felya]

Huge difference. The people that Hitler targeted were not causing actual problems for this country, while the people that Trump addresses most definitely are. For the record, I'm all for kicking known American terrorists out of this country too (in whatever method that resembles). However, you cannot overlook the fact that known terrorists have been coming into this country the legal way, and until we can actually do a much better job screening for terrorists in both refugees and immigrants it makes perfect sense to ban Syrian refugees and Muslim immigrants from this country.

This is no different than what Hitler did. There were Jewish bankers, which does not mean that all Jews controlled the banks. There were Jewish criminals, which did not mean all Jews were criminals. There Jews in that were part of decisions to sanction Germany post WW1, but not all Jews. Trump is doing the exact same thing, by using people's fear of the few, to demonize and scapegoat the whole. Everything from blaming the establishment for cooperation with sanctions as an outsider to blaming minorities for the problems of Germany, Trump is following the same guide book...

Hitler measured noses to determine who Jews were, so what exact method will Trump use? How does that make sense? Those who want to do harm will lie to get around being identified as Muslim. While those who want entry legitimately will be denied, because they are not lying. This is why countries at war has been the standard used to deny entry, not religion. Otherwise, there would be far fewer Catholics in this country, due to their stigma in early 1900s.

[Tijuana]

Regarding things Trump says vs things Trump can actually do: This thing pandering, it does not involve pandas.

[-Nurot]

What? When has he shown any disregard for freedom of speech or religion?

When he called free speech "disgusting" and encouraged his rabid fans to attack protesters. More recently scream German phrases and death threats at them.

Wrong - he has only shown bigotry towards illegal immigrants and Muslims. From my POV - and many others - he is quite justified in that bigotry.

What about African Americans, Jewish people, Mexicans? The list of bigotries he employees is shorter than those he doesn't... I'm sure all Donald fans think his views are justified though.

Really? Point it out - be specific. How is any of his "platform" actually fascist?

He already promised to makes laws from executive orders, uses bigotry against different races/ethnic groups and creeds to collect votes and doesn't like free speech when it goes against what he has to say. He also wants to strong-arm other countries into paying for our walls or to bully then into better economic deals. That's pretty fascist, to word politely.

Have you ever once stopped to think that, in reality, YOU and folks that dislike Trump, are the actual minority? I know that would be hard to believe given the liberal bent of the news media in the USA, but polls show that may actually be the case.

Have you? So white supremacist groups and Neo-Nazis support and endorse Trump now. They haven't been the majority in a long time. Is it not possible that "silent majority" is a term only used by Trump and those hate groups and the rest who automatically believe everything he says is true simply because he's not a politician, might not be so "majority"? You understand because Trump uses the word "majority", it's not suddenly gospel...

[Deleted]

When he called free speech "disgusting" and encouraged his rabid fans to attack protesters...

No point in responding to you at all, I will just get banned for stating my rebuttals and true opinion.

Have a nice day.

[-Nurot]

No point in responding to you at all, I will just get banned for stating my rebuttals and true opinion.

Have a nice day.

"Maybe he should have been roughed up because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing." -Trump

In response to a protester beat at his rally for exercising the first amendment. There's no other way to take that in, or out, of context. If he means everything thing he says and it's all the truth then so be it. He said it, and that's probably how he feels.

Not sure why rebutting with something would get you banned unless you plan on it being vile. Not quite sure if you find what I said about Trump so repugnant you wanted to start personal attacks or if its the cliché; I have no real response, so I'll aim a low blow in a completely different direction by claiming I'll be censored if I speak the truth...

But, uh, you have a nice day too.

[Annoying]

If those who donated are the ones he supports: Trump only supports trump.
Lol. Silly goose.

I love how it implies that the working class is a "mob". Talk about a bourgeois view of the proletariat. Those unions vote on who they want to support. Should read: Clinton - Representing Wall St, Banks, Corporations, and Media. Bernie - Representing working class Americans. Trump - Get off my lawn, filthy proletariat!

[zlygork]

I suppose that by america, you meant north america, or assumed that mexico is in the south and canada doesn't exist.

[Elegiac]

Wait, there are people who don't think the media has a liberal bias? Even my most die hard liberal friends acknowledge this, as it's painfully obvious.

It doesn't. The US media has a corporate bias; they favor politicians which are to their advantage which, given their penchant for corporate welfare, tends to mean the Republicans.

- - - Updated - - -

Absolutely fine and not an assault on either religion or freedom of speech.

Please do explain how targeting a specific religious group is not a violation of freedom of religion.

And no, censoring the internet is an attack on freedom of speech.

]Not sure you are aware of this, but the President of the USA has complete control over who is allowed into this country and who isn't. Telling a Muslim immigrant that is NOT a US citizen that he cannot come into the US because he is a Muslim in no way, shape, or form violates ANYTHING to do with the freedom of religion of a US citizen.

Freedom of religion does not apply exclusively to US citizens.

Blocking a website that could being used to incite radicalization is not in any way a suppression of free speech. I guess you would be okay with a website that advertises murders for hire?

'That could be used to incite radicalization'.

Fairly dangerous litmus test. Do you think that it's acceptable to suppress political dissidents because they might become 'radicals'?

Nothing but rhetoric - you didn't point out a single policy.

I thought I did, in the form of his using minorities as scapegoats.

[Felya]

Regarding things Trump says vs things Trump can actually do: This thing pandering, it does not involve pandas.

Oh, so he is both, honest and speaks it how it is, as well as pandering?

[Matchles]

Wait, there are people who don't think the media has a liberal bias? Even my most die hard liberal friends acknowledge this, as it's painfully obvious.

That anecdote doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/20/up...abt=0002&abg=1

Conservative members of the current Congress have appeared more often on the network talk shows than their liberal counterparts. Senators and representatives from the conservative end of the ideological spectrum have made 57 percent of the appearances, compared with 42 percent for liberals, according to an Upshot analysis of data collected by American University.

When the Sunday shows have turned to former members of Congress, the same ideological pattern emerges: Conservatives have made 56 percent of the appearances, compared with 41 percent for liberals.

[Tijuana]

It doesn't. The US media has a corporate bias; they favor politicians which are to their advantage which, given their penchant for corporate welfare, tends to mean the Republicans.

- - - Updated - - -



Please do explain how targeting a specific religious group is not a violation of freedom of religion.

And no, censoring the internet is an attack on freedom of speech.



Freedom of religion does not apply exclusively to US citizens.



'That could be used to incite radicalization'.

Fairly dangerous litmus test. Do you think that it's acceptable to suppress political dissidents because they might become 'radicals'?



I thought I did, in the form of his using minorities as scapegoats.

If you think this, I can only assume you have never in your life had an objective thought. The media has been biased to the left longer than anyone can remember. In fact, liberal media bias is the whole reason that Faux News is a thing. They literally would have no purpose, if the media was not biased. There would be nothing for them to capitalize on.

[Felya]

If you think this, I can only assume you have never in your life had an objective thought. The media has been biased to the left longer than anyone can remember. In fact, liberal media bias is the whole reason that Faux News is a thing. They literally would have no purpose, if the media was not biased. There would be nothing for them to capitalize on.

Fox News exists not because liberal bias of news, but the fact that fearmongering and pandering works. Rupert Murdoch has stated that his news channel would be liberal, if that's where the money was. By that definition alone, people are wasting money on having liberal news sources. The thing with fox, every channel can become exactly the same as fox is now, they will go even further right to claim everyone is liberal. Don't confuse fox's advertising, with reality of what they are. They won't shift left for balance, as their balance always involves going further right...

This is how you end up with corporatist like Obama, being treated as a communist.

[Deleted]

So if a large chunk of his money and family business came from government subsidies and tax abatement then he would only be supported by big government right?

It's easy to not need super PACs when you can phone in all your interviews to the television stations, hold press conferences from your lobby, and intentionally said irrational and stupid things just so the media covers you more. It's just too bad the other candidates actually have to work for media attention and publicity.

Stop rationalizing irrationality.

[Elegiac]

If you think this, I can only assume you have never in your life had an objective thought. The media has been biased to the left longer than anyone can remember. In fact, liberal media bias is the whole reason that Faux News is a thing. They literally would have no purpose, if the media was not biased. There would be nothing for them to capitalize on.

I didn't say the media was unbiased. I said that mainstream media in the US does not have a liberal bias, which is in fact the case.

[primalmatter]

I didn't say the media was unbiased. I said that mainstream media in the US does not have a liberal bias, which is in fact the case.

I actually agree with this no news station I have seen supports a liberal bias. Most are biased towards the democrats with the rest siding with republicans.

[Revi]

Disqualified how? Apart from some very basic rules like nationality, the only qualifier is popularity.

Is he popular? Yes.

[Felya]

Disqualified how? Apart from some very basic rules like nationality, the only qualifier is popularity.

Is he popular? Yes.

And according to Trump, the vetting process for nationality doesn't work. See his promised proof of Obama's country of origin.