Soverign said: Man I love political theater. They finally got that big W in the win column against that villain Trump and he is just steaming mad! They really stuck it to him! Lets hope there isn't another one of those terrorist attacks or anything after this, that would be rather bad. You contradicted yourself there and you didn't even notice. If nothing happens after this, everyone will just forget it because of the constant bombardment of another new "narrative" involving Trump that will ultimately come at some point. It always does. If there is a terror attack at some point, Trump can say "I tried doing something but 'certain people' wouldn't let me! Look at the poor terror victims that had to die because of this obstruction!" People hallucinate that they "win" against Trump, but they tend to forget that he is still president and that when the media say "Trump is at his end" it was wrong in 100% of all precedents - that's a fact. |
 |
Grey-Zone said: GamerDLM said: Except voting isn't a defined aspect under the 14th amendment, it's saying they protect those basic rights of people who fall under the jurisdiction of the United states. It puts them under equal protection and benefits of the law but it doesn't override things like the naturalization process to push them into citizenship. What about people whose visa's duration ends? Do they suddenly lose that status? If no, then they cannot be deported... If yes, then what if they gets sentenced to prison? Would they then get released and deported after the visa's duration ends? There is no prison sentence because that isn't part of the process, and at that point they are no longer a part of the naturalization process unless they reapply for an extension or a status change. They can also apply for a grace period if they are physically unable to leave in accordance with their visa agreement. Failing to do so would basically be the equivalent of a person waiving their rights under an investigation. They still had access to those rights and were treated fairly but then put themselves at the mercy of the agreement which would mean deportation would be an option in this specific scenario. |
GamerDLM said: Grey-Zone said: What about people whose visa's duration ends? Do they suddenly lose that status? If no, then they cannot be deported... If yes, then what if they gets sentenced to prison? Would they then get released and deported after the visa's duration ends? There is no prison sentence because that isn't part of the process, and at that point they are no longer a part of the naturalization process unless they reapply for an extension or a status change. They can also apply for a grace period if they are physically unable to leave in accordance with their visa agreement. Failing to do so would basically be the equivalent of a person waiving their rights under an investigation. They still had access to those rights and were treated fairly but then put themselves at the mercy of the agreement which would mean deportation would be an option in this specific scenario. Then, with all that said, were FDR's "concentration camps" unconstitutional? And if yes, why didn't the supreme court at that time act? |
|
Grey-Zone said: GamerDLM said: There is no prison sentence because that isn't part of the process, and at that point they are no longer a part of the naturalization process unless they reapply for an extension or a status change. They can also apply for a grace period if they are physically unable to leave in accordance with their visa agreement. Failing to do so would basically be the equivalent of a person waiving their rights under an investigation. They still had access to those rights and were treated fairly but then put themselves at the mercy of the agreement which would mean deportation would be an option in this specific scenario. Then, with all that said, were FDR's "concentration camps" unconstitutional? And if yes, why didn't the supreme court at that time act? They were deemed wrong although after the fact, reparations were paid, and the civil liberties act called it "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership." Part of the executive order was challenged in the supreme court however all of Roosevelt's appointed judges sided with him in saying the fear of espionage overrules the protection of the citizens rights. Although that specific court case is now considered to be so flawed it's almost exemplary of bad legal decision making but it has yet to be explicitly overturned. |
| I mean if everybody only listen to trump there will be drastic econimic downturns...you can't just neglect something and say its "ridiculos" |
 |
ibraheem234 said: I mean if everybody only listen to trump there will be drastic econimic downturns...you can't just neglect something and say its "ridiculos" A lot of people said the economy would immdietly crash if Trump would get elected. Yet the Dow Jones seems to be doing rather well. |
|
Zelev said: Altairius said: The left doesn't actually want to help Syrians rebuild their country, because that would mean they wouldn't flood into the West. By "left" you mean Democrats? Democrats aren't even left. They're right in the middle. Stop associating them with the left. No, I mean actual progressives too. How many of them actually complained about Obama's warmongering? At most you'd see a token comment here and there. Now we have Trump who wants to pull back from all of that, and they're rioting in the streets. The only conclusion to be drawn is that they're not anti-war. If destabilizing some other part of the world can help in destabilizing the West, they're in favor of it. |
Altairius said: Zelev said: By "left" you mean Democrats? Democrats aren't even left. They're right in the middle. Stop associating them with the left. No, I mean actual progressives too. How many of them actually complained about Obama's warmongering? At most you'd see a token comment here and there. Now we have Trump who wants to pull back from all of that, and they're rioting in the streets. The only conclusion to be drawn is that they're not anti-war. If destabilizing some other part of the world can help in destabilizing the West, they're in favor of it. So are you referring to Greens, then? Because you're pulling that out of your ass. I can assure you that the % of people that like him from the "left" is kind of low. Hence why they're in the Green party and not the Dem party.. Uh, where did Trump say he wants to pull back from that? He literally has ties to the Middle East. Oil -> War -> $$$ -> fuels our economy. Not to mention all of his hysteria that he shoves down our throats about other regions. |
 Three things cannot be long hidden.. ...the s u n, the m oo n, and the tr u th. |
Zelev said: Altairius said: No, I mean actual progressives too. How many of them actually complained about Obama's warmongering? At most you'd see a token comment here and there. Now we have Trump who wants to pull back from all of that, and they're rioting in the streets. The only conclusion to be drawn is that they're not anti-war. If destabilizing some other part of the world can help in destabilizing the West, they're in favor of it. So are you referring to Greens, then? Because you're pulling that out of your ass. I can assure you that the % of people that like him from the "left" is kind of low. Hence why they're in the Green party and not the Dem party.. Uh, where did Trump say he wants to pull back from that? He literally has ties to the Middle East. Oil -> War -> $$$ -> fuels our economy. Not to mention all of his hysteria that he shoves down our throats about other regions. The left doesn't like Obama? The few honest ones don't, but on average they do. Trump doesn't want to destabilize Syria. He also wants the US to be less dependent on the Middle East for its energy. Look at his actual policies. Muslims commit 99.9% of terrorist attacks. It is not hysteria to keep them out. Obama made up that list of Muslim countries. |
Altairius said: Zelev said: So are you referring to Greens, then? Because you're pulling that out of your ass. I can assure you that the % of people that like him from the "left" is kind of low. Hence why they're in the Green party and not the Dem party.. Uh, where did Trump say he wants to pull back from that? He literally has ties to the Middle East. Oil -> War -> $$$ -> fuels our economy. Not to mention all of his hysteria that he shoves down our throats about other regions. The left doesn't like Obama? The few honest ones don't, but on average they do. Trump doesn't want to destabilize Syria. He also wants the US to be less dependent on the Middle East for its energy. Look at his actual policies. Muslims commit 99.9% of terrorist attacks. It is not hysteria to keep them out. Obama made up that list of Muslim countries. People that like Obama? Yeah, they're called Democrats. There's over 65,000,000 of them. Less dependent on others =/= wanting peace. If anything, he offends everybody. Are you OK? I literally typed "percentage of terrorist attacks" into google and the first thing it says is that 94% of terror attacks were by non-Muslims. Where are you getting your sources, again? Your ass? |
Three things cannot be long hidden.. ...the s u n, the m oo n, and the tr u th. |
Zelev said: Altairius said: The left doesn't like Obama? The few honest ones don't, but on average they do. Trump doesn't want to destabilize Syria. He also wants the US to be less dependent on the Middle East for its energy. Look at his actual policies. Muslims commit 99.9% of terrorist attacks. It is not hysteria to keep them out. Obama made up that list of Muslim countries. People that like Obama? Yeah, they're called Democrats. There's over 65,000,000 of them. Less dependent on others =/= wanting peace. If anything, he offends everybody. Are you OK? I literally typed "percentage of terrorist attacks" into google and the first thing it says is that 94% of terror attacks were by non-Muslims. Where are you getting your sources, again? Your ass? You're looking at the US only, where Muslims are 1% of the population. So even in the US they are vastly disproportionately likely to commit acts of terrorism. |
Altairius said: Zelev said: People that like Obama? Yeah, they're called Democrats. There's over 65,000,000 of them. Less dependent on others =/= wanting peace. If anything, he offends everybody. Are you OK? I literally typed "percentage of terrorist attacks" into google and the first thing it says is that 94% of terror attacks were by non-Muslims. Where are you getting your sources, again? Your ass? You're looking at the US only, where Muslims are 1% of the population. So even in the US they are vastly disproportionately likely to commit acts of terrorism. No, you just don't know what "terrorism" means. Define terrorism for me, please. Literally anyone can be a terrorist. You have this pre-existing idea that Muslims are dangerous. That's called propaganda. |
Three things cannot be long hidden.. ...the s u n, the m oo n, and the tr u th. |
Zelev said: Altairius said: You're looking at the US only, where Muslims are 1% of the population. So even in the US they are vastly disproportionately likely to commit acts of terrorism. No, you just don't know what "terrorism" means. Define terrorism for me, please. Literally anyone can be a terrorist. You have this pre-existing idea that Muslims are dangerous. That's called propaganda. ^ When presented with the data, the left resorts to deconstructionism. "What is terrorism? What is violence? Maybe words can be violent?" |
Altairius said: Zelev said: No, you just don't know what "terrorism" means. Define terrorism for me, please. Literally anyone can be a terrorist. You have this pre-existing idea that Muslims are dangerous. That's called propaganda. ^ When presented with the data, the left resorts to deconstructionism. "What is terrorism? What is violence? Maybe words can be violent?" Lol what data? You failed to provide anything. I literally asked what your sources were. That's on you, dude. |
Three things cannot be long hidden.. ...the s u n, the m oo n, and the tr u th. |
Zelev said: Altairius said: ^ When presented with the data, the left resorts to deconstructionism. "What is terrorism? What is violence? Maybe words can be violent?" Lol what data? You failed to provide anything. I literally asked what your sources were. That's on you, dude. ^ The next step is resorting to feigned ignorance, hoping I won't follow through in posting data that is extremely easy to find and that everyone already knows. https://www.statista.com/statistics/236983/terrorist-attacks-by-country/ Notice anything about those countries? |
Altairius said: Zelev said: Lol what data? You failed to provide anything. I literally asked what your sources were. That's on you, dude. ^ The next step is resorting to feigned ignorance, hoping I won't follow through in posting data that is extremely easy to find and that everyone already knows. https://www.statista.com/statistics/236983/terrorist-attacks-by-country/ Notice anything about those countries? And this supports your earlier statement of 99.9% how exactly? Good job, you played yourself. ---Edit: Also, this is by country, not religion. Who are you trying to fool? |
ZelevFeb 5, 2017 7:09 PM
Three things cannot be long hidden.. ...the s u n, the m oo n, and the tr u th. |
Zelev said: Altairius said: ^ The next step is resorting to feigned ignorance, hoping I won't follow through in posting data that is extremely easy to find and that everyone already knows. https://www.statista.com/statistics/236983/terrorist-attacks-by-country/ Notice anything about those countries? And this supports your earlier statement of 99.9% how exactly? Good job, you played yourself. ^ Then comes hyper-literalism. Yes, that is a rough estimate to prove a point. It's also about right. |
Altairius said: Zelev said: And this supports your earlier statement of 99.9% how exactly? Good job, you played yourself. ^ Then comes hyper-literalism. Yes, that is a rough estimate to prove a point. It's also about right. I added more to my comment, but just in case you didn't see it.. your source is by country, not religion. Would it not be more effective to just ban all those countries then? You're technically letting in terrorists still. |
Three things cannot be long hidden.. ...the s u n, the m oo n, and the tr u th. |
Zelev said: Altairius said: ^ Then comes hyper-literalism. Yes, that is a rough estimate to prove a point. It's also about right. I added more to my comment, but just in case you didn't see it.. your source is by country, not religion. Would it not be more effective to just ban all those countries then? You're technically letting in terrorists still. Yes, that would be more effective. That's actually much better than a "Muslim ban". |
Grey-Zone said: You contradicted yourself there and you didn't even notice. If nothing happens after this, everyone will just forget it because of the constant bombardment of another new "narrative" involving Trump that will ultimately come at some point. It always does. If there is a terror attack at some point, Trump can say "I tried doing something but 'certain people' wouldn't let me! Look at the poor terror victims that had to die because of this obstruction!" People hallucinate that they "win" against Trump, but they tend to forget that he is still president and that when the media say "Trump is at his end" it was wrong in 100% of all precedents - that's a fact. Nah bruh. People won't forget, well, the people that matter won't. Remember an Elephant never forgets. ;) You aren't going to convince people who voted for Trump or supported even just this policy, that it didn't just happen. The best course of action would have been to, considering the current events in Europe and elsewhere. Go after something else. After all, if the policy had been in effect and an attack had happened in the US. Then they could point at it and go "see, it doesn't work. Trump is an idiot, unfit for office!". But they just had to beat him. But I feel I must remind a certain element of something. The two biggest concerns for the 2016 voter. Because I feel kinda sorta bad for them. #1 The Economy #2 Terrorism Anyways, why are we even talking about this when Kuwait just became the second most islamaphobic country in the world? http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/02/kuwait-follows-trumps-lead-imposes-visa-ban-muslim-countries/ |
SoverignFeb 5, 2017 11:19 PM
 |
| Tfw people can't read stats. Tfw they don't know terrorism in the name of Islam is the most prevalent. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| I'm glad to see the us president just a nobody and only can do what they allow to do. I have a feeling the president isn't really matters. |
 |
| And now The Supreme Count reverses the ban and Trump says "The ban just got 3 months longer". |
Candor said: Immahnoob said: In the US? I thought that was guns? Or is gun violence not terrorism?Tfw people can't read stats. Tfw they don't know terrorism in the name of Islam is the most prevalent. So if we ban guns, we can ban Islam? Hmmmmm, that is a hard choice. Better yet, what is Europe's excuse? I mean, at least we don't have to import our terrorists. By this logic Europe should be a perfect utopia. If it wasn't for those evil American gunmen terrorsits terrorising and raping them. But it is all Drumpf's fault for Syria! He made us take them in! We didn't have any choice in the matter! |
SoverignFeb 6, 2017 8:48 AM
|
Candor said: Stats-wise, why would you ban something harmless to you and ignore completely something that is killing your people? In fact, embracing it? It all sounds like double-standards to me, just to promote the good old middle ages logic that "very few of those group of people are bad therefore we should ban them all!", that just spreads hate among those people, and in lesser developed countries make it easy for those terror groups to recruit more america haters? I just don't get it, why are you causing yourselves more harm in the long run by spreading and discriminating against one group of people, who will use your discrimination to get stronger and bite you in the ass, like good old isis that was created by your previous retard, Bush's, policies? > Better yet, what is Europe's excuse? I mean, at least we don't have to import our terrorists. By this logic Europe should be a perfect utopia. If it wasn't for those evil American gunmen terrorsits terrorising and raping them. But it is all Drumpf's fault for Syria! He made us take them in! We didn't have any choice in the matter! Europe is not a perfect utopia, but it's smart enough to know that hate brings more hate, and that there are people who genuinely need help and had nothing to do with the war in their country, and europe is doing a great job in helping those people, there are a shitload of integration systems and organizations here in germany that will help people integrate and forget their backward thinking (Things you never hear about in the media). Yes some violence will happen at the beginning, but that will for sure decrease significantly. And as said before, as a politician you should think for the future, if you take those people in instead of letting them hate the world for not helping them then groups like ISIS would have the fun of their life recruiting. You'll have a couple more million people stuck in a war they don't want, so why keep them there and wait for them to come and destroy you in the form of terror groups, and not take them in, feed them and their children and show them and other people in the world that you're a loving peaceful country? Wow! That sounds fantastic and all, while your country and most of Europe is under the military protection of NATO, that is mostly just the military contribution of the United States. But do tell, what if the Middle East or Russia tells you to go fuck yourselves, they aren't selling you any more crude or what have you unless you bow to their demands and accept their terms? |
|
Immahnoob said: None of the people here know but this judge only did this for political reasons, not legal reasons. Meaning he postponed the inevitable. The Supreme Court will have Trump win. Unless they rely on their political affiliation to make decisions. This is legally speaking not a Muslim ban. Making exceptions for refugees is not discrimination based on religion either. If that argument were an issue, so would a ban on location. You guys know pretty much jack shit about law or about the bill itself. Trump already stated he'll reverse the decision. How do you think the bill would be revised? |
terminador_2397Feb 6, 2017 2:54 PM
 |
Immahnoob said: TFW people use statistically insignificant occurrences to justify banning an entire population.Tfw people can't read stats. |
 |
terminador_2397 said: Because their legal argument is stronger than the opposition, but then again, I thought I mentioned that the Supreme Court COULD decide politically.Immahnoob said: None of the people here know but this judge only did this for political reasons, not legal reasons. Meaning he postponed the inevitable. The Supreme Court will have Trump win. Unless they rely on their political affiliation to make decisions. This is legally speaking not a Muslim ban. Making exceptions for refugees is not discrimination based on religion either. If that argument were an issue, so would a ban on location. You guys know pretty much jack shit about law or about the bill itself. Trump already stated he'll reverse the decision. How do you think the bill would be revised? Pirating_Ninja said: Or crime, or welfare leeching, or cultural dissonance or...Immahnoob said: TFW people use statistically insignificant occurrences to justify banning an entire population.Tfw people can't read stats. It's ok, Ninja. Germany was ok with all those muslims. Or at least Angela Merkel was ok with them. There's little to no reason to accept immigrants from the Middle East. There are better place for work force, e.g. in the same population of the United States and places like India if you want legal immigrants. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: Kind of a massive strawman going on here, and quite ironic too since what you are saying is basically the reason why I do discourage mass migration, especially of "economic migrants".Pirating_Ninja said: Or crime, or welfare leeching, or cultural dissonance or...TFW people use statistically insignificant occurrences to justify banning an entire population. It's ok, Ninja. Germany was ok with all those muslims. Or at least Angela Merkel was ok with them. There's little to no reason to accept immigrants from the Middle East. There are better place for work force, e.g. in the same population of the United States and places like India if you want legal immigrants. However you have also moved the goal posts so to speak, I actually agree w/ the argument you are making for the most part (although instead of India, if the US needs a workforce, maybe they people in the rust belt or similar areas can move, or have jobs come to them, too many jobs is not our problem) however that isn't the point you were making. You were justifying the ban of a religious group due to terrorism with reference to stats, however any statistical analysis would show you that compared to the risk of terrorism, the risk of things such as drivers (of any demographic) are far more likely to kill you. Statistical significance is basic stuff when it comes to "stats", so representing a total population by a statistically insignificant portion of said population is not "stats". Now, do I think it is a good idea to accept a large population of impoverished people with a completely different culture and do not know the same language? No. However if you are going to protest something, be honest, don't just fear monger and spread bullshit (like that "skittles analogy"). Be realistic, i.e. there are many downsides with no upsides . . . however "terrorism" is not one of them if you are going by "stats" - especially in America. |
|
| I'm more scared of a Caucasian male going on a school shooting rampage than a terrorist blowing himself up in America tbh Terrorism problem in the US is overblown Be more concerned that you might be a victim of domestic abuse / violence bc those odds are significantly higher |
zzzeallyFeb 7, 2017 3:25 PM
| Hope he declares martial law and fires all the judges. |
| Funny how he didn't ban muslims from Saudi Arabia. Even though they were involved in 9/11 Hell none of the countries included in the ban have ever committed an act of terrorism against the United States. Then again what do you expect from an illiterate president. JonyJC said: Hope he declares martial law and fires all the judges. That would make Trump a dictator. You might not agree with the judge's ruling but checks, and balances exist for a reason. |
| Good. I'm not entirely against a temporary ban, however Trump's executive action was poorly thought out and affected people it shouldn't have. |
| People who put MAL stats in their sigs are losers lol |
astrozombie84 said: JonyJC said: Hope he declares martial law and fires all the judges. That would make Trump a dictator. You might not agree with the judge's ruling but checks, and balances exist for a reason. It's not whether I agree or not it's about possibility the courts are exercising executive power instead of judicial, pretty much what happened in Australia, pray that people enforce the executive instead of the judicial or you could indeed get a dictator. |
Pirating_Ninja said: And I'm going to point out why you specifically do not point out "fallacies". Because you have no idea what you're talking about.Kind of a massive strawman going on here what you are saying is basically the reason why I do discourage mass migration, especially of "economic migrants". So you agree this ban was justified.or have jobs come to them, too many jobs is not our problem) Too little jobs is one of the US's problems, yes.yes. however that isn't the point you were making. Yes, actually it was, my point was simply that the ban is justified, so I provided every reason for why it is. I never dropped my initial argument either.You were justifying the ban of a religious group due to terrorism with reference to stats, however any statistical analysis would show you that compared to the risk of terrorism, the risk of things such as drivers (of any demographic) are far more likely to kill you. I am justifying the ban of several countries due to terrorism with reference to stats, you see, there's a difference between banning Muslims and banning countries where Muslim extremists reside.And I agree, let's completely disregard all other issues and focus only on traffic accidents! That's one significant stat that needs to get culled... It's not as if we can't focus on multiple issues at a time, no, that would truly make things harder for all those corporations already trying to solve them. One of these issues that can be solved by closing the borders to borderline useless immigrants and using extreme vetting/finding better ways to vet while the ban is in progress though. Statistical significance is basic stuff when it comes to "stats", so representing a total population by a statistically insignificant portion of said population is not "stats". So because I justify the ban, that means that I am claiming that all Muslims are terrorists? That's a good one. If there's no way to find out if an immigrant is a terrorist or not, and since Islamic terrorists tend to be the most dangerous (most kills were done by them), plus all these cases these past 2 years were mostly because of them around the world, if they want to stop this type of terrorism, not allowing Muslims from countries that have terror issues or war issues is one of the ways to solve this issue with little to no downsides. Of course, besides public relations. As seen on the news, there are a lot of leftists that don't like pragmatic ways to solve issues. however "terrorism" is not one of them if you are going by "stats" - especially in America. There are no upsides in accepting muslims from those seven countries. We can ban them because we can. I don't know Trump's true motive but a Muslim ban for me could as well be for no reason, since they do not provide benefits that can't be taken from elsewhere for less to no downsides.So yeah, why would I eat from the bowl of skittles that has a few poisoned ones and the rest are made out of shit (they're still edible, bro) when I can simply eat from another bowl? |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |