But one reason for this is undoubtedly San Bernardino, where Tasfeen Malik used her personal page to promote Jihad
Comey specified that she was communicating with her husband via private messages, she did not post publicly about it. Presumably that's why they want passwords, so that they can review private messages. Again, that's not going to stop a dedicated attacker.
"You've been denied access to the United States because your Facebook account is only three months old and likes boring stuff."
The immigration system in this country is already a mess, we don't need to add more stupid and arbitrary ways for people to get denied access. If we deny access to someone there should be a good reason, not that their damn Facebook account isn't up to snuff. And, like has been said, it would be easy for an organization to create a whole series of accounts and actively maintain them for years before handing them out. The 9/11 attackers (from Saudi Arabia, UAE, and various other countries that Obama hasn't bombed and Trump hasn't banned) showed up at the airports with new haircuts, a fresh shave, a button-down shirt, slacks, etc. They looked like any other person. Adding a years-old actively-maintained fake Facebook account to that disguise isn't exactly the work of a criminal mastermind, it's just more security theater for the government to act like they're protecting something when they only thing they're doing is slowly rolling back rights.
Most Americans live in a bubble and have no clue how the immigration process works, or even the tourist process. We would probably be meaningful change happen to those systems if every other country in the world started treating Americans the same way that their own citizens get treated when they try to come here. When you get denied entry to Europe because your Facebook account isn't convincing enough then maybe you'll start looking for real solutions.
You don't want to have a discussion with me, you want to have a discussion with someone arguing in favor of violent imposition of Sharia law and someone trying to appeal to emotion and assert that people have a right to come here. I'm not that person. So, no, you didn't understand my points. Instead of responding to the things I said you responded to the things you wish I said.
The fact is that Jesus was a hippie that preached peace, love, and virtue
Jesus isn't the problem, it's his followers. His followers aren't very much like him. Which of us has his head in the sand? Religion is a system of allegories and myths designed to help bronze-age people survive in the harsh tribal desert environment where everyone was trying to kill each other. Everyone over there is still trying to kill each other, how much longer do we need to cling to this system of outdated beliefs before we understand that we can set our own rules for morality? Morality isn't difficult, you don't need a book written a thousand years ago to tell you to treat each other well. And, if the only thing stopping you from killing or stealing is the threat of divine judgment or the promise of a divine reward, then you're an asshole. Religion is outdated, it only seeks to control people and divide with the us vs. them mentality.
I don't give a fuck about this "doing exactly what ISIS wants" argument.
I can tell.
So you're advocating for violence to impose Sharia law?
If you think that's what I'm doing then I don't know how to begin to correct your thinking, it's beyond my ability. You need more help than what I can offer.
No, nobody is "forced to pick a side".
That's exactly what Trump is forcing Muslims to do. They're either on the side of America, or Islam, because apparently you're not allowed to be both under his rules. That's what ISIS wants, they want to force people to make that choice. That was their goal with the European attacks, to force a harsh crackdown on Muslims and force Muslims to choose a side. They are counting on the members of the religion to choose the side of religion, because they have been brainwashed since childhood to cling to religion. That isn't unique to Islam though, that's a feature of virtually every religion. Martyrdom and living under oppression are righteous in the eyes of religion. ISIS wants Muslims to be forced to pick a side, and that's what Trump is doing. The Muslim world can't embrace America as an example of freedom and liberty when we tell them they aren't welcome.
There's a difference between a sane immigration policy and "war against Islam".
And you think that's how this gets perceived by everyone else? When people hear that they're not allowed to come here because they were born in Iran, you think they're thinking to themselves "they don't hate Muslims, they're just creating a sane immigration policy." That's what you think? And I'm the one with my head in the sand? Maybe pick up the next issue of Dabiq and see how "the other side's" PR machine is playing this.
But if you think not allowing a hateful, foreign ideology into your country justifies violence against your country it is you who are playing into the hands of ISIS.
Ah, the "I know you are but what am I" rebuttal. Man, well played, I guess you really won that one.
You were talking about "basic human rights" and trying to shame me into thinking people had a right to immigrate here because of hardship.
No, I wasn't. That's why you missed the point. I'm suggesting that people everywhere value American values, like basic human rights, and that they come here in search of them because it's pretty hard to demand your basic human rights when the government is busy dropping an exploding barrel on you from a helicopter. The list of American values that you think immigrants need to share is pretty widespread, there are a ton of people who believe in basic human rights just like you and me. I'm not suggesting that one of those rights is the right to move here, I'm suggesting that they want to move here because they will finally get their rights if they do. You seem to be of the mind of telling them good luck dodging the barrel, hopefully at least one of your kids is alive when the government finally decides to leave. And piss on the arrogance in your reply.
And already you can't even draw a cartoon of Muhammad without death threats and assassination attempts.
So what? Is that a reason to shit your pants when you see a Muslim? They can threaten all they want, if they commit a crime they'll get punished for it. It's not a crime to draw a picture here, let them bluster all they want. If they don't like it, they can leave, they don't need to come here. No one is forcing them to come here. I just don't think it's moral to explicitly block all of them. If they want to come here and try to tell people how to live they can turn around and leave.
You ignore the Sharia courts operating in parallel with the state
Please. First, those are not courts of law. Second, they can make whatever clubs they want and tell their members to live however they want as long as they aren't violating existing laws. If they aren't violating existing laws, what's the problem? If they are, then there's already a law against that, what else is there to do except enforce it?
you ignore the Muslim neighborhoods with Sharia imposed by gangs
See above. If it's not illegal, who gives a shit? If it's illegal, enforce the law.
Islam is uniquely the most violent and authoritarian mainstream religion in the world today.
Maybe that's because they've been living in a state of near-constant warfare for the majority of their lives. Maybe that's the problem that needs solving, and maybe shutting them out of the rest of the world is the exact opposite to solving that problem.
They were both temporary halts to immigration to examine the vetting process.
Unless you're Syrian, then it's indefinite. It's not only immigration though, and that's part of the point. "Immigration" isn't a catch-all term for anyone coming here, an immigrant is a specific type of person. As opposed to, for example, a refugee.
The fact is he did not implement a Muslim ban.
Like Trump says, call it whatever you want. The reason why he didn't just ban Muslims is because that is unconstitutional. That's what he promised on the campaign trail, but it turns out you can't actually do that.
Erm, except that is actually what Trump's executive order set out to do.
No it's not. Originally they even denied access to permanent residents. They denied access to people already traveling.
Funny how nobody said a peep about all the hardships that Obama's order must have caused.
Yeah, that's a laugh riot, isn't it? What were all of those hardships, incidentally? How many students returning to the US got deported? Shit, this whole thing is high comedy.
So is Trump. He's just not waiting around for more terrorist attacks to happen.
Welcome to the kernel of the argument, glad you made it. If you stop all travel to the US, then people won't be able to travel here to attack us. Just like you can protect your computer from online threats by disconnecting your computer from the internet. But stopping everyone from coming here is un-American, it is not in line with our values. It's also not possible. Again, welcome to the core of the argument.
While I think you'd have to have your head in the sand to not recognize the problem with Islam as a whole
I think it's pretty obvious at this point that religion is a sickness. I don't claim to think that some religions are necessarily more harmful than others, all of them encourage an us vs. them mentality which is detrimental to everyone. While the fact is that the vast majority of religious people live in relative peace and security, that doesn't mean that religion isn't a corruption of the rational mind. People who want to kill people will kill people, the fact that these particular people justify their killing using religion isn't an indictment on everyone else who considers themselves to be in the same religion but still doesn't think that it's moral or ethical to kill people. The problem is non-stop violence in the middle east, not whatever religion those people follow. The answer isn't shutting out members of that religion from the rest of the world.
It would also be a good idea to realize that Trump is doing exactly what ISIS wants. The reason why they were hoping that he would win was specifically because he would block Muslims. The reason why they want that is because they want Muslims to be forced to make a choice, to pick a side, between their country and their religion. They believe that the vast majority will choose their religion over their country, and that is the most direct path to radicalization. When you force a Muslim, or a member of any other religion, to choose between their religion and anything else you're creating a clear path for them to choose violent resistance because they feel justified or "righteous" in doing so. That's exactly what ISIS wanted to happen, they wanted this to happen because they wanted Muslims to feel like the west feels like Muslims are the enemy, and that they would see a large recruiting boom based on that. This is how we defeat ourselves - we ban members of an entire religion, forcing them to pick a side in what they now see as a war against them, then they attack to defend themselves, then we use those attacks as further reasons to crack down on them harder. This doesn't end until one side is eliminated. This isn't the correct path to take. Shutting out a major percentage of the world's population from even traveling here is not the solution that is going to lead to the end of religious-based terrorism.
You don't have a basic human right to immigrate to the United States. Period. Just like you don't have a basic human right to receive health care or food from the United States, despite lots of people in the world who could benefit from such things. Nations have borders for a reason.
This argument is so far away from the point that I don't even know how to respond.
They tend to vote in blocks and have an outsized influence.
What? What the hell are you talking about? There are about 3.3 million Muslims living in the US. Let's assume 51% of them, a majority, support Sharia. That 51% equates to a little under 1.7 million people. The US has about 319 million people. So those Sharia-loving Muslims are 0.5% of the population. How the hell does that equate to a threat on the Constitution? Is that "outsized influence" going to cause half of the country to decide to throw out the Constitution and institute a religion-based system of law that ins't based on Christianity? If we are going to fear theocracy in this country, that threat comes from Christians, not Muslims. "Tend to vote in blocks" has fuck-all to do with that.
Plenty of Muslims have immigrated to the West and made all kinds of demands
That's great. I have a fantastic idea. Let's let them make demands in one hand, and shit in the other hand, and let's see which hand fills up first. How close is the UK to being a Muslim state, anyway? There's a much higher percentage of Muslims living there, so how close are they to throwing out the monarchy and living under Sharia?
I said, "Muslims place a vast strain on welfare and prison systems." My linked comment supports what I said.
I don't think it does. We are the richest country on the planet. A hundred thousand refugees is hardly a blip on the radar. Other poorer European countries are taking in more refugees than we are and somehow they still manage it.
You'd like to ignore what's going on in Europe and open the flood gates to the "huddled masses".
You said flood gates, not me. I'm not saying we open all borders. If the problem is with vetting, then let's change the vetting process. Stopping immigration is pointless, and selectively stopping immigration from the countries where the population needs to leave the most is heartless. There's a better way than saying "Muslims need not apply."
You're splitting hairs. Trump campaigned on a promise of banning Muslims, it was a specific campaign promise and frankly a foundation of his campaign's support. That is quite different than Obama changing the vetting procedures and needing to re-vet everyone and causing delays, because Obama's goal was not to stop immigration from Iraq, or to stop Muslim immigration. He was reacting to terrorists getting through the vetting process, which obviously needed to be tightened. Hair Fuhrer's goal is to stop Muslim immigration completely, even if he can't legally just do that. The only way to conflate those two things is if you think both of them are in response to a threat, except Trump thinks that the threat is "all Muslims" instead of terrorists. That's the part that people have a problem with.
That's because that never happened. Obama never banned Iraqi immigrants. At one point the rules for vetting changed and people had to be re-vetted, but there is no month when no Iraqis arrived here. That situation also only affected refugees, it did not affect permanent residents, or immigrants, or people with travel visas (nonimmigrants). Trump's EO affects all of those categories.
I found all of that information out with a single Google search, by the way. It's really not that hard to figure out which things are factual and which things are alt-facts (i.e., not facts).
And if you're living in a country where you're being oppressed, or your government decide to start killing everyone, well fuck you for living there, you probably deserve it. If you want basic human rights then you better just start throwing rocks at the guys getting their weapons from Russia, right? That's going to help. When you've got several kids that you're trying to keep alive and provide a decent life for, what you need to do is attack the government troops. Don't bother trying to go to another country, sorry, there are borders for a reason. That reason is to keep your poor oppressed ass out. Say hi to your kids for us.
Unfortunately, no, far too many Muslims favor Sharia law over US law.
The percentage of Muslims in the US who want Sharia law is not a super majority, and when you combine that with the percentage of people in the US who are Muslim it is a very small percentage of the total population. There is far more resistance to Sharia than there is acceptance, and being scared of it and thinking that somehow these people are going to create the necessary majority to throw out the US Constitution is laughable. It's a non-issue. If you want to live under Sharia you wouldn't come here, you would move to a place like Saudi Arabia. In order for Muslims in the US to have the numbers to actually change the Constitution, 100% of Americans would have to be Muslim.
That's not the case in Europe.
You have numbers to show that the majority of Muslim immigrants to Europe are not working to support themselves?
I believe in workfare.
I don't know how that is supposed to relate to the fact that conservative states take the most federal aid, but whatever.
I never liked the idea behind that poem. Really, send us all your overflow? Thanks, let us be the dumping ground!
Yeah, you know why that's there? Because that's how this country got its start, and that's what helped make the country great. People with great lives didn't decide to up and come here, the people who made this country great are the people with nothing who came here looking for a better life and found one.
I'll also add that I agree with Mike Pence that a ban on Muslims entering the country is both offensive and unconstitutional, although I'm not looking forward to 4 years of having judges explain why things that Trump does aren't actually unconstitutional even if they're un-American.
America should be for those who share American values
Like basic human rights and freedom, that kind of thing? Freedom to practice your religion, freedom from oppression, those kinds of things right? Which part of that is telling people that they can't come here because they grew up in Iran, or they had the audacity to be attacked by Al-Assad? How about my wife's parents who can't come see their daughter's new home because they can't physically get a visa since everyone in their 70s now needs to be interviewed in person, in order to stop all the septuagenarian terrorists that have been attacking us for years? Which of our values does that one fall under? They could get a visa, all they have to do is stand around the consulate building for up to 8 hours with no seating, no restrooms, no food or water allowed inside, and no cell phones allowed inside, until it's their turn for the interview. Kind of sounds like we're being assholes to people who want to visit us, doesn't it? My wife's father cannot physically do that with his failing health, so instead of being exempted from the interview process like he was a month ago (and has been for 6 years), now he has to wait in line with all of the other people in their 70s. Which of our values is that one again? We're just trying to protect ourselves from all of those 72 year old Brazilian terrorists who have been attacking us for years, aren't we?
I would suggest that the vast majority of people in the world share American values like basic human rights, the various freedoms we enjoy, the ability to get a job and get paid a decent wage and use it to support their family, etc. None of those values requires that those people are from a certain country, religion, etc. And I would also suggest that the vast majority of people who want to come here are ready and willing and able to work to support themselves. In any case, just shutting people out is a fairly extreme reaction. If things need to be reformed, then we can reform them without shutting people out. When we applied for residency for my wife we already had to prove that either she can support herself or that I can support her if she's not working, to something like 125% of the poverty level. We already have to prove that people aren't going to be an economic burden, so what specifically are you suggesting we need to change?
If you want to talk about welfare, let's talk about all of the red states that take the most federal aid. Maybe we can try to fix problems there before stopping people who are ready to work from coming into the country.
not hordes of economic migrants or those who will end up on welfare.
I'll also point out that this entire discussion about alternative facts came to be because the very first act of Trump's new press secretary was to walk in front of the press, say a bunch of things that were not true, and then walk away without any questions. The very first thing they had their press secretary do was to walk out and lie to people. And then, when called on it, he refused to retract his statements.
Also, Conway was never a lawyer. She got a degree in law and was a judicial clerk before going into the polling business.
They are just a different set of facts that support an alternative narrative
OK, if they're a different set of facts, then do you know what we can call those? We can call them facts. They're either facts, or they're not. There's no maybe. Saying that Trump had the largest crowd in front of him at an inauguration is not a fact. Calling it an alternative fact doesn't make it any more "facty", it's still not a fact.
but you want to pretend like everything the Trump admin says in a lie
No, I never said that. They have a terrible relationship with the truth, but not everything is a lie. Some things are definitely lies though.
and the NY Times and CNN are good boys who would never tell a fib.
Again, not something I said, and I don't necessarily believe it either. But, I will say this for the news agencies: when they say something that is incorrect, they issue a retraction. That's something that the administration doesn't seem very willing to do even when they get caught.
You're suggesting that diversity and refugees are the thing that is going to ruin the country? Not that I want to collect on this, but I'll bet that over the next four years we end up with something that the founders would have been appalled at, and it won't be because we tried to be diverse or allow refugees into the country like we've done for decades. Our tradition of being a safe haven for people who are oppressed isn't what is going to destroy is, it's the overreaction of people who think that America is for white people and want to shut us away from the world.
That the media is pushing a narrative that Trump is unpopular/unliked
He is. Historically so. That's not to say that there aren't people who like him, but they're not the majority.
which is why NY Times ran the photo comparison of Trump's crowd vs. Obama's crowd.
That's a factual comparison, first of all. There's nothing false about showing those photos. Trump claimed the largest crowd ever, and it was obviously not. He deserves, and needs, to be fact-checked because of the loose relationship with the truth that he has had for many years.
Trump picture earlier in the day
The circulated photo was taken at 12:01pm. He took the oath at noon.
Trump inaug on a workday instead of a Saturday like Obama's
That's just a reason why the crowd might be smaller, and ignores his claim of having the largest crowd ever. It doesn't matter why the crowd was smaller, no one is arguing about why, he sent Spicer out for his very first face-to-face with the press in order to claim that this was the largest crowd, period. Trying to suggest why the crowd might have been smaller is distracting from the actual argument of was it the largest crowd ever, or not. It wasn't. Obviously.
Here are some interesting facts. Metro reported 193,000 rides by 11am for Trump. For Obama, by 11am there were 513,000 rides in 2009, and 317,000 rides in 2013. For Bush, there were 197,000 rides in 2005. There were more people riding the metro on the day George W. Bush got sworn in for the second time than there were for Trump. The next day, during the women's march, there were over 1 million rides (all day, all numbers above were for 4am to 11am). That is the second-highest daily total in Metro's history, behind Obama's 2009 inauguration. This is why all of these claims from Trump about having the largest crowd ever are laughable.
But, here's the really funny thing: the total ridership all day for Trump was a little over 570,000 rides (you can compare that with the 1 million plus the following day). The average weekday total for Metro is over 710,000 rides. Trump's inauguration didn't even have higher ridership than an average weekday.
tighter security at Trump's
The secret service disputed some of Spicer's remarks about that also.
deranged leftist protestors blocking traffic/driving down attendance through intimidation
Right, because a million Trump supporters who didn't show up on the mall would have been intimidated by a few hundred or thousand "deranged leftists", right? Where's the coverage of those stranded extra million people that he would have needed to have the largest crowd? You'd think that people would notice a million people walking around the streets. Wait, they did, when that happened the day after the inauguration when everyone marched in protest. If you want to see what a million people on the streets look like, look at those pictures. That didn't happen on inauguration day. Why, is it because none of the Trump supporters could figure out how to use a camera? Or did it not actually happen?
D.C. is 90% Democrat and 50% black which makes easy turnout for the democrat first black president
What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Again, what are you arguing? Are you still trying to argue that Trump in fact had a larger crowd, which is what Spicer was arguing and which is why Conjob came out with her "alternative facts" line, or have you accepted that the crowd was nowhere near the same size and now you're just trying to come up with excuses for why?
Trump's support has to come from out of town and stay at hotels and risk getting their car set on fire by deranged leftists
Oh. So Trump supporters let themselves be intimidated by all of the scary leftists, huh? And that's why Trump had more tha
So, anyway, what's this false narrative you were talking about? Is there actually a false narrative, or did you just hear someone say that and it sounded to you like something which could be true?
I don't think I do have to admit that. I wasn't there and I haven't watched any videos of anything surrounding that, I don't know what the environment was like. I do know that it's partly being blamed on a group called the Black Bloc, which is also a general term for this kind of unrest where everyone shows up in black outfits, sunglasses, face coverings, hats or hoods, etc. In that kind of situation it might not be possible to know who is doing what if everyone looks similar. Maybe the police weren't prepared. I don't know, but I'm not going to say that it's extremely suspicious and that the police might be complicit in violent protest. I doubt that there is a large group of police anywhere in the country that would turn a blind eye to large-scale lawlessness and property damage based on their own personal political beliefs.
I have to say though, I do find it unnerving that so many people in the country are opposed to anti-fascists. That's a little bit unsettling. There's a disturbing trend of nationalist authoritarianism going around. I've never experienced this level of open hatred in society, because I've always lived in the US. It's not something that I enjoy seeing, and it's clearly not American.
it's a good bet the Democratic Party could put up a decent candidate to beat Trump in 2020.
I hope you didn't take out a bet on that. They still need to get rid of their leadership and find a focus, which they seem to be having trouble with. Sanders is still on the job, but I would be surprised if he ran again at his age.
Next time, let's hope they put up a candidate who isn't nearly as flawed as Clinton.
Let's hope they get rid of the leaders who don't understand the people they're trying to represent, and start listening to what people want. People wanted Sanders last time, but they didn't give a shit. The people in charge of the party need to be pushed out if the party wants to remain relevant. I'd like to see a new party form, personally. Let the Democrats pander to the coastal elite like they've been doing, and let the new party represent everyone else.
You are also sidestepping the issue, which is that so-called progressives are using violence and mayhem to suppress speech.
I don't agree with violence like what happened in California, I'm not going to defend that. I'm also not going to act like everyone who opposes the alt-right is violent. They're damaging their own cause, which isn't necessarily my cause, and they're probably too young and naive to know any better. It's no better thought-out than a bunch of people walking around with signs saying "not my president" when those same people would have expected the other half of the country to suck it up and lose gracefully. It's stupid and self-defeating to act like Trump isn't your president, just like it's self-defeating to use violence. I'm sure that, even though some of the violent people weren't from the school, I imagine that a lot of those people protesting are too young to know that they're hurting themselves and a lot of them probably didn't even bother to vote. But, again, I'm also not going to act like everyone who is opposed to the alt-right is like those people. I also have no problem with people protesting against the alt-right, I think that's the right response.
Furthermore, they did so with the tacit approval of the local government, as evidenced by the fact that "no arrests were made."
That is not tacit approval. When a crime happens without an arrest, that doesn't mean that the police approved of it.
Also, liberal democracies are not maintained by allowing protestors to practice violent rebellion without recourse. The rule of law must be maintained.
Yes, I agree. But, on the other hand, no one should be too surprised that someone who got elected based on a strategy of divide and conquer ends up presiding over a restless populace.
We know that from the platform from where the President was sworn in to 4th Street holds about 250,000 people. From 4th Street to the media tent is about another 220,000. And from the media tent to the Washington Monument another 250,000 people. All of this space was full when the President took the oath of office.
That's not true.
Here, here's another one:
Spicer said 420,000 used the D.C. Metro public transit on Jan. 20, 2017, compared with 317,000 for President Obama’s 2012 inaugural.
Not only is that not true, but both of those numbers are wrong.
Here's another one:
It was the “first time” that floor coverings were used to protect the grass on the National Mall, which had highlighted empty spots in the inaugural crowd, an effect not experienced in past inaugurations, he said.
That's not true either.
You asked for one, but there's three things he said which are demonstrably untrue. But instead of just admit that, she had to double-down and claim that they were alternative facts. If you want to re-watch that video where Conway and Todd discuss those specific statements made by Spicer then let me know so I can look that up for you too.
Slashdot Mirror
But one reason for this is undoubtedly San Bernardino, where Tasfeen Malik used her personal page to promote Jihad
Comey specified that she was communicating with her husband via private messages, she did not post publicly about it. Presumably that's why they want passwords, so that they can review private messages. Again, that's not going to stop a dedicated attacker.
"You've been denied access to the United States because your Facebook account is only three months old and likes boring stuff."
The immigration system in this country is already a mess, we don't need to add more stupid and arbitrary ways for people to get denied access. If we deny access to someone there should be a good reason, not that their damn Facebook account isn't up to snuff. And, like has been said, it would be easy for an organization to create a whole series of accounts and actively maintain them for years before handing them out. The 9/11 attackers (from Saudi Arabia, UAE, and various other countries that Obama hasn't bombed and Trump hasn't banned) showed up at the airports with new haircuts, a fresh shave, a button-down shirt, slacks, etc. They looked like any other person. Adding a years-old actively-maintained fake Facebook account to that disguise isn't exactly the work of a criminal mastermind, it's just more security theater for the government to act like they're protecting something when they only thing they're doing is slowly rolling back rights.
Most Americans live in a bubble and have no clue how the immigration process works, or even the tourist process. We would probably be meaningful change happen to those systems if every other country in the world started treating Americans the same way that their own citizens get treated when they try to come here. When you get denied entry to Europe because your Facebook account isn't convincing enough then maybe you'll start looking for real solutions.
You don't want to have a discussion with me, you want to have a discussion with someone arguing in favor of violent imposition of Sharia law and someone trying to appeal to emotion and assert that people have a right to come here. I'm not that person. So, no, you didn't understand my points. Instead of responding to the things I said you responded to the things you wish I said.
Right, you don't understand my point and assert that I mean something that I don't, and then accuse me of not understanding the point.
Take care.
You absolutely were, but let's continue.
You know what? Let's not. If you're going to put words in my mouth and then ask me to defend them there's not much of a point.
The fact is that Jesus was a hippie that preached peace, love, and virtue
Jesus isn't the problem, it's his followers. His followers aren't very much like him. Which of us has his head in the sand? Religion is a system of allegories and myths designed to help bronze-age people survive in the harsh tribal desert environment where everyone was trying to kill each other. Everyone over there is still trying to kill each other, how much longer do we need to cling to this system of outdated beliefs before we understand that we can set our own rules for morality? Morality isn't difficult, you don't need a book written a thousand years ago to tell you to treat each other well. And, if the only thing stopping you from killing or stealing is the threat of divine judgment or the promise of a divine reward, then you're an asshole. Religion is outdated, it only seeks to control people and divide with the us vs. them mentality.
I don't give a fuck about this "doing exactly what ISIS wants" argument.
I can tell.
So you're advocating for violence to impose Sharia law?
If you think that's what I'm doing then I don't know how to begin to correct your thinking, it's beyond my ability. You need more help than what I can offer.
No, nobody is "forced to pick a side".
That's exactly what Trump is forcing Muslims to do. They're either on the side of America, or Islam, because apparently you're not allowed to be both under his rules. That's what ISIS wants, they want to force people to make that choice. That was their goal with the European attacks, to force a harsh crackdown on Muslims and force Muslims to choose a side. They are counting on the members of the religion to choose the side of religion, because they have been brainwashed since childhood to cling to religion. That isn't unique to Islam though, that's a feature of virtually every religion. Martyrdom and living under oppression are righteous in the eyes of religion. ISIS wants Muslims to be forced to pick a side, and that's what Trump is doing. The Muslim world can't embrace America as an example of freedom and liberty when we tell them they aren't welcome.
There's a difference between a sane immigration policy and "war against Islam".
And you think that's how this gets perceived by everyone else? When people hear that they're not allowed to come here because they were born in Iran, you think they're thinking to themselves "they don't hate Muslims, they're just creating a sane immigration policy." That's what you think? And I'm the one with my head in the sand? Maybe pick up the next issue of Dabiq and see how "the other side's" PR machine is playing this.
But if you think not allowing a hateful, foreign ideology into your country justifies violence against your country it is you who are playing into the hands of ISIS.
Ah, the "I know you are but what am I" rebuttal. Man, well played, I guess you really won that one.
You were talking about "basic human rights" and trying to shame me into thinking people had a right to immigrate here because of hardship.
No, I wasn't. That's why you missed the point. I'm suggesting that people everywhere value American values, like basic human rights, and that they come here in search of them because it's pretty hard to demand your basic human rights when the government is busy dropping an exploding barrel on you from a helicopter. The list of American values that you think immigrants need to share is pretty widespread, there are a ton of people who believe in basic human rights just like you and me. I'm not suggesting that one of those rights is the right to move here, I'm suggesting that they want to move here because they will finally get their rights if they do. You seem to be of the mind of telling them good luck dodging the barrel, hopefully at least one of your kids is alive when the government finally decides to leave. And piss on the arrogance in your reply.
And already you can't even draw a cartoon of Muhammad without death threats and assassination attempts.
So what? Is that a reason to shit your pants when you see a Muslim? They can threaten all they want, if they commit a crime they'll get punished for it. It's not a crime to draw a picture here, let them bluster all they want. If they don't like it, they can leave, they don't need to come here. No one is forcing them to come here. I just don't think it's moral to explicitly block all of them. If they want to come here and try to tell people how to live they can turn around and leave.
You ignore the Sharia courts operating in parallel with the state
Please. First, those are not courts of law. Second, they can make whatever clubs they want and tell their members to live however they want as long as they aren't violating existing laws. If they aren't violating existing laws, what's the problem? If they are, then there's already a law against that, what else is there to do except enforce it?
you ignore the Muslim neighborhoods with Sharia imposed by gangs
See above. If it's not illegal, who gives a shit? If it's illegal, enforce the law.
Islam is uniquely the most violent and authoritarian mainstream religion in the world today.
Maybe that's because they've been living in a state of near-constant warfare for the majority of their lives. Maybe that's the problem that needs solving, and maybe shutting them out of the rest of the world is the exact opposite to solving that problem.
They were both temporary halts to immigration to examine the vetting process.
Unless you're Syrian, then it's indefinite. It's not only immigration though, and that's part of the point. "Immigration" isn't a catch-all term for anyone coming here, an immigrant is a specific type of person. As opposed to, for example, a refugee.
The fact is he did not implement a Muslim ban.
Like Trump says, call it whatever you want. The reason why he didn't just ban Muslims is because that is unconstitutional. That's what he promised on the campaign trail, but it turns out you can't actually do that.
Erm, except that is actually what Trump's executive order set out to do.
No it's not. Originally they even denied access to permanent residents. They denied access to people already traveling.
Funny how nobody said a peep about all the hardships that Obama's order must have caused.
Yeah, that's a laugh riot, isn't it? What were all of those hardships, incidentally? How many students returning to the US got deported? Shit, this whole thing is high comedy.
So is Trump. He's just not waiting around for more terrorist attacks to happen.
Welcome to the kernel of the argument, glad you made it. If you stop all travel to the US, then people won't be able to travel here to attack us. Just like you can protect your computer from online threats by disconnecting your computer from the internet. But stopping everyone from coming here is un-American, it is not in line with our values. It's also not possible. Again, welcome to the core of the argument.
While I think you'd have to have your head in the sand to not recognize the problem with Islam as a whole
I think it's pretty obvious at this point that religion is a sickness. I don't claim to think that some religions are necessarily more harmful than others, all of them encourage an us vs. them mentality which is detrimental to everyone. While the fact is that the vast majority of religious people live in relative peace and security, that doesn't mean that religion isn't a corruption of the rational mind. People who want to kill people will kill people, the fact that these particular people justify their killing using religion isn't an indictment on everyone else who considers themselves to be in the same religion but still doesn't think that it's moral or ethical to kill people. The problem is non-stop violence in the middle east, not whatever religion those people follow. The answer isn't shutting out members of that religion from the rest of the world.
It would also be a good idea to realize that Trump is doing exactly what ISIS wants. The reason why they were hoping that he would win was specifically because he would block Muslims. The reason why they want that is because they want Muslims to be forced to make a choice, to pick a side, between their country and their religion. They believe that the vast majority will choose their religion over their country, and that is the most direct path to radicalization. When you force a Muslim, or a member of any other religion, to choose between their religion and anything else you're creating a clear path for them to choose violent resistance because they feel justified or "righteous" in doing so. That's exactly what ISIS wanted to happen, they wanted this to happen because they wanted Muslims to feel like the west feels like Muslims are the enemy, and that they would see a large recruiting boom based on that. This is how we defeat ourselves - we ban members of an entire religion, forcing them to pick a side in what they now see as a war against them, then they attack to defend themselves, then we use those attacks as further reasons to crack down on them harder. This doesn't end until one side is eliminated. This isn't the correct path to take. Shutting out a major percentage of the world's population from even traveling here is not the solution that is going to lead to the end of religious-based terrorism.
You don't have a basic human right to immigrate to the United States. Period. Just like you don't have a basic human right to receive health care or food from the United States, despite lots of people in the world who could benefit from such things. Nations have borders for a reason.
This argument is so far away from the point that I don't even know how to respond.
They tend to vote in blocks and have an outsized influence.
What? What the hell are you talking about? There are about 3.3 million Muslims living in the US. Let's assume 51% of them, a majority, support Sharia. That 51% equates to a little under 1.7 million people. The US has about 319 million people. So those Sharia-loving Muslims are 0.5% of the population. How the hell does that equate to a threat on the Constitution? Is that "outsized influence" going to cause half of the country to decide to throw out the Constitution and institute a religion-based system of law that ins't based on Christianity? If we are going to fear theocracy in this country, that threat comes from Christians, not Muslims. "Tend to vote in blocks" has fuck-all to do with that.
Plenty of Muslims have immigrated to the West and made all kinds of demands
That's great. I have a fantastic idea. Let's let them make demands in one hand, and shit in the other hand, and let's see which hand fills up first. How close is the UK to being a Muslim state, anyway? There's a much higher percentage of Muslims living there, so how close are they to throwing out the monarchy and living under Sharia?
I said, "Muslims place a vast strain on welfare and prison systems." My linked comment supports what I said.
I don't think it does. We are the richest country on the planet. A hundred thousand refugees is hardly a blip on the radar. Other poorer European countries are taking in more refugees than we are and somehow they still manage it.
You'd like to ignore what's going on in Europe and open the flood gates to the "huddled masses".
You said flood gates, not me. I'm not saying we open all borders. If the problem is with vetting, then let's change the vetting process. Stopping immigration is pointless, and selectively stopping immigration from the countries where the population needs to leave the most is heartless. There's a better way than saying "Muslims need not apply."
You're splitting hairs. Trump campaigned on a promise of banning Muslims, it was a specific campaign promise and frankly a foundation of his campaign's support. That is quite different than Obama changing the vetting procedures and needing to re-vet everyone and causing delays, because Obama's goal was not to stop immigration from Iraq, or to stop Muslim immigration. He was reacting to terrorists getting through the vetting process, which obviously needed to be tightened. Hair Fuhrer's goal is to stop Muslim immigration completely, even if he can't legally just do that. The only way to conflate those two things is if you think both of them are in response to a threat, except Trump thinks that the threat is "all Muslims" instead of terrorists. That's the part that people have a problem with.
That's because that never happened. Obama never banned Iraqi immigrants. At one point the rules for vetting changed and people had to be re-vetted, but there is no month when no Iraqis arrived here. That situation also only affected refugees, it did not affect permanent residents, or immigrants, or people with travel visas (nonimmigrants). Trump's EO affects all of those categories.
I found all of that information out with a single Google search, by the way. It's really not that hard to figure out which things are factual and which things are alt-facts (i.e., not facts).
Nations have borders for a reason.
And if you're living in a country where you're being oppressed, or your government decide to start killing everyone, well fuck you for living there, you probably deserve it. If you want basic human rights then you better just start throwing rocks at the guys getting their weapons from Russia, right? That's going to help. When you've got several kids that you're trying to keep alive and provide a decent life for, what you need to do is attack the government troops. Don't bother trying to go to another country, sorry, there are borders for a reason. That reason is to keep your poor oppressed ass out. Say hi to your kids for us.
Unfortunately, no, far too many Muslims favor Sharia law over US law.
The percentage of Muslims in the US who want Sharia law is not a super majority, and when you combine that with the percentage of people in the US who are Muslim it is a very small percentage of the total population. There is far more resistance to Sharia than there is acceptance, and being scared of it and thinking that somehow these people are going to create the necessary majority to throw out the US Constitution is laughable. It's a non-issue. If you want to live under Sharia you wouldn't come here, you would move to a place like Saudi Arabia. In order for Muslims in the US to have the numbers to actually change the Constitution, 100% of Americans would have to be Muslim.
That's not the case in Europe.
You have numbers to show that the majority of Muslim immigrants to Europe are not working to support themselves?
I believe in workfare.
I don't know how that is supposed to relate to the fact that conservative states take the most federal aid, but whatever.
I never liked the idea behind that poem. Really, send us all your overflow? Thanks, let us be the dumping ground!
Yeah, you know why that's there? Because that's how this country got its start, and that's what helped make the country great. People with great lives didn't decide to up and come here, the people who made this country great are the people with nothing who came here looking for a better life and found one.
I'll also add that I agree with Mike Pence that a ban on Muslims entering the country is both offensive and unconstitutional, although I'm not looking forward to 4 years of having judges explain why things that Trump does aren't actually unconstitutional even if they're un-American.
America should be for those who share American values
Like basic human rights and freedom, that kind of thing? Freedom to practice your religion, freedom from oppression, those kinds of things right? Which part of that is telling people that they can't come here because they grew up in Iran, or they had the audacity to be attacked by Al-Assad? How about my wife's parents who can't come see their daughter's new home because they can't physically get a visa since everyone in their 70s now needs to be interviewed in person, in order to stop all the septuagenarian terrorists that have been attacking us for years? Which of our values does that one fall under? They could get a visa, all they have to do is stand around the consulate building for up to 8 hours with no seating, no restrooms, no food or water allowed inside, and no cell phones allowed inside, until it's their turn for the interview. Kind of sounds like we're being assholes to people who want to visit us, doesn't it? My wife's father cannot physically do that with his failing health, so instead of being exempted from the interview process like he was a month ago (and has been for 6 years), now he has to wait in line with all of the other people in their 70s. Which of our values is that one again? We're just trying to protect ourselves from all of those 72 year old Brazilian terrorists who have been attacking us for years, aren't we?
I would suggest that the vast majority of people in the world share American values like basic human rights, the various freedoms we enjoy, the ability to get a job and get paid a decent wage and use it to support their family, etc. None of those values requires that those people are from a certain country, religion, etc. And I would also suggest that the vast majority of people who want to come here are ready and willing and able to work to support themselves. In any case, just shutting people out is a fairly extreme reaction. If things need to be reformed, then we can reform them without shutting people out. When we applied for residency for my wife we already had to prove that either she can support herself or that I can support her if she's not working, to something like 125% of the poverty level. We already have to prove that people aren't going to be an economic burden, so what specifically are you suggesting we need to change?
If you want to talk about welfare, let's talk about all of the red states that take the most federal aid. Maybe we can try to fix problems there before stopping people who are ready to work from coming into the country.
not hordes of economic migrants or those who will end up on welfare.
How the mighty have fallen.
I'll also point out that this entire discussion about alternative facts came to be because the very first act of Trump's new press secretary was to walk in front of the press, say a bunch of things that were not true, and then walk away without any questions. The very first thing they had their press secretary do was to walk out and lie to people. And then, when called on it, he refused to retract his statements.
Also, Conway was never a lawyer. She got a degree in law and was a judicial clerk before going into the polling business.
They are just a different set of facts that support an alternative narrative
OK, if they're a different set of facts, then do you know what we can call those? We can call them facts. They're either facts, or they're not. There's no maybe. Saying that Trump had the largest crowd in front of him at an inauguration is not a fact. Calling it an alternative fact doesn't make it any more "facty", it's still not a fact.
but you want to pretend like everything the Trump admin says in a lie
No, I never said that. They have a terrible relationship with the truth, but not everything is a lie. Some things are definitely lies though.
and the NY Times and CNN are good boys who would never tell a fib.
Again, not something I said, and I don't necessarily believe it either. But, I will say this for the news agencies: when they say something that is incorrect, they issue a retraction. That's something that the administration doesn't seem very willing to do even when they get caught.
You're suggesting that diversity and refugees are the thing that is going to ruin the country? Not that I want to collect on this, but I'll bet that over the next four years we end up with something that the founders would have been appalled at, and it won't be because we tried to be diverse or allow refugees into the country like we've done for decades. Our tradition of being a safe haven for people who are oppressed isn't what is going to destroy is, it's the overreaction of people who think that America is for white people and want to shut us away from the world.
That the media is pushing a narrative that Trump is unpopular/unliked
He is. Historically so. That's not to say that there aren't people who like him, but they're not the majority.
which is why NY Times ran the photo comparison of Trump's crowd vs. Obama's crowd.
That's a factual comparison, first of all. There's nothing false about showing those photos. Trump claimed the largest crowd ever, and it was obviously not. He deserves, and needs, to be fact-checked because of the loose relationship with the truth that he has had for many years.
Trump picture earlier in the day
The circulated photo was taken at 12:01pm. He took the oath at noon.
Trump inaug on a workday instead of a Saturday like Obama's
That's just a reason why the crowd might be smaller, and ignores his claim of having the largest crowd ever. It doesn't matter why the crowd was smaller, no one is arguing about why, he sent Spicer out for his very first face-to-face with the press in order to claim that this was the largest crowd, period. Trying to suggest why the crowd might have been smaller is distracting from the actual argument of was it the largest crowd ever, or not. It wasn't. Obviously.
Here are some interesting facts. Metro reported 193,000 rides by 11am for Trump. For Obama, by 11am there were 513,000 rides in 2009, and 317,000 rides in 2013. For Bush, there were 197,000 rides in 2005. There were more people riding the metro on the day George W. Bush got sworn in for the second time than there were for Trump. The next day, during the women's march, there were over 1 million rides (all day, all numbers above were for 4am to 11am). That is the second-highest daily total in Metro's history, behind Obama's 2009 inauguration. This is why all of these claims from Trump about having the largest crowd ever are laughable.
But, here's the really funny thing: the total ridership all day for Trump was a little over 570,000 rides (you can compare that with the 1 million plus the following day). The average weekday total for Metro is over 710,000 rides. Trump's inauguration didn't even have higher ridership than an average weekday.
tighter security at Trump's
The secret service disputed some of Spicer's remarks about that also.
deranged leftist protestors blocking traffic/driving down attendance through intimidation
Right, because a million Trump supporters who didn't show up on the mall would have been intimidated by a few hundred or thousand "deranged leftists", right? Where's the coverage of those stranded extra million people that he would have needed to have the largest crowd? You'd think that people would notice a million people walking around the streets. Wait, they did, when that happened the day after the inauguration when everyone marched in protest. If you want to see what a million people on the streets look like, look at those pictures. That didn't happen on inauguration day. Why, is it because none of the Trump supporters could figure out how to use a camera? Or did it not actually happen?
D.C. is 90% Democrat and 50% black which makes easy turnout for the democrat first black president
What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Again, what are you arguing? Are you still trying to argue that Trump in fact had a larger crowd, which is what Spicer was arguing and which is why Conjob came out with her "alternative facts" line, or have you accepted that the crowd was nowhere near the same size and now you're just trying to come up with excuses for why?
Trump's support has to come from out of town and stay at hotels and risk getting their car set on fire by deranged leftists
Oh. So Trump supporters let themselves be intimidated by all of the scary leftists, huh? And that's why Trump had more tha
Except in this case the people that the anti-fascists oppose actually are nationalist authoritarians.
So, anyway, what's this false narrative you were talking about? Is there actually a false narrative, or did you just hear someone say that and it sounded to you like something which could be true?
I don't think I do have to admit that. I wasn't there and I haven't watched any videos of anything surrounding that, I don't know what the environment was like. I do know that it's partly being blamed on a group called the Black Bloc, which is also a general term for this kind of unrest where everyone shows up in black outfits, sunglasses, face coverings, hats or hoods, etc. In that kind of situation it might not be possible to know who is doing what if everyone looks similar. Maybe the police weren't prepared. I don't know, but I'm not going to say that it's extremely suspicious and that the police might be complicit in violent protest. I doubt that there is a large group of police anywhere in the country that would turn a blind eye to large-scale lawlessness and property damage based on their own personal political beliefs.
I have to say though, I do find it unnerving that so many people in the country are opposed to anti-fascists. That's a little bit unsettling. There's a disturbing trend of nationalist authoritarianism going around. I've never experienced this level of open hatred in society, because I've always lived in the US. It's not something that I enjoy seeing, and it's clearly not American.
it's a good bet the Democratic Party could put up a decent candidate to beat Trump in 2020.
I hope you didn't take out a bet on that. They still need to get rid of their leadership and find a focus, which they seem to be having trouble with. Sanders is still on the job, but I would be surprised if he ran again at his age.
Next time, let's hope they put up a candidate who isn't nearly as flawed as Clinton.
Let's hope they get rid of the leaders who don't understand the people they're trying to represent, and start listening to what people want. People wanted Sanders last time, but they didn't give a shit. The people in charge of the party need to be pushed out if the party wants to remain relevant. I'd like to see a new party form, personally. Let the Democrats pander to the coastal elite like they've been doing, and let the new party represent everyone else.
You are also sidestepping the issue, which is that so-called progressives are using violence and mayhem to suppress speech.
I don't agree with violence like what happened in California, I'm not going to defend that. I'm also not going to act like everyone who opposes the alt-right is violent. They're damaging their own cause, which isn't necessarily my cause, and they're probably too young and naive to know any better. It's no better thought-out than a bunch of people walking around with signs saying "not my president" when those same people would have expected the other half of the country to suck it up and lose gracefully. It's stupid and self-defeating to act like Trump isn't your president, just like it's self-defeating to use violence. I'm sure that, even though some of the violent people weren't from the school, I imagine that a lot of those people protesting are too young to know that they're hurting themselves and a lot of them probably didn't even bother to vote. But, again, I'm also not going to act like everyone who is opposed to the alt-right is like those people. I also have no problem with people protesting against the alt-right, I think that's the right response.
Furthermore, they did so with the tacit approval of the local government, as evidenced by the fact that "no arrests were made."
That is not tacit approval. When a crime happens without an arrest, that doesn't mean that the police approved of it.
Also, liberal democracies are not maintained by allowing protestors to practice violent rebellion without recourse. The rule of law must be maintained.
Yes, I agree. But, on the other hand, no one should be too surprised that someone who got elected based on a strategy of divide and conquer ends up presiding over a restless populace.
Here, let me help you out with the research, scanning the first page of Google results can be difficult:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...
Here's one:
We know that from the platform from where the President was sworn in to 4th Street holds about 250,000 people. From 4th Street to the media tent is about another 220,000. And from the media tent to the Washington Monument another 250,000 people. All of this space was full when the President took the oath of office.
That's not true.
Here, here's another one:
Spicer said 420,000 used the D.C. Metro public transit on Jan. 20, 2017, compared with 317,000 for President Obama’s 2012 inaugural.
Not only is that not true, but both of those numbers are wrong.
Here's another one:
It was the “first time” that floor coverings were used to protect the grass on the National Mall, which had highlighted empty spots in the inaugural crowd, an effect not experienced in past inaugurations, he said.
That's not true either.
You asked for one, but there's three things he said which are demonstrably untrue. But instead of just admit that, she had to double-down and claim that they were alternative facts. If you want to re-watch that video where Conway and Todd discuss those specific statements made by Spicer then let me know so I can look that up for you too.
Aw, I don't want to actually *rape* the guy.
I'll just grab him by the pussy.