Donald Trump stops terrorism by banning immigrants from a random selection of Muslim countries - Page 2
Register

User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 73 of 73
  1. #51

    Re: Donald Trump stops terrorism by banning immigrants from a random selection of Muslim countries

    Quote Originally Posted by MattZed View Post
    Helz, we don't live in a world where we can only think about the US and everything will be fine. Keeping the world peaceful is hard work, and taking the moral high ground is important to our position as world leader. Half the reason the first world likes us so much and chose to side with us during the Cold War is because we gave them aid to rebuild their economies after WWII. It was chump change to them, but they thank us for it now. If the Soviet Union had been the only superpower giving out aid, you might be looking a communist Europe today.

    It's the same philosophy with refugees. It makes up pocket change in the federal budget, but it makes us look like the good guys. We need coalition partners to fight Daesh. Joining the US in military operations isn't popular in many countries' parliaments, and if their anti-war folks can point to us not willing to be team players, it's that much harder to get them behind us.

    Price matters. If it were 20% of the federal budget, you bet I'd be having major objections to our refugee policy. But it's less than half of a percent. It's a great deal.
    I suppose this is where we differ in opinion. Our defence budget in 2016 was roughly 1.68 trillion. Thats 3 times more than the next 10 highest spending countries combined. We straight up should not have any need for allies while spending that much. And if people are going to 'help out' a just cause only because we dump billions on silly things are they really even our ally to begin with?
    Show me a guy that will pay 100k a year to make friends and I bet he will have tons of them. But if he ever gets in a bind and has nothing more to offer all those people who were pretending to be his friend will just leave. You can not buy loyalty. Thats just not how shit works.
    In contrast US charities received something in the area of 375-390 billion dollars last year (Depending on what sources you look at) from citizens, foundations, and corporations. Thats good shit. Thats Americans helping out because they want to while the government does their part by offering tax breaks for people who donate. I believe thats exactly how it should be. It makes extremely little difference what the government does but the things it does do reflects an immoral practice of forcing people to give their money to others. The key factor in any business relationship is that both sides have to benefit. When this is the case things go smoothly with each side happy. When its just one side helping the other it does not work out. We should allow the country to help people in the direct interests of America (Such as if we need more engineers, lets imagrate some over who can work to support themselves while providing a needed service to the country.) But demanding money from the citizens of a nation to go and give away to people who have done nothing for those citizens and without the express intention that they will start to contribute is fucked up. I really dont think we should be blowing our tax dollars to go and police the world when we can't even pay our bills. The climbing national debt is a very real issue.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatt.../#69fc5e715ebd
    As of April 2015 every tax payer in America basically owes One hundred and fifty four thousand dollars to foreign nations. The debt to GDP ratio is well over 100% which to put the nation in terms of a 'person' is like if you made 60k a year and owed 70 or 80k. Keep in mind that a 'good' debt to income ratio as viewed from lenders is no more than 38% of your income. This basically reflects the attitude of a 16 year old girl who just got a credit card. 'I can spend whatever I want because daddy will pay it off later.' The only difference is that our children will be the ones who pay because we wanted to put on a cape and save the world for a bunch of assholes who never really did anything for us in the first place.
    I think America should help other nations. But I hate that direct government charity is justified in any way. I think that attitude reflects a generation with no concept of how money works with a ruling class exploiting it to get their jollys and get rich. Its going to be interesting to see what happens when people stop rioting over silly crap and start rioting over things that matter.
    Quote Originally Posted by MattZed View Post
    Also, oops wasn't calling Trump voters dumb.
    I did not mean to infer that he was. I simply feel like that's what that line points out. 'Educated people voted for Hillary, Uneducated people voted for Trump'
    What does not kill you makes you feel stupid when you wish it would have
    It only makes you stronger if you choose to not be a victim

  2. #52

    Re: Donald Trump stops terrorism by banning immigrants from a random selection of Muslim countries

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    That is a fair point. I think that states like DC, Wyoming and Alaska get 3-4 times the amount of electoral college votes as states like Flordia, Texas, and Ohio (Although Texas has the option to split into 4 states at will and massively increase its electoral votes.)
    Uh, what? Unless I'm misunderstanding what you meant, you have it completely wrong. DC, Alaska, and Wyoming have 3 electoral college votes, while Florida has 29, Texas has 36, and Ohio has 18. The issue stems from the fact that the number of voters per electoral college vote differs greatly. For instance, Texas has about 700 000 people per electoral college vote, while Wyoming has 200 000 people per electoral college vote. This means that in the grand scheme of things, one Wyoming voter will have the same impact on the election as ~3.5 Texan voters (of course this is a vast oversimplification and its more complex, but this is just an illustration).

