Jump to content

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)


Simon

Recommended Posts

 

 

Instead, opposition to the ban need to focus on the real problems it has: keeping out legal immigrants, only affects countries Trump doesn't have business ties to (strongly suggesting a conflict of interest), has special conditions for Christians (showing a religious bias), wasn't properly vetted and may well be unconstitutional.

So let's look at the actual problems:

Keeping out legal Immigrants: This has been clarified/fixed, green cards and dual citizens are back in

No business ties: If Trump picked the countries, this would hold weight. He didn't. They were countries of concern chosen by the Obama administration. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Obama wanted to institute a travel ban on these countries, but his administration identified them as being concerns. This is important when you consider that people coming into the country get a background check. The country that they come from does that background check and provides that information to the US. That's all we have to go on. The current administration doesn't trust the background checks are being done properly from those countries.

 

I do agree the religious bias should never have been included. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might want to clarify the statement preceding this. It's open to a very negative interpretation that I'm pretty sure you didn't intend.

I mean if I drive drunk and kill someone, I have to pay for the consequences of that action. If a woman consents to having sex, and gets pregnant, that's the consequence of the choice she made... Does that make it more clear? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every country on the list is supermajority muslim. At the same time that Trump signed the order, he included a waiver provision for "religious minorities escaping persecution"(i.e., non-muslims). As the order was applied, they were even excluding permanent residents of the US. IOW, people who have undergone pretty thorough background checks. As applied it was a de facto Muslim ban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean if I drive drunk and kill someone, I have to pay for the consequences of that action. If a woman consents to having sex, and gets pregnant, that's the consequence of the choice she made... Does that make it more clear? 

 

That's what I thought you meant. Your original wording was vague, and left you open to a disgusting alternative read of the statement. Not that the members here would jump to that conclusion, I just felt it prudent to point it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also:

9/11 hijackers: KSA, Egypt, UAE

Tsarnaev brothers: Russia

Omar Mateen: family from Afghanistan

San Bernardino shooter: wife from Pakistan

Number of people from the 7 countries who have committed terror attacks in US: 0.

 

None of the above countries is included in the travel ban. Incidentally, Trump has business ties with most of the countries I mentioned above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also:

9/11 hijackers: KSA, Egypt, UAE

Tsarnaev brothers: Russia

Omar Mateen: family from Afghanistan

San Bernardino shooter: wife from Pakistan

Number of people from the 7 countries who have committed terror attacks in US: 0.

 

None of the above countries is included in the travel ban. Incidentally, Trump has business ties with most of the countries I mentioned above.

As has already been explained, it has nothing to do with who has attacked the US and has everything to do the background checks from the "sending" country. 

 

Does it really walk and quack like one? It targets 7 out of 50 Muslim nations. I mean you can call it "Obama's Grand Plan", just because you call it that doesn't make it true, and will probably cause you to lose credibility.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As has already been explained, it has nothing to do with who has attacked the US and has everything to do the background checks from the "sending" country.

 

Does it really walk and quack like one? It targets 7 out of 50 Muslim nations. I mean you can call it "Obama's Grand Plan", just because you call it that doesn't make it true, and will probably cause you to lose credibility.

 

Show me all the non-Muslims impacted by the ban? You're in a situation where the White House chief political strategist (Bannon) has literally made the case that we are entering into an era of religious war between Judeo-Christian Western nations and Islam. And made the case that Western nations needed a radical Christian militant sect. And has established ties to White Nationalism. And is now supplanting the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in security Council briefings.

 

Yeah, I'm going to go with "burden of proof met" on at the least skepticism around this one. It looks terrible.

 

EDIT:http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/donald-trump-team-islam-clash-of-civilizations-214474

 

Link in advance of Bannon statement clarification requests, if any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let's look at the actual problems:

Keeping out legal Immigrants: This has been clarified/fixed, green cards and dual citizens are back in

No business ties: If Trump picked the countries, this would hold weight. He didn't. They were countries of concern chosen by the Obama administration. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Obama wanted to institute a travel ban on these countries, but his administration identified them as being concerns. This is important when you consider that people coming into the country get a background check. The country that they come from does that background check and provides that information to the US. That's all we have to go on. The current administration doesn't trust the background checks are being done properly from those countries.

 

I do agree the religious bias should never have been included. 

 

As you stated, it was hastily done.  Had it been properly vetted a whole lot less ire and heartache would have been caused.  This does not bode well in regards to the Trump team's executive judgement.

 

Also, the Obama administration didn't pick the countries.  They were part of a rider authored by Rep Candice Miller (R ) that was added to a "must pass" spending bill.  Even then, they weren't intended to be used as the basis for an immigration ban but were instead a modification the Visa Waiver Program.  As for Trump's business ties, while it's possible that it's a coincidence, it still doesn't look good.  That's especially true in light of all the controversy surrounding Trump and his unwillingness to divest himself of his business interests and the fact that this ban to 'prevent terrorists entering the country' doesn't actually ban any countries where terrorist attacks against the U.S. originated.  All-in-all, it's a pretty suspicious coincidence.

 

Really, the ban was a terrible idea as implemented and doesn't seem to have much justification given its stated intent.  Even if you agree with the ban, it really needed to go through a proper vetting process and even Trump's own party isn't happy with having been blind-sided by this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On this side of the Atlantic, criticism is rife about Trump being given allowed to have a state visit. It took several years for both G W Bush and Obama to get invites. Trump ? Several days. A petition went up demanding Parliament debate the issue and got over 1 million adherents especially in light of the ban. Although he Conservative government has criticised the ban, it seemed forced rather than a natural reaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show me all the non-Muslims impacted by the ban? You're in a situation where the White House chief political strategist (Bannon) has literally made the case that we are entering into an era of religious war between Judeo-Christian Western nations and Islam. And made the case that Western nations needed a radical Christian militant sect. And has established ties to White Nationalism. And is now supplanting the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in security Council briefings.

 

Yeah, I'm going to go with "burden of proof met" on at the least skepticism around this one. It looks terrible.

 

EDIT:http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/donald-trump-team-islam-clash-of-civilizations-214474

 

Link in advance of Bannon statement clarification requests, if any.

Using your logic I could come to the conclusion that having a mother makes you a serial killer. You see every serial killer that ever lived, had a mother. Now to buy into that all you have to do is ignore all the people with mothers who aren't serial killers... or, in other words,  ignore all the VAST majority of Muslims who aren't effected by the "ban" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using your logic I could come to the conclusion that having a mother makes you a serial killer. You see every serial killer that ever lived, had a mother. Now to buy into that all you have to do is ignore all the people with mothers who aren't serial killers... or, in other words,  ignore all the VAST majority of Muslims who aren't effected by the "ban" 

 

I don't quite follow that analogy. It seems to me the more apt analogy would be, "Hey, this kid likes to torture and kill small animals and pets, he's likely to grow up to be a serial killer."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using your logic I could come to the conclusion that having a mother makes you a serial killer. You see every serial killer that ever lived, had a mother. Now to buy into that all you have to do is ignore all the people with mothers who aren't serial killers... or, in other words, ignore all the VAST majority of Muslims who aren't effected by the "ban"

That doesn't actually follow at all from what I posted. There are 7 targeted countries, none of them aren't majority Islam, there's a provision for "religious minorities" to be excluded (in an EO that's targeting majority Muslim nations). The chief policy and political strategist is overly anti Muslim. The POTUS has openly talked about a Muslim registry. And it was applied hastily, with no input over the objections of the sitting AG.

 

A better analogy than serial killers have mothers is, "males who exhibit bed wetting, animal cruelty and fire setting and who have abusive parental relationships might bear watching if they show up in the dead of night with blood on their clothing".

 

Get back to me when you have something that doesn't make the architect of this Administration's policy anything but overly hostile to this religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As has already been explained, it has nothing to do with who has attacked the US and has everything to do the background checks from the "sending" country. 

 

Does it really walk and quack like one? It targets 7 out of 50 Muslim nations. I mean you can call it "Obama's Grand Plan", just because you call it that doesn't make it true, and will probably cause you to lose credibility.

 

But why background checks from those countries instead of Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you stated, it was hastily done.  Had it been properly vetted a whole lot less ire and heartache would have been caused.  This does not bode well in regards to the Trump team's executive judgement.

 

...

 

Really, the ban was a terrible idea as implemented and doesn't seem to have much justification given its stated intent.  Even if you agree with the ban, it really needed to go through a proper vetting process and even Trump's own party isn't happy with having been blind-sided by this.

 

That's the part I find most distressing. An American President who acts on impulse is a sparking wire in a warehouse full of fireworks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why background checks from those countries instead of Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan?

