Trump: Ban ALL Muslims from entering US

[funinspace]

Maybe Trump could pick up a new Campaign song "Better of Two Evils". Just heard it on the radio and it could be a great fit. Though Marilyn Manson probably wouldn't give him the rights to do so....

Anywho, Trump is being bombastic as usual, no surprise there. He would have to dismantle the SC to do the things he claims he desires. The funny part is just how freaking irrelevant these stupid polls are, and have been. The other funny thing is that Trump is forcing some of other candidates to either return closer to political earth, or join the insanity and further damage any credibility they would have with the middle voters next fall. Carson's campaign may be on life support by the time Iowa comes. Cruz, though surging up, will get to be pummeled with commercials next fall if he gets the nod, showing him hanging out with evil people who think being gay should be a capital offense.

A Dec 5 2011 Iowa poll had the Newt in the lead at that point. Who one? Romney and Sanatorium shared the win, and the Newt came in 4th.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_IA_1205925.pdf

Newt Gingrich has taken the lead in PPP's newest poll of Iowa Republican caucus voters with 27% to 18% for Ron Paul, 16% for Mitt Romney, 13% for
Michele Bachmann, 9% for Rick Perry, 6% for Rick Santorum, 4% for Jon Huntsman, and 1% for Gary Johnson.

Gingrich has gained 19 points since PPP's last poll of the race in early October.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

[YOUTUBE]http://player.theplatform.com/p/2E2eJC/nbcNewsOffsite?guid=tdy_alexander_trump_151208[/YOUTUBE]

No, I know it's what he's saying, but it's not real. As in, he doesn't mean it and isn't actually trying to win, he's just saying it to help out his friend Mrs. Clinton. At this point it's pretty obvious.

Such a plot I would find very disturbing. It would also seem extremely nonsensical. The things Trump has said have been so over the top, no one would have thought it possible he could have survived the 'or bleeding from wherever' line about the Fox News debate moderator.

I don't think Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump could have predicted that such a direction run for the Republican nominee would have even made it to the debates.

I don't think Trump was planning on running, rather just getting his face out there. He'd say something extremely stupid, get free press, Money! But his plan seems to have lit a fire under the arses of the xenophobic, anti-Constitutionalists, racist jackasses right-wingers. And the wackier he gets, the more steadfast his supporters become. No one saw this coming. No one could have. We haven't seen this since what, George Wallace?

And the Republicans are running onto a deadline of galvanized Trump support and they will have to pay dearly to get him to back another candidate enough for his supporters to swallow it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Maybe Trump could pick up a new Campaign song "Better of Two Evils". Just heard it on the radio and it could be a great fit. Though Marilyn Manson probably wouldn't give him the rights to do so....

Anywho, Trump is being bombastic as usual, no surprise there. He would have to dismantle the SC to do the things he claims he desires. The funny part is just how freaking irrelevant these stupid polls are, and have been. The other funny thing is that Trump is forcing some of other candidates to either return closer to political earth, or join the insanity and further damage any credibility they would have with the middle voters next fall. Carson's campaign may be on life support by the time Iowa comes. Cruz, though surging up, will get to be pummeled with commercials next fall if he gets the nod, showing him hanging out with evil people who think being gay should be a capital offense.

A Dec 5 2011 Iowa poll had the Newt in the lead at that point. Who one? Romney and Sanatorium shared the win, and the Newt came in 4th.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_IA_1205925.pdf

Newt Gingrich has taken the lead in PPP's newest poll of Iowa Republican caucus voters with 27% to 18% for Ron Paul, 16% for Mitt Romney, 13% for
Michele Bachmann, 9% for Rick Perry, 6% for Rick Santorum, 4% for Jon Huntsman, and 1% for Gary Johnson.

Gingrich has gained 19 points since PPP's last poll of the race in early October.

Winning in Iowa sends about as much a message about the potential nominee as a straw poll at Denny's. Iowa kills nominees more than helps them. How many Iowa winners took the nomination? Since 1980 (9 elections), the nominee was selected only twice ('96 and '00), excluding years where the incumbent was running (3 times).

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Winning in Iowa sends about as much a message about the potential nominee as a straw poll at Denny's. Iowa kills nominees more than helps them. How many Iowa winners took the nomination? Since 1980 (9 elections), the nominee was selected only twice ('96 and '00), excluding years where the incumbent was running (3 times).

So, why is Iowa always first? It seems kind of dumb to always have the primaries in the same order. I get that you want to spread them out so that the smaller states get a little bit of attention and the candidates can pretend to care about them and not just spend all their time in California and Ohio and the like but why not let Wisconsin and Delaware take a turn and shuffle Iowa and New Hampshire to the back?

 

[funinspace]

Maybe Trump could pick up a new Campaign song "Better of Two Evils". Just heard it on the radio and it could be a great fit. Though Marilyn Manson probably wouldn't give him the rights to do so....

Anywho, Trump is being bombastic as usual, no surprise there. He would have to dismantle the SC to do the things he claims he desires. The funny part is just how freaking irrelevant these stupid polls are, and have been. The other funny thing is that Trump is forcing some of other candidates to either return closer to political earth, or join the insanity and further damage any credibility they would have with the middle voters next fall. Carson's campaign may be on life support by the time Iowa comes. Cruz, though surging up, will get to be pummeled with commercials next fall if he gets the nod, showing him hanging out with evil people who think being gay should be a capital offense.

A Dec 5 2011 Iowa poll had the Newt in the lead at that point. Who one? Romney and Sanatorium shared the win, and the Newt came in 4th.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_IA_1205925.pdf

Winning in Iowa sends about as much a message about the potential nominee as a straw poll at Denny's. Iowa kills nominees more than helps them. How many Iowa winners took the nomination? Since 1980 (9 elections), the nominee was selected only twice ('96 and '00), excluding years where the incumbent was running (3 times).

The point was the lack of predictive power the polls have, not Iowa specifically. Yeah, Iowa does kill of candidates...

The Newt was till on top nationally on 12/20/2011, but already sliding:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_1219.pdf

Further back Newt took the national top spot, squeezing out Cain by 11/14/2011:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_1114925.pdf

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Winning in Iowa sends about as much a message about the potential nominee as a straw poll at Denny's. Iowa kills nominees more than helps them. How many Iowa winners took the nomination? Since 1980 (9 elections), the nominee was selected only twice ('96 and '00), excluding years where the incumbent was running (3 times).

The point was the lack of predictive power the polls have, not Iowa specifically. Yeah, Iowa does kill of candidates...

The Newt was till on top nationally on 12/20/2011, but already sliding:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_1219.pdf

Further back Newt took the national top spot, squeezing out Cain by 11/14/2011:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_1114925.pdf

Understood. I was taking the thought one step further. So we have inaccurate polls about a caucus that if won, doesn't have a good record of predicting who the nominee will become.

The oddity this time around is that in the past, there was usually an establishment candidate or two that you knew would be around. This time around, the whackos are leading the pack (Cruz, Trump, Carson) and Rubio, an establishment hail mary, is well behind, along with Jeb who was the original establishment pick and Kasich who just can't make voters happy. Iowa will be the death nail for the Graham, Gilmore, Pataki "campaigns". It'll be seen if it tells us anything useful about the front runners.

 

[ronburgundy]

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...s-for-banning-muslims-from-entering-u-s/?_r=0

A lot of people in this forum are anti-Islam and a few also make sweeping statements about all Muslims. So, I wonder do you agree with Trump or disagree?

Also:

Mr. Trump has a track record of making surprising and even extreme comments whenever he is overtaken in opinion polls by other Republican candidates – as happened on Monday just hours before he issued his statement about Muslims. A new Monmouth University survey of likely Iowa Republican caucus-goers found that Mr. Trump had slipped from his recent top spot in the state, ...

Mr. Trump, who boasts about his strong poll numbers at the beginning of virtually every campaign speech, launched an unusually stinging attack against Ben Carson, another Republican candidate, when Mr. Carson took a lead in Iowa polls this fall; Mr. Trump, citing Mr. Carson’s memoir about his sometimes-violent youth, called him “pathological” and compared his state of mind to a child molester’s.

