Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus Politics Thread: Campaign 2016 EditionFollow

#2402 Feb 13 2017 at 9:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Ban Americans from entering America!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2403 Feb 13 2017 at 10:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,286 posts
Personally I'm not usually one for victim shaming, but maybe we need to take a long look in the mirror and think about what we're doing. I mean at some point you have to take responsibility for living in a country that attracts so much attention from terrorists. Perhaps we should ask ourselves what we're doing here, and if living here is really such a good idea. Let's face it, if it wasn't for all the people living in the U.S. there wouldn't be much reason to come here to kill people, and terrorism against the country would pretty much go away at that point. We're basically asking for it, being citizens here and all. I know it's not "PC" or whatever, but I'm surprised that fact doesn't get discussed more often.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2404 Feb 13 2017 at 11:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That's an excellent point. Everyone else leave America since you guys are the problem.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2405 Feb 13 2017 at 11:02 AM Rating: Good
******
49,488 posts
Better question is why bother going through all the training and the scheming and the money to try and kill us here when we're more than adequate at doing that ourselves.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2406 Feb 13 2017 at 11:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Trump called the Prime Minister of Japan "Prime Minister Shinzo" which is akin of someone referring to him as "President Donald". Apparently no one informed Trump that Asian names are given Family-Personal and he assumed Shinzo was Abe Shinzo's western-style last name. Which I guess also means that either no one else knew either or that Trump never picked up on the fact that everyone else was calling him "Prime Minister Abe".

Waiting for Gbaji's ten page epic freakout about this ignorant breach in protocol given his vicious defense of the precise degree of bowing angles in Asian culture.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2407 Feb 13 2017 at 11:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,286 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Better question is why bother going through all the training and the scheming and the money to try and kill us here when we're more than adequate at doing that ourselves.
You gotta give credit to Russia here, they have the right idea. You hire someone else to bring down the U.S. from the inside then you can go back to enjoying your legal domestic abuse and vodka binges. Let's just hope ISIS never figures that out.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2408 Feb 13 2017 at 2:22 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
29,346 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Personally I'm not usually one for victim shaming, but maybe we need to take a long look in the mirror and think about what we're doing. I mean at some point you have to take responsibility for living in a country that attracts so much attention from terrorists. Perhaps we should ask ourselves what we're doing here, and if living here is really such a good idea. Let's face it, if it wasn't for all the people living in the U.S. there wouldn't be much reason to come here to kill people, and terrorism against the country would pretty much go away at that point. We're basically asking for it, being citizens here and all. I know it's not "PC" or whatever, but I'm surprised that fact doesn't get discussed more often.
Sadiq, datchoo?
#2409 Feb 13 2017 at 6:24 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,511 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Better question is why bother going through all the training and the scheming and the money to try and kill us here when we're more than adequate at doing that ourselves.
You gotta give credit to Russia here, they have the right idea. You hire someone else to bring down the U.S. from the inside then you can go back to enjoying your legal domestic abuse and vodka binges. Let's just hope ISIS never figures that out.

Scaring the American people into voting for a party that insists that everybody - EVERYBODY - needs easy access to guns is working out rather well.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#2410 Feb 13 2017 at 8:25 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,394 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Personally I'm not usually one for victim shaming, but maybe we need to take a long look in the mirror and think about what we're doing. I mean at some point you have to take responsibility for living in a country that attracts so much attention from--


IT'S BECAUSE THEY HATE OUR FREEDOM. They want to take our freedom away and make it into THEIR freedom. Delicious, delicious, freedom. THAT'S WHY.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#2411 Feb 13 2017 at 9:34 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,212 posts
The US has 1.12 guns per capita, but if we let that number drop by 50%, we would only have as many as #2, Yemen. We don't want to be like Yemen, that place is experiencing a low grade civil war. If we were to let that drop even further to, say 0.039, we could be as bad as Syria!
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#2412 Feb 13 2017 at 9:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,181 posts
Debalic wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Better question is why bother going through all the training and the scheming and the money to try and kill us here when we're more than adequate at doing that ourselves.
You gotta give credit to Russia here, they have the right idea. You hire someone else to bring down the U.S. from the inside then you can go back to enjoying your legal domestic abuse and vodka binges. Let's just hope ISIS never figures that out.

Scaring the American people into voting for a party that insists that everybody - EVERYBODY - needs easy access to guns is working out rather well.


Guns for all and health care for none! It's brutal, brutal population control.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#2413 Feb 14 2017 at 1:15 AM Rating: Good
***
1,054 posts
Whereas in the UK healthcare is free, but the wages are so low you still can't afford it.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#2414 Feb 14 2017 at 8:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,212 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Better question is why bother going through all the training and the scheming and the money to try and kill us here when we're more than adequate at doing that ourselves.
You gotta give credit to Russia here, they have the right idea. You hire someone else to bring down the U.S. from the inside then you can go back to enjoying your legal domestic abuse and vodka binges. Let's just hope ISIS never figures that out.


Apparently the Russian sleeper agent was the National Security Advisor. #BushLeague
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#2415 Feb 14 2017 at 9:05 AM Rating: Good
******
49,488 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
Whereas in the UK healthcare is free, but the wages are so low you still can't afford it.
Gotta keep those necromancers keeping an old woman with frilly hats alive on the payroll and in fresh blood somehow.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2416 Feb 14 2017 at 2:49 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,307 posts
Arms Treaty, Shmarms Shmeety
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#2417 Feb 14 2017 at 4:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,286 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Better question is why bother going through all the training and the scheming and the money to try and kill us here when we're more than adequate at doing that ourselves.
You gotta give credit to Russia here, they have the right idea. You hire someone else to bring down the U.S. from the inside then you can go back to enjoying your legal domestic abuse and vodka binges. Let's just hope ISIS never figures that out.


Apparently the Russian sleeper agent was the National Security Advisor. #BushLeague
Yeah kind of disappointed there; they should have tried harder. No one would have suspected Betsy DeVos. Smiley: tinfoilhat
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2418 Feb 14 2017 at 4:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,286 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
It seems like Russia has at least a two year head start on Trump when it comes to ignoring the treaty. Guess it pays to be the proactive one here.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2419 Feb 14 2017 at 6:00 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,566 posts
This administration is a best/worst scenario for somebody who detests strong executive powers; they're trying to implement myriad authoritarian policies, but so inept at it that every attempt is failing spectacularly. I can't decide whether I should be happy that they're so incompetent or worried that they might get better with practice.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#2420 Feb 14 2017 at 6:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
"Don't worry, the Republican Congress won't let him do anything bad!" Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2421 Feb 14 2017 at 7:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,808 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
They didn't get to the point of addressing whether or not the law was targeting a religion at all, just completely punted on it. The temporary stay was upheld solely on the basis the states (Washington & Minnesota) were able to demonstrate that the ban was causing significant harm to them. Businesses were not able to have employees travel, universities were without faculty and students present, families were separated, and various other people with granted legal rights to be in the U.S. weren't allowed in any more. This is costing the states money (i.e. lost tax revenue), and residents of the states hardship. The state universities being harmed here being the most argued point (as far as this case goes) as for why the states have a right to bring legal action.

Part of this was made worse by the vagueness of the executive order. The confusion on whether it applied to people with valid visas, green cards, etc. In a sense because of some on the initial confusion and vague wording of the original document (so are people with valid visas allowed in or not? What about those with dual citizenship?) they were convinced the order could be used to limit access to these people, even if that wasn't necessarily how it was intended, so that argument held ground. Trump's words hurt here as well, of course. Adding to evidence that the government could choose the broader interpretation and exclude more people from the country.

On the other hand there wasn't convincing evidence produced by the government that people from the foreign countries in question posed a harm to the United States. Giving the benefit of the doubt here, if any evidence of this is out there it's likely wrapped up in classified documents, and probably difficult to quickly produce on the timescale that this order came out. Hence the reason that they're granting a temporary stay to the order, giving the government a chance to prepare its case, and not doing harm to the states in the meantime.

Anyway, here's the whole thing if you want to read. There are arguments laid out in there for why the States were allowed to bring the suit.


So...

gbaji wrote:
I think the mistake you are making is assuming that when I question the argument made when attacking something that this means I'm defending the thing being attacked. I'm not. I'm merely pointing out the flaw(s) in the argument being made. I personally don't agree at all with the travel ban. I think it's overly broad and disruptive. But I *don't* think that it violates any sort of 1st amendment test, nor is it anti-muslim and will call out those who are saying it is. Argue against what it actually is, not a more emotion laden thing you want to label it. The latter process is just cheap rhetoric IMO.


More or less what I said. Got it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2422 Feb 14 2017 at 7:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,808 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
On the other hand there wasn't convincing evidence produced by the government that people from the foreign countries in question posed a harm to the United States.
You'd think if it was really about safety that the country responsible for more than 90% of the terrorist related deaths in the US would have somehow found it's way on the ban list.


Which country would that be?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2423 Feb 14 2017 at 10:19 PM Rating: Good
***
1,054 posts
Ireland.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#2424 Feb 14 2017 at 10:37 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,212 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
Ireland.


It just goes to show financing terrorism is only a problem if you are uncool.

So really, not being cool is the primary problem.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#2425 Feb 14 2017 at 11:59 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,307 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
So really, not being cool is the primary problem.


Crap, it's high school all over again.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#2426 Feb 15 2017 at 12:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,212 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
So really, not being cool is the primary problem.


Crap, it's high school all over again.


Root cause: People.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#2427 Feb 15 2017 at 6:44 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,227 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
So really, not being cool is the primary problem.


Crap, it's high school all over again.


Root cause: People.


Solution: destroy humans
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#2428 Feb 15 2017 at 8:29 AM Rating: Good
******
49,488 posts
Demea wrote:
This administration is a best/worst scenario for somebody who detests strong executive powers; they're trying to implement myriad authoritarian policies, but so inept at it that every attempt is failing spectacularly.
HE WILL NOT BE QUESTIONED.
gbaji wrote:
Which country would that be?
Jophiel wrote:
Ban Americans from entering America!
Dylann Roof killed more than the whole banned list combined, and he's hardly an isolated example.

Edited, Feb 15th 2017 11:35am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2429 Feb 15 2017 at 9:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,286 posts
gbaji wrote:
More or less what I said. Got it.
Pretty much.

I think the Virginia lawsuit took more of a crack at the Muslim angle of the legislation, referring to the language Trump used during the campaign calling for a "Muslim ban" in the decision. Still though the ruling was made mostly based on the executive order being over-arching and doing irreparable harm to the states. For what it's worth there seems to be a consensus that the idea of limiting immigration/visits/whatever from certain nations or regions based on a security threat is valid in theory, but that since it will cause damage to the states the onus is on the federal government to prove that there is a real danger, and that the restrictions will help alleviate it. The idea you can broadly restrict access to the country for people who have been vetted and have a legal right to be here (such as someone with dual citizenship) is a bit more suspect.

As an aside I'm finding it pretty amusing that Trump's campaign rhetoric has been consistently used against him in these court cases. Smiley: popcorn

Edited, Feb 15th 2017 8:00am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2430 Feb 15 2017 at 10:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Note that arguing a case based on A doesn't mean that B isn't valid. It just means that A presented an easier case and lower-hanging fruit. It's simpler to get the ban lifted by arguing the immediate harm caused to the states than it is to prove the motivations of the administration. Sort of like how any lawyer is going to try to get a case dismissed on technical merits before trying to convince a jury that their client isn't guilty. The order was sloppy and left easy opportunities to argue against it without having to debate whether it was in violation of the First Amendment but that doesn't mean it wasn't in violation.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2431 Feb 15 2017 at 10:37 AM Rating: Good
******
49,488 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
As an aside I'm finding it pretty amusing that Trump's campaign rhetoric has been consistently used against him in these court cases.
I like how we were assured how it was all just talk and that we shouldn't "take anything he says literal."
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2432 Feb 15 2017 at 11:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,181 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Demea wrote:
This administration is a best/worst scenario for somebody who detests strong executive powers; they're trying to implement myriad authoritarian policies, but so inept at it that every attempt is failing spectacularly.
HE WILL NOT BE QUESTIONED.
gbaji wrote:
Which country would that be?
Jophiel wrote:
Ban Americans from entering America!
Dylann Roof killed more than the whole banned list combined, and he's hardly an isolated example.

Edited, Feb 15th 2017 11:35am by lolgaxe



Also depends on how you define terrorism. I mean, I would certainly consider lynching and other forms of extrajudicial homicide to be acts of domestic terrorism. I assume this is not a widely accepted view on the right, however.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#2433 Feb 15 2017 at 11:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,286 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Note that arguing a case based on A doesn't mean that B isn't valid. It just means that A presented an easier case and lower-hanging fruit. It's simpler to get the ban lifted by arguing the immediate harm caused to the states than it is to prove the motivations of the administration. Sort of like how any lawyer is going to try to get a case dismissed on technical merits before trying to convince a jury that their client isn't guilty. The order was sloppy and left easy opportunities to argue against it without having to debate whether it was in violation of the First Amendment but that doesn't mean it wasn't in violation.
No, but it does seem like it'd be a less convincing argument, at the very least.

There's no specific language in the order that bans Muslims, though there's some stuff that would appear to suggest those with more extreme forms of the religion should be more heavily vetted. You have a large number of Muslim countries not on the list, of course. The vast majority of Muslims in the world (87%) wouldn't be affected by the order. You're also pulling countries from a previously-existing list of conflict hotspots and places where retaliatory terrorist attacks would be more likely to emerge from. These were identified by the intelligence agencies during the previous administration, so that lessens the argument that this is something Trump came up with to "ban Muslims." It's obvious that the list is dominated by countries that are majority Muslim of course, but that could be argued (quite sensibly, in my opinion) that's a coincidence based on what is a regional conflict that just happens to be in an area where the religion is popular.

Not to say it isn't discriminatory, that'd be for the courts and people with much more legal expertise than myself to decide, but I just don't see how that argument holds up. I'm open to being convinced otherwise of course.

Edited, Feb 15th 2017 9:29am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2434 Feb 15 2017 at 11:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,181 posts
It certainly doesn't help that argument that the Administration repeatedly referred to the EO as a Muslim ban.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#2435 Feb 15 2017 at 11:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,286 posts
Samira wrote:
It certainly doesn't help that argument that the Administration repeatedly referred to the EO as a Muslim ban.
Ugh, no. It doesn't help them at all. The parts that talk about vetting people with more extreme views, for example:

Trump's order wrote:
In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
may not be awful enough to kill the bill on its own. They're things that would generally be considered illegal here anyway, and there's plenty of language in other parts of the immigration stuff designed to make sure people are on board with our moral values and laws here. If Trump had just referred to it as an anti-terrorism bill all along I'm not sure it'd even be an issue.

Edited, Feb 15th 2017 9:49am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2436 Feb 15 2017 at 11:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I don't think "We won't serve black customers from Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama or Tennessee -- but we'll serve black customers from the other 44 states" is a compelling argument for it not being racially motivated. It's not a question of whether or not you've universally banned a group, it's a question of whether that group is the (near-)exclusive focus in the areas you HAVE targeted. With the exemptions given in the order for "religious minorities" from Muslim-majority nations, that would seem to be the case.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2437 Feb 15 2017 at 12:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,286 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I don't think "We won't serve black customers from Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama or Tennessee -- but we'll serve black customers from the other 44 states" is a compelling argument for it not being racially motivated. It's not a question of whether or not you've universally banned a group, it's a question of whether that group is the (near-)exclusive focus in the areas you HAVE targeted. With the exemptions given in the order for "religious minorities" from Muslim-majority nations, that would seem to be the case.
Well it's not just religious minorities, there's other exceptions in there as well. They would also have to prove they're being religiously persecuted to be granted entry.

Trump's order wrote:
Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest — including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship — and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.
That seems to me to read more like an exemption for people with extreme hardship, more-so than a purely religiously-based exception. That said it could certainly play out as a purely religiously-based exception in practice. If it did, I could see how it could be ruled against in the future as being discriminatory. The fact that Trump's campaign language seemed to suggest that it may be interpreted and enforced that way again being the biggest problem here. If he had just chosen his language better I could see it merely being a potential concern, but the prior rhetoric is what really sets it in an alarming light.

Edit: Also should probably bring up the obvious problem that we have some extreme religious sects that have vowed to kill our people, and that inherently puts us in a sticky position of trying to balance non-discrimination and security. It's as if there's a bunch of black-only cults in Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama or Tennessee that have vowed to kill white people, and we're trying to be non-discriminatory by refusing entry to people from those states in general, and being extra wary of people that hold beliefs that are consistent with those cults.

Anyway, not a fun thing to try and write laws around. Even outside of this poorly-planned executive order it's a bit of a legal tightrope we've had to walk over the past decade plus.

Edited, Feb 15th 2017 10:50am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2438 Feb 15 2017 at 12:09 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,488 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Trump's order wrote:
In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Neat, he banned himself.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2439 Feb 15 2017 at 12:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,286 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Trump's order wrote:
In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Neat, he banned himself.
Just wants to keep out the competition. More wives for him! Smiley: tinfoilhat
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2440 Feb 15 2017 at 12:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,181 posts
We're allowed to look at context here. The EO was authored by Bannon and Miller, and Bannon in particular has long advocated for blocking immigration in general, and Muslim immigration in particular. This is not a new stance for him, and including green card holders in the ban was at his insistence.

The "extreme vetting" that they supposedly put in place was exactly what the Obama Administration had already implemented*, so much so that they had to scramble around and come up with "tell us what social networking sites you use and your passwords for those sites" in order to add anything at all to what was already being done.

*Bowling Green Massacre, never forget.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#2441 Feb 15 2017 at 1:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,286 posts
Samira wrote:
The "extreme vetting" that they supposedly put in place was exactly what the Obama Administration had already implemented*, so much so that they had to scramble around and come up with "tell us what social networking sites you use and your passwords for those sites" in order to add anything at all to what was already being done.
Which is also partly why I'm not convinced about the religious bias portions of the argument. We've already been doing similar things as far as immigration and asylum is concerned. This order just expanded those same tactics to include far more people than previously, and many of those people already had been granted legal rights to be here which caused a lot of problems. It's more of an expansion of scope than an expansion of methodology.

Edit: Not to say the order isn't discriminatory, of course. Only that the degree of discrimination has precedence as far as balancing it against national security interests goes.

Edited, Feb 15th 2017 11:33am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2442 Feb 15 2017 at 2:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,286 posts
Also, Trump might want to put some archers on that wall of his.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2443 Feb 15 2017 at 8:20 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,227 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Trump's order wrote:
In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Neat, he banned himself.
Just wants to keep out the competition. More wives for him! Smiley: tinfoilhat
So long as the wives are 11 years old.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#2444 Feb 16 2017 at 9:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,286 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Trump's order wrote:
In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Neat, he banned himself.
Just wants to keep out the competition. More wives for him! Smiley: tinfoilhat
So long as the wives are 11 years old.
Pizzagate is just projection. It all makes sense now...
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2445 Feb 16 2017 at 8:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,808 posts
Samira wrote:
Also depends on how you define terrorism. I mean, I would certainly consider lynching and other forms of extrajudicial homicide to be acts of domestic terrorism. I assume this is not a widely accepted view on the right, however.


I've always defined terrorism based on the connection between the objective of the violent act and the target(s) of said act. Terrorism is distinguished from other forms of violence is that the intent is to create "terror" (hence the name), not just to kill people you don't like. If the target of the attack is the "enemy" you want to cause harm to, then it's not terrorism. It's just a violent attack on someone you hate. If the target of the attack is somewhat random, with the intent to create fear of such random attacks as a means of influencing social or political actions taken by the people and/or their government, then it's terrorism.

Killing a bunch of (semi) random people in a nightclub, to send a message to the people/government that they should not be interfering in the actions of IS (or, specifically killing off leaders of said organization), is terrorism. That he also chose a group to attack that he had a personal hatred for is in addition to his intent to use the attack in a broader political way. Killing people who work at an abortion clinic because you consider them to be murderers, is not. Killing black people in a church because you hate black people, is not. Killing Jewish people because you hate Jewish people, is also not. What makes it terrorism is the intent to influence broader political or social actions by the population as a whole. The killing itself is not the objective, it's a means to the end of the objective. That's what makes it terrorism (IMO, of course).

I know that the term terrorism is often misused, but that doesn't mean that it should not have a specific meaning and use and we should attempt to restrict its use to cases where it's appropriate. If we use it just for the extra power it grants in terms of emotion/whatever, then it ceases to really have any meaning at all. And yeah, folks on all sides of our politics are guilty of this.

Samira wrote:
It certainly doesn't help that argument that the Administration repeatedly referred to the EO as a Muslim ban.


You have a quote for this, right? I know that their political opponents and the media often referred to it as a "muslim ban", but I'm not aware that Trump himself, nor anyone direct associated with him did. But I'm more than willing to be better informed on this if you have the information.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2446 Feb 16 2017 at 8:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,808 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I don't think "We won't serve black customers from Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama or Tennessee -- but we'll serve black customers from the other 44 states" is a compelling argument for it not being racially motivated. It's not a question of whether or not you've universally banned a group, it's a question of whether that group is the (near-)exclusive focus in the areas you HAVE targeted. With the exemptions given in the order for "religious minorities" from Muslim-majority nations, that would seem to be the case.


I don't think that's a great analogy to use though, for a few reasons. A better one would be equating it to greater policing efforts in high crime areas (or in this case, high terrorist organization activity). This prompts people to argue that since the highest crime areas also tend to have a disproportionately higher black population, that this constitutes unfair police actions targeting black populations (we've had this discussion a couple times).

Obviously, some are going to accept that argument and some are not. But IMO, it's the same kind of reasoning in both cases, and, not surprisingly, the same people will come down on each side. You either see the targeting to be based on the identity of those living in the area, or based on the activity contained within that area. I don't think we'll ever be able to bridge that disagreement. I would hope, however, that each "side" can at least acknowledge that the other honestly does see it from their own perspective, and judge their motivations on that fact. Even if you think that restricting travel from these countries is a "ban on Muslims", or even just unfairly impacts Muslims more than other groups of people, that does not mean that the intent of the order is to accomplish that. We don't all walk around through life trying to figure out ways to hurt people. Sometimes, an order to prevent travel from countries identified has being hotbeds for anti-US terrorism is actually just about that terrorism, and the disproportionate impact is just an unintended (or in this case, unfortunately necessary) side effect.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2447 Feb 16 2017 at 9:11 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,227 posts
gbaji wrote:
Samira wrote:
Also depends on how you define terrorism. I mean, I would certainly consider lynching and other forms of extrajudicial homicide to be acts of domestic terrorism. I assume this is not a widely accepted view on the right, however.


I've always defined terrorism based on the connection between the objective of the violent act and the target(s) of said act. Terrorism is distinguished from other forms of violence is that the intent is to create "terror" (hence the name), not just to kill people you don't like. If the target of the attack is the "enemy" you want to cause harm to, then it's not terrorism. It's just a violent attack on someone you hate. If the target of the attack is somewhat random, with the intent to create fear of such random attacks as a means of influencing social or political actions taken by the people and/or their government, then it's terrorism.

Killing a bunch of (semi) random people in a nightclub, to send a message to the people/government that they should not be interfering in the actions of IS (or, specifically killing off leaders of said organization), is terrorism. That he also chose a group to attack that he had a personal hatred for is in addition to his intent to use the attack in a broader political way. Killing people who work at an abortion clinic because you consider them to be murderers, is not. Killing black people in a church because you hate black people, is not. Killing Jewish people because you hate Jewish people, is also not. What makes it terrorism is the intent to influence broader political or social actions by the population as a whole. The killing itself is not the objective, it's a means to the end of the objective. That's what makes it terrorism (IMO, of course).

I know that the term terrorism is often misused, but that doesn't mean that it should not have a specific meaning and use and we should attempt to restrict its use to cases where it's appropriate. If we use it just for the extra power it grants in terms of emotion/whatever, then it ceases to really have any meaning at all. And yeah, folks on all sides of our politics are guilty of this.

Not sure what your answer to Samira is supposed to be, here, as you failed to be as direct and succinct as you claim to be, but: All those white folk lynching blacks and killing people associated with voting rights back in the day? Yeah; that was terrorism.



Edited, Feb 16th 2017 8:21pm by Bijou
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#2448 Feb 16 2017 at 9:19 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,227 posts
gbaji wrote:
Samira wrote:
It certainly doesn't help that argument that the Administration repeatedly referred to the EO as a Muslim ban.


You have a quote for this, right?
Took me about 12 seconds.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#2449 Feb 16 2017 at 9:30 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,791 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Samira wrote:
It certainly doesn't help that argument that the Administration repeatedly referred to the EO as a Muslim ban.


You have a quote for this, right?
Took me about 12 seconds.

That's not the EO though.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#2450 Feb 16 2017 at 9:47 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,227 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Samira wrote:
It certainly doesn't help that argument that the Administration repeatedly referred to the EO as a Muslim ban.
You have a quote for this, right?
Took me about 12 seconds.
That's not the EO though.
That's a pretty fine hair to split.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#2451 Feb 16 2017 at 9:52 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,791 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Samira wrote:
It certainly doesn't help that argument that the Administration repeatedly referred to the EO as a Muslim ban.
You have a quote for this, right?
Took me about 12 seconds.
That's not the EO though.
That's a pretty fine hair to split.

? The comment was "referring to the EO as a muslim ban".

Fine hairs... or actual comment...
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 54 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (54)