/liberty/ - Liberty

Just how fucking stupid is this guy? I can't imagine this will get him many voters.

>>13838

/pol/ is already making excuses so they can continue to support him.

>>13846

That's hardly a surprise. /pol/ generally seems to be of the opinion that society can suck as much as it wants as long as racial purity is maintained.

>>13833

You do realize that quote is deliberately out of context? He's talking about preventing ISIS communications which can be done and maybe should be done. Jihadists will use what freedom we give them to take it away from others. So in the grand scheme of maximizing freedom taking it away form those who will take it away form others it's a minor detail.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-12/08/donald-trump-jeff-bezos-isis

But here's the thing between Hillary who would censor benign "hate speech" like saying something offensive and Trump policing the internet so that terrorists can't communicate you'd have to be an idiot to pick Hillary over Trump.

>>13852

>>13853

Well, it does seem like that quote was taken out of context, so OP needs to check his facts.

That said, are you really sure that giving the government power to restrict access to any communication it wants is a good idea? All the while making light of the 1st amendment? Keep in mind this is in response to the recent events, so naturally the government could abuse this every time something like this happens. Sort of like how the obama administration pushes for gun control after every shooting. Imagine if Trump decided he was going to censor the chans after that pepeposter shooting. Those who sacrifice freedom for security will lose both and deserve neither.

And the media loves Trump, hence the attention they give him. Even if there are many critics, bad publicity is better than none.

Now, I'm not suggesting that nothing be done, but as always Trump can point out a problem while having a rash if not stupid solution. I admit though, I'm having a bit of trouble thinking of a solution myself. We need to take care of terrorist communications but at the same time not let the gubmint take away freedumbs. We could intercept them instead to get info.

>>13854

>That said, are you really sure that giving the government power to restrict access to any communication it wants is a good idea?

It already has that power and has chosen not to exercise it openly (yet, mostly.)

>>13854

He was talking about talking to people to find solutions, he didn't set anything in stone I don't think.

Now I will say this much if maximizing freedom is the goal taking away freedoms of those who will take away freedoms of others will result in a net positive to overall freedom. 1 Jihadist can cost up to lets say 10 innocent lives on average.

>>13854

There's a really simple solution, anon.

Stop bombing brown people and publicly announce you'll be defunding the military industrial complex/foreign aid. Don't let in anyone from countries who recieve foreign aid from us for about four to six months after to prevent retaliation.

Terrorists don't hate our freedom. They hate us for murdering their parents and relatives and/or children. Leave them alone and they don't have an excuse to come after us.

>>13869

That is demonstrably false. Islam is an expansionist religion. Bomb them or not they will try to get you to submit to Allah.

>>13871

So then you're suggesting genocide of an entire people?

>>13872

Better them than us. Ehehehe

But seriously where did you get that from? I was merely pointing out a fact, not implying anything.

>>13871

>>13872

The durka durkas are too busy jihading each other when others aren't bombing them. Leave them be and they will implode from their own shitty religion just as they did for thousands of years before taking advantage of the recently fallen European Empires- Lord only knows they can't do missionary work for shit.

You're better off using those trillions of dollars on the home front.

>>13873

If they're an expansionist threat (I don't believe they are, just violent little shits), that's logically the only long-term solution other than converting them out of Islam.

>>13858

While I agree with you in principle, keep in mind the same people will say the same about gun control laws being used to keep guns out of the hands of lunatics while they can also be used to disarm law-abiding citizens.

>>13854

The government has already assumed huge powers over surveillance and counter-terrorism. What Trump is asking wouldn't even require new legislation. Homeland security already has the right to seize and censor online material on court order. Better it be used on islamists than the gamblers, pirates and dealers it is used on now.

> Imagine if Trump decided he was going to censor the chans after that pepeposter shooting.

Sounds both likely and constitutional.

I really like how you write. You go, gal.

>>13891

I admit, you do have a point. Though just for the sake of being sure, do you have any sources that say the government than seize and censor online material on court order? Also

>constitutional

How so?

>>13882

If anything, that's more a blow to Trump.

>>13893

Then I guess Trump isn't saying anything new. More or less trying to gather up more controversy.

>>13850

/liberty/ generally seems to be of the opinion that society can suck as much as it wants as long as free enterprise is maintained.

>>13906

This. They shill for him immensely.

>>13907

Actually, we are of the opinion that society can suck as much as it wants as long as freedom is maintained, if anything. Unlike /pol/, we don't care about a single, narrow issue, as freedom is a very encompassing topic.