First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Trump's travel ban
15269 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/3/17
Laws. What have they ever done for anybody? Pshaw and puckertush.
317 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Somewhere in the...
Offline
Posted 6/3/17 , edited 6/3/17
Fun fact: The constitution supercedes congressional laws, and the Muslim bans are Muslim bans.

Another fun fact: Refugees aren't the problem http://resistancereport.com/news/white-terrorists-killed-more-this-week/
3358 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / North Dakota
Offline
Posted 6/3/17
I'm for it because we're either at war with these countries currently, or they're currently openly targeting americans for violence - and our cities, monuments, etc - just like they always have.

those countries all have MASSIVE support for such acts, and just because an apologist gets on TV and tries to tell you it's something other than what it is - here's the bottom line for you.

We are in conflict - you do not invite ENEMIES into your home and expect nothing to happen.

Of course I support the travel ban, it's temporary so we can put an actual SYSTEM in place to protect our damn country, and on that note I think these dime a dozen minor at best judges need to be held accountable for obstructing justice, like they try to say Trump does every time Trump does his job.

We are the most powerful country in the world and we have a lot of enemies - we need to start acting like it or we're dead - sugar coat it all you like, that's the only truth about this situation. Look at the countries in Europe that were hated in much the same way as we - and then opened their borders in the name of grace - they're being destroyed, raped, pillaged, murdered.

NO THANKS. That this is even a debate in the USA is ridiculous. I don't give a damn if it offends someone from a terrorist nation, even if they are genuinely good people - they're part of the problem if they do not oppose those types of acts and sentiments and therefor should not be allowed in the country they despise so damn much.
3358 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / North Dakota
Offline
Posted 6/3/17 , edited 6/3/17

theunlocked wrote:

Fun fact: The constitution supercedes congressional laws, and the Muslim bans are Muslim bans.

Another fun fact: Refugees aren't the problem http://resistancereport.com/news/white-terrorists-killed-more-this-week/


And buddy, one example to the contrary doesn't disprove an OBVIOUS trend. It should be obvious just from the URL that your counterpoint is BS "this week" - so what about the rest of time? The centuries this has been going on? Nice apologist attempt, though. You did well enough to irritate me with your absurd point - add that to your accomplishments I guess, but it's still a bullshit "fun fact".


gornotck wrote:

Laws. What have they ever done for anybody? Pshaw and puckertush.


Saved lives - kept economies going, things like that.
317 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Somewhere in the...
Offline
Posted 6/3/17 , edited 6/3/17

VeggyZ wrote:


theunlocked wrote:

Fun fact: The constitution supercedes congressional laws, and the Muslim bans are Muslim bans.

Another fun fact: Refugees aren't the problem http://resistancereport.com/news/white-terrorists-killed-more-this-week/


And buddy, one example to the contrary doesn't disprove a trend. Obviously. Nice apologist attempt, though. You did well, and it irked me - add that to your accomplishments I guess, but it's still a bullshit "fun fact".


I would consider no refugees from Muslim ban countries killing Americans in the past 40 years to be a trend rather than an isolated incident.
3358 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / North Dakota
Offline
Posted 6/3/17 , edited 6/3/17

theunlocked wrote:


VeggyZ wrote:


theunlocked wrote:

Fun fact: The constitution supercedes congressional laws, and the Muslim bans are Muslim bans.

Another fun fact: Refugees aren't the problem http://resistancereport.com/news/white-terrorists-killed-more-this-week/


And buddy, one example to the contrary doesn't disprove a trend. Obviously. Nice apologist attempt, though. You did well, and it irked me - add that to your accomplishments I guess, but it's still a bullshit "fun fact".


I would consider no refugees from Muslim ban countries killing Americans in the past 40 years to be a trend rather than an isolated incident.


Do you recall 9-11? Those were from Muslim countries. What about the foiled terrorist bombing attempts? How's that trend going? IT's happening, look at Europe and sanely tell me it's not a much larger problem - this ban is for American's own good, and guess what? All those other countries near these guys we want banned - already have them banned. Why would that be?
317 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Somewhere in the...
Offline
Posted 6/3/17 , edited 6/3/17

VeggyZ wrote:
Do you recall 9-11? Those were from Muslim countries. What about the foiled terrorist bombing attempts? How's that trend going? IT's happening, look at Europe and sanely tell me it's not a much larger problem - this ban is for American's own good, and guess what? All those other countries near these guys we want banned - already have them banned. Why would that be?


Those both weren't immigrants and weren't refugees soo...

3358 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / North Dakota
Offline
Posted 6/3/17 , edited 6/3/17

theunlocked wrote:


VeggyZ wrote:
Do you recall 9-11? Those were from Muslim countries. What about the foiled terrorist bombing attempts? How's that trend going? IT's happening, look at Europe and sanely tell me it's not a much larger problem - this ban is for American's own good, and guess what? All those other countries near these guys we want banned - already have them banned. Why would that be?


Those both weren't immigrants and weren't refugees soo...



You're mincing words, a travel ban from those places would have stopped most of the incidents we've dealt with in the last few decades from happening.

Repeatedly, these attacks worldwide, not just here in America, come from people who live in THOSE countries - and the president has the right to stop them from coming from them, if there's a reason - and I'd say there's a very big reason, that's all over every news network these days, even the fake ones like CNN. Only difference there is that they neglect to actually mention the nationality of the perpetrator because it would destroy their entire narrative to this point.

Allow me to also mention the fact that it's a temporary travel ban, so we have the ability to put a system that can stop the bad ones, and allow the good ones with no terrorism connections, into the country. It isn't an outright ban forever and ever - but if you don't think something needs to be done about the world's terrorism crisis, you're just as bad as that (was it the mayor of london?) prick saying we need to learn to "accept" jihad. What a bunch of human trash.
317 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Somewhere in the...
Offline
Posted 6/3/17 , edited 6/3/17

VeggyZ wrote:
You're mincing words, a travel ban from those places would have stopped most of the incidents we've dealt with in the last few decades from happening.

Repeatedly, these attacks worldwide, not just here in America, come from people who live in THOSE countries - and the president has the right to stop them from coming from them, if there's a reason - and I'd say there's a very big reason, that's all over every news network these days, even the fake ones like CNN. Only difference there is that they neglect to actually mention the nationality of the perpetrator because it would destroy their entire narrative to this point.


1. What, no I'm not.
2. But those people aren't refugees.
2.5. Actual people from those European countries aren't having the same issues that the right wing media seems to think they're having.
2.75. It's still unconstitutional.
2.875. The reason the Trump admin has lost the case in court so far is because they can provide literally no evidence that putting the ban in place would actually help Americans, meaning the only reason Trump could want the ban would be Islamophobia, meaning it's unconstitutional.
qwueri 
21589 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 6/3/17 , edited 6/3/17
Seems like at this point pushing forward for the ban is purely to prove that he can rather than a practical need, considering how much the administration insisted it was a temporary measure while reviewing the immigration procedures. That review should be well on it's way to completion and there hasn't been an obvious breach of national security yet due to the courts blocking the ban.

I'm curious, should the lower courts' rulings be upheld, how much pissing and moaning about the Supreme court upending presidential sovereignty will occur. Double points if Gorsuch is among those upholding the lower courts.
Posted 6/3/17

qwueri wrote:
Seems like at this point pushing forward for the ban is purely to prove that he can rather than a practical need, considering how much the administration insisted it was a temporary measure while reviewing the immigration procedures. That review should be well on it's way to completion and there hasn't been an obvious breach of national security yet due to the courts blocking the ban.


This.
If Trump and his administration were so concerned over the procedures regarding travel and immigration from the countries listed in the "travel ban" then they should have already started the process of review the moment he signed the EO. The ban itself was supposed to be the means to temporarily halt travel and immigration from those countries to ensure that we're not overlooking anything and that our process of allowing travelers from these countries to enter the United States was secure.

Now? No. I can't say with full confidence that Trump's administration ever really had any desire to review these processes. The ban essentially covers countries that have not attacked us (not even in 9/11 - most of the perpetrators there were from Saudi Arabia, which isn't on the list) and the process should have been reviewed by this time.

Stopping travel from these countries would be comparable to stopping all traffic when your network is being slammed by a DDoS attack - yes, killing off all traffic would alleviate the stress of the users (as they would be informed that traffic is halted for security measures) but you can get a few additional servers, switch your servers IP addresses, and push the new IPs to the client-side and blacklist any attacking IP address while traffic is still coming in. You wouldn't let that attack continue for 3-6 months and keep waiting for the CTO to give you permission to review the current setup - you just do it all while the DDoS is still happening.

The ban itself was rather pointless, to begin with. Ceasing traffic from these places doesn't equate to the same things that some of the more conservative people on this thread have stated. It won't cease all immigration from Islamic countries, nor will it cease immigration from countries that have known terrorist "cells". Those using Europe as an example seem to have little faith in America as a whole, seeing as we've been pretty good at keeping these so-called "rapers and pillagers" of culture and women at bay (even though the ban isn't in effect). It makes me wonder if the minority of those in Europe that are the perpetrators of these crimes are being given too much credit overall. But hey, even so ... if the travel ban was in effect, we'd still be allowing refugees from the "Islamic States".
30180 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 6/3/17 , edited 6/3/17
He has the right but it just goes to show how much of an idiot and judgemental freak he is.

Sure it may block some terrorists but ...these are AMERICANS who use the "If guns are banned criminals will still find a way to get them and use them" argument ...which applies here because Terrorists will still find a way to get into America no different in that regards.

He is only punishing good and legitimate people and honestly it reeks of him going to a muslim ban which is beyond pathetic and just picking people out for the bad apples in their group.

Once again Trump has shown he does not have what it takes to run a country but hey it's entertaining to watch :D

The fact that this is even a debate and it is allowed is ridiculous and the people for it should be ashamed imo banning entry won't stop terrorism any more then banning guns will stop gun crime or banning people from driving will stop them from driving there are many ways into America without being noticed i mean man ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS exist for a reason.

Posted 6/3/17 , edited 6/3/17

theunlocked wrote:

Fun fact: The constitution supercedes congressional laws, and the Muslim bans are Muslim bans.

Another fun fact: Refugees aren't the problem http://resistancereport.com/news/white-terrorists-killed-more-this-week/


Its not a muslim ban, and its within any president's constitutional right to ban any particular group of foreigners as he sees fit.
"You're more likely to die from X, therefore you should increase your chance to die from Y, what are you an ignorant bigot?"

317 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Somewhere in the...
Offline
Posted 6/3/17 , edited 6/3/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:
Its not a muslim ban, and its within any president's constitutional right to ban any particular group of foreigners as he sees fit.
"You're more likely to die from X, therefore you should increase your chance to die from Y, what are you an ignorant bigot?"


1. No, it's within his legal right due to congressional laws, not the constitution.
2. Your chance of being killed by someone coming from one of the banned countries is literally (in the most real sense of that word) less than 0.000001%. The chance of those people dying by staying where they are is probably in the whole number percentages.

Edit: Upon further reflection, another zero has been added.
Posted 6/3/17
Some good points made I'm still in support of the ban
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.