CDZ UK Parliament Debates Trump Ban

[Correll]

If I live in a neighborhood that slowly becomes more dangerous to live in over time, and the neighbors moving in are mostly, lets say, hispanic, and I'm white, am I racist for either arming myself against danger, or by moving to another neighborhood?

If you attribute the dangers in your community, not to the individual Hispanics that are making the community dangerous but to the Hispanics in general then that's a pretty racist attitude. Arming yourself or moving to another neighborhood is of course, irrelevant to the question of being a racist. It's not what you are doing but rather the reason you are doing it.

To put it another way, if you are moving out of the neighborhood because Hispanics have made the neighborhood dangerous, that's racist because you are attributing the danger to all Hispanics. However, if you're moving out of a Hispanic neighborhood because several houses occupied by Hispanic gangbusters are making the neighborhood dangerous, then that's not racist.

Except of course it is not really on option for anyone to check the records of each and every household that moves in.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

If I live in a neighborhood that slowly becomes more dangerous to live in over time, and the neighbors moving in are mostly, lets say, hispanic, and I'm white, am I racist for either arming myself against danger, or by moving to another neighborhood?

If you attribute the dangers in your community, not to the individual Hispanics that are making the community dangerous but to the Hispanics in general then that's a pretty racist attitude. Arming yourself or moving to another neighborhood is of course, irrelevant to the question of being a racist. It's not what you are doing but rather the reason you are doing it.

To put it another way, if you are moving out of the neighborhood because Hispanics have made the neighborhood dangerous, that's racist because you are attributing the danger to all Hispanics. However, if you're moving out of a Hispanic neighborhood because several houses occupied by Hispanic gangbusters are making the neighborhood dangerous, then that's not racist.

Except of course it is not really on option for anyone to check the records of each and every household that moves in.

True but we can always do what Drumpf says. He said he will control Muslims coming by asking people what religion they are. And Sarah said he'll wipe out isis by telling them they're fired.

Bing bang boom.

Problem solved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FA_Q2]

The point is how willing he is to cut ties with our greatest ally. He says if he were president, he would ban current and future investments in the UK. He doesn't mean Trump Enterprises, he means the US economy. He would try to ban our economy from having investments in the UK. That's ridiculous and would do huge, inestimable damage to US-UK relations.

Assuming it's true that he said that and meant it as you've stated, it's just one more of the utterly stupid and unimplementable policies Mr. Trump has articulated.

Truly, it doesn't even make sense that, banned from the UK or not, Mr. Trump would put an end to the deals he's got in the works to invest in resorts in Scotland. The whole business purpose for such an investment is for Mr. Trump to make money. Scotland (assuming as a nation that it cares) can find someone else to build a resort where Mr. Trump/Trump Organization will if he/it doesn't withdraw from doing so. Nobody invests 200 million pounds into something without expecting to get a return a good deal greater than 200 million pounds. It'd be different were he donating that sum to a charity, but he's not.

The problem is that he he didn't say that at all. He said that he would pull his own investments. And that action does make sense. You invest to make money - the ability to manage a venture like that would be hindered if he were not even allowed in the country. It would also speak to the ability to run a successful venture that bore your name if you were legally barred from the country.

Do you not think that the very sentiment that action would send would place a rather big question on the venture itself to make money?

That may also hold true for Muslim businessmen Trump plans to band from the US such as Alwaleed Bin Tahal who is the largest stockholder in Citigroup and Khalid A. Al-Falih, Charman of the Board of the giant Saudi Aramco who owns or controls dozens of large US Corporations, and Sovereign Wealth Funds in six Persian Gulf countries with 1/4 of their 1.7 trillion dollars invested in the US companies.

Your point?

 

[Flopper]

The problem is that he he didn't say that at all. He said that he would pull his own investments. And that action does make sense. You invest to make money - the ability to manage a venture like that would be hindered if he were not even allowed in the country. It would also speak to the ability to run a successful venture that bore your name if you were legally barred from the country.

Do you not think that the very sentiment that action would send would place a rather big question on the venture itself to make money?

My answer to your question is "no." It's no because upon assuming that office, Mr. Trump would have to step away from managing anything having to do with managing Trump Organization were he to become President, and his UK ventures along with every other venture in Trump Organization would have to survive without his attention anyway, regardless of whether he can set foot into the UK.

That raises a whole new question. Just what would Mr. Trump do with Trump Organization? It's a business held by himself and his immediate family members. Well before taking office, Jimmy Carter placed his peanut farming business into a blind trust. Presumably Mr. Trump would do the same, but the reality is that he isn't absolutely required to do so unless so instructed by the head of the government's office of ethics.

"It should be noted that there is no federal statute which expressly requires that particular federal officials place assets into a “blind trust” upon entering public service with the Federal Government. Rather, the use of a “blind trust” is one of several methods of conflict of interest avoidance under federal law and regulation."​

That said, for certain individuals, the President among them, there is a requirement that they disqualify themselves:

The principal federal conflict of interest law provides that an official who administers federal law should not take any official action on, or make recommendations concerning any particular governmental matter in which that official, or one closely associated with the official, has a personal “financial interest.” That is, federal officials in the executive branch of Government, other than the President or Vice President, must generally “recuse” or disqualify themselves from participating in any particular governmental matter in which they have a financial interest, or in which their spouse, dependant children, partner, or business with which they are associated, has a financial interest. Executive branch officials may also be required, under regulations promulgated by the Office of Government Ethics, to recuse themselves from certain governmental matters affecting an even broader category of persons or entities with whom they have a “covered relationship."​

There is also the matter of "independence," which is not really a layman's topic, and I'd just as soon not get into a debate about the intricacies of establishing and ensuring independence. As a long time member of the AICPA, I'm quite well versed on the theory and application of the concept. In general, independence is this:

Independence is defined as follows:

1. Independence of mind is the state of mind that permits a member to perform an attest service without being affected by influences that compromise professional judgment, thereby allowing an individual to act with integrity and exercise objectivity and professional skepticism.
2. Independence in appearance is the avoidance of circumstances that would cause a reasonable and informed third party, who has knowledge of all relevant information, including safeguards applied, to reasonably conclude that the integrity, objectivity, or professional skepticism of a firm or member of the attest engagement team is compromised.

This definition should not be interpreted as an absolute. For example, the phrase “without being affected by influences that compromise professional judgment” is not intended to convey that one must be free of all influences that might compromise objective judgment. Instead, one must determine whether such influences, if present, create a threat that is not at an acceptable level that one would not act with integrity and exercise objectivity and professional skepticism in the conduct of a particular engagement or would be perceived as not being able to do so by a reasonable and informed third party with knowledge of all relevant information. This definition reflects the long-standing integrity requirement that when/where independence is required, one be independent both in fact (that is, of mind) and in appearance.​

Given the very wide breadth of Mr. Trump's business ventures (global and across multiple industries) and the very closely held nature of his company, it's hard to imagine how he could achieve achieve independence from it and without conflict of interest conduct affairs of state, be they foreign or domestic in nature. As President, he's certainly not going to stop talking with his wife and children, the other owners of Trump Organization, and he's certainly not going to forget what specific ventures the business engaged in or had "in the hopper" at the time he might assume the Presidency. And whether you like the prospect of his becoming Preside or don't welcome that potentiality's coming to be, nobody can deny the man's character is first and foremost "all about" one thing: Donald Trump's winning.

Just as a simple example....If Mr. Trump as President had to spend a night in NYC, do you think he and his entourage would stay at a Trump property or a competitor's property? That's just a very straightforward example, there are plenty that are far less direct, far more complicated, and far less readily identified. The key thing in my mind is that Mr. Trump has shown by his past and current dealings that winning is more important to him than is "doing the right thing." That's just not a quality I want in a President, or any public official for that matter. At the very least, seeing as I know everyone has that trait to some degree, I don't want a President in whom that trait appears to predominate and drive his decision making.

I think if Trump as President wanted to stay in Trump Towers with his presidential entourage, he would do so. If he wanted to manage his business as president, he would do so. As a candidate he's made it quite clear that as president, he's going to run government as he sees fit with little regard for convention, pc, or congressional or judicial pressure. Trump thrives on controversy, and doing the unexpected and being president is not going to change that.

And yes, I think for Trump it is all about winning but his idea of winning and that of his supporters might well be quite different.

 

[320 Years of History]

The problem is that he he didn't say that at all. He said that he would pull his own investments. And that action does make sense. You invest to make money - the ability to manage a venture like that would be hindered if he were not even allowed in the country. It would also speak to the ability to run a successful venture that bore your name if you were legally barred from the country.

Do you not think that the very sentiment that action would send would place a rather big question on the venture itself to make money?

My answer to your question is "no." It's no because upon assuming that office, Mr. Trump would have to step away from managing anything having to do with managing Trump Organization were he to become President, and his UK ventures along with every other venture in Trump Organization would have to survive without his attention anyway, regardless of whether he can set foot into the UK.

That raises a whole new question. Just what would Mr. Trump do with Trump Organization? It's a business held by himself and his immediate family members. Well before taking office, Jimmy Carter placed his peanut farming business into a blind trust. Presumably Mr. Trump would do the same, but the reality is that he isn't absolutely required to do so unless so instructed by the head of the government's office of ethics.

"It should be noted that there is no federal statute which expressly requires that particular federal officials place assets into a “blind trust” upon entering public service with the Federal Government. Rather, the use of a “blind trust” is one of several methods of conflict of interest avoidance under federal law and regulation."​

That said, for certain individuals, the President among them, there is a requirement that they disqualify themselves:

The principal federal conflict of interest law provides that an official who administers federal law should not take any official action on, or make recommendations concerning any particular governmental matter in which that official, or one closely associated with the official, has a personal “financial interest.” That is, federal officials in the executive branch of Government, other than the President or Vice President, must generally “recuse” or disqualify themselves from participating in any particular governmental matter in which they have a financial interest, or in which their spouse, dependant children, partner, or business with which they are associated, has a financial interest. Executive branch officials may also be required, under regulations promulgated by the Office of Government Ethics, to recuse themselves from certain governmental matters affecting an even broader category of persons or entities with whom they have a “covered relationship."​

There is also the matter of "independence," which is not really a layman's topic, and I'd just as soon not get into a debate about the intricacies of establishing and ensuring independence. As a long time member of the AICPA, I'm quite well versed on the theory and application of the concept. In general, independence is this:

Independence is defined as follows:

1. Independence of mind is the state of mind that permits a member to perform an attest service without being affected by influences that compromise professional judgment, thereby allowing an individual to act with integrity and exercise objectivity and professional skepticism.
2. Independence in appearance is the avoidance of circumstances that would cause a reasonable and informed third party, who has knowledge of all relevant information, including safeguards applied, to reasonably conclude that the integrity, objectivity, or professional skepticism of a firm or member of the attest engagement team is compromised.

This definition should not be interpreted as an absolute. For example, the phrase “without being affected by influences that compromise professional judgment” is not intended to convey that one must be free of all influences that might compromise objective judgment. Instead, one must determine whether such influences, if present, create a threat that is not at an acceptable level that one would not act with integrity and exercise objectivity and professional skepticism in the conduct of a particular engagement or would be perceived as not being able to do so by a reasonable and informed third party with knowledge of all relevant information. This definition reflects the long-standing integrity requirement that when/where independence is required, one be independent both in fact (that is, of mind) and in appearance.​

Given the very wide breadth of Mr. Trump's business ventures (global and across multiple industries) and the very closely held nature of his company, it's hard to imagine how he could achieve achieve independence from it and without conflict of interest conduct affairs of state, be they foreign or domestic in nature. As President, he's certainly not going to stop talking with his wife and children, the other owners of Trump Organization, and he's certainly not going to forget what specific ventures the business engaged in or had "in the hopper" at the time he might assume the Presidency. And whether you like the prospect of his becoming Preside or don't welcome that potentiality's coming to be, nobody can deny the man's character is first and foremost "all about" one thing: Donald Trump's winning.

Just as a simple example....If Mr. Trump as President had to spend a night in NYC, do you think he and his entourage would stay at a Trump property or a competitor's property? That's just a very straightforward example, there are plenty that are far less direct, far more complicated, and far less readily identified. The key thing in my mind is that Mr. Trump has shown by his past and current dealings that winning is more important to him than is "doing the right thing." That's just not a quality I want in a President, or any public official for that matter. At the very least, seeing as I know everyone has that trait to some degree, I don't want a President in whom that trait appears to predominate and drive his decision making.

I think if Trump as President wanted to stay in Trump Towers with his presidential entourage, he would do so. If he wanted to manage his business as president, he would do so. As a candidate he's made it quite clear that as president, he's going to run government as he sees fit with little regard for convention, pc, or congressional or judicial pressure. Trump thrives on controversy, and doing the unexpected and being president is not going to change that.

And yes, I think for Trump it is all about winning but his idea of winning and that of his supporters might well be quite different.

Well, he could do that and nobody can stop him from doing it. I think that one of the consequences of his doing that may be his subjecting himself to impeachment. As noted in the CRS Report to Congress that I linked to, as an executive branch employee, Presidents must either recuse/disqualify themselves from participating in decisions that could appear to be conflicts of interest or they can "do something" with their personal assets so that they (and certain other key persons) are observed not to have a conflict of interest.

Few holders of high office would care to invite controversy and doubt with regard to matters of independence, least of all over something so silly and basic as the choice of a hotel. That said, Mr. Trump might; he's shown a penchant for doing and saying whatever the heck he wants and everyone else be damned. His effrontery in that regard is novel, but as with so much about Mr. Trump, is hardly what anyone would call conservative behavior. Then again, that dichotomy is just another example of Mr. Trump talking out of two sides of his mouth.

 

[Flopper]

The point is how willing he is to cut ties with our greatest ally. He says if he were president, he would ban current and future investments in the UK. He doesn't mean Trump Enterprises, he means the US economy. He would try to ban our economy from having investments in the UK. That's ridiculous and would do huge, inestimable damage to US-UK relations.

Assuming it's true that he said that and meant it as you've stated, it's just one more of the utterly stupid and unimplementable policies Mr. Trump has articulated.

Truly, it doesn't even make sense that, banned from the UK or not, Mr. Trump would put an end to the deals he's got in the works to invest in resorts in Scotland. The whole business purpose for such an investment is for Mr. Trump to make money. Scotland (assuming as a nation that it cares) can find someone else to build a resort where Mr. Trump/Trump Organization will if he/it doesn't withdraw from doing so. Nobody invests 200 million pounds into something without expecting to get a return a good deal greater than 200 million pounds. It'd be different were he donating that sum to a charity, but he's not.

The problem is that he he didn't say that at all. He said that he would pull his own investments. And that action does make sense. You invest to make money - the ability to manage a venture like that would be hindered if he were not even allowed in the country. It would also speak to the ability to run a successful venture that bore your name if you were legally barred from the country.

Do you not think that the very sentiment that action would send would place a rather big question on the venture itself to make money?

That may also hold true for Muslim businessmen Trump plans to band from the US such as Alwaleed Bin Tahal who is the largest stockholder in Citigroup and Khalid A. Al-Falih, Charman of the Board of the giant Saudi Aramco who owns or controls dozens of large US Corporations, and Sovereign Wealth Funds in six Persian Gulf countries with 1/4 of their 1.7 trillion dollars invested in the US companies.

Your point?

The point is that if America strikes out against millions of Muslims world wide, the vast majority of which mean us no harm, there will be consequences. Those consequences may be financial, diplomatic, or increased terrorism against the US at home and abroad but there will be consequences.

What Americans should understand is that lashing out against all Muslims because of the actions of a few is what Al Qaeda, ISIS, and every Islamic terrorist organization want. They need confirmation for their propaganda, that America hates Islam and is the enemy of every Muslim.

 

[Flopper]

The problem is that he he didn't say that at all. He said that he would pull his own investments. And that action does make sense. You invest to make money - the ability to manage a venture like that would be hindered if he were not even allowed in the country. It would also speak to the ability to run a successful venture that bore your name if you were legally barred from the country.

Do you not think that the very sentiment that action would send would place a rather big question on the venture itself to make money?

My answer to your question is "no." It's no because upon assuming that office, Mr. Trump would have to step away from managing anything having to do with managing Trump Organization were he to become President, and his UK ventures along with every other venture in Trump Organization would have to survive without his attention anyway, regardless of whether he can set foot into the UK.

That raises a whole new question. Just what would Mr. Trump do with Trump Organization? It's a business held by himself and his immediate family members. Well before taking office, Jimmy Carter placed his peanut farming business into a blind trust. Presumably Mr. Trump would do the same, but the reality is that he isn't absolutely required to do so unless so instructed by the head of the government's office of ethics.

"It should be noted that there is no federal statute which expressly requires that particular federal officials place assets into a “blind trust” upon entering public service with the Federal Government. Rather, the use of a “blind trust” is one of several methods of conflict of interest avoidance under federal law and regulation."​

That said, for certain individuals, the President among them, there is a requirement that they disqualify themselves:

The principal federal conflict of interest law provides that an official who administers federal law should not take any official action on, or make recommendations concerning any particular governmental matter in which that official, or one closely associated with the official, has a personal “financial interest.” That is, federal officials in the executive branch of Government, other than the President or Vice President, must generally “recuse” or disqualify themselves from participating in any particular governmental matter in which they have a financial interest, or in which their spouse, dependant children, partner, or business with which they are associated, has a financial interest. Executive branch officials may also be required, under regulations promulgated by the Office of Government Ethics, to recuse themselves from certain governmental matters affecting an even broader category of persons or entities with whom they have a “covered relationship."​

There is also the matter of "independence," which is not really a layman's topic, and I'd just as soon not get into a debate about the intricacies of establishing and ensuring independence. As a long time member of the AICPA, I'm quite well versed on the theory and application of the concept. In general, independence is this:

Independence is defined as follows:

1. Independence of mind is the state of mind that permits a member to perform an attest service without being affected by influences that compromise professional judgment, thereby allowing an individual to act with integrity and exercise objectivity and professional skepticism.
2. Independence in appearance is the avoidance of circumstances that would cause a reasonable and informed third party, who has knowledge of all relevant information, including safeguards applied, to reasonably conclude that the integrity, objectivity, or professional skepticism of a firm or member of the attest engagement team is compromised.

This definition should not be interpreted as an absolute. For example, the phrase “without being affected by influences that compromise professional judgment” is not intended to convey that one must be free of all influences that might compromise objective judgment. Instead, one must determine whether such influences, if present, create a threat that is not at an acceptable level that one would not act with integrity and exercise objectivity and professional skepticism in the conduct of a particular engagement or would be perceived as not being able to do so by a reasonable and informed third party with knowledge of all relevant information. This definition reflects the long-standing integrity requirement that when/where independence is required, one be independent both in fact (that is, of mind) and in appearance.​

Given the very wide breadth of Mr. Trump's business ventures (global and across multiple industries) and the very closely held nature of his company, it's hard to imagine how he could achieve achieve independence from it and without conflict of interest conduct affairs of state, be they foreign or domestic in nature. As President, he's certainly not going to stop talking with his wife and children, the other owners of Trump Organization, and he's certainly not going to forget what specific ventures the business engaged in or had "in the hopper" at the time he might assume the Presidency. And whether you like the prospect of his becoming Preside or don't welcome that potentiality's coming to be, nobody can deny the man's character is first and foremost "all about" one thing: Donald Trump's winning.

Just as a simple example....If Mr. Trump as President had to spend a night in NYC, do you think he and his entourage would stay at a Trump property or a competitor's property? That's just a very straightforward example, there are plenty that are far less direct, far more complicated, and far less readily identified. The key thing in my mind is that Mr. Trump has shown by his past and current dealings that winning is more important to him than is "doing the right thing." That's just not a quality I want in a President, or any public official for that matter. At the very least, seeing as I know everyone has that trait to some degree, I don't want a President in whom that trait appears to predominate and drive his decision making.

I think if Trump as President wanted to stay in Trump Towers with his presidential entourage, he would do so. If he wanted to manage his business as president, he would do so. As a candidate he's made it quite clear that as president, he's going to run government as he sees fit with little regard for convention, pc, or congressional or judicial pressure. Trump thrives on controversy, and doing the unexpected and being president is not going to change that.

And yes, I think for Trump it is all about winning but his idea of winning and that of his supporters might well be quite different.

Well, he could do that and nobody can stop him from doing it. I think that one of the consequences of his doing that may be his subjecting himself to impeachment. As noted in the CRS Report to Congress that I linked to, as an executive branch employee, Presidents must either recuse/disqualify themselves from participating in decisions that could appear to be conflicts of interest or they can "do something" with their personal assets so that they (and certain other key persons) are observed not to have a conflict of interest.

Few holders of high office would care to invite controversy and doubt with regard to matters of independence, least of all over something so silly and basic as the choice of a hotel. That said, Mr. Trump might; he's shown a penchant for doing and saying whatever the heck he wants and everyone else be damned. His effrontery in that regard is novel, but as with so much about Mr. Trump, is hardly what anyone would call conservative behavior. Then again, that dichotomy is just another example of Mr. Trump talking out of two sides of his mouth.

The one thing Trump would do as president is make full use of the bully pulpit. For Trump, that may well be the greatest prize in winning the presidency. It wouldn't surprise me to see him delegate more than any president in history.

 

[320 Years of History]

The one thing Trump would do as president is make full use of the bully pulpit. For Trump, that may well be the greatest prize in winning the presidency. It wouldn't surprise me to see him delegate more than any president in history.

Red:
That prediction seems to me not only plausible, but also highly probable. Bullying is mostly all he's done as a campaigner; I see no reason to expect that tactic to fall out of his basket of tricks.

I never watched The Apprentice (not the basic show or the celebrity version), so I don't know if he is a bully on there. Do you know if he is? I know the very idea of a man's finding it entertaining to fire people on national television strikes me as being indicative of being a bully. Having fired more folks than I would have liked to, let me tell you, there's nothing funny or entertaining about it when I've had to do it, and I'm certain the folks I fired didn't think it was entertaining either.

Frankly, I'm not sure whether it's more despicable that millions of folks find enjoyment in watching such a thing happen or that Mr. Trump is the source of that sort of so-called entertainment. I don't know if anyone on this forum has ever lost their job, but if anyone here has, I wonder if they thought it was funny, or entertaining, or would have enjoyed having that experience televised nationally?

Once again, I have to ask, where are folks' supposed Christian values? Is "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" something folks only practice on Sunday or in church? For such a simple instruction, one'd think it quite easy to follow, but obviously it isn't. I know I wouldn't care to have being fired shown on national television as entertainment, so I'm surely not going to watch that happen to someone else, and thereby do my tiny part in encouraging that sort of thing.

 

[Flopper]

The one thing Trump would do as president is make full use of the bully pulpit. For Trump, that may well be the greatest prize in winning the presidency. It wouldn't surprise me to see him delegate more than any president in history.

Red:
That prediction seems to me not only plausible, but also highly probable. Bullying is mostly all he's done as a campaigner; I see no reason to expect that tactic to fall out of his basket of tricks.

I never watched The Apprentice (not the basic show or the celebrity version), so I don't know if he is a bully on there. Do you know if he is? I know the very idea of a man's finding it entertaining to fire people on national television strikes me as being indicative of being a bully. Having fired more folks than I would have liked to, let me tell you, there's nothing funny or entertaining about it when I've had to do it, and I'm certain the folks I fired didn't think it was entertaining either.

Frankly, I'm not sure whether it's more despicable that millions of folks find enjoyment in watching such a thing happen or that Mr. Trump is the source of that sort of so-called entertainment. I don't know if anyone on this forum has ever lost their job, but if anyone here has, I wonder if they thought it was funny, or entertaining, or would have enjoyed having that experience televised nationally?

Once again, I have to ask, where are folks' supposed Christian values? Is "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" something folks only practice on Sunday or in church? For such a simple instruction, one'd think it quite easy to follow, but obviously it isn't. I know I wouldn't care to have being fired shown on national television as entertainment, so I'm surely not going to watch that happen to someone else, and thereby do my tiny part in encouraging that sort of thing.

The vast majority of voters do not vote in primaries. In fact, only approximately 9% of those eligible turnout for primaries. Most of these voters have strong political opinions and are often working for a particular candidate. These people are not representative of voters in general and often are not representative of voters within their own party.

To see the real picture of who voters like, you have to look at a large national poll such as Gallup that includes all likely voters. When you do, the picture looks much different than the primary polls. Among all Republican voters, Rubio, Cruz,and Carson have a more favorable rating than Trump. In fact, Republican voters have a more favorable opinion of Mike Hulkabee. Among Independents and Democrats, Trump is the least favored of all Republican candidates.

Most people like to watch Trump because he's entertaining, but that doesn't mean they like him or will vote for him.

Trump's Image Among Democrats, Independents Most Negative of Any GOP Candidate

 

[Flopper]

If I live in a neighborhood that slowly becomes more dangerous to live in over time, and the neighbors moving in are mostly, lets say, hispanic, and I'm white, am I racist for either arming myself against danger, or by moving to another neighborhood?

If you attribute the dangers in your community, not to the individual Hispanics that are making the community dangerous but to the Hispanics in general then that's a pretty racist attitude. Arming yourself or moving to another neighborhood is of course, irrelevant to the question of being a racist. It's not what you are doing but rather the reason you are doing it.

To put it another way, if you are moving out of the neighborhood because Hispanics have made the neighborhood dangerous, that's racist because you are attributing the danger to all Hispanics. However, if you're moving out of a Hispanic neighborhood because several houses occupied by Hispanic gangbusters are making the neighborhood dangerous, then that's not racist.

Except of course, it's not really on option for anyone to check the records of each and every household that moves in.

And not very accurate. The owner might have a Hispanic name but be Anglo, or they could they could be black, or Muslim, or good old American white trash.

 

[Correll]

If I live in a neighborhood that slowly becomes more dangerous to live in over time, and the neighbors moving in are mostly, lets say, hispanic, and I'm white, am I racist for either arming myself against danger, or by moving to another neighborhood?

If you attribute the dangers in your community, not to the individual Hispanics that are making the community dangerous but to the Hispanics in general then that's a pretty racist attitude. Arming yourself or moving to another neighborhood is of course, irrelevant to the question of being a racist. It's not what you are doing but rather the reason you are doing it.

To put it another way, if you are moving out of the neighborhood because Hispanics have made the neighborhood dangerous, that's racist because you are attributing the danger to all Hispanics. However, if you're moving out of a Hispanic neighborhood because several houses occupied by Hispanic gangbusters are making the neighborhood dangerous, then that's not racist.

Except of course, it's not really on option for anyone to check the records of each and every household that moves in.

And not very accurate. The owner might have a Hispanic name but be Anglo, or they could they could be black, or Muslim, or good old American white trash.

So you are forced to make judgement based on the limited information you do have, ie the neighbor hood going Hispanic.

 

[Flopper]

If I live in a neighborhood that slowly becomes more dangerous to live in over time, and the neighbors moving in are mostly, lets say, hispanic, and I'm white, am I racist for either arming myself against danger, or by moving to another neighborhood?

If you attribute the dangers in your community, not to the individual Hispanics that are making the community dangerous but to the Hispanics in general then that's a pretty racist attitude. Arming yourself or moving to another neighborhood is of course, irrelevant to the question of being a racist. It's not what you are doing but rather the reason you are doing it.

To put it another way, if you are moving out of the neighborhood because Hispanics have made the neighborhood dangerous, that's racist because you are attributing the danger to all Hispanics. However, if you're moving out of a Hispanic neighborhood because several houses occupied by Hispanic gangbusters are making the neighborhood dangerous, then that's not racist.

Except of course, it's not really on option for anyone to check the records of each and every household that moves in.

And not very accurate. The owner might have a Hispanic name but be Anglo, or they could they could be black, or Muslim, or good old American white trash.

So you are forced to make judgement based on the limited information you do have, ie the neighbor hood going Hispanic.

No, you can look at dependable data such as the quality of schools in an area, crime statistics, and median family income. You can take a good look at the neighborhood, talk to residents, realtors, and the local police.

If you're buying a low cost home in a city with large minority populations, you will probably end up in a neighborhood that is either predominately black, Hispanics, or a very mixed neighborhood because minorities ten to have a lower income. In such case trying to use race as a criteria is not a good idea.

BTW When I was young my family lived in some pretty crappy neighborhoods but the worst neighborhoods were not Hispanic but rather predominately white with a large black minority.

 

[jasonnfree]

The point is how willing he is to cut ties with our greatest ally. He says if he were president, he would ban current and future investments in the UK. He doesn't mean Trump Enterprises, he means the US economy. He would try to ban our economy from having investments in the UK. That's ridiculous and would do huge, inestimable damage to US-UK relations.

Assuming it's true that he said that and meant it as you've stated, it's just one more of the utterly stupid and unimplementable policies Mr. Trump has articulated.

Truly, it doesn't even make sense that, banned from the UK or not, Mr. Trump would put an end to the deals he's got in the works to invest in resorts in Scotland. The whole business purpose for such an investment is for Mr. Trump to make money. Scotland (assuming as a nation that it cares) can find someone else to build a resort where Mr. Trump/Trump Organization will if he/it doesn't withdraw from doing so. Nobody invests 200 million pounds into something without expecting to get a return a good deal greater than 200 million pounds. It'd be different were he donating that sum to a charity, but he's not.

The problem is that he he didn't say that at all. He said that he would pull his own investments. And that action does make sense. You invest to make money - the ability to manage a venture like that would be hindered if he were not even allowed in the country. It would also speak to the ability to run a successful venture that bore your name if you were legally barred from the country.

Do you not think that the very sentiment that action would send would place a rather big question on the venture itself to make money?

That may also hold true for Muslim businessmen Trump plans to band from the US such as Alwaleed Bin Tahal who is the largest stockholder in Citigroup and Khalid A. Al-Falih, Charman of the Board of the giant Saudi Aramco who owns or controls dozens of large US Corporations, and Sovereign Wealth Funds in six Persian Gulf countries with 1/4 of their 1.7 trillion dollars invested in the US companies.

Your point?

The point is that if America strikes out against millions of Muslims world wide, the vast majority of which mean us no harm, there will be consequences. Those consequences may be financial, diplomatic, or increased terrorism against the US at home and abroad but there will be consequences.

What Americans should understand is that lashing out against all Muslims because of the actions of a few is what Al Qaeda, ISIS, and every Islamic terrorist organization want. They need confirmation for their propaganda, that America hates Islam and is the enemy of every Muslim.

How is being selective about who you allow into your country lashing out? It's up to the President and other leaders to protect their countrymen against people coming here to do us harm. True, not all Muslims fit that category, but a sizable percentage of them certainly do. Besides, Hollande in France, and Merkle in Germany, certainly didn't lash out at Muslims and actually invited them in with open arms, and look what happened in Paris and Cologne, for example. Nobody but the leaders of a country can protect their people. Trump is he only candidate who addresses this issue.

 

[Esmeralda]

Assuming it's true that he said that and meant it as you've stated, it's just one more of the utterly stupid and unimplementable policies Mr. Trump has articulated.