    But still pretty much every rural area voted Trump and Hillarys base came almost exclusively from large citys. Do you know of any better way to balance out the large city vs small town issues? Or should people who don't live in a large city just get run over because there are less of them?
    Big city issues and small town issues are not mutually exclusive. Candidates don't have to appeal to just one of the two, and fuck over the other group. Also, I'd be willing to bet that the disparity isn't just because of issues pertaining to cities vs towns, but rather differences in demographics between those two populations. People in small towns tend to be more religious, less educated, and less wealthy than those in large cities. Candidates appealing to one set of traits that happen to be prevalent in small towns would appeal to voters in those regions, and the same goes for big cities. I think that those confounding factors play a larger role in the disparity than just big city vs small town. To illustrate this, take a look at the 2015 Canadian election results map: https://nationalpostcom.files.wordpr..._map_12001.jpg where you'll find that differences in voting weren't solely due to large cities vs small towns, as the extremely rural areas in Northern Ontario and the territories voted similarly to the large cities. This isn't just a one-off effect either, you can see something similar in the 2011 results: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...idings.svg.png where the divide again isn't along cities vs towns.

    It did not work out very well when this was an issue last time. I totally aknoledge that it comes from some really old school shit but it does serve a purpose. A large issue is that reforming it would be total hell. Partys will do everything they can to push things in their favor for the next election.
    This is an unfortunate fact. We've seen what effect gerrymandering has had. I have no doubt that a government group trying to enact electoral reform would try to bias the system in their favour.

    I disagree. Theres a thousand ways a democracy can work. Electoral college votes, every state could vote, popularity vote ect.. And every one of them comes with injustices. Someone will always be screwed over and specifically supporting 1 method that supports the outcome you want is convenient
    There are a thousand ways a democracy can work, but some ways work much better than others. It's pretty much fact that the system currently used in America and much of the world is flawed, and is based on a flawed and outdated model of democracy. Watch this video for more info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

    . I would say that yes 'if' the fed was totally and utterly downsized with the power returning to the states then it would be great to have a popular vote run our shit. But thats not the case and I can just as easily say "Why should a ton of states have to deal with things they do not want just because only a few do." Its a balance- I get that its one you do not like, but it really is a balance.
    That was my point exactly. It's strange to put emphasis on what states want when it's people that are affected, not some abstract concept of a state. Let's say that the US was just California (the state with the most people per electoral college vote), and the 16 states with the least people per electoral college vote (namely New Mexico, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, Hawaii, Montana, Maine, New Hampshire, Delaware, South Dakota, Rhode Island, Alaska, North Dakota, District of Columbia, Vermont, and Wyoming). Now let's say a president ran under the Fuck California party and promised to take the money and assets of everyone in California and give it to everyone else. Under the current electoral college system, and assuming all the states that aren't California vote for the Fuck California party, the Fuck California party would win in terms of electoral seats, despite the population of California being 39 million and the population of all the other states combined being 19 million. Despite the Fuck California party winning, more than twice as many people are fucked over by it. Would you say that that's fair? Would you still say "why should a ton of states have to deal with not fucking over California because only one state doesnt want to fuck over California?"

    The whole 'Clinton voters are educated and Trump voters are dumb' bit I don't really get. Like.. I really don't understand what bearing that has on anything.. I remember when I first saw it some stations flat out put it 'Uneducated young white males.' Kinda seems like people saying 'Oh that side just won because people are too stupid to know any better.'
    I didn't say that Trump voters are dumb. It's an objective fact that Trump voters are less likely to have college degrees, however, which is exactly what "educated" means.

  3. #53

    Re: Donald Trump stops terrorism by banning immigrants from a random selection of Muslim countries

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    Uh, what? Unless I'm misunderstanding what you meant, you have it completely wrong. DC, Alaska, and Wyoming have 3 electoral college votes, while Florida has 29, Texas has 36, and Ohio has 18. The issue stems from the fact that the number of voters per electoral college vote differs greatly. For instance, Texas has about 700 000 people per electoral college vote, while Wyoming has 200 000 people per electoral college vote. This means that in the grand scheme of things, one Wyoming voter will have the same impact on the election as ~3.5 Texan voters (of course this is a vast oversimplification and its more complex, but this is just an illustration).
    Thats kinda what I was getting at. If you compare the number of electoral college votes vs the number of people who actually voted there is a massive gap. If you compare the number of voting eligible citizens in that state vs the number of electoral college votes there is still a gap but its not quite as extreme. The most skewed figure is counting the flat number of people. Depending on 'who' you count you can make the numbers say what you want them to but yeah, overall a citizen voting in Wyoming gets 3 times the effective vote power over someone in California.
    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    Big city issues and small town issues are not mutually exclusive. Candidates don't have to appeal to just one of the two, and fuck over the other group. Also, I'd be willing to bet that the disparity isn't just because of issues pertaining to cities vs towns, but rather differences in demographics between those two populations. People in small towns tend to be more religious, less educated, and less wealthy than those in large cities. Candidates appealing to one set of traits that happen to be prevalent in small towns would appeal to voters in those regions, and the same goes for big cities. I think that those confounding factors play a larger role in the disparity than just big city vs small town. To illustrate this, take a look at the 2015 Canadian election results map: https://nationalpostcom.files.wordpr..._map_12001.jpg where you'll find that differences in voting weren't solely due to large cities vs small towns, as the extremely rural areas in Northern Ontario and the territories voted similarly to the large cities. This isn't just a one-off effect either, you can see something similar in the 2011 results: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...idings.svg.png where the divide again isn't along cities vs towns.
    That makes a lot of sense.
    Still, for an example:
    There is a trend in America for citys to vote for some state wide tax to raise money to spend on infrastructure. Once the money gets raised it gets spent to repair citys roads and the rural areas never see any of that funding. But then if they argue the situation its pointed out that the majority of the state voted it in and the funding is being spent in a way that helps the most people possible. This totally sounds fair and democratic from one side while the other side feels like they are getting robbed.

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    This is an unfortunate fact. We've seen what effect gerrymandering has had. I have no doubt that a government group trying to enact electoral reform would try to bias the system in their favour.
    There are a thousand ways a democracy can work, but some ways work much better than others. It's pretty much fact that the system currently used in America and much of the world is flawed, and is based on a flawed and outdated model of democracy. Watch this video for more info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
    Good video. That series made a lot of sense.
    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    That was my point exactly. It's strange to put emphasis on what states want when it's people that are affected, not some abstract concept of a state. Let's say that the US was just California (the state with the most people per electoral college vote), and the 16 states with the least people per electoral college vote (namely New Mexico, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, Hawaii, Montana, Maine, New Hampshire, Delaware, South Dakota, Rhode Island, Alaska, North Dakota, District of Columbia, Vermont, and Wyoming). Now let's say a president ran under the Fuck California party and promised to take the money and assets of everyone in California and give it to everyone else. Under the current electoral college system, and assuming all the states that aren't California vote for the Fuck California party, the Fuck California party would win in terms of electoral seats, despite the population of California being 39 million and the population of all the other states combined being 19 million. Despite the Fuck California party winning, more than twice as many people are fucked over by it. Would you say that that's fair? Would you still say "why should a ton of states have to deal with not fucking over California because only one state doesnt want to fuck over California?"
    No, that would not be fair. But there is no fair in that kinda situation. And that is only an issue because power is centralized and we have an overbearing federal government messing with legislation that should be left to the states. Downsize the fed and these kinds of issues go away.
    What does not kill you makes you feel stupid when you wish it would have
    It only makes you stronger if you choose to not be a victim

  4. #54

    Re: Donald Trump stops terrorism by banning immigrants from a random selection of Muslim countries

    Umu.
    Spoiler : Forum Mafia :

    FM VI: Ash (Sinner) FM VII: Glen (Drug Dealer) FM VIII: Liane (Vigilante) FM IX: Andrei (Reserved Proletarian) FM X: fm Deathfire123 (Modkilled Blacksmith) FM XI: Corki (Citizen) FM XIII: Phoebe (Bodyguard) FM XIV: Helena (Grave Robber) FM XV: FM Pikachu (Mayor) FM XVI: FM Master Chef (Escort)

  5. #55

    Re: Donald Trump stops terrorism by banning immigrants from a random selection of Muslim countries

    Wooooooo
    Trump

    The English need main man Nigel farage
    Listen here in Russian,ex forces and fought in the Afghan war and the first Chechen war I drink vodka and lived in England for 13 years wanna stop me try it.

  6. #56

    Re: Donald Trump stops terrorism by banning immigrants from a random selection of Muslim countries

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post

    I'm pretty confused as to why he chose to ban people from these countries and not the ones that would, if we assume that the ban was effective, actually stop terrorism.
    Simply because it'd be bad for diplomacy with these countries... so it'd be bad for economy too.

  7. #57

  8. #58

    Re: Donald Trump stops terrorism by banning immigrants from a random selection of Muslim countries

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    this is a great political thread from the past
    no arguments, no people getting called "republican shills" or nazis
    why cant our arguments nowadays be like this
    > Makes thread "why does the left always conflate the right with nazis"

    > Banana provides reasons why this happens, with cited sources and discussion

    > "wahhh banana stop calling me a nazi, why can't we just have a political thread without me being called a nazi"

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho

  9. #59

  10. #60

  11. #61

    Re: Donald Trump stops terrorism by banning immigrants from a random selection of Muslim countries

    Quote Originally Posted by thedougler View Post
    The real answer as to why he did not fulfill his promise, as always, is more complicated. He chose countries that have been featured on the US State Dept. "State Sponsors of Terrorism" List, presumably to head off a potential court challenge for discriminating based purely on national origin. And Somalia, which would probably be on that list if it had any state to speak of.

    North Korea, interestingly, is on the list, but was not included in the ban. But formal emmigration from NK is already non-existent, so there's no point creating legislation with regards to it.

    I for one am quite disappointed with his executive order. He isn't deporting all illegals, merely the criminal ones. He also isn't banning all Islamic immigration as he had promised. But judging by the vicious opposition of the media to this more limited order, he is just doing what he can get away with. It's better than the status quo under Obama, that's for sure.
    why are u here???

  12. #62

  13. #63

  14. #64

  15. #65

  16. #66

    Re: Donald Trump stops terrorism by banning immigrants from a random selection of Muslim countries

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    > Makes thread "why does the left always conflate the right with nazis"

    > Banana provides reasons why this happens, with cited sources and discussion

    > "wahhh banana stop calling me a nazi, why can't we just have a political thread without me being called a nazi"

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    this ^^ but also because climate change.

    FM XVII: Bonney Jewelry (Journalist)
    FM XVIII: Kalou (Savage Godfather)
    FM XX: Joseph Bertrand (Marshall)
    FM XXI: USA (Escort)
    FM XV: Whiskey (Whore)

  17. #67

  18. #68

    Re: Donald Trump stops terrorism by banning immigrants from a random selection of Muslim countries

    Dammit TheDougler would have cared about Hagia getting turned into a mosque.

    What a bummer
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  19. #69

    Re: Donald Trump stops terrorism by banning immigrants from a random selection of Muslim countries

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    Dammit TheDougler would have cared about Hagia getting turned into a mosque.

    What a bummer
    You made me check his posts in the thread here and I'm surprised to see him defending Trump (and even seemingly saying he didn't go far enough?). I always remembered him as the first person I had seen (first of what is now a relatively long list...) comparing Trump to Hitler in his speeches/rallys. I'm confused, but maybe that just means he's honest and taking each bit of what Trump did to analyze it individually, without considering who did it, which is rare and great at the same time.
    Or he thinks Hitler is good. I think I'm gonna go with the first option
    Spoiler : Quotes :
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  20. #70

    Re: Donald Trump stops terrorism by banning immigrants from a random selection of Muslim countries

    My comments are still triggering libs even 3 years later
    Quote Originally Posted by Necroplant View Post
    Mafia will be very interesting for the duration of this sentence, and lots of individuals' tummys will hurt from laughing so hard. I've had to fall out of my chair and lie on the ground before, as it was just too painful to laugh LOL.

  21. #71

  22. #72

    Re: Donald Trump stops terrorism by banning immigrants from a random selection of Muslim countries

    Hai Super Jack
    Quote Originally Posted by Necroplant View Post
    Mafia will be very interesting for the duration of this sentence, and lots of individuals' tummys will hurt from laughing so hard. I've had to fall out of my chair and lie on the ground before, as it was just too painful to laugh LOL.

  23. #73

    Re: Donald Trump stops terrorism by banning immigrants from a random selection of Muslim countries

    Quote Originally Posted by thedougler View Post
    Hai Super Jack
    Quote Originally Posted by Mesk514 View Post
    1-I really and truly believe @Unknown1234 is town. He stuck by me when I needed him
    Quote Originally Posted by Gyrlander View Post
    Wow, this game was really easy. I just had to talk dumb shit to survive some days more. :P
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    If sheriff cleared you honestly I would take him out of my town core and put him as scum.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •