|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 15 2016 11:33 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 11:21 LegalLord wrote:On June 15 2016 10:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 15 2016 10:14 LegalLord wrote:On June 15 2016 09:28 cLutZ wrote:On June 15 2016 09:15 LegalLord wrote:On June 15 2016 08:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 15 2016 08:20 Mohdoo wrote:
Do people who intend to vote for Donald trump think his Muslim ban is a good idea? It's an idea that is at least worthy of serious discussion as opposed to being summarily dismissed by the left. Like I have said previously, the US -- or any other Western nation for that matter -- should not import peoples who are unwilling/unable to assimilate into Western culture. Many in the left are unwilling to properly acknowledge the existence of a Muslim problem, and are willing to ignore some remarkably bad actions by Muslims that are a direct result of poorly thought out immigration policies. Not all Muslims are bad, and probably not most, but many more than are being acknowledged by the American and European left. Between doing what the left does and an outright ban, the latter is probably better. I don't know why it has to be a travel ban or religious test. Just practically speaking it appears to be that 2nd gen immigrants are a bigger issue (also true for crime among Central American immigrants, which is interesting), not travelers. And we already restrict travel on a country of origin basis, no practical reasons exist for not expanding that. A full ban on travel and immigration, certainly not the best outcome. But the point is that if the choice is between "do what the left has been doing" and "enforce a ban on all Muslims from entering the country" then the latter is the better option. Yeah I can imagine that going a long way to prove to the Muslim world that we aren't fighting a war against their religion. No way ISIS and other groups could use that as propaganda to show the US hates them because they are Muslim not because they are radical. (though that's not to say the left isn't screwing up plenty) I mean, there are definitely better plans than banning all Muslims, but you're not right either. I'm pretty sure most people who would be able to be radicalized don't really care all that much about the border policy of a nation on the other side of the world. More significant would be US meddling in their actual homes. Though ISIS isn't going to be beat with magical thinking along the lines of "we is gunna convince dem ppls that USA good guys and ISIS bad guys and all the bad people are gonna go away." This was the idea of the Iraq war and I think we all know how well that turned out. To kill the organization, you have to do what you do to put down guerilla movements: cut off their supplies, bomb them indiscriminately enough that they can't just hide behind the population or so-called "moderate rebels," then support a stable government which will keep them from coming back. Saying that strong policies against malicious immigrants who are Muslims is helping ISIS, is just wrong. ISIS gets recruits off the notion it is representing Islam against the West. And yes, those people hate the US. A total Muslim ban bolsters the pitch used by ISIS. But hopefully you don't really support the Muslim ban - you just dream up a dichotomy and then say you'd prefer the Muslim ban. I guess that is one way of pseudo-supporting Trump without saying it explicitly - couch your statement as an alternative to the other extreme.
Unfortunately it looks like our two options at the moment are the Trump strategy and the leftist strategy, so it's not really a made up dichotomy.
As for ISIS, break apart the organization and the ideology isn't going to survive. There is always going to be some resentment against the US but frankly most laypeople don't really care about what other countries' immigration policies are. Unfortunately it seems that the goal to get rid of ISIS isn't really a primary one since its existence is convenient for the geopolitical ambitions of certain countries.
|
I guess that is one way of pseudo-supporting Trump without saying it explicitly - couch your statement as an alternative to the other extreme.
That's pretty much the opposition's campaign in a nutshell, so I suppose what's good for the goose is good for the gander in this case.
|
HIV experts and LGBT advocates across the country are calling on the US government to end its “discriminatory” ban on blood donations from gay men, with a renewed policy push emerging from the mass shooting that killed 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando.
Some advocates hope the harsh reality in Orlando – that gay men can’t donate blood to support those suffering from one of the worst attacks on LGBT people in American history – will push lawmakers and the FDA to end its ban altogether.
On Tuesday, which was World Blood Donor Day, a group of Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to the FDA noting that there is a dire need for blood in Orlando and urging federal officials to eliminate the 12-month regulation.
Supporters pushing for reform argue that the FDA could end its restrictions without legislation.
Scott Wiener, a supervisor in San Francisco who is gay and who has criticized the restrictions, said the time was right to enact reforms.
“It adds insult to injury. Here we have someone who murders 50 of our brothers and sisters, and then our own government turns around and says we’re not allowed to help them simply because we’re gay,” he said Tuesday. “There is no basis in science for this ban, and that is pure and simple discrimination.”
Despite the call from some in Congress for federal officials to “swiftly” end the ban and establish a “less discriminatory system”, the FDA on Tuesday said that it had no plans to change its policy.
“The FDA has examined the possibility of eliminating all deferrals for HIV and simply relying on testing of donated blood or reducing the deferral window; however, scientifically robust data are not available to show that this would not lead to decreased safety of the blood supply,” the agency said in a statement to the Guardian.
Source
|
On June 15 2016 11:36 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 10:59 cLutZ wrote:On June 15 2016 10:52 On_Slaught wrote:
Still wondering what the religious test is going to look like to prove people are Muslim. Are we going to continue to monitor every dark skinned person who enters the country after they get in to make sure they aren't Muslim, like they told us they weren't in the interview? Which is why rhetoric and policy prescriptions are not the same thing. When promoting the PPACA they didn't talk about mandates, penalties, and minimum required coverage, but that is what the policy is in practice. Similarly, this would likely be a country of origin system, in practice. Which we already have and historically have had. Honestly, it feels like intentional feigning of naivety when people ask this question. And I don't even particularly think its a good solution (just think this question is incredibly disingenuous). Yes, asking Trump and his supporters for a basic, initial detail on how his stated plan would be carried out is naive and disingenuous. Your analogy is way off because this detail we're requesting from Trump's supporters is fundamental. A religion ban and a country of origin ban are two very different things.
It's especially egregious because Trump's opponents in the primary (both Cruz and Paul) offered a country of origin ban and he maintained his own non-plan was distinct and superior.
|
On June 15 2016 11:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +I guess that is one way of pseudo-supporting Trump without saying it explicitly - couch your statement as an alternative to the other extreme. That's pretty much the opposition's campaign in a nutshell, so I suppose what's good for the goose is good for the gander in this case.
The opposition has no problem being explicit, and has actual policy ideas. Future Trump voters don't seem to want to admit they support him. But they will still manage to arrive at support for a religion ban, because hey that's all he's given us.
|
On June 15 2016 10:52 On_Slaught wrote:
Still wondering what the religious test is going to look like to prove people are Muslim. Are we going to continue to monitor every dark skinned person who enters the country after they get in to make sure they aren't Muslim, like they told us they weren't in the interview?
Well first I'd have to ask you, what do Muslims offer your country in particular that you feel that the benefit of them outweighs potential risks or drags to your country? Why do you in particular defend them as a group? In Belgium, they take up roughly half of the welfare in the country, claim disability more than any other group of people, and demand special rights for themselves and ask the country to bend to its demands. What do we gain from Muslim immigration that makes it so very important or tempting? Diplomatic relations? The chance to assimilate them into our way of life?
You could apply a religious test, seeing as a good number of them already think we are at war with Islam adding a religious litmus test probably wouldn't hurt any. The lefts idea of harmony is capitulation and not even wanting to look at the problem. The problem being mainstream Islamic views are anti-woman, anti-gay, and totalitarian in nature. In response they keep pointing to Christianity but it's a false equivalency.
|
On June 15 2016 11:41 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 11:33 Doodsmack wrote:On June 15 2016 11:21 LegalLord wrote:On June 15 2016 10:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 15 2016 10:14 LegalLord wrote:On June 15 2016 09:28 cLutZ wrote:On June 15 2016 09:15 LegalLord wrote:On June 15 2016 08:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 15 2016 08:20 Mohdoo wrote:
Do people who intend to vote for Donald trump think his Muslim ban is a good idea? It's an idea that is at least worthy of serious discussion as opposed to being summarily dismissed by the left. Like I have said previously, the US -- or any other Western nation for that matter -- should not import peoples who are unwilling/unable to assimilate into Western culture. Many in the left are unwilling to properly acknowledge the existence of a Muslim problem, and are willing to ignore some remarkably bad actions by Muslims that are a direct result of poorly thought out immigration policies. Not all Muslims are bad, and probably not most, but many more than are being acknowledged by the American and European left. Between doing what the left does and an outright ban, the latter is probably better. I don't know why it has to be a travel ban or religious test. Just practically speaking it appears to be that 2nd gen immigrants are a bigger issue (also true for crime among Central American immigrants, which is interesting), not travelers. And we already restrict travel on a country of origin basis, no practical reasons exist for not expanding that. A full ban on travel and immigration, certainly not the best outcome. But the point is that if the choice is between "do what the left has been doing" and "enforce a ban on all Muslims from entering the country" then the latter is the better option. Yeah I can imagine that going a long way to prove to the Muslim world that we aren't fighting a war against their religion. No way ISIS and other groups could use that as propaganda to show the US hates them because they are Muslim not because they are radical. (though that's not to say the left isn't screwing up plenty) I mean, there are definitely better plans than banning all Muslims, but you're not right either. I'm pretty sure most people who would be able to be radicalized don't really care all that much about the border policy of a nation on the other side of the world. More significant would be US meddling in their actual homes. Though ISIS isn't going to be beat with magical thinking along the lines of "we is gunna convince dem ppls that USA good guys and ISIS bad guys and all the bad people are gonna go away." This was the idea of the Iraq war and I think we all know how well that turned out. To kill the organization, you have to do what you do to put down guerilla movements: cut off their supplies, bomb them indiscriminately enough that they can't just hide behind the population or so-called "moderate rebels," then support a stable government which will keep them from coming back. Saying that strong policies against malicious immigrants who are Muslims is helping ISIS, is just wrong. ISIS gets recruits off the notion it is representing Islam against the West. And yes, those people hate the US. A total Muslim ban bolsters the pitch used by ISIS. But hopefully you don't really support the Muslim ban - you just dream up a dichotomy and then say you'd prefer the Muslim ban. I guess that is one way of pseudo-supporting Trump without saying it explicitly - couch your statement as an alternative to the other extreme. Unfortunately it looks like our two options at the moment are the Trump strategy and the leftist strategy, so it's not really a made up dichotomy. As for ISIS, break apart the organization and the ideology isn't going to survive. There is always going to be some resentment against the US but frankly most laypeople don't really care about what other countries' immigration policies are. Unfortunately it seems that the goal to get rid of ISIS isn't really a primary one since its existence is convenient for the geopolitical ambitions of certain countries.
Hillary will fight terrorists, that I'm confident of. Letting Muslims into the country as a routine matter is not a bad thing. We haven't had mass rapes, and not using term "radical Islam" does not mean there won't be bombings, drone strikes and special forces raids. So your dichotomy that includes "let's invite mass rape and murder even though that's not happening right now from immigrants" is false.
And I'm not sure I want to take your word for it that potential radicals don't care what US immigration policies are, even when we're talking about a Muslim ban.
|
On June 15 2016 11:56 Doodsmack wrote:
"let's invite mass rape and murder even though that's not happening right now from immigrants" is false.
I thing some would say that Cologne, Paris, and the like suggest otherwise. Same with Chechnya, though no one except East Europe cares about that.
I'd say Hillary is pretty bad when it comes to making tactical military decisions. A mix of warhawk and a lack of understanding of the consequences of military action, makes for a shitty FP leader. Trump beats her on that because he at least has a pretty good sense for how and why the US fucked up in a lot of its foreign actions.
On June 15 2016 11:56 Doodsmack wrote:
And I'm not sure I want to take your word for it that potential radicals don't care what US immigration policies are, even when we're talking about a Muslim ban.
Fair enough. Got something to back up the assertion that it would be a problem, or is it just a gut feeling?
|
On June 15 2016 11:47 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 11:36 Doodsmack wrote:On June 15 2016 10:59 cLutZ wrote:On June 15 2016 10:52 On_Slaught wrote:
Still wondering what the religious test is going to look like to prove people are Muslim. Are we going to continue to monitor every dark skinned person who enters the country after they get in to make sure they aren't Muslim, like they told us they weren't in the interview? Which is why rhetoric and policy prescriptions are not the same thing. When promoting the PPACA they didn't talk about mandates, penalties, and minimum required coverage, but that is what the policy is in practice. Similarly, this would likely be a country of origin system, in practice. Which we already have and historically have had. Honestly, it feels like intentional feigning of naivety when people ask this question. And I don't even particularly think its a good solution (just think this question is incredibly disingenuous). Yes, asking Trump and his supporters for a basic, initial detail on how his stated plan would be carried out is naive and disingenuous. Your analogy is way off because this detail we're requesting from Trump's supporters is fundamental. A religion ban and a country of origin ban are two very different things. It's especially egregious because Trump's opponents in the primary (both Cruz and Paul) offered a country of origin ban and he maintained his own non-plan was distinct and superior.
Yes, that Cruz and Paul proposed options that are realistic showed they were smarter and more practical than Trump on this issue (one of many reasons I preferred them), but arguing against the practicality of a Muslim ban is an inherently dumb position to stake out (arguing its wisdom as policy is where you set up).
Practicality implies implementation, which means basically one of two options: 1) National origin; or 2) A strict, positive proof test (burden on the migrant) that essentially means no immigration. Neither is impractical, they just arent great policy long term.
|
On June 15 2016 12:01 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 11:56 Doodsmack wrote:
"let's invite mass rape and murder even though that's not happening right now from immigrants" is false.
I thing some would say that Cologne, Paris, and the like suggest otherwise. Same with Chechnya, though no one except East Europe cares about that.
That's the EU where people are walking to, and has a lot more to do with refugees than routine travel and immigration.
|
On June 15 2016 12:04 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 12:01 LegalLord wrote:On June 15 2016 11:56 Doodsmack wrote:
"let's invite mass rape and murder even though that's not happening right now from immigrants" is false.
I thing some would say that Cologne, Paris, and the like suggest otherwise. Same with Chechnya, though no one except East Europe cares about that. That's the EU where people are walking to, and has a lot more to do with refugees than routine travel and immigration.
I dunno, Germany and France are pretty far to walk to, and a lot of the immigration issues have to do with refugees from Syria (and people who throw out their passports and pretend to be from Syria). I'm not seeing how that is systematically different - is there some screening being applied in the US that isn't in Europe? Because it seems that the US has had a pretty poor track record of tracking and stopping trouble immigrants. It just has less of them than the EU which is why the problem is smaller right now.
|
On June 15 2016 11:33 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 11:21 LegalLord wrote:On June 15 2016 10:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 15 2016 10:14 LegalLord wrote:On June 15 2016 09:28 cLutZ wrote:On June 15 2016 09:15 LegalLord wrote:On June 15 2016 08:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 15 2016 08:20 Mohdoo wrote:
Do people who intend to vote for Donald trump think his Muslim ban is a good idea? It's an idea that is at least worthy of serious discussion as opposed to being summarily dismissed by the left. Like I have said previously, the US -- or any other Western nation for that matter -- should not import peoples who are unwilling/unable to assimilate into Western culture. Many in the left are unwilling to properly acknowledge the existence of a Muslim problem, and are willing to ignore some remarkably bad actions by Muslims that are a direct result of poorly thought out immigration policies. Not all Muslims are bad, and probably not most, but many more than are being acknowledged by the American and European left. Between doing what the left does and an outright ban, the latter is probably better. I don't know why it has to be a travel ban or religious test. Just practically speaking it appears to be that 2nd gen immigrants are a bigger issue (also true for crime among Central American immigrants, which is interesting), not travelers. And we already restrict travel on a country of origin basis, no practical reasons exist for not expanding that. A full ban on travel and immigration, certainly not the best outcome. But the point is that if the choice is between "do what the left has been doing" and "enforce a ban on all Muslims from entering the country" then the latter is the better option. Yeah I can imagine that going a long way to prove to the Muslim world that we aren't fighting a war against their religion. No way ISIS and other groups could use that as propaganda to show the US hates them because they are Muslim not because they are radical. (though that's not to say the left isn't screwing up plenty) I mean, there are definitely better plans than banning all Muslims, but you're not right either. I'm pretty sure most people who would be able to be radicalized don't really care all that much about the border policy of a nation on the other side of the world. More significant would be US meddling in their actual homes. Though ISIS isn't going to be beat with magical thinking along the lines of "we is gunna convince dem ppls that USA good guys and ISIS bad guys and all the bad people are gonna go away." This was the idea of the Iraq war and I think we all know how well that turned out. To kill the organization, you have to do what you do to put down guerilla movements: cut off their supplies, bomb them indiscriminately enough that they can't just hide behind the population or so-called "moderate rebels," then support a stable government which will keep them from coming back. Saying that strong policies against malicious immigrants who are Muslims is helping ISIS, is just wrong. ISIS gets recruits off the notion it is representing Islam against the West. And yes, those people hate the US. A total Muslim ban bolsters the pitch used by ISIS. But hopefully you don't really support the Muslim ban - you just dream up a dichotomy and then say you'd prefer the Muslim ban. I guess that is one way of pseudo-supporting Trump without saying it explicitly - couch your statement as an alternative to the other extreme.
ISIS also doesn't like the fact that the US has gay marriage, women who can vote, women who choose their own clothes, a military that bombs and uses special forces against ISIS, and a commitment to Israel. If you believe in the sovereignty of a country, I don't see how the reaction of a terrorist group is supposed to dictate domestic policy.
On June 15 2016 11:47 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 11:36 Doodsmack wrote:On June 15 2016 10:59 cLutZ wrote:On June 15 2016 10:52 On_Slaught wrote:
Still wondering what the religious test is going to look like to prove people are Muslim. Are we going to continue to monitor every dark skinned person who enters the country after they get in to make sure they aren't Muslim, like they told us they weren't in the interview? Which is why rhetoric and policy prescriptions are not the same thing. When promoting the PPACA they didn't talk about mandates, penalties, and minimum required coverage, but that is what the policy is in practice. Similarly, this would likely be a country of origin system, in practice. Which we already have and historically have had. Honestly, it feels like intentional feigning of naivety when people ask this question. And I don't even particularly think its a good solution (just think this question is incredibly disingenuous). Yes, asking Trump and his supporters for a basic, initial detail on how his stated plan would be carried out is naive and disingenuous. Your analogy is way off because this detail we're requesting from Trump's supporters is fundamental. A religion ban and a country of origin ban are two very different things. It's especially egregious because Trump's opponents in the primary (both Cruz and Paul) offered a country of origin ban and he maintained his own non-plan was distinct and superior.
He moved in that direction in his latest terrorism speech.
|
NPR did a quick break down on Market place of the total GDP generated by Muslim and it was 25 billion productivity. Back of the napkin figures. Its a massive amount of investment, money and labor we would be missing out on. Any test created will look like what it is, a McCarthy style screening system based on ignorance and fear. The same bullshit we peddled during the McCarthy era when dragged people before hearings for being "know communist sympathizers" because they took a class, attended a rally or owned a book.
That is right, when McCarthy attacked Edward R. Murrow as an un-American communist, it was because he read and owned a book written by a socialist. Are we really going back to that shit? Is this the garbage Trump has dragged us down to? Tests to see if people's beliefs are compatible with the American ideals?
Also, "America First" is a pretty poor chose of slogans for Mr. Trump. Does the man got out of his way create connections to Nazis and the people who thought they were great?
|
On June 15 2016 12:12 Plansix wrote:
Is this the garbage Trump has dragged us down to? Tests to see if people's beliefs are compatible with the American ideals?
It doesn't help your point that this is exactly what border/immigration control is supposed to do. It's supposed to make sure that any immigrants are compatible with the society to which they immigrate.
On June 15 2016 12:12 Plansix wrote:
NPR did a quick break down on Market place of the total GDP generated by Muslim and it was 25 billion productivity. Back of the napkin figures. Its a massive amount of investment, money and labor we would be missing out on.
Oh dear, I think we're about to have the "immigration is always good without exception" argument.
|
On June 15 2016 12:16 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 12:12 Plansix wrote:
Is this the garbage Trump has dragged us down to? Tests to see if people's beliefs are compatible with the American ideals? It doesn't help your point that this is exactly what border/immigration control is supposed to do. It's supposed to make sure that any immigrants are compatible with the society to which they immigrate. Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 12:12 Plansix wrote:
NPR did a quick break down on Market place of the total GDP generated by Muslim and it was 25 billion productivity. Back of the napkin figures. Its a massive amount of investment, money and labor we would be missing out on. Oh dear, I think we're about to have the "immigration is always good without exception" argument.
Yes, and I have seen zero evidence that says we need to change that system or any changes would have prevented that last two attacks on the US.
Also, if you could avoid straw-man arguments or putting words in my mouth, it would be great. I was just repeating the stats provided by NPR today about the cost of changing the current system to deny immigration of Muslims and Muslim investment. Personally, I'm more scared of white Christians than I am Muslims based purely on the odds.
|
On June 15 2016 12:02 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 11:47 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 15 2016 11:36 Doodsmack wrote:On June 15 2016 10:59 cLutZ wrote:On June 15 2016 10:52 On_Slaught wrote:
Still wondering what the religious test is going to look like to prove people are Muslim. Are we going to continue to monitor every dark skinned person who enters the country after they get in to make sure they aren't Muslim, like they told us they weren't in the interview? Which is why rhetoric and policy prescriptions are not the same thing. When promoting the PPACA they didn't talk about mandates, penalties, and minimum required coverage, but that is what the policy is in practice. Similarly, this would likely be a country of origin system, in practice. Which we already have and historically have had. Honestly, it feels like intentional feigning of naivety when people ask this question. And I don't even particularly think its a good solution (just think this question is incredibly disingenuous). Yes, asking Trump and his supporters for a basic, initial detail on how his stated plan would be carried out is naive and disingenuous. Your analogy is way off because this detail we're requesting from Trump's supporters is fundamental. A religion ban and a country of origin ban are two very different things. It's especially egregious because Trump's opponents in the primary (both Cruz and Paul) offered a country of origin ban and he maintained his own non-plan was distinct and superior. Yes, that Cruz and Paul proposed options that are realistic showed they were smarter and more practical than Trump on this issue (one of many reasons I preferred them), but arguing against the practicality of a Muslim ban is an inherently dumb position to stake out (arguing its wisdom as policy is where you set up). Practicality implies implementation, which means basically one of two options: 1) National origin; or 2) A strict, positive proof test (burden on the migrant) that essentially means no immigration. Neither is impractical, they just arent great policy long term.
Who are you to decide that it's OK to attack the policy but not the implementation? One of the biggest arguments against mass deportation, for example, is implementation, and rightfully so. This is the real world, not a high school debate, so pragmatism matters.
Having said that, I'm against it both practically and philosophically. The reasons why such a ban makes us look bad, is a anathema to our values, and has a real chance of putting us in further danger are so numerous and easy to find I won't waste my time listing them here.
