Trump Regime thread.

[seanbrock 1,684]

Osama Bin Laden was a Saudi and they're known funders of terrorism but they're our best is and it's not exactly new. I'm honestly not sure what the purpose of the travel ban is. Plenty of Muslim countries were left out.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Islamic terrorism is a minor concern in the US, just promoted hardcore to get people to approve of bigoted policies. The number of people saved by bringing in refugees more than makes up for the number killed by refugees that become terrorists. Especially since the second number is 0.

[seanbrock 1,684]

And especially snice the US is basically responsible for creating this refuge crisis.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

I am aware that none of the countries he banned have really done much, I am more so focusing on the reason behind it. That is why I had to say forget it is trump because obviously his money is going to dictate policy. Think about this from an average American's standpoint, how would you feel if he banned the top 5 most dangerous countries to us based upon past attacks or number of known terrorist cells in each country. Would that be okay ? I mean the crux of the question I guess is that if this were done in a rational way, with each banned country having actually done something or harboring ISIS cells that we know are not our pals, would everyone think this as insane as they do now ?

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Whether or not Trump is smart, idk but the whole Breirbart/fox news/conservative radio strategy is EXTREMELY effective at firing up their base. They've brain washed millions of people into accepting policy after policy and ideal after ideal that is in direct opposition to their interests. They're so good at redirecting those people's anger into racism, xenophobia and a laundry list of other bullshit.

 

This right here. I could not agree with you any more. That to me, and the regressive left, is the biggest problem we have because they can move people to act. It is dangerous for a number of reasons, but not the least of which is the fact that they get people to willingly accept that they should stop thinking and follow the party. The right will tell you that you are in danger and that the country is under attack so people for some reason will stop thinking and just go with it. The left does the same thing, look at blots statement, he disagrees with something and he already starts with saying it is bigoted. Instead of fear the left uses an attack on your sensibilities about yourself to make you feel like shit.

 

So again I ask, just thinking about it, is it crazy to ban people from other countries ? Lets say Trump banned Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Lebanon, and Kuwait ? Those are the top 5 countries where terrorists who have committed crimes in the US are from. Maybe you would still disagree and that is OK, but could you at least then see the point of it. 3,000 Murders have been committed by terrorists in the last 20 years, and that is without saying people like the Orlando shooter is a terrorist. That is a problem, and all I am really saying is, is a ban on countries who do us harm crazy ? We know trump banned the countries who do not help him fiscally, but the idea does not seem crazy, at least to me. And I cant stand trump.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

This right here. I could not agree with you any more. That to me, and the regressive left, is the biggest problem we have because they can move people to act. It is dangerous for a number of reasons, but not the least of which is the fact that they get people to willingly accept that they should stop thinking and follow the party. The right will tell you that you are in danger and that the country is under attack so people for some reason will stop thinking and just go with it. The left does the same thing, look at blots statement, he disagrees with something and he already starts with saying it is bigoted. Instead of fear the left uses an attack on your sensibilities about yourself to make you feel like shit.

 

So again I ask, just thinking about it, is it crazy to ban people from other countries ? Lets say Trump banned Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Lebanon, and Kuwait ? Those are the top 5 countries where terrorists who have committed crimes in the US are from. Maybe you would still disagree and that is OK, but could you at least then see the point of it. 3,000 Murders have been committed by terrorists in the last 20 years, and that is without saying people like the Orlando shooter is a terrorist. That is a problem, and all I am really saying is, is a ban on countries who do us harm crazy ? We know trump banned the countries who do not help him fiscally, but the idea does not seem crazy, at least to me. And I cant stand trump.

I switched my phone to the full version of the site just so I could +Rep this post.

[Thanatos 2,847]

The heart of the issue is whether a travel ban will be an effective deterrent to terrorism. Statistics say no. You are harming people who need the help more than you are helping the US.

