We all know that the state/government doesn't always represent the will/intentions of the citizens, but the difference between a North Korea and US is that when things get back, the US citizens should be able to vote to fix them, since we're a democracy, although it may not be immediately or even as quickly as we'd like. We'll see how it all plays out.
Out of curiosity, were any of the acts of terror in European countries in the past few years committed by people from these countries (both the ones that are affected and the ones that aren't)? Perhaps that would help give us a better and more complete view.
In record time too, LOL. 1 week a 1 day.
I don't know, half of the world already hated the US for interfering and going to war (and often not calling it war) with a ton of countries, and having military presence in even more. Like I said, while Trump may be doing some stupid/racist things, he's not in unprecedented territory yet, although he has plenty of time to change that. We've locked up people from Japan before, and some of those people are still alive today, so it's not ancient history. Again, I'm not justifying his actions, just pointing out that it's not inconsistent with things other Presidents have done in recent history really.
Haha, that's true. He is keeping his word, which is rare for a politician, but a big reason why he won the election is because he's not a politician.
In other words, "So what?"
Thanks, Captain Obvious.
The US has no problem declaring "wars" on non-states. Hell, sometimes the US even declares wars (I know, not technical wars) on abstract concepts (the war on terror) and inanimate objects (the war on drugs). We also have no problem going to war without declaring war, so there's that too.
True, perhaps the issues somehow getting (forcing) them to pay for it.
I don't think that's what he was even saying. I think he's talking about the President of the United States specifically banning people on the basis of their religion alone, which is counter to the principles that America was founded upon.
Obama didn't specifically exclude Muslims specifically like Trump, though.
The First Amendment doesn't apply to our Constitution?
Invalid Link Removed
Trump definitely isn't basing his decisions on Christian beliefs/ideology. Neither party/side really follows Christian teachings. While helping the poor (something the left places a lot of emphasis on) is an important part of Jesus' teachings, it's voluntary charity that he encouraged, not state-mandated (and terribly inefficient, but that's not the point) taxation for social programs under the threat of being imprisoned. In fact, there is a Christian belief that doing "good" doesn't "please God" if it's not sincere, or if you're doing it for recognition or approval. Interestingly enough, many religions/philosophies (Eastern and Western) emphasize that a good leader needs to be a servant, which pretty much rules out all of our politicians (and I guess the Pope too ironically haha).
Read my previous post: