The Trump thread: All things Donald

[ChirpingGirl]

The countries affected by Trump's ban:

Iraq
Iran
Syria
Yemen
Sudan
Somalia
Libya

It is interesting that some countries are not on this list.  The 9-11 terrorist attack was carried out by citizens of Saudi Arabia (15), and the others were from the United Arab Emirates (2), Egypt, and Lebanon.  None of these countries are subject to the travel ban.

I think it is clear that the ban is not aimed at stopping terrorism, but at stopping Muslim immigration to the United States.  The list of banned nations is aimed at preventing refugees from finding safety.  It is important to remember that the United States also denied refuge to Jews fleeing Hitler, fearing there might be Nazi spies among them. 

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-government-turned-away-thousands-jewish-refugees-fearing-they-were-nazi-spies-180957324/

The above story shows that a NAZI spy was caught trying to infiltrate the US as a Jewish refugee and was caught. People forgot the part about him failing, and used it as an excuse to deny Jewish refugees entry.  How many people died because of this policy?  How many people will die because of Trump's anti-refugee policy?

Refugees are thoroughly vetted.  It usually takes more than two years to clear the vetting process and gain asylum in the United States:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/i-went-through-americas-extreme-vetting-214703

Take away:  Just because you didn't know there was a vetting process does not mean it is not there.

I'll reiterate that I in no way support this ban, nor would I support any ban of this sort.

And I agree that the current vetting process is reasonably thorough enough as it now stands.

But if you believe that "the ban is not aimed at stopping terrorism, but at stopping Muslim immigration to the United States," then you completely contradict yourself in this post. If residents of the nations you cite (and note that Lebanon is only about 50% Muslim) are not being banned, then how is it a Muslim ban?

Further, if you look at the list of nations worldwide with the highest number of Muslim residents, you'll find that only one of them -- Iran -- on Trump's list. In fact, the combined total number of Muslims from those seven countries is less than the total number of Muslims in Indonesia, the country with the highest number of Muslims. And together they represent less than 10% of Muslims worldwide. So, how can it be viewed as a "Muslim ban" or as "stopping Muslim immigration to the United States"? 

Please also note that the ban affects ALL residents of the nations on the list. A Christian, or Catholic, or Jew, Hindu, or Agnostic, or Atheist from those countries is also banned. Again, how is that a "Muslim ban"?

Take away: I firmly believe in fighting injustice, via legislation, court orders, protests, or even, at times, more direct means. But I also believe that if one is to engage in a fight, one should first know whom one is fighting, and what one is fighting for.

A region ban doesn't get you as much air time as a Muslim ban does.

[Lois]

It is a Muslim ban.  Certainly Trump supporters understand it to be such.  Bigotry exists and is clearly the motive, even when pains have been made to disguise it.

I believe the ban is specifically aimed at Syria and the refugee crisis there, to say "We don't want you!"  Sure, a few other countries have been thrown in to make it look like it isn't, but that's just politics.

And again, if this is really to make us safe from terrorism, why isn't Saudi Arabia on the list?  15 of the 9-11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

Oh yeah, the Saudi's don't have a refugee crisis.  They aren't knocking at the door.

[ChirpingGirl]

It is a Muslim ban.  Certainly Trump supporters understand it to be such.  Bigotry exists and is clearly the motive, even when pains have been made to disguise it.

I believe the ban is specifically aimed at Syria and the refugee crisis there, to say "We don't want you!"  Sure, a few other countries have been thrown in to make it look like it isn't, but that's just politics.

And again, if this is really to make us safe from terrorism, why isn't Saudi Arabia on the list?  15 of the 9-11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

Oh yeah, the Saudi's don't have a refugee crisis.  They aren't knocking at the door.

It is a Muslim ban.

You know it isn't. It's just the leftist propaganda you're gladly swallowing. I can tell you have no issue with Obama actually bombing the people from some of those countries. A few Iraqis can't get in easily and you want to riot. Don't you see any hypocrisy here?

Oh yeah, the Saudi's don't have a refugee crisis.

They could take every single migrant!   They won't because they think THEY MIGHT BE TERRORISTS!




 




^{moderator edit---added image width to bring image in frame}

[MissBarbara]

Please also note that the ban affects ALL residents of the nations on the list. A Christian, or Catholic, or Jew, Hindu, or Agnostic, or Atheist from those countries is also banned. Again, how is that a "Muslim ban"?

Trump says US will prioritize Christian refugees

Note: "will"

[Sensualtravler]

The so called ban on Muslims

[Sensualtravler]

Anti Trump protester arrested for sexual assault on a minor.

http://www.therebel.media/leader_of_portland_anti_trump_protests_charged_with_sexually_abusing_a_minor_report

[Northwest]

[Lois]

The so called ban on Muslims

This video contains so many falsehoods and distortions it is impossible to respond to them all.  Please stick to print media so that a proper rebuttal can be made.

So why is this an anti-Muslim ban?  Because during his campaign Trump specifically said he would ban Muslim immigrants from entering the country. Remember? He only modified this position when many denounced this position as "un-American." 

So why aren't all Muslim nations on the list?  Because the other Muslim nations do not currently have lots of refugees seeking asylum in the US.  Trump is seeking to ban Muslim immigration without seeming to do so.

[ChirpingGirl]

K. Let's just simplify this. If you want Migrants here, have them in YOUR home. You pay for them. That to me sounds fair. I don't want migrants here. You do. So you take the moral high ground and have them in your home and you support them.

This is the answer to the issue. Every Liberal/SJW should have absolutely no problem with doing this.

So, Lois, will you personally open your home and use your money to support them? This is a simple YES or NO answer. As a liberal you've said it's your moral obligation. And I'm not talking about women and children, because we all know there aren't many of them coming in with the 35 year old little boys. And this includes absolutely no vetting which is what Liberals want.

So no discussion, no articles. Lois: YES... or NO? No other response besides yes or no please.

[Lois]

No.  I cannot support them by myself.  If I was wealthy, I would certainly sponsor a family and give money to programs that provide job training and other services for refugees.  However, I am a taxpayer, and have paid many thousands of dollars in taxes over the years.  I have a right to express my opinion on how this money should be spent.

Further, you are putting words in my mouth.  It is not appreciated.  I did not say as a liberal it is MY moral obligation.  I said it is OUR moral obligation.  When WE, as a country, create a situation that creates refugees, WE have a moral obligation to those refugees.

And fuck you.  You do not have the right to dictate the form of my answers, nor do I have the right to dictate the form of yours.

And what is a SJW?

[_priapism]

Yes.  I have offered already.

[MissBarbara]

And what is a SJW?

I had to look up, after assuming, given the context, it isn't Single Jewish Woman.

It's Social Justice Warrior, a term almost exclusively used in a derisive fashion by the Right. Which, ironically, seems to me a very good thing to be. I mean, fighting for social justice is hardly a BAD thing!

[Northwest]

The only thing I know is that the opposite of SJW is KNT (knuckle dragging throwback).

[MissBarbara]

The only thing I know is that the opposite of SJW is KNT (knuckle dragging throwback).

Okay, now that's TWO things I should add to the "What did you learn today" thread...

[Northwest]

LOL...oops! I screwed up my acronym; it should be KDT.

[ChirpingGirl]

No.  I cannot support them by myself.  If I was wealthy, I would certainly sponsor a family and give money to programs that provide job training and other services for refugees.  However, I am a taxpayer, and have paid many thousands of dollars in taxes over the years.  I have a right to express my opinion on how this money should be spent.

Further, you are putting words in my mouth.  It is not appreciated.  I did not say as a liberal it is MY moral obligation.  I said it is OUR moral obligation.  When WE, as a country, create a situation that creates refugees, WE have a moral obligation to those refugees.

And fuck you.  You do not have the right to dictate the form of my answers, nor do I have the right to dictate the form of yours.

And what is a SJW?

All I asked for was yes or no I didn't ask for a books worth of explanation. No is what I expected. You, like every liberal want them here but don't personally want to take responsibility. You expect me to pay for them.

But thank you for saying no.

You didn't have to get triggered. I only asked for one word with no need to explain it.

[ChirpingGirl]

And what is a SJW?

I had to look up, after assuming, given the context, it isn't Single Jewish Woman.

It's Social Justice Warrior, a term almost exclusively used in a derisive fashion by the Right. Which, ironically, seems to me a very good thing to be. I mean, fighting for social justice is hardly a BAD thing!

if you want to be one of them then you're too far gone and beyond saving. They are wretched people.

[Lois]

No.  I cannot support them by myself.  If I was wealthy, I would certainly sponsor a family and give money to programs that provide job training and other services for refugees.  However, I am a taxpayer, and have paid many thousands of dollars in taxes over the years.  I have a right to express my opinion on how this money should be spent.

Further, you are putting words in my mouth.  It is not appreciated.  I did not say as a liberal it is MY moral obligation.  I said it is OUR moral obligation.  When WE, as a country, create a situation that creates refugees, WE have a moral obligation to those refugees.

And fuck you.  You do not have the right to dictate the form of my answers, nor do I have the right to dictate the form of yours.

And what is a SJW?

All I asked for was yes or no I didn't ask for a books worth of explanation. No is what I expected. You, like every liberal want them here but don't personally want to take responsibility. You expect me to pay for them.

But thank you for saying no.

You didn't have to get triggered. I only asked for one word with no need to explain it.

Actually I am for accepting responsibility, but as I personally did not create the refugee crisis I don't know why you think I should personally accept responsibility for it.  I certainly do not think that you should personally take responsibility for the situation for the same reason. 

However, I do accept responsibility for the situation as an American.  Clearly, you do not.  So who is really ducking responsibility?  Did you not pay taxes that paid for the invasion of Iraq?  That makes you responsible as an American.

WE need to accept responsibility as a Nation. As a taxpayer I have a right to express my opinion on how my money should be spent.

And again, fuck you.  You do not have the right to dictate the form of my answers, just as I have NO right to dictate the form of yours. 

By demanding a single "Yes" or "No" answer you are demanding that I censor myself.  I will not.  Furthermore, such an answer would allow you justify the erroneous conclusion you had already made.  Sorry, but you will get no such validation from me.

In conclusion, you are the one seeking to duck responsibility, not me.

And I am sorry to hear that you are against Justice.  That is just sad.

[ChirpingGirl]

No.  I cannot support them by myself.  If I was wealthy, I would certainly sponsor a family and give money to programs that provide job training and other services for refugees.  However, I am a taxpayer, and have paid many thousands of dollars in taxes over the years.  I have a right to express my opinion on how this money should be spent.

Further, you are putting words in my mouth.  It is not appreciated.  I did not say as a liberal it is MY moral obligation.  I said it is OUR moral obligation.  When WE, as a country, create a situation that creates refugees, WE have a moral obligation to those refugees.

And fuck you.  You do not have the right to dictate the form of my answers, nor do I have the right to dictate the form of yours.

And what is a SJW?

All I asked for was yes or no I didn't ask for a books worth of explanation. No is what I expected. You, like every liberal want them here but don't personally want to take responsibility. You expect me to pay for them.

But thank you for saying no.

You didn't have to get triggered. I only asked for one word with no need to explain it.

Actually I am for accepting responsibility, but as I personally did not create the refugee crisis I don't know why you think I should personally accept responsibility for it.  I certainly do not think that you should personally take responsibility for the situation for the same reason.  

However, I do accept responsibility for the situation as an American.  Clearly, you do not.  So who is really ducking responsibility?  Did you not pay taxes that paid for the invasion of Iraq?  That makes you responsible as an American.

WE need to accept responsibility as a Nation. As a taxpayer I have a right to express my opinion on how my money should be spent.

And again, fuck you.  You do not have the right to dictate the form of my answers, just as I have NO right to dictate the form of yours.  

By demanding a single "Yes" or "No" answer you are demanding that I censor myself.  I will not.  Furthermore, such an answer would allow you justify the erroneous conclusion you had already made.  Sorry, but you will get no such validation from me.

In conclusion, you are the one seeking to duck responsibility, not me.

And I am sorry to hear that you are against Justice.  That is just sad.

You don't get it. Any of it. Explaining it to you is completely pointless. You've literally absorbed nothing that's been said. You just keep on with the same old liberal bullshit and Borg like mentality.

Also, why do you feel the need to say fuck you? I haven't said it to you. I'm asking you simple questions and you can't answer them with just one word, or without saying that. Yes or no. That's all I asked from you and you feel the need to do what liberals do... scream cuss words and behave childish.

Fuck it. I'm gonna go bother KitKat.  

[Northwest]

I think it's okay to demand yes or no answers.

For example; yes or no answers only, ChirpingGirl. Are your mental health problems responsible for you voting for Trump?

(ChirpingGirl is trolling you, Lois. Best to ignore her when she gets like this. Either that, or point out that it looks like she put on weight over the holidays. Did you notice too?)