American Politics

[shionoro]

But more Muslims are persecuted and killed than Christians

So what?
Groups whose life is in immediate danger should not be seperated by their religion or race when thinking about whether to give them asylum.

There are a lot of christians legitimately opressed in the muslim world, and there are also a lot ofmuslims legitimately opressed in the muslim (and also otherwise asian, like in burma) world.

It is disgusting to make religion an issue when people are fleeing from death.

 

[M3J]

What's your point? Where did I ever say Christians shouldn't be accepted or be prioritized? My point is that Muslims are in just as much danger, if not more, and should be allowed to come in as well. It's in in response to Shark's dumb views.

Also:

 

[SharkBait]

What's your point? Where did I ever say Christians shouldn't be accepted or be prioritized? My point is that Muslims are in just as much danger, if not more, and should be allowed to come in as well. It's in in response to Shark's dumb views.

I never said Muslims shouldnt be allowed to come in to the country. I said people from countries harboring anti American terrorists ought not come here. A ban on such individuals is very sensible as it enables us to remain in a secure homeland. There is much less risk of people remaining in their terrorist ridden countries causing harm on us than if they were actually here on American soil. Youre kind of limited in what you can do to Americans in America if youre physically in Libya for example. No one is saying it is a ban on a certain religion, I mean, theres no way to even prove that the person is a follower of such religion, they could just lie when they are being vetted. A country ban is easily more practical.

Wouldnt people fleeing persecution be on a refugee vetting multi year long process anyway?

 

[shionoro]

I never said Muslims shouldnt be allowed to come in to the country. I said people from countries harboring anti American terrorists ought not come here. A ban on such individuals is very sensible as it enables us to remain in a secure homeland. There is much less risk of people remaining in their terrorist ridden countries causing harm on us than if they were actually here on American soil. Youre kind of limited in what you can do to Americans in America if youre physically in Libya for example. No one is saying it is a ban on a certain religion, I mean, theres no way to even prove that the person is a follower of such religion, they could just lie when they are being vetted. A country ban is easily more practical.

Wouldnt people fleeing persecution be on a refugee vetting multi year long process anyway?

So why is Omid Nouripour, a german Grüne POlitiker and leader of a german-american parlamentiarian group and part of the transatlantic bridge not allowed to travel to the US now just because he has a german and an Iranian passport?

Do you think that a politician from germany will commit acts of terror in your country?

 

[SharkBait]

So why is Omid Nouripour, a german Grüne POlitiker and leader of a german-american parlamentiarian group and part of the transatlantic bridge not allowed to travel to the US now just because he has a german and an Iranian passport?

Do you think that a politician from germany will commit acts of terror in your country?

He could be a threat to national security here so he should be barred from coming here until he is investigated.

 

[shionoro]

He could be a threat to national security here so he should be barred from coming here until he is investigated.

But you could also be a threat to the US's national security.

 

[SharkBait]

But you could also be a threat to the US's national security.

But I was born on American soil and am a citizen, this person was not born in American, so we dont necessarily have to let him into our country. Passports can be given and passports can be taken.

 

[shionoro]

But I was born on American soil and am a citizen, this person was not born in American, so we dont necessarily have to let him into our country. Passports can be given and passports can be taken.

So what?
You had more US citizens comitting acts of terror in the US than german politicians comitting acts of terror in your country just because they happen to have been born in a country from where....there was similarly no single terrorist doing anything on US soil.
So, where is the logic here?

 

[SharkBait]

So what?
You had more US citizens comitting acts of terror in the US than german politicians comitting acts of terror in your country just because they happen to have been born in a country from where....there was similarly no single terrorist doing anything on US soil.
So, where is the logic here?

I dont understand your point? America has a choice to allow or not allow people here, I dont remember anyone saying a country HAS TO LET anyone it wants into it.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 30, 2017, Original Post Date: Jan 30, 2017 ---

Reminder

 

[shionoro]

I dont understand your point? America has a choice to allow or not allow people here, I dont remember anyone saying a country HAS TO LET anyone it wants into it.

I am just telling you that your logic is absolute nonsense.
You ban countries from which not a single terrorist came into your country.
With that, you ban people seeking for help, some of them being people who helped america in the afghanistan and iraq war and risked their life for it.
Some of them being people from other western countries who would benefit the US (like the politician i just mentioned).

You do that without any reason whatsover while your country still keeps on having a lot of massshootings due to your 'recreational gunuse'.

Simply put, you let a lot of people die or starve or at least humiliate lots of people based on their religion (because lets dont kid ourselves, that's what it is) even tho not a single terrorist has comitted any act of terror in the US, while countries from which actual terrorists came are not harmed by the ban because trump got business ties to those (like saudi arabia).

Great.

 

[SharkBait]

Simply put, you let a lot of people die or starve or at least humiliate lots of people based on their religion (because lets dont kid ourselves, that's what it is) even tho not a single terrorist has comitted any act of terror in the US, while countries from which actual terrorists came are not harmed by the ban because trump got business ties to those (like saudi arabia).

But its only a 90 day review of the process. Also there are tons of other countries refugees can go to other than America. Why are you acting like America is the only country that accepts refugees.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 30, 2017, Original Post Date: Jan 30, 2017 ---

You do that without any reason whatsover while your country still keeps on having a lot of massshootings due to your 'recreational gunuse'.

Crime will always exist. Gun crime is a result of organizational problems in cities as a result of other problems (high crime rate, low availability of jobs, high drug and high poverty levels).

 

[shionoro]

But its only a 90 day review of the process. Also there are tons of other countries refugees can go to other than America. Why are you acting like America is the only country that accepts refugees.

Which countries? It is a fact that people who succesfully went through a very long and thourough process were sent back, including people who helpe damerica under danger for their own life.

Crime will always exist. Gun crime is a result of organizational problems in cities as a result of other problems (high crime rate, low availability of jobs, high drug and high poverty levels).

okay, terror will always exist. Why do you discriminate muslims for it who come from countries from where no single terror strike on american soil was committed?

 

[xi0]

But it isn't a preventative measure.

Clearly if Trump cared about our safety, he'd be trying to do something about those countries where more American lives were lost, than the countries that haven't killed Americans. As you said, most likely a publicity stunt. Would be weird if Trump expected the ban to stick, but I guess he thought he'd be getting a more sympathetic judge?

How is it not a preventative measure? It certainly isn't one based on something that has already happened in the US. I feel like we're arguing over semantics here because you think I'm somehow justifying it. I'm not, I'm merely stating what it exist(ed) to do, prevent a terrorist act. I was never arguing over whether it made any sense or not. It's obviously clear now that the White House didn't even bother conferring with the State Department before signing it.

The countries mentioned in the ban are either poorer and less influential predominantly muslim countries and/or countries the US has very little political or economic ties to. The ones notably absent are also ones that Trump has business ties to, but the same could be said of a dozen other 1%ers. The only notable exception is probably Egypt. So a Trump supporter could see this and think "ah, he's finally doing something!", when in reality the policy here is rather status quo in regards to who our allies are and who aren't. The glaring weakness of it is the chaos it created, because the people in the White House are negligent and inept, and that could have been predicted months and months ago. The fact that it didn't hold up to legal scrutiny either isn't surprising either.

 

[POW]

Fuck the refugee ban. I read that the countries where most terrorists came from are okay though, because Trump has his businesses there as well. Dunno if this is true though. If it is, this just makes the whole thing worse.

Fuck Trump and his dumbass supporters, and the shitheads who support this shit.

I am just telling you that your logic is absolute nonsense.
You ban countries from which not a single terrorist came into your country.
Great.

Saudi Arabia gets special treatment just like Israel, standard US foreign policy nothing to see here.

 

[shionoro]

Saudi Arabia gets special treatment just like Israel, standard US foreign policy nothing to see here.

The latest decision in parliament regarding saudi arabia speaks another language, so does Obama's strained relationship with Netanjahu.
How certain countries are treated is directly related to the political situation and to who is in power of what.

But there is a reason why egypt, saudi Arabia and other Gulfstates get excluded: Those are actually of importance to the US even tho actual terrorists came from there.
And they are of actual importance to trump and his businesses to some degree, too.

It is funny how he went 'oh my god clinton gets money from saudi arabia' when it was not even true and he himself has business ties there and does not include the one country that actually exports terror onto his list.

 

[SharkBait]

Why do you discriminate muslims for it who come from countries from where no single terror strike on american soil was committed?

But yesterday there was a terror strike in North American soil by someone from one of the countries in that region.

 

[shionoro]

But yesterday there was a terror strike in North American soil by someone from one of the countries in that region.

When? You mean the mosque shooting whose perpetrators are still unclear?
The attack on peacefully praying muslims just after canada announced to give syrian refugees shelter after the US screwed up?

 

[LighteningLord]

What I am most scared about is Trump should not put a stop to or lower the funding that is provided to research. I especially look forward to his view for Human Connectome Project.

 

[SharkBait]

What I am most scared about is Trump should not put a stop to or lower the funding that is provided to research. I especially look forward to his view for Human Connectome Project.

THat shouldnt happen for NIH funded science research since he kept the same head person in place for that http://www.nature.com/news/nih-director-francis-collins-staying-on-for-now-1.19081

 

[Aonori]

Damn, this vid is too savage not to showcase, Anonymous view on trump and how will Us be in the following years possibilities (also election things mentioned):