**** Elections thread *****

[OngBonga]

Fucking Pierre? I actually spent a few minutes thinking "do I know the capital of South Dakota", and gave up. Never fucking heard of Pierre. Bet it was named by a stupid French person.

[Poopadoop]

Or you could go around asking people which state Kansas City is in, then when they say "Kansas", call them stupid.

Not anymore - i'd call them ignorant now thanks to you, stupid.

[Poopadoop]

Fucking Pierre? I actually spent a few minutes thinking "do I know the capital of South Dakota", and gave up. Never fucking heard of Pierre. Bet it was named by a stupid French person.

I drove all the way through S. Dakota once and still I didn't know it. God do I feel ignorant now.

[boost]

Wuf, it's become blatantly obvious at this point. You've been wandering around the political landscape for some time now, trying to find a home, a champion. And when you finally found your spot-- boom, Cruz, and by extension you get soul crushed. You were in disarray, and in comes Scott Adams. Now, he has you convinced of a bunch of conspiratorial claims (albeit interesting and fun to think about ones) that revolve around the central claim of Trump being a master hypnotist.

The only question I have concerning your conversion is whether you've actually bought into Trump, or if you simply believe Scott Adams' claims about his powers as a hypnotist and aspire to develop similar powers yourself. The later seems more likely, as you are clearly trying to utilize the tool kit Adams' ascribes to Trump (as well as himself) and you have the self awareness to do so-- a self awareness that I have a hunch is not common in true Trump supporters. But I think it'd be far more interesting, and sad, if you took it all, hook line and sinker; if you believed Trump was a master manipulator due to his godly control of this hypnosis skillset, but also that you, yourself, are among the few who are the true followers of Trump who are aware of his tactics and can decipher his true intent.

I guess I sort of see you as a Miscavige type-- in the end it probably doesn't really matter if he believes in thetans or not(either way, it's super creepy what he's doing), but fucccck, that doesn't stop my curiosity from being cranked to 11.

[CoccoBill]

https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/...the-muslim-ban

[Jack Sawyer]

Are you saying that a policy to target terrorism, would target ALL muslim countries? Are you equating Terrorism and Islam?

I guess he's saying that IF it was about anything about terrorism, then Saudi Arabia and Qatar should have been on that list, seeing how they aid ISIS and most of the 911 guys were from exactly there.


Truth on meter on the ban for “terrorism reasons”:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...t-911-countri/

[BananaStand]

I guess he's saying that IF it was about anything about terrorism, then Saudi Arabia and Qatar should have been on that list, seeing how they aid ISIS and most of the 911 guys were from exactly there.

I hear ALOT of this logic lately, and no offense, I can't believe people subscribe to it. This policy has nothing to do with 9/11. It's not about revenge or corrective measures in response to some by-gone terrorist attack on US soil.

It's about vetting. It's about America being SURE that the people coming in are who they say there, and are here for the reasons they say they are. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, and the other 40 or 50+ majority muslim countries aren't on the list because they have centralized governments that allied and/or friendly with the United States.

We can just call them up and say "Hey, I got Achmed here, what's his story?". Same thing we do with a refugee/immigrant from any other country.

Iran won't take our phone calls, so we need to come up with something better. And while we do, we're closing the book for a few months.

It was the Obama administration that named these countries. They made the list. In fact, ALOT of people not named Trump had a say as to who goes on the list, and why.

There are a lot of columns, blogs, and pundits making the rounds today saying "but the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia". That's the laziest logic I've heard in a long time. In case anyone wasn't paying attention, those guys are dead. They've been dead for going on two decades now. They are no longer a threat.

We're not trying to get justice for 9/11. We're trying to prevent another 9/11 from happening tomorrow. And our elected officials, straddling two administrations now, have looked at all of the available intelligence and decided that if someone was planning another 9/11, it would probably come from one of these 7 hot spots.

If you want to criticize Trump for this, you could say it was poorly implemented. They probably should have foreseen the problems we're having at airports today. But they didn't, and some people got inconvenienced. I'm sure it wasn't pleasant, but it's not like anyone got shipped to gitmo and waterboarded.

The biggest number I heard was 300 people were affected. Most other figures are in the 150-200 range. That's really small when you consider that 350,000 people enter the US through airports every day. I heard yesterday, that there are 7 people still held at JFK, and there are 100 lawyers there to help pro-bono. So, those people are FINE.

Trump gets a B+ for this one. Right policy, right goal, complicated implementation. The "outrage" over it is manufactured. It's coming from people who despise Trump and will find any angle they can to express it. They see inconvenience and are selling it as injustice.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Less than 100 people (presumably Americans) killed in jihadist attacks in the past 15 years?

What's the problem, here?

Seems like cowardice is driving this issue.

[Jack Sawyer]

Mosque shooting in Quebec.

[OngBonga]

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, and the other 40 or 50+ majority muslim countries aren't on the list because they have centralized governments that allied and/or friendly with the United States.

Why are we allied to Saudi Arabia while we enforce our morality on the likes of Assad? Does anyone seriously think that Syria is a more oppressive and dangerous nation than Saudi Arabia?

I'm not even thinking about 9/11 here. People talk about how oppressive Islam is when it comes to women. Well, Saudi Arabia is the worst performer in this regard. And then there's freedom of religion, which is not something the Saudis have. Hell, they even get oppressed if they're the wrong type of Muslim. They're about as democratic as wolves. They're aggressive when it comes to regional politics.

And of course it's extremely dangerous to disregard 9/11, considering we were allied to the Saudis at the time, yet their nationals still attacked. What's changed since 9/11 to give us confidence that Saudi nationals are no longer a threat? Is history irrelevant after 15 years?

Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is one huge reason why our global political agenda is so fucked up. What are we afraid of?

[BananaStand]

They're about as democratic as wolves.

Completely agree. It's my opinion that 99% of the anti-west anger in the Middle East comes from the religious and political rhetoric coming out of Saudi Arabia. There's a reason they strictly outlaw videotaping of any kind. They don't want anyone to know what goes on there. If we're ever going to get serious about Terrorism, then Saudi Arabia needs to be public enemy number 1.

But this policy isn't necessarily about terrorism. It's about vetting.

What's changed since 9/11 to give us confidence that Saudi nationals are no longer a threat? Is history irrelevant after 15 years?

Remember that conversation we had a few pages back about 8,000 suspected or known terrorists were thwarted from entering the United States? That's what's changed. Before 9/11, that list probably had a dozen names on it. We're more vigilant now, and we have more technology. We've also spent the last 15 years occupying the Middle East, gathering intelligence that tells us who to watch out for.

Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is one huge reason why our global political agenda is so fucked up. What are we afraid of?

They might close the gas station

[OngBonga]

Remember that conversation we had a few pages back about 8,000 suspected or known terrorists were thwarted from entering the United States? That's what's changed.

So there are no Saudis on the list?

They might close the gas station

So you're aware of the real reason why we won't take action against Saudi Arabia. Fuck all to do with terrorism, or national security, and everything to do with economics.

Which, incidentally, is why we're occupying the Middle East.

[BananaStand]

So there are no Saudis on the list?

I don't get the question. There are probably lots of Saudis on the list.

If there are names on a list, then we don't need to make blanket restrictions for an entire country. We can just look at the list.

[BananaStand]

So you're aware of the real reason why we won't take action against Saudi Arabia. Fuck all to do with terrorism, or national security, and everything to do with economics.

Which, incidentally, is why we're occupying the Middle East.

Slow down there Michael Moore. It can be two things. We definitely have anti-terrorism motives. We're definitely concerned with national security. But you are correct in regards to the reason we don't just wipe out terrorism Hiroshima-style is because we have to tiptoe around our economic interests.

World's a complicated place.

[OngBonga]

Hey, I'm not a fat sweaty Clinton lover.

If there are names on a list, then we don't need to make blanket restrictions for an entire country. We can just look at the list.

So tell me, what's the point of this immigrant ban if we can just look at the list and say "nah, you're on it, fuck off"?

[BananaStand]

Less than 100 people (presumably Americans) killed in jihadist attacks in the past 15 years?

What's the problem, here?

Seems like cowardice is driving this issue.

Cowardice? I don't know about that. You'd have to also say then, that bravery means setting some acceptable, non-zero, number of terrorist casualties.

What you're saying here, I believe, illustrates the difference between the left and the right when it comes to how we perceive terrorism.

The Bush administration saw terrorism as an existential threat to national security. The Obama administration did not.

The left does not put jihadi militants in the same category as say, the Russians staging missiles in Cuba or a nuclear armed N. Korea. People on the right believe that terrorism should be perceived as the same level of threat, and mitigation efforts should be of the same priority.

The right believes that we can aggressively enforce the border and prevent a synagogue bombing. The left believes that preventing that hypothetical attack is not worth the goodwill we lose world wide. Both sides have a point.

[OngBonga]

This idea that the right believes this and the left believes that is bollocks, utter bollocks.

Two left leaning people, or indeed right leaning people, can differ in opinion when it comes to this matter.

Stop trying to put everyone in boxes.

[BananaStand]

So tell me, what's the point of this immigrant ban if we can just look at the list and say "nah, you're on it, fuck off"?

First of all, it's not a ban, if it's not permanent.

Second, have I not already answered your question?

We can make lists of people from countries with centralized governments that are friendly and willing to help us vet people.

When we ask Iran for a list, they tell us to fuck off. So we have to make our own list. And that's going to take 3 months. Until then, everyone from Iran can fuck off.

[OngBonga]

When we ask Iran for a list, they tell us to fuck off. So we have to make our own list. And that's going to take 3 months. Until then, everyone from Iran can fuck off.

I'm glad you mention Iran, because that's a country which we often cite as an example of everything that is wrong with Islam. They are accused of oppressing non-Shia citizens, of oppressing their women, of having a regional expansionist agenda... everything that we accuse Iran of, Saudi Arabi are worse. Only, Saudi Arabi is a monarchy. Iran is an Islamic Republic. Granted, Iran have a way to go before they're anywhere near our standards when it comes to democracy and freedom, but they're way ahead of the Saudis, which is exactly why the Saudis fear the Iranians so much. The last thing Saudi Arabia want is for Iran to be successful, because that makes Saudi Arabia vulnerable to an Islamic revolution too.

It's a matter of time. Iran are in the process of moving into the 21st century, although we don't like to admit it. Saudi Arabia are still stuck in Jesus days.

We pick our friends very badly.

[OngBonga]

First of all, it's not a ban, if it's not permanent.

This isn't necessarily true. The word "ban" does not immediately imply "permanent". Bans can be temporary. It is not a stretch to use the word "ban" to refer to Trump's executive order.

[BananaStand]

... everything that we accuse Iran of, Saudi Arabi are worse. ...

No argument here. But what's the difference really? Would you rather get ball cancer in your left nut, or your right one?

We pick our friends very badly.

We actually used to have very good relations with Iran. Then there was a revolution, and they held our people hostage for a year and a half. Can't really call it a bad decision to not be friends.