Because the US trusts those governments to properly vet their emigrants. They have systems in place that can track things like criminal records. There's also a provision that if more need to be added they will be. Here's a link to a video from an immigrant that explains it much better than I do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36ihkP5ZTzU

 

Itzu the Evil - 

All of that may be entirely true, and I may even agree with you.  It doesn't change the fact that if you let the vast majority of Muslims in, it's not a ban. And my analogy is entirely apt:

Every serial killer has a mother = the countries selected are predominately Muslim,

You just have to ignore all the non-serial killers with mothers = you just have to ignore the 87% of Muslims that  aren't "banned".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the US trusts those governments to properly vet their emigrants. They have systems in place that can track things like criminal records. There's also a provision that if more need to be added they will be. Here's a link to a video from an immigrant that explains it much better than I do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36ihkP5ZTzU

 

Itzu the Evil - 

All of that may be entirely true, and I may even agree with you.  It doesn't change the fact that if you let the vast majority of Muslims in, it's not a ban. And my analogy is entirely apt:

Every serial killer has a mother = the countries selected are predominately Muslim,

You just have to ignore all the non-serial killers with mothers = you just have to ignore the 87% of Muslims that  aren't "banned".

 

Since they are being stopped from travel because they are Muslim, (and that it is only Muslims from those countries is merely a compromise after the ban of all Muslims was rejected as unconstitutional) what's your alternative label?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the US trusts those governments to properly vet their emigrants. They have systems in place that can track things like criminal records. There's also a provision that if more need to be added they will be.

Saudi Arabia does, Afghanistan does not. Their government only controls 2/3 of the country. Perhaps they will be included in the next 30 days.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One bragged, used words, one actually did it. I would say the latter is much, much worse, why wasn't there women's marches about it what Clinton did? And please don't say it was "consensual". Clinton used his position of power to humiliate and sexually assault at least one woman.

 

And my personal feelings are once a woman makes the consensual choice to have sex, she should have to suffer the consequences of that choice, just like everyone else who makes a mistake, but let's not go down that road.

 

 

Ok let's try this again. Both have been accused by women of sexually assaulting them. Neither has been found guilty. Clinton had an Affair with an Intern. Trump has had affairs while married. He has 5 children with three women. 

 

So "One actually Did it" isn't accurate, as Clinton's sex scandal wasn't assault. I will be the first to admit Trump might have been bragging while he had nothing to go on...it seems to fit his profile as a prolific liar. But Both have been accused by multiple women neither has been found guilty. 

 

So your statement is incorrect. But both men are horrible champions of fidelity. 

 

 

Second, you're correct. And it was my fault for lumping all of women's health issues into "Choice." So let me correct my misstatement and expand on the issue. The Right to Choose isn't the only issue here. It's more broadly an issue of women's health as well as reproductive rights. Planned Parenthood which may or may not be under fire spends 0 federal funds on Abortion. They are not allowed to. [http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/] so removing their funding does nothing to stop the 3% of their operating costs that goes to abortion service; rather the 97% that goes to testing, screening, birth control, and STI/STD testing and treatment, and Vasectomy procedures. The largest portion of their clients are the young and the poor. Who don't have a wealth (get it?) of care options even if they want to have children they rely on Planned Parenthood for prenatal care. 

 

The Gag Order Reinstated by Trump prevents American funding for any health organizations that provide abortion information (not even abortions, just information) on an international level. So any health organizations that deal with women's services can't receive funding from the US.. Which means that such services will be less able to provide the afore mentioned screening, prenatal, post natal, pediatrics, testing, screening, contraception, and STD/STI services. 

 

This isn't about women "taking responsibility for getting their bits out." (There is some of that, of course. Abortion rates go down when contraception is available, however. Which in your over-simplified drinking analogy is calling a cab after having a few too many.) It's about women dying from treatable cancers and suffering from STD/STI and passing that on to men, it's about starting out families who don't have the money or soon the insurance to ensure healthy children. 

 

For some reason; allowing women, particularly young and poor women, to have some sort of agency in their reproductive rights beyond "No Sex for me, thanks." is an anathema to some people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not saying you're wrong, but if you have a group, and you let 87 out of every 100 in, you can't say that group is banned. That's not what that word means.

On the contrary, banning 220 million Muslims is still banning Muslims, if not all Muslims. No one is under the impression that Trump has managed to ban all of them, though I'm sure he would if he thought he could get away with it. That doesn't lessen the outrage at all. There's no other criteria for denying them entry other than that they share a religion with a handful of bad people in other countries.

 

I assume from your attitude that you don't know anyone that might be affected by this personally, so it might be pretty abstract to you. But I assure you that this unconstitutional order is causing a lot of real trouble for a lot of innocent people. And it's a recruiting bonanza for ISIS and AQ as well, so don't kid yourself that this has anything to do with making America safer. It's only about making America whiter. That's the only purpose it could possibly serve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...