First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Trump's travel ban
19951 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 6/3/17 , edited 6/3/17

theunlocked wrote:


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.





1.. correct he has the right to put a hold on them.

2.. that state is made up and bullshit. show me the research for that... Being that we have rape and attacks towards females happening in other country daily do to the Muslim coming flowing into their country it does not seem like your stats hold up.
19379 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 6/3/17 , edited 6/3/17
There are two points one Pro-ban and one Con-ban that neither side is considering.

1. Pro-ban people should think how they would feel if they, family or friends
were to be banned from leaving a place of death and discord. What if your
little sister is killed, due to being unable to leave?

2. Con-ban people should consider how they would feel if they, family or friends
were to be slain from a terrorist leaving from a place of death and discord.
What if your little sister is killed, due to terrorist being able to leave?

Can you see how each side could have legitimate feelings about their position
on the Ban? Or are you so committed to your position to not have empathy
for the opposition? You can debate the issue without empathy for victims of the
violence, whichever side prevails, but good people can be of opposite opinion.
Posted 6/3/17
Ok so since i created this thread the next part of my question is those that said nope not a good idea? what would you say to those that lost family? part 2: Question: those that said nope Trump is foolish what if you stood before these family members what would you tell them? did they need to die?

--9-11

--the youngest member from the Manchester bombing

> On a side note i lost a family member my firefighter a cousin lost his life in 9-11 doing what he knew best saving lives!

> So those that said no Trump is a idiot please explain how keeping America safe is a bad thing? and quit with this muslim non-sense.

Posted 6/3/17

theunlocked wrote:
The chance of those people dying by staying where they are is probably in the whole number percentages.



And? Not our problem.

35659 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/3/17 , edited 6/3/17

MysteryMiss wrote:
Question: those that said nope Trump is foolish what if you stood before these family members what would you tell them? did they need to die?

9-11


Saudi Arabia is not on the list.


MysteryMiss wrote:
the youngest member from the Manchester bombing


The bomber was born in Manchester.

Trump's ban would not have done anything to stop either of these. So yes, Trump is foolish.




Jamming777 wrote:
There are two points one Pro-ban and one Con-ban that neither side is considering.

1. Pro-ban people should think how they would feel if they, family or friends
were to be banned from leaving a place of death and discord. What if your
little sister is killed, due to being unable to leave?

2. Con-ban people should consider how they would feel if they, family or friends
were to be slain from a terrorist leaving from a place of death and discord.
What if your little sister is killed, due to terrorist being able to leave?

Can you see how each side could have legitimate feelings about their position
on the Ban? Or are you so committed to your position to not have empathy
for the opposition? You can debate the issue without empathy for victims of the
violence, whichever side prevails, but good people can be of opposite opinion.


The problem is, as has been repeatedly stated complete with research and evidence every time we have this thread, is that #1 is actually happening on a daily basis while #2 has, as was indicated, a chance of 0.000001%.

#1 is worried about something very real which is happening every day. #2 is Americans worried about something that has less of a chance of killing them than lightning or cows.

Whereas, said ban has very real and very immediate humanitarian affects. As we saw when it was even only briefly invoked.

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

MysteryMiss wrote:

Ok so since i created this thread the next part of my question is those that said nope not a good idea? what would you say to those that lost family? part 2: Question: those that said nope Trump is foolish what if you stood before these family members what would you tell them? did they need to die?


I lost a cousin in the 9/11 attacks (NYC) and plenty of my school friends at the time lost people in them too (either at NYC or the Pentagon attack).

Something like 9/11 would not be prevented under the travel ban. Especially considering that 15 of them came from Saudi Arabia (not on the ban list), 2 came from UAE (not on the ban list), 1 came from Egypt (again, not on the ban list), and one came from Lebanon (once more, not a country on the ban list). On top of that, one came in on a legit passport from Germany (despite being Egyptian).

As for what I would say? I still have quite a number of those people who lost family members (cousin, father, mother) in the attacks. They're still posting Anti-Trump/Anti-Ban memes and stating that only "absolute idiots" would think that this ban would stop a terrorist attack. I think they speak loud enough on their own. I don't really need to say anything to them. Assuming that being "anti-ban" means that you wish for 9/11 victims to have died (or to indicate that if you're not against it then you're assuming that they're going to die) is kind of a back-handed/loaded question because it's an incorrect correlation, to begin with.


MysteryMiss wrote:
> So those that said no Trump is a idiot please explain how keeping America safe is a bad thing? and quit with this muslim non-sense.


"Trump is an idiot" because he could have already started the preparations of isolating and identifying any issues with travel security without waiting on this ban to go through. He's less concerned about the security of America than you're assuming he is just because he's trying to focus on passing a ban that would have already been over (according to him and his administration, at least). Stopping the gates only makes it easier to identify, not that determining whether or not our protocols and procedures are secure enough is impossible otherwise.
Posted 6/3/17 , edited 6/3/17

runec wrote:

The bomber was born in Manchester.

Trump's ban would not have done anything to stop either of these. So yes, Trump is foolish.




While you're right that Trump's ban would have done nothing to stop it because its in the UK and not the US, its ignorant to claim that had nothing to do with immigration.
Manchester is now a hotbed of radical islam. Salman's father fought alongside terrorists in Libya as did his Imam.
So yeah, a Trump-styled ban or hell even just extreme vetting of those coming from war torn countries would have prevented the Manchester suicide bombing.
29073 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 6/3/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


runec wrote:

The bomber was born in Manchester.

Trump's ban would not have done anything to stop either of these. So yes, Trump is foolish.




While you're right that Trump's ban would have done nothing to stop it because its in the UK and not the US, its ignorant to claim that had nothing to do with immigration.
Manchester is now a hotbed of radical islam. Salman's father fought alongside terrorists in Libya as did his Imam.
So yeah, a Trump-styled ban or hell even just extreme vetting of those coming from war torn countries would have prevented the Manchester suicide bombing.


He could of gotten in many other ways even with a travel ban if he was dedicated the ban wouldn't stop him.
29073 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 6/3/17 , edited 6/3/17

MysteryMiss wrote:

Ok so since i created this thread the next part of my question is those that said nope not a good idea? what would you say to those that lost family? part 2: Question: those that said nope Trump is foolish what if you stood before these family members what would you tell them? did they need to die?

--9-11

--the youngest member from the Manchester bombing

> On a side note i lost a family member my firefighter a cousin lost his life in 9-11 doing what he knew best saving lives!

> So those that said no Trump is a idiot please explain how keeping America safe is a bad thing? and quit with this muslim non-sense.



I would say he is foolish i still think the ban is stupid it does nothing but punish innocent people they will still get in regardless.
Did they need to die? No but a ban wouldn't of prevented their deaths good security would have maybe.

Keeping America safe is good but you need to go about it in productive ways and not stupid ways that punish the innocent.
Also Muslim nonsense is waranted because alot of people are for these bans because of muslims which is inherently stupid as there is nothing inherently wrong with muslim people.

America obviously isn't well equiped for this matter so they are turning to banning things as a solution.....lets see how that turns out just like if you were to ban guns those wanting to commit a crime will still commit it.

You are clouded by the loss of a family member that's ok it's normal to have your judgement impaired by loss but peoples lives are at stake a ban isn't going to stop terrorism or prevent it if anything it's going to piss alot of people off bad and good...punishing the innocent to prevent terrorism is not healthy.
Posted 6/3/17

Ryulightorb wrote:

He could of gotten in many other ways even with a travel ban if he was dedicated the ban wouldn't stop him.


Oh yes he could have illegally sneaked in, that's why we should have entire neighborhoods full of known radicalized migrants on MI5 watchlists from warzones and other hellholes.

I mean, never mind strengthening your borders and turning boat people away, they'll get in anyway!
Don't you Aussies have offshore detention centers for boat people? That would be a nice start for Europe.
35659 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/3/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:
While you're right that Trump's ban would have done nothing to stop it because its in the UK and not the US, its ignorant to claim that had nothing to do with immigration.
Manchester is now a hotbed of radical islam. Salman's father fought alongside terrorists in Libya as did his Imam.
So yeah, a Trump-styled ban or hell even just extreme vetting of those coming from war torn countries would have prevented the Manchester suicide bombing.


You already have "extreme vetting" for people coming from said countries. The process for getting to the US as a refugee in the most vulnerable cases ( so women and young children ) is as follows:

First, you go through the UN screening. The UN decides if you even qualify for refugee status to begin with ( about 1% or less are accepted ). If you're lucky, you get referred to the US ( You don't actually get to choose where you get resettled, could be the US, could be anywhere else ). Then you get screened by the State Department. Get through that and you undergo 3 separate background checks and fingerprint screenings from the CIA, FBI and DoD. You get checked against every database the US has included the DoD's which keeps a database of fingerprints collected during military operations in foreign countries.

If you manage to get that far, *then* your case finally lands on the desk of US Immigration. If you're from Syria in particular though you need to go through two more screenings from immigration and DHS. Get through that and it's off too....DHS again for more interviews and screening. But hey, if you make it this far you only have to get through one final check by every security agency in the US again ( FBI, CIA, DHS and DoD. Again. ).

Then and only then are you allowed to even set foot on American soil. All of the screenings, interviews, etc are conducted overseas.

The entire process typically takes just shy of 2 years if you're a woman or a little kid. Anyone else and you could be sitting in a camp somewhere in Turkey for 2+ years if you're ever considered at all.

So, how many more possible ways and steps do you think you can add to this vetting process that aren't already covered at least 3 times over?
29073 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 6/3/17 , edited 6/3/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:

He could of gotten in many other ways even with a travel ban if he was dedicated the ban wouldn't stop him.


Oh yes he could have illegally sneaked in, that's why we should have entire neighborhoods full of known radicalized migrants on MI5 watchlists from warzones and other hellholes.

I mean, never mind strengthening your borders and turning boat people away, they'll get in anyway!
Don't you Aussies have offshore detention centers for boat people? That would be a nice start for Europe.


Yeah we do and i hope they get shut down or fixed because the treatment of the immigrants there is HORRIBLE they are raped and tortured.
There is a difference between banning travel and banning illegal immigrants. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/rapes-sexual-assault-drugs-for-favours-in-australias-detention-centre-on-nauru-independent-moss-review-20150320-1m46za.html



One (travel) is stupid and won't do good the other is just and logical.
The best option should be picked and banning travel is going to do more harm then good its going to piss people inside and outside of America off and prevent very little.

America should be focusing on better security then bans that do little good and assume they will stop terrorism.
270 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / Midlothian, Texas
Offline
Posted 6/3/17 , edited 6/5/17
Most these comments show just how lacking in thought the citizens of our country have become and how driven by fear we have become. This ban does nothing to stop terrorists. The only reason that this ban is being pushed is in the case that we are about to go to war with said countries which is what the UN, the EU, and the US governments are planning.

They don't want sovereign nations on the earth. That is what this is about. It is about the New World Order who most of you forget was declared by President Scum George H.W. Bush. This is about spreading the influence of Freemasonic Satanism across the earth. If it was Islam that was the problem we would not have ties with Saudia Arabia...the very nation that all this Islamic terrorism is linked to. If this were about fighting against those who follow the Koran why is Mecca NOT the first target?

You idiots ignore everything except what they tell you on the news. You have no idea of how you are being drug along by a fake-Jew controlled media. The fake Jews...or, Azkanashi I should say, are part of the plan. This about Kabalistic Satanism that the Freemasons have adopted. They are the enemy of the world which America is waking up to and why there will eventually be a civil war due to our nation becoming a corporate fascist factory for their plans of world domination. Yes, that is the goal regardless of how movie scripted it sounds...but they have been putting this in entertainment for a long time for exactly this reason...to condition you to be detached from reality and easier to enslave.

But don't believe me...believe your news sources, your friend's hearsay, what your itching ears want to tell you. The Beast of Revelation is real and it is here and they will soon be chipping you and your children to keep track of you like cattle. The technology is here and its no secret. The plan is for a Unified religion, a Unified government, and Unified economy...'one ring to rule them all'....or did you think they just said that to sound 'cool'...'menacing'...'cute'?

Grow up. God made the world as he said he did in the Bible and there is only one savior of the world. The one known in Greek as Jesus Christ. All truth comes from him...all wisdom is of the Holy Spirit...and those who accept grace and mercy paid by the act of the cross will not suffer the 2nd death. All this wickedness was prophesied.

I'm not talking about worldly Christianity that has been twisted by the very ones who have deceived you. It is only something you can find through the spiritual realm....and it comes through love. Nothing else in this world matters as it will all perish and be made new. The wicked shall be judged....those deemed righteous will be spared.

Only a fool says there is no God. He is the one who refuses to acknowledge that death has power over him...yet he will die deceived...thinking of himself as his own god. That is the goal of Satanism...the enemy...and the great deception. Death is in this world because man wanted to be his own God...knowing what was good already...but choosing to know evil as well.
Posted 6/3/17

runec wrote:

So, how many more possible ways and steps do you think you can add to this vetting process that aren't already covered at least 3 times over?



I was talking about extreme vetting in the context of migrants going to the EU and how that could have prevented the Manchester bombing. Though not one bit of that vetting process matters if you don't control your borders and let boat people and other illegals run amok.
I guess you're talking about refugees since you mentioned camps in Turkey. Which isn't having a civil war. Why can't they stay there?

As for the US, I would prefer there be an indefinite travel ban on all Muslim majority countries until the world goes a year or two without a single Islamic terror attack.



35659 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/3/17 , edited 6/3/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:
I was talking about extreme vetting in the context of migrants going to the EU and how that could have prevented the Manchester bombing. Though not one bit of that vetting process matters if you don't control your borders and let boat people and other illegals run amok.
I guess you're talking about refugees since you mentioned camps in Turkey. Which isn't having a civil war. Why can't they stay there?

As for the US, I would prefer there be an indefinite travel ban on all Muslim majority countries until the world goes a year or two without a single Islamic terror attack.


Europe's problems are multi-spectrum. Much like the US, border control is only addressing a symptom. I'm not concerned about borders, those are invisible lines people draw on maps and are, let's face it, impossible to completely control. Europe has a big problem with integration or the lack there of and that's not resting on the immigrants. They integrate just fine in the US and Canada. It's not a coincidence that Belgium has one of the most socially, politically and economically segregated immigrant communities and Europe that also happens to be the origin point or a stop over point for practically every would be terrorist in Europe.

That aside, what I am concerned about more than borders or immigration is the most prolific failure: Intelligence. It seems like whenever something happens, Islamist or otherwise, the authorities in question always come out and say "Oh, yeah, we totally knew about that guy". Well if you knew about him, then wtf man? Didn't you think to maybe keep an eye on the dude hoarding guns and explosives while he posts diatribes and manifestos on Facebook?

I mean, the Manchester bomber's own mosque reported him to police.

The failures in intelligence and law enforcement are far more of a problem and a key point of concern than thinking you can fix anything but just building a higher fence.

As for why they can't just stay in Turkey: Turkey already absorbed more of them than any other country to the tune of 3 million or so and they live in refugee camps for lack of anywhere else? -.-

The world can't even go a year or two without a single Christian or Jewish attack. Or a Nationalist attack. Or just some lunatic attack. What you prefer and what the actual reality of the situation is are two different things. As has been established ad naseum every time this topic comes up.

Trying to ban people from the country based on a religious test would be ineffective, immoral, cowardly and ultimately un-American. As in, literally unconstitutional. If you have to dust off a law from the McCarthy era to try and justify yourself you're doing something wrong.


First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.