 

So in answer to your question, no, Ngata, I would still be against any travel ban because the vast majority of the people hurt from such a ban are those who need help, not the terrorists. However, I would not consider someone in favor of a ban that actually targeted countries that had been attacking us to be primarily motivated by shallow and petty grievances, or just flat out racism in Bannon's case. It would simply be a position where I would disagree with them because I think their way of addressing the problem is ineffective and, in the long run, helps out our enemy ISIS more than it hurts them.

[blotsfan 2,112]

This right here. I could not agree with you any more. That to me, and the regressive left, is the biggest problem we have because they can move people to act. It is dangerous for a number of reasons, but not the least of which is the fact that they get people to willingly accept that they should stop thinking and follow the party. The right will tell you that you are in danger and that the country is under attack so people for some reason will stop thinking and just go with it. The left does the same thing, look at blots statement, he disagrees with something and he already starts with saying it is bigoted. Instead of fear the left uses an attack on your sensibilities about yourself to make you feel like shit.

I call the muslim ban bigoted because it is. The purpose of it is not to make the country safer. It is to get rid of muslims. Trump said he wants to ban muslims from entering the US. The fact that this ban targets muslims is a feature, not a bug. You know who I'm more concerned about? White male conservatives. They're the ones who shoot up churches and planned parenthoods. They're the ones that have been assaulting people that look like muslims and telling them to go back to their own country. A man wearing a confederate flag makes me way more nervous than someone in a turban. Until white men from red states are banned from visiting the rest of the country (and thats obviously a stupid idea), spare me any talk about being afraid of muslims.

 

So again I ask, just thinking about it, is it crazy to ban people from other countries ? Lets say Trump banned Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Lebanon, and Kuwait ? Those are the top 5 countries where terrorists who have committed crimes in the US are from. Maybe you would still disagree and that is OK, but could you at least then see the point of it. 3,000 Murders have been committed by terrorists in the last 20 years, and that is without saying people like the Orlando shooter is a terrorist. That is a problem, and all I am really saying is, is a ban on countries who do us harm crazy ? We know trump banned the countries who do not help him fiscally, but the idea does not seem crazy, at least to me. And I cant stand trump.

 

The point is they don't really do us harm. 3000 people in 20 years is 150 people per year. Ignoring the fact that the vast majority of those were literally one attack, thats a very small number (less than the odds of being killed by a cop while unarmed if you want me to get on that soapbox). I know that might not be comforting to the people who were the families of victims of terrorist attacks, but we can't just let emotions drive us to these decisions. If America reacts to a few attacks by taking it out on millions of unrelated people all over the world, what good is this country anyways?

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I know many of you don't believe in WikiLeaks, but for those that want something to read, they published reports fro the CIA detailing the United States' cyber hacking resume. Basically, the CIA can hack your phones or smart TVs and use them as listening devices... CIA has tested "perfect assassinations" by hacking into vehicles and making them crash, etc etc. Read more below:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/wikileaks-cia-what-are-they-explained-vault-7-year-zero-julian-assange-secrets-a7616826.html?cmpid=facebook-post

 

Officials are confirming that the documents are authentic, but the CIA themselves isn't at this point in time.

 

Also, yes, the GOP version of Obamacare is just.... Obamacare 2.0. Republicans want to bail out the big insurance companies, basically. Bunch of frauds.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Favre4Ever

[blotsfan 2,112]

I'm not saying its right, but yeah you really shouldn't trust anything with your cellphone or computer 100%. Just good policy to have. I had heard about that potential for SmartTvs too. I really looked for a non-smart tv, but I couldn't find one anywhere when I was shopping for one.

 

And Ryancare is way different. It makes sure that its not so unfairly biased towards helping poor people without giving a thought to billionaires. That was everyones' concerns with it.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

The heart of the issue is whether a travel ban will be an effective deterrent to terrorism. Statistics say no. You are harming people who need the help more than you are helping the US.

 

So in answer to your question, no, Ngata, I would still be against any travel ban because the vast majority of the people hurt from such a ban are those who need help, not the terrorists. However, I would not consider someone in favor of a ban that actually targeted countries that had been attacking us to be primarily motivated by shallow and petty grievances, or just flat out racism in Bannon's case. It would simply be a position where I would disagree with them because I think their way of addressing the problem is ineffective and, in the long run, helps out our enemy ISIS more than it hurts them.

 

I can absolutely agree with this as well. That last part is exactly where I stand. I do not agree with a travel ban, not because of political party, who is president, or fear of being shamed into it, but because as you eluded to, I think it is an ineffective method and in today's world it would be the closest thing to impossible to be able to be able to weed out ONLY terrorists. So yes I agree with your sentiment.

 

I just wanted to know why it was such a crazy idea if it were done with the intentions of keeping us safe, no matter how futile it may be.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

I call the muslim ban bigoted because it is. The purpose of it is not to make the country safer. It is to get rid of muslims. Trump said he wants to ban muslims from entering the US. The fact that this ban targets muslims is a feature, not a bug. You know who I'm more concerned about? White male conservatives. They're the ones who shoot up churches and planned parenthoods. They're the ones that have been assaulting people that look like muslims and telling them to go back to their own country. A man wearing a confederate flag makes me way more nervous than someone in a turban. Until white men from red states are banned from visiting the rest of the country (and thats obviously a stupid idea), spare me any talk about being afraid of muslims.

 

 

The point is they don't really do us harm. 3000 people in 20 years is 150 people per year. Ignoring the fact that the vast majority of those were literally one attack, thats a very small number (less than the odds of being killed by a cop while unarmed if you want me to get on that soapbox). I know that might not be comforting to the people who were the families of victims of terrorist attacks, but we can't just let emotions drive us to these decisions. If America reacts to a few attacks by taking it out on millions of unrelated people all over the world, what good is this country anyways?

 

See the point I am making is the only people who are calling it a muslim ban are people who oppose it (generally speaking). It is the travel ban by name. That said, yes, you are correct it is exclusively countries where most of the population identify as muslim.

 

Yes it was one attack that made up the bulk of the deaths, but they also do not include people like the orlando shooter because he was born here. It is the same with most of these attacks. They are young arab males who are recruited by extremists groups who carry out these things, but is that not terrorism ? If it is not you have to also believe that Timothy McVeigh was not, nor Dylan Roof. I consider both to be but that is one that I have not been able to find a relatively unbiased source for statistics yet. I would certainly be open to seeing them.

 

Again you are statistically correct even if we were to add in the mass shootings and terror attacks they still dont represent the a large percentage of people who commit murder in the US. That said when you make a statement like,"They do not kill enough people to insight the kind of fury they have," I was paraphrasing but I think that is your sentiment. If not correct me. The problem with a statement like that or sticky would be a better word, is that you are admitting that X number of deaths to innocent people is acceptable. That is a slippery slope to be on because if X number is acceptable who sets that number, and which demographic's can it be applied to.

 

For instance if only 150 Americans die per year to terrorism, and that is an acceptable number, or even lets say 2, then you can turn around and say that for all demographics. If not you are unevenly applying that logic. So since you bring up police shootings how many happen per year, and how many encounters with police do civilians have per year, then find your average. when you find your average of people killed by police now set your numbers equal to get an accurate comparison. So lets say terrorists kill 2 and cops kill 20. Well if all other religious groups outnumber muslims by ten, then statistically speaking you are more likely to die by islamic terrorists than cops.

 

Now i have made those numbers up, and I wont pretend to know the real ones but I hope you catch my drift about the slippery slop of accepting a body count as a cost of doing business.

 

The only real point I have been trying to make is that we are too quick to shout people down, or shame them, or call them pussies, or bleeding hearts, or whatever it is, than we are to look at ideas on their own merit, not just the people that say them.

 

Thanatos and I's conversation is the very essence of what I was saying, about while dumb and ultimately ineffective, the reasoning behind a travel ban could make sense if you were to go after the ones who actually do things instead of the ones you make money off of, That is all.

[blotsfan 2,112]

A fairer comparison isn't encounters with terrorists, but encounters with muslim people in general. I can't speak for everyone but I know I interact with muslims way more often than I do on-duty cops.

 

And I understand the reasoning behind wanting a travel ban. I just understand why its stupid. Either the trump regime really doesn't understand that this is a dumb idea, or they're malicious.

 

 

Given that Trump used the term "muslim ban" during the campaign multiple times, and has a neo-nazi as his chief advisor, I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt on that one.

[blotsfan 2,112]

So I've been calling it "Ryancare" to be snarky, but have you guys seen the official name of the bill?

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1275

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

So I've been calling it "Ryancare" to be snarky, but have you guys seen the official name of the bill?

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1275

 

LMAO. Is that real.. please say that is some mirror site or something... ha

[blotsfan 2,112]

Trump is literally willing to let people die out of spite for the democrats.

 

https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/839665918754099200

[seanbrock 1,684]

This has been politics for a long time. Trump is a scumbag. There's no doubt about that but is his pettiness new to Washington? Hardly.

[blotsfan 2,112]

I'm gonna play a game. I honestly haven't read Sean's reply, but I'm gonna guess its something in the vein of "yeah but this is identical to obama and bush. this is what i say to rationalize the fact that i consider myself a liberal but voted for a billionaire fascist who supports screwing over poor people to give the super-wealthy huge tax breaks."

 

I promise you I really haven't read it. Now I'm gonna scroll up...

 

Close enough.

[Cherry 1,302]

I'm gonna play a game. I honestly haven't read Blot's post, but I'm gonna guess it's something in the vein of, "I'm going to be a shithead and pretend my opinion is vastly superior to everyone else's, and if you disagree with me you're a fascist/bigot who needs to grow up."

 

I promise you have I really haven't read it. Now I'm gonna scroll up...

 

Close enough.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Man that was a highly specific post for not having read my earlier one. What a weird coinkydink.

[Cherry 1,302]

Man that was a highly specific post for not having read my earlier one. What a weird coinkydink.

 

It was? Shocking, considering I didn't read your earlier one. What a coinkydink indeed.

[RazorStar 4,025]

Children, please. There are far more pressing matters to discuss. Like how apparently George W Bush is now being looked upon in a favourable light because Trump has been this overtly bad.

[Cherry 1,302]

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Children, please. There are far more pressing matters to discuss. Like how apparently George W Bush is now being looked upon in a favourable light because Trump has been this overtly bad.

I think George Bush fits in with Obama to a degree. I think both guys meant well but were overwhelmed and had little to do, personally, with a lot of the "stuff" they passed. There are a lot of common threads between the two politically speaking and I don't think it's a stretch to say there was an agenda behind the scenes that was above and beyond them.

 

I don't think Bush had the personal intention of killing education or destroying the semblence of privacy we had remaining. I don't think Obama had the intention of continuing pointless wars and beinf the first Lresident ever to spend two full terms in conflict. But such things happen anyway -- why?

[.AirMcNair. 1,232]

I think George Bush fits in with Obama to a degree. I think both guys meant well but were overwhelmed and had little to do, personally, with a lot of the "stuff" they passed. There are a lot of common threads between the two politically speaking and I don't think it's a stretch to say there was an agenda behind the scenes that was above and beyond them.

 

I don't think Bush had the personal intention of killing education or destroying the semblence of privacy we had remaining. I don't think Obama had the intention of continuing pointless wars and beinf the first Lresident ever to spend two full terms in conflict. But such things happen anyway -- why?

 

It's almost as if the president doesn't actually run the country.

 

Imagine that.