[OngBonga]

We actually used to have very good relations with Iran. Then there was a revolution, and they held our people hostage for a year and a half. Can't really call it a bad decision to not be friends.

Back when it was a dynasty, yes, we were friends. As soon as they had a revolution, overthrew the monarchy, and became an Islamic Republic, we didn't like them. Our deterioration in relationship with Iran coincided with the Saudi deterioration of relations with Iran. That is no coincidence.

No argument here. But what's the difference really? Would you rather get ball cancer in your left nut, or your right one?

So in your mind, Iran is as bad as Saudi Arabia? That's what you anology suggests.

Let me tell you how I see it... I'd rather have flu than have cancer in either nut.

[OngBonga]

Or, to put that another way, I'd rather be friends with a nation that is at least trying to be democratic, that is by Islamic standards fairly liberal, than be friends with a nation that is amongst the most oppressive towards women in the world, and that continues to be at the very centre of regional instability.

[Poopadoop]

We actually used to have very good relations with Iran. Then there was a revolution, and they held our people hostage for a year and a half. Can't really call it a bad decision to not be friends.

I see you've been reading the American history books. First, you only had a good relationship with the Shah because he was your puppet who let you exploit the country's resources, and you supported him in turn. Second, that 1979 Iranian revolution, as with the coup that replaced Mossadegh with the Shah in the 1953, was largely a result of the fact that the Shah was allowing you to exploit his country and the Iranians didn't like it. IOW, your ally the Shah only got in in the first place because the CIA put him there.

In your history books, the animosity Iranians feel towards you is due to their religious zeal. In reality, it's because of your history of economic exploitation and meddling in their internal affairs. When they finally got someone who would say 'fuck you, we don't need you here' to the West, the people saw it as a liberation. Religion has very little, if anything, to do with them hating you.

Third, the USA saw the 1979 Iranian revolution coming, and backed Khomeini, which turned out to be a bad decision. Ever since then, America has been trying its best to be enemies with Iran. Fact is, it's a much more moderate place than S.A., has never had a citizen commit a terrorist act, but nonetheless has made the ban list.

This all just goes to show two things: First, how ignorant the average American is about world history, and second, the hypocrisy of having a ban that is based on nothing more than who is or isn't your ally, while calling it 'protecting us from terror'.

[OngBonga]

It's also worth noting that while there's debate about the treatment of hostages, none of them died. That at least demonstrates that the Iranians were motivated by politics, not hatred.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Cowardice? I don't know about that. You'd have to also say then, that bravery means setting some acceptable, non-zero, number of terrorist casualties.

Nearly everything kills Americans faster than a rate of 7 per year (~100 in 15 years).
Lightning strikes kill us at a rate of ~50 per year. So you were 7 times more likely to have died by lightning strike over that 15 years than to a jihadist attack.

Auto accidents kill Americans at a rate of over 30,000 per year. Does that mean you're super brave to drive a car?
No, I don't think so.

What you're saying here, I believe, illustrates the difference between the left and the right when it comes to how we perceive terrorism.

Which side am I on this time?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Are you terrified of cars?

The money we spend to prevent this tiny percentage of deaths while we have a national infrastructure in desperate need of re-shoring is where I see disconnect.

It seems like investing in brand-spanking-new roads and bridges would save far more lives than anything related to anti-terrorism.

[OngBonga]

Shh, that sounds like logic to me, instead of hysterical rhetoric.

[BananaStand]

I see you've been reading the American history books....

I read the same book you did. I won't refute any part of that history lesson. All I said was that we used to be cool, and now we're not. How we got that way doesn't seem to have much relevance in regards to how we handle immigrants in Q1 of 2017.

Religion has very little, if anything, to do with them hating you.

Ok. Religion also has nothing to do with why we're closing off immigration for three months.

Fact is, it's a much more moderate place than S.A., has never had a citizen commit a terrorist act, but nonetheless has made the ban list.

If your point is that Saudi Arabians are some of the worst people going, you won't get much argument from me. But again, you're refusing to see the motivation behind the "ban list". It's not about who's citizens have done bad in the past. It's about our ability to vet people. And on that front S.A., Pakistan, Qatar, and UAE are cooperative, Iran, Yemen, Syria and Somalia are not.

This all just goes to show ...the hypocrisy of having a ban that is based on nothing more than who is or isn't your ally, while calling it 'protecting us from terror'.

So you're saying that the whole point of the "ban" (your word) was to antagonize certain countries for not being our allies? To shame them for not being our friends? The "ban" isn't based on just who's an ally and who isn't, it's about who can provide sufficient vetting information to satisfy our National Security concerns...and who can't. It's just common sense that you see a correlation between levels of cooperation, and status as an ally. Friends help each other.

[OngBonga]

If I say to you that you can't come into my house because I don't like you, then you're banned, even if I add the caveat "I might reconsider in future if I decide I like you".

Stop being nitpicky about the word ban. It's an entirely approriate word.

Also, in the context you used the word, it's "whose", not "who's". I figure that wasn't a typo, and you seem like a literate guy who, like me, would appreciate being corrected.

[OngBonga]

It's funny really because I certainly like Trump more than Clinton, and feel he has a very, very long way to go before I'll be saying "I wish Clinton won". And I also completely respect the right of a sovereign nation to say which foreigners can and cannot cross the border.

But I'm not seeing a particularly honest approach to this matter from the Trump administration.

[Poopadoop]

Ok. Religion also has nothing to do with why we're closing off immigration for three months.

Trump has been bellowing about defeating terror, a muslim ban and a muslim registry for so long now. How are people supposed to interpret it when he bans immigration from certain countries that are also muslim? Further, what is the purpose of banning Iranians when they've never been linked to a terror attack ever (or at least not since 1979). Meanwhile countries like S.A. that support ISIS (and by proxy terror) get a free pass. Makes no sense.

If your point is that Saudi Arabians are some of the worst people going, you won't get much argument from me. But again, you're refusing to see the motivation behind the "ban list". It's not about who's citizens have done bad in the past. It's about our ability to vet people. And on that front S.A., Pakistan, Qatar, and UAE are cooperative, Iran, Yemen, Syria and Somalia are not.

I seriously doubt all of those countries are keeping terror lists. It's not like your immigration guy is going to call up Pakistan and say 'this Ahmed guy is he a terrorist?' and the Pakistani official will be able to tell you.

So you're saying that the whole point of the "ban" (your word) was to antagonize certain countries for not being our allies? To shame them for not being our friends? The "ban" isn't based on just who's an ally and who isn't, it's about who can provide sufficient vetting information to satisfy our National Security concerns...and who can't. It's just common sense that you see a correlation between levels of cooperation, and status as an ally. Friends help each other.

I really don't understand its purpose. Or better yet I have some ideas about its purpose but they have little to do with a nearly non-existent terror threat. My beef is with it's complete opposition to what I'd like America to be, and the way it's being implemented in this rushed and haphazard way.

[Poopadoop]

We actually used to have very good relations with Iran. Then there was a revolution, and they held our people hostage for a year and a half. Can't really call it a bad decision to not be friends.

I read the same book you did.

Possibly, but in your earlier post you gave that book a totally different spin. You made it sound like they suddenly turned on you because of the Islamic revolution. Truth is they hated you long before that, and it wasn't because of religion.

So yeah, you can ban them if you want, it's your country. But let's not try to say it's about stopping terror.

[Poopadoop]

Actually though Ong you're right (and so smart). The word I should have used is 'ignorant'. Thanks for pointing that out to me with a lengthy set of examples.

btw, I'd like to retract this statement and replace it with 'Suck it, bitch'

stupid
adjective
1.
having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.
"I was stupid enough to think she was perfect"
synonyms: unintelligent, ignorant, dense, brainless, mindless, foolish, dull-witted, dull, slow-witted, witless, slow, dunce-like, simple-minded, empty-headed, vacuous, vapid, half-witted, idiotic, moronic, imbecilic, imbecile, obtuse, doltish;

[BananaStand]

Trump has been bellowing about defeating terror, a muslim ban and a muslim registry for so long now. How are people supposed to interpret it when he bans immigration from certain countries that are also muslim?

They're supposed to use their brains and look at the whole picture. There are 50-ish muslim-majority countries in the world. We only banned 7 of them. Obviously, we must be using criteria other than religion to narrow down the list.

Further, what is the purpose of banning Iranians when they've never been linked to a terror attack ever (or at least not since 1979). Meanwhile countries like S.A. that support ISIS (and by proxy terror) get a free pass. Makes no sense..

Your presumption is flawed. No one gets a free pass. If you come here from Iran, China, Germany, or Canada, border security is gonna wanna know who you are, and why you're here. Finding that out is easier with immigrants from some countries than it is with immigrants from others.

I seriously doubt all of those countries are keeping terror lists. It's not like your immigration guy is going to call up Pakistan and say 'this Ahmed guy is he a terrorist?' and the Pakistani official will be able to tell you.

So please don't take me literally when I simplify border security procedures for the purposes of making an argument in a forum. I'm sure we have more robust vetting procedures than to simply pick up the phone and say "who's this fuckin guy?"

I really don't understand its purpose. Or better yet I have some ideas about its purpose but they have little to do with a nearly non-existent terror threat. My beef is with it's complete opposition to what I'd like America to be, and the way it's being implemented in this rushed and haphazard way.

It's purpose is to buy time in order to develop better border security procedures. It's only temporary, so suggesting that it opposes your preferred identity for America is a little bit of an extreme view in my opinion. I will agree that Trump doesn't get good grades for implementation. The outrage over that oversight is bordering on comical though. Inconvenience is not injustice.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Inconvenience is not injustice.

I thought I read that it bans American citizens from returning home from those countries during this period.
Clear injustice to suspend "innocent until proven guilty" on American citizens.

I'm certain that colleges and universities are going ballistic over the fact that students and professors who are on legit visas are being denied access to return to their school / work.
I don't know if "injustice" is the right word, but it seems like we have accurately vetted plenty of people from those countries already, and denying them entry to the USA seems overboard.

[Poopadoop]

Your presumption is flawed. No one gets a free pass. If you come here from Iran, China, Germany, or Canada, border security is gonna wanna know who you are, and why you're here. Finding that out is easier with immigrants from some countries than it is with immigrants from others.

Well, duh. I wasn't implying they just say 'Saudi passport? Right this way sir.' I meant they say 'Iranian passport? Fuck off. Saudi passport? We'll consider you.' Big difference in what I meant and how you spun it as if I have no idea how immigration works.

Inconvenience is not injustice.

It's more than an inconvenience when families can't be united and people can't go to work because of this order. We're not talking just about people having to cancel a holiday ffs.

You can spin it any way you want, it's still a shit order that has no legitimate purpose. If America were being inundated with terrorists from these countries, it would make some sense. But it ain't so.

[MadMojoMonkey]

btw, I'd like to retract this statement and replace it with 'Suck it, bitch'

[BananaStand]

I thought I read that it bans American citizens from returning home from those countries during this period.
Clear injustice to suspend "innocent until proven guilty" on American citizens.

I'm certain that colleges and universities are going ballistic over the fact that students and professors who are on legit visas are being denied access to return to their school / work.
I don't know if "injustice" is the right word, but it seems like we have accurately vetted plenty of people from those countries already, and denying them entry to the USA seems overboard.

The bolded does not compute. Last I heard, at least half of the people in limbo have been granted waivers, and by tomorrow, I'll bet there won't be anyone being held at an airport who has a right to be here. This wasn't a surprise order. People have known what's up since November. They travelled anyway, because.....I don't know. Maybe they're spoiled idiots who think that rules don't apply to them. All I see is a bunch of whiners who say "but I'm not a terrorist....this shouldn't happen to me!!"

I mean, since 9/11 we americans have given up some of our convenience and privacy in order to feel safe on an airplane. Most people suck it up. But every once in a while you see that dumb bitch in the security line who doesn't understand why her liquids have to be in 3oz containers. Or how about that lady who got pulled off an Alaska Air flight for her anti-trump rant a week or so ago. "But I'm going home for a funeral, you can't pull me off the plane".

When I look at the protests on TV, all the signs and chants are saying "muslims & refugees welcome". I don't think its accurate to assume that there wouldn't be this outrage if the order allowed people with green cards and visas, but still banned refugees. That's why I say the outrage here is manufactured. It's just people who hate trump looking for an excuse to hate trump.

[BananaStand]

You can spin it any way you want, it's still a shit order that has no legitimate purpose. If America were being inundated with terrorists from these countries, it would make some sense. But it ain't so.

It's not spin to point to the situation in Europe and say "we need a better way to handle these refugees"
It's not spin to recognize the fact that ISIS's own propaganda and publications suggest refugee immigration as a way to infiltrate western countries for the purposes of an attack.

You're saying we should wait until it happens here before we react?

[BananaStand]

Not to be gross, but at one point in my life I had problems with IBS. And during that time I made a trip to Canada. My friends and I were forced to sit in a waiting area for over an hour while they checked our papers and searched our car. They would not let me use the bathroom. And I needed it, badly. I wasn't technically "detained", or arrested, or anything like that. I was just held in a room, that I wasn't allowed to leave, and I wasn't allowed the human dignity of being allowed to use the restroom.

I am a dual citizen, US/Canada. Should I have just been allowed to say "Hey fuck face, I salute the maple leaf, now let me in!"?

No

I had to allow the border agents to make sure I wasn't smuggling, terrorizing, or otherwise doing something nefarious to their country. And during that time I was forced to endure severe discomfort and humiliation.

Where's my team of pro-bono lawyers?

[Poopadoop]

It's not spin to point to the situation in Europe and say "we need a better way to handle these refugees"
It's not spin to recognize the fact that ISIS's own propaganda and publications suggest refugee immigration as a way to infiltrate western countries for the purposes of an attack.

You're saying we should wait until it happens here before we react?

Where did refugees come into this? And how many refugees are fleeing Iran?

[Poopadoop]

Not to be gross, but at one point in my life I had problems with IBS. And during that time I made a trip to Canada. My friends and I were forced to sit in a waiting area for over an hour while they checked our papers and searched our car. They would not let me use the bathroom. And I needed it, badly. I wasn't technically "detained", or arrested, or anything like that. I was just held in a room, that I wasn't allowed to leave, and I wasn't allowed the human dignity of being allowed to use the restroom.

I am a dual citizen, US/Canada. Should I have just been allowed to say "Hey fuck face, I salute the maple leaf, now let me in!"?

No

I had to allow the border agents to make sure I wasn't smuggling, terrorizing, or otherwise doing something nefarious to their country. And during that time I was forced to endure severe discomfort and humiliation.

Where's my team of pro-bono lawyers?

Your point being that all border guards are assholes? Yeah, welcome to the world we live in. But they didn't say 'oh sorry sir, you're from a banned country, now turn around and go home', did they?

Edit: So...did you shit your pants?

[BananaStand]

Where did refugees come into this?

Is that a joke? The answer is....'the very beginning'

[BananaStand]

Your point being that all border guards are assholes? Yeah, welcome to the world we live in. But they didn't say 'oh sorry sir, you're from a banned country, now turn around and go home', did they?

No, my point being that if you want to enter a country, you need to accept that security measures are in place. And you need to abide by those security measures, no matter how inconvenient they might be. Otherwise, turn around and go home!

America's leader, empowered by voters, has decided that the current global climate requires additional security. If it's an inconvenience for you, turn around and go home!.

From what I can tell, most people who have green cards, visas, or are US Citizens are getting waivers, and are getting through. It sucks that takes time, and that there are administrative hurdles, but it's not like these people are being trucked to Gitmo and waterboarded. It's also somewhat their own fault for travelling anyway when they either knew, or should have known, what Trump was up to. Yes, a better implementation could have smoothed these problems. But if that's all people are mad about, there wouldn't be massive protests and non-stop media outrage.

The outrage comes from a false narrative that this is religious based discrimination. And that narrative inexplicably ignores the fact that citizens and immigrants from some 40+ muslim majority countries can still come here unabated.

[BananaStand]

Edit: So...did you shit your pants?

No, they finally let us go. After which, I dropped a dirty bomb.

[Poopadoop]

Keep drinking the kool-aid.

Also,

http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/29/1...isis-terrorism

[BananaStand]

Also,

http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/29/1...isis-terrorism

STOP!! Please!! My sides hurt.

By blocking refugees from several Muslim countries and prioritizing Christian ones, the Trump administration seems to be sending the message that the US doesn’t care about Muslim suffering. ISIS propagandists couldn’t have said it better themselves

This quote sums up the entire premise of the article which totally ignores that muslim suffering is CAUSED by ISIS.

I mean, what are all these refugees seeking refuge from anyway?

Sheesh.

The whole argument that doing anything that negatively affects muslims will only serve to piss off muslims is total bullshit. And even if it wasn't bullshit, so what? They can be pissed off without killing civillians. It's like you're saying that Muslims are ignorant savages and need to be dealt with as such. For some reason we need to meet them on their ignorant savage level. If we don't, then they're justified in being total pricks.

[Poopadoop]

Ok Kellyanne Bananastand.

So by that logic we shouldn't have cared about the Holocaust because it was Germans killing the Jews, not us. We shouldn't care about refugees from any civil war because it's them killing them.

[BananaStand]

Indeed, on Saturday, Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham issued a joint statement making that exact point: “Our most important allies in the fight against ISIL are the vast majority of Muslims who reject its apocalyptic ideology of hatred,” the senators explain. “This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country. That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.”

So this assumes that a peaceful, reasonable muslim would initially, by virtue of his moral beliefs, 'reject an apocalyptic ideology of hatred". And then, that same Muslim somehow espouses the uninformed notion that he's not welcome in America. And that sequence of events will somehow make him sympathetic to an "apocalyptic ideology of hatred".

If Muslims are that easily pissed off that a simple 3 month moratorium on immigration can turn an otherwise reasonable person into a Caliphate seeking jihadi soldier.....then we should seriously consider a permanent, world-wide, religious based ban.

Who wants that shit in their country?

[BananaStand]

Ok Kellyanne Bananastand.

So by that logic we shouldn't have cared about the Holocaust because it was Germans killing the Jews, not us. We shouldn't care about refugees from any civil war because it's them killing them.

What happened to your history book? America's involvement in WWII had very little to do with Jewish genocide. In fact, for much of the war, that part of the story was far from common knowledge.

And it's not an apt analogy anyway. By making it, you're saying that by being indifferent to the German killing of Jews, then we were empowering other Jews to join the Nazi army.

[Poopadoop]

What happened to your history book? America's involvement in WWII had very little to do with Jewish genocide. In fact, for much of the war, that part of the story was far from common knowledge.

And it's not an apt analogy anyway. By making it, you're saying that by being indifferent to the German killing of Jews, then we were empowering other Jews to join the Nazi army.

Ok you're just twisting my words around. No point arguing with you.

[BananaStand]

But now, thanks to Trump’s executive order, ISIS’s message can seem a lot more convincing. If you're a young, confused Muslim kid seeing Trump advisers like Rudy Giuliani openly admitting that this is a “Muslim ban” done “legally,” it’s a lot easier to believe an ISIS recruiter who tells you the American government is at war with Islam

I keep rereading that article poop, and every time I see something else that's just flat out retarded.

They're basically saying here that America shouldn't do anything, ever. Because anything we do can be "spun" in a way that makes us look bad.

Its analogous to a lawmaker who believes abortion is a states rights issue. Its' very easy then for the opposing party to say to a young woman "see he doesn't want you to have reproductive rights". Stuff like that happens all the time. Americans deal with it through elections and civil discourse. We don't tolerate people who use violence and fear to control the message. Unless they're muslim apparently...then its' ok right? We should change what we do and how we act so that we don't accidentally piss them off and give them an "excuse" to blow us up.

You realize that means they won right? You're ok with that?

The exactly same argument that I quoted from the article, could be used to make it illegal for women to drive in america, or go outside with their heads uncovered. That pisses them off too much. We should also outlaw gay marriage, and decriminalize bigamy. Any family unit incompatible with their interpretation of Islam should be offensive to everyone right?

If you believe this article, then ISIS is really a benevolent moderate organization that doesn't really care that we provide millions in aid to their sworn enemy; Israel. They were fine with all that until we decided to implement a 3 month immigration moratorium. THEN they turned into murderous savages????????????

[MadMojoMonkey]

The bolded does not compute.

Denying Americans due process of law is injustice, by violation of American's rights under American law. Those rights under American law do not change based on where your body is at any given moment, as is clearly stated in the laws.
I prevaricated, because I thought I read that, but can't find the source.

The other point starts with "IDK," so I can't suss what doesn't compute about it.

I thought this came out relatively quickly, but if there was a few months warning that this was coming, then I do place responsibility on the people who left the USA, knowing they my have a difficult and prolonged reentry process.

That's why I say the outrage here is manufactured. It's just people who hate trump looking for an excuse to hate trump.

I have no outrage.
I have no hate for Trump.
What did I ever say to give you these impressions?

***
I hope I'm wrong, but this seems like the classic example of why there is such vitriol on all sides. You're ascribing emotions and ideologies to me which I do not espouse and have not expressed.
You did it earlier, too, when you expressed that I had chosen a political side and was spouting that side's rhetoric.
I'd like to be clear that I do not blindly repeat talking points. I side with liberals on many issues and with conservatives on many issues. I do not consider myself to be either liberal or conservative until you tell me the issue upon which you want my political opinion.

I do not feel that either political party describes my political thoughts. I think the left and the right both make excellent points and that if either side were ceded full control of things, it would all work out fine... quite differently, but fine in both cases. I do not embrace the notion that people who disagree with me are bad people, or stupid, or evil, etc. I believe that intelligent people on both sides have a world view that is consistent, and that they could make their vision work.

[BananaStand]

Denying Americans due process of law is injustice, by violation of American's rights under American law. Those rights under American law do not change based on where your body is at any given moment, as is clearly stated in the laws.

I'm not sure it's a "right" to be allowed unfettered international travel. And I don't think anyone is being denied due process. The process is, come back in 3 months.

I hope I'm wrong, but this seems like the classic example of why there is such vitriol on all sides. You're ascribing emotions and ideologies to me which I do not espouse and have not expressed.
You did it earlier, too, when you expressed that I had chosen a political side and was spouting that side's rhetoric.

C'mon man, the quote form me that you used there conveniently dropped the opening sentence to the paragraph where I stated "when I see people on TV....". If your'e taking that personally, maybe you should turn down the sensitivity knob.

In regards to your earlier comment, it was my interpretation that you think that a low, non-zero, number of american casualties is acceptable, or at least, not that big of a deal. I merely pointed out that alot of people, including Obama, agree with you. I think there is one side that differentiates between a nuclear armed N. Korea and a Jihadi operative detonating a bomb on an NYC subway. And on the other side, they believe that terrorism is an equally urgent threat. Just because I used your sentiment as a jumping off point to discuss the political landscape as a whole, doesn't mean I'm impugning you personally.

I apologize if I've offended, but please understand that very few, if any, of my comments were directed at you specifically.

I'd like to be clear that I do not blindly repeat talking points. I side with liberals on many issues and with conservatives on many issues. I do not consider myself to be either liberal or conservative until you tell me the issue upon which you want my political opinion.

High-five dude! I feel the same way. I'm a pro-choice, pro gun control, atheist but have almost always pulled the lever for a republican. I'm all over the map too. Kinda sucks that common sense doesn't have it's own political party.

[OngBonga]

btw, I'd like to retract this statement and replace it with 'Suck it, bitch'

stupid
adjective
1.
having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.
"I was stupid enough to think she was perfect"
synonyms: unintelligent, ignorant, dense, brainless, mindless, foolish, dull-witted, dull, slow-witted, witless, slow, dunce-like, simple-minded, empty-headed, vacuous, vapid, half-witted, idiotic, moronic, imbecilic, imbecile, obtuse, doltish;

Fantastic, that makes everyone varying degrees of stupid.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's not spin to point to the situation in Europe and say "we need a better way to handle these refugees"
It's not spin to recognize the fact that ISIS's own propaganda and publications suggest refugee immigration as a way to infiltrate western countries for the purposes of an attack.

It is.
In the first case, you're spinning it to presume that what's happening in Europe is inadequate.
In the second case, you're spinning it to assume that even if those things matter and will be acted upon, the level of threat to Americans is notable.

You're saying we should wait until it happens here before we react?

If at all.

I mean, I support spending a commensurate amount of tax dollars to prevent an appropriate amount of deaths, in comparison to other causes of death which are addressed by those tax dollars.

C'mon... ~7 per year is nothing.
It's hard to look at the numbers and see it as anything but hype and cowardice.

I wasn't technically "detained", or arrested, or anything like that. I was just held in a room, that I wasn't allowed to leave, and I wasn't allowed the human dignity of being allowed to use the restroom.

Dictionary time!

I do not believe they had the right to deprive you of the dignity of using a toilet (or whatever hole in the ground passes for Canadian hygiene ).
JK, obv. No need to apologize.

Sometimes you make it so easy.

There are plenty of cases in life where you have no choice but to bite the shit sandwich and take it like the rest of us, but there is every reason to be upset when someone hands you a shit sandwich and tells you it's PB&J.

Ok you're just twisting my words around. No point arguing with you.

I disagree. This is exactly the point in the discussion where learning happens, but you can't shy away from it just because it's difficult.
So long as there are no personal attacks, there is a framework for the productive exchange of ideas.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm not sure it's a "right" to be allowed unfettered international travel. And I don't think anyone is being denied due process. The process is, come back in 3 months.

It is a right to be considered and treated as innocent until proven guilty.

As I understand, due process involves, among other steps, trial by a jury of your peers. It is well-defined in that sense, even if "peers" is contentious sometimes.

[Poopadoop]

I disagree. This is exactly the point in the discussion where learning happens, but you can't shy away from it just because it's difficult.
So long as there are no personal attacks, there is a framework for the productive exchange of ideas.

I disagree with your disagreement. The exchange of ideas can only be productive when the ideas follow one another in some kind of logical vein. Two people talking past each other might be cathartic, but it's not productive. If you talk about oranges and I argue why you're wrong about apples it's not a useful conversation.

[Poopadoop]

I do not believe they had the right to deprive you of the dignity of using a toilet (or whatever hole in the ground passes for Canadian hygiene ).
JK, obv. No need to apologize.

I believe it's the right of every Canadian not to have American waste being dumped on Canadian soil.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Fantastic, that makes everyone varying degrees of stupid.

[Poopadoop]

Fantastic, that makes everyone varying degrees of stupid.

Almost slipped one by me. Your undoing was when Savy agreed with you; that's when my gut started to tell me something wasn't right.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I disagree with your disagreement. The exchange of ideas can only be productive when the ideas follow one another in some kind of logical vein. Two people talking past each other might be cathartic, but it's not productive. If you talk about oranges and I argue why you're wrong about apples it's not a useful conversation.

You make an excellent point, but I counter with:
It takes 2 to tango.

If you suppose that his twisting of your words was unintentional, then you have nothing more than a misunderstanding. If you then explain your side w/o exasperation, then it's on him. If he continues to talk past you, then you're right. There is no conversation happening, so nothing to really teach him. However, it is up to you if you simply must teach him while you learn from him.

I mean... wuf and I don't really have anything to teach each other, but we have a lot to learn from each other, if that makes sense.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I believe it's the right of every Canadian not to have American waste being dumped on Canadian soil.

Lol.

Good one.

Canadian rights.

[BananaStand]

Lol.

Good one.

Canadian rights.

Dual citizenship mutha fucka!! I can shit where I want!

I have dual citizenship because my father was born about 4 miles over the border, and lived there until he was about three days old. Other than that 72 hours, you have to go back multiple generations to connect me to Canada. But the law is the law, so it counts.

Ironically, despite all the railing I do against immigrants on the grounds that they consume american resources without giving anything back, that's exactly what I intend to do to Canada if I ever have a catastrophic health problem. I'm just gonna drive up to a Canadian hospital, show them my last name, and demand all the free shit I have coming to me, despite never contributing a thing to the well being of Canadian society.

[Poopadoop]

Dual citizenship mutha fucka!! I can shit where I want!

I have dual citizenship because my father was born about 4 miles over the border, and lived there until he was about three days old. Other than that 72 hours, you have to go back multiple generations to connect me to Canada. But the law is the law, so it counts.

Ironically, despite all the railing I do against immigrants on the grounds that they consume american resources without giving anything back, that's exactly what I intend to do to Canada if I ever have a catastrophic health problem. I'm just gonna drive up to a Canadian hospital, show them my last name, and demand all the free shit I have coming to me, despite never contributing a thing to the well being of Canadian society.

Moratorium on Americans! Protect our shitters!

[wufwugy]

I guess he's saying that IF it was about anything about terrorism, then Saudi Arabia and Qatar should have been on that list, seeing how they aid ISIS and most of the 911 guys were from exactly there.


Truth on meter on the ban for “terrorism reasons”:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...t-911-countri/

Politifact should be avoided on account of bias. I've seen many times in which it evaluates the same statements differently dependent on who gives the statement.

[wufwugy]

Less than 100 people (presumably Americans) killed in jihadist attacks in the past 15 years?

What's the problem, here?

Seems like cowardice is driving this issue.

Tell that to Constantinople. Tell it to the many millions who have been raped, murdered, or enslaved for the purpose of Islamism. Just because America has so profoundly rejected a political ideology on par with Nazism that our casualties are scant doesn't mean that political ideology isn't hellbent on our subjugation.

[wufwugy]

Keep drinking the kool-aid.

Also,

http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/29/1...isis-terrorism

Religion of peace. Unless you're mean to it. Then you deserve death.

[wufwugy]

Wuf, it's become blatantly obvious at this point. You've been wandering around the political landscape for some time now, trying to find a home, a champion. And when you finally found your spot-- boom, Cruz, and by extension you get soul crushed. You were in disarray, and in comes Scott Adams. Now, he has you convinced of a bunch of conspiratorial claims (albeit interesting and fun to think about ones) that revolve around the central claim of Trump being a master hypnotist.

Cruz will very likely be my guy in 2024.

The only question I have concerning your conversion is whether you've actually bought into Trump, or if you simply believe Scott Adams' claims about his powers as a hypnotist and aspire to develop similar powers yourself.

Both.

My policy positions haven't much changed, but when it comes to Trump, policy is rarely discussed in a reasonable way, so my policy disagreements don't see the light of day.

Regarding "buying into Trump," back when I was against him, I had the same problems with him that are displayed by others here. I thought he was simply stupid and kinda mean. I would view things like him making sometimes somewhat contradictory statements as him being a total dummy, but then I began reading Adams and a few others and became convinced by their arguments that what he's actually doing is A/B testing. I think the A/B testing explanation makes more sense than the IQ-of-a-lampshade or drowning-in-the-water-of-narcissism arguments.

As far as aspiring to learn from him, yep that's there and it's big. I'm not a fan of a lot about his style. My style is much different, but there are many things that can be learned. For example, when it comes to body language, speaking with open palm gestures is very charismatic and persuasive. I normally do that and have discovered that's one reason am a quality conservationalist and presenter. However, if you watch the way Trump does the open palms stuff, he brings it to a whole new level. He often combines the negative movement of closed-fist and pointed-finger with open-palm, which makes him look authoritative AND unoffensive at the same time. It's something I have incorporated for rare occasion now.

[wufwugy]

Peter Thiel could totally be California governor come 2019.

[BananaStand]

Cruz will very likely be my guy in 2024.

I'll bet on the field. Even in this election, Cruz was an unattractive candidate for the republican party. He's made a career of rubbing people the wrong way. I don't see the republican party putting money behind him in a primary.

Also, Republicans won this time because they captured more of the middle, Cruz moves them back toward the right. The old GOP is gone. Or if it comes back, it will die a slow, painful, humiliating death.

Also....Kanye

[wufwugy]

I'll bet on the field. Even in this election, Cruz was an unattractive candidate for the republican party. He's made a career of rubbing people the wrong way. I don't see the republican party putting money behind him in a primary.

Also, Republicans won this time because they captured more of the middle, Cruz moves them back toward the right. The old GOP is gone. Or if it comes back, it will die a slow, painful, humiliating death.

I don't disagree.

Cruz is just the guy I agree with on just about everything whom I think can win.

Of those I think will run, Cruz is the only one I like. Well, and Rand Paul but I don't think he can win the general.

[wufwugy]

Also....Kanye

Kanye, Peter Thiel, Ivanka. Can you imagine?

[MadMojoMonkey]

that our casualties are scant doesn't mean that political ideology isn't hellbent on our subjugation.

... but they're so bad at it.