Do you think that Trump's strategy to be the loudest idiot in a rally filled with idiots will be successful in enabling him to win the GOP primary?

Its a terrible and immoral idea that could very well work. I mean work in two ways. It could help Trump win the GOP. There are most definitely enough racists with no regard for core principles of secular democracy who will rally behind Trump on this. It might even parlay into helping him win the White House. It could help with GOP turn-out, win over people who might otherwise vote for a 3rd party to the right of the GOP, and any swing-voters that might vote for Trump before this would not be turned off enough by this to vote Hillary instead.

The second way in which it could "work" is that it could in fact objectively reduce the number of terrorists who enter the country. If no Muslims can enter legally, then it cannot be denied that the tiny % of among them seeking to commit terrorism are less likely to make it in. The problem with fascism and racism isn't that it isn't effective in achieving its immediate goals. The problem is that it is immoral and it creates other problems, which in this case would mean an exponential increase in radicalization and support for terrorism among currently less extreme Muslims already in the US and abroad. It would be reasonably seen by all Muslims as a declaration of war against Islam and Muslims in general. It is much easier to get people to come to violently hate the US when the US proves that it hates them (not merely their governments but them as people), which this policy would do. So, it would likely greatly increase acts of terrorism worldwide, but Trump and most in the GOP base don't care about that. If anything it gives them rationalization to increase the kinds of fascistic policies they love, including funneling more taxpayer $ into the hands of their buddies in the war industry. Its effect on terrorism by Muslims on US soil is harder to predict, because while reducing the number of such terrorists getting into the country, it would increase the number created who are already here.

In fact, the policy would likely increase Christian terrorism too, namely people violently attacking Muslims within the US. The policy would be nothing short of declaring it one's patriotic duty to treat Muslims negatively and view them as and UnAmerican out-group, reinforcing the intolerance already fueled by the values inherent to Christianity. A large body of research shows that it would be guaranteed to increase bigotry and dehumanization toward even the most moderate and US-born of Muslims.

Note that, contrary to what the OP is insinuating, Trump's position is not supported by accurate observations about the inherently "radical", pro-violent, and anti-western values of the Islam religion or what this means for self-labeled Muslims who actually take these values to heart (not all do, just like most "Christians" don't take the values inherent to Christianity and the Bible to heart). In fact, commitment to core principles of reasoned thought, liberty, and secularism are what support both a disdain for the religion of Islam (and Christianity) because it is opposed to these principles, but also disdain for Trumps proposal which is also in opposition to these principles.

 

[faded_Glory]

Here's another idea for Trump: call for an immediate and total ban on all private possession of firearms in the USA, until the country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.
You have no choice.
You have no choice.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Is calling for Muslim immigration to stop at all surprising? It wasn't to me. Really, the only real difference between Trump and most of the other candidates is that he says his rhetoric out loud and without "coding" the message. Case in point: Many of the other GOP candidates suggested allowing only Christians to immigrate, which is effectively the same thing, yet not nearly the backlash has taken place. I only expect this last diarrhea of the mouth from Trump to produce yet another bump in the polls.

Originally posted by Playball40

What frightens me is I'm seeing people who I never thought would jump on the Trump bandwagon coming out in support of him. People I know have been persecuted themselves. Is this really what was under the surface? I fear I don't know people at all.

I haven't seen this, thankfully. I keep seeing news outlets telling us not to panic, that most Republicans aren't even paying attention to the race yet, that most are undecided, and so on. Thus far, they're not inspiring confidence. Deep down I think he CAN win the GOP nomination. But, I have little faith in anyone left who can still call themselves a Republican in the last 4 years or so. I really, really, don't want to say that. I'm ashamed to say that. Yet, I cannot see how someone could possibly vote for anyone (except perhaps Kasich) on the Republican side and still consider themselves a moral human being. If you would really vote for one one of these tools, ESPECIALLY Trump, I have to question your character. If you're a Trump enthusiast at this point, you're a bigot; I see no way around this. This has really, honestly been depressing me as of late, because it forces me to admit how many bigoted Americans are still out there. It's opened my eyes. Maybe I'm late to the party, but I feel like I'm losing hope in my own country. I'm honestly ashamed to be American at this point. This isn't grandstanding, it's honestly how I feel. I listen and read a lot on the Internet. I know that my particular interests lead me to some of the shadier places on there. A lot of criticism and racism against Obama (AM radio style) for example. But I always thought they were a really small but vocal minority. Now I'm not so sure.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...s-for-banning-muslims-from-entering-u-s/?_r=0

A lot of people in this forum are anti-Islam and a few also make sweeping statements about all Muslims. So, I wonder do you agree with Trump or disagree?

