I think you underestimate how many people find this more palatable than importing voters.Quote:
The day Trump announced he was running, he said "I'm gonna build a Wall, and Mexico is going to pay for it."
Printable View
I think you underestimate how many people find this more palatable than importing voters.Quote:
The day Trump announced he was running, he said "I'm gonna build a Wall, and Mexico is going to pay for it."
I just don't see how you can look at what he's doing and think any of it is in good faith. Selling nuclear technology to SA is making america great? Denying intelligence reports and siding with SA on Kashoggi killings is making america great? Is calling the press the enemy of the people making america great? What about saying Mexico is "sending murders and rapists"? Saying you don't believe crime statistics because you "just have to look at them(mexicans)" to know they're bad hombres. What part of that is anything but playing to the primal fears of his voter base to get him re-elected? That is the only thing he cares about.
Talking about right wingers perpetrating conspiracy theories. What the fuck are you talking about? North Carolina is in another massive voter fraud scandal - member when I tried to explain Wuf this a year ago - now it's all new and all different voter fraud in NC! But somehow the only real voter fraud is Trumps tweed that California imported 3 million illegal votes. That is the only real news. All other news is fake news.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I would expect a question on an immigration application form to ask about religion, with the caveat that you don't have to answer, or an option saying "prefer not to say".Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I would not allow anyone in, whatever their religion, including atheism, if there was any reason to believe there was a conflict with British values. Equality of women is certainly something I would consider a British value.
Didn't Obama set a record for deporting people? How does that fit into the conspiracy then?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
And what are you going to do with the answers?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
So by your logic, anyone who says 'muslim' to the above question is automatically disqualified.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Well done for finding something that outrages me too. I'll say this... there's a very good chance that it's out of Trump's hands, in the sense he's not the person who controls American foreign policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Maybe he did, idk... what was the net immigration taking into account deportations? How does this compare with Republican presidents?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Can we also kick people out who don't support British values? Even if they're native?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Then what the fuck is he doing being president???Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You think during the Cuban missile crisis Kennedy just sat around waiting for someone else to make decisions for him?
That would be a policy I could support.Quote:
So by your logic, anyone who says 'muslim' to the above question is automatically disqualified.
Well it depends. Are you referring to all immigrants or just the poor brown ones who are the most likely to vote D?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
No. We tend to put them in jail, or if they haven't actually committed a crime, they tend to be social outcasts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Trump build less wall than Obama - 0 vs 150+ miles. I wonder why he ever bothered to try to build anything - he didn't need to. Yesterday he tweeted out a video of fence replacement that was taken a year ago, showing the replacement of existing fencing that was planned and budgeted under Obama. That is all it took. Trumples are eating it up like a baby koala is eating up their mothers pap.
You're stuck in 2000 with your fear of muslims, Ong. A tiny tiny fraction of mass shootings and terror attacks in the past decade in america were carried out by muslims. White americans have committed way more and more lethal terror attacks than muslim immigrants. I hate being an apologist for muslims, but that fear is not based in facts.
Pretending t be that guy. First day in office, he gets pulled to one side and is told who really runs the show. If he doesn't play ball, Kennedy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'm not afraid of Muslims. This isn't about terrorism. I despise their oppression of women, and their unwillingness to integrate into the societies they migrate to.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
If one just looks at Mexico, here's the numbers:
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/prog...tion-over-time
1970 was when the number of immigrants living in the US started going up dramatically, until they peaked around 2010 and then started falling again.
There was an R president for 26 of those 40 years.
Putin?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
fypQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You're unwilling to integrate into society...Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Mexico is a non-Islamic country and is right next to America.
The Russia hysteria is more media nonsense. Ignore it, I do.
I'm integrated. I work one day a week at Oxfam as a volunteer.Quote:
You're unwilling to integrate into society...
But even so, I was born here, so were my parents, and I don't have another passport. British state has no choice but to consider me British.
I thought your argument was that the Ds are conspiring to import voters. That seems like the easiest place to bring them in from. A lot are willing, it's close, there's no Wall to get over, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Oh yeah I was distracted by talk of Islam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Mexican immigration will be subject to various factors. Also, are Mexican immigrants easy to victimise and politically manipulate?
yeah all those indictments related to collusion with Russia? Witch hunt.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I work five days a week, like most people. So I'm five times as integrated as you. But if I thought my wife should wear a veil you'd want to boot me out.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Well, hypothetically they could still decide to kick you out.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
One would certainly have to believe so to think they're being imported on purpose since they make up the biggest single group of immigrants to the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
But I guess we've seen there's no evidence that more are allowed in by D presidents than by R ones. So forget it.
Well lucky for you, you grew up in a country that has values very similar to ours, which means you don't have to work as hard to convince us that you personally have acceptable values.Quote:
I work five days a week, like most people. So I'm five times as integrated as you. But if I thought my wife should wear a veil you'd want to boot me out.
But yeah, make your wife cover up her face in public and I might jump on the "deport poop" bandwagon. Your wife can stay though if she wants.
I doubt that very much.Quote:
Well, hypothetically they could still decide to kick you out.
Show me evidence that Mexican voters tend to vote for whoever was in power when they came in, and I'll listen to this argument.Quote:
But I guess we've seen there's no evidence that more are allowed in by D presidents than by R ones. So forget it.
Not just cover her face... if you refuse to let her drive, or go to college, if you beat her because your dinner isn't acceptable, then yeah, kindly fuck off back to where you came from.
Why do you keep pivoting? You clearly called muslims a security threat. When I tell you they're clearly not they become a "cultural" threat - whatever that means, and you start making shit up. What percentage of american muslims think that women shouldn't drive? Shouldn't go to collage? Where do you get the domestic violence stats from? Is this based in reality, or is it just your feelings?
You assumed terrorism from the "security threat". Actually I think the bigger problem is a future civil war, when it's clear that integration is not forthcoming and there is a serious risk that an Islamic political party can gain power. That's a distant threat, but one that I consider to be real.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I don't think I've ever seen an Islamic woman driving.Quote:
What percentage of muslims think that women shouldn't drive?
I was citing this more in the context of British values, rather than charging Muslims with this accusation. I don't know if domestic violence is higher amongst the Islamic population than non-Islamic, but I would expect it to be, since their men tend to consider women as subordinate, a result of their religious indoctrination.Quote:
Where do you get the domestic violence stats from?
So you make these claim based on your personal believes, and you think political action should be taken based on your feelings. If this sounds harsh, please correct me.
The claim that you haven't seen muslim women drive is curious. What percentage of british muslim women even wear hijabs?
You're strawmanning me here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I did not say that you should consider what T_D has to say as credible, I said that you should not dismiss things because T_D supports them.
I'm not even saying it's crazy to be a little more skeptical of things that fringe nutsos peddle, but it's a dangerous habit because it forces you into a reactionary mode in which you reject the truth should a nutso happen to espouse it. When you do this, you're allowing fringe nutso's to control your world view. That can't be a good look.
Well this one shouldn't be allowed to drive, she's on the fuckign phone!
https://www.videoblocks.com/video/mo...5ma5zzj3bebf4c
I'd still bang her though.
And I think you should until someone credible confirms the story.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
I wouldn't listen to some radical SJW lefty website either, if that helps.
This would only make sense if I automatically believed the exact opposite of whatever a nutso was saying. I don't. I withold jugdment until there's more evidence, and at least some of it is credible, and even then I'm never 100% convinced.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
My point is that when you swing in the direction of giving more credence to accusers it's not without costs. I am not even saying that we've over corrected. The status quo did seem to be intolerable, and I'm not sure where the balance point is. When being a "survivor" is accompanied by social credits, you will incentivize people to both fabricate assaults and stretch the definition of assault.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The paradox is that the more you incentivize false victimhood, the more fake victims you get, the more skeptical people will be of all victims.
It was in my newsfeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I agree there's scope for unscrupulous people to abuse others' trust, and that there's always going to be a balancing act between accepting some number of false positives and wrongly rejecting some number of true positives.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
The correct approach to evaluating any claim should be evidence based. Using sexual assault as an example, I think a bigger problem is that when the evidence is not sufficient to convict an alleged perpetrator, the assumption is often that the victim must have been lying. And, because it's so hard to get convictions on SA cases (it's usually a he-said she-said type of thing), it discourages victims from coming forward.
Using Blasey-Ford as an example, she gave by all professional accounts a much more credible testimony than Kavanaugh did, but not a court in the world would have ever convicted him of sexual assault on the basis of her 30 year old memories (nor should they imo). Even the senate couldn't find sufficient reason to bounce him although i suspect privately most of them probably believed her story over his. This leads to the problem I mentioned in that now she is open to being called a liar and a shill for the Ds, and had to go through not only the embarrassment of the hearing itself, but had to change her job and move address because of the notoriety she gained through something she really should be getting a courage badge for.
The whole metoo thing is a net positive for society because it removes some of the stigma from the real survivors, although I agree it does have the negative side effect of encouraging shitty types of people to just make things up to get some kind of revenge or fame or whatever.
Fair enough. I don't read T_D and I was seeing stories about the alleged assault, and then the possibility it was faked, and then today his arrest over the past few weeks from the AP. Maybe you just weren't seeing these stories in credible outlets, but they were there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Based on my observations, very high. The burka is not so common, but I wouldn't call it rare.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
The oppression of women is not a feeling. And if I were actually in charge of policy, I'd be citing just facts, not feelings.Quote:
So you make these claim based on your personal believes, and you think political action should be taken based on your feelings. If this sounds harsh, please correct me.
Define 'observation'. If by this, you mean 'whenever I spot a hijab I know it's a muslim', that's not really scientific. How do you identify a muslim who's not wearing a hijab?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Maybe it's different for me being in a university setting, but most students I would suspect are muslim based on their names aren't wearing hijabs, in fact it's rare. And I don't think I've ever had a muslim student going full ninja (burka), although I did have one wearing the semi-ninja (everything covered but the face).
What site? Can you find it? What credible news source reported on this as anything other than "actor claims." Every single pro-trump outlet is presenting this as if it was a major story. Maybe you can show me otherwise. I really don't think it was a major story at all up until claims surfaced that he faked it.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/...d_the_tens_of/
According to T_D, Kamala Harris orchestrated this and is currently killing off the people who know, and the police is destroying evidence of this left-wing hoax. I'm not gonna fact check that, boost. If it turns out they're right on that too, then, I'm just gonna... buy a balloon and see where the winds take me. I honestly still can't believe the part that actually what happened. Who the fuck stages an attack with no witnesses? Who hires the blackest nigerians to impersonate Trump supporters? How fucking retarded are you? To get more money? Why would that get him more money! What the fuck is going on!
I'm going to say yes, it's because you're in a university setting. Any female Muslim at a university with white male British folk is part of a tolerant family seeking to truly integrate. I wish I could say that was a reflection of Islamic immigration in general. But it's not.Quote:
Maybe it's different for me being in a university setting, but most students I would suspect are muslim based on their names aren't wearing hijabs, in fact it's rare.
Try going to the suburbs of Birmingham. Whenever I have to get the bus through certain parts, it is clear that many Islamic immigrants have no intention of integrating. ALL of the women you can see are wearing at least a hijab, and we are talking about a district where there are very few, if any, white people living. The schools in these regions are Islamic schools, then banks are Islamic, the shops are Islamic. This would be fine if it were unique. There's regions of Spain where it's full of English people, who speak exclusively English and eat fish and chips. The Spanish don't really like these guys, can't say I blame them. Fortunately for Spain, it's not widespread. If it were, then the English would be more disliked. And we're not even batshit religious nutjobs, we share a lot in common with the Spanish, even if we speak different languages.
Sounds scary. What tangible problems does this cause?
That's what I was wondering.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Are you getting raped on the bus Ong?
Damn though, come to think of it I know what you mean. There's a place in London called Southall that is basically 99% Indians. They have indian shops, indian clothes, I mean it's like they want to keep their culture or something. Then there's another place called Edgware that is full of Arabs. They wear arab clothes, smoke the hookah, have arab restaurants. There's also Jamacian neighbourhoods, Polish neighbourhoods, Bengali, etc., but I'm too scared to go there. Mostly I just go and sit in a park in Wimbledon hoping I don't have to mix with other races.
The old "Islam is a race" card. Nice work.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
Islam is not a race, it is not a country. It is a religion that is incompatible with the Western way of life.
I would not say the same about Indians (non-Islamic), Jamaicans, Polish or any other source of mass immigration.
Here's a thought experiment for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Consider a nation that has 1% Islamic population.
Ten years later it's 5%.
Another ten years later it's 10%.
Do you anticipate future problems? Be honest now.
Here's another thought experiment.
Imagine two million Satanists want to come to [your country].
Are you a racist if you say "fuck that shit"?
Agreed. What a fucking idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFVY5gmWPpwQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Don't tell that to DJT, as apparently there are a whole ton of muslims going into the USA via the Mexican Border, necessitating Jon Snow and the Watch. Oh, and a Wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You're strawmanning me again...Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
A lot of what is said on T_D is wrong, but just because it's on T_D doesn't make it wrong.
This was covered nationally, but obviously it's a bigger deal now that it's shown to be a hoax. Just google Smollet and put a time range Jan 29-Feb 5 to see articles from the first week. I'm not sure how to figure out how prominent these articles were, but the supposed attack was certainly national news.
LOL he paid them off with a check
A. Check.
LOLOLOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rnPopf8_wg
There were 1m Muslims in the UK in 1991, making up 1.8% of the populationQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
There were 3m in 2011, making up 5%.
If this continues, they'll get to 10% by ~2040.
So what problems do you anticipate in 2040?
Poop assumes non-Muslims are having babies at the same rate as Muslims.
spoiler - they're not.
Best case scenario for me is that science wins. All these Muslim babies coming into the world will abandon Islam because it's fucking dumb to believe in it when we've proven the universe is infinite in time, both before and after the present. Not really much room for Allah there. Or the Christian God, for that matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
So nothing to worry about then.
So you haven't really answered my question. Assuming they go Malthusian and are 10% of the population by 2030, what problems do you anticipate?
Sharia law by 2050.
Or a civil war before that happens.
Can I ask you a serious question?
Do you think Islam is an oppressive religion? I'm genuinely curious why you don't have a problem with the Islamic population increasing at a higher rate than non-Islamic.
Is it fear of being called a racist? Is that worse than the Islamification of the country you live in?
Hard-core islam is a problem, sure. But, I don't believe that freaking out over a current 5% Muslim population, only about 40% of which support 'aspects' of Sharia Law, is warranted.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2...-of-sharia-law
You can't just add up the number of people who identify as muslim, see that it's growing over time, then project a Malthusian takeover of the population in 30 years and start panicking about Sharia Law as in the moment we become > 50% Muslim they'll enact it. I mean, you can, but it's not rational.
First, you don't know that population trends will continue, or that as you seem to suggest, reflect proportion of Muslims changing at an exponential rate (and if so, that they will continue to do so). Second, even if the population eventually became 100% Muslim (which might take 250 years, but w/e), they'd still only have ~40% support for Sharia Law (assuming things stay the same).
So the Sharia Law freakout argument is obviously bogus. You clearly have some other reason for not wanting them here. Maybe because you're not comfortable around them for whatever reason. But don't try to argue stuff is going to happen that isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
To elaborate on this, Sharia Law comes in various forms with various interpretations, and is only meant to apply to Muslims. It's not about forcing people to join the religion, or live under it's laws. Rather, it requires its followers to obey the laws of the land.
Quote:
Sharia addresses both personal and communal aspects of life. For the most part, Sharia is concerned with personal religious observances such as prayer and fasting.
Sharia can be divided into two broad areas:
Guidance in religious worship (ibadat), which is the central focus of Islam.
Guidance in worldly matters (mu’amalat) such as visiting the sick, taking care of our parents, marriage, inheritance, investments and business affairs, etc.
It can be further divided into three more specific areas, some of which apply to American Muslims and some of which do not:
Religious worship and ritual: American Muslims practice their acts of worship (prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, etc.) or rituals in the same manner as people of other faiths.
Private social interactions (marriage, business, etc.): All religions have rules for marriage and ethical economics. These are private and voluntary, so American Muslims follow Islamic standards for these within the limits of American secular law. For example, civil law prohibits having more than one wife, so American Muslims must abide by this law (since Sharia recommends monogamy, this isn’t a problem). There are other aspects of marriage laws such as the mahr (gift from the husband to the wife) or the religious marriage contract which Muslims do observe. Since the Constitution allows such practices for all religions, it is also acceptable to practice this aspect of Sharia in America.
Public law issues (criminal law, war and peace, etc.): These have no application in the U.S. Islamic scholars formulated rules in this area for Muslim-majority societies in other historical situations. But Sharia requires Muslims to obey “the law of the land” of the country they live in. The “law of the land” in the U.S. is the Constitution. Sharia requires American Muslims to support and follow the Constitution in all matters related to public law. Most aspects of Sharia are not meant to be government-enforced, because Sharia is largely a matter of conscience.
With all due respect, what utter bollocks.Quote:
First, you don't know that population trends will continue, or that as you seem to suggest, reflect proportion of Muslims changing at an exponential rate (and if so, that they will continue to do so). Second, even if the population eventually became 100% Muslim (which might take 250 years, but w/e), they'd still only have ~40% support for Sharia Law (assuming things stay the same).
Islamic families have like twice as many children as non-Islamic. Yes I pulled that number out of my arse, but it's probably about right. That isn't going to change, white families don't tend to have the desire to have six children. So their population will continue to grow.
Also, if Sharia law doesn't happen even if we hit 100%, then how do you explain Sharia Law in Islamic countries? I can only assume the Islamic population is approximately 250% of the overall population.
If by "obviously", you mean "in my naive opinion", then you're bang on here.Quote:
So the Sharia Law freakout argument is obviously bogus.
Incorrect assumption. I haven't got a problem with Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs.Quote:
You clearly have some other reason for not wanting them here.
There's an Islamic girl, hijab included, who sells the Big Issue outside Oxfam. I make her tea and make conversation with her. She's nice. So that shows what you know.Quote:
Maybe because you're not comfortable around them for whatever reason.
You hope. I hope I'm wrong too.Quote:
But don't try to argue stuff is going to happen that isn't.
So you think you can go to Pakistan with your wife and behave like British people? Watch out for stones if your wife is showing her bare ankles.Quote:
To elaborate on this, Sharia Law comes in various forms with various interpretations, and is only meant to apply to Muslims. It's not about forcing people to join the religion, or live under it's laws. Rather, it requires its followers to obey the laws of the land.
fwiw, I would be in favour of a policy that allows Islamic women fleeing oppression to settle here. It's the men who can fuck off. Unless, that is, they are willing to abandon their religion.
I guess that makes me sexist, not racist (even if I accept hating on a religion is "racism", which it isn't).
Disclaimer - except bitches who join ISIS then want to return to the UK when they realise ISIS doesn't have child benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I don't want to get into hypotheticals. My overarching point is that policy decisions that affect a whole demographic of people should be made based on facts and not fantasies.
You say: muslims have twice the fertility rate (they don't) which can be projected and will definitely remain unchanging for the next 30 years (based on what model?) and that these muslims will then overthrow the government and change the law (fantasy). People had the same fear in the 90's. Actual population growth of muslims in europe between 1990 and 2010: from 4% to HOLD ON TO YOUR HORSES 6% - projected to reach 10% by 2050.
This is how TYT - is there anything left of TYT? Anyway, this is how TYT covered it:Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
https://youtu.be/pSwainMCdZ8?t=73
Based on the comments it looks like this is currently being viewed exclusively by Trump supporters using this as a gotcha, when it's comical how often they say that none of the facts are in.
Overthrow? Is that what happens when Labour replaces the Tories? I'm concerned that an Islamic party of the future will get voted in, I'm not concerned about a coup d'état.Quote:
and that these muslims will then overthrow the government and change the law (fantasy).
Immigration affects an entire demographic... the citizens. That's a fact. Why doesn't this demographic matter? Why is a smaller foreign demographic more important than the large demographic of people who already live in a nation? Immigration affects schools, hospitals, every aspect of life. That's fine if the immigrants are paying tax. Now the sweet girl outside Oxfam, she's not paying tax, otherwise she wouldn't be selling the Big Issue (a magazine that used to be sold by homeless people but is now sold by immigrants). She's also heavily pregnant. I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's highly likely that the taxpayer will be paying for that child's birth, education, vaccines, food, accommodation etc. That impacts on every single working person in this country. Imagine if I went to live elsewhere and absorbed social services without paying my way.Quote:
My overarching point is that policy decisions that affect a whole demographic of people should be made based on facts and not fantasies.
Global increase in Muslim population is 1.9% per year, compared to 1.1% for non-Muslims, according to a crude google search. So you're splitting hairs.Quote:
You say: muslims have twice the fertility rate (they don't)
Can you give me an explanation to why you think it won't continue at a similar rate in the near future?Quote:
...which can be projected and will definitely remain unchanging for the next 30 years (based on what model?
I found this statistic while googling, but I also found conflicting articles that suggest it'll be 10% by 2030. I guess you accept whichever article you prefer.Quote:
Actual population growth of muslims in europe between 1990 and 2010: from 4% to HOLD ON TO YOUR HORSES 6% - projected to reach 10% by 2050.
Here's what wikipedia says...
Let's assume this is factual. It will basically have doubled in 40 years, and I refer you to the fertility rate of Islamic women. I anticipate continued growth relative to non-Muslims.Quote:
According to the Pew Research Center, the Muslim population in Europe (excluding Turkey) was about 30 million in 1990, 44 million in 2010 and is expected to increase to 58 million by 2030;
Wikipedia also says this...
I don't know how anyone can determine this. Why would it decline? Especially in a country with generous child benefits. So long as Islamic immigration continues, Islamic population will continue to increase relative to non-Islam.Quote:
While the birth rate for Muslims in Europe is expected to decline over the next two decades...
If we were talking about Satanists instead of Muslims, this wouldn't even be a discussion. It's almost as though we're being forced to accept an oppressive religion that does not comply with our values. Imagine if we were forced to accept Satanism on the basis of equality.
I mean, so long as people aren't sacrificing goats, people can be Satanist, right? Who are we to say they can't be?
Of course, Satanists don't make up a quarter of the global population. If they did, well then we'd have to respect it, right?