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 12:34 Doodsmack wrote: Why am I arguing with not-willing-to-admit-it Trump supporters on the internet again? About whether we should ban a religion LOL
Here is the religion in question. It is up to you to make the case on how they benefit the country, to make a fair comparison of whether they put more into the country than they take out, or whether they integrate into western secular democracies.
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.
Uhhg. You've got it backwards. Mass deportation is impractical because all possible implementation require the hiring of a massive police force. The "muslim ban" is not impractical because you are arguing against a straw man aka, "Hurr durr please fill out this immigration survey about your muslimness". The actual Muslim ban policy always boils down to a country of origin test OR a "burden of proof on the immigrant" test. Neither of which is impractical.
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...?
Like I said, that is merely a rhetorical calculation, like calling Obamacare a penalty instead of a tax. Whatever solution he eventually implements (if he did) would not have any of the impracticalities you accuse this plan of having, unless in the case that it is a toothless test (in which case it changes nothing so why are you complaining?).
Edit. I'd accept the "impractical" argument in this situation if someone pointed out an implementation that achieves the rhetorical goal of "muslim ban", is likely to be implemented by Trump, and is impractical (like the mass deportation strategy is). But right now it seems like one of the ultimate strong man arguments.
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:
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 -
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".
You're basically saying a foreign terrorist group can hold the immigration policy of a country hostage, that a country should tailor its immigration policy factoring in what's hardest for a group of terrorists to use for propaganda. Now, we can take the tired, poor, huddled masses, but they have to be yearning to be free.
No, it isn't. Muslims make up 1/7 the population of earth. There is no reasonable argument to be made that 1.5 billion people are to risky to let into our courty based on their religion alone. No one needs to justify the worth of Muslims to the US
On June 15 2016 08:34 xDaunt wrote: [quote] 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:
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 -
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".
You're basically saying a foreign terrorist group can hold the immigration policy of a country hostage
Actually, that's what you're saying by arguing that the U.S. should ban an entire religion due to a group of fanatics.
Final results of the DC primary here. Hillary wins 78.7% to Sanders' 21.1%.
On June 15 2016 12:34 Doodsmack wrote: Why am I arguing with not-willing-to-admit-it Trump supporters on the internet again? About whether we should ban a religion LOL
Here is the religion in question. It is up to you to make the case on how they benefit the country, to make a fair comparison of whether they put more into the country than they take out, or whether they integrate into western secular democracies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc-kPYayYA
Don't care if they and the audience call themselves normal muslims, they're still extremists in a way. Would you waste your precious time to attend such bs meeting if you were moderate believer? I wouldn't. Jihadist warriors hold the banner of extremism in this era, but there are normally many sects and believers who are extremists but not jihadists.
And you won't spot the ones who put things in, mostly because they're busy working and there aren't any counter propaganda to show you them. Seattle has full of muslims that work for Microsoft. Btw I'm actually ashamed to write this, as if they are inferior race or smth, they are as normal as you are and I am, alongside with many humans that work for Microsoft.
Of course you're not because you're living in a largely Christian country that has Ellen & Neil Patrick Harris as heroes on your television and that's a fringe. That Christian pastor can say gays cause hurricanes and they bring it upon themselves for being sinners. But for the most part they're largely harmless and contribute to society. The vast majority of people in the middle east take their religion far more seriously than in the good ol' US of A. There's countless people within the Muslim community and without the Muslim community attempting to stress that for people on the left. It's a complete false equivalence. Ellen Degeneres would not be having a day time show anywhere in the middle east. The war for gay marriage? Was fairly bloodless. It was a long fight, but it wasn't the bloodiest war ever.
Of course there's counter propaganda. We listen to it daily. "99.9% of Muslims are peaceful loving people" from the left. It's simply not true. Obama, Hillary, and Bernie have been all over that.
America is 20 trillion in debt right now, it does not need to import more problems for itself. Nor does it need a people that are largely dependent on the government to live, and often times never leave welfare. On top of this, a large portion of them do not assimilate not integrate well. Why would you import a people that have a larger proportion of people that NEED to live off the government? The only reason I can see is either humanitarian reasons (a bad way to run a country) or because it's the shadiest tactic ever to get votes. A man who needs to pray 5 times a day will always be less productive than a man who doesn't need to pray at all.
I've been to a few huge christian conferences before where people cheered on some really odd creepy stuff. Conferences of fanatics are going to be quite concerning. Joe Blow Christian isn't going to show up to one of those conferences though. "Here is the religion in question." Wow cool, guess you got all the Muslims in the world in that video clip somehow. I thought there were more than that but that defines all the Muslims. I'm sure it wasn't some conference full of more fringe people with nothing better to do with their time.
Look, theocracy is terrible regardless of which brand of religion it is. Christian theocracy is god awful, Muslim theocracy is god awful. Those people in the video want a theocracy there are Christians that want the same. The only way you beat those kinds of ideas is challenging them with better ideas. If you think painting all Muslims with the brush of that video helps at all you've never been so wrong in your life and that's exactly what you're doing.
I think there have to be discussions about Islamism, or pushing for ANY theocracy. But you're not helping at all.
On June 15 2016 13:17 SK.Testie wrote: Of course you're not because you're living in a largely Christian country that has Ellen & Neil Patrick Harris as heroes on your television and that's a fringe. That Christian pastor can say gays cause hurricanes and they bring it upon themselves for being sinners. But for the most part they're largely harmless and contribute to society. The vast majority of people in the middle east take their religion far more seriously than in the good ol' US of A. There's countless people within the Muslim community and without the Muslim community attempting to stress that for people on the left. It's a complete false equivalence. Ellen Degeneres would not be having a day time show anywhere in the middle east. The war for gay marriage? Was fairly bloodless. It was a long fight, but it wasn't the bloodiest war ever.
Of course there's counter propaganda. We listen to it daily. "99.9% of Muslims are peaceful loving people" from the left. It's simply not true. Obama, Hillary, and Bernie have been all over that.
America is 20 trillion in debt right now, it does not need to import more problems for itself. Nor does it need a people that are largely dependent on the government to live, and often times never leave welfare. On top of this, a large portion of them do not assimilate not integrate well. Why would you import a people that have a larger proportion of people that NEED to live off the government? The only reason I can see is either humanitarian reasons (a bad way to run a country) or because it's the shadiest tactic ever to get votes. A man who needs to pray 5 times a day will always be less productive than a man who doesn't need to pray at all.
Dude, you are starting to go straight off the deep end again. You are creating a very hostile, dicey environment by trying to push this topic so hard. There are so many other things to discuss. The way you obsess over Islam and demand it constantly be the topic of conversation is extremely obnoxious.
Video needs more context. Is he talking about US forces here or Iraqi forces? This was brought up in the Hillary reddit this was posted in.
Also the shooting happened and this thread was closed during that time.
Newly released State Department emails help reveal how a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the department’s professional staff.
The emails further reveal how, after inquiries from ABC News, the Clinton staff sought to “protect the name” of the Secretary, “stall” the ABC News reporter and ultimately accept the resignation of the donor just two days later.
Copies of dozens of internal emails were provided to ABC News by the conservative political group Citizens United, which obtained them under the Freedom of Information Act after more the two years of litigation with the government.
Here's the source, starts around 24 minutes, he says "crooked Iraq" and then talks about soldiers:
It sounds like Iraqi soldiers to me. Here he was last year talking about the same thing but in reference to Afghanistan, mentions the figure $50 million:
I believe this might have originally been a talking point about election corruption, which was especially famous in 2009 in Afghanistan, that has degraded in his head over time. At any rate, there was assuredly corruption in both countries. His whole shtick is veterans and the military so it doesn't make much sense to think he'd be trying to insult US soldiers. But I'm sure we'll hear more from him if the MSM decides to run with this.
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.
Uhhg. You've got it backwards. Mass deportation is impractical because all possible implementation require the hiring of a massive police force. The "muslim ban" is not impractical because you are arguing against a straw man aka, "Hurr durr please fill out this immigration survey about your muslimness". The actual Muslim ban policy always boils down to a country of origin test OR a "burden of proof on the immigrant" test. Neither of which is impractical.
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...?
Like I said, that is merely a rhetorical calculation, like calling Obamacare a penalty instead of a tax. Whatever solution he eventually implements (if he did) would not have any of the impracticalities you accuse this plan of having, unless in the case that it is a toothless test (in which case it changes nothing so why are you complaining?).
Edit. I'd accept the "impractical" argument in this situation if someone pointed out an implementation that achieves the rhetorical goal of "muslim ban", is likely to be implemented by Trump, and is impractical (like the mass deportation strategy is). But right now it seems like one of the ultimate strong man arguments.
Good to know the religion ban isn't actually a religion ban, it's just described that way as a rhetorical calculation. You I-don't-want-to-admit-to-it Trump supporters have a way of claiming his proposals are actually different than the plain English spoken by him. I guess that or couching your support in terms of a dichotomy with the extreme left are the only ways to rationalize supporting the stuff that comes out of his mouth LOL.
On June 15 2016 13:44 SK.Testie wrote: - Person up topic of Donalds anti-Muslim immigration plan in a dismissive & snide way. - Shouldn't comment on it.
Sorry if my post came across the wrong way. I wasn't trying to say you shouldn't say anything, just that perhaps there is a middle ground. And I mean, I'm no moderator, so who gives a fuck about me. I enjoy hearing your perspectives because I don't think I'd ever encounter a similar perspective otherwise. I was just trying to say that Islam in particular is a very heated topic. With you being a very enthusiastic poster, the topic of Islam is magnified even more. And since the previous thread was determined to have gone off the rails, I hope we can stay on the rails this time. We can have great conversation and still keep things peaceful, IMO
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.
Uhhg. You've got it backwards. Mass deportation is impractical because all possible implementation require the hiring of a massive police force. The "muslim ban" is not impractical because you are arguing against a straw man aka, "Hurr durr please fill out this immigration survey about your muslimness". The actual Muslim ban policy always boils down to a country of origin test OR a "burden of proof on the immigrant" test. Neither of which is impractical. .
Ironic that you're saying I'm using a strawman. Your argument is not Trumps. He has the burden of saying how it would work. Until he does, stop spouting you own ideas on it. Even if they are logical, Trump has shown no appetite for using logic himself.
Plainly, his call is for a ban of Muslims. Read my sig.
On a side note, Trump has said we have to do more to protect Christians in these countries. Wonder if he would be OK with banning them as part of a country ban. Somehow I doubt it.
On June 15 2016 09:15 LegalLord wrote: [quote] 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:
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 -
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".
You're basically saying a foreign terrorist group can hold the immigration policy of a country hostage
Actually, that's what you're saying by arguing that the U.S. should ban an entire religion due to a group of fanatics.
8% of Turks believe in ISIS and 18% of Indonesians believe in honor killings. These are moderate islamic countries.
What are these polls supposed to tell us? If 8% of Turks were actual IS terrorists the country would not exist anymore. Absolutely meaningless statistics.
What are these polls supposed to tell us? If 8% of Turks were actual IS terrorists the country would not exist anymore. Absolutely meaningless statistics.
Believes in is very different from participating. That means 8% of the population would not turn someone from ISIS in if they knew about it.
EPT![[image loading]](http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/abc_rajiv_emailsSM_ProtectName_lf_160608.jpg)