Also:


Do you think that Trump's strategy to be the loudest idiot in a rally filled with idiots will be successful in enabling him to win the GOP primary?

Its a terrible and immoral idea that could very well work. I mean work in two ways. It could help Trump win the GOP. There are most definitely enough racists with no regard for core principles of secular democracy who will rally behind Trump on this. It might even parlay into helping him win the White House. It could help with GOP turn-out, win over people who might otherwise vote for a 3rd party to the right of the GOP, and any swing-voters that might vote for Trump before this would not be turned off enough by this to vote Hillary instead.

The second way in which it could "work" is that it could in fact objectively reduce the number of terrorists who enter the country. If no Muslims can enter legally, then it cannot be denied that the tiny % of among them seeking to commit terrorism are less likely to make it in. The problem with fascism and racism isn't that it isn't effective in achieving its immediate goals. The problem is that it is immoral and it creates other problems, which in this case would mean an exponential increase in radicalization and support for terrorism among currently less extreme Muslims already in the US and abroad. It would be reasonably seen by all Muslims as a declaration of war against Islam and Muslims in general. It is much easier to get people to come to violently hate the US when the US proves that it hates them (not merely their governments but them as people), which this policy would do. So, it would likely greatly increase acts of terrorism worldwide, but Trump and most in the GOP base don't care about that. If anything it gives them rationalization to increase the kinds of fascistic policies they love, including funneling more taxpayer $ into the hands of their buddies in the war industry. Its effect on terrorism by Muslims on US soil is harder to predict, because while reducing the number of such terrorists getting into the country, it would increase the number created who are already here.

In fact, the policy would likely increase Christian terrorism too, namely people violently attacking Muslims within the US. The policy would be nothing short of declaring it one's patriotic duty to treat Muslims negatively and view them as and UnAmerican out-group, reinforcing the intolerance already fueled by the values inherent to Christianity. A large body of research shows that it would be guaranteed to increase bigotry and dehumanization toward even the most moderate and US-born of Muslims.

Note that, contrary to what the OP is insinuating, Trump's position is not supported by accurate observations about the inherently "radical", pro-violent, and anti-western values of the Islam religion or what this means for self-labeled Muslims who actually take these values to heart (not all do, just like most "Christians" don't take the values inherent to Christianity and the Bible to heart). In fact, commitment to core principles of reasoned thought, liberty, and secularism are what support both a disdain for the religion of Islam (and Christianity) because it is opposed to these principles, but also disdain for Trumps proposal which is also in opposition to these principles.

I think that maybe you read too much into what I wrote and could just take it literally, but I don't have any strong disagreement with the rest of what you wrote.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What frightens me is I'm seeing people who I never thought would jump on the Trump bandwagon coming out in support of him. People I know have been persecuted themselves. Is this really what was under the surface? I fear I don't know people at all.

I paraphrase but someone asked Trump why he said the kind of bs he did here and he answered a single word, "death." And that does indeed sum it up because "fear of death" or simply fear has been linked to conservative ideology in studies. So I imagine that the people you are seeing change before your eyes have become afraid of The Muslim.

 

[ksen]

...deportations of non-citizen Muslims; a law of mass detention and 'de-naturalization' for the troublesome naturalized Muslims; convoys of illegals shipped to labor camps (to build the wall), then booted out.

While you force illegals to build the Great Wall II... If some die, are you going to force other illegals to bury them? After they die, will you expect the government to confiscate their gold teeth and jewelry? When they get sent to the detention camps do you expect the government to appropriate their property? Should they wear any special uniforms or markings on their clothing in case they escape for easy identification?

How do you want to handle the problem of "half Muslims?" Maybe there should be a law about interbreeding?

bring back the one drop rule! :drool:

 

[ronburgundy]

Its a terrible and immoral idea that could very well work. I mean work in two ways. It could help Trump win the GOP. There are most definitely enough racists with no regard for core principles of secular democracy who will rally behind Trump on this. It might even parlay into helping him win the White House. It could help with GOP turn-out, win over people who might otherwise vote for a 3rd party to the right of the GOP, and any swing-voters that might vote for Trump before this would not be turned off enough by this to vote Hillary instead.

The second way in which it could "work" is that it could in fact objectively reduce the number of terrorists who enter the country. If no Muslims can enter legally, then it cannot be denied that the tiny % of among them seeking to commit terrorism are less likely to make it in. The problem with fascism and racism isn't that it isn't effective in achieving its immediate goals. The problem is that it is immoral and it creates other problems, which in this case would mean an exponential increase in radicalization and support for terrorism among currently less extreme Muslims already in the US and abroad. It would be reasonably seen by all Muslims as a declaration of war against Islam and Muslims in general. It is much easier to get people to come to violently hate the US when the US proves that it hates them (not merely their governments but them as people), which this policy would do. So, it would likely greatly increase acts of terrorism worldwide, but Trump and most in the GOP base don't care about that. If anything it gives them rationalization to increase the kinds of fascistic policies they love, including funneling more taxpayer $ into the hands of their buddies in the war industry. Its effect on terrorism by Muslims on US soil is harder to predict, because while reducing the number of such terrorists getting into the country, it would increase the number created who are already here.

In fact, the policy would likely increase Christian terrorism too, namely people violently attacking Muslims within the US. The policy would be nothing short of declaring it one's patriotic duty to treat Muslims negatively and view them as and UnAmerican out-group, reinforcing the intolerance already fueled by the values inherent to Christianity. A large body of research shows that it would be guaranteed to increase bigotry and dehumanization toward even the most moderate and US-born of Muslims.

Note that, contrary to what the OP is insinuating, Trump's position is not supported by accurate observations about the inherently "radical", pro-violent, and anti-western values of the Islam religion or what this means for self-labeled Muslims who actually take these values to heart (not all do, just like most "Christians" don't take the values inherent to Christianity and the Bible to heart). In fact, commitment to core principles of reasoned thought, liberty, and secularism are what support both a disdain for the religion of Islam (and Christianity) because it is opposed to these principles, but also disdain for Trumps proposal which is also in opposition to these principles.

I think that maybe you read too much into what I wrote and could just take it literally, but I don't have any strong disagreement with the rest of what you wrote.

Rather than just ask if anyone agreed with Trump's proposal, you deliberately singled out posters who have previously criticized Islam and Muslims. There is no plausible motive for this other than a back-handed way of trying to associate such critiques with Trumps proposal. The reality is that such critiques have mostly been rooted in accurate recognition that Islam is grounded in precisely the kind of xenophobic anti-reason values that underlie Trumps proposal. Thus, people who value liberty, equality, and reason are likely to be highly critical of Islam and of Muslims that endorse its inherent values, as well as be against Trump's proposal.

 

[maxparrish]

It is downright scary to see how fascism is on the rise again in the West. If we want to safeguard our liberties and the achievements of the Enlightenment we should use its weapons: rationality, tolerance, respect for minorities, human rights. Sprinkled with a good dose of empathy and charity, if possible.

Instead, we see people flocking to the preachers of fear and hatred. They are blind and don't understand that this route only leads to where it has always led - cruelty, war, death and destruction.

Far off I can hear Hitler laughing from beyond the grave.

fG

Actually, if you listen to what he says, and ignore how he says it, much (but not all) of what Trump promotes is quite rational - and often a good idea.

If you want secure borders, you secure the borders with real walls, towers, and guards. If you want porous borders but are afraid to say so, you give lots of lip service on having more passive "virtual" monitoring, more border agents, etc. Then you whine and moan over how unfeasible real border control would be.

If you want less terrorism, immigrant welfare, and social-religioius conflict, you cease Muslim immigration. If you don't give a hoot and want more beholden Muslim democratic voters, you import them no matter what the social or cultural harm to others.

If you want to mitigate the development of Muslim terrorist plots in the US, you monitor the population and, if possible, reduce it by deportation. If you want to protect such folk, you ignore them and savage anyone who reports a Muslim neighbor to the authorities.

If you want fewer new illegals, you robustly punish those who are caught. If not, you let them go with an apology.


Trump is calling out the phonies; either you are one one side or the other, no middle ground is acceptable. And that is why he is popular with many.

 

[fromderinside]

Actually, if you listen to what he says, and ignore how he says it, much (but not all) of what Trump promotes is quite rational - and often a good idea.

If you want secure borders, you secure the borders with real walls, towers, and guards. If you want porous borders but are afraid to say so, you give lots of lip service on having more passive "virtual" monitoring, more border agents, etc. Then you whine and moan over how unfeasible real border control would be.

If you want less terrorism, immigrant welfare, and social-religioius conflict, you cease Muslim immigration. If you don't give a hoot and want more beholden Muslim democratic voters, you import them no matter what the social or cultural harm to others.

If you want to mitigate the development of Muslim terrorist plots in the US, you monitor the population and, if possible, reduce it by deportation. If you want to protect such folk, you ignore them and savage anyone who reports a Muslim neighbor to the authorities.

If you want fewer new illegals, you robustly punish those who are caught. If not, you let them go with an apology.


Trump is calling out the phonies; either you are one one side or the other, no middle ground is acceptable. And that is why he is popular with many.

Gotta see this intellectual excrement repeated so it can believed said by others.

Setting his claim for Trump being rational raside lets look at the implications of what maxparrish just wrote.

Now does an american promoting the individual, an exceptionalist american, support Trump's point of view?

What Trump suggests is about as complete a rejection of our heritage and principles as one can get and not be called Hitler.

To wit:

How does one reconcile rejection of immigrants and still be a nation of immigrants?

How can one builds walls around our nation and be called an open society?

How one be a champion of the individual and say to others "not you"?


My only remaining comment is: Where doe he plan his beer hall putsch?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Attention Mr. Trump:

Bridge 101:

No trump beats trump.

Lets ban trumps from entering Washington.

 

[repoman]

This was a country of immigrants when there was no welfare state. How does a welfare state now effect the levels of resentment?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

The thought of Trump as President is quite intriguing. Think of it...a serious border wall and Israeli style security zone from the gulf to the coast of California; the banning Muslim immigration; deportations of non-citizen Muslims; a law of mass detention and 'de-naturalization' for the troublesome naturalized Muslims; convoys of illegals shipped to labor camps (to build the wall), then booted out.


Quite thrilling, really.

Yeah, slavery sure sounds grand, doesn't it?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think that maybe you read too much into what I wrote and could just take it literally, but I don't have any strong disagreement with the rest of what you wrote.

Rather than just ask if anyone agreed with Trump's proposal, you deliberately singled out posters who have previously criticized Islam and Muslims. There is no plausible motive for this other than a back-handed way of trying to associate such critiques with Trumps proposal. The reality is that such critiques have mostly been rooted in accurate recognition that Islam is grounded in precisely the kind of xenophobic anti-reason values that underlie Trumps proposal. Thus, people who value liberty, equality, and reason are likely to be highly critical of Islam and of Muslims that endorse its inherent values, as well as be against Trump's proposal.

It was an honest, literal question, no "backhanded" "motive" required.

 

[bilby]

Fast is right. Trump is smart and amoral...a dangerous combination. You don't think he can win..watch out! I didn't think the people were "stupid enough" to elect Nixon, Reagan, or either Bush. I won't entirely discount the chance of him becoming our fearless leader...and fearless he is...that seemed to be Hitler's forte too.

But he's not dumb and he wasn't always such a blowhard (relatively speaking). He's an ambitious megalomaniac for sure. So my question is "is this rhetoric just to win the election or does he really feel these are 'great ideas'? IF he were to win the election (horrifying notion) would he really behave this way? I cannot imagine him acting this way behind closed doors. I'm just trying to prepare myself for the worst - this country has gone insane in my opinion.

Wait, you mean you only just noticed?