First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next  Last
Post Reply We Are Not Safe
20109 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 2/11/17

auroraloose wrote:


gornotck wrote:

Pretty low either way, really. But as they say, it only takes one.


Well, the ban affects probably several hundred graduate students, postdocs, faculty, etc., at the least. I know multiple Iranian physicists, and I also know how much trouble getting visas causes academics.

You're right that it only takes one. So the appropriate thing to do is to look at the Venn diagram of (i) people covered by the ban that weren't by the previous vetting standards, and (ii) the people who will actually perform some kind of terrorism. You then determine the probable damage resulting from lifting the ban. Next, you look at the effects of the ban on the world-state and determine the damage caused by keeping it in place. You weigh the two, and you choose which will lead to a better world-state for the country. This is a hard thing - but every appraisal that actually bothers to check the numbers seems to say the ban isn't worth it.


The fact is Trump seems to be the only one attacked for doing the same thing Bush, Clinton, Obama, and others had. its this tribal us vs him nonsense that left wing Media today is pushing, they are creating a war in order to sell their company Stock.
2520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / The margins
Offline
Posted 2/11/17

gornotck wrote:


auroraloose wrote:


gornotck wrote:

Pretty low either way, really. But as they say, it only takes one.


Well, the ban affects probably several hundred graduate students, postdocs, faculty, etc., at the least. I know multiple Iranian physicists, and I also know how much trouble getting visas causes academics.

You're right that it only takes one. So the appropriate thing to do is to look at the Venn diagram of (i) people covered by the ban that weren't by the previous vetting standards, and (ii) the people who will actually perform some kind of terrorism. You then determine the probable damage resulting from lifting the ban. Next, you look at the effects of the ban on the world-state and determine the damage caused by keeping it in place. You weigh the two, and you choose which will lead to a better world-state for the country. This is a hard thing - but every appraisal that actually bothers to check the numbers seems to say the ban isn't worth it.


Not really, again. A temporary ban, as it is, on countries we already had concerns about? Questions about the visa and green card processes?
I do not know what "appraisals" you have seen, but it is possible they were looking at a "worth it" vastly different from the actual goals of the ban. Also, your Venn diagram is far too simplistic.


I agree my Venn diagram is simplistic. Maybe this CATO study helps.
2520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / The margins
Offline
Posted 2/11/17 , edited 2/11/17

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


auroraloose wrote:


gornotck wrote:

Pretty low either way, really. But as they say, it only takes one.


Well, the ban affects probably several hundred graduate students, postdocs, faculty, etc., at the least. I know multiple Iranian physicists, and I also know how much trouble getting visas causes academics.

You're right that it only takes one. So the appropriate thing to do is to look at the Venn diagram of (i) people covered by the ban that weren't by the previous vetting standards, and (ii) the people who will actually perform some kind of terrorism. You then determine the probable damage resulting from lifting the ban. Next, you look at the effects of the ban on the world-state and determine the damage caused by keeping it in place. You weigh the two, and you choose which will lead to a better world-state for the country. This is a hard thing - but every appraisal that actually bothers to check the numbers seems to say the ban isn't worth it.


The fact is Trump seems to be the only one attacked for doing the same thing Bush, Clinton, Obama, and others had. its this tribal us vs him nonsense that left wing Media today is pushing, they are creating a war in order to sell their company Stock.


No, actually Obama did nothing of the sort. I do happen to think that slowing the vetting process while it is being reworked is effectively a ban, but the language, scope, and implementation were all very different.
15519 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 2/11/17

auroraloose wrote:

I agree my Venn diagram is simplistic. Maybe this CATO study helps.


I looked at the opening summary. It does illustrate it better, if the entire purpose was to simply prevent terrorists from entering the country. Though, any single event could or would be used to stir things up. Later to conflate it with "refugees", of which I understand there have been open threats about infiltration, which apparently has affected other countries.
the most important thing, though, is that it is what the President wanted.
Posted 2/11/17

DarkBlade19 wrote:

In america you guys don't even have proper "left" there.
Liberalist people supports capitalism just saying.
American "left" is actually considered as "right" here in finland.


I don't know, I've heard you can get almost every gun on the market for hunting purposes in Finland (Seems fairly right leaning to me), am I wrong or right?
8164 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 2/11/17 , edited 2/11/17

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


auroraloose wrote:


gornotck wrote:

Pretty low either way, really. But as they say, it only takes one.


Well, the ban affects probably several hundred graduate students, postdocs, faculty, etc., at the least. I know multiple Iranian physicists, and I also know how much trouble getting visas causes academics.

You're right that it only takes one. So the appropriate thing to do is to look at the Venn diagram of (i) people covered by the ban that weren't by the previous vetting standards, and (ii) the people who will actually perform some kind of terrorism. You then determine the probable damage resulting from lifting the ban. Next, you look at the effects of the ban on the world-state and determine the damage caused by keeping it in place. You weigh the two, and you choose which will lead to a better world-state for the country. This is a hard thing - but every appraisal that actually bothers to check the numbers seems to say the ban isn't worth it.


The fact is Trump seems to be the only one attacked for doing the same thing Bush, Clinton, Obama, and others had. its this tribal us vs him nonsense that left wing Media today is pushing, they are creating a war in order to sell their company Stock.


It seems pointless to engage in a discussion with someone whose arguements are limited to reposting memes and links to websites like InfoWars. You don't seem too interested in understanding and replying to what the other side has to say. You just continue to make the same debunked statement over and over again. It's a problem with both sides, it seems.
12115 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 2/11/17
You're right OP, you're not safe. You and all the other people like you with your narrow minds and many prejudices are never safe because you all view anyone who does not match your ideals and fear mongering as a threat to you. It's obvious from the way you want to equate a person voting differently than you to borderline treason that you cannot handle things that don't fit your miniscule and distorted worldview. You and all the others like you are never safe because the only thing that makes you feel safe is your own selves and any who are different make you feel unsafe.

qwueri 
21933 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 2/11/17
I don't quite get why Trump is so confident in enacting a ban based off of the terror assessment from Obama's tenure, but not his vetting process.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/11/20/infographic-screening-process-refugee-entry-united-states

Suspending the ban does not open up US borders to anyone that wasn't already under scrutiny. And the bigger danger of terror attacks on US soil is still from radicalized elements who were born here or came in as children. Alienating the Muslim community certainly isn't going to help with that.
2520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / The margins
Offline
Posted 2/11/17 , edited 2/11/17

octorockandroll wrote:

You're right OP, you're not safe. You and all the other people like you with your narrow minds and many prejudices are never safe because you all view anyone who does not match your ideals and fear mongering as a threat to you. It's obvious from the way you want to equate a person voting differently than you to borderline treason that you cannot handle things that don't fit your miniscule and distorted worldview. You and all the others like you are never safe because the only thing that makes you feel safe is your own selves and any who are different make you feel unsafe.



This is an online forum; going scorched earth is a bad strategy.
12115 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 2/11/17 , edited 2/11/17

auroraloose wrote:

This is an online forum; going scorched earth is a bad strategy.


There's no "scorched earth" stuff going on here, I'm just pointing out what's demonstrably true from the first post in the thread. Mxdan had a very similar observation of the opening statements by DeadlyOats as well.
7112 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / Pacific North West
Offline
Posted 2/11/17
I would like to start by saying IMO calling this a ban feels incorrect, though it may technically apply(I leave it t wiser individuals to correct me) a ban is "to officially or legally prohibit:" From the actual executive order I have read this is a 30-120day temporary halt of incoming peoples while the state dept. re-evaluates their vetting process. Which so far as missed many terrorists who have gone on to commit such acts as 9/11. While I do agree singling out these 7 seems a bit odd. IMO Mr. President (if he feels the vetting process needs an overhaul, and currently poses significant threat to the US) should halt all immigration of non visa/greencard people. This will certainly get reprisal from many of you. However if I just feel if a leader of a country feels so strongly that the nation is in peril of imminent threats then a full on TEMPORARY halt is more practical. I would also like to point out that the Order has clauses in it that allowed for exceptions(most notably those who helped US troops in middle east conflict, and refugees we were going to trade to/from Australian detention islands). The Dept.of Homeland security as well as the State dept. are both allowed to make exceptions on a case by case basis however neither have yet to do so.

As far as what is legal.. From my understanding the President of the US has the power to allow or halt any immigration to the US if he/she feels its a matter of national security. Which I believe if Mr. President feels this way Pakistan(harbored Osama Bin Laden), Saudi Arabia, and Egypt are must haves to add to the list. I would also like to point out that these countries were not chosen by Mr. President, rather by the Obama administration. Mr. President simply took it a step too far(in the eyes of a lot of people). Personally I see minimal threat from any presidency as they have limited power, and what power they do have can be overruled(this 9th circuit court being a great example). The only threat I feel coming from the US govt. is Congress and Senate! Old men who have been in office far to long and serve only their own self interests and no longer have any idea what the people want/feel. That's my two sense anyway.
22593 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
53 / M / In
Offline
Posted 2/11/17 , edited 2/11/17
Sorry that Steve Bannon's Down with brown people plan failed but hey look on the bright side you still got your wall to look forward to
qwueri 
21933 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 2/11/17

octorockandroll wrote:

There's no "scorched earth" stuff going on here, I'm just pointing out what's demonstrably true from the first post in the thread. Mxdan had a very similar observation of the opening statements by DeadlyOats as well.


I think I've rolled my eyes so often at 'unamerican left' comments that it doesn't even register anymore. Clearly rolling back a policy to the status quo for the past 8+ years is unamurican, amirite?
489 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Florida, USA
Offline
Posted 2/11/17 , edited 2/11/17
You are worried about refugees. I'm worried about Trump refusing to extend the New START treaty with Russia.
15658 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 2/11/17
When did we become a society of fear?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.