|
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 January 29 2017 10:25 biology]major wrote:
The true threat is beyond those executing these attacks, especially 9/11. It is the millions who see them and cheer, or feel as if those actions are justified. Do we have any idea how many sympathizers there are? If you are already in the US and sympathize with the extremism the first ammendment basically protects you, but we can prevent these people from entering in the first place.
lmao
We don't know how many they are. They've never acted against us. But because they *think* a certain way, they're a danger to us!
The first amendment protects Islamic terrorist sympathizers and alt-right neo-Nazis equally. It exists because thoughts are not a crime. Treating them as if they are leads us down a dangerous path. And going down that path is a worse threat to American democracy than any number of terrorist sympathizers you can come up with.
Of all the possible justification for the Muslim ban, the idea that we have to prevent them from falling under the protection of the first amendment because thinking a certain way is dangerous is possibly the most idiotic one I've ever heard.
|
On January 29 2017 10:29 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2017 10:25 biology]major wrote:On January 29 2017 10:21 Leporello wrote:On January 29 2017 10:15 oBlade wrote:
Leporello, have you considered that the sources of risk for future attacks might be different than the source of a terror attack 16 years ago, that the world might have changed in the interim? The reason I ask is SA remains a US ally and as far as I know has been on board with counterterrorism. As I said, Trump's executive order uses 9/11 as the reason for its policy. I'm not using 9/11. He is.And he has to. Because it's the only real attack that would even come close to justifying such a policy. ISIS, on the other hand, which isn't mentioned in the executive order, has never been demonstrated as an actual threat to national security. In fact, to think ISIS is a threat to national security is kind of a joke. Yes. SA is an ally. And yet, it was Saudi nationals that inflicted the greatest terrorist attack on America. So why the fuck are we banning people from all these other countries? However you spin this, it will never make sense. Never. The true threat is beyond those executing these attacks, especially 9/11. It is the millions who see them and cheer, or feel as if those actions are justified. Do we have any idea how many sympathizers there are? No, and neither do you, and neither does Trump. But what we do know, and what everyone is trying to tell you, is those sympathizers are going to increase due to Trump's policies, and due to his rhetoric. And yet -- Trump's policies aren't actually going to do anything to prevent them from coming here! Its blanket selection of countries is nothing more than a confusing insult. Amazing! Trump's immigration ban succeeds in only one thing -- pissing people off... and making Canada look good. At least he's not a "coward", amirite?
If you are going to get inspired to support those who kill the innocent, because of someone else's rhetoric, you were lost to begin with.
|
|
|
On January 29 2017 10:33 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2017 10:29 Leporello wrote:On January 29 2017 10:25 biology]major wrote:On January 29 2017 10:21 Leporello wrote:On January 29 2017 10:15 oBlade wrote:
Leporello, have you considered that the sources of risk for future attacks might be different than the source of a terror attack 16 years ago, that the world might have changed in the interim? The reason I ask is SA remains a US ally and as far as I know has been on board with counterterrorism. As I said, Trump's executive order uses 9/11 as the reason for its policy. I'm not using 9/11. He is.And he has to. Because it's the only real attack that would even come close to justifying such a policy. ISIS, on the other hand, which isn't mentioned in the executive order, has never been demonstrated as an actual threat to national security. In fact, to think ISIS is a threat to national security is kind of a joke. Yes. SA is an ally. And yet, it was Saudi nationals that inflicted the greatest terrorist attack on America. So why the fuck are we banning people from all these other countries? However you spin this, it will never make sense. Never. The true threat is beyond those executing these attacks, especially 9/11. It is the millions who see them and cheer, or feel as if those actions are justified. Do we have any idea how many sympathizers there are? No, and neither do you, and neither does Trump. But what we do know, and what everyone is trying to tell you, is those sympathizers are going to increase due to Trump's policies, and due to his rhetoric. And yet -- Trump's policies aren't actually going to do anything to prevent them from coming here! Its blanket selection of countries is nothing more than a confusing insult. Amazing! Trump's immigration ban succeeds in only one thing -- pissing people off... and making Canada look good. At least he's not a "coward", amirite? If you are going to get inspired to support those who kill the innocent, because of someone else's rhetoric, you were lost to begin with.
If someone declares you the enemy, you may start treating him like an enemy too.
|
On January 29 2017 10:19 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2017 10:15 oBlade wrote:
Leporello, have you considered that the sources of risk for future attacks might be different than the source of a terror attack 16 years ago, that the world might have changed in the interim? The reason I ask is SA remains a US ally and as far as I know has been on board with counterterrorism. Saudi Arabia was a US ally and on board with counter terrorism in 2001 too.
Is this supposed to be a BTFO, or can you see why it's prudent not to mess with regional allies?
On January 29 2017 10:19 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2017 10:15 oBlade wrote:
Leporello, have you considered that the sources of risk for future attacks might be different than the source of a terror attack 16 years ago, that the world might have changed in the interim? The reason I ask is SA remains a US ally and as far as I know has been on board with counterterrorism. Are you saying Trump's freeze on Muslim travel is an appropriate way to deal with terrorism?
Why are you calling it that? Your phrasing is suspect. I think, as we said in the campaign, any sovereign country on the planet can let whoever they want into their borders. Freezing whatever countries while Mattis (I think I read he would be the one handling it?) revamps the system sounds fine.
On January 29 2017 10:21 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2017 10:15 oBlade wrote:
Leporello, have you considered that the sources of risk for future attacks might be different than the source of a terror attack 16 years ago, that the world might have changed in the interim? The reason I ask is SA remains a US ally and as far as I know has been on board with counterterrorism. As I said, Trump's executive order uses 9/11 as the reason for its policy. I'm not using 9/11. He is.And he has to. Because it's the only real attack that would even come close to justifying such a policy. ISIS, on the other hand, which isn't mentioned in the executive order, has never been demonstrated as an actual threat to national security. In fact, to think ISIS is a threat to national security is kind of a joke. Yes. SA is an ally. And yet, it was Saudi nationals that inflicted the greatest terrorist attack on America. So why the fuck are we banning people from all these other countries?
I submit you've missed the point. If SA was a source of risk in the 90s-2001 (which we know is true with hindsight), and the government failed to vet people and it ended in disaster, and we're in 2017 and we've identified these other places as countries of concern, you'd want to vet people before the next disaster.
So when you say "why not extend the order to include SA" my assumption is SA isn't a problem now but I'm open to you making the case for it.
The countries are countries the DHS has come up with as problem areas: http://dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program
|
In what way was it exactly the same?
US citizens who went on vacation back to Iraq couldn't get back to their lives?
Nope.
Completely different in intent, implementation, and outcome.
Also, this article quotes a tweet from a parody twitter account.
Source your stuff from somewhere decent if you want to be taken seriously.
|
I can't wait to see what happens when Trump doubles down on this policy. There is almost zero chance that he reverses course.
|
You genuinely see no difference between requesting asylum and travelling?
|
On January 29 2017 10:40 xDaunt wrote:
I can't wait to see what happens when Trump doubles down on this policy. There is almost zero chance that he reverses course.
You have no qualms with the fact that the policy currently bars long-standing permanent residents with families, careers, and homes in the country from re-entering? Regardless of what good these people may have contributed to the United States and would continue to do so?
|
Bannon is higher up than the Director of National Security, Jesus Christ....
|
On January 29 2017 10:43 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2017 10:40 xDaunt wrote:
I can't wait to see what happens when Trump doubles down on this policy. There is almost zero chance that he reverses course. You have no qualms with the fact that the policy currently bars long-standing permanent residents with families, careers, and homes in the country from re-entering? Regardless of what good these people may have contributed to the United States and would continue to do so?
I haven't made any statement on what I think about the policy. I just want to see what happens.