|
On June 15 2016 12:11 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 11:33 Doodsmack wrote:On June 15 2016 11:21 LegalLord wrote:On June 15 2016 10:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 15 2016 10:14 LegalLord wrote:On June 15 2016 09:28 cLutZ wrote:On June 15 2016 09:15 LegalLord wrote:On June 15 2016 08:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 15 2016 08:20 Mohdoo wrote:
Do people who intend to vote for Donald trump think his Muslim ban is a good idea? It's an idea that is at least worthy of serious discussion as opposed to being summarily dismissed by the left. Like I have said previously, the US -- or any other Western nation for that matter -- should not import peoples who are unwilling/unable to assimilate into Western culture. Many in the left are unwilling to properly acknowledge the existence of a Muslim problem, and are willing to ignore some remarkably bad actions by Muslims that are a direct result of poorly thought out immigration policies. Not all Muslims are bad, and probably not most, but many more than are being acknowledged by the American and European left. Between doing what the left does and an outright ban, the latter is probably better. I don't know why it has to be a travel ban or religious test. Just practically speaking it appears to be that 2nd gen immigrants are a bigger issue (also true for crime among Central American immigrants, which is interesting), not travelers. And we already restrict travel on a country of origin basis, no practical reasons exist for not expanding that. A full ban on travel and immigration, certainly not the best outcome. But the point is that if the choice is between "do what the left has been doing" and "enforce a ban on all Muslims from entering the country" then the latter is the better option. Yeah I can imagine that going a long way to prove to the Muslim world that we aren't fighting a war against their religion. No way ISIS and other groups could use that as propaganda to show the US hates them because they are Muslim not because they are radical. (though that's not to say the left isn't screwing up plenty) I mean, there are definitely better plans than banning all Muslims, but you're not right either. I'm pretty sure most people who would be able to be radicalized don't really care all that much about the border policy of a nation on the other side of the world. More significant would be US meddling in their actual homes. Though ISIS isn't going to be beat with magical thinking along the lines of "we is gunna convince dem ppls that USA good guys and ISIS bad guys and all the bad people are gonna go away." This was the idea of the Iraq war and I think we all know how well that turned out. To kill the organization, you have to do what you do to put down guerilla movements: cut off their supplies, bomb them indiscriminately enough that they can't just hide behind the population or so-called "moderate rebels," then support a stable government which will keep them from coming back. Saying that strong policies against malicious immigrants who are Muslims is helping ISIS, is just wrong. ISIS gets recruits off the notion it is representing Islam against the West. And yes, those people hate the US. A total Muslim ban bolsters the pitch used by ISIS. But hopefully you don't really support the Muslim ban - you just dream up a dichotomy and then say you'd prefer the Muslim ban. I guess that is one way of pseudo-supporting Trump without saying it explicitly - couch your statement as an alternative to the other extreme. ISIS also doesn't like the fact that the US has gay marriage, women who can vote, women who choose their own clothes, a military that bombs and uses special forces against ISIS, and a commitment to Israel. If you believe in the sovereignty of a country, I don't see how the reaction of a terrorist group is supposed to dictate domestic policy. Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 11:47 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 15 2016 11:36 Doodsmack wrote:On June 15 2016 10:59 cLutZ wrote:On June 15 2016 10:52 On_Slaught wrote:
Still wondering what the religious test is going to look like to prove people are Muslim. Are we going to continue to monitor every dark skinned person who enters the country after they get in to make sure they aren't Muslim, like they told us they weren't in the interview? Which is why rhetoric and policy prescriptions are not the same thing. When promoting the PPACA they didn't talk about mandates, penalties, and minimum required coverage, but that is what the policy is in practice. Similarly, this would likely be a country of origin system, in practice. Which we already have and historically have had. Honestly, it feels like intentional feigning of naivety when people ask this question. And I don't even particularly think its a good solution (just think this question is incredibly disingenuous). Yes, asking Trump and his supporters for a basic, initial detail on how his stated plan would be carried out is naive and disingenuous. Your analogy is way off because this detail we're requesting from Trump's supporters is fundamental. A religion ban and a country of origin ban are two very different things. It's especially egregious because Trump's opponents in the primary (both Cruz and Paul) offered a country of origin ban and he maintained his own non-plan was distinct and superior. He moved in that direction in his latest terrorism speech.
I'm not talking about dictating domestic policy, you guys are the ones proposing a religion ban. I also shouldn't just refer to ISIS, this is about terrorism in general. We're talking about a religion ban here. It's not a necessary thing and it's more likely to make the problem worse.
ISIS relies on the notion that it represents Islam against the West for its recruitment. I base this claim on "expert" commentary -
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/isis-goes-global
By banning all Muslims we're basically saying "in order to ban ISIS we're banning Muslims". Not hard to ISIS to pitch that, with their slick marketing ability, as the US vs the Muslim world.
Of course we still haven't gotten to how the religion screening would be carried out. I'm still waiting on someone to offer an idea, rather than saying "oh it's just a country of origin ban".
|
On June 11 2016 06:42 oneofthem wrote:uh i didn't see that reply by nebuchad. i'll respond here, Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 01:30 Nebuchad wrote:On June 10 2016 21:33 oneofthem wrote:
suspicion of hillary on the left is largely based on indiscriminate suspicion of the corporate world and also a surface level understanding of elite motivation and beliefs. basically, corporations are evil and those who have any contact with them must also be minions. it is based on a simple class conflict model of the world, in which the rich people are engaged in conspiracy, rather than being simply natural products of a legal and economic system etc. It's actually not a conspiracy driven view. If you watch the Young Turks for more than two minutes (and no matter what you think of them, I'm sure we'll agree they're an important vector of this world view), they will insist on a regular and consistent basis that it's not a conspiracy, that there is no smoke-filled room where evil rich people decide the destiny of the rest of us. The perception that you disagree with is that the general system of money in politics, as you have it, makes it so that what very rich people think is much more important than what random people think, and that this was done by design. Not because rich people are evil and want you ill, but because they have they have their own best interest at heart, obviously, and the system has been modified (or perverted) in a way that gives them the ability to use their wealth to their advantage much more than they should be able to in a democracy. Where the "conspiracy" is, I suppose, is in the idea that it's not standard for a politician that is very successful in that system, got a lot of power and money thanks to that system, to also want to change it. the problem as i identified it is not that the left sees rich people as intentionally evil but that some see the rich as evil by virtue of being rich or engaged in a certain industry. you've not challenged this characterization much.
Because I don't think it's accurate. I'm sure a few people think like that but I would be very surprised if a large majority of the leftists' views aren't closer to what I describe than to this. Now we're talking about America, and I understand that I'm not american and so it might look like I'm talking out of my ass, but I've spent enough time talking to people on TYT channels to assert that I'd be very surprised if I was wrong about this.
|
On June 15 2016 12:02 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 11:47 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 15 2016 11:36 Doodsmack wrote:On June 15 2016 10:59 cLutZ wrote:On June 15 2016 10:52 On_Slaught wrote:
Still wondering what the religious test is going to look like to prove people are Muslim. Are we going to continue to monitor every dark skinned person who enters the country after they get in to make sure they aren't Muslim, like they told us they weren't in the interview? Which is why rhetoric and policy prescriptions are not the same thing. When promoting the PPACA they didn't talk about mandates, penalties, and minimum required coverage, but that is what the policy is in practice. Similarly, this would likely be a country of origin system, in practice. Which we already have and historically have had. Honestly, it feels like intentional feigning of naivety when people ask this question. And I don't even particularly think its a good solution (just think this question is incredibly disingenuous). Yes, asking Trump and his supporters for a basic, initial detail on how his stated plan would be carried out is naive and disingenuous. Your analogy is way off because this detail we're requesting from Trump's supporters is fundamental. A religion ban and a country of origin ban are two very different things. It's especially egregious because Trump's opponents in the primary (both Cruz and Paul) offered a country of origin ban and he maintained his own non-plan was distinct and superior. arguing against the practicality of a Muslim ban is an inherently dumb position to stake out
Uh huh. Because implementation routinely transforms policy fundamentally right? Practicality of policy is not a basic issue to cover? LOL Trump needs to call it a Muslim ban rather than a country of origin ban in order to build support...?
|
Why am I arguing with not-willing-to-admit-it Trump supporters on the internet again? About whether we should ban a religion LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
