Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

So this is a pretty big deal and people are up in arms over this.


Firstly, let's make it clear that Trump's executive order is not a Muslim ban. That's stupid American Leftist bullshit. It is every bit as stupid as the idiocy that conservatives spewed about Obama being the anti-Christ or a Muslim. You're an idiot if you call the executive order a "Muslim Ban."

Secondly, I think immigration restrictions are too hard in the US. They need to relax. The wait times need to be drastically reduced. Immigration needs a massive overhaul. Seriously, WTF are they doing when they process the "paperwork" and why isn't EVERYTHING digitized?





And lastly:

So I see two points with the American Left that contradicts itself:

1. They make fun of conservatives because they are pro-life but then don't do anything about the babies once they are born. They don't adopt those babies and invite them to their homes after they are born.

2. But at the same time, they are guilty of the same. They want to invite all of these immigrants to the US but none of them want to adopt those immigrants and invite them to their homes once they are here.


At least American conservatives are consistent in that they don't give a shit about babies once they are born and they don't give a shit about immigrants once they are here.

But we already knew that American Liberals are a bunch of hypocritical self-righteous whiners and that American Conservatives were a bunch of callused assholes.



So what are your thoughts about Trump's executive order and the US' immigration policies?

Nah it's a Muslim ban, just with plausible deniability deliberately worked into it, and I'm glad it's being blocked.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Nah it's a Muslim ban, just with plausible deniability deliberately worked into it, and I'm glad it's being blocked.

Please, do go into detail on how it is a Muslim ban.

Besides Trump's own words before he won? Follow the beard crumbs, I guess.

Here's a story: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally/?utm_term=.4bf1a23d487d

Originally posted by dadudemon
Please, do go into detail on how it is a Muslim ban. Okay:

- The ban exclusively targets Muslim majority countries, particularly ones where radical Islamic terroism is seen as a threat.

- The ban explicitly excludes minority religions, i.e those not of Islamic faith, from being barred entry to the US.

- The ban explicitly describes its intent to target those who practice "honour killings", mistreat women and persecute other faiths i.e. the bread and butter anti-Islam rhetoric of the right.

- One of Trump's main campaign promises was the "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" which upon entering office, he asked his adviser, Giuliani, how he could implement legally.

Yeah, this ban is targeting Muslims, and frankly its ironic that conservatives, who were so insistent on 'calling it what is is', i.e. "radical Islamic terroism!11!1", are now denying this targeting Islam at all, kek.

More ironic is that in the same sentence they say "it's not a Muslim ban!" they say "Trump is just fulfilling his campaign promises!"

Originally posted by Robtard
Besides Trump's own words before he won? Follow the beard crumbs, I guess.

Here's a story: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally/?utm_term=.4bf1a23d487d


Still not a Muslim Ban. There is no Muslim Ban.


This is a very easy test:


Q: Is this a Muslim Ban?

A: No.



Follow-up question:

Q: Why is this not a Muslim Ban?

A: Because no one has been banned specifically because they are Muslim. Muslims are still coming into the US by large numbers and almost nothing has changed these numbers during the increased measures against just 7 countries. This is a travel and immigration ban that affects more than just Muslims because even veteran soldiers, from the UK, who have fought in Iraq, are being detained and questioned. This affects 7 countries who are proven to be unstable and have poor vetting processes. This is not a ban, this is a temporary measure put in place on people coming from those countries into the US until more confident measures to vet arrivals from those 7 countries are in place. Additionally, all 7 of these countries have also been assessed as having significant amounts of terrorism, possess significant enough anti-US sentiment to be deemed a serious threat, and are dangerous to travel to by the UK, as well. This is not a US-only idea. And this is not an idea that the Trump administration came up with, either: they are riding on the backs of work the Obama administration already undertook.


Q: So what WOULD a Muslim Ban actually look like?

A: Muslims would be banned. We'd round them up and export them. We'd prevent any from coming to the US, as well. That would be a Muslim ban.


Q: So why are people calling this a Muslim Ban?

A: Emotional knee-jerk reactionism specifically manufactured to be as anti-Trump as possible. Make Turmp look like the most horrible person ever to justify why he is not fit to be your president. The worse you make him look, the easier it is to live with your cognitive dissonance.



And from the article you posted:


"...that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country."

Nice information and i must like this thank you for sharing this.

People do know that the Constitution Of America is only for Americans right? For all the screaming, people have completely forgotten that.

Originally posted by SquallX
People do know that the Constitution Of America is only for Americans right? For all the screaming, people have completely forgotten that.

Incorrect. Its laws also protect non citizens, even illegals while in the US.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Okay:

- The ban exclusively targets Muslim majority countries, particularly ones where radical Islamic terroism is seen as a threat.

This point of yours is misleading. It targets 7 countries and if you just consider Indonesia, alone, there are more Muslims in Indonesia than all 7 of those countries combined.

Also, you're making a case for why those 7 countries need more stringent vetting processes...you're making Trump's case in this point of yours.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
- The ban explicitly excludes minority religions, i.e those not of Islamic faith, from being barred entry to the US.

No it doesn't. Are you lying or are you ignorant?

The closest it gets is prioritizing refugee claims from minority religions from these countries. You still have to make a refugee case and get approved.

That's not explicitly excluding anything and they sure as hell aren't excluded. And if they can't make a case, under the existing refugee immigration policies, they still don't get in.

The portion both you and I are referencing is found in Section 5 subsection b. Here's the full text straight from the source:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/25/executive-order-border-security-and-immigration-enforcement-improvements


Originally posted by Beniboybling
- The ban explicitly describes its intent to target those who practice "honour killings", mistreat women and persecute other faiths i.e. the bread and butter anti-Islam rhetoric of the right.

You're making a really good case for this being a great executive order and I'm sure even many American Liberals don't want those type of people in the US.

But you're not making a case at all for this being a Muslim Ban. Try to focus on what we are talking about and not your particular agenda. We are talking about whether or not this is a Muslim Ban.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
- One of Trump's main campaign promises was the "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" which upon entering office, he asked his adviser, Giuliani, how he could implement legally.

Why don't you finish the quote instead of being a Fox News Reporter (this is, by far, the most heavy-handed insult I could possibly hand out in a political discussion...I'm not joking, haha...your jimmies should be quite rustled by this).

Here's the full quote:



http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/



Originally posted by Beniboybling
Yeah, this ban is targeting Muslims, and frankly its ironic that conservatives, who were so insistent on 'calling it what is is', i.e. "radical Islamic terroism!11!1", are now denying this targeting Islam at all, kek.

Is it even a ban at all? No, it isn't. It isn't even a ban. It doesn't matter who it targets. For this to even be a topic of discussion, it has to be a ban to begin with. If it isn't even a ban, then we do not need to entertain whether or not it is purely a Muslim banning.

Q: During the increased measures, were Muslims able to get into the US?

A: Yup.


Okay, okay...let's make this even EASIER and more in favor of trying to fit your narrative of it being a Muslim Ban.


From the 7 countries targeted:

Q: Were Muslims from the 7 countries targeted by Trump's executive order, still able to get into the US?

A: Yes.


Ok.......sooooo......where is this Muslim Ban?

Originally posted by Beniboybling
More ironic is that in the same sentence they say "it's not a Muslim ban!" they say "Trump is just fulfilling his campaign promises!"


Yeah, you can go ahead and have these red herring discussions with someone else. I don't really care about this point of yours nor is it relevant to what we are talking about. So you think conservatives are idiots? Great. I think many conservatives and many liberals, in the US, are idiots.

Topically, I think liberals who truly think this is a Muslim Ban are very clearly idiots.

Originally posted by Robtard
Incorrect. Its laws also protect non citizens, even illegals while in the US.

Actually no. The laws are written to protect Americans first, the second anyone from a different country threatens the life of Americans while on Americans soils, they are deemed enemies of the state or Country.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, you're incorrect.


Reread my posts. There's no arguing this. This is not my position. This is a very binary topic. This is one of those inexorable realities that no matter how much kicking and screaming anyone does, it will never be a Muslim Ban.

If you think it is a Muslim Ban, prove that it is a Muslim Ban.


Handing out quotes is only handing out quotes. What is happening in reality is what you need to prove.

Prove that it is a Muslim Ban.


Contradict the following with evidence:




"Is it even a ban at all? No, it isn't. It isn't even a ban. It doesn't matter who it targets. For this to even be a topic of discussion, it has to be a ban to begin with. If it isn't even a ban, then we do not need to entertain whether or not it is purely a Muslim banning.

Q: During the increased measures, were Muslims able to get into the US?

A: Yup.


Okay, okay...let's make this even EASIER and more in favor of trying to fit your narrative of it being a Muslim Ban.


From the 7 countries targeted:

Q: Were Muslims from the 7 countries targeted by Trump's executive order, still able to get into the US?

A: Yes.


Ok.......sooooo......where is this Muslim Ban?" "Those white people who hung black people back in the Jim Crow days, were they even really racist? They never hanged black people in Africa or the Caribbean."

Sorry, dude, it's very clear that this is both a ban and it's intended target is Muslims. Just because not every single Muslim in the world was targeted, doesn't negate the truth of the Trump cabinet's intentions.

Originally posted by SquallX
Actually no. The laws are written to protect Americans first, the second anyone from a different country threatens the life of Americans while on Americans soils, they are deemed enemies of the state or Country.


You're very confused. Laws still remain in play with criminals. eg An illegal immigrant still has the right to due process while in the US; athorities just can't shoot them while in jail, as much as you people would love that to be legal.

From the 14th Amendment: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Key words, "any person".

Originally posted by Robtard
"Those white people who hung black people back in the Jim Crow days, were they even really racist? They never hanged black people in Africa or the Caribbean."

Sorry, dude, it's very clear that this is both a ban and it's intended target is Muslims. Just because not every single Muslim in the world was targeted, doesn't negate the truth of the Trump cabinet's intentions.

So I have to drag you kicking and screaming to reluctantly admit that it isn't a Muslim Ban?

You have still yet to counter-argue the central points.


Debate this:

"Is it even a ban at all? No, it isn't. It isn't even a ban. It doesn't matter who it targets. For this to even be a topic of discussion, it has to be a ban to begin with. If it isn't even a ban, then we do not need to entertain whether or not it is purely a Muslim banning.

Q: During the increased measures, were Muslims able to get into the US?

A: Yup.


Okay, okay...let's make this even EASIER and more in favor of trying to fit your narrative of it being a Muslim Ban.


From the 7 countries targeted:

Q: Were Muslims from the 7 countries targeted by Trump's executive order, still able to get into the US?

A: Yes.


Ok.......sooooo......where is this Muslim Ban?"


Edit - If someone stated, "This is increased screening and restrictions on people entering the country from any of these 7 countries." Then I would agree with that. A "Muslim Ban" it is most certainly not.

We're just going in circles. But it's a ban and Muslims are the intended target, even if other people as a side effect were affected in some manner. Just going to have to agree to disagree.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This point of yours is misleading. It targets 7 countries and if you just consider Indonesia, alone, there are more Muslims in Indonesia than all 7 of those countries combined.

Also, you're making a case for why those 7 countries need more stringent vetting processes...you're making Trump's case in this point of yours.In what way? Do you dispute the fact that all seven of these countries have Muslim majority populations? Furthermore the Trump administration have said that they plan to broaden the ban to include more countries, so what is your point regarding Indonesia?

And I'm making a case for why its designed to target Islam, come up with justifications in your own time.

My bad I misremembered, the order does nonetheless priorities religious minorities over Muslims, which only goes to highlight its biased.

Oh yes, my jimmies are well and truly rustled. But did you have a point? Or is this just a cheap attempt to sidestep the point? Do you concede that Trump made it very clear from the start of his campaign that he wanted to place a ban on Muslims, and that this was indeed his attempt to implement that ban legally (because discriminatory laws are illegal!)?

Trump's calling it a ban. Take it up with him. Would it assuage your anal attentiveness if I used the term "extreme vetting"?

An irrelevant question, simply because the ban does not effect all Muslims around the world does not exclude it from being discriminatory against them.

No. Not until restrictions were forcibly lifted/entirely revoked.

On the other hand, does even the most shallow of attempts to interrogate the intent behind this ban reveals its anti-Muslim biased? Yeeesss.

Just a little andectote darling, are you really going to criticise me for that despite going on an irrelevant tirade about abortion-related double standards in the OP? I provided you a safe space to vent, please have the common decency to return the favour.

Originally posted by Robtard
We're just going in circles. But it's a ban and Muslims are the intended target, even if other people as a side effect were affected in some manner. Just going to have to agree to disagree.

It is not an "agree to disagree" issue though. People are not entitled to their own facts.

Trump promised to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. during his campaign. Giuliani, who drafted the executive order, is on record stating that its intent is to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. And Trump, Conway, Spicer, and other administration officials have publicly referred to the policy as a ban.

Are we not supposed to believe our own eyes and ears? Is all of this obfuscation from Trump supporters not political correctness? Are these not the same people who "tell it like it is?" It is a Muslim ban, flat out.

Originally posted by Robtard
We're just going in circles. But it's a ban and Muslims are the intended target, even if other people as a side effect were affected in some manner. Just going to have to agree to disagree.

Okay.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is not an "agree to disagree" issue though. People are not entitled to their own facts.

Trump promised to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. during his campaign. Giuliani, who drafted the executive order, is on record stating that its intent is to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. And Trump, Conway, Spicer, and other administration officials have publicly referred to the policy as a ban.

Are we not supposed to believe our own eyes and ears? Is all of this obfuscation from Trump supporters not political correctness? Are these not the same people who "tell it like it is?" It is a Muslim ban, flat out.

In Trump's America people (ie Trumpers) are A) allowed their own facts and B) it doesn't matter if it comes out of Trump's own mouth if it contradicts "A".

Originally posted by Robtard
In Trump's America people (ie Trumpers) are A) allowed their own facts and B) it doesn't matter if it comes out of Trump's own mouth if it contradicts "A".

That makes it an "I agree that you disagree because you are wrong" issue.

Originally posted by Robtard
In Trump's America people (ie Trumpers) are A) allowed their own facts and B) it doesn't matter if it comes out of Trump's own mouth if it contradicts "A".

Yeah, Don't it suck when the other side gets to play by your rules and you don't Robbie?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That makes it an "I agree that you disagree because you are wrong" issue.

Yes. But wording in such manner can be seen as hostile.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Yeah, Don't it suck when the other side gets to play by your rules and you don't Robbie?

I just love how pompous these people are as they go back and forth assuring each other how totally right they are. They genuinely don't even seem to realize it.

And Surtur will never see the irony. That true shame.

Originally posted by Robtard
And Surtur will never see the irony. That true shame.

That would certainly be something we have in common if true.

Originally posted by Surtur
I just love how pompous these people are as they go back and forth assuring each other how totally right they are. They genuinely don't even seem to realize it.

http://therealrevo.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/th_irony.gif

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
http://therealrevo.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/th_irony.gif

Exactly, there's literally a thread on KMC for people to whine about how Liberals/SJW/feminist ruin their day; it's practically an echo chamber and Surtur basically lives there.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is not an "agree to disagree" issue though. People are not entitled to their own facts.

Trump promised to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. during his campaign. Giuliani, who drafted the executive order, is on record stating that its intent is to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. And Trump, Conway, Spicer, and other administration officials have publicly referred to the policy as a ban.

Are we not supposed to believe our own eyes and ears? Is all of this obfuscation from Trump supporters not political correctness? Are these not the same people who "tell it like it is?" It is a Muslim ban, flat out. #alternativefacts.

Originally posted by Robtard
Exactly, there's literally a thread on KMC for people to whine about how Liberals/SJW/feminist ruin their day; it's practically an echo chamber and Surtur basically lives there.

The funniest bit about the "Supposed Protest" that the Lady was calling for like in the part of EVeryone staying home from work is that the mass majority of Leftist Protesters DON'T HAVE JOBS! When We deport all the Islamic Terrorists We should send the Welfare Soaks with them.

BYE ROBBIE & POE!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Robtard
Exactly, there's literally a thread on KMC for people to whine about how Liberals/SJW/feminist ruin their day; it's practically an echo chamber and Surtur basically lives there.

Does hypocrisy all of a sudden bother you, Rob?

Originally posted by Robtard
Exactly, there's literally a thread on KMC for people to whine about how Liberals/SJW/feminist ruin their day; it's practically an echo chamber and Surtur basically lives there.

what if you're wrong, and surtur is actually a genius at deadpan comedic irony?

You can read a lot out of plain white text.

...but then what do I know about that.....

hahaha I GET IT!!! because you're text is green, right?

Originally posted by Flyattractor
You can read a lot out of plain white text.

...but then what do I know about that.....

Keep in mind that when others point out their own hypocrisy they brush it off with "you're triggered" or "you're whining" lol.

I can't even keep track anymore with if they feel hypocrisy is okay or not. Then they come and continually toss out phrases like "cognitive dissonance" as if they just completed their first semester of Psych 101 at their local college.

Nah. You just don't get the Irony of the delivery.

Updates on Trump's ban getting banned:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/06/amicus-brief-trump-travel-ban
Huh, interesting.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
In what way? Do you dispute the fact that all seven of these countries have Muslim majority populations? Furthermore the Trump administration have said that they plan to broaden the ban to include more countries, so what is your point regarding Indonesia?

And I'm making a case for why its designed to target Islam, come up with justifications in your own time.

Is it or is it not a Muslim ban: no, it is not a Muslim Ban.

You can add things from the past or the future. But this is only about the Executive Order and I'm not talking about anything else.

It's not a Muslim Ban.

Oh, and Indonesia...

Almost 90% of the population is Muslim.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=ID

Population is almost about 250 million.

That's 225 million Muslims...there about.

Population of Iraq: ~34 million
Yemen: ~25 million
Sudan: ~38 million
Syria: ~ 23 million
Libya: ~6 million
Iran: ~78
Somalia: ~11

Total: ~215 million


And I rounded up on all of those countries to be fair.

Is 225>215?

Yes.

Then I don't even need to do population percentages of Muslims in each country to make the point.

If Trump's policy was REALLY about banning Muslims, then he could target just Indonesia, alone, and have a greater affected population, right? Your point about it being a Muslims ban would be even better made if it only targeted Indonesia, right? There are more Muslims in that country than all 7 other countries populations' combined. Why don't you think this is a good point? Is it because it is only 1 country? Because I think that it's only 7 countries out of over 30 is the same thing. I also think that since the countries targeted are clearly unstable countries who are rife with terrorism and anti-US activities, it makes it far harder to call this a "Muslim Ban." An since UK Intelligence has also identified this as hot beds of terrorism and has travel advisories for them, too, then it is independently confirmed from US Intelligence. Lastly, since even the Obama Administration identified and singled out these countries are being high-risk, then there is no conceivable way to consider this a "Muslim Ban."

Originally posted by Beniboybling
My bad I misremembered, the order does nonetheless priorities religious minorities over Muslims, which only goes to highlight its biased.

Did you know that these refugees that you tried to pretend were just given a free pass, still have to (or had to) wait 120 days? That's right, even minority religions, who still have to go through the existing Refugee application process to get approved, still could not get full refugee status for 120 days (and it was called a "stay". It's still hardly the narrative you tried to pass as truth. Now, if I was a bible-thumping, Trumpdick-Sucking, conservative, this particular point would shatter the notion that Trump is being oh-so benevolent and accepting of my Christian brothers and sisters stuck in this terror-ridden states.

Also, forgiven for miss-remembering and my bad for accusing you of trying to lie. No one is being intellectually honest in these conversations anymore so I don't not believe anyone is being an honest participant until proven otherwise.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Oh yes, my jimmies are well and truly rustled.

Arguing with an informed American Liberal who challenges your biases would make most people uncomfortable.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
But did you have a point? Or is this just a cheap attempt to sidestep the point? Do you concede that Trump made it very clear from the start of his campaign that he wanted to place a ban on Muslims, and that this was indeed his attempt to implement that ban legally (because discriminatory laws are illegal!)?

Quote stuff got messed up so I'll try to answer all of it, here. Also, it was clear from his campaign that he didn't want to ban all Muslims. There's not a single quote out there where Trump states that he wants to ban all Muslims. The closest he gets is he definitely wants to ban all Muslims from coming into the country (and that's a paraphrase...the language is actually a bit softer than that but I'm not going to give Trump any kindness).

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Trump's calling it a ban. Take it up with him. Would it assuage your anal attentiveness if I used the term "extreme vetting"?

But it's not a Muslim Ban. An immigration ban from 7 countries? Not even that. But there's no way anyone can, in their right and honest mind, call it a "Muslim Ban." But it is definitely more strict vetting. It's not even that much more strict, actually. Travel ban? I guess.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
An irrelevant question, simply because the ban does not effect all Muslims around the world does not exclude it from being discriminatory against them.

I mean...this is as close to a concession I will get from you. You indirectly admit that while this has a disparate impact on ***MUSLIMS FROM THOSE 7 COUNTRIES***, it's not a ban. So, yeah, I think we talked ourselves into almost agreeing with each other.

Also, it is not an irrelevant question. It is literally the very crux of what this entire conversation is about. If Muslims from those 7 countries could get into the US during even the most strict enforcement of the executive order, then it was never a Muslims Ban as people like you claimed. Of course, you would want to throw that question out...it destroys your entire point if the answer to that question is "no."

Originally posted by Beniboybling
No. Not until restrictions were forcibly lifted/entirely revoked.

You're factually incorrect. Muslims from those 7 countries were able to get into the US even during the strictest enforcement of the executive order. Even CNN reported that 170 green card holders were allowed in and only 2 turned away, when the restrictions were at their hottest:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban-green-card-dual-citizens/


But wait...since it was easy to prove you wrong, here, does this mean you changed your mind? You were presented with what appears to be new evidence so do you agree that it wasn't a true Muslims Ban for even those 7 countries? I hope so. I hope this was a convincing argument.

But, as they say, no amount of evidence will ever convince people who are emotionally attached to their beliefs. I may have just polarized you further away by presenting evidence. If that is the case, then this discussion is over and I tried.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
On the other hand, does even the most shallow of attempts to interrogate the intent behind this ban reveals its anti-Muslim biased? Yeeesss.

I mean...does it really? Because this supposed Muslim Ban only targeted 7 countries and more than 92% of the Muslim population was unaffected by this.

I do, however, agree with you that Trump has anti-Muslim bias and this may be the first of many racist steps he takes against ARABS. But not all people impacted are straight-up Arabs...

So I'm not even sure how racist he really is. Maybe he's mixing in non-Arab countries to throw people off his trail?

Or, perhaps, and this is what I really believe (but it is not wholly what I think he's doing but it explains at least part of his actions), he's just riding on the back of the Obama Administration's work. In other words, he doesn't know what he's doing and is just picking up much of Obama's unfinished work and running with it.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Just a little andectote darling, are you really going to criticise me for that despite going on an irrelevant tirade about abortion-related double standards in the OP? I provided you a safe space to vent, please have the common decency to return the favour.

Yeah, I am and for good reasons:

1. My point was about Muslim Refugees and the hypocrisy of the left about the situation in the US.

2. The example was a comparative used to demonstrate that hypocrisy from the American left.

3. I'm OP, this is my thread, I literally set the topic of discussion.

4. We were talking about a particular point and in multiple ways, you tried to move the topic somewhere else. I don't want to talk about those things. I don't want to debate them, either. I was only laser focused on just one topic: "Trump's executive order regarding those 7 countries: is it a Muslim Ban?"


Also, if you don't like the self-righteous hypocrisy that I pointed out from many from the American Left, you do not have to participate in the thread or at least avoid that topic.

I also pointed out how many conservatives are calloused assholes but you're not jumping all over that point. Why? It seems like you have a ton to say that we would agree about.

Originally posted by Surtur
Does hypocrisy all of a sudden bother you, Rob?

LoL, nice loaded question. Did you think I'd fall for that? Anyhow.

So I did a quick search, there's 718 posts in that thread, you posted 258 times, that's about a 36% participation rate. You're a virtual tear leader.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Updates on Trump's ban getting banned:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/06/amicus-brief-trump-travel-ban
Huh, interesting.

Anti-Muslim != Muslim Ban




As a person who studied American Civil Law quite extensively in college, I can assure you that this is definitely and provably something that has a disparate impact on Muslims and if a situation similar to this happened at a business, Trump would get his pants sued off of him under decades of legal precedence as it pertains specifically to the American Civil Rights Act of 1964 under Articles 6 and 7 (sometimes called "Titles VI and VII".

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Updates on Trump's ban getting banned:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/06/amicus-brief-trump-travel-ban
Huh, interesting.

Indeed, I just hope it doesn't backfire. This does not mean I am for or against banning this order, but I truly do hope these people have solid legal ground to stand on when it comes to opposing this. Just like I hope the one judge from Seattle has the same. Because I feel like now it's not in the best interests of this country to be going back and forth over this issue. I don't want to see it banned, unbanned, banned again, unbanned again,etc.

Originally posted by Surtur
Indeed, I just hope it doesn't backfire. This does not mean I am for or against banning this order, but I truly do hope these people have solid legal ground to stand on when it comes to opposing this. Just like I hope the one judge from Seattle has the same. Because I feel like now it's not in the best interests of this country to be going back and forth over this issue. I don't want to see it banned, unbanned, banned again, unbanned again,etc.


I am all for banning this order and getting rid of trash like that.

The Executive Order is stupid. And it does nothing to make America safe. I believe it actually just inflames the anti-American issues. Trump may have increased the likelihood of being attacked by jihadists already angry at America and The West.

I think we should just deport this Judge to one of the 7 countires on this list and see how long he lasts.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I am all for banning this order and getting rid of trash like that.

The Executive Order is stupid. And it does nothing to make America safe. I believe it actually just inflames the anti-American issues. Trump may have increased the likelihood of being attacked by jihadists already angry at America and The West.


This we can agree on. Groups like ISIS thrive on a 'USA/The West Vs Islam' mentally being in play, they need it to fuel their cause, coffers and ranks.

So are you saying we should surrender to the Isis Hordes? yeah. that sounds like Robbie.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I am all for banning this order and getting rid of trash like that.

The Executive Order is stupid. And it does nothing to make America safe. I believe it actually just inflames the anti-American issues. Trump may have increased the likelihood of being attacked by jihadists already angry at America and The West.

I don't want a lot of time wasted on it since for now I am going to assume Trump will not be re-elected. So he has only a couple of years to get things done(or at least to get the ball rolling on them).

Though I am still having a hard time figuring Trump out. Part of me wonders what he truly wished to accomplish here. Did he truly want this order to go through? Or did he anticipate that due to the magnitude of his order that it would eventually get blocked, and thus it would at least allow him to say to his supporters "hey look, when it comes to the refugees I did all that was within my power, they blocked me". Since one frequent complaint has been how he hasn't been trying to do the things he had talked about doing.

I'm not saying I am right in thinking that or even that a substantial part of me even believes it, I just wonder sometimes wtf is going on inside Trumps head.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
I think we should just deport this Judge to one of the 7 countires on this list and see how long he lasts.

Are you a Christian? I cannot remember if you said you were a Christian or not.

Originally posted by Robtard
This we can agree on. Groups like ISIS thrive on a 'USA/The West Vs Islam' mentally being in play, they need it to fuel their cause, coffers and ranks.

Of course we agree because at the end of the day, we hold pretty much the same political beliefs and even our criticisms of libertarian ideas are the same.

Shitty policies are shitty policies no matter what types of labels people like to slap on them.

If we could take your point a step further, some of their goals are being accomplished when we react against these people the way they are. There are multiple motivations for the jihads. Some are to keep the West away and get them away from their people. This travel ban is a start down a path to keep the West out of their countries.

Some is to scare the West into being afraid of them. This ban proves we are afraid of their jihads.

Originally posted by Surtur
I don't want a lot of time wasted on it since for now I am going to assume Trump will not be re-elected. So he has only a couple of years to get things done(or at least to get the ball rolling on them).

Though I am still having a hard time figuring Trump out. Part of me wonders what he truly wished to accomplish here. Did he truly want this order to go through? Or did he anticipate that due to the magnitude of his order that it would eventually get blocked, and thus it would at least allow him to say to his supporters "hey look, when it comes to the refugees I did all that was within my power, they blocked me". Since one frequent complaint has been how he hasn't been trying to do the things he had talked about doing.

I'm not saying I am right in thinking that or even that a substantial part of me even believes it, I just wonder sometimes wtf is going on inside Trumps head.


Well, if he can claim, "I tried to deliver my campaign promise and they blocked me," at least for those who supported him over this, he did deliver to the best of his ability.


This is the outcome I wanted from Obama on universal healthcare. I don't care that the GOP would have blocked him. A true UHC option was what I wanted, what he promised, what he did not deliver, and what he did not try to deliver. He wanted something, anything, to get put through instead of standing up for what he believed in and promised us.

At least Trump is trying to deliver what he promised his voters, right? Even if it gets dammed and stamped out of existence, at least he is not taking the cowards way out like Obama.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Are you a Christian? I cannot remember if you said you were a Christian or not.



Why do you ask? Are you wanting to flirt with me?

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Why do you ask? Are you wanting to flirt with me?


No, I'm asking because I want to know your motivations for some of your political beliefs. This is not an attempt on a personal attack against you.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, I'm asking because I want to know your motivations for some of your political beliefs. This is not an attempt on a personal attack against you.

Nah. I am just a Jerk!

Too much thinking for the fly.

Thinky Make Grimey's Brain Stinky!

Originally posted by Surtur
I just wonder sometimes wtf is going on inside Trumps head. http://i.imgur.com/T5gsHJF.png

Originally posted by dadudemon
Still not a Muslim Ban. There is no Muslim Ban.


This is a very easy test:


Q: Is this a Muslim Ban?

A: No.



Follow-up question:

Q: Why is this not a Muslim Ban?

A: Because no one has been banned specifically because they are Muslim. Muslims are still coming into the US by large numbers and almost nothing has changed these numbers during the increased measures against just 7 countries. This is a travel and immigration ban that affects more than just Muslims because even veteran soldiers, from the UK, who have fought in Iraq, are being detained and questioned. This affects 7 countries who are proven to be unstable and have poor vetting processes. This is not a ban, this is a temporary measure put in place on people coming from those countries into the US until more confident measures to vet arrivals from those 7 countries are in place. Additionally, all 7 of these countries have also been assessed as having significant amounts of terrorism, possess significant enough anti-US sentiment to be deemed a serious threat, and are dangerous to travel to by the UK, as well. This is not a US-only idea. And this is not an idea that the Trump administration came up with, either: they are riding on the backs of work the Obama administration already undertook.


Q: So what WOULD a Muslim Ban actually look like?

A: Muslims would be banned. We'd round them up and export them. We'd prevent any from coming to the US, as well. That would be a Muslim ban.


Q: So why are people calling this a Muslim Ban?

A: Emotional knee-jerk reactionism specifically manufactured to be as anti-Trump as possible. Make Turmp look like the most horrible person ever to justify why he is not fit to be your president. The worse you make him look, the easier it is to live with your cognitive dissonance.



And from the article you posted:


"...that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country."

By the way didn't Obama have the exact same ban?

Originally posted by Robtard
So I did a quick search, there's 718 posts in that thread, you posted 258 times, that's about a 36% participation rate. You're a virtual tear leader.

http://www.heartofcheer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/crying.jpg

Originally posted by Deadline
By the way didn't Obama have the exact same ban?

It wasn't a Muslim Ban, either. But I think you know that and you're being facetious. Consevatards will be conservatards. The idiots cheering for the "Muslim ban" are just that: idiots.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, if he can claim, "I tried to deliver my campaign promise and they blocked me," at least for those who supported him over this, he did deliver to the best of his ability.


This is the outcome I wanted from Obama on universal healthcare. I don't care that the GOP would have blocked him. A true UHC option was what I wanted, what he promised, what he did not deliver, and what he did not try to deliver. He wanted something, anything, to get put through instead of standing up for what he believed in and promised us.

At least Trump is trying to deliver what he promised his voters, right? Even if it gets dammed and stamped out of existence, at least he is not taking the cowards way out like Obama.

Yes I'm glad he tried to at least take some measures he talked about and he tried to do it quickly. Possibly because he knew how much opposition he'd face.

For the people against the "ban", would you be open to refugees being admitted, but at much lower numbers?

Originally posted by Surtur
For the people against the "ban", would you be open to refugees being admitted, but at much lower numbers?

Also should there be a limit as to how many refugees we allow in?

I think it's relatively pointless to assign a blanket number ahead of time. It should be a bit more dynamic than that. Take in some, whatever number we feel like we can accommodate initially, and then see if we should take more.

It's not like we were taking in massive numbers of them anyways, and it's not like we are just letting them in willy nilly. It takes upwards of 2 years for a refugee to get fully vetted and resettled in America. The way Trump and those against refugees talk about it they make it sound like anyone can just get on a plane and come to America without any checks on their background.

I think it was pretty pointless to make any changes to how we were handling refugees, since we haven't had any actual problems with them. Trump's ban is essentially a reaction to nothing.

How many do we usually take in on average per year?

Originally posted by Surtur
How many do we usually take in on average per year?

I'm not sure how many per year, but overall we've taken in a little over 14,000, which is much less than many other countries.

https://qz.com/894439/how-many-refugees-has-the-us-taken-in-from-syria/

Originally posted by BackFire
I think it's relatively pointless to assign a blanket number ahead of time. It should be a bit more dynamic than that. Take in some, whatever number we feel like we can accommodate initially, and then see if we should take more.

It's not like we were taking in massive numbers of them anyways, and it's not like we are just letting them in willy nilly. It takes upwards of 2 years for a refugee to get fully vetted and resettled in America. The way Trump and those against refugees talk about it they make it sound like anyone can just get on a plane and come to America without any checks on their background.

I think it was pretty pointless to make any changes to how we were handling refugees, since we haven't had any actual problems with them. Trump's ban is essentially a reaction to nothing.

Take in hundreds of thousands. There's an entire planned city in the desert that never got built. The whole desert thing will make them feel at home and they can build it themselves. California City I believe it is. I

Originally posted by Deadline
By the way didn't Obama have the exact same ban?
just another case of Do as we Say not as We do.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It wasn't a Muslim Ban, either. But I think you know that and you're being facetious. Consevatards will be conservatards. The idiots cheering for the "Muslim ban" are just that: idiots.

case in point.

Originally posted by jaden101
Take in hundreds of thousands. There's an entire planned city in the desert that never got built. The whole desert thing will make them feel at home and they can build it themselves. California City I believe it is. I

Refugees must have got you before you could write your 5th sentence.

F**k them all to death!

Originally posted by BackFire
Refugees must have got you before you could write your 5th sentence.

I don't see why they think they need to come to places like the U.S, Europe ,and Australia when they could just go to all those friendly muslim countries in the area....oh wait...

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
F**k them all to death!

AG's been on the crackpipe again.

I have no problem with immigrants, my parents and myself are immigrants, but we also did it the right way.

My biggest problems from people from the Middle East is there ideologies. Funny part is, they left there home because there ideologies were killing them, yet they come here and try to force there ideologies on us.

What makes it even worse, is that we have people here in the West that applauds them, and actually go out of there ways to help them build on there ideologies.

In Europe, Germany to be exact. Cops were/are afraid to arrest immigrants of sexual conducts and some rapes, because they were scared to be called racist. I mean ****ing seriously!

Originally posted by jaden101
AG's been on the crackpipe again.
https://rs819.pbsrc.com/albums/zz119/Cypress187/avatar_22860.gif~c200

Jaden is just pissy cause you didn't share.

Originally posted by jaden101
Take in hundreds of thousands. There's an entire planned city in the desert that never got built. The whole desert thing will make them feel at home and they can build it themselves. California City I believe it is. I

Where are we getting the funds to build this city for the refugees? Or I guess I should rephrase: what other projects would we be taking money away from to fund this?

Originally posted by Surtur
Where are we getting the funds to build this city for the refugees? Or I guess I should rephrase: what other projects would we be taking money away from to fund this?

http://replygif.net/i/586.gif

Originally posted by Surtur
Where are we getting the funds to build this city for the refugees? Or I guess I should rephrase: what other projects would we be taking money away from to fund this?

Jaden is correct, it is called "California City."

But it is already occupied and growing. People are developing this city, already. It was abandoned for a long time.


And I think his comment about "already in the desert" is intended to be facetious but some people move to the desert areas of the US because it is "like home" and they like it just fine (they hate cold weather...some, at least).


So, yeah, legit city. But it is being built out already.



So about building a refugee city? That's a great idea. It would not cost very much money (relatively) to start something like this. And, yes, let them build out and control how they do this. Have some professionals on salary there for 10 years as it is developed. See how it develops. Humans are awesome: I'm sure the city would grow quite well.

When do we build a "homeless city" or "veterans city" ?

Originally posted by Surtur
When do we build a "homeless city" or "veterans city" ?

Aren't we already providing services and shelter to our homeless?


But I do agree we need to be doing much more for our vets.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Aren't we already providing services and shelter to our homeless?


But I do agree we need to be doing much more for our vets.

What you said about the homeless is technically true. We do indeed have shelters, but then they are hardly adequate. Remember, we have VA hospitals too and stuff like that. There are facilities in place for both issues that are there to alleviate the problem, but neither of them is anywhere near sufficient enough.

I see homeless people sleeping on the street all the time, even in winter. Why? Some shelters just fill up fast and have no room for more people, others will take in people, but do not allow anyone to spend the night.

Real Americans need help, a lot of people live paycheck to paycheck..and you'd be shocked at the fact some of these people became homeless all because of just one bad week(or even just one bad day).

We are failing our own citizens in a lot of ways. Health care is one(even Obama care) and the other is our education system, which just is atrocious. We're supposed to be the greatest nation and yet we lack quality healthcare and education.

I sympathize with these refugees, but I find it disheartening to see these issues we face and then to just see our government spending funds on refugees.

Originally posted by Surtur
When do we build a "homeless city" or "veterans city" ?

When they all agree to only every Vote Democrat for the rest of thier lives.

Cause thats how FREEDOM works.....if your a Commie/Nazi/Progressive Leftist.

Originally posted by Surtur
What you said about the homeless is technically true. We do indeed have shelters, but then they are hardly adequate. Remember, we have VA hospitals too and stuff like that. There are facilities in place for both issues that are there to alleviate the problem, but neither of them is anywhere near sufficient enough.

I see homeless people sleeping on the street all the time, even in winter. Why? Some shelters just fill up fast and have no room for more people, others will take in people, but do not allow anyone to spend the night.

Real Americans need help, a lot of people live paycheck to paycheck..and you'd be shocked at the fact some of these people became homeless all because of just one bad week(or even just one bad day).

We are failing our own citizens in a lot of ways. Health care is one(even Obama care) and the other is our education system, which just is atrocious. We're supposed to be the greatest nation and yet we lack quality healthcare and education.

I sympathize with these refugees, but I find it disheartening to see these issues we face and then to just see our government spending funds on refugees.

No no, you're right about everything. Everything you wrote could be something I also wrote as I've said similar, before. Don't forget the hundreds of thousands of children that are not fed in the US, each day. And the thousands of children who are raped because they are sex slaves each day. Can't forget about our children.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And the thousands of children who are raped because they are sex slaves each day. Can't forget about our children.

No. We "Forget" them all the time. Especially in the last 8 years. We FORGOT THEM. HARD!

Originally posted by Surtur
Where are we getting the funds to build this city for the refugees? Or I guess I should rephrase: what other projects would we be taking money away from to fund this?

They can sell all their rocket launchers and IEDs and stuff they won't need any more once they arrive. Sorted.

****ing hell. Look at some of these replies. Has everybody had a sense of humour bypass recently?

Originally posted by jaden101
****ing hell. Look at some of these replies. Has everybody had a sense of humour bypass recently?
They had to remove my sense of humor during my last colostomy.

Jaden is the only one not laughing...granted most of us at laughing AT HIM but still...

We need to do more for our own first. A crisis, whether we created it or not, will always be around the corner. We will always be shoveling shiit against the tide. We need to help our own in our own country

Originally posted by Raisen
We need to do more for our own first. A crisis, whether we created it or not, will always be around the corner. We will always be shoveling shiit against the tide. We need to help our own in our own country

You realise there's plenty of resources and money to do both?

The problem is that the people with all the money and all the power point at immigrants and refugees (people with no money and no power) and tell poor Americans "they're the reason you don't have any money." and stupid people lap that shit up.

Originally posted by jaden101
You realise there's plenty of resources and money to do both?

The problem is that the people with all the money and all the power point at immigrants and refugees (people with no money and no power) and tell poor Americans "they're the reason you don't have any money." and stupid people lap that shit up.

Always find it funny how it always seems to be the U.S's job to "Care" for everybody else and not the nations where all these "poor refugees" come from.

Especially when most of those countries are Oil Countries. They aint poor they are just more open about not giving a shit about others. Unlike the U.S Left who don't care any more then those nations. They just want to use those "poor refugees" to stack the deck in their favor

True Humanitarians they is..

Originally posted by jaden101
You realise there's plenty of resources and money to do both?

The problem is that the people with all the money and all the power point at immigrants and refugees (people with no money and no power) and tell poor Americans "they're the reason you don't have any money." and stupid people lap that shit up.

Cool story and true. But if we can't squeeze the money where it's being held then we need to prioritize for ourselves first. Gee

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Always find it funny how it always seems to be the U.S's job to "Care" for everybody else and not the nations where all these "poor refugees" come from.

Especially when most of those countries are Oil Countries. They aint poor they are just more open about not giving a shit about others. Unlike the U.S Left who don't care any more then those nations. They just want to use those "poor refugees" to stack the deck in their favor

True Humanitarians they is..

Countries that have taken more refugees from the Syrian war than America

Turkey
Lebanon
Jordan
Germany
Greece
Macedonia
Serbia
Iraq
Egypt
Sweden
Canada
Croatia
Algeria
Austria
Netherlands
Denmark
Armenia
Bulgaria

Countries with the most refugees in total


Turkey
Pakistan
Lebanon
Iran
Ethiopia
Jordan
Kenya
Uganda
Chad
Sudan

So you were saying?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/09/judges-deny-trump-travel-ban-enforcement-uphold-order
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829836231802515457

http://cdn.playbuzz.com/cdn/8151e641-3176-4df8-8afe-528fe460f886/120f7641-082e-465f-a25b-2dac6104d7a5.gif

Originally posted by jaden101
Countries that have taken more refugees from the Syrian war than America

Turkey
Lebanon
Jordan
Germany
Greece
Macedonia
Serbia
Iraq
Egypt
Sweden
Canada
Croatia
Algeria
Austria
Netherlands
Denmark
Armenia
Bulgaria

Countries with the most refugees in total


Turkey
Pakistan
Lebanon
Iran
Ethiopia
Jordan
Kenya
Uganda
Chad
Sudan

So you were saying?


Every single one of those countries is closer than the US. Logistically, they are better choices than the US.


It is actually a "contiguous land" trend that you're noting.


How many Mexicans become refugees of Sweden each year?


How many Mexicans become "refugees" of the US each year?

Exactly.

Originally posted by jaden101
Countries that have taken more refugees from the Syrian war than America

Turkey
Lebanon
Jordan
Germany
Greece
Macedonia
Serbia
Iraq
Egypt
Sweden
Canada
Croatia
Algeria
Austria
Netherlands
Denmark
Armenia
Bulgaria

Countries with the most refugees in total


Turkey
Pakistan
Lebanon
Iran
Ethiopia
Jordan
Kenya
Uganda
Chad
Sudan

So you were saying?


And they are WELCOME to them.

The big lie in the west is Saudia Arabia takes none.

It doesn't consider them as refugees and has taken 2.5 million.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrians_in_Saudi_Arabia

I work with 6 and they are lovely men who all have families.


http://www.opensourceinvestigations.com/syria/gulf-states-response-to-syrian-refugee-crisis-a-myth-debunked/

But racists don't want the truth

Originally posted by dadudemon
Every single one of those countries is closer than the US. Logistically, they are better choices than the US.


It is actually a "contiguous land" trend that you're noting.


How many Mexicans become refugees of Sweden each year?


How many Mexicans become "refugees" of the US each year?

Exactly.

Your comparison is bordering on silly. How about comparing how many refugees the US takes in from all of south America and the island nations which have had their share of natural disasters, wars between government and rebel forces etc plus from the rest of the world compared to the countries on the list. Jordan has a population of less than 10,000,000 yet has taken in over 2,500,000 million refugees. Lebanon has taken in over 1/5 of its population in refugees in comparison the US has taken in less than 0.09% of its population. The US has about 260,000 currently. It still wouldn't make the top 10 despite having the broadest financial shoulder to bear the burden of refugees.

Not forgetting that the US is more responsible for creating refugees than any country on that list with its military interventions in various countries. Installation of weak puppet governments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Badly enacted attempts at nation building etc

The point is that some people have the notion that the US does more for refugees than countries in the region. It doesn't.

Admittedly I haven't looked at how much the US pays to those countries that house refugees.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Every single one of those countries is closer than the US. Logistically, they are better choices than the US. I feel curious about why you feel this way. A lot of those countries have considerably weaker structure and resources compared to our murrica.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
I feel curious about why you feel this way. A lot of those countries have considerably weaker structure and resources compared to our murrica.

Are you asking why I feel a certain way about a fact?

But I didn't express my feelings. I posted facts. So why are you asking me why I "feel this way"? That doesn't make sense.

It would make more sense to ask, "What do you feel about these facts?" Or "How do you feel about these facts?" And then dive into facts about infrastructure.


And, no, sorry, Sweden is in a better off position to support refugees than the US. Again, these are facts. There are better social systems in place, in Sweden, and their standard of living is higher than the US (shhh, don't tell that to Americans, they think they are the top t*tties in the world). They are in a much better place to accept poor refugees than the US. They are also more politically stable and have far fewer enemies than the US. Safer, more social support systems, almost 0 enemies, and a higher standard of living: better place to go for refugees.

Originally posted by jaden101
Your comparison is bordering on silly. How about comparing how many refugees the US takes in from all of south America and the island nations which have had their share of natural disasters, wars between government and rebel forces etc plus from the rest of the world compared to the countries on the list.

How about no? How about I don't compare that because it is ridiculous to compare that.

How about I just stick to an apples to apples comparison?

How about the fact that the US's population, of over 310 million, has 13.3% immigrants? How about that?

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states


How about Sweden's immigrant population being 15%? How about that?

It is comparable/similar. So let's stop pretending that the US is some sort of evil foreign people fearing nation.



The US Defines and accepts "refugee status" far far more strictly than these other nations. It is not an apples to apples comparison. It is a ridiculous comparison. They aren't the same numbers. Places like Sweden treat "refugees" more like we treat "immigrants."


We still take in a larger number of immigrants than any of those countries at 42 million.

Originally posted by dadudemon
How about no? How about I don't compare that because it is ridiculous to compare that.

How about I just stick to an apples to apples comparison?

How about the fact that the US's population, of over 310 million, has 13.3% immigrants? How about that?

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states


How about Sweden's immigrant population being 15%? How about that?

It is comparable/similar. So let's stop pretending that the US is some sort of evil foreign people fearing nation.



The US Defines and accepts "refugee status" far far more strictly than these other nations. It is not an apples to apples comparison. It is a ridiculous comparison. They aren't the same numbers. Places like Sweden treat "refugees" more like we treat "immigrants."


We still take in a larger number of immigrants than any of those countries at 42 million.

So comparing immigrants moving solely for a better chance at finding better paid work to refugees fleeing genocide, persecution and natural disasters is comparing apples to apples but comparing refugees to refugees is "ridiculous"?

If you say so.

Nice strawman with the "evil foreign people hating nation" given that I never said anything of the sort and was correcting fly who said

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Always find it funny how it always seems to be the U.S's job to "Care" for everybody else and not the nations where all these "poor refugees" come from.
.

Originally posted by jaden101
So comparing immigrants moving solely for a better chance at finding better paid work to refugees fleeing genocide, persecution and natural disasters is comparing apples to apples but comparing refugees to refugees is "ridiculous"?

If you say so.

Nice strawman with the "evil foreign people hating nation" given that I never said anything of the sort and was correcting fly who said

Yeah. Why should they stat and try to fix their counties problems instead of moving and fudging up some other country by bringing the same problems with them.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Yeah. Why should they stat and try to fix their counties problems instead of moving and fudging up some other country by bringing the same problems with them.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQeXbUsWoAAp-MM.jpg

God forbid eh?

Don't want refugees? Stop creating refugees!

Originally posted by dadudemon
Are you asking why I feel a certain way about a fact?

But I didn't express my feelings. I posted facts. So why are you asking me why I "feel this way"? That doesn't make sense.

It would make more sense to ask, "What do you feel about these facts?" Or "How do you feel about these facts?" And then dive into facts about infrastructure.


And, no, sorry, Sweden is in a better off position to support refugees than the US. Again, these are facts. There are better social systems in place, in Sweden, and their standard of living is higher than the US (shhh, don't tell that to Americans, they think they are the top t*tties in the world). They are in a much better place to accept poor refugees than the US. They are also more politically stable and have far fewer enemies than the US. Safer, more social support systems, almost 0 enemies, and a higher standard of living: better place to go for refugees. That's why I said 'a lot of those countries' as opposed to 'all of them'.

I guess all refugees from everywhere should be sent to Sweden from now on. To astnerd's penthouse, specifically.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So I see two points with the American Left that contradicts itself:

1. They make fun of conservatives because they are pro-life but then don't do anything about the babies once they are born. They don't adopt those babies and invite them to their homes after they are born.

2. But at the same time, they are guilty of the same. They want to invite all of these immigrants to the US but none of them want to adopt those immigrants and invite them to their homes once they are here.


At least American conservatives are consistent in that they don't give a shit about babies once they are born and they don't give a shit about immigrants once they are here.

But we already knew that American Liberals are a bunch of hypocritical self-righteous whiners and that American Conservatives were a bunch of callused assholes. What in God's name is this weird gibberish? Can someone explain how this strangely specific generalisation means anything to the world at large?

Originally posted by jaden101
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQeXbUsWoAAp-MM.jpg

God forbid eh?

Don't want refugees? Stop creating refugees!

That's a main problem with many Americans, especially self described Conservatives/Republicans, they absolutely refuse to acknowledge that American's doings around the world can create these situations.

Originally posted by jaden101
So comparing immigrants moving solely for a better chance at finding better paid work to refugees fleeing genocide, persecution and natural disasters is comparing apples to apples but comparing refugees to refugees is "ridiculous"?

That's a logical fallacy: appeal to emotion. Almost none of them are fleeing genocide. And how many are taking droves of refugees from natural disasters?

And, technically, every female living in a moderate to conservative majority Muslim nation is "persecuted" so they could count as refugees, too, by some definitions.

Originally posted by jaden101
Nice strawman with the "evil foreign people hating nation" given that I never said anything of the sort and was correcting fly who said

The criticism is of the US supposedly keeping its doors shut to refugees based on the definitions other nations are used for refugees which is just not a fair comparison. It isn't a strawman because you're trying to paint the picture of the US being heartless and having closed doors to refugees when that isn't the case at all. It is far more accurate to just compare immigrants, which refugees are, than just a pure refugee number.

The US: tens of millions of people are here from other nations. We are such a benevolent and inviting nation, aren't we?

Originally posted by jaden101
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQeXbUsWoAAp-MM.jpg

God forbid eh?

Don't want refugees? Stop creating refugees!


Here's a better and more recent picture of Baghdad (2016):


http://almadapress.com/MediaStorage/GalleryImages/20383.jpg


Here's another one from Republic Street:

http://c8.alamy.com/comp/AR8MKH/busy-republic-street-baghdad-iraq-AR8MKH.jpg


http://c8.alamy.com/comp/AR8K5G/republic-street-baghdad-iraq-AR8K5G.jpg

Looks pretty good, right?



But, yes, I agree with you. The US needs to really STOP with creating refugees with our stupid wars.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's a main problem with many Americans, especially self described Conservatives/Republicans, they absolutely refuse to acknowledge that American's doings around the world can create these situations.

Do you consider Obama to be a Conservative/Republican with his warmongering actions?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Here's a better and more recent picture of Baghdad (2016):


http://almadapress.com/MediaStorage/GalleryImages/20383.jpg


Here's another one from Republic Street:

http://c8.alamy.com/comp/AR8MKH/busy-republic-street-baghdad-iraq-AR8MKH.jpg


http://c8.alamy.com/comp/AR8K5G/republic-street-baghdad-iraq-AR8K5G.jpg

Looks pretty good, right?



But, yes, I agree with you. The US needs to really STOP with creating refugees with our stupid wars.

Amazing what can happen after us lot **** off eh? 😂 they'd get on a lot quicker if we actually paid for their oil though 😁

It looks good, but holy shit that is a lot of people in the street in that second picture.

Anyways, you can pretty much blame the Military Industrial Complex for this and our constant need to be engaged in some sort of conflict. Which funny enough the term was coined(or became more popular) during a warning given by the guy who helped create it in the first place(Eisenhower).

Originally posted by Surtur
It looks good, but holy shit that is a lot of people in the street in that second picture.



Look how they go all the way back. All those people. And they love us. They love our country. But they hate AMERICA. GET SMART. #MAGA

Where is he? Stand up. Beautiful, great people. We shouldnta gone in. We shouldnta got out.

Originally posted by jaden101
Look how they go all the way back. All those people. And they love us. They love our country. But they hate AMERICA. GET SMART. #MAGA

Where is he? Stand up. Beautiful, great people. We shouldnta gone in. We shouldnta got out.

I too am high right now.

I wish I was

I wish you were to. You aint no fun when you aint.

You wouldn't recognize fun even if you got fox news-clickbaited into it.

Originally posted by jaden101
Look how they go all the way back. All those people. And they love us. They love our country. But they hate AMERICA. GET SMART. #MAGA

Where is he? Stand up. Beautiful, great people. We shouldnta gone in. We shouldnta got out.

That is why we should stop the Immigrants from coming here. THIS PLACE SUCKS!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
You wouldn't recognize fun even if you got fox news-clickbaited into it.

Of course not. It would say nuf everytime I looked at it in the mirror.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
You wouldn't recognize fun even if you got fox news-clickbaited into it.

That's a pretty strong insult. Maybe too much. That kind of insulting power should not be held by just one person.

So what about these recent surges in ICE raids? Even though they are claiming they aren't surges. Also it seems like 90% of those getting arrested and deported are illegals who committed crimes here in addition to just being illegal.

I'm sure some have heard the story of the 35 yr. old mother of two who was deported? Thing is, she was a convicted felon. Not for a violent crime, but a convicted felon nonetheless.

Originally posted by Surtur
So what about these recent surges in ICE raids? Even though they are claiming they aren't surges. Also it seems like 90% of those getting arrested and deported are illegals who committed crimes here in addition to just being illegal.

I'm sure some have heard the story of the 35 yr. old mother of two who was deported? Thing is, she was a convicted felon. Not for a violent crime, but a convicted felon nonetheless.

Well...it is tough for me to argue against that but since I am a virtue ethicist and not a deontologist, I'd prefer positively contributing members of society be given immediate permanent residency. Millions, all at once. But that would probably get me strung up and beaten by many Oklahomans.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's a pretty strong insult. Maybe too much. That kind of insulting power should not be held by just one person. I've never once insulted Fly. What are you talking about?

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
I've never once insulted Fly. What are you talking about?

I'm...just confused. I have no idea what's going on.


You got me? I guess?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well...it is tough for me to argue against that but since I am a virtue ethicist and not a deontologist, I'd prefer positively contributing members of society be given immediate permanent residency. Millions, all at once. But that would probably get me strung up and beaten by many Oklahomans.

But what about the pro illegal argument that is put forth about how if we got rid of illegal labor the prices of food would skyrocket?

Originally posted by Surtur
But what about the pro illegal argument that is put forth about how if we got rid of illegal labor the prices of food would skyrocket?


There are millions of positive contributing illegals in the US.

But there may be hundreds of thousands to millions of negatively contributing members.



I cannot answer your question because the answer to your question requires data that we do not have.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There are millions of positive contributing illegals in the US.

But there may be hundreds of thousands to millions of negatively contributing members.



I cannot answer your question because the answer to your question requires data that we do not have.

Well remember the narrative is that if we had to pay them legal wages the costs of food would skyrocket. Data is rarely given with these claims.

If people find that logic legit, well making all these illegals suddenly legal should have the same effect on prices that getting rid of the illegals from the country would.

Looks like on the Immigration/refugee aka TERRORISTS agenda...Even France is getting on the Trump Side of things.


France gets on the Trump Wagon!

The wall is being kept at 8ft so as not to inconveince the true French people. Cause the Frogs can just hop over it....

I have a question about this "Muslim ban". So I've heard it more than once claimed that we've never had any refugees from any of the countries on the list come here and kill anyone via an act of terror.

My question is, what about the failures? Is that number zero? By "failures" I am asking if we have ever arrested anyone from any of those countries for planning to carry out an act of terror here. In other words, terrorists that were caught before their terroristing got going.

I am asking this because of the recent thing in France where they caught people who were intending to carry out an act of terror before they were actually able to carry out it. Including apparently a 16 yr. old girl.

Last I heard there have been around 60 arrests of persons from said "BAN" countries that were stopped from carrying out their attacks since 9/11.

So yes. NO REASON to BAN at all.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Last I heard there have been around 60 arrests of persons from said "BAN" countries that were stopped from carrying out their attacks since 9/11.

So yes. NO REASON to BAN at all.

Which means terrorists from these countries have flat out made it here lol. Dozens of them.

Originally posted by Surtur
Which means terrorists from these countries have flat out made it here lol. Dozens of them.

Yeah but they all vote Democrat so that makes it all OTAY!

Are you two down jerking each other off, yet?


Anyway, I agree with you, haha!


It's funny, the libtards like to call it a Muslim Ban but they are forgetting that refugee status has been put on pause for 120 days from those countries. That means those precious Christians that they think the Conservatards are supposedly sooooo desperate for cannot get a refugee status.

It's as if this wasn't a "Muslim ban" at all...


It's as if this was a ban against 7 countries which are extremely difficult to get proper screening on due to how unstable the governments are and how much terrorism exists in each of those states...




Trump: clearly a racist sexist man-boy.

The travel-ban: not a Muslim-Ban.

I will NEVER be don Jerkin!

Hmm...

Did The Judges Lie: new report finds 72 terrorists came from countries covered by Trump ban

Hopefully this is just fake news. Some in the comments say it is.

Well it is the 9th Circuit so I wouldn't be shocked to find they put their politics in front of the truth.

It's not like we're on the border with Syria and unfiltered refugees are just pouring across the border. These people are already undergoing rigorous vetting to come here.

If you feel you have more of a right to this beautiful land just because you happened to be born here, perhaps you don't deserve this land

Originally posted by Firefly218
It's not like we're on the border with Syria and unfiltered refugees are just pouring across the border. These people are already undergoing rigorous vetting to come here.

Was this meant as a defense of the government and medias omission of the 70+ terrorists from these countries that have been arrested? Or did you just not see those parts of the discussion here?

OkK3OvvHzrY

More enrichment from our future doctors. I wonder why American press didn't cover this. lol

But how can this Happen in Socialist Happy Land that is the EU? And France of all places!? I think this means they just need MORE IMMIGRANTS!

I think the U.S should send them all of ours as well..

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!


That worked out so well for them. Empthase on WORKED and OUT!

Originally posted by Flyattractor
BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!


That worked out so well for them. Empthase on WORKED and OUT!

Whaaaa?! ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES?!!?!?!

Originally posted by Surtur
Whaaaa?! ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES?!!?!?!

http://dailygrindhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/THE-MAN-WHO-KNEW-TOO-LITTLE-1997.jpg

It would be funny if the guy hired illegals to paint and payed them under the table with extremely shitty wages.

They probably wouldn't have skipped work to go to a rally.

Trump should offer the fired painters a job with the ICE lol.

Trump should offer them positions on the catapult.

Evidently their job was not important to them...

Thank Goodness they can now all get welfare.

Once the wall is built it might need to be painted. Just saying..

https://hiddenlolcdn.com/i/118445.jpg

and the media blames Trump for sparking a riot.