Truly, it doesn't even make sense that, banned from the UK or not, Mr. Trump would put an end to the deals he's got in the works to invest in resorts in Scotland. The whole business purpose for such an investment is for Mr. Trump to make money. Scotland (assuming as a nation that it cares) can find someone else to build a resort where Mr. Trump/Trump Organization will if he/it doesn't withdraw from doing so. Nobody invests 200 million pounds into something without expecting to get a return a good deal greater than 200 million pounds. It'd be different were he donating that sum to a charity, but he's not.

The problem is that he he didn't say that at all. He said that he would pull his own investments. And that action does make sense. You invest to make money - the ability to manage a venture like that would be hindered if he were not even allowed in the country. It would also speak to the ability to run a successful venture that bore your name if you were legally barred from the country.

Do you not think that the very sentiment that action would send would place a rather big question on the venture itself to make money?

That may also hold true for Muslim businessmen Trump plans to band from the US such as Alwaleed Bin Tahal who is the largest stockholder in Citigroup and Khalid A. Al-Falih, Charman of the Board of the giant Saudi Aramco who owns or controls dozens of large US Corporations, and Sovereign Wealth Funds in six Persian Gulf countries with 1/4 of their 1.7 trillion dollars invested in the US companies.

Your point?

The point is that if America strikes out against millions of Muslims world wide, the vast majority of which mean us no harm, there will be consequences. Those consequences may be financial, diplomatic, or increased terrorism against the US at home and abroad but there will be consequences.

What Americans should understand is that lashing out against all Muslims because of the actions of a few is what Al Qaeda, ISIS, and every Islamic terrorist organization want. They need confirmation for their propaganda, that America hates Islam and is the enemy of every Muslim.

How is being selective about who you allow into your country lashing out? It's up to the President and other leaders to protect their countrymen against people coming here to do us harm. True, not all Muslims fit that category, but a sizable percentage of them certainly do. Besides, Hollande in France, and Merkle in Germany, certainly didn't lash out at Muslims and actually invited them in with open arms, and look what happened in Paris and Cologne, for example. Nobody but the leaders of a country can protect their people. Trump is he only candidate who addresses this issue.

Not all Muslims fit the category of those who want to do us harm, but a sizable percentage certainly do? You are 100 percent incorrect about that. It is just the opposite. A miniscule percentage are concerned with harming Americans. The vast majority have no desire or intention to harm anyone anywhere. How do you get such a skewed vision of reality? The amount of killing and violence done by American citizens already here by far outweighs any violence done in the US by Muslims, especially by those who are some kind of terrorist. Just because something gets a lot of news coverage, that does not mean it is happening all over the place. You do not understand reality.

There are far, far more innocent people killed in America by mass killers who go into schools and universities, shopping malls, cinemas, etc., and kill as many people as they possibly can. These are Americans with masses of guns and ammunition killing innocent people simply to kill. Getting firearms out of the hands of these killers should be your priority, not keeping innocent people out of our country simply because of their religion.

 

[320 Years of History]

The problem is that he he didn't say that at all. He said that he would pull his own investments. And that action does make sense. You invest to make money - the ability to manage a venture like that would be hindered if he were not even allowed in the country. It would also speak to the ability to run a successful venture that bore your name if you were legally barred from the country.

Do you not think that the very sentiment that action would send would place a rather big question on the venture itself to make money?

That may also hold true for Muslim businessmen Trump plans to band from the US such as Alwaleed Bin Tahal who is the largest stockholder in Citigroup and Khalid A. Al-Falih, Charman of the Board of the giant Saudi Aramco who owns or controls dozens of large US Corporations, and Sovereign Wealth Funds in six Persian Gulf countries with 1/4 of their 1.7 trillion dollars invested in the US companies.

Your point?

The point is that if America strikes out against millions of Muslims world wide, the vast majority of which mean us no harm, there will be consequences. Those consequences may be financial, diplomatic, or increased terrorism against the US at home and abroad but there will be consequences.

What Americans should understand is that lashing out against all Muslims because of the actions of a few is what Al Qaeda, ISIS, and every Islamic terrorist organization want. They need confirmation for their propaganda, that America hates Islam and is the enemy of every Muslim.

How is being selective about who you allow into your country lashing out? It's up to the President and other leaders to protect their countrymen against people coming here to do us harm. True, not all Muslims fit that category, but a sizable percentage of them certainly do. Besides, Hollande in France, and Merkle in Germany, certainly didn't lash out at Muslims and actually invited them in with open arms, and look what happened in Paris and Cologne, for example. Nobody but the leaders of a country can protect their people. Trump is he only candidate who addresses this issue.

Not all Muslims fit the category of those who want to do us harm, but a sizable percentage certainly do? You are 100 percent incorrect about that. It is just the opposite. A miniscule percentage are concerned with harming Americans. The vast majority have no desire or intention to harm anyone anywhere. How do you get such a skewed vision of reality? The amount of killing and violence done by American citizens already here by far outweighs any violence done in the US by Muslims, especially by those who are some kind of terrorist. Just because something gets a lot of news coverage, that does not mean it is happening all over the place. You do not understand reality.

There are far, far more innocent people killed in America by mass killers who go into schools and universities, shopping malls, cinemas, etc., and kill as many people as they possibly can. These are Americans with masses of guns and ammunition killing innocent people simply to kill. Getting firearms out of the hands of these killers should be your priority, not keeping innocent people out of our country simply because of their religion.

Red:
That's absolutely correct. That someone here in January 2016 thinks or believes otherwise testifies to their unwillingness to simply bother to find out whether their perceptions hold the least bit of water. In November 2015, Pew Research conducted a study to discern the nature and extent of support for ISIS among Muslims in countries having a high percentage of Muslim residents. What they found is summarized below.

"Recent attacks in Paris, Beirut and Baghdad linked to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) have once again brought terrorism and Islamic extremism to the forefront of international relations. According to newly released data that the Pew Research Center collected in 11 countries with significant Muslim populations, people from Nigeria to Jordan to Indonesia overwhelmingly expressed negative views of ISIS.

One exception was Pakistan, where a majority offered no definite opinion of ISIS. The nationally representative surveys were conducted as part of the Pew Research Center’s annual global poll in April and May this year."​

​

Pedantic note from me:
Careful and well informed readers will note with regard to Israel that Jewish and Arab are not mutually exclusive classifications. Even so, the very high "unfavorable" responses from individuals fitting either designation, along with the specific response values differing, strongly suggests that classification flaw is, in all likelihood, irrelevant.

• The shared genetic heritage of Jews and Palestinians
• Arab Jews - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The topline results for the survey are below. (Click the table to access the source page.)

​

Blue:
I don't know how the other member specifically arrived at the conclusion s/he did. Strangely, however, a blogger who happened upon the Pew report managed to arrive at a conclusion that is entirely the opposite of the one Pew did. Citing the Pew study, the blogger, whose blog is sophistically titled American Thinker, uploaded his/her thoughts with the headline "Pew poll: Between 63 million and 287 million ISIS supporters in just 11 countries." Clearly the so-called "thinker" doesn't understand the difference between rates and counts, or s/he does and just wants to inflame others' concerns by presenting rate-oriented data, converting it into headcount data and then using it to spawn/bolster fear, or maybe an emotion stronger than fear such as hate, or worse still, actively convert fear and/or hate into bigotry. Perhaps the other member shares the "American Thinker's" aims? I don't know and they've not directly answered your question.

What I do know is that given 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet and the figures Pew presented, far more often than not, a Muslim one encounters is going to have an unfavorable view of ISIS and its deeds and intentions than will s/he be keen on them. Yes, the "law of big numbers" does, in a manner of speaking, come into play because there are 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet, but one's odds of encountering one who is keen on ISIS (or similar organizations) are quite low, but clearly not beyond possibility. The thing is that in the U.S., one is far more likely to encounter a militant/radical Christian than a radical/militant Muslim.

So, how do folks come to hold views inconsistent with reality's indications? There are a number of detailed ways it happens, but at the end of the day, they all boil down to two things:

• their failure to adhere to Ronald Reagan's simple instruction: "trust, but verify," and
• their lack of knowledge and intellectual acuity that would allow them to make rational sense of what they might discover when they verify.

As for why folks take such tacks, well there are myriad reasons, but few to none of them, IMO, are well intentioned, and of those that are, due to the lack of rigor in collecting, analyzing and presenting their views, the reasons don't lead to boosting anything like an objective discussion among peers and interested third parties....That is aside from their casuistry leading to yours, my and others' refutations and rebuttals that try to set the record straight.

 

[Kalki]

Could it have anything to do with the fact that Islam spread from Arabia, south of the Sahara, through North Africa and into Spain, until they were driven out of Spain, and spread east across Asia all the way to Indonesia? How did it do this? Mass murder. Just like the way Judeo-Christianity spread. Both of them committed murder on a massive scale and converted the people by the sword. They both have Avraham and global domination at their root. It may be easily possible that they outdid America in the total number of mass murders and the only way they could not have is if there was less people in those days, to convert people and enslave them mentally, and the ones who survived to this day are now mentally enslaved to those doctrines, which are foreign to their ethnic and cultural identity.

Just like Judeo-Christianity is foreign to ethnic white European identities, although Christianity usurped many of its aspects from various ancient Indo-European cultures, such as: 'Christ' is a Greek term from an ancient Greek mystery school long predating the alleged Jesus or Yeshua era; or Mithraism from India contributing to the 12 disciples and Jesus story which is based on the 12 signs or months and Jesus is the Sun which is reborn after the winter solstice when it starts its northwards course on the horizon now called Christmas (let us celebrate the reason for the season?: Sun rebirth); Estre the goddess of fertility and spring being usurped and converted to Easter and Jesus' death; the Babylonian Utnapishtim story was usurped and became Noah; the Moses birth floating in a river usurped from the Egyptian Horus story, etc. The Christians and the Hebrews stole ancient cultural teachings and passed them on as their own. Reminds one of the Orwell maxim on: whoever controls the present controls the past.

 

[Correll]

If I live in a neighborhood that slowly becomes more dangerous to live in over time, and the neighbors moving in are mostly, lets say, hispanic, and I'm white, am I racist for either arming myself against danger, or by moving to another neighborhood?

If you attribute the dangers in your community, not to the individual Hispanics that are making the community dangerous but to the Hispanics in general then that's a pretty racist attitude. Arming yourself or moving to another neighborhood is of course, irrelevant to the question of being a racist. It's not what you are doing but rather the reason you are doing it.

To put it another way, if you are moving out of the neighborhood because Hispanics have made the neighborhood dangerous, that's racist because you are attributing the danger to all Hispanics. However, if you're moving out of a Hispanic neighborhood because several houses occupied by Hispanic gangbusters are making the neighborhood dangerous, then that's not racist.

Except of course, it's not really on option for anyone to check the records of each and every household that moves in.

And not very accurate. The owner might have a Hispanic name but be Anglo, or they could they could be black, or Muslim, or good old American white trash.

So you are forced to make judgement based on the limited information you do have, ie the neighbor hood going Hispanic.

No, you can look at dependable data such as the quality of schools in an area, crime statistics, and median family income. You can take a good look at the neighborhood, talk to residents, realtors, and the local police.

If you're buying a low cost home in a city with large minority populations, you will probably end up in a neighborhood that is either predominately black, Hispanics, or a very mixed neighborhood because minorities ten to have a lower income. In such case trying to use race as a criteria is not a good idea.

BTW When I was young my family lived in some pretty crappy neighborhoods but the worst neighborhoods were not Hispanic but rather predominately white with a large black minority.

"Dependable data" lags behind reality. You could end up BEING some of that data.

Most people DO do research as you suggest, just more informally. Word gets around.

THe Conventional Wisdom you are pushing encourages people to have more concern for observing the social convention of not being "racist" then for the safety of themselves and their families.

A lot of people spout that nonsense. A lot of people are willing to point fingers at other people who they think don't do that.

But a lot of those people just "happen" to end up in nice mostly white suburbs and with their kids in nice private schools.

For those "other" reasons you mention of course.

 

[320 Years of History]

If I live in a neighborhood that slowly becomes more dangerous to live in over time, and the neighbors moving in are mostly, lets say, hispanic, and I'm white, am I racist for either arming myself against danger, or by moving to another neighborhood?

No, you aren't, at least not based solely on those actions. That's not to say the hypothetical you in your example isn't a racist, only that those acts don't confirm or refute the proposition that you are.

I would ask you if the neighborhood is becoming more dangerous, for the sake of the example, taking steps to help ensure your safety or moving seem like reasonable actions to take regardless of whether the folks moving in are Hispanic or not, right? So is your issue that the folks moving in are Hispanic or that the neighborhood's safety is waning?

Given the scenario you described and the key concern you identified -- neighborhood becoming less safe -- it seems irrelevant whether the newer residents in it are white, Latino or something else. Were the newer residents white, and the neighborhood less safe, wouldn't you feel like moving or arming yourself if you don't move? I should think you would, and that is why the acts themselves aren't indicators of your being racist. On the other hand, determining that you need to take action on the basis of the new neighbors' being Hispanic suggests (the hypothetical) you might be racist.

 

[Esmeralda]

That may also hold true for Muslim businessmen Trump plans to band from the US such as Alwaleed Bin Tahal who is the largest stockholder in Citigroup and Khalid A. Al-Falih, Charman of the Board of the giant Saudi Aramco who owns or controls dozens of large US Corporations, and Sovereign Wealth Funds in six Persian Gulf countries with 1/4 of their 1.7 trillion dollars invested in the US companies.

Your point?

The point is that if America strikes out against millions of Muslims world wide, the vast majority of which mean us no harm, there will be consequences. Those consequences may be financial, diplomatic, or increased terrorism against the US at home and abroad but there will be consequences.

What Americans should understand is that lashing out against all Muslims because of the actions of a few is what Al Qaeda, ISIS, and every Islamic terrorist organization want. They need confirmation for their propaganda, that America hates Islam and is the enemy of every Muslim.

How is being selective about who you allow into your country lashing out? It's up to the President and other leaders to protect their countrymen against people coming here to do us harm. True, not all Muslims fit that category, but a sizable percentage of them certainly do. Besides, Hollande in France, and Merkle in Germany, certainly didn't lash out at Muslims and actually invited them in with open arms, and look what happened in Paris and Cologne, for example. Nobody but the leaders of a country can protect their people. Trump is he only candidate who addresses this issue.

Not all Muslims fit the category of those who want to do us harm, but a sizable percentage certainly do? You are 100 percent incorrect about that. It is just the opposite. A miniscule percentage are concerned with harming Americans. The vast majority have no desire or intention to harm anyone anywhere. How do you get such a skewed vision of reality? The amount of killing and violence done by American citizens already here by far outweighs any violence done in the US by Muslims, especially by those who are some kind of terrorist. Just because something gets a lot of news coverage, that does not mean it is happening all over the place. You do not understand reality.

There are far, far more innocent people killed in America by mass killers who go into schools and universities, shopping malls, cinemas, etc., and kill as many people as they possibly can. These are Americans with masses of guns and ammunition killing innocent people simply to kill. Getting firearms out of the hands of these killers should be your priority, not keeping innocent people out of our country simply because of their religion.

Red:
That's absolutely correct. That someone here in January 2016 thinks or believes otherwise testifies to their unwillingness to simply bother to find out whether their perceptions hold the least bit of water. In November 2015, Pew Research conducted a study to discern the nature and extent of support for ISIS among Muslims in countries having a high percentage of Muslim residents. What they found is summarized below.

"Recent attacks in Paris, Beirut and Baghdad linked to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) have once again brought terrorism and Islamic extremism to the forefront of international relations. According to newly released data that the Pew Research Center collected in 11 countries with significant Muslim populations, people from Nigeria to Jordan to Indonesia overwhelmingly expressed negative views of ISIS.

One exception was Pakistan, where a majority offered no definite opinion of ISIS. The nationally representative surveys were conducted as part of the Pew Research Center’s annual global poll in April and May this year."​

​

Pedantic note from me:
Careful and well informed readers will note with regard to Israel that Jewish and Arab are not mutually exclusive classifications. Even so, the very high "unfavorable" responses from individuals fitting either designation, along with the specific response values differing, strongly suggests that classification flaw is, in all likelihood, irrelevant.

• The shared genetic heritage of Jews and Palestinians
• Arab Jews - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The topline results for the survey are below. (Click the table to access the source page.)

​

Blue:
I don't know how the other member specifically arrived at the conclusion s/he did. Strangely, however, a blogger who happened upon the Pew report managed to arrive at a conclusion that is entirely the opposite of the one Pew did. Citing the Pew study, the blogger, whose blog is sophistically titled American Thinker, uploaded his/her thoughts with the headline "Pew poll: Between 63 million and 287 million ISIS supporters in just 11 countries." Clearly the so-called "thinker" doesn't understand the difference between rates and counts, or s/he does and just wants to inflame others' concerns by presenting rate-oriented data, converting it into headcount data and then using it to spawn/bolster fear, or maybe an emotion stronger than fear such as hate, or worse still, actively convert fear and/or hate into bigotry. Perhaps the other member shares the "American Thinker's" aims? I don't know and they've not directly answered your question.

What I do know is that given 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet and the figures Pew presented, far more often than not, a Muslim one encounters is going to have an unfavorable view of ISIS and its deeds and intentions than will s/he be keen on them. Yes, the "law of big numbers" does, in a manner of speaking, come into play because there are 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet, but one's odds of encountering one who is keen on ISIS (or similar organizations) are quite low, but clearly not beyond possibility. The thing is that in the U.S., one is far more likely to encounter a militant/radical Christian than a radical/militant Muslim.

So, how do folks come to hold views inconsistent with reality's indications? There are a number of detailed ways it happens, but at the end of the day, they all boil down to two things:

• their failure to adhere to Ronald Reagan's simple instruction: "trust, but verify," and
• their lack of knowledge and intellectual acuity that would allow them to make rational sense of what they might discover when they verify.

As for why folks take such tacks, well there are myriad reasons, but few to none of them, IMO, are well intentioned, and of those that are, due to the lack of rigor in collecting, analyzing and presenting their views, the reasons don't lead to boosting anything like an objective discussion among peers and interested third parties....That is aside from their casuistry leading to yours, my and others' refutations and rebuttals that try to set the record straight.

Excellent post. Thank you.

 

[Western Empire]

Donald Trump ban debated in UK Parliament - CNN.com


"London (CNN)For Donald Trump, in politics as in life, it seems the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.
But Monday, the Republican presidential candidate is entering unfamiliar territory, even by his larger-than-life standards, as members of the British Parliament hold a debate over a petition calling for the U.S. businessman-turned-politician to be banned from the country."

Please read the entire article.

Some may think it is not important how other countries may view our president, not even our allies, but it is extremely important how our president is percieved on the world stage, especially by our allies.


Open for discussion.

Funny. They are banning him for doing exactly the same thing they are doing to him right now. Think about that one.