And for the record, I have been in the exact situation that those who have been adversely affected by this order have been in, so I do empathize.
|
On January 29 2017 10:33 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2017 10:25 biology]major wrote:
The true threat is beyond those executing these attacks, especially 9/11. It is the millions who see them and cheer, or feel as if those actions are justified. Do we have any idea how many sympathizers there are? If you are already in the US and sympathize with the extremism the first ammendment basically protects you, but we can prevent these people from entering in the first place.
lmao We don't know how many they are. They've never acted against us. But because they *think* a certain way, they're a danger to us! The first amendment protects Islamic terrorist sympathizers and alt-right neo-Nazis equally. It exists because thoughts are not a crime. Treating them as if they are leads us down a dangerous path. And going down that path is a worse threat to American democracy than any number of sympathizers you can come up with. Of all the possible justification for the Muslim ban, the idea that we have to prevent them from falling under the protection of the first amendment because thinking a certain way is dangerous is possibly the most idiotic one I've ever heard.
As I said, there is full protection from the first ammendment to think as you like. But the country has a duty to it's citizens to prevent nazis, Islamic extremists or sympathizers FROM ENTERING and thus gaining that constitutional protection.
|
On January 29 2017 10:47 biology]major wrote:
As I said, there is full protection from the first ammendment to think as you like. But the country has a duty to it's citizens from preventing nazis's, Islamic extremists or sympathizers FROM ENTERING and thus gaining that constitutional protection.
"fuck you, got mine", except with worse grammar and even MORE racism
|
On January 29 2017 10:40 xDaunt wrote:
I can't wait to see what happens when Trump doubles down on this policy. There is almost zero chance that he reverses course.
Don't know if you've seen the protests but he's going to piss a lot of businesses off if he does.
|
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-sets-5-year-lifetime-lobbying-ban-officials-n713631
And the good.
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump acted Saturday to fulfill a key portion of his pledge to "drain the swamp" in Washington, banning administration officials from ever lobbying the U.S. on behalf of a foreign government and imposing a separate five-year ban on other lobbying.
Administration officials described the bans as historic in scope. But it was not immediately clear how either one would be enforced.
Trump has said individuals who want to aid him in his quest to "Make America Great Again" should focus on the jobs they will be doing to help the American people, and not thinking about the future income they could rake in by peddling their influence after serving in government.
|
On January 29 2017 10:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2017 10:40 xDaunt wrote:
I can't wait to see what happens when Trump doubles down on this policy. There is almost zero chance that he reverses course. Don't know if you've seen the protests but he's going to piss a lot of businesses off if he does.
Yep, I have seen the protests, which is why I'm curious as to how Trump will react.
|
On January 29 2017 10:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2017 10:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2017 10:40 xDaunt wrote:
I can't wait to see what happens when Trump doubles down on this policy. There is almost zero chance that he reverses course. Don't know if you've seen the protests but he's going to piss a lot of businesses off if he does. Yep, I have seen the protests, which is why I'm curious as to how Trump will react.
The airlines probably wont sway him, but all those passengers doing business in the middle east are going to get fed up real quick if he doesn't make the protests stop. If he stops them by cracking down they'll just get bigger. He's gotta back off this and at minimum make it make sense.
|
On January 29 2017 10:40 Jockmcplop wrote:In what way was it exactly the same? US citizens who went on vacation back to Iraq couldn't get back to their lives? Nope. Completely different in intent, implementation, and outcome. Also, this article quotes a tweet from a parody twitter account. Source your stuff from somewhere decent if you want to be taken seriously.
US code 1182 - Inadmissable Aliens
Exactly the same law used by both Obama and Trump.
|
Step 1 completed of what is sure to be a marathon.
|
On January 29 2017 10:58 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2017 10:40 Jockmcplop wrote:In what way was it exactly the same? US citizens who went on vacation back to Iraq couldn't get back to their lives? Nope. Completely different in intent, implementation, and outcome. Also, this article quotes a tweet from a parody twitter account. Source your stuff from somewhere decent if you want to be taken seriously. US code 1182 - Inadmissable Aliens Exactly the same law used by both Obama and Trump.
Yes but used in a completely different way.
Are you really so intentionally blind that you are going to stick to your guns and say that this is exactly the same?
Everyone, and I mean everyone, else can see that its different.
*sigh*
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
