There are a lot of scary things. You or I could die in a car accident. With all the drunk, drugged, and stupid drivers on the road, I'm a lot more scared of driving than terrorists. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to drive. I've always thought of America as strong enough to make decisions based on what's right and not what's scary. Trump isn't doing that right now.
Why don't every liberal who voted for crooked Hillary take a refugee and house them? You are so compassionate right? It would be a great idea for a gay couple to take in a Muslim refugee. That would work out great for you.
Speaking of which. A bit off-topic here, but I think Jersey drivers are the worst in the country. With that being said, I'm not incredibly well traveled. But ever since I started working and commuting somewhat deeper into Jersey, I've never seen so many 52 MPH drivers clog up the left lane in a 50-55 MPH zone in my life. Rt. 17 is an absolute disaster during rush hour. Carry on.
Hard to see how you were not specifically speaking to me when the first word of your post responding to me was "you." Once again you don't get to define others' beliefs, motives or intentions, they do that themselves. Your view of hypocrisy is ridiculous unless you believe the USA has always admitted only those whose backgrounds mirror those of us already here. People have been bringing their languages, customs, food, and yes, religions here since the country was founded. Bowing out is what I expected you to do - besides, your horse is waiting.
The biggest problem I have with Jersey is the road signs are poorly placed, and I always feel like I'm going to miss a turn or exit. And yeah, 17 is horrible, I avoid it when I can. Also I went down to Florida a couple weeks ago, and it's funny how the drivers there are insane but so nice about it. They'll run a red light and nearly kill you and it's all smiles afterward. Definitely not like that here. Interesting thing reading my previous post is you could argue that banning guns is a bad idea because we shouldn't live in fear of something that isn't likely to happen. Of course gun violence is more common than terrorist attacks, and gun control isn't the same thing as banning guns, but the principle still holds. Especially in more rural areas where guns are a bigger part of the culture.
I'm bowing out because you completely missed the point. As you have for the majority of the thread. I have no problem debating with someone that has a reading comprehension above a fourth grade level. You don't fit that bill.
So you almost create a valid argument for what I'm saying. Just like guns, there was no permanent ban put on travel. It was simply to halt the vetting process to ensure it is being done thoroughly enough to make sure we are doing everything in our power to keep terrorists out. Hence why it was a 120 day ban, not a lifetime ban.
Do you suppose it's possible those squatters seeking to immigrate to the US are doing so because they want to escape that restrictive lifestyle in their home countries? Do you suppose those squatters coming over to visit and see first hand how American Squatters live might want them to change that lifestyle in their home countries?
Oh, I haven't missed your point at all, I just can't believe someone could be so unaware of what many call the American dream and the foundation upon which this nation was based. Saddle up!
Trying to keep terrorists out is a good goal. The problems I have with this ban as a means to accomplish that goal are: 1. We're bullying refugees. So this becomes a do the means justify the ends situation. But 2. Had the ban been put into place years ago and been made permanent, it wouldn't have saved any lives. And 3. We just showed the world we're cool with bullying Muslims. Is that a fair characterization? Probably not, but 4. Radical Muslims will exploit it for all it's worth to promote their goals, which are exactly what the ban is supposed to prevent. I want to be a country that's strong enough to help others even in the face of terror. That's what being the leader of the free world is about, not cowering behind travel bans.
Could be. But once again. This wasn't some radical lifetime ban. It was a temporary halt in order to ensure our systems are correctly in place. It wasn't enacted correctly as there wasn't a plan in place. But said people will still be granted that opportunity after we make sure the vetting plan is exactly the way it's supposed to be. Everyone can stop crying though. It was overturned today. Open dem borders baby!!
Smh. But I agree the protesters would be better served spending their time helping refugees rather than protesting.
I'll refer to my previous post in this thread. This Trump EO wasn't some radical all encompassing ban but the guy spoke anywhere and everywhere all campaign season about how he wanted a radical all encompassing ban. .. so either the man is a liar or failed to live up to his promises or this was just a first step in achieving what he wants to do. and any reversal of his EO doesn't open borders up like Melanias legs when he buys a diamond ring it reverts back to our system of experts at 5 government agencies who've been "vetting" travelers for years and years. I personally think I'll trust that over some idiot talking shit on twitter about things he doesn't even know about regarding the "vetting" of people entering our country
I mean he's been pretty consistent with everything he's said he's going to do. A lot more so than most politicians. So you can accuse him of being a lot of things and disagreeing with a lot of what he's done, but he's following his campaign promises almost to a T. Side note: Melania wants absolutely nothing to do with any of this. She was content with the millions upon millions of dollars and the private jets. Memes to lighten the mood around this hood. There was a hilarious one of her and Billy C. shaking hands that I can't find now. Edit: found it.
So when the FBI director and several DHS officials say that the US cannot adequately vet most refugees, this was while Obama was in, you don't believe them? You know better and everyone is good? The only thing the temporary ban does is get in place a system to try to vet these people. What is wrong with that? Why should America not know who we are letting in our country? Do you not pay attention to Europe? Sweden, Germany? Some of those people are bad, but the ones coming out the USA are all poor little people who want the American dream? What are the majority of the refugees 18-40 year old men? Do you think there might be a higher chance of 18-40 year old men being radicalized than women and children? You also have no issue with than100,000s of christians being persecuted in those countries? They are the real oppressed. Don't give me this crap about the muslims who cheeered 911, supported AlQueda, supported ISIS, all of a sudden being supremely oppressed. The Syrians support Al Saed, but Obama send arms to the rebels. You have no issue with that. Bottom line if Obama had did this, you would say how smart he was. If the witch got elected and did this you would say look at what a great leader does it, Trump does it and you have your panties in a bunch making up straw man arguments.
The 95% figure came from a graph showing 1200 refugees were admitted one month and then after Obama's ban went into effect about 100 were admitted. It was around 100 to 500 for each of the 6 months and then went back up to over 100. I don't have the chart handy since I was on my phone when I saw it. I haven't had time to look over his entire tax plan but it seems with the $30,000 standard deduction anyone making under $30K would owe no tax so pretty decent cut for low income workers, it also increases taxes for those making $127K to $202K. Yes those making over $202K would pay less but as I said I have not looked over the entire plan to speak much about it. Need to see where the cuts to the budget come in and how many good paying jobs are added to see if it all makes sense. 100,000 empty, air conditioned tents in Mina, Saudi Arabia that are only used a few days a year. No challenge to put 2M people there since it is currently empty, all the other countries could provide the food, water, security and medical. A city designed for use by Muslims, in a Muslim majority country, sounds like a plan to me. I don't expect Trump to do much but his lobbyist ban is a good deal, if he somehow gets term limits in place and the rest of his Presidency is a shit show which helps destroy the 2 party system I will be happy. I don't see complete destruction of the country happening even as terrible as he can be, there are enough protections in place.
We need to send more cash to Iran. Fund Palestine. Take in a minimum 100,000 refugees and make their vote count in the next election. This is the American dream! God forbid you have opposing view to that. Obama- greatest arms dealer of the Syrian war. He was able to keep that place ignited with taxpayer $$$$ and weapons. Draws a line in the sand just to watch the other side walk all over it.
you are not being emotional enough. this is the coming of the apocalypse. now why wouldn't muslim countries with resources available step up and offer comfort and aid to these refugees?
You mean you don't know why you even deigned to respond to this? . . I think we both know why. On-topic, you inferred that a very limited sampling could possibly represent a consensus or sorts. Of course it does. First off, no one questioned that some Muslim babes might 'go hijab' of their own free will. What was questioned was the inference that a very small, anecdotally-gleaned sample could possibly be extrapolated to arrive at an unscientific conclusion. Secondly, do you realize that 'Catholic Church' can mean Eastern or Western, each with their own take on headdress do's and don'ts? Assuming you're referring to the Roman Catholic Church, I doubt that 33-years ago should be considered "very recently" but that's how long "no veil required in Church" went into effect (the 1983 Codex luris Canonici, or Canon Law) which addressed a practice that was already increasingly being practiced. As for Jewish men covering their head in a synagogue, exactly which halakhic obligation would you be referring to? Beyond all this and further to the point, the Shiksa and/or the Jewish dude wearing their respective headdress only pertains to while they're in their respective 'Houses-of-the-Holy' while the onerous and burdensome hajib requirements remain with Muslim women even after they hit the street. Frankly I could care less - babes can and should be able to do anything and everything they want as far as I'm concerned provided it doesn't involve a gun or a knife.
