I haven't read much in this thread because I'm just hopeful that we, as a nation, come to our senses and not elect this moron president, but he had to go and slander my hometown (Ferguson). Maybe he should visit the place before he talks about its "crime rate." Please tell me there's no legit Trump supporters in these forums. And if there are, WTF is wrong with you?!?!!?
You know what, neither Hilary nor Trump sound like a good choice. But I'm voting for Trump. Let's be honest, he's not going to blow up the world. He just won't so stop saying he'll be our last president. Too much drama.
I forgot to address this earlier. I foresee two potential events where Trump, and Trump alone, could cause some kind of nuclear apocalypse.
1. Insisting that Japan develop its own nuclear weapons.
While Trump and followers might believe this will help America, it will likely scare the hell out of the Chinese. China and Japan relations have been, at best, lukewarm. Japan committed some brutal atrocities in China during WWII and never apologized. That is not water under the bridge. If Japan tried to acquire nukes, there's a strong chance that China would oppose it. Asia's status quo is stable right now, but Trump's policies will likely increase tensions.
Trump would destabilize the region and provoke a nuclear power with bad history with its neighbors based on misinformation. If China reacts strongly, we could be facing a Cuban Missile Crisis in Asia, except with a President Trump instead of a President JFK.
2. Poor Temperament
I've already shown that Trump is very ignorant. However, it gets worse. When Trump takes action, he overreacts. Remember when a Cruz Pac posted a bad ad about Trump's wife? Trump could have denounced the ad and just asked for an apology from Cruz. Instead, Trump posted a comparison between the two women based purely on looks. There was no need to attack Mrs. Cruz like that; for all we know, she wasn't even aware that the anti-Trump ad existed. Trump accomplished nothing with his attack and only made himself look worse. Or the morning of the Indiana primary. Trump went on national television and all but accused Cruz's father of being part of the JFK assassination. There was no need for that and only made Trump look crazy.
Trump's entire profile is that someone pushes him and he doubles down. I admit, sometimes that's admirable and appropriate. But it just as often gets him into trouble. If Iran or another power tries to provoke Trump into a war, it would be all too easy. Could we win? It would likely be another Iraq, where we find ourselves in a bad situation with few ways out. But that's the best case situation in a world with nuclear weapons.
As much as you'd like it to be true, facts are not racist. Illegals on the mexican border are disproportionately responsible for rape and drug offenses in this country, and that is a very real problem that the wall addresses (in addition to the base problem of illegal immigration). You're applying the label to issues you disagree with emotionally, and have no facts to back yourself up. You're wrong - either admit it and correct your position, or admit that you'll hold on to a completely fallacious opinion despite facts being entirely against you.
I don't think anyone's in a position in front of their keyboard to prove or disprove matters of fact. So for the sake of argument, let's say that these sources are all correct and that Mexicans are responsible for a disproportionate number of crimes. One thing that I can do from here is explain how policy designed to impact Mexicans still violates the Equal Protections clause of the US constitution.
The federal government, in the form of Supreme Court cases and Civil Rights Statutes, has established a set of groups known as "protected classes". Among them are race, religion, and national origin. When a policy is undertaken that disproportionately impacts a protected class, the law can be found valid only if it passes a legal test known as "strict scrutiny". In that test, the law must be found to serve a compelling government interest by the use of narrowly tailored means. On that, let's presume that the prevention of crime is a sufficiently compelling government interest. You still have to show that the policy undertaken is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
And, it is hard to show that deporting Mexians, disallowing funds transfers, walling off the border, etc, are narrowly tailored means of preventing crimes like child rape and drug trafficking. The idea is that you should punish criminals for being criminals, not for being Mexican. Punishing people for their national origin under the pretext of preventing certain things you fear them to be doing is a publicity trick that has hidden some of the worst human rights atrocities in world history.
If you are in support of those policy prpopsals of Trump's, you are against the legal doctrines of the Equal Protections clause. If you support Equal Protections, then you are against these policies of Trump's. There's no way around that.
See, HERE is where we come to the actual impasse. I'm very much for the 'america first' message - And I can see why you'd think the way you do if you had a more global perspective. I've got a few buddies that have this same disagreement with me, and there's literally no getting around it without discussing deeply philosophical stuff that has no place in the trump thread.
Out of curiosity, are you from the states?
On this issue, it's my opinion that there is nothing at all wrong with a nation advancing policy that serves its own interest over the interests of other nations. In fact, it's an idea that I support enthusiastically, and which a lot of the far left will disagree with. I have even heard while traveling abroad the idea that citizens of other countries should be able to participate on some level in the US elections process, which idea has offended me profoundly every time I've heard it. To me, the idea seems beyond absurd.
However, I would strongly caution that the idea of what constitutes "America" in the idea of "America First" is one that unfortunately happens to be extremely prone to abuse. A lot of people characterize America as White, when in fact it's a nation of no particular race. Likewise with religion, and with the English language. Those things have always been specifically disavowed as bearing on the central character of the United States. People who don't share them are no less American.
On the point of the immigration issue, a lot of people would probably disagree with the idea that illegal immigrants from Mexico are part of "America". But, they are. The constitution guarantees certain rights to all people physically present in the US, while comparatively very few rights are conditioned on citizenship, or registration. You may not have a right to be in the US, but being here you do have a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of your national origin. Because believe it or not, all of these groups make up "America". When authors above are writing about all of the alleged horrible things that are happening in the Latino community, they are talking about an American community.
The question is, are we doing right for this "America" when we say things like "America First". I think when people say that, a lot of them really mean "my group first". Again, if you support the Equal Protections clause, you are against that idea. And if you are in support of that idea, you are against the Equal Protections clause. No way around it.
That you might have a point if Trump limited his plan to people coming from Syria. Since he didn't and has been forced into yet another climbdown by saying he might be willing to grant the newly elected mayor of London an exception it would seem that he has more than slightly overreacted to the current situation. And is unfortunately stuck with another unworkable idea because his supporters love it, much like his Mexican border wall.
Is there another significant source of muslim migration to the united states? Trump has already clarified that this is an immigration measure intended to prevent the mess that europe now has from happening stateside, and on that point he's correct. If he simply limited it to importing refugees, would you be fine with the temporary ban?
The fact of the matter is that the refugee relocation process is more stringent and time consuming than regular immigration standards via work visa programs. Any terrorist organization looking to get people into the country have a variety of options that are faster and easier than having an agent pose as a refugee.
And yet the FBI has substantial concern that the program has no way to properly vet the refugees, and there is a big risk of terrorists using it to get into the country.
I haven't read much in this thread because I'm just hopeful that we, as a nation, come to our senses and not elect this moron president, but he had to go and slander my hometown (Ferguson). Maybe he should visit the place before he talks about its "crime rate." Please tell me there's no legit Trump supporters in these forums. And if there are, WTF is wrong with you?!?!!?/
*raises hand*
I'm supporting Trump. To me, the democrat platform is constructed on a base of total bull***** (Wage gap, the rainbow of nonexistent -isms, blaming the rich for our problems) that are either a waste of time to address or will actively harm our nation and economy. While Trump is a complete inconsiderate ass, hes neither corrupt like hillary or bat***** insane like sanders. TBH, I'd like to know what's wrong with you when off-the-cuff statements are a more serious concern to you than being under FBI investigation or the Clinton "foundation" (or any other hillary scandal) or relying on 5% growth annually and a debunked economic plan?
I don't think anyone's in a position in front of their keyboard to prove or disprove matters of fact. So for the sake of argument, let's say that these sources are all correct and that Mexicans are responsible for a disproportionate number of crimes. One thing that I can do from here is explain how policy designed to impact Mexicans still violates the Equal Protections clause of the US constitution.
The federal government, in the form of Supreme Court cases and Civil Rights Statutes, has established a set of groups known as "protected classes". Among them are race, religion, and national origin. When a policy is undertaken that disproportionately impacts a protected class, the law can be found valid only if it passes a legal test known as "strict scrutiny". In that test, the law must be found to serve a compelling government interest by the use of narrowly tailored means. On that, let's presume that the prevention of crime is a sufficiently compelling government interest. You still have to show that the policy undertaken is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
And, it is hard to show that deporting Mexians, disallowing funds transfers, walling off the border, etc, are narrowly tailored means of preventing crimes like child rape and drug trafficking. The idea is that you should punish criminals for being criminals, not for being Mexican. Punishing people for their national origin under the pretext of preventing certain things you fear them to be doing is a publicity trick that has hidden some of the worst human rights atrocities in world history.
If you are in support of those policy prpopsals of Trump's, you are against the legal doctrines of the Equal Protections clause. If you support Equal Protections, then you are against these policies of Trump's. There's no way around that.
Wait, WHAT?! The logical jump you have to make is immense here. First, the human rights issues I discussed are just a nice benefit of the policies, not its primary purpose. The primary purpose of these policies is to prevent illegal immigration.
Second, Deporting illegal immigrants is a matter of immigration law, and you are entirely incorrect in trying to apply this legal theory to it, or are you suggesting that anything other than open borders is unconstitutional?
The wall has no impact on people residing in the united states that existing laws don't already have, so unless you're going to argue that current laws are too limiting and also violate equal protection, you've got no case.
Finally - you're missing an important point on the remittance withholding. It only applies to illegals within the states, and whether or not this is permissible isn't settled law. I strongly believe that illegals don't get the same protections as citizens, and there is plenty of legal theory to back me up on this.
What you actually mean is that if you support trump's policy, you're against a dangerously broad interpretation of constitutional protections that would violate our national sovereignty. And I am absolutely opposed to that.
However, I would strongly caution that the idea of what constitutes "America" in the idea of "America First" is one that unfortunately happens to be extremely prone to abuse. A lot of people characterize America as White, when in fact it's a nation of no particular race. Likewise with religion, and with the English language. Those things have always been specifically disavowed as bearing on the central character of the United States. People who don't share them are no less American.
On the point of the immigration issue, a lot of people would probably disagree with the idea that illegal immigrants from Mexico are part of "America". But, they are. The constitution guarantees certain rights to all people physically present in the US, while comparatively very few rights are conditioned on citizenship, or registration. You may not have a right to be in the US, but being here you do have a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of your national origin. Because believe it or not, all of these groups make up "America". When authors above are writing about all of the alleged horrible things that are happening in the Latino community, they are talking about an American community.
Sorry, but this is a bunch of anti-cultural sentiments wrapped up in patriotism, and what you really seem to be saying is that people that who want to deport illegals are racist. I fundamentally disagree with your first point - things like english and a value system derived from european religion is absolutely a central part of the States - which is why our constitution was written in english and why there are multiple references to "god" in our founding documents. Likewise, integration is also a fundamental part of our country. So when people show opposition to groups that refuse to assimilate, or ideologies that directly oppose our society and laws, or individuals that break those laws, they're protecting what makes america american. I don't think that being against communities isolating themselves, people advocating for sharia law, or illegals stealing money from the american people are bad things - and honestly, they have nothing to do with race at all.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
*raises hand*
I'm supporting Trump. To me, the democrat platform is constructed on a base of total bull***** (Wage gap, the rainbow of nonexistent -isms, blaming the rich for our problems) that are either a waste of time to address or will actively harm our nation and economy. While Trump is a complete inconsiderate ass, hes neither corrupt like hillary or bat***** insane like sanders. TBH, I'd like to know what's wrong with you when off-the-cuff statements are a more serious concern to you than being under FBI investigation or the Clinton "foundation" (or any other hillary scandal) or relying on 5% growth annually and a debunked economic plan?
.
I still don't understand why people think the democrats are some sort of burden on the economy when we've flourished under one for the last 7 years (we've flourished under republicans in the past, I'm not entirely convinced the government has that strong of a pull on the economy).
The wage gap is real. I cannot believe you think it's not. There's tons of stats to back it up.
But, since you brought up BS tactics, what about the republicans fear politics? They've been telling people to be afraid of terrorists (more pedestrians are killed each year in the US than have been killed this century by terrorists and that includes 9/11). They've been telling people to be afraid of crime, despite nearly three decades of falling crime rates. They told us the ACA would bankrupt the country, it didn't. They tell us illegal immigrants are a burden on the economy, they aren't.
Who's telling lies?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The artist formerly known as Dimir Impersonator.
Follow me on Twitter @VapidPodcast and listen to my podcast "Vapid Existentialism" on iTunes!
I still don't understand why people think the democrats are some sort of burden on the economy when we've flourished under one for the last 7 years (we've flourished under republicans in the past, I'm not entirely convinced the government has that strong of a pull on the economy).
Flourished?
The wage gap is real. I cannot believe you think it's not. There's tons of stats to back it up.
Can you explain why you think it's relevant other than some idealistic notion of "fairness"?
But, since you brought up BS tactics, what about the republicans fear politics? They've been telling people to be afraid of terrorists (more pedestrians are killed each year in the US than have been killed this century by terrorists and that includes 9/11).
Both sides play the game. Republicans have an irrational fear of terrorism, Democrats have an irrational fear of guns and white people...the last part is meant a dig at very specific and unique portion of so called called democrats.
They've been telling people to be afraid of crime, despite nearly three decades of falling crime rates. They told us the ACA would bankrupt the country, it didn't. They tell us illegal immigrants are a burden on the economy, they aren't.
Yet, why the constant need to cry about guns?
Who's telling lies?
Both sides are. The "but what about them" is a child's argument. Both sides nominees are as close as we can get to the cynics definition of a politician. It's a joke our people elected such trash and there is no doubt exactly the kind of people they are but people want to be lied too, so they vote for the liars.
The fact of the matter is that the refugee relocation process is more stringent and time consuming than regular immigration standards via work visa programs. Any terrorist organization looking to get people into the country have a variety of options that are faster and easier than having an agent pose as a refugee.
And yet the FBI has substantial concern that the program has no way to properly vet the refugees, and there is a big risk of terrorists using it to get into the country.
Except that was proven to be false earlier on this page. No one from the FBI ever made that statement. Instead stating they could not certify the each refugee was not a threat but also stating: "There is risk associated with bringing anybody in from the outside, but especially from a conflict zone like that. From the intelligence community's perspective, as I said, I think we've developed an effective way to touch all of our databases and resources to figure out what we know about individuals. … I don't think that's a cumbersome process. My concern there is that there are certain gaps."
But again none of that changes the fact that there are faster and easier ways for terrorist organizations to infiltrate our nation than by imitating a refugee.
Additionally none of that makes it a reasonable act to ban all Muslims like Mr Trump wants to do.
The fact of the matter is that the refugee relocation process is more stringent and time consuming than regular immigration standards via work visa programs. Any terrorist organization looking to get people into the country have a variety of options that are faster and easier than having an agent pose as a refugee.
And yet the FBI has substantial concern that the program has no way to properly vet the refugees, and there is a big risk of terrorists using it to get into the country.
We could, I dunno... route them through Guam while they're vetted. Just like we did with Vietnamese refugees in Operation New Life. That was President Ford, a Republican.
I still don't understand why people think the democrats are some sort of burden on the economy when we've flourished under one for the last 7 years (we've flourished under republicans in the past, I'm not entirely convinced the government has that strong of a pull on the economy).
Flourished? We've had embarrassingly mediocre growth under obama. Poverty has stayed the same since after the crash, and the gpd has had a sub 3% growth rate. No one but the wealthiest has seen an increase in median earnings. Who is flourishing?
A bigger issue for conservatives is that democrat talking points on the economy - higher taxes, higher minimum wage, pro-unions, a mass return to manufacturing, massive government regulation - range from harmful to impossible.
The wage gap is real. I cannot believe you think it's not. There's tons of stats to back it up.
The 77 cent stat comes from one study that took an average of all male and female earnings, controlling for nothing. There is literally no credible study (not hyperbole - 0 studies) that supports the democrat assertion that women are paid 77 cents on the dollar for the same work as a man. In fact, studies that control for things like career choice, time off taken, and other related factors see the "gap" narrow down to anywhere from 3% to nothing. In fact, younger women make more than men. So your assertion is demonstrably bull*****. Fact is, the pay gap lie only exists to further the "war on women" talking point that is one of the only things keeping the democrats viable as a party.
But, since you brought up BS tactics, what about the republicans fear politics? They've been telling people to be afraid of terrorists (more pedestrians are killed each year in the US than have been killed this century by terrorists and that includes 9/11).
You're really equating brutal, intentional terrorist acts to road accidents? That insanity aside, democrat policies (such as the syrian immigration above) are known to facilitate terrorist activity. How is pointing out facts a BS tactic, especially taking into consideration the string of terrorist activity we're seeing in liberal europe?
They've been telling people to be afraid of crime, despite nearly three decades of falling crime rates.
Is this a talking point? I've never seen a republican bring up crime as a major part of a platform, and in fact we cite falling gun violence and falling violent crime all the time as reasons for why restrictions on guns aren't necessary.
They told us the ACA would bankrupt the country, it didn't.
The ACA has failed in its goal to cover everyone, getting only a fraction. Premiums have gone up and the exchanges are failing - and thats not even taking into consideration the expiring subsidies in the coming years. Worse yet, a full third of physicans are considering quitting. As someone that works in medical compliance, I can tell you that pretty much everyone is barely holding on - major hospitals included. Not to mention it would have been cheaper just to buy coverage for the uninsured outright in our old system instead of passing this bloated monstrosity of a law. The ACA is a ******* unmitigated disaster, and while the trillions he spent may not bankrupt a government willing to keep printing money, it will collapse our healthcare industry.
They tell us illegal immigrants are a burden on the economy, they aren't.
Well, I hate to point this out - but unless you're gonna show some unbiased sources, its still you and the dems. It sounds nice to say the things you're saying, but they're completely unsubstantiated by facts or logic.
Additionally none of that makes it a reasonable act to ban all Muslims like Mr Trump wants to do.
So, the FBI stating that syrians are a security risk AND merkel coming out and apologizing for europe's handling of immigration while admitting that it is the impetus of an insane amount of problems including huge upswings in rape and violence aren't enough of a reason to temporarily halt migration until a better system can be implemented? What the **** do you suggest then?
Well, I hate to point this out - but unless you're gonna show some unbiased sources, its still you and the dems. It sounds nice to say the things you're saying, but they're completely unsubstantiated by facts or logic.
Pot meet Kettle. Did you bother to look at the background of the organisations who published those reports?
I did and believe me in describing them unbiased is not a word I would use.
Quote from F.A.I.R »
FAIR seeks to reduce overall immigration to a level that is more manageable and which more closely reflects past policy. Reducing legal immigration from well over one million presently, to 300,000 a year over a sustained period will allow America to more sensibly manage its growth, address its environmental needs, and maintain a high quality of life.
Quote from wiki »
Principles
FAIR advocates "7 Principles of True Comprehensive Immigration Reform":
1. End Illegal Immigration
2. No Amnesty or Mass Guest-Worker Program
3. Protect Wages and Standards of Living
4. Major Upgrade in Interior Enforcement, Led by Strong Employers Penalties
5. Stop Special Interest Asylum Abuse
6. An Immigration Time Out
7. Equal Under the Law
The FAIR website contains a detailed explanation of each principle and why FAIR considers each one important.[16]
Does that sound like an organisation that is trying to put forward a balanced view on immigration to you?
Additionally none of that makes it a reasonable act to ban all Muslims like Mr Trump wants to do.
So, the FBI stating that syrians are a security risk AND merkel coming out and apologizing for europe's handling of immigration while admitting that it is the impetus of an insane amount of problems including huge upswings in rape and violence aren't enough of a reason to temporarily halt migration until a better system can be implemented? What the **** do you suggest then?
Same thing I said earlier. Banning every Muslim from the country regardless of where they have come from and there situation is a vast over reaction to the current situation. IF he had limitied it to Middle Eastern Refugees he might have had a point and a sensible idea. BUT newsflash he didn't he unleashed his ban and his rhetoric against every muslim in the world regardless of who they are or where they are from.
This has already forced him into 1 climbdown with his exception for Sidiq Khan. Will he be extending it to the Ambassadorial missions of countries like Morocco, Algeria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia? Or will they have to pack up their Embassies and head home for the amount of time it takes for that law to get ruled unconstitutional?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Did you bother to look at the background of the organisations who published those reports?
I did and believe me in describing them unbiased is not a word I would use.
Did you look at the data in the papers, or just the titles? Its simple math: what illegals pay into the system - what they get out of it results in a 100 billion dollar cost to actual americans. I linked the papers so I wouldn't have to post a paragraph on where to find and how to subtract a bunch of numbers from 50+ agencies. But hey, please show me the bias in their methodologies and I'll gladly find better sources for you.
Same thing I said earlier. Banning every Muslim from the country regardless of where they have come from and there situation is a vast over reaction to the current situation. IF he had limitied it to Middle Eastern Refugees he might have had a point and a sensible idea. BUT newsflash he didn't he unleashed his ban and his rhetoric against every muslim in the world regardless of who they are or where they are from.
I don't know how to clarify this any better. THIS POLICY CAN ONLY APPLY PEOPLE SEEKING VISAS TO ENTER OR IMMIGRATE TO THE UNITED STATES ONLY. Citizens are not effected. Non-nationals already here or with prior permission to enter are not effected. We already issue relatively few visas to muslims, and in 2015 we passed a law that cuts nationals of several muslim countries out of the no-visa program and makes it more difficult for muslims to enter the county. So, outside of mass importation of muslim refugees, what incredible amount of muslims are seeking entry into the states? Trump's penchant for hyperbole may have made the release a bit much, but the practical effect of a total ban will be functionally very similar to just a moratorium on refugees.
Did you bother to look at the background of the organisations who published those reports?
I did and believe me in describing them unbiased is not a word I would use.
Did you look at the data in the papers, or just the titles? Its simple math: what illegals pay into the system - what they get out of it results in a 100 billion dollar cost to actual americans. I linked the papers so I wouldn't have to post a paragraph on where to find and how to subtract a bunch of numbers from 50+ agencies. But hey, please show me the bias in their methodologies and I'll gladly find better sources for you.
This would be an appropriate response if I was querying the numbers. I wasn't I was querying your claim that the source was unbiased so the figures were more trustworthy than any other figures that had been given in the thread. Something that you appear have to dodged in attempting to bring up the figures.
[quote]Same thing I said earlier. Banning every Muslim from the country regardless of where they have come from and there situation is a vast over reaction to the current situation. IF he had limitied it to Middle Eastern Refugees he might have had a point and a sensible idea. BUT newsflash he didn't he unleashed his ban and his rhetoric against every muslim in the world regardless of who they are or where they are from.
I don't know how to clarify this any better. THIS POLICY CAN ONLY APPLY PEOPLE SEEKING VISAS TO ENTER OR IMMIGRATE TO THE UNITED STATES ONLY. Citizens are not effected. Non-nationals already here or with prior permission to enter are not effected. We already issue relatively few visas to muslims, and in 2015 we passed a law that cuts nationals of several muslim countries out of the no-visa program and makes it more difficult for muslims to enter the county. So, outside of mass importation of muslim refugees, what incredible amount of muslims are seeking entry into the states? Trump's penchant for hyperbole may have made the release a bit much, but the practical effect of a total ban will be functionally very similar to just a moratorium on refugees.
Fun part: Trumps ban will most likely survive judicial scrutiny.
Yet that is not what Trump said. That is what you have written around what he said. He quite emphatically said that we would ban all Muslims regardless of their origin and has subsquently had to do a number of climbdowns on the issue. All your stage dressing is just trying to hide that one central point.
I also had a look at that law/statute you linked to not sure how relevant it is, as it not a blanket ban on people of a certain class coming into the US, just a tweaking of the requirements needed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Yet that is not what Trump said. That is what you have written around what he said. He quite emphatically said that we would ban all Muslims regardless of their origin and has subsquently had to do a number of climbdowns on the issue. All your stage dressing is just trying to hide that one central point.
This has been a common theme for Trump supporters on this forum. They come here attempting to argue the benefits of what Trump is advocating yet fail to realize that they are arguing for a fixed much more reasonable version of what Trump said in order to support their position. In reality Trump said "any and all Muslims," (exact quote from his speech. In reality Trump said "you have to take out their families" (exact quote he said three time in a row, plenty of clarity there in what he meant.) In reality Trump wanted to punish women for getting an abortion. In reality Trump's tax plan would cost us Trillions in tax revenue. In reality immigrants benefit our economy and are part of the reason we are a dominant economic power today. In reality immigrants only burden the economy if they don't pay taxes when if they were brought into the economy fully they would generate a net profit in tax revenue.
This would be an appropriate response if I was querying the numbers. I wasn't I was querying your claim that the source was unbiased so the figures were more trustworthy than any other figures that had been given in the thread. Something that you appear have to dodged in attempting to bring up the figures.
Do you not understand the concept of methodology bias in studies? Asking voters to pick between "savior trump" and "demon-queen hillary" would be a biased poll. Asking to pick between "donald trump" and "hillary clinton" would be an unbiased poll, even if it came from fox ******* news. So, I'll ask again - where is the bias in the two papers I linked?
Yet that is not what Trump said. That is what you have written around what he said. He quite emphatically said that we would ban all Muslims regardless of their origin and has subsquently had to do a number of climbdowns on the issue. All your stage dressing is just trying to hide that one central point.
I also had a look at that law/statute you linked to not sure how relevant it is, as it not a blanket ban on people of a certain class coming into the US, just a tweaking of the requirements needed.
Trump is prone to make hyperbolic statements, then clarify them afterward. He did this in december after issuing the press release, stating that it wouldnt apply to citizens or people already in the country. He AGAIN stated in march that there would be exceptions, which he reiterated after london's new mayor decided to weigh in on something that he has no place to comment on. More importantly, a blanket ban like that could only ever apply to non-citizens looking for visas - so assuming it means anything else simply shows a poor understanding of the law on your part.
This is similar to hillary saying she'd pull a lot of coal miners out of business - I'm sure she didn't mean that she's going to bankrupt the coal industry outright out of environmental spite - and she later clarified that she wanted to transition the coal miners to greener jobs. If you're really going to take EVERY statement a politician you dislike makes as immutable and refuse any further clarification, you have no business being in a debate forum, really.
And that law made citizens of some muslim countries ineligible for entry to the united states without applying for a visa, even if they could otherwise. This is an enormous change, but it I chose to link directly to the law since if I linked to a conservative site that succinctly described it, you'd accuse me of using a biased source
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
And that law made citizens of some muslim countries ineligible for entry to the united states without applying for a visa, even if they could otherwise.
So now it just applies to anyone from a Muslim country regardless of faith? When will it end?
This would be an appropriate response if I was querying the numbers. I wasn't I was querying your claim that the source was unbiased so the figures were more trustworthy than any other figures that had been given in the thread. Something that you appear have to dodged in attempting to bring up the figures.
Do you not understand the concept of methodology bias in studies? Asking voters to pick between "savior trump" and "demon-queen hillary" would be a biased poll. Asking to pick between "donald trump" and "hillary clinton" would be an unbiased poll, even if it came from fox ******* news. So, I'll ask again - where is the bias in the two papers I linked?
Again this would be appropriate if you based your claim for accuracy on the quality of the data and the methedology.
Well, I hate to point this out - but unless you're gonna show some unbiased sources, its still you and the dems. It sounds nice to say the things you're saying, but they're completely unsubstantiated by facts or logic.
Where in the post above where you presented the papers did you make the claim that they were methedolically better than the other studies? Or did you just hope that no one would bother investigating your claim that they were not biased so superior to the other stats presented in this thread.
Yet that is not what Trump said. That is what you have written around what he said. He quite emphatically said that we would ban all Muslims regardless of their origin and has subsquently had to do a number of climbdowns on the issue. All your stage dressing is just trying to hide that one central point.
I also had a look at that law/statute you linked to not sure how relevant it is, as it not a blanket ban on people of a certain class coming into the US, just a tweaking of the requirements needed.
Trump is prone to make hyperbolic statements, then clarify them afterward. He did this in december after issuing the press release, stating that it wouldnt apply to citizens or people already in the country. He AGAIN stated in march that there would be exceptions, which he reiterated after london's new mayor decided to weigh in on something that he has no place to comment on. More importantly, a blanket ban like that could only ever apply to non-citizens looking for visas - so assuming it means anything else simply shows a poor understanding of the law on your part.
So you admit it then his inital plan was to ban all Muslims then. All of your fancy window dressing is post hoc and beside the point all the extremists needed was his 'I will ban all Muslims from entering the US' and they have got another weapon to use in the 'Clash of Civilisations' bull***** they want to peddle.
As to whether it concerns him or not Sidiq Khan is Muslim, with his initial comments that he backed up in stating that he would grant Sidiq an exception how can it not affect Sidiq and why the hell should he not comment on it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
And that law made citizens of some muslim countries ineligible for entry to the united states without applying for a visa, even if they could otherwise.
So now it just applies to anyone from a Muslim country regardless of faith? When will it end?
That is a law that currently exists that already limits muslim immigration, which I clearly pointed to to show that an outright ban would both be only a small change, and in character with current trends. You've been intentionally obtuse for long enough now that I'm going to put you on my block list - so I won't have to deal with your garbage anymore. Goodbye!
And that law made citizens of some muslim countries ineligible for entry to the united states without applying for a visa, even if they could otherwise.
So now it just applies to anyone from a Muslim country regardless of faith? When will it end?
That is a law that currently exists that already limits muslim immigration, which I clearly pointed to to show that an outright ban would both be only a small change, and in character with current trends. You've been intentionally obtuse for long enough now that I'm going to put you on my block list - so I won't have to deal with your garbage anymore. Goodbye!
I was just wanting to clarify your statement since it is different from what I had heard. Like Trump just planned on asking if people were Muslim.
Again this would be appropriate if you based your claim for accuracy on the quality of the data and the methedology.
Where in the post above where you presented the papers did you make the claim that they were methedolically better than the other studies? Or did you just hope that no one would bother investigating your claim that they were not biased so superior to the other stats presented in this thread.
Okay, we're having a communication error here. Brick's reply had no sources for any of his claims. I cited two unbiased papers, and asked for him to provide unbiased sources as well to substantiate his claim. You then went on to criticize the political leanings of the organizations that published the papers, then decided that the two papers must be biased without even looking at them? Thats some fallacious as hell reasoning there.
So you admit it then his inital plan was to ban all Muslims then. All of your fancy window dressing is post hoc and beside the point all the extremists needed was his 'I will ban all Muslims from entering the US' and they have got another weapon to use in the 'Clash of Civilisations' bull***** they want to peddle.
His initial press release said that he wanted a ban on all muslims. We aren't disputing his statement, we're disputing his policy. He clarified immediately afterward what he meant, then stated he was open to exemptions FAR before Khan demanded one. As for Khan, I don't think that a foreigner with sympathetic links to pro-sharia extremism has any right to comment on our political process or advise people who to vote for. But hey, muslim extremists love democrats for a reason, now don't they.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
His initial press release said that he wanted a ban on all muslims. We aren't disputing his statement, we're disputing his policy. He clarified immediately afterward what he meant, then stated he was open to exemptions FAR before Khan demanded one. As for Khan, I don't think that a foreigner with sympathetic links to pro-sharia extremism has any right to comment on our political process or advise people who to vote for. But hey, muslim extremists love democrats for a reason, now don't they.
His initial press release said that he wanted a ban on all muslims. We aren't disputing his statement, we're disputing his policy. He clarified immediately afterward what he meant, then stated he was open to exemptions FAR before Khan demanded one. As for Khan, I don't think that a foreigner with sympathetic links to pro-sharia extremism has any right to comment on our political process or advise people who to vote for. But hey, muslim extremists love democrats for a reason, now don't they.
Trump is prone to make hyperbolic statements, then clarify them afterward. He did this in december after issuing the press release, stating that it wouldnt apply to citizens or people already in the country. He AGAIN stated in march that there would be exceptions, which he reiterated after london's new mayor decided to weigh in on something that he has no place to comment on. More importantly, a blanket ban like that could only ever apply to non-citizens looking for visas - so assuming it means anything else simply shows a poor understanding of the law on your part.
Trump is a salesman. He will say anything that he thinks will get him the "sale" and then he will backtrack and "clarify" it in the fine print. If he gets elected, I would not be very surprised if he flip-flops on many if not all his controversial statements.
I didn't argue against that point, and a single tweet hardly seems indicative of Muslim extremists against Trump.
The point you were trying to be flippant about is that "extremist Muslims love Democrats." You seem to forget that no matter how anti-Muslim either party could be, there would always be one party most people would lean towards. For instance "hey, racists sure seem to love the Republicans for a reason, now don't they?"
His initial press release said that he wanted a ban on all muslims. We aren't disputing his statement, we're disputing his policy. He clarified immediately afterward what he meant, then stated he was open to exemptions FAR before Khan demanded one. As for Khan, I don't think that a foreigner with sympathetic links to pro-sharia extremism has any right to comment on our political process or advise people who to vote for. But hey, muslim extremists love democrats for a reason, now don't they.
You are really rather uninformed. The pro Sharia law types hate Sidiq Khan due to him coming out in support of Equal marriage rights. Here it might help if you read about him not the caricature that Zack Goldsmith unsuccessfully tried to peddle during his diabolically awful campaign to become Mayor of London.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/18/donald-trump-somehow-thinks-ferguson-and-oakland-are-dangerous-like-iraq/
Follow me on Twitter @VapidPodcast and listen to my podcast "Vapid Existentialism" on iTunes!
I forgot to address this earlier. I foresee two potential events where Trump, and Trump alone, could cause some kind of nuclear apocalypse.
1. Insisting that Japan develop its own nuclear weapons.
While Trump and followers might believe this will help America, it will likely scare the hell out of the Chinese. China and Japan relations have been, at best, lukewarm. Japan committed some brutal atrocities in China during WWII and never apologized. That is not water under the bridge. If Japan tried to acquire nukes, there's a strong chance that China would oppose it. Asia's status quo is stable right now, but Trump's policies will likely increase tensions.
The insane thing is that Trump's policies are based on sheer ignorance. Trump claims that South Korea and Japan pay us nothing for our defense system. This is completely false, as Japan pays about 2 billion dollars annually and South Korea about 800 million annually.
Trump would destabilize the region and provoke a nuclear power with bad history with its neighbors based on misinformation. If China reacts strongly, we could be facing a Cuban Missile Crisis in Asia, except with a President Trump instead of a President JFK.
2. Poor Temperament
I've already shown that Trump is very ignorant. However, it gets worse. When Trump takes action, he overreacts. Remember when a Cruz Pac posted a bad ad about Trump's wife? Trump could have denounced the ad and just asked for an apology from Cruz. Instead, Trump posted a comparison between the two women based purely on looks. There was no need to attack Mrs. Cruz like that; for all we know, she wasn't even aware that the anti-Trump ad existed. Trump accomplished nothing with his attack and only made himself look worse. Or the morning of the Indiana primary. Trump went on national television and all but accused Cruz's father of being part of the JFK assassination. There was no need for that and only made Trump look crazy.
Trump's entire profile is that someone pushes him and he doubles down. I admit, sometimes that's admirable and appropriate. But it just as often gets him into trouble. If Iran or another power tries to provoke Trump into a war, it would be all too easy. Could we win? It would likely be another Iraq, where we find ourselves in a bad situation with few ways out. But that's the best case situation in a world with nuclear weapons.
I don't think anyone's in a position in front of their keyboard to prove or disprove matters of fact. So for the sake of argument, let's say that these sources are all correct and that Mexicans are responsible for a disproportionate number of crimes. One thing that I can do from here is explain how policy designed to impact Mexicans still violates the Equal Protections clause of the US constitution.
The federal government, in the form of Supreme Court cases and Civil Rights Statutes, has established a set of groups known as "protected classes". Among them are race, religion, and national origin. When a policy is undertaken that disproportionately impacts a protected class, the law can be found valid only if it passes a legal test known as "strict scrutiny". In that test, the law must be found to serve a compelling government interest by the use of narrowly tailored means. On that, let's presume that the prevention of crime is a sufficiently compelling government interest. You still have to show that the policy undertaken is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
And, it is hard to show that deporting Mexians, disallowing funds transfers, walling off the border, etc, are narrowly tailored means of preventing crimes like child rape and drug trafficking. The idea is that you should punish criminals for being criminals, not for being Mexican. Punishing people for their national origin under the pretext of preventing certain things you fear them to be doing is a publicity trick that has hidden some of the worst human rights atrocities in world history.
If you are in support of those policy prpopsals of Trump's, you are against the legal doctrines of the Equal Protections clause. If you support Equal Protections, then you are against these policies of Trump's. There's no way around that.
On this issue, it's my opinion that there is nothing at all wrong with a nation advancing policy that serves its own interest over the interests of other nations. In fact, it's an idea that I support enthusiastically, and which a lot of the far left will disagree with. I have even heard while traveling abroad the idea that citizens of other countries should be able to participate on some level in the US elections process, which idea has offended me profoundly every time I've heard it. To me, the idea seems beyond absurd.
However, I would strongly caution that the idea of what constitutes "America" in the idea of "America First" is one that unfortunately happens to be extremely prone to abuse. A lot of people characterize America as White, when in fact it's a nation of no particular race. Likewise with religion, and with the English language. Those things have always been specifically disavowed as bearing on the central character of the United States. People who don't share them are no less American.
On the point of the immigration issue, a lot of people would probably disagree with the idea that illegal immigrants from Mexico are part of "America". But, they are. The constitution guarantees certain rights to all people physically present in the US, while comparatively very few rights are conditioned on citizenship, or registration. You may not have a right to be in the US, but being here you do have a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of your national origin. Because believe it or not, all of these groups make up "America". When authors above are writing about all of the alleged horrible things that are happening in the Latino community, they are talking about an American community.
The question is, are we doing right for this "America" when we say things like "America First". I think when people say that, a lot of them really mean "my group first". Again, if you support the Equal Protections clause, you are against that idea. And if you are in support of that idea, you are against the Equal Protections clause. No way around it.
Is there another significant source of muslim migration to the united states? Trump has already clarified that this is an immigration measure intended to prevent the mess that europe now has from happening stateside, and on that point he's correct. If he simply limited it to importing refugees, would you be fine with the temporary ban?
And yet the FBI has substantial concern that the program has no way to properly vet the refugees, and there is a big risk of terrorists using it to get into the country.
*raises hand*
I'm supporting Trump. To me, the democrat platform is constructed on a base of total bull***** (Wage gap, the rainbow of nonexistent -isms, blaming the rich for our problems) that are either a waste of time to address or will actively harm our nation and economy. While Trump is a complete inconsiderate ass, hes neither corrupt like hillary or bat***** insane like sanders. TBH, I'd like to know what's wrong with you when off-the-cuff statements are a more serious concern to you than being under FBI investigation or the Clinton "foundation" (or any other hillary scandal) or relying on 5% growth annually and a debunked economic plan?
Wait, WHAT?! The logical jump you have to make is immense here. First, the human rights issues I discussed are just a nice benefit of the policies, not its primary purpose. The primary purpose of these policies is to prevent illegal immigration.
Second, Deporting illegal immigrants is a matter of immigration law, and you are entirely incorrect in trying to apply this legal theory to it, or are you suggesting that anything other than open borders is unconstitutional?
The wall has no impact on people residing in the united states that existing laws don't already have, so unless you're going to argue that current laws are too limiting and also violate equal protection, you've got no case.
Finally - you're missing an important point on the remittance withholding. It only applies to illegals within the states, and whether or not this is permissible isn't settled law. I strongly believe that illegals don't get the same protections as citizens, and there is plenty of legal theory to back me up on this.
What you actually mean is that if you support trump's policy, you're against a dangerously broad interpretation of constitutional protections that would violate our national sovereignty. And I am absolutely opposed to that.
Sorry, but this is a bunch of anti-cultural sentiments wrapped up in patriotism, and what you really seem to be saying is that people that who want to deport illegals are racist. I fundamentally disagree with your first point - things like english and a value system derived from european religion is absolutely a central part of the States - which is why our constitution was written in english and why there are multiple references to "god" in our founding documents. Likewise, integration is also a fundamental part of our country. So when people show opposition to groups that refuse to assimilate, or ideologies that directly oppose our society and laws, or individuals that break those laws, they're protecting what makes america american. I don't think that being against communities isolating themselves, people advocating for sharia law, or illegals stealing money from the american people are bad things - and honestly, they have nothing to do with race at all.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
I still don't understand why people think the democrats are some sort of burden on the economy when we've flourished under one for the last 7 years (we've flourished under republicans in the past, I'm not entirely convinced the government has that strong of a pull on the economy).
The wage gap is real. I cannot believe you think it's not. There's tons of stats to back it up.
But, since you brought up BS tactics, what about the republicans fear politics? They've been telling people to be afraid of terrorists (more pedestrians are killed each year in the US than have been killed this century by terrorists and that includes 9/11). They've been telling people to be afraid of crime, despite nearly three decades of falling crime rates. They told us the ACA would bankrupt the country, it didn't. They tell us illegal immigrants are a burden on the economy, they aren't.
Who's telling lies?
Follow me on Twitter @VapidPodcast and listen to my podcast "Vapid Existentialism" on iTunes!
Flourished?
Can you explain why you think it's relevant other than some idealistic notion of "fairness"?
Both sides play the game. Republicans have an irrational fear of terrorism, Democrats have an irrational fear of guns and white people...the last part is meant a dig at very specific and unique portion of so called called democrats.
Yet, why the constant need to cry about guns?
Both sides are. The "but what about them" is a child's argument. Both sides nominees are as close as we can get to the cynics definition of a politician. It's a joke our people elected such trash and there is no doubt exactly the kind of people they are but people want to be lied too, so they vote for the liars.
But again none of that changes the fact that there are faster and easier ways for terrorist organizations to infiltrate our nation than by imitating a refugee.
Additionally none of that makes it a reasonable act to ban all Muslims like Mr Trump wants to do.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Flourished? We've had embarrassingly mediocre growth under obama. Poverty has stayed the same since after the crash, and the gpd has had a sub 3% growth rate. No one but the wealthiest has seen an increase in median earnings. Who is flourishing?
A bigger issue for conservatives is that democrat talking points on the economy - higher taxes, higher minimum wage, pro-unions, a mass return to manufacturing, massive government regulation - range from harmful to impossible.
The 77 cent stat comes from one study that took an average of all male and female earnings, controlling for nothing. There is literally no credible study (not hyperbole - 0 studies) that supports the democrat assertion that women are paid 77 cents on the dollar for the same work as a man. In fact, studies that control for things like career choice, time off taken, and other related factors see the "gap" narrow down to anywhere from 3% to nothing. In fact, younger women make more than men. So your assertion is demonstrably bull*****. Fact is, the pay gap lie only exists to further the "war on women" talking point that is one of the only things keeping the democrats viable as a party.
You're really equating brutal, intentional terrorist acts to road accidents? That insanity aside, democrat policies (such as the syrian immigration above) are known to facilitate terrorist activity. How is pointing out facts a BS tactic, especially taking into consideration the string of terrorist activity we're seeing in liberal europe?
Is this a talking point? I've never seen a republican bring up crime as a major part of a platform, and in fact we cite falling gun violence and falling violent crime all the time as reasons for why restrictions on guns aren't necessary.
The ACA has failed in its goal to cover everyone, getting only a fraction. Premiums have gone up and the exchanges are failing - and thats not even taking into consideration the expiring subsidies in the coming years. Worse yet, a full third of physicans are considering quitting. As someone that works in medical compliance, I can tell you that pretty much everyone is barely holding on - major hospitals included. Not to mention it would have been cheaper just to buy coverage for the uninsured outright in our old system instead of passing this bloated monstrosity of a law. The ACA is a ******* unmitigated disaster, and while the trillions he spent may not bankrupt a government willing to keep printing money, it will collapse our healthcare industry.
They are. You're wrong.
Well, I hate to point this out - but unless you're gonna show some unbiased sources, its still you and the dems. It sounds nice to say the things you're saying, but they're completely unsubstantiated by facts or logic.
So, the FBI stating that syrians are a security risk AND merkel coming out and apologizing for europe's handling of immigration while admitting that it is the impetus of an insane amount of problems including huge upswings in rape and violence aren't enough of a reason to temporarily halt migration until a better system can be implemented? What the **** do you suggest then?
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Pot meet Kettle. Did you bother to look at the background of the organisations who published those reports?
I did and believe me in describing them unbiased is not a word I would use.
Does that sound like an organisation that is trying to put forward a balanced view on immigration to you?
F.A.I.R's website
Oh and I haven't forgotten your other 'paper' I checked them out as well and found out they are an out growth of F.A.I.R so equally unbiased.
Same thing I said earlier. Banning every Muslim from the country regardless of where they have come from and there situation is a vast over reaction to the current situation. IF he had limitied it to Middle Eastern Refugees he might have had a point and a sensible idea. BUT newsflash he didn't he unleashed his ban and his rhetoric against every muslim in the world regardless of who they are or where they are from.
This has already forced him into 1 climbdown with his exception for Sidiq Khan. Will he be extending it to the Ambassadorial missions of countries like Morocco, Algeria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia? Or will they have to pack up their Embassies and head home for the amount of time it takes for that law to get ruled unconstitutional?
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Did you look at the data in the papers, or just the titles? Its simple math: what illegals pay into the system - what they get out of it results in a 100 billion dollar cost to actual americans. I linked the papers so I wouldn't have to post a paragraph on where to find and how to subtract a bunch of numbers from 50+ agencies. But hey, please show me the bias in their methodologies and I'll gladly find better sources for you.
I don't know how to clarify this any better. THIS POLICY CAN ONLY APPLY PEOPLE SEEKING VISAS TO ENTER OR IMMIGRATE TO THE UNITED STATES ONLY. Citizens are not effected. Non-nationals already here or with prior permission to enter are not effected. We already issue relatively few visas to muslims, and in 2015 we passed a law that cuts nationals of several muslim countries out of the no-visa program and makes it more difficult for muslims to enter the county. So, outside of mass importation of muslim refugees, what incredible amount of muslims are seeking entry into the states? Trump's penchant for hyperbole may have made the release a bit much, but the practical effect of a total ban will be functionally very similar to just a moratorium on refugees.
Fun part: Trumps ban will most likely survive judicial scrutiny.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
This would be an appropriate response if I was querying the numbers. I wasn't I was querying your claim that the source was unbiased so the figures were more trustworthy than any other figures that had been given in the thread. Something that you appear have to dodged in attempting to bring up the figures.
Yet that is not what Trump said. That is what you have written around what he said. He quite emphatically said that we would ban all Muslims regardless of their origin and has subsquently had to do a number of climbdowns on the issue. All your stage dressing is just trying to hide that one central point.
I also had a look at that law/statute you linked to not sure how relevant it is, as it not a blanket ban on people of a certain class coming into the US, just a tweaking of the requirements needed.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Do you not understand the concept of methodology bias in studies? Asking voters to pick between "savior trump" and "demon-queen hillary" would be a biased poll. Asking to pick between "donald trump" and "hillary clinton" would be an unbiased poll, even if it came from fox ******* news. So, I'll ask again - where is the bias in the two papers I linked?
Trump is prone to make hyperbolic statements, then clarify them afterward. He did this in december after issuing the press release, stating that it wouldnt apply to citizens or people already in the country. He AGAIN stated in march that there would be exceptions, which he reiterated after london's new mayor decided to weigh in on something that he has no place to comment on. More importantly, a blanket ban like that could only ever apply to non-citizens looking for visas - so assuming it means anything else simply shows a poor understanding of the law on your part.
This is similar to hillary saying she'd pull a lot of coal miners out of business - I'm sure she didn't mean that she's going to bankrupt the coal industry outright out of environmental spite - and she later clarified that she wanted to transition the coal miners to greener jobs. If you're really going to take EVERY statement a politician you dislike makes as immutable and refuse any further clarification, you have no business being in a debate forum, really.
And that law made citizens of some muslim countries ineligible for entry to the united states without applying for a visa, even if they could otherwise. This is an enormous change, but it I chose to link directly to the law since if I linked to a conservative site that succinctly described it, you'd accuse me of using a biased source
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Again this would be appropriate if you based your claim for accuracy on the quality of the data and the methedology.
Where in the post above where you presented the papers did you make the claim that they were methedolically better than the other studies? Or did you just hope that no one would bother investigating your claim that they were not biased so superior to the other stats presented in this thread.
So you admit it then his inital plan was to ban all Muslims then. All of your fancy window dressing is post hoc and beside the point all the extremists needed was his 'I will ban all Muslims from entering the US' and they have got another weapon to use in the 'Clash of Civilisations' bull***** they want to peddle.
As to whether it concerns him or not Sidiq Khan is Muslim, with his initial comments that he backed up in stating that he would grant Sidiq an exception how can it not affect Sidiq and why the hell should he not comment on it.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
That is a law that currently exists that already limits muslim immigration, which I clearly pointed to to show that an outright ban would both be only a small change, and in character with current trends. You've been intentionally obtuse for long enough now that I'm going to put you on my block list - so I won't have to deal with your garbage anymore. Goodbye!
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Okay, we're having a communication error here. Brick's reply had no sources for any of his claims. I cited two unbiased papers, and asked for him to provide unbiased sources as well to substantiate his claim. You then went on to criticize the political leanings of the organizations that published the papers, then decided that the two papers must be biased without even looking at them? Thats some fallacious as hell reasoning there.
His initial press release said that he wanted a ban on all muslims. We aren't disputing his statement, we're disputing his policy. He clarified immediately afterward what he meant, then stated he was open to exemptions FAR before Khan demanded one. As for Khan, I don't think that a foreigner with sympathetic links to pro-sharia extremism has any right to comment on our political process or advise people who to vote for. But hey, muslim extremists love democrats for a reason, now don't they.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Indeed. Almost as much as they love Trump
The GJ way path to no lynching:
IDK, they seem to be advocating against him. Its not like the other candidate has been funneling money for them and is basically their bought puppet.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Trump is a salesman. He will say anything that he thinks will get him the "sale" and then he will backtrack and "clarify" it in the fine print. If he gets elected, I would not be very surprised if he flip-flops on many if not all his controversial statements.
The point you were trying to be flippant about is that "extremist Muslims love Democrats." You seem to forget that no matter how anti-Muslim either party could be, there would always be one party most people would lean towards. For instance "hey, racists sure seem to love the Republicans for a reason, now don't they?"
The GJ way path to no lynching:
You are really rather uninformed. The pro Sharia law types hate Sidiq Khan due to him coming out in support of Equal marriage rights. Here it might help if you read about him not the caricature that Zack Goldsmith unsuccessfully tried to peddle during his diabolically awful campaign to become Mayor of London.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru